Professor Erin Pettit learned accidentally (she says) that some things just go better without guys around, so she set up a program that excluded them. Judging by this sympathetic article, the New York Times approves entirely.
Dr. Pettit, her long hair braided into a mass of tiny plaits, is 33, but looks a good deal younger. In addition to her research, she has made glaciers into the centerpiece of an unusual educational program. Since 1999, she has been leading groups of high school girls on glaciology field trips in Washington, her home state.
During these demanding trips, the girls, ages 16 to 18, learn the scientific method, not only how to form a hypothesis but how to test it, as well as mountaineering and wilderness skills. "I wanted to bring these two things together," Dr. Pettit said, "the intellectual challenge of trying to do science in the field and the physical challenge of living outdoors."
. . .
Dr. Pettit started the program, which was originally open to all students, at the University of Washington while she was working on her doctorate. The first year, however, only girls applied, despite the program's arduous schedule.Dr. Pettit had chosen to take the group to the South Cascade Glacier, one of two glaciers the United States Geological Survey has been studying continuously for half a century.
Just getting there required a two-day hike on primitive trails; each girl carried her own gear and provisions. "That single-sex experience was so positive," Dr. Pettit said, "after that I knew I had to find an organization that would let me do it just for them." As a public institution the university could not offer a program exclusively for one sex.
Perhaps I am too suspicious, but I have my doubts that only girls wanted to be in the program. Most likely, Pettit discouraged any boys who inquired.
As those who have followed our high schools know, boys and girls had roughly the same level of achievement a few decades ago. Now, boys are doing much worse than girls. Professor Pettit wants to widen that gap. Why she thinks that would be good for society is not discussed in the article. Nor does anyone explain why the taxpayers of Washington, who outlawed sex discrimination by initiative, should subsidize, however indirectly, such efforts.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
Posted by Jim Miller at March 13, 2005 06:13 AM | Email ThisAn obvious attempt also at enlarging and enforcing the feminist agenda esp in regards to the environmental fraud of global warming -- boy those glaciers are just vaporizing in front of our eyes!!
But all is probably lost - what can you expect from a court system that just awarded a coach for blatantly breaking the rules -- I wonder what else he knew --
Posted by: Bill on March 13, 2005 09:02 AMSo, actually, I see this appearing at the college level as a breath of fresh air....
Posted by: Patrick on March 13, 2005 09:28 AMHowever, if I were one of the parents I would have to know a lot about the instructor and the course material to be discussed ("Men are monsters" or "Gay is cool" shouldn't be part of the class material) before I would consent to allowing her to attend.
Funding for such a program is a different issue, and government funding would be questionable at best, given all the rules and regulations we now have. Is it legal to offer a gender specific academic class, even privately?
I think it is also ok to be a little suspicious of motivations and desired goals in this case.
Posted by: JG on March 13, 2005 10:20 AMFirst, you have no proof, and no evidence.
Just a suspicion, and you have basically tossed out a pretty serious charge of discrimination. I suggest you retract the charge until you can actually make a finding of fact, instead of engaging in knee jerk moralism of that kind that embarrasses true conservatives.
Next, and guy that would allow a 33 year old pigtailed professor intimidate him is a pussy of the highest magnitiude.
Posted by: Steve Ramsey on March 13, 2005 10:36 AMI have a feeling that if any boys were participating, they would not care for the experience.
Posted by: DeadWood on March 13, 2005 11:55 AMI can understand the people who post how this is nothing unusual, not in the least offensive or even a sign of progress. I understand, and I feel for your delusion. When you come back to earth, try waiting until you see the MSM fawning over programs that seek to exclude females, or gays- or anyone other than straight white protestant males. Try waiting till college wrestling programs once again flourish because colleges no longer are forced to close programs that don't draw equal numbers of men and women. When these and other things happen THEN it will be right to say it's progress that groups are able to be selective and exclusive. Until then it's delusional. You'll only encourage those who claim liberalism is a mental disease.
Posted by: Chuck Miller on March 13, 2005 12:03 PMSingle sex education is beneficial in certain age ranges and for some topics when it sticks to education and not indoctrination. So, those that believe this is much ado about nothing are partially correct.
However, there is another side to this that Chuck is hitting on. These sorts of "girls only" programs are not designed simply for educational benefit. There is a deliberate effort to exclude boys because gender based feminism believes that boys are part of the "patriarchy" and therefor evil. So, the process here is not one of selecting the most appropriate educational circumstances for each sex. Instead, it is a process of excluding boys.
This sort of attitude is all over the MSM and certainly has been institutionalized in government and public education. The result, as SP points out, has been massive underachievement by boys as indicated by lower comparative test scores, high drop out rates, and even teen suicide rates for boys that are 5 times higher than they are for girls.
The institutionalized and systematic destruction of the so-called "patriarchy" by government fiat has not destroyed the "patriarchy" because such a conspiracy does not exist. It has ruined educational opportunity for boys, destroyed families, and stripped the basic civil rights of men.
