Professor-Student Relationships: How Close Is Too Close?

[gilbertrollins]

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.

1) Negative sexual relationships are rare among the population of sexual relationships between advisers and advisees, which again are even rarer in the population of adviser/advisee relationships generally.

2) If the relationship is consenting, and turns sour, the parties have a responsibility to deal with it maturely and professionally just like a co-authorship gone badly.

3) If a younger woman feels substantially intimidated and uncomfortable around her adviser, she has a wealth of recourse due precisely to the reactionary gender politics common on campuses, and especially in the English department.

[DontHate]

1) Negative sexual relationships are rare among the population of sexual relationships between advisers and advisees, which again are even rarer in the population of adviser/advisee relationships generally.

2) If the relationship is consenting, and turns sour, the parties have a responsibility to deal with it maturely and professionally just like a co-authorship gone badly.

3) If a younger woman feels substantially intimidated and uncomfortable around her adviser, she has a wealth of recourse due precisely to the reactionary gender politics common on campuses, and especially in the English department.

I'm not in the English department (thank god!), and what I'm talking about isn't a consenting sexual relationship. One would hope that in that sort of relationship, the people could talk openly about whatever topic. I'm more talking about the weird flirty vibes relationships that are much more common, and much more difficult to navigate. Not everyone wants to raise a big to-do or file a sexual harassment complaint, bringing all sorts of weird beaurocratic red-tape into a situation and possibly screwing up a good person's career over just a bit of "ickiness." I think doing something like that would just makes the university police the personal lives of their faculty and students even worse than they do already. No one wants that.

Edited December 20, 2012 by DontHate

[gilbertrollins]

Outside 1-3 above, I was arguing that sexual relationships are common in the workplace, even in the academy, and that Sensodyne conversations that privilege relatively rare cases of sexual male-on-younger-female harassment distort people's statistical estimation of how common the cases of it are, and therefore the broader ethics about the appropriateness of workplace sexuality, which can and should be dealt with more openly.

[DontHate]

I don't know what you're doing with the reference to toothpaste, but other than that I agree with you. I think the problem in the US is that we're quite fixated on sexuality (as are most humans), but we try to keep our workplace sanitized in a very unrealistic way. It's like abstinence-only education: by not talking about these things, we create all sorts of weirdness. And teen pregnancy.

I think the girl who wears glasses's post is actually quite indicative of the general feeling surrounding this type of discussion: "it makes me uncomfortable so let's just not even think about it, ok?"

I partly think this is because we are all too shy to admit that this stuff matters SO MUCH, and our feelings might be hurt if we have to discuss it.

Edited December 20, 2012 by DontHate

[asleepawake]

It is not as rare as your privileged perspective leads you to believe. Rarely reported? Yes. Rarely happens? No.

Edited December 20, 2012 by asleepawake

[DontHate]

 

It is not as rare as your privileged perspective leads you to believe. Rarely reported? Yes. Rarely happens? No.

 

Please enough with calling everyone's perspective "privileged." You have no idea what his perspective is. He could be a deaf-mute transvestite Eskimo.

[asleepawake]

Please enough with calling everyone's perspective "privileged." You have no idea what his perspective is. He could be a deaf-mute transvestite Eskimo.

 

Nope, I don't know his/her position. I can infer, however, that the claim that harassment is "rare" usually comes from one privileged enough not to have dealt with it.

[gilbertrollins]

I'm more talking about the weird flirty vibes relationships that are much more common, and much more difficult to navigate.

Most flirty vibes are unwanted, as most people are not significantly attracted to one another. Society gives us a wealth of tacit cues to signal when it is and is not wanted. And most of that behavior can get dealt with in a nice tactful way. E.g. when I check a girl out, she sees me in her peripheral, and scowls instead of looking back at me or pretending to not see me with a little lift in her face, etc.

I do not understand why men being flirty with women they're attracted to, even in professional environments, should be seen as this disgusting infraction when it is the only way men have to find out whether or not their advances are wanted or not. That's the expectation, no? A man makes a move, puts a signal out there, takes the conversation to a slightly more personal place, etc etc.

