Professor-Student Relationships: How Close Is Too Close?

[DontHate]

Why is it sexist to note that people have sex, and often times with people they work with? On balance I don't think that's a problem. Producing and environment where people systematically deny those tendencies and frown on it only serves to limit the transparency that is necessary to adjudicate legitimate conflicts of interest.

The preface to my post was written because everyone on this board seems to get very angry when I post anything even remotely controversial, so I wanted to respond to my critics before they could even get started. Just check out how many downvotes my posts get if you don't believe me.

[practical cat]

I think the portrait of women preferring older men and vice versa is overly simplified, heterosexist, and sort of seems like painting a biological explanation over Mad Men flavored sexism. Yeah, the western world seems to have collectively agreed on the idea that the older man/younger woman relationship is not only acceptable but preferred but that's based on the idea that women are going to be at home and men are going to be at work and these people are going to pair off accordingly and everyone will be happily upper middle class. The assertions don't just sound sexist, they're predicated on and only supportable by a society with very strict gender roles and sex rules. Am I saying that this is not often the case? No. But I am weary of basing assumptions around it and I am not super comfortable with its continued normalization (at the expense of all other different kinds of relationships and this is the part where Gayle Rubin pulls out the charts, I think).

I'm also uncomfortable with thinking about professor/student relationships only in terms of good/bad. I DO think there is room for consent and I think assuming otherwise can often unfairly ruin careers but I am not wholly comfortable with it, to be honest.

Edited December 20, 2012 by girl who wears glasses

[DontHate]

I'm also uncomfortable with thinking about professor/student relationships only in terms of good/bad. I DO think there is room for consent and I think assuming otherwise can often unfairly ruin careers but I am not wholly comfortable with it, to be honest.

Saying you're uncomfortable with this, or that the dynamics that exist are inherently sexist, doesn't really answer the question of what to do about these things if and when they happen. You can't just throw up your hands and say "this is sexist, so I will pretend I can't see it." Lots of things in life aren't perfectly fair (most things, I would say). It's not fair that attractive people get more attention than unattractive people, even when they may have less to say. It's not fair that we tend to assume attractive people are smarter than ugly people (or that it even somehow tends to be true: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201012/beautiful-people-really-are-more-intelligent). It's also not fair that women are judged more by their looks than men are. I don't think it "normalizes" any of these things to acknowledge that they exist. I'm not saying that this is how things SHOULD be. The best way to allow an unfair dynamic to persist is, in fact, to ignore it because it's uncomfortable to talk about.

[gilbertrollins]

The preface to my post was written because everyone on this board seems to get very angry when I post anything even remotely controversial, so I wanted to respond to my critics before they could even get started. Just check out how many downvotes my posts get if you don't believe me.

Oh I understand that. I was posing the sardonic rhetorical to the audience you were trying (nobly) to placate. Frankly I got involved in the thread because 1) You've been vociferously downvoted for having an ounce of intellectual curiosity among people known more for their obtuse vocabulary than original thought, and 2) because you have a cute profile picture. Now that's sexist. Come at me, bro.

[gilbertrollins]

"but physical attractiveness definitely seems to be a major factor in who men want to date."

True, but no less so for women. Though gender roles make it such that them openly displaying their sexual desires as physically-derived makes them "sluts" or whatever, so there are Herculean efforts to deny that women get excited about good looking men, or that even if they do, they have some sort of imagined control over that "disgusting, base, and immature" impulse that men don't.

"And most men find it perfectly acceptable/preferable to date someone younger than themselves, whereas women tend to do the opposite"

True, but becoming less so.

[DontHate]

Oh I understand that. I was posing the sardonic rhetorical to the audience you were trying (nobly) to placate. Frankly I got involved in the thread because 1) You've been vociferously downvoted for having an ounce of intellectual curiosity among people known more for their obtuse vocabulary than original thought, and 2) because you have a cute profile picture. Now that's sexist. Come at me, bro.

To be fair, I also said something rather snarky one time to someone who was justifying her decision not to apply to Harvard by saying it was "stodgy and boring." (She later admitted that her advisor told her Harvard wouldn't even look at her application). And I called Buffalo an ugly city. These are my sins. I repent, and yet I also don't really repent. Grad cafe makes me feel conflicted...

