Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    see also:
    
    womannotes-V1
    36 - co-education
    
    womannotes-V2
    317 - female only schools a benefit?
    
    womannotes-V3
    106 - Barbara Bush rejected at Wellesley College
    
    Parenting_v2
    759 - one gender schools
    
    
    -Jody
    

    
    E Grace,
    
    I've just spent 15 mins drafting a reply explaining the British
    schooling system - and I've just binned it in frustration!
    
    Heck - it didn't seem that complicated when I was going through it 8-}
    
    It was interesting, though, to look back on it with the views I hold
    today. Now, it appears to me to be unfair, biased, unrealistic and
    "classist" as a system, but at the time I just took it's rules for
    granted right up until I was 18 (and I accepted the effect that it
    had on my life after that without question....) 
    
    I'm sure Heather will do better explaining the guts of it....over to 
    you, THOMASH.
    
    'gail
    
    
    

    I feel that one of the greatest things that ever happened to me was
    going to all-girl primary and secondary schools.  It prepared me to
    hold my own in the overwhelmingly male [17-1] post-secondary
    environment in which I found myself.
    
    And if I had a daughter, I would mortgage my soul to put her in an
    all-girl learning environment up until the age of 10.  Past that, so
    long as she were to learn, I would be open to all-girl or co-ed,
    private or public [in US parlance]
    
    Given that the society in which I currently live isn't as open to
    equality as I would desire, I find the advantages to be many including: 
    
     - In an all-female environment, female people do everything. There
       don't arise the questions of deferring or not doing.  If it's got to
       be done a girl or a woman will have to do it. Limits aren't [as]
       socialised and problem solving skills are encouraged.  [i.e. I
       probably use leverage better than most men I know because there
       weren't men or boys about with greater strength to 'solve' my
       problems -- or keep from tackling them]
    
    - The distinction between work/school and leisure is very clear.  It
      makes it easier to behave appropriately in different contexts in later
      life.
    
    - Good or bad, we were required to go out for sports.  The option to
      just sit by and watch wasn't there.
    
    At the post-secondary levels I do not feel that doors to should be
    closed to anyone.  I have ambivalent feelings about all-women
    universities.  I think they would be nice, but I don't think they're
    particularly right.
    
      Annie

    re .3, I think the option to "just sit by and watch" should always be
    there.  Not everyone enjoys sports, just as not everyone enjoys any
    other hobby such as cooking, sewing, woodworking, singing, acting,
    dancing, etc.  (I think the option should exist for males, too.)  It's
    disgusting the way competitive sports are forced on the unathletic in
    schools.
    
    As for attending an all-girls school, I'd be bored to death.  
    
    Lorna
    

re: "doors not being closed to anyone"

	Annie, that's exactly the point of women's colleges.  This is *not*
    the ideal world, where a coed college/university means that all doors
    are open to everyone.  The fact is, in a coed colleges doors *are* 
    closed to women.  Not in a consistent pattern that one can identify 
    and label as discrimination, but here and there, as in the rest of the 
    society.  You're less likely to find sexist faculty at a women's college.
    And even if there are sexist faculty members, they'll be practicing in 
    a vacuum.  At a women's college, you *know* all the doors are open 
    to women -- if they're open at all.  As a woman at a women's college, 
    you never have to waste any cycles wondering whether it's your abilities 
    or whether it's a double standard that's denying you an opportunity: 
    it's always you.  As such, there is motivation to try harder, because 
    you know that success is possible.

	If I had a daughter, I'd be concerned about all the doors being 
    open to *her*, not about how equally they were open to men.  And yes, 
    if I had a son, I'd be concerned primarily about the same thing.  The 
    difference is that I'd know that all the doors would be open to my son 
    at a coed college.

	I went to a women's college mostly in spite of the fact that it was
    a women's college.  If I had it to do over again, I'd choose a women's 
    college *because* it's a women's college.  As a high school senior, I 
    spent a lot of time debating the argument that "a women's college isn't 
    the real world".  Then, that bothered me a little.  Now I see that's 
    exactly the point: it's not the real world.  However, far from not 
    teaching women to deal with the real world, the experience teaches 
    them to push back when the real world tries to clip their wings, 
    because they learn it doesn't have to be that way.