It's our responsibility to lead the first step in the dance, yet we're disgusting pigs if we didn't magically know a woman wasn't interested. If a guy can't take the hint and back off when it's unwanted - that's another thing. But I don't like the idea that men should have to constantly walk around in the shadow of the "disgusting old man rapist" stereotype.

[DontHate]

It's our responsibility to lead the first step in the dance, yet we're disgusting pigs if we didn't magically know a woman wasn't interested. If a guy can't take the hint and back off when it's unwanted - that's another thing. But I don't like the idea that men should have to constantly walk around in the shadow of the "disgusting old man rapist" stereotype.

No one's calling rape! No need to take the conversation there.

Maybe I need to give you a specific hypothetical, to help you understand exactly what I'm referring to: Let's say I have a professor who's married with kids, and I need his help with something, perhaps a letter of reference. So I will obviously act very nice to him, and ask him politely for the letter. He says yes, he'd love to write the letter, and then he starts getting all flirty and personal. I am then put into a situation where I

1) Can't really respond to his overtures, even if I want to, because it's inappropriate to show interest in a married man (and a woman is quickly demonized if she does).

2) Can't confront the prof about his making me uncomfortable with his overtures, because saying it outright would be tantamount to accusing him of being a disloyal husband and a cad (excuse the old-timey language)

3) Can't really deal with it in any way until his letter has been written and its content/my future success is no longer at stake.

[gilbertrollins]

Nope, I don't know his/her position. I can infer, however, that the claim that harassment is "rare" usually comes from one privileged enough not to have dealt with it.

Ha. Caught. I'm an attractive, well-spoken, gregarious, white male. What do I do when homosexual men or older women hit on me? I feed into it. I usually love the attention; and these people 99% of the time understand where the actual boundaries are. I also related a story about the woman at the sandwich shop hitting on me, actually showing me her underwear, which made me a little sick for a while. Those subs are too damn good though.

I've had a gay guy slide his hands down my pants at a gay club, and a substantially overweight girl I wanted nothing to do with try and fuck me while I was passed out drunk. That's a little sample of the sexual harassment I've been through. Then there's oh, I dunno, the ghetto that I live in where gangbangers try to eye me down on the street, the zillions of times I've been verbally accosted for being white and male and privileged by people whose politics don't agree with mine. It goes on.

But your sophomore analysis that I just don't know what it feels like for women to receive unwanted advances, after having a wealth of girlfriends share stories about being raped and harassed, and even sharing one of those stories already here -- is noted.

What has not been discussed here, at all, is that the way the coy-female/aggressive-male game is set up puts a host of power in women's hands -- they're the ones with the accept/reject button in their hand.

The idea that men, especially a bunch of Aspergers-having men in University Professorships, hold all of the cards in our society and systematically abuse that power constantly, is ridiculous.

[gilbertrollins]

No one's calling rape! No need to take the conversation there.

Maybe I need to give you a specific hypothetical, to help you understand exactly what I'm referring to: Let's say I have a professor who's married with kids, and I need his help with something, perhaps a letter of reference. So I will obviously act very nice to him, and ask him politely for the letter. He says yes, he'd love to write the letter, and then he starts getting all flirty and personal. I am then put into a situation where I

1) Can't really respond to his overtures, even if I want to, because it's inappropriate to show interest in a married man (and a woman is quickly demonized if she does).

2) Can't confront the prof about his making me uncomfortable with his overtures, because saying it outright would be tantamount to accusing him of being a disloyal husband and a cad (excuse the old-timey language)

3) Can't really deal with it in any way until his letter has been written and its content/my future success is no longer at stake.

I mean, isn't the general reality-check warning about adviser/advisee relationships that year 3-5 (or 7 for you humanities folks) is extremely lonely, with very little interaction and guidance? Isn't that why independent research is almost absolutely necessary as an UG, to signal that one can get through that stage? And can't one just back off a little to get the message across, use more formal language in emails, etc?

[DontHate]

Just to be clear: I'm not saying either side has "all the power" or that anyone is "systematically abusing" anyone else. I'm merely describing a certain type of awkwardness and asking what other people think about it/how they deal with it. I think both genders have a certain degree of power, especially since the stereotypes are set up in a way that makes it very easy to defy expectations (and grab a little extra power in the process).

