Gutian

Oh Lord. Not again...
Are you mods/veterans this combative in other subforums? Or does the history field attract posturing and d*ck measuring? I've gotten a number of PMs from people in other fields who are appalled by the 0-100 aggressiveness in this year's threads.

Actually, by offering a point in a discussion thread specifically based around this issue, you did indirectly ask for advice (or at least commentary) on your situation. 

NYU (Daniel Fleming and Mark Smith), Brandeis (Tzvi Abusch and David Wright), and Johns Hopkins (Ted Lewis and Kyle McCarter) would all be great choices, I think.
 
There's also Berkeley, Chicago (Dennis Pardee), Harvard (though their department seems to be in flux), Penn State, Ohio State, Vanderbilt, Emory, maybe Michigan... 

UBC and Brown have some pretty good basic archaeology books on their PhD reading lists.
 
http://cnrs.ubc.ca/2013/02/08/ph-d-in-classical-archaeology-reading-list/
 
http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Joukowsky_Institute/graduate/field.html
 
Take an especially close look at Alcock and Osborne's Classical Archaeology.
 
 
For archaeology in general, I recommend Trigger's A History of Archaeological Thought and Renfrew and Bahn's Archaeology: Theories, Methods, and Practice.

Yes but the fact of the matter is, as an academic who is a cis heterosexual man in women's studies, you simply have to be prepared to check your privilege constantly. It's not about whether there is space -- of course there is. That's what privilege IS, to always have space accorded to you, your voice heard, etc. So it's not about that: it's about this person respecting the fact that they are always accorded that space in society to be heard, and they are interacting in a realm of academia which by very nature, questions that privilege, and is about the marginalization of women because of that space. 
 
The question is NOT: can a man succeed in women's studies, but rather: can a cishetero man in women's studies understand that he is being allowed into a space where he should never expect to be the dominant force, or viewpoint. The fact that this is said:
 
 
Is proof to me that this guy has absolutely no understanding of his privilege, of rape culture, of schrodinger's rapist (look it up), of systemic misogyny, racism, and sexism in society where it IS safer for all involved (and any woman) to expect the worst of someone, especially when they walk into a space traditionally about already being marginalized by someone who is literally afforded most of society's privileges to begin with. 
 
This is nowhere near the same level as women in STEM being "Tested" as a result of sexism, and comparing the two is, quite frankly, a poor understanding of how sexism works. 
 
Can they readily admit and understand they are part of a system which favors them as a heterosexual man? 

So do you realize then that intersectionality was a term coined by black women to discuss black feminism and the intersection of RACE and other issues which effects black women and women of color differently than white women ooooorrrrr are you just erasing them like other white scholars....? 
 
 
 
Exactly. Not even implicit -- but explicit dedication. This happens in Art History courses as well regarding the Male Gaze. 
 
 
  My new hero. As if it isn't already hard enough to deal with privileged people in academic spaces -- they even permeate and dominate the fields which seek to explore the minority space.        being confronted with your complicity in structural racism and sexism is scaaaarryyy i guess. 

I didn't mean it should be downplayed! I said that I think we need to acknowledge that it's different to the point that it wasn't comparable. Not to recognise the difference between the two is much more seriously to downplay the fundamental inequalities that minority groups suffer/have suffered from in the past. That's all I'm saying. 

It's a little difficult to disagree with this post, but apparently some people did.
 
Again, I can't believe that institutional racism/sexism and privilege are concepts that are really coming as a surprise to people here. I mean ... really? No one said it was okay to discriminate or call white people/men derogatory terms, and I think that most people here agree that no one should make a man feel unwelcome in women's studies. Certain posters have pointed out only that the use of derogatory terms against those who have been systematically denied power serve to dehumanize those people in ways not experienced by the dominant culture.  
 
Furthermore, in terms of language itself ... I'm not even sure that there *are* any derogatory terms aimed exclusively at heterosexual men--at least not any that function like cunt or slut or cooze. We operate within a language that privileges heterosexual maleness at every turn. The only way, in fact, to really insult a heterosexual male is to simply imply that he is not a heterosexual male (fag, pussy, girl, etc). So even if a woman wanted to use language to alienate and dehumanize men, she couldn't. So the entire discussion of using language to oppress the dominant group ... seems all hypothetical and immaterial to me.

