The Genius of Men

With great humility, Scripps College inaugurated Lori Bettison-Varga its new president last month. She is the second female president, of eight total presidents, in the College’s 84-year history. The title for the event was The Genius of Women— rather bold. I do not claim to be an expert on our sister to the north, so I will refrain from passing judgment on whether on not the substance of their argument lives up to such a billing. Rather, I present you with this idea: if there is something distinctly female about Scripps, there is another something quite male about Claremont McKenna— and that something should be celebrated.

How to define this masculine character? I would point you to three areas: personality, education, and culture.

The Genius of Men: Claremont McKenna, 64 years on.

I will stipulate, before I am assaulted by every reflexive liberal within keystroke’s reach, that not all CMCers are the same. There are exceptions to every rule…you know how the rest of this reasoning goes. That being said, there is certainly a CMC-type. Assertive, competitive, type-A personality: CMCers get stuff done. There is a drive that exists in your average CMCer that one does not commonly encounter. It cannot be random chance that so many people who share these traits just so happen to have been admitted to a small liberal arts college such as our own. Rather, I suggest to you that CMC attracts a particular type of student, and that type is masculine.

Now, I would like to argue a few preemptive responses. It would be trite for me to try to say something about leadership, so I won’t. Furthermore I will inevitably be told that I have ignored the 45% or so of my fellow Stags and Stagthenas who are of the fairer sex. I disagree. The personality type I describe exists amongst men and women alike—but that personality is certainly masculine, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

To wit, the first CMC class to include women received their degrees from Claremont Men’s College, as the school was then called. After the name change, these newly minted female alumnae were offered the chance to have their diplomas reissued by Claremont McKenna College, and they almost uniformly said no. These women were proud to have toughed it out with ‘the boys,’ an attitude that embodies the combination of bravado and sense of honor that exemplifies the best of the CMC masculine tradition.

We are a school based overwhelmingly on government and economics. Notwithstanding fantastic professors in many other departments–from whom I have had the great fortune to learn what little I can—the school’s history lives on in its current culture. When CMC began it offered only one major: political economy. I would suggest that the legacy of that mindset lives today, and that such a mindset is clearly masculine. A focus on business and the employment of power, on finance and the law; these are the historic dominions of male domination—an undeniably manly tradition which we follow through this day.

“Work hard, play hard” – an unofficial slogan of CMC. CMC’s culture more often than not resembles a scene from Mad Men (to be enlightened) or Animal House (to be unkind). Again there are exceptions to this rule too, but those who have experienced the spirit of most student functions would have to agree that no matter the forum, there’s an element of rowdy boyhood whenever CMCers gather to blow off a little steam. I neither endorse such a practice nor do I abhor it, but I believe it to exist.

Through its personality, education, and culture CMC embodies a male ethic, just as Scripps so clearly embodies a female form. It is a truly wonderful happenstance that such divergent and yet complimentary schools can coexist in such proximity. So raise a glass to CMC, and get in touch with your inner man.

Jesse Blumenthal

Jesse is a Senior at Claremont Claremont McKenna College, majoring in Philosophy, Politics, & Economics (PPE) and Government. He currently holds one of the best jobs on campus while living in the Student Apartments.

Cara Daley

Really digging this article, Jesse.
CMC

Aww, I was hoping for a well-placed criticism or satire of the Genius of Women slogan, which I always found to be a bit odd.

I was always unsure as to why Scripps needed to make a slogan like that, unless, of course, they presuppose that women are (or are viewed as) unequal. I’m never sure why Scripps has to constantly try to build up the self-esteem (or something like that) of their student body which claim to be such strong/independent women when women right across the street in any direction (see: CMC women, Pitzer women, Harvey Mudd women, Pomona women) compete on an equal plane as men, without these odd attempts at boosting their self-esteem.

Why can’t it be the genius of humanity? Why can’t we move towards an equal society, rather than having institutions such as Scripps try to place on sex above/below the other?
CMC

Aww, I was hoping for a well-placed criticism or satire of the Genius of Women slogan, which I always found to be a bit odd.