As a woman, I know for a fact that women are not actually coy, that many of us have raging sexual appetites just like men do (but not all men), that often their surface passivity is concealing a lot of underground manipulations. That doesn't mean we don't get into awkward situations that we are sometimes powerless to avoid. Men get into these situations too, but I think in academia the power is mainly concentrated in male hands, making the chances for professorial awkwardness less common for male students.

Why can't we stop trying to discuss ALL male-female relationships, and instead look at the SPECIFIC instances I'm referring to (or any other specific instances anyone may have to contribute)? I don't think we're ever going to be able to define all the problems with our society's view of men and women, but we can all agree that there are many. Econosocio, while you might complain about women having the "accept/reject" button in our hands, keep in mind that we're looked at askance whenever we initiate, and there's a stigma that if you DO initiate and take the role of aggressor in a relationship, you're some sort of reject too unattractive to get the guy to ask you out first. As a proper girl, you're still half-expected to wait around until some prince swoops in with a ring. So yeah, it's not all flowers and sunshine over here either.

[asleepawake]

What has not been discussed here, at all, is that the way the coy-female/aggressive-male game is set up puts a host of power in women's hands -- they're the ones with the accept/reject button in their hand.

 

 

No, absolutely not. This "coy-female/agressive-male game," as you call it, just causes further harassment of women. Women are not taken seriously when we say "no," "no" has no meaning, because women are so often read as being disingenuous. We do not have an "accept/reject" button. We're not supposed to be too straightforward in our rejection, because then we're bitches, but if we are too nice about it, the rejection is read as flirting or an invitation to press harder. I'll agree with you that this "game" does nothing to benefit men, either.

 

Also: Stop talking down to me. It is incredibly juvenile and patronizing. 

[DontHate]

We're not supposed to be too straightforward in our rejection, because then we're bitches, but if we are too nice about it, the rejection is read as flirting or an invitation to press harder.

That's true, there's a fine line between being clear, and being called a bitch. But sometimes you just have to be okay with being called a bitch -- guys just don't like to get rejected. No matter how you do it you're gonna be branded a bitch.

The time when this is NOT okay? When that guy is your professor.

[asleepawake]

Why can't we stop trying to discuss ALL male-female relationships, and instead look at the SPECIFIC instances I'm referring to (or any other specific instances anyone may have to contribute)? 

 

The hypothetical scenario you describe has no easy answer. Hypothetical "you" is not in the wrong. You are in a crappy dilemma: one your professor should not be putting you in. It is at the worst possible time, probably because the person is aware of the power they hold at that time time. Conversely, you may be reading into genuine friendliness or interest in your application process. Even in this hypothetical example, I don't have the information I would need to determine how I would respond, if I would feel icky or intimidated or anything else. For all of my feminist talk, I would have to feel quite threatened to file a report against someone. In most situations I would try to ignore it and hope it goes away. After letters are done, you might say something professional but terse about how you worry the relationship is becoming a bit too friendly, and that you would prefer to keep things more professional. You have to ask yourself: How much discomfort is it causing you? Would the discomfort of saying something be worse? Does this seem like a person who will honestly back off if you ask them to?

 

In short: I haven't been addressing your specific example because it's too difficult.

Edited December 20, 2012 by asleepawake

[gilbertrollins]

We're not supposed to be too straightforward in our rejection, because then we're bitches, but if we are too nice about it, the rejection is read as flirting or an invitation to press harder.

In my humblest: bitches are rude. The reverse would be douchebags: rude. Invitation to press harder? Again in my subtleties: the only time I've read rejection as an invitation to press harder is when a woman had her shirt off and conveyed in a pretty clear tone that it was a game -- never had the misfortune of "misreading" such a situation. Safe-space had already been established. Can't speak for other guys.

In sum, I don't think there's an abysmal Catch-22 set up for women on the flirtation front. The whole "no matter how you do it, you're going to be branded a bitch" attitude is fatalistic and I don't think particularly descriptive of the vast majority of rejections that happen. I can't remember a guy I know calling a girl a bitch just for rejecting him. Some do, sure. Again: douchbags.