Unless the heterosexual male, or cis-man, in women studies, takes on feminist praxis regarding methods, research, and theory, it's kind of pointless to be in women studies. Without an implicit dedication to feminist praxis, the heterosexual male, or cis-man, in women studies, is a voyeur.

yeah i didn't know what those negative signs mean. but apparently people keep voting my shit down? sorry that like i don't want to my being white to continue the insidious project of whiteness in ascension...i'm fine with other white people (and even apologist poc) voting me down for pointing out what i pointed out.
 
also if you come for me on grammar and rhetoric then i'm immediately going to be on the defensive and expect that you don't have ANY valid points. because coming for grammar just means you didn't attend first and foremost to content rather than form. and we just clearly have different priorities.

Hm.  I notice that my absolutely correct observation has -2 points.  But I stand by the point.  A lot of people in academia believe racism does not work both ways.  White heterosexual males want to be able to cling to that belief "well, blacks (or whoever) can be racist tooooooooo," and "well, women can be sexist tooooooooo" and, what, I guess, "gays can hate straight people toooooooooo."  But these points undermine the much broader and more salient point that white heterosexual males still have the privilege of power.
 
Black people can be prejudiced.  But it is indeed debatable whether they can be racist in any sociopolitical paradigm where they are not in power.
 
Anyone with the impulse to downvote this observation just because it offends their "but, but, they can be tooooooooooooo" white male privilege-threatened whiny sensibilities needs to stop and think first.

Agree completely. I'm a little surprised that so many people have their hackles up because someone pointed out that structural racism, privilege, and oppression are not akin to isolated acts of discrimination.
 
Interesting article about the way this whole debate has (sadly) played out in academia:
 
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/counter_narrative/2013/12/minneapolis_professor_shannon_gibney_reprimanded_for_talking_about_racism.html 

The debatability of this is exactly what is at issue here.

Discrimination toward any group of individuals should be approached with disgust. The goal here shouldn’t be to weigh what is more offensive and what is less offensive--it should be to treat everyone with respect and recognize that all discrimination is harmful to society. 

^ RE the stuff on 'whitey' above - this is off the subject of men in women's groups and probably opening a whole can of worms, but I'd've thought that we'd all now pretty much acknowledged that there's racial slurs and racial slurs. The difference between a term like 'blacky', which targets a group who are still the subject of widespread institutionalised discrimination and have a long history of oppression based on the colour of their skin, and a term like 'whitey', which targets a group who, by and large (I know there are exceptions, I'm talking generally here) aren't and haven't, is enormous. Both terms are insults, and insults aren't cool - but the weight of those insults is entirely different. If, in say Europe or the US, you insult a white person based on their skin colour you're definitely being a dick, but you're not oppressing them and you're not contributing to massive institutionalised discrimination. If you use racial slurs against a POC then you pretty much are. The two things just aren't comparable. 

I've never fully understood the desire to "carve out a space" for minority/oppressed groups to speak exclusively. Which is not to say that I don't understand the need or desire to seek out a safe space to express opinions which are otherwise marginalized. But if the only way I can share my voice is by creating a space where I refuse to let those from the dominant group participate at all, then what is the point? I've created a cute little echo chamber where the only thing I hear is my own voice bouncing off the walls.  
 
I believe that any dominant group member who wants to participate in the discussion should be constantly cognizant of their privilege and through practice can start to learn when it is best to silence themselves (although I think the same about anyone in any discipline). But having your voice shut down from an outside force doesn't help you learn anything. It just leads to a cycle of (structural) violence. I understand how it may be beneficial as an exercise in understanding how it feels to have your voice silenced, but as a general practice institutionalized by the entire discipline? I can't agree with that. 
 
As a woman of color, I don't want my own space to have a discussion. I want to participate in the dominant culture and engage in that discussion. And I also believe that means allowing people from the dominant culture to contribute. Anyone who genuinely cares about the subject should be generating relevant theory which is beneficial to the discipline anyway. How else would they get themselves recognized/hired by people within the same field?

This term is absolutely derogatory in nature. How would you feel if I said “blacky” was slang, not a slur?
 
Racism works both ways. Speaking in a pejorative manner about any group is unacceptable--even those who you feel like are privileged.  
 
PS: I absolutely welcome male voices in Women’s Studies and Gender Studies. Anyone who doesn’t clearly doesn’t understand the intention of the field. 

'Whitey', a derogatory term for white people. Fits the definition of racist and perjorative.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs#W
 
I'm not implying that I'm upset that you've offended me. I never faced any type of systemic discrimination besides a very specific kind that I chose to accept, so I don't associate epithets regarding any superficial quality of mine with any kind of wrong being done to me; but you don't do yourself any favors by using language like that. It's considered disgusting in polite society, it's unprofessional, and you are being insulting to a great many people for no reason other than for self-satisfaction.

2520 is slang, not a slur. The fact that you are comparing a WOC calling someone "whitey" to white supremacy or nazis, what?