I was always unsure as to why Scripps needed to make a slogan like that, unless, of course, they presuppose that women are (or are viewed as) unequal. I’m never sure why Scripps has to constantly try to build up the self-esteem (or something like that) of their student body which claim to be such strong/independent women when women right across the street in any direction (see: CMC women, Pitzer women, Harvey Mudd women, Pomona women) compete on an equal plane as men, without these odd attempts at boosting their self-esteem.

Why can’t it be the genius of humanity? Why can’t we move towards an equal society, rather than having institutions such as Scripps try to place on sex above/below the other?
Nico

You obviously paid no attention to the inauguration of President Bettison-Varga or the ceremonies surrounding it other than the title. If you had bothered to look into the matter at all (literally , you could have visited Scripps website and learned this) you would know that the title was suppose to be slightly provocative to demonstrate how women in history have been marginalized and are rarely, if ever, granted the epithet “genius”. Furthermore Scripps has the unique distinction of being founded as a women’s college that encouraged students to learn in a way that they would actually be able to work alongside men across all industries (other women’s colleges, while older, were founded with narrower goals for their graduates).

There is nothing inherently masculine about any of the personality types you have listed. If historically men have been more “assertive [and] competitive” it is because women were limited by societal constraints. Even with extreme limits placed on them, numerous women throughout history have risen to positions of prominence despite having no traditioaln avenues to achieve success. I think of women like secular martyr Hypatia, regent Queen Catherine de Medici, Madame de Pompadour who was effectively France’s Prime Minister, scientist Rosalind Franklin etc. etc.

Yes, CMC was originally Claremont Men’s College and there are still some lingering clues of this but you have not in any way demonstrated that anything positive about our school belongs squarely in the Martian school of thought.

Come on, Nico

Seriously, did you not see the part of the article about “assaulted by every reflexive liberal within keystroke’s reach”?

Assertive and competative are both biologically masculine–as well as being historically reinforced. Due to a little thing called testosterone, men in fact do posess these qualities in far greater supply than women–hence they are masculine qualities.

Get out of your “heteronormative-free” bubble and welcome to the real world.

Cheers, CMC
Dubious

Catherine de Medici was born into insane money and was shipped off to France to get married to Henry II at age 14. I’d call that a “traditional avenue to achieve success.”

Nico

Well yes Catty was wealthy but she was expressly forbidden from being a head of state since she was a woman. Her ten-year-old son was deemed more fit than her by virtue of his penis. She, naturally, did not care for this at all so she had his advisors rounded up and executed replaced with her own retinue which solidified her power in the court.

She then maintained that power by employing a secret network of spies and assassins to keep her influence unmatched and unquestioned. When her first son died and the next oldest, Henry III came to power, this continued. Catherine used her daughter’s marriage as an excuse to execute thousands of unruly Protestants who threatened her family’s hegemony in France.

I suppose in the end Mrs. de Medici was not one of history’s more endearing, likable or noble characters but I think she easily classifies as a “competitive and assertive” figure none-the-less.

Really?

So what you’re saying is that she’s the exception that proves the rule.

Just because you can point to one woman in history who was competitive and assertive does not mean that those are feminine qualities.

Way to miss the forest for the trees, and to miss the whole point of the article
Nico

@ Really: You completely misunderstood my point. Catherine de Medici is just one example of the many, many women who throughout history have been denied a mainstream avenue to realize their competitive/assertive streak.

Men, on the other hand, would not restricted in the same way and hence have stronger representation in history. The fact that, despite multiple obstacles, many women still did demonstrate the aforementioned qualities would indicate that they are not exclusively masculine and Jesse’s vague hypothesis is flawed.

Nico

You obviously paid no attention to the inauguration of President Bettison-Varga or the ceremonies surrounding it other than the title. If you had bothered to look into the matter at all (literally , you could have visited Scripps website and learned this) you would know that the title was suppose to be slightly provocative to demonstrate how women in history have been marginalized and are rarely, if ever, granted the epithet “genius”. Furthermore Scripps has the unique distinction of being founded as a women’s college that encouraged students to learn in a way that they would actually be able to work alongside men across all industries (other women’s colleges, while older, were founded with narrower goals for their graduates).