[gilbertrollins]

I think the portrait of women preferring older men and vice versa is overly simplified,

Yet, largely statistically accurate.

heterosexist,

We're discussing heterosexual relationships. Though we can discuss homosexual relationships, too. If the amount of discourse about heterosexuality clocks in at about 85%, that will be proportional to the amount of heterosexuality in most regions. Disclaimer: I think gay is pretty great.

and sort of seems like painting a biological explanation over Mad Men flavored sexism.

I argued precisely against that point. The gender roles came first. http://www.amazon.com/The-Origins-Sex-History-Revolution/dp/0199892415/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_nC?ie=UTF8&colid=1QWBS9HK76A7K&coliid=I2YEPLXD4055AA

The anthropomorphization into biology came second. http://www.amazon.com/Genial-Gene-Deconstructing-Darwinian-Selfishness/dp/0520265939/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1355982335&sr=1-1&keywords=the+genial+gene

Yeah, the western world seems to have collectively agreed on the idea that the older man/younger woman relationship is not only acceptable but preferred but that's based on the idea that women are going to be at home and men are going to be at work and these people are going to pair off accordingly

Is there anyone in the occident who actually believes that full-force anymore? That stereotype seems to increase in strength in inverse proportion to the mean national income of the population observed.

a society with very strict gender roles and sex rules.

We've got some of the most malleable gender roles in the world.

I DO think there is room for consent and I think assuming otherwise can often unfairly ruin careers but I am not wholly comfortable with it, to be honest.

Fair enough.

[gilbertrollins]

To be fair, I also said something rather snarky one time to someone who was justifying her decision not to apply to Harvard by saying it was "stodgy and boring." (She later admitted that her advisor told her Harvard wouldn't even look at her application). And I called Buffalo an ugly city. These are my sins. I repent, and yet I also don't really repent. Grad cafe makes me feel conflicted...

Gotta watch what you say -- you'll hurt those feels.

[DontHate]

2) because you have a cute profile picture. Now that's sexist. Come at me, bro.

I'm used to this. It's kind of what I'm trying to talk about here. But I guess I'm being "HETEROSEXIST"

lawl

[DontHate]

Gotta watch what you say -- you'll hurt those feels.

But Buffalo is fucking ugly!

[gilbertrollins]

I'm used to this. It's kind of what I'm trying to talk about here. But I guess I'm being "HETEROSEXIST"

lawl

And I have a lot of sympathy for the way hegemonic, heteronormative, and patriarchical binaries delimit your choices such that you have no choice but to use a profile picture with a lot of makeup and a bitchy Calvin Klein pose. I know that feel!

But seriously - if you're main question here is "how much of my Professors getting flirty with me because I'm attractive and intellectuall engaged should I be ok with and put up with?" I don't have a clear cut answer. Personally I enjoy whatever attention I might get from my looks, and would venture you and a lot of women do too.

I find it a little incredible to imagine upper middle class attractive white girls in college feeling disempowered to direct and mitigate the amount of sexual under and over tones in their professional interactions, but I might be mistaken.

Edit: I was talking to a friend of mine about getting some research experience and suggested a particular professor. She hesitated then said he basically stared down her shirt the entire time he lectured. That unfortunate, and probably made her feel something like the way the old lady at the sub shop makes me feel when she says sexually explicit things to me. But I don't think we live in a world where a critical majority of men feel they have a free pass to eye up whatever woman they want, and women don't. Wait - I totally eye up women all the time. What am I saying?

Ok look, until women and men get together for a Town Meeting and decide to completely change the courting game - men are going to be aggressive and women coy. I mean. C'mon. Women who want to talk to a guy at a bar will go and stand near him, or sit next to him, waiting for him to be aggressive. All in maintenance of traditional courting games. Some of that is going to spill over into a professional environment. I think the best way to mitigate the problems it can cause is to be open about it.

Edited December 20, 2012 by econosocio

[DontHate]

And I have a lot of sympathy for the way hegemonic, heteronormative, and patriarchical binaries delimit your choices such that you have no choice but to use a profile picture with a lot of makeup and a bitchy Calvin Klein pose. I know that feel!

