WELL, speaking as a female in my last year of Catholic high school, I say I agree and disagree.
YES, segregated classes do work in some cases, such as gym class, where there’s the health unit, which contains sex ed. My girls-only sex ed was filled with a lot less giggles than my grade school coed classes (but really… it’s grade school). It also probably helped with girls being more confident in their abilities, as compared to the (probably) more physically fit guys. I will say though, we were probably as or more rowdy than the guys’ gym classes (it’s true!). Not to mention these segregated classes are only for the junior students; senior phys ed classes are coed, and function perfectly well like that.
That being said, DO NOT segregate public schools. I know Catholic schools are considered private by the Ontario government, and also receive more funding than public schools, thus perhaps creating a possibly for single-sex schools, but it would not be worth it. What many comments seem to be saying is that girls and boys are distracted by physical attraction to each other too much – isn’t that true throughout life? As long as a person possesses hormones and eyeballs (it’s difficult to gauge looks without sight), men and women will notice attractive people of the same sex, and be inclined to spend some time thinking about them. Also, what of the diversity of ideas and viewpoints? Both genders can bring valuable insight on various topics; for example, during a debate in my senior religion course, we were asked if pornography should have limits on its content (yes… it’s not a strictly traditional Catholic school). Myself and my two female friends sided with *every single guy in the class* that of course it should restrictions.The rest of the girls in the class said it should pretty much be a free-for-all. If the guys had had a single-sex debate on this, it wouldn’t have happened. And as for the idea that feminists thought up the “sit down and behave” teaching approach… like another commentor, men started this first. Don’t even try to throw this wool over our eyes – know your history, don’t make your own version up.
We’ve already debated in-class, numerous times, on this subject before. The world is not segregated by sex; therefore the institutions that are meant to prepare us for it should not either.
I’d just like to mention that I appreciate this blog, as we are sorely lacking in men in this day and age (there’s only boys that are available… I want young men! ;]). Not only that, but a lot the posts are interesting, valuable, and for those that couldn’t ever possibly apply to me (men’s fashion, anyone?) are intriguing and amusing on their own. However, by many of the comments on this site, those that are reading AoM should be, as they clearly have skewed perspectives unfitting of men.

Now.. @Oracle, you, sir, are an idiot. Way to try to draw an automatic “REPEL” response from us – equate strong people who want to equalize rights to soldiers who followed an insane doctrine and committed mass genocide upon a race, their culture, and all others who opposed them. This makes sense, I suppose, to you. Also, on the topic of women wearing pants in formal situations? Women don’t simply dress for others; they dress for themselves, in what suits their personal preferences and comfort levels. I believe this is also in several of the blog posts on men’s style here. Besides, Bill seems to like Hillary just fine, whether or not she wears pantsuits.:] My lesbian friend feels more vulnerable in dresses rather than pants – skirts hold no “natural power” for her. And wouldn’t the female form be women’s true “natural power”, as clothing is a man-made invention? More girls wear the uniform pants rather than the nasty uniforms skorts that are required at our school, and our female principal wears pants on daily basis. I’d like to announce that we’re all functioning perfectly well, thank you very much.:]
To every one else… keep it civil. Picking fights over the Internet is what pre-adolescent kids on a sugar high do. ;]