There is nothing inherently masculine about any of the personality types you have listed. If historically men have been more “assertive [and] competitive” it is because women were limited by societal constraints. Even with extreme limits placed on them, numerous women throughout history have risen to positions of prominence despite having no traditioaln avenues to achieve success. I think of women like secular martyr Hypatia, regent Queen Catherine de Medici, Madame de Pompadour who was effectively France’s Prime Minister, scientist Rosalind Franklin etc. etc.

Yes, CMC was originally Claremont Men’s College and there are still some lingering clues of this but you have not in any way demonstrated that anything positive about our school belongs squarely in the Martian school of thought.

Come on, Nico

Seriously, did you not see the part of the article about “assaulted by every reflexive liberal within keystroke’s reach”?

Assertive and competative are both biologically masculine–as well as being historically reinforced. Due to a little thing called testosterone, men in fact do posess these qualities in far greater supply than women–hence they are masculine qualities.

Get out of your “heteronormative-free” bubble and welcome to the real world.

Cheers, CMC
Dubious

Catherine de Medici was born into insane money and was shipped off to France to get married to Henry II at age 14. I’d call that a “traditional avenue to achieve success.”

Nico

Well yes Catty was wealthy but she was expressly forbidden from being a head of state since she was a woman. Her ten-year-old son was deemed more fit than her by virtue of his penis. She, naturally, did not care for this at all so she had his advisors rounded up and executed replaced with her own retinue which solidified her power in the court.

She then maintained that power by employing a secret network of spies and assassins to keep her influence unmatched and unquestioned. When her first son died and the next oldest, Henry III came to power, this continued. Catherine used her daughter’s marriage as an excuse to execute thousands of unruly Protestants who threatened her family’s hegemony in France.

I suppose in the end Mrs. de Medici was not one of history’s more endearing, likable or noble characters but I think she easily classifies as a “competitive and assertive” figure none-the-less.

Really?

So what you’re saying is that she’s the exception that proves the rule.

Just because you can point to one woman in history who was competitive and assertive does not mean that those are feminine qualities.

Way to miss the forest for the trees, and to miss the whole point of the article
Nico

@ Really: You completely misunderstood my point. Catherine de Medici is just one example of the many, many women who throughout history have been denied a mainstream avenue to realize their competitive/assertive streak.

Men, on the other hand, would not restricted in the same way and hence have stronger representation in history. The fact that, despite multiple obstacles, many women still did demonstrate the aforementioned qualities would indicate that they are not exclusively masculine and Jesse’s vague hypothesis is flawed.

athena

reductive and poor.

scripps is a women’s college, which allows them the freedom, really, to say whatever they want under the guise of being an institution based on sex politics and some sort of “safe women’s space”. arguments about whether that is correct aside, claiming that CMC is some sort of boy’s club with masculine features that distinguishes it from scripps is only serving to reinforce differences that don’t belong in an enlightened institution. yes, features of cmc are manly, but isn’t there some level of pride that cmc women are allowed to have those characteristics without being the masculine-type student you paint students attracted to CMC as? i’d like to see all the manly features of CMC celebrated without constrasting it to the rather dubiously sex-centered identity quest at Scripps — I think we’re beyond it.
athena

reductive and poor.

scripps is a women’s college, which allows them the freedom, really, to say whatever they want under the guise of being an institution based on sex politics and some sort of “safe women’s space”. arguments about whether that is correct aside, claiming that CMC is some sort of boy’s club with masculine features that distinguishes it from scripps is only serving to reinforce differences that don’t belong in an enlightened institution. yes, features of cmc are manly, but isn’t there some level of pride that cmc women are allowed to have those characteristics without being the masculine-type student you paint students attracted to CMC as? i’d like to see all the manly features of CMC celebrated without constrasting it to the rather dubiously sex-centered identity quest at Scripps — I think we’re beyond it.
real CMC man

This all sounds very homoerotic.
real CMC man

This all sounds very homoerotic.
aisha

go athena!
aisha

go athena!
Nico

@Come on: Yes men do have more testosterone but to summarily declare “being competitive is masculine” is idiotic.