    When you live without discrimination for a while and learn not to take
    it for granted, you start noticing it in lots of places you didn't see
    it before.  That's why men's colleges are essentially superfluous, and
    women's and (all or mostly) black colleges are a very different animal.
    The latter help in a very real way to fight discrimination, *not* 
    perpetuate it.

	Sharon

    <...You're less likely to find sexist faculty at a women's college.
    
       agreed if by sexist you mean male-biased sexists
    
       but, disagree if by sexist you mean female-biased sexists
    
    
       to say that female-biased sexists in a womens college would be
       operating in a vacuum makes about as much sense to me as saying 
       that *gay* professors in a single-sex school operate in a vacuum.

    
    I can see Annie's point. If children were segregated in single-sex
    schools up 'til age 10-14, with same sex teachers, janitors, etc., they
    would learn early to think of their sex as capable and effective. AS
    LONG AS THE CURRICULUMS WERE NOT GENDER SPECIFIC!!! No more raising
    little girls to be mommies and nothing else! With independence
    self-esteem and  self-sufficiency indoctrinated at a young age, they
    would probably be less likely to be steered out of that mind-set later
    on.
    
    One of the reasons why women today need single-sex college
    opportunities is because of what they DIDN'T have when they were young.
    

    re sports
    
    No, not everyone will grow up to be an athlete.  Given the chance to
    participate in sports, assuming that *sportsmanship* is encouraged,
    there is much to be learned:
    
    	- Working as a team
    	- Building physical strength and endurance
    	- Keeping in shape
    	- Tangible accomplishment
    
    Sports in schools fail when competition, above all else, is encouraged. 
    Sportsmanship involves winning, playing *together* and losing
    gracefully.  There are times that one comes across a better team, but
    if the "losing" team knows that they have done their best and learn
    where their weaknesses are, then they have benefitted.
    
    Sportsmanship is a skill that we use over and over and over again.  If
    it's developed early, then it will become a more "natural" part of our
    vocabulary.
    
    I envy the athletic abilities of my sisters.  I was usually the last
    person chosen for the team and discovered that I did well individually. 
    I was able to get by and although I didn't posess the athletic skills,
    I learned about sportsmanship.  
    
    It concerns me that schools are cutting their athletic programs because
    of budget constraints.  How will that affect students?  How will they
    learn sportsmanship?  What physical outlet will be available for them
    to let off steam?
    
    So, back on the track, in an all-female school I think that the
    environment would encourage greater participation since there would not
    be competition for equipment, playing time and facilities as there
    exists at co-ed schools.
    
    
    Judi
    

>    <...You're less likely to find sexist faculty at a women's college.
>    
>       agreed if by sexist you mean male-biased sexists
>    
>       but, disagree if by sexist you mean female-biased sexists

    I assume that you are making this statement based on hypothesis and not
    personal experience.  My personal experience, based on attending a
    women's college where there were a small number of men in most classes,
    doesn't corroborate your theory at all.  (Ray, would you agree?)

    Having also taken classes at a coed school in the same time period,
    I would have to say that the number of male-biased sexists is significant.
    In contrast, I don't think I have **ever** been in a classroom situation 
    with a female-biased sexist teacher (although I do know they exist).
    And there *are* (!) teachers with a pro-male bias teaching at women's 
    colleges (don't kid yourself).
    
>       to say that female-biased sexists in a womens college would be
>       operating in a vacuum makes about as much sense to me as saying 
>       that *gay* professors in a single-sex school operate in a vacuum.

    If all the students are women, who in the class is a female-biased 
    sexist going to be biased against?  I don't see the parallel to gay 
    professors at all, unless you're talking about gay professors who are 
    biased against heterosexuals, teaching at an all-gay school.

    One class with a female-biased sexist teacher is unlikely to "convert"
    anyone who isn't already a female-biased sexist, so I don't see the
    reason for concern.  On the other hand, taking a third (to pick a number
    at random) of her classes with a professor and/or students who are
    biased against women... that's going to start grating on 'most any woman
    who's aware of what's going on.

	Sharon

    yes, it is hypothesis.

    With respect to the second half of your response, I believe it is
    insincere, but I will answer it as if it is not.
    
    <who are they going to be biased again?>
    
    men.
    