All of you that think this is hyperbole should look a little below the surface and start reading Glenn Sacks: www.glennsacks.com
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on March 13, 2005 12:17 PMI think the point about boys falling behind in school is an important one. Both sexes are still necessary in order to perpetuate humanity. Most people want a mate of somewhat similar social status - if boys continue to be marginalized (or even demonized, in the case or the radical feminists), then today's young women will be left with a greater ordeal in finding appropriate mates (unless they are expected to look to all the excess males in the eastern countries where female babies are systematically killed, either in utero or after).
Posted by: krm on March 13, 2005 12:34 PMI agree with this is assessment. As long as it holds true for boys as well as girls and they are also able to organize learning programs that have only boys on the trip, I believe you will see very encouraging results.
The problem is that if you tried to set up this type of program for only boys, there would undoubtedly be complaints and at least one radical feminist who pushes for her daughter to be included not because it would be a good experience for her, but because she feels it's her "right."
The well being and success of our children in this society is taking a backseat to the agendas of their parents who have less interest in the growth and development of their own kids than they do in pushing the politically correct party line.
The feminist agenda will ultimately overplay its hand, and there will be a male backlash against the inappropriate feminization of our society.
It's already begun to a small extent. But when you see, for example, how men are portrayed on television in commercials and sitcoms as bumbling fools who need their wives and girlfriends to come rescue them from their stupidity or machismo, it is very apparent that we have a long way to go back to center line.
It's a shame to me that so many boys do not get involved in the Boy Scouts these days. There is much to be said for the self-confidence and ethical guidence that one gets from a good and active troop.
And for those who might have missed it over on Instapundit, a good article on the Manliness of Theodore Roosevelt:
http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/23/mar05/mansfield.htm
Posted by: lunaslide on March 13, 2005 01:35 PMIf she really wanted the 'physical challenge of living outdoors', she would join the Air Force and take her recruits on survival training exercises. Of course, a PHD has too much class for that.
Warn the bears they are coming!
Posted by: Susu on March 13, 2005 02:02 PMOne of the myriad of reasons that fewer boys are involved in the boyscouts is because anything that involves boys only (and straight boys especially) is attacked as "patriarchy privilege" by victim and gender oriented feminists.
The mothers of these boys don't realize that they have had male loathing imprinted into their subconscious by constant misandrist messages in their education and the news media. They are sometimes their boy's own worst enemy; except when they wake up and realize what is happening, then the become the best spokespeople for all boys (and men, for that matter).
Check out www.iwf.org and www.ifeminists.com. Also, read Christina Hoff Sommer's book, "The War Against Boys."
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on March 13, 2005 04:05 PMBy the way, the phrase "you just don't understand" is one favored by progressives in response to a fact based observation.
Posted by: Dennis on March 13, 2005 06:18 PMUniversities are not military bases, therefore they should be integrated. Forcefully, if need be.
Posted by: Big M on March 13, 2005 10:24 PMThat's good enough for the federal government when "proving" discrimination in employment.
You should read more Thomas Sowell.
Posted by: steve miller on March 14, 2005 08:03 AMWe can each easily see how the dumb people of each constituency are being unfairly influenced by an argument that lacks merit, but both sides refuse to wise-up the dummies, because they're "our" dummies, and will vote with us no matter what-- as long as we allow them their paranoid delusion that the whole problem is liberals or the patriarchy.
Posted by: headless lucy on March 14, 2005 09:40 AMWouldn't it be nice if boys could have similar experiences without having to admit girls. Oh! Wait! That wouldn't be politically correct would it?
Posted by: Al Anderson on March 14, 2005 09:49 AMWhile I think that the facts are clear regarding the failure of USA (and Britain, btw) fail to take the needed steps to civilize and educate boys and young men, getting upset over this professor doesn't seem to be warranted. The professor is very clear at the end of the excerpt that public institions cannot limit access to classes by gender--more the pity, particularly in K-12. A peek at her website leads one to (1) suggest she find a copy editor, and (2) note that the class-- Girls on Ice --is sponsored by North Cascades Institute, a private non-profit institution. A google search does not reveal any rank PC statements (e.g. Nancy Hopkins on the Summers imbroglio).
With so many serious issues in higher education outstanding (return of I200, funding for higher education, PC cowardice at SCCC, etc.,), this particular story seems very trivial. There is no proof of ongoing illegitimate (to a pragmatic conservative) sex discrimination. And, IF the professor intentionally limited that one class to women, it happened 6 years ago and since then the professor has shifted the class to some (unnamed private) organization that can allow single sex classes.
Check out the professor's website and see if you can tease out any gender issues there. Usually a feminist ideologue cannot resist putting some polemic in; Dr. Pettit has none that I can detect. In fact, she seems very interesting and goes/does some neat things (check out the Antartica journal) in some rather dangerous places (glaciers are rather unsafe at any time).
My free opinion and worth exactly what you paid for it.