I do not live in a “heteronormative-free bubble” but I get tired of Scripps bashing. This article just makes us look foolish. Do you honestly think people at this school are really more competitive than they are at any other elite college?

My bigger issue with this whole post is that Jesse criticized something he did not bother to look into at all. To be honest, I thought “The Genius of Women” was a stupid name too until I heard the justification for it. I wasn’t completely brought around but it was an interesting issue they were addressing.

And as much as I was the reflexive liberal reaching for a keyboard, Jesse’s conservative knee-jerk reaction was just to criticize our ostensibly feminist neighbors.
Nico

@Come on: Yes men do have more testosterone but to summarily declare “being competitive is masculine” is idiotic.

I do not live in a “heteronormative-free bubble” but I get tired of Scripps bashing. This article just makes us look foolish. Do you honestly think people at this school are really more competitive than they are at any other elite college?

My bigger issue with this whole post is that Jesse criticized something he did not bother to look into at all. To be honest, I thought “The Genius of Women” was a stupid name too until I heard the justification for it. I wasn’t completely brought around but it was an interesting issue they were addressing.

And as much as I was the reflexive liberal reaching for a keyboard, Jesse’s conservative knee-jerk reaction was just to criticize our ostensibly feminist neighbors.
Larry Summers

Bell curves, my dear boy. Bell curves. That explains why women are so rarely geniuses and so rarely mentally incapable. At the lower ends of the distribution produce both your Einsteins and your Jack the Rippers.

I’d hazard that women are smarter than the average man, but that’s simply because of the skewing of the curves.

Anyways, what geniuses can Scripps lay credit to, after all? Its only congresswoman is likely to find herself out of work.
Larry Summers

Bell curves, my dear boy. Bell curves. That explains why women are so rarely geniuses and so rarely mentally incapable. At the lower ends of the distribution produce both your Einsteins and your Jack the Rippers.

I’d hazard that women are smarter than the average man, but that’s simply because of the skewing of the curves.

Anyways, what geniuses can Scripps lay credit to, after all? Its only congresswoman is likely to find herself out of work.
Lucia

So CMC’s culture may appear more “masculine”. What of it? You fail to make a powerful conclusion… All I see is a collection of (questionable) observations that anyone could make.

that’s the point

“All I see is a collection of (questionable) observations that anyone could make.”

Nobody else made them.

Amy Jasper

I did.

On November 1, 2009, on PitzerUncovered.com:
I mentioned here that I thought Claremont McKenna … has a male-dominated campus, by which I meant campus culture. A male CMC student disagrees (calling my opinion “a blatant lie”). I want to preface any discussion that may follow by saying I’m not an expert in feminism or even what male domination fully means. I’ll state also that I know that Claremont McKenna also enrolls some empowered women and some awesome dudes as well. Nor do I want to disparage the CMC faculty- in fact I’m enrolled in an excellent class on women and the law at CMC. And I think that the fact that the California Men’s Colony shares an acronym with CMC is just an unfortunate coincidence. And it wasn’t at CMC that the dumbass, notorious, yet short-lived Masculinist Coalition (which I won’t link to here) was formed. The comment I made at the time was based only on my personal impressions.