    Those men that the student body would have already interacted with,
    those men that the student body would need interact with in the future.
    Those men that the student body interracts with in the course of living
    in the society.
    
    Sort of like a catholic kid being taught that protestants won't go to
    heaven, or that jews are christkillers. It doesn't take concrete
    experience with a protestant or a jew to believe that. However, when the
    catholic (kid) does encounter a protestant or a jew, that ingrained attitude
    typically does get communicated and even acted upon. (yes, *that* is
    not hypothetical, it is from personal experience).
    
    
    				h
    
    

    Herb,
    
    Like Sharon I never encountered female-biased sexism at the all
    women's college I attended. (This was of course almost 25 years ago.)
    Many of my teachers were 'maiden ladies' who struck the students
    as being a bit naive about men (at least the ones in their late
    50's and early 60's) but I don't recall any of them making 'anti
    men' or 'men hating' remarks or even remarks that put men down
    in any fashion.
    
    I did encounter men with sexist attitudes against women when I enrolled
    in a coed grad school.
    
    Bonnie

    re. being bored
    
    school was never boring.  school was to learn and to challenge
    ourselves.  boys being there wouldn't have made it more challenging. I
    was around _LOTS_ of boys when I wasn't at school.
    
    re. sports
    
    I didn't particularly enjoy sports. I'd much rather watch. I'm no bloody
    good any any sport, but sometimes I have fun. So long as those I play
    with aren't dead set on winning, I love being a part of the team.
    
    re. curriculum
    
    Our curriculum was not limited by our gender.  We were expected to get
    a thorough grounding in the classics, mathematics and other sciences,
    the humanities and social sciences.  The curriculm I followed was more
    similar to that followed by my cousin Michael [who attended an all-boys
    school] than it was to the curriculum followed by my cousin Maire who
    attended the school that I did.  That would be because Michael & I both
    aspired to become engineers, while Maire aspired to be a child
    development specialist.
    
      Annie
    

    No, Herb, I'm being perfectly serious.  Note that the original question
    was "who *in* *the* *class* are they going to be biased against?"
    (emphasis new).

    It is **not** an analogous case to a Catholic kid being taught that 
    Protestants won't go to heaven.  For one thing, it would be a small 
    minority of the faculty (like one or two people) holding these opinions.
    Even fewer are likely to impart it to the students, if you consider 
    that in many subjects the topic of men is very unlikely to come up in 
    normal classroom discussion.  But more importantly, the students in the 
    class have a past history of interactions with male relatives, friends, 
    and teachers... and already have their own opinions about them.  They're 
    far more likely to discard the professor's opinion as "radical and 
    man-hating" than they are to adopt it themselves.

	Sharon

       
       <to say that female-biased sexists in a womens college would be
       <operating in a vacuum makes about as much sense to me as saying 
       <that *gay* professors in a single-sex school operate in a vacuum.
    
    That is what I said. I am not prepared to discuss whether
    male-oriented-sexism in a coed college is more or less likely than
    female-oriented-sexism in a women-only college.
    
    I feel comfortable that both exist in universities and in 'real' life.
    
    I feel just as comfortable that both exist in this conference.
    
    
    
    

    if you feel that it is important to assert that male-oriented sexists
    probably outnumber female-oriented sexists, I won't argue with you.
    Indeed, i might even agree with you.
    
    
    			h

I feel it's important to assert that the number of female-oriented 
sexists is so infintesimal, and that our culture systematically denies 
them credibility anyway, rendering them socially insignificant.

    right-on!
    (particularly the second half)
    
    oh, that we were equally successful in all walks of life

    At the women's college I went to at least half of the faculty were
    men.  Of the female faculty, more than half of them were very 
    traditional.  I believe that the radicalization of the 
    student body was not a result of teaching, but of the (radical)
    experience of intelligent women having high expectations placed
    on them and rising to that challenge.
    	Linda

    If you wanted to go into Science or Engineering an all woman college
    just wasn't an option, at least back when I went to college.
    
    -Mary
    

    Not only does it matter the number of so-called female "sexists",
    but the *influence* these so-called sexists have in the world.
    

    -mary
    
    I went to mt Holyoke and majored in Biology, we also had an
    excellant Chemistry department. The chair was the first woman
    president of the national chemical society.
    
