THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, July 7, 1996 TAG: 9607040095
SECTION: DAILY BREAK PAGE: E5 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY ANN G. SJOERDSMA
LENGTH: 92 lines
IT'S PRESENTED to me as a ``male quandary,'' one of those no-win situations that boys being boys get into with their women simply because they're being boys.
``Ann,'' says one of the b's-being-b's standing near my desk, hashing it out, sotto voce, with the other, ``this is what it's like in the male world.''
B-being-b No. 1's wife is going out of town, so No. 1, whom I'll call ``Felix,'' is headed for an all-night poker game. B-being-b No. 2, a k a ``Oscar,'' wants to make the poker scene real bad, but Oscar's wife has asked him a question that is interfering with his pleasure principle.
``Honey,'' she's sweetly inquired, ``would you rather have dinner with me tonight or go to the poker game?''
Oooooh. The ole Hobson's choice. Oscar has never heard of Hobson, but he's feeling his choice. Date the wife or bluff the boys. The hurt's on.
``Ann,'' Felix asks, ``what would you do?''
Men. So emotional.
``Dinner with your wife of umpteen years - ''
Oscar nods.
`` - or a poker all-nighter?''
Uh huh.
``It's a no-brainer, Oscar.
``You gotta play poker. I wish I could find an all-night or all-weekend bridge game somewhere.''
The front gate to the hallowed Virginia Military Institute creaked open at that moment. The b's-being-b's dropped their jaws.
Men. So predictable.
The day this ``odd couple'' serves up a ``male quandary'' that doesn't typecast women as uncomprehending of competition and its juices is the day the boys really bluff me.
Aggression, competition, ambition, toughness, naaah, that's not the ``feminine'' way. So think Felix and Oscar, representing perhaps a majority-male viewpoint.
But judging from editorial response to the Supreme Court's 7-1 decision in the VMI sex-discrimination case, some women have a fixed notion of ``womanhood'' that is not that dissimilar. For them, being a ``rat'' is not a woman's ``role.''
It's my law training, I suppose, but I've met quite a few tough, razor-sharp, competitive women, women who could beat a straight flush with a lousy pair of fours. ``Rats'' who rise to the challenge.
So when people asked me last week about the Supreme Court's decision striking down VMI's single-sex admission policy and Virginia's remedial ``separate-but-equal'' program for women, I answered them as I did Felix and Oscar: ``It's a no-brainer.''
Since 1970 - incidentally the year the venerable all-male University of Virginia finally admitted women - the Supreme Court has recognized the modern-day woman in its sex-based equal protection doctrine. Such a woman is allowed individual talents and capabilities, and not burdened with general ``tendencies'' such as Felix and Oscar may conjure.
And some women may display.
Consistently, the Court has disallowed the use of supposed inherent differences between men and women for the basis of discrimination by public institutions. Legitimate physical differences may justify sex classifications, but no more of that stereotypical ``women can't handle it'' bunk.
Interesting in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's opinion, which deals only with VMI's justifications for its male-only public-financed education, and not other single-sex programs, is her undisguised discrimination among women. This is a great leap forward for women, some of whom are - or can be - rats.
And some who'd be happy to deposit Oscar or Felix at the poker table.
VMI produces citizen-soldiers through an ``adversative'' method of education that involves physical rigor, mental stress, violation of privacy, and other unpleasantries. Most women wouldn't choose such indoctrination.
And Ginsburg acknowledges this.
But the women who would be attracted to VMI would not be ``average,'' she notes, going on to cite female lawyers, doctors, police officers and U.S. military who also bucked the male trend.
``Education . . . is not a one-size-fits-all business . . . '' writes Ginsburg. ``The question . . . is whether the State can constitutionally deny to women who have the will and capacity the training and attendant opportunity that VMI uniquely offers.''
So, what's the ``male quandary''?
Some women like candlelit dinners; and others would rather stack the chips. And still others can make men fold. MEMO: Ann G. Sjoerdsma is a lawyer and book editor of The
Virginian-Pilot. ILLUSTRATION: ASSOCIATED PRESS File photo
Interesting in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's opinion is her
undisguised discrimination AMONG women.
FILE photo \The Virginian-Pilot
An upperclassman urges rats to march faster and closer together
during Hell Week at VMI. by CNB