Don't neg me bro.

I don't necessarily feel disempowered, I just feel like for certain people the sexual (under/over/up/down/strange)tones become a factor that requires mediation/moderation, while for others it's not even a part of the mix. And sometimes it's fun, it can make things interesting, but sometimes it's just frustrating and tiresome. There's also a strange assumption among my non-grad school friends that I'll end up marrying one of my professors. I'm curious what other people think about this -- besides finding it "sexist". I don't think pointing out the obvious sexism in play is particularly helpful. Let's dig a little deeper, shall we?

[gilbertrollins]

Don't neg me bro.

Had to look that one up. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=neghit Interesting. Was jussayin it's clear you don't dislike sexual attention, as you admit below (not quite sure how to "neghit" you for intellectual honesty -- I'm sure I'll come up with something).

 

There's also a strange assumption among my non-grad school friends that I'll end up marrying one of my professors. I'm curious what other people think about this -- besides finding it "sexist".

Weird. Your friends truly don't understand graduate school. But if you can make it work for you - do it. Spousal appointments are an attractive option. In fact, CUNY Buffalo is notorious for preferring them.

I don't know what else to dig for, though. People hook up in graduate school, sometimes with faculty. Meh.

Edited December 20, 2012 by econosocio

[DontHate]

Econosocio: I just mean, more generally, if anyone besides you chooses to add to this thread, please don't chime in just to say everything's sexist.

Or even better: Heterosexist!

so many lols

Edited December 20, 2012 by DontHate

[gilbertrollins]

I've had enough of this sexism. I'm leaving.

Generally though, I think the same advice for picking schools and SOPs applies to student/faculty relations: get in where you fit in.

Edited December 20, 2012 by econosocio

[asleepawake]

So... now we are only talking about upper middle class attractive white women? Because why? And women in those categories cannot be sexually intimidated by those who hold institutional power over them? But luckily for them, poor non-white uglies don't have to deal with this? Interesting.... 

 

P.S. What happened to this forum and why can I only post text above the quote now?

 

I find it a little incredible to imagine upper middle class attractive white girls in college feeling disempowered to direct and mitigate the amount of sexual under and over tones in their professional interactions, but I might be mistaken.

Edited December 20, 2012 by asleepawake

[gilbertrollins]

 

So... now we are only talking about upper middle class attractive white women? Because why? And women in those categories cannot be sexually intimidated by those who hold institutional power over them? But luckily for them, poor non-white uglies don't have to deal with this? Interesting.... 

 

P.S. What happened to this forum and why can I only post text above the quote now?

 

 

Alright! Here comes the selective reading train! I was speaking with two upper middle class white women, one of whom is attractive. And I shared a nice little anecdote about a friend of mine feeling uncomfortable about being looked at sexually by a professor. "Sexually intimidated?" Go get me a survey that teases out the difference between women feeling a little icky from someone coming on to them, and "intimidated," and demonstrate that a majority of unwanted come-ons result in "intimidation," and I'll concede that such a dramatic phrasing is the best way to frame a discussion about commonplace sexual undertones in professional (and academic) relationships.

[asleepawake]

All of this stuff is nuanced, and sweeping generalizations don't get us anywhere.

 

It is, however, completely normal to be attracted to your professors, your students, and/or your colleagues. Let's not be afraid to say that much. We share ideas, we are interested in those ideas (When it may seem no one else is: when was the last time you met a Random at a bar who wanted to talk Foucault?), and we sometimes do these things around alcohol. It is extremely important, then, to be aware of how we act on those feelings. Like girl who wears glasses said, there is room for consent and healthy/worthwhile relationships to come from these things. But there is also a lot of room for harassment and exploitation, favoritism, etc. We all have to be extra, extra careful with every decision we make in this regard, especially when we are the one in power. The best plan: Don't do anything until after the end of any supervisory relationship, follow the rules of your University, and be clear in articulating your boundaries when necessary. 