    It is true that we had not engineering department but that is also
    true of many or most liberal arts colleges be they for men, women
    or coed.
    
    Engineering was considered a graduate degree course and women did go
    on to Engineering from all women's colleges.
    
    Bonnie

	What I think the English school system is:

	Start school - "infants":   usually mixed.
	Depending on the funding in the area, it is the term before you are 5,
	in which you are 5, or after you are 5.


	Then advance to a "junior":   usually mixed.
	The begining of the school year in which you become 8. 
	

	Then a "senior", and probably move to a different school.
	The beginning of the school year in which you are 12.


	Then a technical college, teachers training college, or university.
	The beginning of the school year in which you are 19, 
	These are normally 3 or 4 year courses.

	OKAY, the progression from one to another is quite easy, however, I've
	re-read what I've written, and I don't understand how I've made it look
	so complex!!!!!!!


	Progression:

	infants to junior,     
	automatic - usually same school building.

	junior to secondary.  (some choices not always available)
	If it is a comprehensive, automatic.   mixed.
	or
	take the 11-plus.  
		pass, go to grammar school.   some mixed, some single sex.
		fail  go to secondary modern  some mixed, some single sex.

	you are now in the 1st form.
	(If you "failed" the 11-plus, you can take a 14-plus to see if you can
	transfer to a grammar school).

	Secondary then leave.
	GCSE's are normally taken at the end of the school year in which you
	are 16 (5th form).
	Many jobs such as clerical, banking, aprenticeships, require a mimimum 
	of 5 with grades 1-3, and specify Maths and English.
	When I was at school, they fixed the pass rate at about 40%, I don't 
	know what it is today. 
	Most people take 5-10 in different subjects.

	(this one qualification replaced the old "O" level exams, for the more 
	achedemic, and CSE's for the less achedemic).

	You can decide to stay another 2 years, and take "A" levels.
	These are more advanced, and in specific subjects.
	You normally need to have taken the GCSE in the subjects you choose.
	Most people take 2-4 "A" levels.

	(there is another 1 year you can do here and take "S" levels, it is not
	common.  O=Ordinary, A=advanced, S=Special)

	Secondary to College/uni    normally mixed.
	There is usually an interview, and, depending on how much they want you,
	they will specify how many "A" levels, and what grades you need to get 
	to be accepted into your choice of course.
	You may need to sit an entrance exam.	

	now back to .0, and enter the discussion.

	Heather

    Oh, *thank you* Heather.  That just cleared it *aaallllll* up!
    
    (*8

    re .22

    Dawn:
    As usual, I agree with you. I agree with your implication that female
    sexists have a modest influence on the world. In addition I would say
    that that *male* sexists have a vastly more powerful and insidious
    influence on the world. 

    It is the potential influence that female sexists have in this
    conference that concerns me.

    There are Jacobins(see 685.2) in lotsa places. In my opinion, some of
    them are among the most active members of this conference.
    
    
    			herb

	Having read these notes - phew!

	I was wondering about the issue of - "all girls shools prove girls can
	do anything, as long as they are not brought up just to me mommies".    


	I had to pass an exam to get to grammar school.

	So I knew I was in the top 20%.

	The school I went to expected everyone to get a minimum of 5 "O" levels,
	and expected 30-50% to carry on to take "A" levels and go to teachers
	training college or university.

	If you left before you took your "O" levels (at 16) you had to pay for 
	your place. (Because you had accepted the education under 
	mis-representation, and the place could have gone to someone else who 
	was prepared accept the benefits of a grammar school and take the exams)

	I was wondering if, because of this environment, I am like I am.

	Then I thought some more about my sister who is 18 months older than 
	myself.

	Gill did not pass the 11-plus, and went to an all-girls secondary school
	She was not expected to well, and was placed in the bottom stream.
	She took some exams at 16 - didn't do too well.
	She wasn't bothered, Gill had managed to arrange a job for herself at 
	the post office, tracing, and she always wanted to do something like 
	this - and she wanted to get out of school.
	Considering her qualifications, and poor reports, this was a
	great achievment - she was actually turned down for an interview, but
	went along anyway, persuaded them to interview her, and then persuaded
	them to give her the job!
	
	Gill is just as self-confident as I am, and believes she can do anything
 	she puts her mind to.
	
