In this case, women deserve to be involved in an institution with the same standards as men, which is what Virginia Military Institute (VMI) has begun to explore. Rosen states that the government has decided to follow the VMI’s wishes and keep gender separate; this fete also caused the state to build a new institution for women, otherwise known as Virginia Women’s Institute of Leadership (VWIL) (par. 11). The problem with the Virginia Women’s Institute of Leadership is the fact that women are still not being treated equally. If there were grounds to separate men and women for same-sex interaction, then they should uphold an equal discipline system. Jeffrey Rosen, a legal commentator, explains that academies such as The Virginia Women’s Institute for Leadership are nowhere close to resembling the VMI. For example, students live in the college dorms, join classes with other Mary Baldwin College students, are not forced to have uniforms unless participating in Reserve Officers’ Training Corps, a training program, and are encouraged opposed to hard-pressed (par. 11). Rosen adds:
And Mary Baldwin suffers in comparison to VMI in other, more intractable ways: 100 points lower average SAT scores, lower faculty salaries, no engineering program for the B.S. degree, and so forth. All in all, the argument goes, Mary Baldwin is to VMI as Pine Manor (rather than Wellesley) is to Harvard. (par. 11)
The quote explains that Mary Baldwin is not on the same level as VMI and that men and women are in completely unequal institutions. If the government is going to propose an academy for women, then they need to keep both institutions equal and not give sympathy towards women.Why are women being treated differently? Many people assume that women’s introduction into the military will diminish men’s focus; the government created an institution just for women in order to solve the problem, but the academy turned to be unfair.
Of course, when the topic turns to inequality, most of those who oppose females in the military will claim that women are only treated differently because they diminish the reputations of academies due to their lack of physical labor. Someone who opposes women’s involvement in the military might say that females do not amount to the work that men put in and that they actually lower original standards. For example, most of all academies accept gender norming, which is the act of basing females’ ability on lower standards than that of male counterparts. Suzanne Fields, a columnist for The Washington Times, expresses, “A larger question is the significant one: Will women at VMI change the nature of the training? Unlike the other military academies, VMI officials say they won't allow ‘gender norming’ - diluting the physical and psychological exercises for women so that women can meet them” (par. 6). Fortunately, Fields states that the VMI claims they will not allow gender norming, but clearly VWIL has not carried out that idea (par. 6). This would mean that some academies lower standards for women. Overall, women are treated differently because opposers hold close to the idea that females destroy institutions’ reputations.
And Mary Baldwin suffers in comparison to VMI in other, more intractable ways: 100 points lower average SAT scores, lower faculty salaries, no engineering program for the B.S. degree, and so forth. All in all, the argument goes, Mary Baldwin is to VMI as Pine Manor (rather than Wellesley) is to Harvard. (par. 11)
The quote explains that Mary Baldwin is not on the same level as VMI and that men and women are in completely unequal institutions. If the government is going to propose an academy for women, then they need to keep both institutions equal and not give sympathy towards women.Why are women being treated differently? Many people assume that women’s introduction into the military will diminish men’s focus; the government created an institution just for women in order to solve the problem, but the academy turned to be unfair.
Of course, when the topic turns to inequality, most of those who oppose females in the military will claim that women are only treated differently because they diminish the reputations of academies due to their lack of physical labor. Someone who opposes women’s involvement in the military might say that females do not amount to the work that men put in and that they actually lower original standards. For example, most of all academies accept gender norming, which is the act of basing females’ ability on lower standards than that of male counterparts. Suzanne Fields, a columnist for The Washington Times, expresses, “A larger question is the significant one: Will women at VMI change the nature of the training? Unlike the other military academies, VMI officials say they won't allow ‘gender norming’ - diluting the physical and psychological exercises for women so that women can meet them” (par. 6). Fortunately, Fields states that the VMI claims they will not allow gender norming, but clearly VWIL has not carried out that idea (par. 6). This would mean that some academies lower standards for women. Overall, women are treated differently because opposers hold close to the idea that females destroy institutions’ reputations.