But here’s some evidence supporting my statement:

Until 1976 CMC was a men’s college.
CMC student publications routinely assume their readers are straight males.
Currently on CMCforum.com there are pictures of 9 men but only one woman.
By my count the Forum only has 2 female staff members compared to 12 male staff members.
CMC has had at least one exclusive all male social club.
And some anecdotal evidence:

Tuesday night’s Ath speaker Fareed Zakaria had to specifically ask for a woman to ask a question (and the woman who stood up to ask a question was a Pitzer College student).
Rumors of the freshman girl “draft” too tenuous to seriously cite here.
CMC’s urbandictionary.com definition.
And this blog post written on October 14th by a Claremont College student, shows that I’m not the only one out there with this impression:
The stereotype of “phallocentric” fraternities is enhanced by many comedy movies, and often what is said about these buildings is that they are hangouts for macho, homophobic boys who constantly binge drink and invite lots of girls to come partake in the festivities. Although the Claremont Colleges don’t have fraternities, Claremont McKenna College is considered by some students to be one big fraternity or the “jock” school. The party scene at CMC often tends to consist of male sexual predators and drunken females who might seem willing to engage in sexual activities due to their party attire or their difficulty in making clear decisions, but there are many stories about girls getting taken advantage of in this atmosphere.

One can definitely sense that females are often objectified in the male-dominated party scene by the way that couples dance, how the females feel obligated to dress to impress the men, and the ways in which a number of boys attempt to prey on drunken girls. Since group intimidation and alcohol-induced violence are common in Western society, it is unsurprising that these traits would begin to develop on college campuses.

So, I’m not saying that CMC men are all rapists and perverts. But yes, in my own mind, I think its campus social and academic culture are dominated by males.

What do you think?
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:TbmdTslJdO8J:pitzeruncovered.com/archives/1600+pitzer+uncovered+is+cmc+male+dominated&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Lucia

So CMC’s culture may appear more “masculine”. What of it? You fail to make a powerful conclusion… All I see is a collection of (questionable) observations that anyone could make.

that’s the point

“All I see is a collection of (questionable) observations that anyone could make.”

Nobody else made them.

Amy Jasper

I did.

On November 1, 2009, on PitzerUncovered.com:
I mentioned here that I thought Claremont McKenna … has a male-dominated campus, by which I meant campus culture. A male CMC student disagrees (calling my opinion “a blatant lie”). I want to preface any discussion that may follow by saying I’m not an expert in feminism or even what male domination fully means. I’ll state also that I know that Claremont McKenna also enrolls some empowered women and some awesome dudes as well. Nor do I want to disparage the CMC faculty- in fact I’m enrolled in an excellent class on women and the law at CMC. And I think that the fact that the California Men’s Colony shares an acronym with CMC is just an unfortunate coincidence. And it wasn’t at CMC that the dumbass, notorious, yet short-lived Masculinist Coalition (which I won’t link to here) was formed. The comment I made at the time was based only on my personal impressions.

But here’s some evidence supporting my statement:

Until 1976 CMC was a men’s college.
CMC student publications routinely assume their readers are straight males.
Currently on CMCforum.com there are pictures of 9 men but only one woman.
By my count the Forum only has 2 female staff members compared to 12 male staff members.
CMC has had at least one exclusive all male social club.
And some anecdotal evidence:

Tuesday night’s Ath speaker Fareed Zakaria had to specifically ask for a woman to ask a question (and the woman who stood up to ask a question was a Pitzer College student).
Rumors of the freshman girl “draft” too tenuous to seriously cite here.
CMC’s urbandictionary.com definition.
And this blog post written on October 14th by a Claremont College student, shows that I’m not the only one out there with this impression:
The stereotype of “phallocentric” fraternities is enhanced by many comedy movies, and often what is said about these buildings is that they are hangouts for macho, homophobic boys who constantly binge drink and invite lots of girls to come partake in the festivities. Although the Claremont Colleges don’t have fraternities, Claremont McKenna College is considered by some students to be one big fraternity or the “jock” school. The party scene at CMC often tends to consist of male sexual predators and drunken females who might seem willing to engage in sexual activities due to their party attire or their difficulty in making clear decisions, but there are many stories about girls getting taken advantage of in this atmosphere.

One can definitely sense that females are often objectified in the male-dominated party scene by the way that couples dance, how the females feel obligated to dress to impress the men, and the ways in which a number of boys attempt to prey on drunken girls. Since group intimidation and alcohol-induced violence are common in Western society, it is unsurprising that these traits would begin to develop on college campuses.

So, I’m not saying that CMC men are all rapists and perverts. But yes, in my own mind, I think its campus social and academic culture are dominated by males.