	Two different slants, are we like we are beacuse of our parents?
	Is it because of the all-girls schools?
	Is it that Leos and Aquarians have the reputation to be stubborn and
	arguementative?
	It's not because we were told in school that we could do anything.
	

    Re: .21
    
    Even in the late 60's we had excellent Science departments at the
    all woman college I attended.  Like Bonnie said, we didn't have
    engineering, but we did have computer science courses from the Math
    department (now there is a Computer Science Dept., but still no
    engineering).
    
    There are two main things I learned at college - yes, one is women can
    do anything - the other is the value of women as friends.  In high
    school it seemed like the female mind-set was to attract males which
    meant you did not become friends with other females.  I've also seen
    this in women I knew who went to co-ed schools.  However, at college I
    developed many close friendships with women, some of which still survive 
    today.  I didn't really have much of an opinion for or against all
    woman schools when I started college, but I definitely would recommend
    going to one now.
    
    						Jan

    Re: -.1
    
    > There are two main things I learned at college - yes, one is women can
    > do anything - the other is the value of women as friends.
    
    I learned that women can do anything from my dad, but also learned the
    value of women as friends at college.  I went to an engineering school
    with  a 6 to 1 ratio of men to women and still managed to have lots of
    women friends.  Funny thing is when I got out into the real world I had
    a lot more difficulty finding women friends.
    
    Mary

    RE:  .30
    
>    I went to an engineering school with  a 6 to 1 ratio of men to women
>    Mary
    
    
    What school was that?
    
    NICK
    
    

    VPI - twenty years ago - now they got a lot more women.
    
    -Mary

    re .32,
    
    Mary, it is a pleasant surprise to learn that we went to the same school.
    I went back this Xmas.  They had a lot of new things built up, but the
    view from the drill field still hasn't changed.
    
    Eugene

    So Eugene, we're both turkeys. :-)

    Yea, that is one of the things I don't understand about VPI.  Of all
    the animals in the world, some deranged mind chose a turkey (named Hokie)
    as the school's mascot.  :-)
    
    Eugene  

    By the way, I vaguely remember (don't quote me on this) that there are
    now more women than men in VPI.  These days, the school spends much of
    its effort in recruideing minority students (It is only 4-5% at the
    moment), or it will lose some of its funding from the government.  When
    I was there this Xmas, the KKK (none of them local) was about to stage a 
    demonstration.  The school administration was nerves for the fear that
    KKK activity would scare away the potential minority students.
    
    Eugene

    re .35 The turkey is a noble bird, keen of sight, powerful of
    flight, quick of reflex
    and darn good eating, too ;-)

To this day, I still remember an incident in the optics lab at Va. Tech.
One of my friends was taking an fiber optics class and one day I walked 
into the lab for some reason I don't remember.  It was rather dark and orange
inside and at the center was a solid metal table with various 
instruments on it--lasers, mirrors, beam spliters and fibers and etc.  Some 
of the smaller instruments were mounted on magnets resting on the metal table.
In those days, it wasn't very, shall we say, safe to allow me into any
lab, and my friends got very nerves when they saw me walking in (of course, I
didn't realize that then) and began to try this and that and got my hands 
on everything in sight (I always wonder how I ever avoided getting electrocuted 
in those days).  Finally, those magnets got me puzzled.  There was a switch
on the magnet that you could turn "on" or "off".  When it was "on", it 
was a strong magnet and clung to the table real strong, but when it was 
"off", there wasn't any magnetic force at all.  At first, I thought it worked 
like the ordinary electro-magnet, i.e. when you put current through it, it 
becomes a magnet, but when it is off, no magnetic field.  But I immediately saw
that hypothesis didn't wash.  First there was no opening (and no room) for
a battery pack.  Second, the switch looked anything but an electrical 
switch.  As a matter of fact, all indication showed that the switch was
turning something inside.  So I began to discuss this with my friends and
they came up with all sorts of ideas and all of them I shot down mercilessly 
(and they WERE wrong).  Finally, I told them that I was going to talk to
the lab director about it and went upstairs (One was not supposed to take
anything outside of the lab, but I sorta twisted those guy's arms for it).
So I went all the way up and talked to the professor, and guess what?  He said 
he didn't know why either and never thought about it before.  We discussed it 
for a few minutes, but got no where.  In the end, I somehow convinced him to 
let me take apart one of the magnets, so I said my thanks and got a small 
screwdriver from the machine shop then went back to the lab.  I was about to 
dismantle that magnet when suddenly, a girl (Cherie, yes I still remember 
her name) who stood in a corner working on her class project (a very 
clever device that connects a mirror to a speaker and analyzes the reflection
patterns of the laser when the speaker is on  ...Amazing I still remember her
project when I have long forgotten what my friends' project was)  said, 
"You know there are two pieces of magnet inside."  To that I responded, 
"Sure we thought about that but how does that explain anything.  "Well," 
she continued, "when one is opposite the other, their magnetic forces cancel 
each other, but when you,..."  "You are right!", I interrupted her and began 
to complaint why she didn't tell me that earlier and blah blah blah...  

