Editor’s Note: This is in response to Mary Stanfield’s column “Genderblind housing must be an option” which ran Aug. 30.
Last Monday’s column for dual-gender housing by Mary Stanfield may be reduced to four main points: we are mature adults, dual-gender housing will provide valuable life experience, we behave better because we tailor our conduct around the opposite sex and we must protect those who cannot handle the harsh realities of living with members of the same gender.
The first claim is extraordinarily suspect. She says that putting men and women closer together, even sleeping in the same room — particularly men and women who deliberately choose this option of living — will have insignificant consequences.
However, a Military Medicine report contradicts her claim.
The study reports that women in the U.S. Navy have about as many pregnancies as civilians — 60 percent of them unplanned (82 percent among single women), even though barely a majority of those who had children said that it was “compatible with a military career.”
If we see a lot of unexpected, inconvenient babies in a group subject to strong discipline with an average age of 25, we can’t expect things to go swimmingly in a hall of newly-liberated 18-year-olds, who, as car insurance ads often remind us, don’t quite have all their brains yet, particularly the parts that deal with risk.
Next, she would have us think that we will become more socially adjusted and learn to navigate “life outside the academic bubble,” because, out there, you can find yourself living in a small room with someone of the opposite sex whom you have never seen before.
We all know this is important because of the innumerable nervous breakdowns we keep hearing of among recent college graduates when they find out that the person in the next apartment is not of the same sex.
This also will, as evinced by some mysterious “personal experience” of Stanfield’s, mitigate unnamed problems seen in single-sex housing.
As she offers no further explanation, her argument is irrefutable.
She then contradicts her previous assertions by lamenting the plight of those who don’t like to live with their own sex.
If they are mature adults as she says, they should be able to deal with it, and it is surely a realistic preparation for situations later in life.
For anyone who legitimately has a problem, her claim about private rooms being “prohibitively expensive” is bogus, or at least very exaggerated.
The Housing and Food Services website tells us that a room for a single person in the towers is about 32 percent more, or, in Cate, 25 percent more.
And if you can’t afford that, you perhaps shouldn’t be overpaying for a convenient location and an extravagant meal plan in the first place, so this is only a big issue to poor freshmen who can’t argue their way out.
Having seen her arguments in favor, let us now entertain two considerations about why we should be wary of further liberalization.
For one thing, traditional mores have an uncanny tendency to be right, or at least to have some element of truth. Just look the nearly universal taboos against incest, or at the American Indians, who somehow knew to process their corn into hominy, thus avoiding the vitamin deficiencies that tortured Southerners for generations.
Thus, whenever a significant portion of the population is strongly opposed to an innovation, there must be thought and care — preferably in the form of some rigorous studies — and not arrogant dismissals of “ridiculous Puritan fears.”
Especially in light of a little thing by Brian J. Willoughby published last year in the Journal of American College Health, which tells us that those in co-ed dorms are tremendously more likely to drink heavily and be promiscuous, and that this appears to be more than just party people going to the party dorm.
Then, of course, there is the fact that Oklahoma is against it. Stanfield thinks this is totally irrelevant.
Oklahoma taxpayers, however, give us a bit of money, so we ought to have some respect for their opinions, and remember that they have a nasty habit of cutting funding.
As a result, making things a little easier on a few homosexual students could have a big impact on everybody, including those same students.
You know, this is Oklahoma.
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
swiggy3000 1 year, 8 months ago
I'm not seeing the issue...if two people want to live together and they happen to be of the other gender then who cares?
It's their call and adding about one co-ed floor per dorm would probably work fine. Even half a floor.
soonerboomers 1 year, 8 months ago
I suppose if the majority of Oklahoma taxpayers wished to segregate the campus, we should respect that too. The reality is that this is a minority rights issue. A minority is asking for another housing option because they feel the current ones are inadequate for their needs. That the majority may not wish to provide this budget-neutral, non-intrusive, optional, aka no rational or logical reason to oppose it, housing choice, should make no difference.
