The subject for discussion this month concerned the benefits and disadvantages of single sex institutions and organisations: whether they should be preserved, encouraged or abolished.

While most subjects are difficult to isolate because of various influencing factors, this specific focus really highlighted the ‘interconnectedness of all things’, and was all the more interesting because of it.

Educational establishments remained central to the discussion, and while research has conclusively shown that single sex schools successfully promote greater academic and personal achievement for both sexes, variant influencing factors raised questions of social class, parental aspiration, support and ambition, hormonal distractions, class sizes, geographical location, historical precedents, funding and facilities. It was also observed that most single sex schools are either independent or grammar, with an academic entry requirement.  In the light of this, should all schools be gender-segregated?  Should all classes be halved in size?  Does money grow on trees?

Len wondered what the negative consequences of gender segregation might be. Any artificial social structuring would probably result in having stereotypical impressions of gender behaviour and expectation, as well as an unpreparedness for integration at college or work. (Siblings were light-heartedly discounted as being too androgynous to matter….) Also, there were examples where students did not flourish under a single sex regime, again, for a variety of reasons.

Single sex organisations were discussed – Girlguides vs mixed Scouts; sports organisations (though these are founded on grounds of physical development); social clubs in which single gender membership is more self-selecting and dependent upon the nature and purpose of the club, and the majority of organised religions where men’s power and teaching do not recognise women’s equality.  In the UK, more contentious are the single sex societies like the ‘Gentlemen’s clubs’, which perpetuate elite male dominance in business and politics, and many of these, like the Garrick, are surrendering their archaic bias of male supremacy.

The discussion finally arrived at what arguably lies at the core of gender division: the influence of genetics, the nature vs the nurture. While appreciating the generalisations made, it was accepted that, historically, the male role has been universally held as the protector, the risk-taker, the promoter of community progress, the law-maker and enforcer.  Conversely, the female role has predominantly been child rearing and domestic management, as well as being a subservient supporter of the status quo.  In the Western world, it has taken education and a fierce and persistent campaign to bring about an ‘enlightenment’ of both genders to recognise gender equality.  (It can be argued that Marie Stopes’ birth control campaign played an influential part.)

In conclusion it was conceded that, while women’s rights should be upheld as equal to men’s rights, one set of stipulations will not favour all; one societal ideology might be another society’s anathema. Physical, intellectual and emotional differences interact and interconnect. What is good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander, and other well-worn clichés.  If people demand single sex spaces, for a myriad of reasons, as long as they are not detrimental to society (a longer debate required here), then one enforced ideology will probably create many unforeseen consequences.

It would have presumptive to arrive at a conclusion in 1½ hours – striving for equality of thought and opportunity has been active for 1½ centuries!