I was a really obnoxious those days, but I have never forgotten that 
incident.  Well, now I am in software.

Eugene

    This seems like a double standard to me.  In this day and age,
    how can anyone justify an all-anything school, club, organization,
    whatever.  It really gets me.  So many women fought to get schools
    like Harvard to admit women, yet now women don't want men attending
    any "all-girl" schools.  Segregation is segregation, no matter how
    hard you try to justify it.  All schools should be open to everyone.
    
    What I HATE about US school system is forcing children to take
    classes in areas where they have no interest or talent and then
    grading them!!  How can anyone in their right mind give a child 
    a D or even an F in music when that child plainly cannot sing or
    carry a tune in a paperbag and he is only in that class because
    he has to be.  Classes like music, art, gym, etc should not have
    any grades.  It's unfair to those students who don't have the
    talent or desire to be there, but have to be.
    
    Linda
    

    re .39, I agree completely in regard to classes like gym, art, music,
    etc.
    
    Lorna
    

    just a small observation about "elective subjects".  My daughter is in
    7th grade, and has just signed up for her 3rd year in chorus.  She
    sings slightly off-key, but has consistently earned an A for her
    efforts.  How did she do this?  She participates, attends rehersals,
    and shows enthusiasm and joy.  She is learning the importance of
    functioning as part of the whole and her teacher recognizes her
    contributions.  She does ok in art too.  In her school, art, Home Ec
    and shop are rotated in 12 week periods.  She alternates chorus with
    French.
    
    The way the school grades is not just grades on tests but the total way
    a student participates.  A good way to operate in my opinion.  Plus,
    she gets exposure to those subjects she may not be particularly
    interested in.  
    
    When I was in school, my mother insisted that I take secretarial
    courses to prepare for the work world, even tho I knew that I would
    never be a secretary.  I wanted to be an artist but i never has a
    formal class after 8th grade until i was back in college in 1983, had
    finished my 2nd associate degree (paralegal), and was taking a class i
    wanted too and had interest in.  I graduated high school in '69.  
    
    i encourage students that you get out of it what you put into it, and
    as long as you are doing the best you can do, you can't ask for more.
    
    sue

    re .41, I think the point is that there are some subjects that some
    students just have no interest in attempting to do their best in.  It's
    difficult enough when one of these subjects is math or English or
    another academic subject, but I can't see forcing a child to take an
    elective subject that has the potential to completely disrupt their
    life (the way gym class almost totally disrupted my life when I was a
    kid).
    
    Lorna
    

    Re .42: Sounds to me like the problem's more with the way the classes
    are taught than whether they're graded or not; I'd hope that no class
    would totally disrupt a child's life just because the child wasn't
    interested in the subject. It seems fair that elective courses be S/U
    instead of graded (and, of course, there's always the "don't grade
    *anything*" argument), but even in an ungraded course a tyrannical
    instructor could cause some serious grief.
    
    I believe very strongly, however, in encouraging kids to try as many
    different areas as possible while they're in school; you never know
    when you'll stumble across something that you love...
    
    -b

    
    Rathole alert!
    
    On the subject of *making* kids take classes that can be disruptive...
    like gym.  I *think* you're refering to the cruelties that can be
    imposed on the less than talented. if not, do a NEXT UNSEEN.
    
    Personal experience.  I was a complete klutz gym-wise, from
    kindergarten through about eighth grade.  I had several experiences
    that would fall in the "gee, how can kids be so cruel kids" category.
    
