Mental Basement

by Arjun Sharma

Anyone who went through school in the United States has learned American history over and over again. I first remember learning about Christopher Columbus in the 1st grade to learn about why we get Columbus day off, followed by a lesson about the Pilgrims to understand Thanksgiving. Slowly, my knowledge was expanded- the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, WWI and II, the Industrial Revolution, the colonies and their early settlements, etc etc. I’ll admit that there are still parts of our history I never really memorized and continue to only know of them by name- the French and Indian War, the War of 1812, etc. I know they happened, but I don’t really know the details.

The worst part of all these classes I took is that none of them properly covered the period of time from the late 60’s through the present, except for the developments in the Civil Rights movement. Considering that a large number of people around now grew up between the 60s and the 80s, I know very little about the affairs, scandals, controversies, fads, trends, attitudes, etc of those times. The only things my generation really hears about are Watergate, Iran-Contra, and (maybe) the stock market crash of the late 80s.

That’s why my undertaking of reading the entire Doonesbury catalog from 1970 through the present has been infinitely more educational than I could ever have imagined. Whether it’s the strip’s frank way of dealing with issues ranging from drugs to race to religion, or the multi-faceted characters that all represent a little piece of us in one way or another (although the strip is admittedly liberal leaning), I’ve learned more about the history of the past 30 years than any textbook or class has ever taught me. Sure, a history textbook can tell you the facts about the protests at home and battles abroad during Vietnam, but reading the running commentary that Trudeau provided through Doonesbury taught me what was going on as those events were taking place; it’s history that was written concurrently with events, rather than with 20/20 hindsight.

The Doonesbury collection from the start until 1995 can be purchased, but there are many other ways to find the entire collection, which go until the present.

Here are a few examples of Gary Trudeau’s humor and political insight. Click to enlarge:

by Nat Lavin

This is a thought that has bothered me for a few years now.  I knew a few girls going off to all-girls colleges so I asked “why?”. Their reasons, I found to be weak and sexist.

I completely agree, that at the times of the foundings of the vast majority of these schools, they were probably completely necessary. Women deserve the same education men do, and these all women’s colleges were the only way to go about that. the seven sisters exist in contrast to the eight ivy schools.  I guess what I’m trying to say is, I understand why these schools were founded, and understand that in certain circumstances, something like these single-sex college might be necessary.

What bothers me most about these colleges is that they seem to go entirely against my believe that women and men are equal. In my classrooms in high school and college, women have had just as vocal a presence as men. women have dominated certain class room conversations just as much as men. Women in these classes are just a smart, capable, and driven as men. There is not a doubt in my mind that these women can “compete” with men in the classroom. (I put “compete” in quotes because i fully disagree with the idea that the classroom is a place for any form of competition). If one accepts that men and women are equal, which I do, that leaves women’s reasons for going to an all women’s college to these two reasons:

1) They are female chauvinists who feel they are better than men, and need to be freed from men in order to excel (ie: A class can only move as fast as its slowest members, so get rid of the slowest members (men).

2) Women find themselves to be inferior. either too quiet, too meek, too insecure (my guess is that in these cases, its mostly women being too insecure) to compete with men in a classroom setting.

I’m friends with a lot of girls. I would go so far as to say the two girls I’m closest to here in college are basically superior to me in every way. They are both on honor roll, they are both drop-dead gorgeous (at least one of them has modeled in the past), and they are both D1 athletes who recently won conference and are now seeded 16th in their NCAA tournament.  I don’t think a single girl I’m friends with is incapable of competing with men.

I have asked a few friends who attend all women’s colleges how they rationalize the decision and no one has ever been able to fully articulate it to me in a manner that has me convinced they made the best choice for their education, except when she replies something to the tune of “because it was the best college I could attend.”. Without a doubt, anyone, man or woman, should get the best education they can. Don’t these all women’s colleges  create some sort of unfair advantage for women? at that point, doesn’t the concept of the all female college become femme-chauvanist?

I attend Tulane University, which up until Katrina had “Newcomb College” as a part of it. Newcomb College was the all women’s college that shared a campus with Tulane. Now Newcomb is just the liberal arts college. I remember asking an older feminist woman what she thought of Newcomb college no longer being an all-women’s college. she said it was “A Shame” and that “It Destroyed a lot of leadership opportunities for Women”. That answer bothered me deeply. I think it bothered me because i disagreed with her notion that just because there were now fewer leadership positions that could be filled by only women. I feel that women are just as capable at holding  a leadership office and competing for that office as men, especially in modern society, on a place as liberal as a college campus. I guess in interpret her notion that this destroyed opportunities as women as a subtle way of saying “i find women to be incapable of competition for these positions”. i disagree with her categorically.

Let me conclude by saying i have one clear exception to my idea that only sexists attend all women’s colleges: lesbians. I know, that sounds funny, but I’m not joking.  Never in her life will a young, lesbian woman have an opportunity to live somewhere that open and accepting of her lifestyle. So free of judgment and ample with possibilities.

Women going to an all girls college tells me that the women who chose to do so are either:

a) Bitter, cold, women who hates men and is stuck in some bizarre mentality (that was probably accurate a few decades ago) that men are holding them down.

b) Insecure girls, who in all probability will get completely steamrolled in a classroom because they are so timid.  They will be overshadowed in a class regardless of the gender of their peers because they have self esteem issues on which they need to work.

c) Lesbians. is an amazing environment for them. I can say that the two girls im closest with who attend all women’s colleges both prefer the company of women (or at least, enjoy it the same as they enjoy the company of men). The world is harsh towards homosexuality. Its sad, but its true. These environments provide a safe-haven for these girls while they explore and find themselves. I know this may sound sarcastic, but i mean it in the most sincere of ways.

I feel the vast majority of women attending an all womens college either believe men are inferior, or believe that they themselves are inferior to men. You can not believe in equality between the sexes, yet believe that youre getting a better education by removing yourself from the male population. “colleges for young women” are an outdated and sexist institution.