Well, this is a freakish little story (a school bans dateless young women from its prom).

[BlueIris]

I feel like it's 1955. Or maybe 1905.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/85779

[iverglas]

1. historically

bans on unescorted women in public places were based on the notion that women without male escorts were in all likelihood prostitutes.

Or it could be that there had to be some rationale for restricting women's movements, and that seemed as good a one as any ...

It is, indeed, a freakish little story.

Apparently one of the reasons that girls can't attend without a male escort is the fear that without a proper date, the gals will get a little too crazy. Yeah, you know we need dudes to keep us in check.

Back when I was drinking underage, Ontario bars ... oops, the word "bar" was verboten; taverns, with opaque glass windows ... had separate facilities called "ladies and escorts" and "men's" rooms. The establishments generally required a ratio of no more than two men to one woman in the ladies and escorts. We young women were popular for that reason alone; the men did not want to be stuck in the stag room -- although beer there tended to be cheaper -- so they'd offer inducements to accompany them.

Anyhow, the idea obviously was to keep the men under control, and keep them from bothering the "ladies". Large numbers of unescorted men might be problematic.

The surmise about girls getting crazy was from a student at a neighbouring school. The school itself said:

http://wcbstv.com/topstories/prom.st.peters.2.725320.html

CBS 2 HD tried to ask the principal why, but was told to leave school property.

Too bad! I'll be lying awake tonight wondering about this one.

[noamnety]

2. The first comment is filled with idiocy.

It's just teaching them good "social skills." Right. Cause doing heterosexual mating rituals that are primarily about materialism and disposable consumption (dress, tux, limo) is a social skill.

"However after high school I noticed that many of the girls who attended all girls schools had two things in common.

1) They were smart, strong minded and over-achieving.

2) They had trouble maintaining a long term relationship with men."

Do we refer to men who get good grades as "over-achievers"? Or are they just achievers? I'm kind of amused that the man who wrote that is coming up with all these theories about why women who spent several years not being put down as second class citizens, being talked over and having their ideas dismissed, might have issues in relationships with men. Gee. I wonder. :D

[mrreowwr_kittty]

5. Trouble maintaining a long term relationship with men?!? Oh noes!!

Guess they missed out on all that male ego coddling training that girls in coed situations get.

And to add to your comment about men with good grades, where is the handwringing over men who have trouble with relationships with women? Oh yeah, I forgot, that's not their responsibility. Relationships are a 'girl' thing. :eyes:

[lightningandsnow]

3. Good lord.

:wtf:

[ThomCat]

4. That's right near me.

Unfortunately, I'm not surprised by this.

The church is supposed to be pushing abstinence, buy that school has a reputation for being so terrified of any hint of lesbianism that they'll happily push their students to go out and have relationships with boys just to make sure they're all straight.

I know that any all-girl school is going to get smeared with the "slut" label because of sexism. That school certainly gets a lot of grief that I don't think any school deserves. But then they pile on a lot of self-inflicted abuse with this kind of idiocy.

Girls might form tight, emotional friendships. Girls might have crushes on each other. Girls might be bisexual or lesbians and figure that out. OMG! Make sure they all know that they MUST spend all their time out there searching for boys!