What do you think?
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:TbmdTslJdO8J:pitzeruncovered.com/archives/1600+pitzer+uncovered+is+cmc+male+dominated&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Champion

This article is retarded. It is true that CMC is one of the most male-dominated college cultures on the planet, but this article does not make a good argument pointing out how.

In my ventures outside of CMC, I have learned that the entire school has basically cultivated a frat boy brofest culture that only is part of most college’s culture, not the whole thing. I would posit that since frat boy culture tends to treat women as inferior, that is the biggest problem with CMC’s male, frat boy cultural domination. Whether openly acknowledged or not, women are devalued in college environment and culture that is like one giant frat. I think CMC is a much better college to mature and learn in as a man than as a woman. Plenty of frat boys end up being leaders of business and government, I’m not sure how many of the girls being treated shittily at frat parties do.

CMC

How do you suppose women are devalued in such a system? You provide no support for your assertions

Erin

Ways women are devalued in CMC culture:
Fewer of my straight female friends at CMC have boyfriends than at ANY OTHER SCHOOL I KNOW. Some of them have permanent hookup buddies, who refuse to date them because (and I’ve heard this from multiple people) “the football/ water polo/ whatever team will make fun of me if I actually ask a girl out.”

Circumstantial, observational evidence? Yup. But it’s just as valid as any of Jesse’s points.

bigchris1313

As long as we’re trotting out anecdotal evidence, I feel it is my duty to defend my cohort:

The 2008 Stag Football Senior Class had 9 members. 6 of them had girlfriends upon graduation. 2/3. Nearly 67%. That number still holds at the time of this writing. They didn’t seem to have much trouble asking out girls even though they were substantially mocked. I won’t claim that the 2008 Class is necessarily indicative of the program over time, but I know many players on the present team in each grade level who presently have girlfriends or who have in the recent past.

It’s not that guys aren’t made fun of for entering relationships–most guys are, athletes or otherwise–it’s that the mockery is in jest. There are reasons why males are loath to enter relationships–our biology chief among them–but I’m not going to buy that CMC athletes are avoiding relationships because their teammates will make fun of them. That reeks of an excuse. When I read that, I immediately assume that the student is either A) not that interested in the girl, or B) afraid of commitment, while passing it off as C) “my bros will make fun of me.”

The odds of former Football Stags entering serious relationships only increase in the years following graduation. From what anecdotal evidence I have, much of the 2005 and 2006 classes are in relationships (though I admit that the 2007s have always been a rakish group). When speaking to a 2006 teammate (and his girlfriend) over the weekend, he explained to me–almost in shock–that one of his former 2006 teammates was newly single. The reason for his shock is that so many of his former teammates are married.

Champion

This article is retarded. It is true that CMC is one of the most male-dominated college cultures on the planet, but this article does not make a good argument pointing out how.

In my ventures outside of CMC, I have learned that the entire school has basically cultivated a frat boy brofest culture that only is part of most college’s culture, not the whole thing. I would posit that since frat boy culture tends to treat women as inferior, that is the biggest problem with CMC’s male, frat boy cultural domination. Whether openly acknowledged or not, women are devalued in college environment and culture that is like one giant frat. I think CMC is a much better college to mature and learn in as a man than as a woman. Plenty of frat boys end up being leaders of business and government, I’m not sure how many of the girls being treated shittily at frat parties do.

CMC

How do you suppose women are devalued in such a system? You provide no support for your assertions

Erin

Ways women are devalued in CMC culture:
Fewer of my straight female friends at CMC have boyfriends than at ANY OTHER SCHOOL I KNOW. Some of them have permanent hookup buddies, who refuse to date them because (and I’ve heard this from multiple people) “the football/ water polo/ whatever team will make fun of me if I actually ask a girl out.”

