By Marta Karpovich ’25
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, an 18th-century philosopher, proposed that the world was divided into two spheres. The public sphere of state and commerce was inhabited by men, while the private sphere of family and domesticity was inhabited by women. The boundaries of these social realms could not be broken, nor did they allow for any exceptions. Practically speaking, Rousseau argued that the coexistence of men and women was impossible given their disparate values and social goals.
Rousseau’s sexist theory is not only widely discredited in contemporary thought but continues to be directly challenged by the advancement of women in politics and the workplace. The division of educational environments into solely male or female demographics, however, seems to reflect Rousseau’s initial conclusion on the impossibility of multi-sex coexistence. Within the context of open-minded modern thinking, single-sex education raises an array of questions regarding the reinforcement of or fierce challenge to traditional stereotypes, male and female interactions, and the ability of young students to carry a separate-sphere upbringing into a joint-sphere society. Is single-sex education a threat to the diversification of gender roles, or an effective practice of harnessing individual identities that will bolster the confidence needed to challenge them?
…
The foundation of singularly female education is rooted in a passion for feminism. Academic values at all-girls’ schools are centered around the power of women to make a difference in society and find success equal to, or greater than, that of their male counterparts. For some, an all-girls’ school is the first time these messages are sent to them. Nicole, SPSG Class of 1991, said that “attending an all-girls school for high school was my first exposure to feminism. I remember Mrs. King’s ‘herstory’ office and Mrs. Lohr exhorting us to take risks and be the best we could be because as women we could do anything.” After attending Catholic school for the first 14 years of her life, this alumna found positive female role models in her teachers at SPSG, who encouraged her to embrace her feminine identity for the first time. Although the abilities of young girls are often undervalued, SPSG cultivates an environment in which women are seen and heard as soon as they walk into the building.
Free from the male gaze, female students are more likely to feel secure in their intellectual ability and willing to make mistakes in a safe, supportive environment. They are given more freedom to find their voice and develop confidence in their female identity. Feeling understood and comfortable in the classroom allows young students to focus on their own educational growth, rather than the pressure to prove themselves to male classmates. When asked about her experience at a girls’ school compared to previous roles in co-ed environments, a teacher at SPSG (who wishes to remain anonymous and therefore will be referred to as Mrs. Smith) remarked that the community “creates a safer space, which gives students permission to make mistakes — which is paramount to the learning process.”
Contrastingly, this ongoing challenge to traditional gender stereotypes seems to be lacking in male-only educational environments. The pressure to uphold a perfectly crafted model of masculinity is commonly forced upon male students through messaging, values and discipline that reinforce traditional expectations of young men. The “St. Paul’s Gentleman” is supposedly held to the highest standards of respect and integrity, while simultaneously encouraged to embrace a hyperbolized masculinity that emphasizes athletic achievement and sports culture. The synthesis of these disparate behavioral expectations renders the title of “St. Paul’s Gentleman” futile.
“I feel like the messages that are given to boys are still more traditional and classic, right? So, it’s still like ‘to be a man, this is how you need to present yourself. This is what you need to wear,” said Mrs. Smith. This observation was corroborated by an upperclassman at SP, who has attended the school since fifth grade and, in the protection of anonymity, will be called Adam. “Values emphasized are just the generally masculine values,” he said. The reluctance to explore identities beyond those that adhere solely to male stereotypes has sustained Rousseau’s concept of the separate male sphere at SP.
The disparity in how girls and boys are treated on campus is apparent to SPSG students too. An SPSG junior, who will be referred to as Jane, commented, “Discipline is not equal. The boys’ school tends to have a ‘boys will be boys’ mentality and the students appear to me to get away with a lot of things because the idea that it is too difficult to change the boys’ behavior is prevalent.” From her understanding, disciplinary action is prescribed to girls at SPSG much faster and for much milder infractions than for boys at SP, despite the schools’ unification as One St. Paul’s.
Not only do the systems themselves promote very different ideas about male-female dynamics, but students have also adopted beliefs about the opposite demographic that influence their learning experience. Without exposure to consistent education alongside females, boys at St. Paul’s “generally talk about girls implying that they’re either very stupid or unintelligent,” said Adam. This outlook impedes positive learning environments in joint classes such as languages or electives, limiting the academic flow of discussion in the classroom as male students place harsh judgements on their female counterparts.
