Quotes are taken from a message written by Dan to Charles on 07/22/96...
DT>I don't believe the concept of single-sex classrooms equates with racial 
DT>segregation.
I believe what you are saying, then, is that you believe that if we put 
all of the black students into one classroom by themselves because of 
their skin color, that's racism, but if we put all girls into one class 
because of their gender, that's not sexism?
DT>For the most part, single sex sports exist because of the vast 
DT>differences between the sexes.
We agree here.  I view this as "acceptable" sexism due to the impact the 
differences in size and weight might have if men and women were to 
compete together.  In some sports the genders can mix without any 
problem, but this is a matter for governing bodies to determine so as to 
meet the needs of the broadest segment of the population.  Just as there 
is a need for sexual segregation when setting up public restrooms and 
locker rooms, there is a need for sexual segregation in some physical 
activities when sexual characteristics may have an impact on performance.
DT>In many competitive situations (chess comes to mind) the sexes are 
separated 
DT>simply because men and women are different, not because of an 
DT>inferior/superior belief.
Men and women are separated in chess matches?  I wasn't aware of that.  
Interesting.
DT>CB>Of course, by definition, single-sex schools are established to 
DT>CB>exclude one sex.
DT>
DT>I don't agree that these schools are "established" for that purpose.
Okay, then why ARE single sex schools established?  I mean - I know why 
SCHOOLS are established, but why make them single sex institutions if 
not to keep the sexes separated?
DT>CB>But - men and other men are different in many ways.  Why should sex
DT>CB>be  the determining factor?  Some men can handle The Citadel, some
DT>CB>can't -  some women can handle it, some can't.  Judge each person as
DT>CB>an  individual, not according to some preset "image" of a class of
DT>CB>people.  
DT>I don't see it the way you do so we may as well end it here.  The 
DT>differences in the foundation that drives our (yours and mine) 
DT>philosophies are very apparent here.  We disagree.  
Sorry, I didn't read ahead so continued the debate.  You're right, we 
will disagree.
I see single sex schools and/or classes as an unnecessary barrier.  
Given the growth of the women's rights movement, these classes/schools 
will continue to be challenged as the excluded group will always be 
wondering, "Why?"  Women will wonder if the men are getting a better 
education, men will wonder why the women are being kept away from them 
.  The stress created by "separate but equal" will outweigh whatever 
small advantage there is in separate instruction.
Chuck Beams
Fidonet - 1:2608/70
cbeams@future.dreamscape.com
___
* UniQWK #5290* "Hello", the lawyer lied.
--- Maximus 2.01wb
---------------