Circumstantial, observational evidence? Yup. But it’s just as valid as any of Jesse’s points.

bigchris1313

As long as we’re trotting out anecdotal evidence, I feel it is my duty to defend my cohort:

The 2008 Stag Football Senior Class had 9 members. 6 of them had girlfriends upon graduation. 2/3. Nearly 67%. That number still holds at the time of this writing. They didn’t seem to have much trouble asking out girls even though they were substantially mocked. I won’t claim that the 2008 Class is necessarily indicative of the program over time, but I know many players on the present team in each grade level who presently have girlfriends or who have in the recent past.

It’s not that guys aren’t made fun of for entering relationships–most guys are, athletes or otherwise–it’s that the mockery is in jest. There are reasons why males are loath to enter relationships–our biology chief among them–but I’m not going to buy that CMC athletes are avoiding relationships because their teammates will make fun of them. That reeks of an excuse. When I read that, I immediately assume that the student is either A) not that interested in the girl, or B) afraid of commitment, while passing it off as C) “my bros will make fun of me.”

The odds of former Football Stags entering serious relationships only increase in the years following graduation. From what anecdotal evidence I have, much of the 2005 and 2006 classes are in relationships (though I admit that the 2007s have always been a rakish group). When speaking to a 2006 teammate (and his girlfriend) over the weekend, he explained to me–almost in shock–that one of his former 2006 teammates was newly single. The reason for his shock is that so many of his former teammates are married.

I’m gonna say it

CMC is, on average, a better place for men than it is for women.

I’m not going to support that statement with evidence because it’s just my opinion from my four years of observation, and I expect all the women at CMC to disagree with me with both anecdotal evidence and feigned outrage, but that’s how the comments section of the Forum goes…

If I were the average CMC girl I’d much prefer the over-sensitive, soft, artsy, “pretty” feel of a school like Pomona, Pitzer, or any other top liberal arts college to that of CMC.
I’m gonna say it

CMC is, on average, a better place for men than it is for women.

I’m not going to support that statement with evidence because it’s just my opinion from my four years of observation, and I expect all the women at CMC to disagree with me with both anecdotal evidence and feigned outrage, but that’s how the comments section of the Forum goes…

If I were the average CMC girl I’d much prefer the over-sensitive, soft, artsy, “pretty” feel of a school like Pomona, Pitzer, or any other top liberal arts college to that of CMC.
genius

I am a “CMC girl”, I love it here, I love the manly culture, and if I wanted the “over-sensitive, soft, artsy, “pretty” feel” of the other schools, I wouldn’t have gone here, would I?

I agree with you, Jesse, that this school has a masculine, broish culture. I don’t think any of the arguments you gave support that though.

First of all, women are just as likely to have competitive, type-A personalities. Assertiveness, I’ll give you.

Second, the fact that this school has a politics and economics focus has no relation whatsoever to it being masculine. Yes, those fields are “historic dominions of male domination”…. but so are ALL fields (ok, except maybe home economics). Historically, women couldn’t even vote, let alone participate in politics.

Third, you use our “work hard, play hard” mentality as evidence of our manliness. But really, I think that a love of learning and boozing has nothing to do with gender. We know how to learn and have a good time. I don’t think that is what makes us masculine. It just makes us great.
genius

I am a “CMC girl”, I love it here, I love the manly culture, and if I wanted the “over-sensitive, soft, artsy, “pretty” feel” of the other schools, I wouldn’t have gone here, would I?

I agree with you, Jesse, that this school has a masculine, broish culture. I don’t think any of the arguments you gave support that though.

First of all, women are just as likely to have competitive, type-A personalities. Assertiveness, I’ll give you.

Second, the fact that this school has a politics and economics focus has no relation whatsoever to it being masculine. Yes, those fields are “historic dominions of male domination”…. but so are ALL fields (ok, except maybe home economics). Historically, women couldn’t even vote, let alone participate in politics.