    The point? Given a choice, I might have decided to NOT take gym.  and I
    would have missed running on and being captain of the high school track
    team, a fundamental turning point for me in terms of self confidence.
    
    School is meant to broaden your experiences. I vote for exposing
    children to as many experiences as possible.
    
    
    (Now for the fence sitting.. maybe a soplution os to make those classes
    optionally pass/fail ?)
    
    =jamd  

    .44, yeah, you can expose them to it, but then if it turns out they
    really hate it I think they should be able to decide not to take the
    course the next semester.  
    
    Yes, I was referring to cruelties and also to the unpleasantness of
    being forced to spend your time doing something you hate.
    Of course, perhaps if I had become a track star instead of an object of
    ridicule I might feel differently.  Then again, if you had been an
    object of ridicule instead of a track star *you* might feel
    differently.  Just because you decided after many years that there was
    one thing in gym that you liked, doesn't mean that everybody would.  
    
    Lorna
    
    

    Actually I "credit" school gym courses for my hating sports.  yeah,
    they exposed me to sports, but in such a way that I couldn't possibly
    like them.  I think if I *hadn't* had gym courses when I was a kid, I
    might actually enjoy some sports today - as it is, just the sight of a
    softball is enough to make my skin crawl.
    
    D!

    THAT brings back memories!  A fourth grader, short for her age anyway,
    and in the prime years of zero coordination, playing right field (yep -
    where thye stick the hopelessly uncoordinated, in hopes np plays will
    come their way.
    
    but wait! a fly ball comes her way... the team moans collectively in
    anticipation of the fumble... she runs gamely toward the ball (can't
    you just see this in slo-mo?) and sticks out her glove, and shazam! the
    darn thing lands in it!  Astonished, sher stares at her glove (while two
    runs come in)  No the scene is neve  repeated again, this was NOT a
    turning point, and D! I do haveto agree... to this day, I will NOT play
    softball if there is any honorable way to avoid it!
    
    
    
    Back to the subject of all woman's schools..... I have often wished
    that I wentto one for my under grad degree.  I want to believe that in
    a society of women, I would have found myself much more quickly, and
    not wasted so many years flailing around.  To anyone that DID go, did
    you find it to be such.. a fertile ground for releasing your talents?
    
                                        

    
    I had a similar softball experience. But I was so pleased with myself,
    I rubbed it into the guys' faces for weeks, and then CHOSE right field
    from then on. Maybe its 'cause I was in high school, and could play
    other sports.
    
    Little white balls flying at break-away speeds still intimidate me,
    though.

    the only reason I passed gym was that I was able to get all "A's" 
    on every written exam.  The teacher knew I HATED gym so I really
    spent most of the class sitting on the sidelines while she 
    participated in tennis, softball, etc.  
    
    Supposed gym classes were originally proposed by President Kennedy
    as a way of getting children to exercise.  If gym classes were
    strictly a keep-fit class I might have enjoyed it.  Since is was
    very sports oriented, I didn't.
    
    Also I ended up in a gym class that was full of clic's and I
    wasn't a member of any.  Was not a good experience.
    
    I barely passed art in 8th grade.  Passed only because I 
    brought in a Spiro-Graph and the teacher liked it.   
    
    L
    Who still hates participating in ANY sports.
    

    Ugh - that brings back bad memories.  PHYS ED CLASS- YCCH!
    I hated playing field hockey in the snow with soccer balls because the
    boys were in the indoor gym (not enough room for everyone - not even
    enough room for the boys).  I hated batting at softball left-handed so
    I could see the pitcher with my better eye (I'm right-handed -VERY
    right-handed).  I was really lousy at archery and golf.  I just barely
    passed - only because I could sort of do the uneven parallel bars (with
    two people standing on the base so the thing didn't tip over - those
    things aren't made for big people of my build; the whole rig would
    leave the ground on one side as I swung over the top bar).
    
    Aerobic dancing would have been a lot nicer - better exercise, too!
    Or how about folk dancing?  That's my kind of music!
    
    I hated the gang showers, too, and the idiots who would go around to
    all the little locked clothing baskets and squirt all your deodorant
    spray out ll over your clothing if they could reach the button. 
    Sigh...
    
    /Charlotte