[asleepawake]

Alright! Here comes the selective reading train! I was speaking with two upper middle class white women, one of whom is attractive. And I shared a nice little anecdote about a friend of mine feeling uncomfortable about being looked at sexually by a professor. "Sexually intimidated?" Go get me a survey that teases out the difference between women feeling a little icky from someone coming on to them, and "intimidated," and demonstrate that a majority of unwanted come-ons result in "intimidation," and I'll concede that such a dramatic phrasing is the best way to frame a discussion about commonplace sexual undertones in professional (and academic) relationships.

 

This is the humanities. Are you asking me for quantitative research? You know I don't have that.

 

The difference between icky and intimidation is terribly subjective, but if there are implicit or explicit threats to a person's career, education, future, etc for noncompliance... that's intimidation.

[gilbertrollins]

But there is also a lot of room for harassment and exploitation, favoritism, etc.

Is there? Do you have any evidence that a majority, or even significant portion of intra-departmental relationships lead to harassment, exploitation, and favoritism? Why should we presume, cynically, that people in a position of power in the department will often exploit that position sexually? What motivates that argument? Your experience? A cross-section of data on departments?

Or the anxiety-inducing influence of gender scholarship narratives that are privileged in the English department?

[asleepawake]

Is there? Do you have any evidence that a majority, or even significant portion of intra-departmental relationships lead to harassment, exploitation, and favoritism? Why should we presume, cynically, that people in a position of power in the department will often exploit that position sexually? What motivates that argument? Your experience? A cross-section of data on departments?

Or the anxiety-inducing influence of gender scholarship narratives that are privileged in the English department?

 

Intra-departmental ≠ supervisory/subordinate, which is mostly what I am referring to, and what the OP referred to as well.

[gilbertrollins]

The difference between icky and intimidation is terribly subjective

Dear Oxford English Dictionary,

Is there a substantive difference between feeling "icky" and "intimidated?"

Cheers,

Non-Quantitative Researcher

Dear Non-Quantitative Researcher,

icky | ikky, adj.

b. Sweet, sickly, sentimental; hence a general term of disapproval: nasty, repulsive, sticky, etc.; also, ill, sick.

intimidate, v.

trans. To render timid, inspire with fear; to overawe, cow; in modern use esp. to force to or deter from some action by threats or violence.

Best,

The Oxford English Dictionary

[asleepawake]

Dear Oxford English Dictionary,

Is there a substantive difference between feeling "icky" and "intimidated?"

Cheers,

Non-Quantitative Researcher

Dear Non-Quantitative Researcher,

icky | ikky, adj.

b. Sweet, sickly, sentimental; hence a general term of disapproval: nasty, repulsive, sticky, etc.; also, ill, sick.

intimidate, v.

trans. To render timid, inspire with fear; to overawe, cow; in modern use esp. to force to or deter from some action by threats or violence.

Best,

The Oxford English Dictionary

 

Dear Literal McLiteralson,

 

If you really believe these things cannot and do not slide into one another for some when supervisors and sex are involved, I'm not sure I can help you out here. One can feel simultaneously icky and intimidated, and most people in positions of authority should try their best not to make the people they have power over even feel icky, even if it is the lesser to these two, apparently diametral opposed concepts.

[DontHate]

May I step in here: sometimes these relationships can be both "icky" as in off-putting AND "intimidating" as in, if one were to confront the professor too directly about the discomfort one feels, it could lead to a serious problem in your professional relationship (in terms of letters of reference, funding opportunities, etc). The two feelings are not entirely separate from each other. And it is often impossible to entirely avoid the people who make one feel uncomfortable in this way, because departments are often very small.

If there were some magical way to talk openly about these situations, without making a professor feel upset/rejected/angry, that would be great. I just don't really think there is one.

And honestly, no one is saying this only applies to white people, or upper-middle-class people. I am specifically referring to women and their heterosexual male profs, but this discussion could easily be expanded to include homosexual dynamics as well. A lot of you English folks seem to deliberately misread things just to get offended about them. Please stop doing that. There are other, much more productive ways of commenting, and you should try to learn a few of them before you get to grad school.

[gilbertrollins]

apparently diametral opposed concepts.

There we go again, redefining the terms of the debate by misrepresenting my argument. For the literally inclined (which I otherwise presume English scholars to be), I said: "substantive difference."