So we can agree that douchebags and bitches populate both genders, and probably at mirror proportions respectively. Hopefully we can agree too that it's not particularly constructive to turn the discussion on bad-apples.

Thanks for letting me vent my privileged white male feelings on gender. That feels better.

[bfat]

Dudes, this thread is ridonkulous.

 

*dodges hurled objects and downvotes*

[practical cat]

<p></p><blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="DontHate" data-cid="1057887911" data-time="1355981109"><p>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: <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201012/beautiful-people-really-are-more-intelligent">http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201012/beautiful-people-really-are-more-intelligent</a>). 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.</p></blockquote><p></p>

Lol. I didn't say that. Like at all. I am suggesting that we need to talk about this differently and that THAT helps more than any sort of across the board declarations.

[practical cat]

<p></p><blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="DontHate" data-cid="1057887918" data-time="1355983123"><p>I'm used to this. It's kind of what I'm trying to talk about here. But I guess I'm being "HETEROSEXIST"<br>lawl</p></blockquote><p></p>

Oops, sorry I actually tried to take you seriously and engage with one of your comments. Won't be doing that again, I promise.

[DontHate]

Just trying to keep things interesting, something that doesn't seem to be a concern anywhere else on the Lit & Comp forum.

girl who wears glasses: That is basically what you said, read back over your post. If you didn't mean to say that, then you don't express yourself very clearly.

[DontHate]

<p></p><blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="DontHate" data-cid="1057887918" data-time="1355983123"><p>I'm used to this. It's kind of what I'm trying to talk about here. But I guess I'm being "HETEROSEXIST"<br>lawl</p></blockquote><p></p>

Oops, sorry I actually tried to take you seriously and engage with one of your comments. Won't be doing that again, I promise.

It's ridiculous to call something "heterosexist" when it's specifically discussing a relationship between a heterosexual man and woman. The whole point of these kinds of terms is to point out insensitivity and discrimination. They don't really work if you aren't being sensitive enough to notice the context in which you use them.

[practical cat]

Lol nope. Thanks for putting words in my mouth though. But it's great that you're accusing everyone else of selectively reading your comments!

This is the shit you dole out to people who make the terrible mistake of trying to actually have a conversation with you. I promise I won't be doing that again. I'm done here.

[1Q84]

 

THREAD: Don't cry for me... I'm already dead.

[asleepawake]

 

THREAD: Don't cry for me... I'm already dead.

 

I have no more up votes... but you get All The Awards.

 

 

Engaging in this debate seemed like a better idea last night at 2am, the official hour of lost internets. 

Edited December 20, 2012 by asleepawake

[DontHate]

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.

I am trying to have a real conversation. But a real conversation is not me saying something, and then you saying "that's sexist." That is not a conversation at all. That's like talking to a parrot.

girl who wears glasses: I read your post quoted above as saying the following:

1. You didn't like the terms of the discussion;"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." But I gave no biological explanation, and in fact I think it's probably more of a cultural explanation. I never called the situation sexually egalitarian, I was simply drawing from my observation of real life situations and trends. Given that the reality is what it is, how should we go about "discussing it differently"? And how does changing the language in any way change the situation I'm referring to?

2. You felt "not wholly comfortable" with professor/student relationships.

Where is my misreading, exactly? And how am I doling out "shit" by interpreting your comments as you wrote them? How am I putting words in your mouth? If you want to have a real conversation, then you'll have to engage with my critique of what you're saying, not just withdraw because I think your use of the term "heterosexist" is inappropriate here, and slightly comical. I just don't think that I'm being in any way discriminatory against homosexual people. Please explain to me how I'm doing that.

Everyone else: if you don't want to "engage in the debate" then DON'T. Nobody is asking for your invaluable participation. But find something else to do besides declaring the thread dead after it grew 3 pages in one night. You don't seem to understand how forums work. Enough jumping onboard each other's bandwagon of derogatory comments, it's unproductive and mindless. You're making yourselves look like unjustified bullies. I'm not trying to hurt you by expressing my opinions, I'm merely expressing my opinions.