DylanC94 1 year, 8 months ago
This is the second Gerard Kieser "let's be safe and consider the status quo" column. I can only imagine what the third one will be about. Can this kid have an original thought? I feel like I'm reading some regurgitated crap from Rush Limbaugh that some desperate Oklahoma housewife decided to use as her own point of view at afternoon tea with the other gals from church. I feel like I'm once again listening to the radio idiot John Tesh. You can chose your arguments, but you can't chose the facts. You don't sign up for this expecting to get laid. GLBT students are on board with this and people who support them are also ready for this. Please look up the definition of homosexual before you say putting a gay man in a room with a straight woman will result in pregnancy. Also, please look up what the actual proposal on this campus is. The proposal says you can check a box on your housing contract if you don't care about the gender and sexual orientation of your roommate. You don't get to choose who you are being with you just know your housing assignment is gender neutral. As for the cost issue, no student on this campus should be considered too poor to be comfortable and safe on government property, let alone, in life itself. If you come down on hard times, will I take a dump on your box-of-a-home and say you're too poor to have basic rights? No. When it comes to the "let's bow down to the legislature because they may cut funding", (1) Housing and Food is its own sustainable entity on this campus practically separate from OU's general operations budget and (2) the legislature actually values higher education in this state as a catalyst for future economic growth. The Republicans that will have power next spring brag about OU and OSU every chance they get and have been faithful at directing funds to all higher ed institutions at every opportunity. Just because Sally Kern has a big mouth doesn't mean she speaks for everyone up at the capitol. You know nothing about higher education funding in this state.
Keiser 1 year, 8 months ago
Mr. DylanC94:
Yours always,
Gerard Keiser
glennmark 1 year, 8 months ago
I have posted this already here before You guys should stop complaining because, one the health care we have now isnt as good as it was supposed to be. also the law has just been signed so give it some time. so if u want to say u have the right to choose tell that to ur congress men or state official. If you do not have insurance and need one You can find full medical coverage at the lowest price by calling 877-882-4740 or check http://bit.ly/9fDY7U If you have health insurance and do not care about cost just be happy about it and believe me you are not going to loose anything!
cheapnihilist 1 year, 8 months ago
"so this is only a big issue to poor freshmen who can’t argue their way out."
Yeah. And who cares about poor people.
"If we see a lot of unexpected, inconvenient babies in a group subject to strong discipline with an average age of 25, we can’t expect things to go swimmingly in a hall of newly-liberated 18-year-olds,"
Maybe those statistics are explained by the fact that people who join the military are dumb.
Anyway, let's maintain a housing situation that is more likely to lead to sexual assault because Amerindians ate hominy!
Don't arrogantly dismiss issues and concerns you obviously have little to no personal experience with. Especially based on some baseless affinity for the status quo.
toastergirl 1 year, 8 months ago
I am a freshman and I strongly agree with this article. If people want to live co-ed, do so off campus.
sarawithnoh 1 year, 8 months ago
While I do happen to disagree with many of the opinions your express in this article, Gerard (Mr. Keiser?), and I personally dislike slippery-slope arguments, what really bothers me about this article is not the opinions themselves but the tone with which you express them.
It's my feeling that sarcasm and condescension do little to advance your views, unless you are writing exclusively for an audience of those who already agree with you. I know lots of other Daily writers (not to mention TV pundits) do this but you seem intelligent and I think you could do better, which is what made me decide to leave a comment. Personally, I would like to see more conflicting opinion columns in the Daily that maintain a civil, mature, diplomatic tone, but all too often they turn contentious and dismissive.
If we can't express thoughts and arguments in a rational way how can there ever be any progress or compromise? I get more out of reading thoughts I disagree with when they are expressed civilly. I wonder if others might feel the same way.
-Sara Vaughan
mythman 1 year, 8 months ago
It's strange how conservatives complain about those liberals telling everybody what to do, but then turn around and tell everybody what to do.
soonerboomers 1 year, 8 months ago
toastergirl, you are required by state regent rules to live on campus as a freshman. You can't go off campus then to pursue co-ed housing.
b00mer 1 year, 8 months ago
Gerard, you rock!!!!!
TheJR 1 year, 8 months ago
I lived off campus my freshman year. I'm sure if you filled out a request to live off campus and mentioned lack of co-ed housing as the reason, they'd grant it.
