One response is to get offended. Another response is to realize that college is as much a social exercise as it is an academic one. Men expect there to be women on campus, women expect there to be men on campus (even at an all women's college, as I found out by dating one at Wellesley).

Ultimately students are customers of a service. The service that universities provide is part academic, part social.

Yes. The point I tried to surreptitiously make was to hint that while campus is known as the place where people find their life partners, the bluntness of how we express it differ when talking about men and when talking about women.

The way to go forward in a equality way, might be to bring the language we use for women to men, or bring both to a more middle point. The "It’s not the College of Mary and Mary; it’s the College of William and Mary." might have been a bit over the top in my taste, but everything else in a perfect world should have no emotional difference if it's women meet man, or man meet woman.

Wow you actually quoted it and changed it around but didn't say explicitly what you were doing and didn't make it clear where you made changes. I think you were trying to make a point, but the way you did it is wrong. The original text I had no problem with.

That's the point. He's pointing out how they're allowed to talk about women wanting to see men on campus, but if they were to talk about men looking for women on campus, a feminist would label it as turning women into sex objects.

I don't think just a feminist would. The way it was switched around produces an entirely different set of emotions. Read my direct response to him for my suggestion why.

I know I blew right by those sentences in their original form, and was quite alert to them in your comment.

I wonder if the decades of girls being encouraged to go to college and get their "MRS Degree" still plays into how readers reacted to the original text.

Or if a lifetime of education with a feminism critique viewpoint encourages sensitivity to statements colored with male chauvinism but not with female chauvinism.

Thanks for that.

It's interesting how flipping the gender provides a different emotional reaction. It reminds me entirely of the rapid sorting test in Blink by Malcolm Gladwell. You are given two categories, such as (White or Good) and (Black or Bad) and sort things on the two axes (face color and goodness). Apparently, people (all colors alike) do far better with the categories as I outlined than if you flipped good and bad, and put white with bad and black with good. Essentially, these stereotypes (white is good, men compete for women as if they are prizes, etc), become a part of everyone. Innately.

I'm curious, if you wanted to make a similar point as the article, but imply that coeducational studies are more productive, how would you do so?

I don't know how much "(White or Good) and (Black or Bad)" being psychologically-ingrained categories has to do with race, though.

Some things early homo sapiens knew about, that are white: rice, fatty tissue, soap, and safe sunny environments.

Some things they knew about that are black: mold spots, dried blood, charred flesh, and dangerous moonlit environments.

(Same for red with "sweet berries, fresh blood, flushed skin, and fire"; green with "medicinal plants, unsafe still water, vomit"; etc.)

I bet there wouldn't be nearly as clear an association if the colors were "vaguely dark beige" and "vaguely light brown".

Interesting point. Just to clarify, in the original study you were to sort actual images of faces. So when I say white and black, I don't mean they were sorting things such as "rice" to the "white" bin.

My point (as describe in a above comment) was to illustrate the language used when people describe men and female in their goals. Some concept has become so glued together, than we barely can recognize them outside of their decided roles.

I personally think that coeducational studies are more productive, but describing why is hard because it require a kind of bluntness that is unacceptable in current culture.

It is an objective fact that 18 year old people, men or women, are highly interested and motivated by dating and sex. If you are trying to sell them an immensely expensive and time-consuming service (college), you better take that into account or you will go out of business. That's what that quote is about. Your switch is just as true (and no more or less offensive) than the original.

I suspect(I could be very wrong) that a lot of people do the majority of their dating & find their spouses in college, so the dating prospects are almost as important as the quality of education. Just like how nightclubs reduce admission or drink prices for ladies; thus drawing more ladies and of course the boys follow... college is, wether they like it or not, is the main place to "hook up". It's just statistically higher quality than the random person at the bar/nightclub.

I fail to see how that statement is any different than any other affirmative action plan, or the popular drive for more women in tech.

Interesting contrast with russelluresti's comment...