Pregnant Sorority Member

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

So, now I've seen it twice....

As long as you can no longer claim that you've never heard of it.

And I can't claim that I've never heard of "coed as a noun" being used in an offensive context or people being offended by it. That's despite the fact that people in my real life professional and personal encounters (feminists included) use "coed as a noun" for the reasons I discussed earlier, and also to discuss both men and women, without negative connotation.

/so let it be written, so let it be done

Originally Posted by Drolefille

But ok, if you insist.

Correct. The purpose and perceived utility behind uni-sex institutions is the same regardless of people's opinions of their religious or non-religious foundations; accreditation or non-accreditation; relevance; and size of student population.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

As long you can no longer claim that you've never heard of it.



Correct. The purpose behind the existence of these uni-sex institutions is the same regardless of people's opinions of their religious or non-religious; and accredited or non-accredited foundations.

(I still consider its use to describe male students to be so unusual as to be irrelevant)
Actually I disagree, I don't consider seminaries to be educationally equivalent to other schools and not at all comparable to say Loyola or Liberty University. Additionally, accreditation matters as evidenced by the school shutting down following loss of it's accreditation. And using them as an example of how men's education is still privileged misses the mark in my opinion.

[DrPhil]

And somehow there is still a reason they (were or) are uni-sex.

[Drolefille]

Uh, right, the sexism in the religion that reflects (and magnifies) the sexism in society where was this unacknowledged? And how does it relate to the use of the co-ed?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

And how does it relate to the use of the co-ed?

Uh...I was replying to naraht's post. You were replying to mine. This is all very straightforward if you're perplexed. LOL

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Uh...I was replying to naraht's post. You were replying to mine. This is all very straightforward if you're perplexed. LOL

Sorry, I'm relating it back to your original comment, your #3. I was as perplexed by the relevance then as I am now, not confused about the train of the converstion as a whole

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Sorry, I'm relating it back to your original comment, your #3. I was as perplexed by the relevance then as I am now, not confused about the train of the converstion as a whole

Long and already redundant story short: It is linked with #1 and #4.

All in all, the point to be made has already been made.