Third, you use our “work hard, play hard” mentality as evidence of our manliness. But really, I think that a love of learning and boozing has nothing to do with gender. We know how to learn and have a good time. I don’t think that is what makes us masculine. It just makes us great.
blueballs

jesse BLUmenthal is the bee’s knees

nico, i suggest you read Taking Sex Differences Seriously. Yes, I am all for women’s equality, and CMC is a great place, but the women who go here definitely more often than not possess traditionally masculine traits…and that’s not a bad thing! It clearly seems to be working for us.
blueballs

jesse BLUmenthal is the bee’s knees

nico, i suggest you read Taking Sex Differences Seriously. Yes, I am all for women’s equality, and CMC is a great place, but the women who go here definitely more often than not possess traditionally masculine traits…and that’s not a bad thing! It clearly seems to be working for us.
JCB

Oh Jesse, get over yourself. The fact that you even used the phrase “fairer sex” demonstrates you’re approaching this topic from an extremely androcentric point of view. I’m sure you’re very knowledgable about government and economics, but you clearly know nothing about anthropology, psychology, or biology. This article is based entirely on stereotypes and assumption; you don’t cite any research at all.

I’m not going to pretend men and women are the same, but to imply ambition and competitiveness are masculine traits is absurd. You’re mistaking ambition for aggression. Aggression manifests itself differently in men and women, but that doesn’t mean women are any less ambitious, meticulous, competitive, or Type A. Men are more likely to be physically aggressive; women rely on networks and cooperation to obtain power and status. Chimpanzees at the Gombe wildlife preserve have provided interesting examples of the biological basis of this.

Further, you can’t pass judgment on your “sister to north’s” argument because you didn’t even bother to look into what that argument is. As far as the “work hard, play hard” attitude at CMC, I get so tired of college kids touting that crap. If you really worked that hard, you wouldn’t be able to play that hard. One of the two is not happening, and in my experience, it’s the “play hard” that’s missing at CMC. That’s actually a good thing. It’s not a “masculine imperative” to be smart half the time and a drunk idiot half the time. That’s just what men (and more recently women) have been socialized to value.

Bottom line: there is nothing to indicate men are inherently more ambitious than women. I could launch into an explanation of the intellectual differences between the two sexes, but that wasn’t your point here. Women’s ambition has been stifled and suppressed for centuries — they’ve been able to vote in America for less than a century; how could they have a robust political track record? But there’s nothing to indicate that ambition wasn’t there.
JCB

Oh Jesse, get over yourself. The fact that you even used the phrase “fairer sex” demonstrates you’re approaching this topic from an extremely androcentric point of view. I’m sure you’re very knowledgable about government and economics, but you clearly know nothing about anthropology, psychology, or biology. This article is based entirely on stereotypes and assumption; you don’t cite any research at all.

I’m not going to pretend men and women are the same, but to imply ambition and competitiveness are masculine traits is absurd. You’re mistaking ambition for aggression. Aggression manifests itself differently in men and women, but that doesn’t mean women are any less ambitious, meticulous, competitive, or Type A. Men are more likely to be physically aggressive; women rely on networks and cooperation to obtain power and status. Chimpanzees at the Gombe wildlife preserve have provided interesting examples of the biological basis of this.

Further, you can’t pass judgment on your “sister to north’s” argument because you didn’t even bother to look into what that argument is. As far as the “work hard, play hard” attitude at CMC, I get so tired of college kids touting that crap. If you really worked that hard, you wouldn’t be able to play that hard. One of the two is not happening, and in my experience, it’s the “play hard” that’s missing at CMC. That’s actually a good thing. It’s not a “masculine imperative” to be smart half the time and a drunk idiot half the time. That’s just what men (and more recently women) have been socialized to value.

Bottom line: there is nothing to indicate men are inherently more ambitious than women. I could launch into an explanation of the intellectual differences between the two sexes, but that wasn’t your point here. Women’s ambition has been stifled and suppressed for centuries — they’ve been able to vote in America for less than a century; how could they have a robust political track record? But there’s nothing to indicate that ambition wasn’t there.
hmmm

CMCers get stuff done.

Why is that masculine?
hmmm

CMCers get stuff done.

Why is that masculine?

Photos
Videos
Activity
Tweets

Follow @cmcforum

The Genius of Men

More posts by Jesse Blumenthal »

Jesse Blumenthal