The opinion of male students in their classes weighs heavily on female students at SPSG. Jane, who is enrolled in two co-ed classes at SP, disclosed, “I’m so worried that if I mess up, I’ll be reduced to my gender. They’ll see me as just a stupid girl because I know it will not just be ‘she’s stupid’, but it will be ‘she’s a stupid girl.’” Whether or not these ingrained beliefs are a direct result of limited exposure to co-education, stereotypes cannot be broken when the few chances to experiment with them are heavily tainted by girls’ fear. The cautious, limited input of female students who are wary that they will be thought of as unintelligent only reinforces male thinking that they truly have nothing influential to say.
The lack of connection between male and female students in the classroom is further exacerbated by their limited exposure to co-ed environments. As Jane said, “Although I truly believe that the boys mean no harm and do not want to make me uncomfortable, they are just as unsure how to interact with me as I am with them, and because of that uncertainty they almost do not know how to treat me like a person. I am something else, something other. I will never be fully a part of their class.” Without the consistent practice of working with members of the opposite sex, connections between classmates are severed, creating a tense atmosphere. Some classes become so divided that the classroom is reminiscent of a middle school dance. Boys on one side. Girls on the other. Neither party sure how to meet in the middle.
Social consequences can be even more drastic outside of the classroom. Rare interactions between male and female students pose higher stakes when most of their days are spent in “separate spheres.” The merging of these spheres becomes a target of unsolicited inquiry and speculation. “Because we are so separated, there is a hyper-sexualization of our interactions in a way. So, whenever I speak with a guy from the boys’ school it is assumed it must be with romantic intent and not platonically. So, very rarely do I have a genuine boy friend from SP because it is typically assumed that any interaction is romantic and my intention may be misconstrued,” Jane stated. Adam, a junior, remarked that he has “less friends of the opposite gender” because of his single-sex education. The dynamics described by both parties drastically minimizes opportunities to build healthy relationships with the opposite sex, a skill that students will need in their futures.
The limited success of male-female interactions can also inhibit the ability of students to build healthy, balanced romantic relationships. As Nicole (’91) reflected, “I feel that I was not prepared to handle romantic relationships with men. I wish that there had been a program similar to the OneLove program [a relationship safety program] that discussed healthy relationships and what emotional abuse within a relationship looks like.” While the OneLove program at SPSG has expanded since 1991, it is only allowed one day of educational programming per year and the scope of the club is wildly limited. More is required to make up for the lack of variety in students’ relationships with the opposite sex, which can create warped views of what healthy dynamics look like. The added pressure of interacting with the opposite sex can thwart a clear understanding of how to handle various types of relationships, sending students into the world without the skills to recognize unhealthy relationships in their future.
High school is only four years of a student’s life. Eventually, the bubble will burst, and neither males nor females will have the security of operating in different environments. While there is much time to develop necessary skills to do so, the ability to thrive in a shared sphere with the opposite sex is most often a learning curve for students who were brought up in single-sex environments. The inevitable merging of the sexes can weigh heavily on some students, creating anxiety about the future. Jane, who has attended St. Paul’s since kindergarten, expressed such anxiety, saying, “I have grown incapable of being confident in a male dominated space. I have no clue how to navigate it because I have never had to. My confidence with men has been un-nurtured because I have never had to use it.” While some students can easily adjust and adapt to new dynamics, other students may find themselves lost and unsure how to manage relationships or work environments with the opposite sex.
Whether or not their acclimation is successful, a female student’s idea of ubiquitous feminism is most often disillusioned when forced into a world dominated by men. Nicole (’91), who has been in various career fields, said, “I feel that in a professional setting I was able to maintain my sense of self, but I also feel that I had to face misogyny and prejudice in work settings that I didn’t have to face in academic settings. It was very disappointing to feel I had worked so hard to become who I was and there were men who would treat me differently simply because I was a woman.” Although a single-sex education allowed her to develop both a strong voice and firm confidence in her abilities, the societal realities awaiting her posed greater challenges in how to be a female in a man’s world than she was raised to believe. She was blindly forced out of a realm where a woman can easily assert dominance in any room she wishes. Naturally, this was a disheartening realization.
Every academic institution is different, and individual preparedness for the real world varies by student. It is inevitable, however, that an upbringing in a separate sphere from the opposite sex does not reflect our continually expanding single-sphered society.
“Realistically speaking, not everything will be a sisterhood and I will need to know how to be myself without that sisterhood comfort,” Jane, beginning to think about life after high school, stated. To help students like her prepare for their futures, it is essential to qualify the benefits of the single-sex model with the recognition that it does not reflect reality outside of high school.
Leave a Reply