Posted by: iconoclast on March 14, 2005 10:13 AMTell that to the Boy Scouts. Seems to me there is a lot of handwringing by those on the left who unrelentingly condemn the Boy Scouts for not allowing practicing homosexual Boy Scout leaders. It's already happening. The lesbian leadership of our local Girl Scout chapter have already denied local Boy Scouts use of their camping facilities because of the PC homosexual issue. The left has always been the hypocrites and I see this particular story about exclusing boys no differently.
Otherwise, I'm in agreement with Scott, though the left, if they were consistent, should howl about the "apartheid" of separate but equal. Talk about confusing, the left wants to regulate everything the WAY THEY SEE FIT!
Even more perplexing, Title IX couldn't be more discriminatory toward male sports. How many male sports activities had to be deep-sixed in the name of "equality"? Yet, Title IX is nothing but an exercise in bean counting - its about equal results/equal participation and not equal opportunity. If feminists are unwilling to admit there are differences between men and women, then make the women compete heads-up with the men! Why not?
From a pragmatic point of view Title IX merely reinforces an athletic apartheid - separate but "equal" (which is anything but equal). The old saw about culture putting women at a disadvantage in athletic endeavors because they "haven't been given the same advantages and opportunities as their male counterparts" is so patently false that its laughable.
For example, I competed in track during the early 1970s in a consolidated Texas High School that had 600 students. All but a couple of the athletes were non-urban whites yet we had people turning in times, heights and distances that would set records in virtually any female state high school record book TODAY! And female high school athletes have far better coaching, far more money, far better facilities and far better sports medicine than us po-dunk Texas white boys had back then. And there were any number of HS black athletes whose performances totally eclipsed ours so the disparity would be even greater. We had two high school males on our track team that thirty years ago ran times that would have set the women's world record today in the 100 meters!
I'm willing to bet that a MacDonald's High School boys all-star team could be any team that the WNBA can put on the floor. And it's no secret that the 1996 women's Olympic gold soccer team was getting beat by the US National boys soccer team that they were practicing against!
Certainly in the physical realm, male and female are different, so why do we insist on this false altruistic notion of "equality" when real equality would demand heads-up play between men and women without the excuse of men "having coaching advantages or advantages of opportunity". Well we don't have truly equal heads-up play because we see with our own eyes and in the record books that men do compete at a different level then women.
And if there are differences in the physical realm well.....! I'd be the first to admit there are women who are smarter and more mathematically/scientifically proficient (I'm pretty good in math and science myself), but it doesn't make her better than me or "more equal" than me. We're different people. And if the reverse was true...we're still different people. But let's not create artificial structures trying to hide the fact that men and women are simply different...and Asians and blacks have different gifts! Aren't we suppose to celebrate diversity?
I believe it's possible to adhere to the concept of "different but equal", but way too much liberal rhetoric has been expended claiming men and women are the same...and they aren't the same though they are indeed equal before God and the law. Sorry I bloviated so much.
Posted by: Hankmeister on March 14, 2005 01:01 PMThe War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men
Author: Christina Hoff Sommers, Ph.D.
Simon & Schuster
320 pages, January 2000
ISBN: 0684849569
Thanks for your interesting insight. Always interested to consider this type of deep intellectual analysis.
Can I be one of the smart one's like you?
Why not at least a shallow reference to the grade-school economic theories of Milton Freidman? Which, by the way, are totally discredited. At least, according to Noam Chomsky, they are.
Noam Chomsky, unrepentant Stalinist, refuting Nobel Prize-winning Milton Friedman on economics, not linguistics. And what are Chomsky's thoughts on String Theory? Shroedinger's Cat paradox? Please tell us. I really need a good belly laugh today.
What do you think of Chomsky's theories about the generation of language and grammar as the basis for all rational thought?
I think that it is remains a hypothesis that is very hard to prove or disprove at this time (ethical rules on human experimentation being what they are). It is a compelling explanation as far as we know. I look forward to proof/disproof experiments, such as have already been attempted using neural nets.
Posted by: iconoclast on March 14, 2005 03:08 PMYes. O.K. No thanks, boring. Right, you bet. Noam who? Don’t bother, wacky. Yes.
Thanks again for exhibiting yourself and showing us all what you think and why. If this is what you believe, I am happy for you and I won’t waste effort to respond. Never try to reason someone out of that which they were not reasoned into.
You never let me know if I could be one of the smart ones. I guess this means . . . no?
Thanks again.
Headless Lucy - good insight. You just went a step up in my book.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on March 15, 2005 09:58 AMI too hope that Erin Pettit's programs aren't affected. It seems somewhat unlikely that they would be--insurance companies really don't care and US Parks Service seems unlikely to care as well.
However, I am interested in why you think that researchers in Earth Science would be negatively affected by a gender imbalance. Does a gender imbalance detract from the quality of research? Teaching quality?
Posted by: iconoclast on March 15, 2005 01:45 PM