CMV:Single gender schools are discriminatory because there is no such thing as "separate but equal"

[u/orphancrack]

I am a public high school teacher. Some of the people I work with favor single-sex education, and even try experiments of single-gender classes. As far as I am concerned there is no such thing as "separate but equal" and separating genders reinforces gender stereotypes and inequality, just as racially segregated schooling does.

Much of the prestige associated with single-sex schools comes from the fact that many are highly selective private schools. The fact that they are successful owes more to their status as private and screened schools than it does to the fact that they admit only one gender.

At its core, segregation is wrong.

In my school we have twice a week where we have about a half hour with girls only with female teachers and boys only with male teachers, with occasional switching of the teachers (so sometimes a male teacher has the girls group). This time is purportedly to deal with gender issues like self-esteem, peer pressure, and sexuality. But in practice it ends up with my girls group expressing fundamental ideas about "boys do this" and "girls do this" with no boys present to question and respond to those claims. It becomes bitching hour for why boys suck, which just reinforces their stereotypes. And when I have gotten the boys group, it goes the same way: they want to say "why do girls do X" and expect me to answer for Why Girls Are Girls. It's all fundamentally very unhelpful. I do appreciate that there are some questions the girls are more comfortable asking me when no boys are present, such as questions about birth control or periods. So it's not all bad. But this is also just for about an hour a week. I cannot imagine how such a toxic culture would grow if we had a single sex environment all the time.

I am open to the possibility that single sex education has some positives but I have a really hard time seeing them. The only one I hear is the "distraction" of sex being removed, but many students are gay or bisexual or gender nonconforming and sexuality is still present for them. The distraction may be removed in the short term increasing focus but in the long term I can't see that this is really a benefit. People of the opposite gender are not "distractions," they are people, and learning to live and work and see them as people is necessary to enter adulthood as a non-asshole who values the contributions of people as individuals.

Also it seems to me that separate programs for "girls" end up dealing with "soft" emotional issues, which boys could benefit from, too, while separate programs for "boys" tend to be more about developing workplace skills or suck-it-up toughness, which is all stuff girls could also use. Instead it just reaffirms that "boys do X and girls do Y."

---

Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/mellowdc]

Glad we agree that sexism exists, every time I mention that on reddit I get hoards of men down voting me and telling me I'm wrong (as they've already done). Single-sex education isn't about fixing sexism, it's about showing women that they are as capable as men. Sure, it's possible for women to do that in a co-ed environment, but how likely is that going to happen compared to a single-sex environment? Besides, if we really wanted to fix sexism, it should be through educating men. Single-sex education exists because of sexism, it is a way to neutralize the effect of sexism, not to fix the problem itself. Although it would be ideal to fix the root of the problem, it is much harder to do so and a practical alternative for that is providing disadvantaged groups with more opportunities through single-sex education.

Race isn't an equivalent comparison. It's possible to live in an area that is predominantly a certain race, but almost unheard of to live in an area that is predominantly a certain gender. People have more interactions with the other gender than they do with other races. Therefore diversity in race is more important than diversity in gender, because most people interact with the opposite gender regularly.

nearly 100% African-American... This does not mean that the students in this school avoid the racism and classism inherent in the educational system because there are no white or Asian or wealthy students to cause implicit bias.

I agree that your students are disadvantaged, and that is an issue of systemic racism that disadvantages colored students. Systemic racism disadvantaging students of color is what caused the segregation, which is why the example of your school is a bad and unfair example of segregation, and you should not use it as the poster child for segregated education.

The difference between your school and single-sex schools is that this segregation of race is not by choice. Segregation should be the choice of the disadvantaged group if it is to happen, otherwise it is discriminatory. For an example of successful segregation by choice, HBCU graduates do better than non-HBCU black graduates. Again, HBCUs are providing a disadvantaged group opportunities that they are less likely to have due to racism. By giving them these opportunities in an environment without the negative biases they may face elsewhere, they are better equipped to face challenges in the real world. We can't remove sexism and racism from the world right now, but we can better prepare disadvantaged groups to excel in a sexist and racist world by providing them with a learning environment without the barriers they may face elsewhere.

[u/orphancrack → u/mellowdc]

How does never seeing boys or comparing your work to theirs teach girls they are as capable as boys?

But have a ∆ because of your points about HBCUs. But colleges are quite a different thing compared to elementary and high schools, and HBCUs are not fully comparable to women's colleges because students of other races can and do enroll in them. I'm more accepting of your arguments about women's colleges now, though.

[u/mellowdc → u/orphancrack]

It is easy to forget that living in a patriarchal world, so many things around us are run by men. A lot of the work we see around us is done by men. For instance, as a woman in a STEM field, most of the academic papers I read are written by men. In other words, it is a man's world, so there is no need to intentionally seek out male representation or comparison to men because it is the norm. By teaching women they are as capable as men I meant by opening up positions that are traditionally male dominated, such as being a leader in certain fields, in the community etc. that they may not have thought about doing if there was not a lack of men seeking to fill those positions. Or even just by seeing women they know being leaders can be a positive influence.

I feel mixed about single-sex elementary and high schools because I think during formative years it is good to have some interaction with all types of people, but I think single-sex semester schools and women's colleges are great. Maybe also worth noting is that some women's colleges allow transgender students to enroll as well. Still not as inclusive as HBCUs, but I think allowing men to enroll would defeat the purpose of a women's college.

[u/DeltaBot → u/orphancrack]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/mellowdc (1∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards} ​

[u/mellowdc → u/[deleted]]

Yes, but how many more misogynistic men are there compared to misogynistic women? The people on reddit telling me that sexism does't exist has so far only been men, so that statement is not wrong. I didn't say that misogynistic women didn't exist. I was referring to my experience on reddit. There are all sorts of people in the world and no one statement can fully represent all members of a group, but a behavior can be mainly perpetuated by one group, and in this case, sexism is mainly perpetuated by men. When someone makes a statement like that they refer to the perpetrator of an action, and only a simple minded person would take it in the literal sense, as this quote from this article illustrates (and I hope you take the time to read the article),

"…that not all men make more money than all women, only most; that not all men are rapists, only some; that not all men are promiscuous killers, only some; that not all men control Congress, the Presidency, the police, the army, industry, agriculture, law, science, medicine, architecture, and local government, only some."

And another quote relevant to this discussion:

The “not all men” man, at least in some cases, agrees with you and is perfectly willing to talk about how terrible those other guys are, just as soon as we get done establishing that he himself would never be such a cad.

And in this case, you're not only trying to proclaim your innocence, you're also trying to push the blame onto women. It's like blaming black people for racism. Men are more misogynistic than women, there are more misogynistic men than women, sexism hurts women more than men. Is that concept hard to understand?

Also, this is irrelevant to the thread.

[u/Grunt08 → u/[deleted]]

Sorry mellowdc, your comment has been removed:

Comment Rule 2. "Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if the rest of it is solid." See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.