Do you have any other neat numerical racial slurs? I went to a primarily black middle and high school, and they would just say 'cracker' if they wanted to insult us. Not that any significant fraction did, but that's just what they would say when they did. Using numbers is so much cooler. Like how white supremacists encode nazi slogans like the 14 words or heil hitler with numbers.

I am incredibly skeptical of cis men in my women's studies courses, but have been won over by some. Same as 2520s in Africa American studies, or any other person who is part of the supremacy entering into subjugated spaces. Talking about masculinism as if it were equatable to feminism is how you'll get some side-eye though. That shows you don't have a true understanding of the patriarchy or oppression, and also that you're stuck in a gender dichotomy. Understand your privileges (esp. when it comes to dominating classroom discussions) and make sure you know what your endgame really is in taking the course. Susan Bordo does some work on critical masculinities, and may be a great starting place for allies. 

Did you get rejected for a job or something? You sound unhappy. As far as I'm concerned if you're good, you'll make it.

I wonder, which programs can claim that most of their graduates get tenure track jobs? Do you take them at their word when they tell you this? How do you find out the truth in these matters?
 
Seeing the selection of institutions to which you applied, that information right there tells me you are likely mistaken in your ability to discover data relevant to your own decision making. You have applied to three programs whose placement rates are abysmal. Criminally bad, really. Following your own logic you ought not to have applied to them.
 
FV skews negative because the experiences of most people on the job market in Classics skew negative.
 
With respect, I think you are woefully out of touch with your own likely future. But, onward and upward, as they say!

I ask this ironically...the findings of Assyriologists from the 19th and 20th centuries changed Christianity, and Western Civilization, forever.  In Germany, the birth of High Criticism brought about radical social changes and moved the nation toward an openness to the National Socialist ideology.  In America, High Criticism spread more slowly, at least in church settings.  However, ironically, now it seems America is the new "Reich" imposing its will on the world. 
 
Social Darwinism dominates today's corporate thinking.
"Survival of the Fittest" gives us the right to impose imperialistic views on anybody, anywhere, any time...and woe unto them if they fight back.
And in the midst of this, the Judeo-Christian worldview's coffin has been taken away from the viewing area...and is getting ready to be entombed in a stone mausoleum...to be henceforth and forevermore referred to only briefly in modern feminist "Introduction to Religion" textbooks as "but modern scholars now know..." with a footnote in German?!
 
I am not against feminism per se...I was speaking tongue in cheek.  I have simply noticed the overwhelmingly large number of "exposés" recently depicting the same corporate hands which funded Hitler's government reaching deeply through their philanthropic escapades into our own education system here in America throughout the last century...and around the world.  I see these particular corporate interests coming out on top every time...no one seems to read Marx anymore...and I see only a handful of universities even offering classes in Assyriology.
 
Meanwhile, pop culture references to the "alien-origin" theory of human evolution are growing wildly out of control, with every hillbilly with access to Google publishing a book explaining Sumerian and Akkadian hieroglyphs in the context of today's politics.
 
In terms of Comparative Semitics...Has anyone even bothered to take a second look at the original sources?  JEPD have apparently been split a million times, now that it has been discovered that they were authored by many hundreds of different female, gay, transgender, Afro-Hittite and Afro-Greek authors from a period beginning with the "original Hindu sources" and ending with Thomas Jefferson, who apparently translated the Bible into several languages in a row ( I heard somebody's momma's brother's cousin's sister say it was Sanskrit, then Hindi, then Latin, then Linear B, then Coptic, then English?), burning all of his source manuscripts each time and sometimes completely changing the meanings between translations to embody a completely different religion each time.
 
And allthewhile, the 3 licensed Assyriologists in America are getting ready to retire...and...we should all just...study other fields?
 
Does anyone else feel my pain?

Near Eastern archaeology differs from many other fields of archaeology in being very, very language heavy. Akkadian, Sumerian, and the like aren't easy, and it's a huge waste of money and resources if people wash out. For that reason, many programs unofficially require at least a year of Akkadian. If that's the case, no quantity of conference presentations or whatnot will make up for a glaring academic deficiency like that -- they'd much rather admit someone who's already mastered the relevant languages and can move on to more interesting and relevant things. A master's program or some language coursework at a good seminary school are the typical ways of working around this.
 
French and German are also musts, colorless. What's your language background like?
 
 
And yes, it's a very competitive field. Only about a dozen schools offer Near Eastern archaeology at all, and only about half of those are actually good at it. With 1-2 students (tops) in the subfield admitted at each school each year, it's obviously an insanely competitive process.