DrFuego 1 year, 8 months ago
Are you seriously trying to equate pregnancies in the Navy with irresponsibility? Of 25-year-olds, no less?
You realize it is perfectly normal for 25-year-old women to have babies, right?
Furthermore, the various departments of the US armed services are far from the only employers that have disincentives for their female employees to have children. Should we condemn all 25-year-old employed women who take time out to have children?
Way to make a completely 1950s argument.
Jwer 1 year, 8 months ago
Speaking as a student who, as a freshman, got "FAG" written on his door, I'm a little biased. Be that as it may, I think it's safe to say you're missing the entire point of gender-neutral housing. Personally, I think that the fact that this is Oklahoma and that there's this mentality of "This is Oklahoma we don't do That here." is more a reason to increase the efforts of including a gender blind housing option. We've got co-ed housing now. I have several friends that live on it, and it seems to be going swimmingly from what I've heard. The biggest reason that I can think of to include a gender neutral option for students is this:
Do you want to live on a quiet floor? There's a question for that. Do you want to live on a floor that is full of people who don't drink? There's a question for that. Do you want to live on a floor with people who are ok with your sexuality, gender identity, and/or gender expression? Good luck! Hope it works out for you. I hope that this being Oklahoma doesn't cause any problems for you. I hope that OUR ways work out because we're not willing to accommodate you. Not even willing to consider it because "this is Oklahoma. We don't do That here." I'm pretty sure it's time to stop with that.
Don't get me wrong, we've been better. I didn't see the housing application for this year but I know that there had to be some question about something in order to place people onto the co-ed floor. Some of us are trying. Some of us are pushing against it. Such is life. Oh well, this is Oklahoma. Some of us just have to hold on and hope that somewhere down the line that will mean something different. I long for a day when "This is Oklahoma, we don't do That here" means we don't discriminate, we don't demonize things that are different, we don't send people like Sally Kern to represent our state.
This is Oklahoma, and I live here, too.
RaveClay 1 year, 8 months ago
I would like to say that I was amazed by the lack of "good writing" found in this article, especially noting that it was in the Editor's Notes, but let's face it, I'm not.
There was very little actual research done to refute your own columnist's article. I would be surprised if little more than a skim of a weak google search was done. Comparing military to dorm life is ridiculous. If you had taken the time to speak with any of our active duty members of the armed services, or perhaps even some who are no longer active as an attempt at some research this may have been a completely different article. It wouldn't have taken much, just a walk down to the ROTC buildings and the asking of a few questions. Perhaps you should consider this next time. What you might ask... I don't know... do some research, be a RESPONSIBLE journalist. But what am I saying, and more importantly, why am I bothering?
I don't know where to begin. You attack poor students. Freshmen are required to live on campus. I do not know, nor do I wish to know about your financial circumstances, but 25-32% is quite a bit of money, regardless of who you are.
You attacked your writing staff. However, all the shortcomings you listed in reference to her article were all things that as an Editor, should have been caught and dealt with accordingly in a time appropriate manner (ie before the publishing of the article).
But mostly, I find it absolutely absurd that you attribute the entire movement for gender-blind housing for the sole comfort of "a few homosexual" students. To say that was bigoted and close-minded does not begin to touch on the real issues that I hope some day you will be forced to face.
Yes, Oklahoma tax payers are against this. I am an Oklahoma tax payer, but I am also a contributor to the University of Oklahoma. Do you know what I find offensive? The lack of professionalism to be found anywhere in the Oklahoma Daily, to say nothing for the utter lack of regard, skill, ethical practice, or sense of understanding in regards to responsible journalism. According to your theory, because I am a contributor, I should have an important say about whether or not the entire OU Daily staff is disbanded until people with any sense of, yes I'll say it again, RESPONSIBLE JOURNALISM can be found. And frankly, yes I am one voice. However, I would guarantee that there are hundreds if not thousands of contributors to OU that do not feel the same.
I do not take issue with your opinion, I take issue with your horrible sordid approach.
wiggin 1 year, 8 months ago
this article is a complete joke