Professor-Student Relationships: How Close Is Too Close?

[DontHate]

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.

This is called being passive-aggressive. It's not cool. If you have a problem with what I said, then either state the problem directly, or don't say anything at all. None of this.

I honestly can't believe I would have to explain that to an adult, even on the internet.

Edited December 20, 2012 by DontHate

[asleepawake]

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.

 

Listen, I've had no problem engaging with YOU in this thread, despite a few of your trademark snide comments, which have only peppered an otherwise mature discussion. However, by now, econosocio has expressed some things that I hear all the time, things that I have responded to enough times in my life. I don't want to do it here, especially with someone who uses "bitches" earnestly and calls me sophomoric for acknowledging privilege (which, don't worry, I have plenty of my own). Econosocio comes to us via economics, so there are some fundamental differences in the way we're approaching this discussion. When respectful, that's fine. I feel that it's not respectful anymore. This thread is "dead" in that I cannot go in any more circles with econosocio, and nobody else seems to want to do that either. No hard feelings.

 

When I did respond directly to your question about what to do is X-scenario, you ignored it in favor of continuing to pick fights, but somehow we are, again, all the bullies. I don't really dislike anyone, like, ever. Really. I am not ganging up on you and I have no grudges from old threads or past days. Let's make cookies together or something.

 

Edited December 20, 2012 by asleepawake

[DontHate]

"When I did respond directly to your question about what to do is X-scenario, you ignored it in favor of continuing to pick fights"

I'm sorry if you felt ignored, but you basically said that you didn't know what to tell me, the situation was too difficult. I wasn't trying to pick any fights. I just responded to what girl who wears glasses said, and she didn't like my response so she got passive-aggressive. I don't think that's a valid way of dealing with any kind of discussion.

[asleepawake]

I didn't feel personally ignored. Don't worry - many posts go unanswered. That's fine. It just seems that sometimes you're looking for a bit of drama.

[DontHate]

Perhaps... I don't exactly go on grad cafe to relax. I mean, it's not a relaxing place.

[gilbertrollins]

I didn't use the term "bitches" earnestly. I said, or tried to say, that the definition of a "bitch" when referring to a woman that shoots down a man - is a woman who does so rudely. Then I tried to be fair and say there are plenty of rude guys out there. We might call them douchebags, or assholes, or whatever.

And now, for the second time, you've presumed to know something about my character and politics and attacked them, because apparently ad hominem is admissible as long as it's a fancied-up inference drawn from methodological/disciplinary debates, or drawn from socio-structural inference of my class and gender. Note that these arguments are really no better than something like: "You're just saying that because you're black." Oh wait -- they're not the same. Because as long as one points one's ad hominem at groups that deserve it, it's ok.

But, since we're going there. Let's just go there. Here's what I've seen happen so far. DontHate, with a limited interest in canned readings of gender dynamics, who also likes to argue (gasp! In the academy!?!?) asked a very sane question about gender dynamics. The question was met with canned responses as if parroting freshman-course student-conduct-manual rhetoric was an intellectually meaningful way to engage. So I interjected with an actual argument about broadening the terms of debate, and tried to call to question standard gender roles and the empirical realities of departmental relationships. That, asleepawake and girlwithnoglasses seemed to agree with, yet somehow ended up arguing precisely the usual canned tripe about heterosexual male privilege. And rather predictably, the substance of those arguments ran out after a couple of Women's Issues 101 course summaries, and they turned to the ad hominem. Woman angry! Woman smash!

Why?

Well, apparently being a woman in the English department and reading a little Foucault makes one de facto contrarian and subtle . . .even if the substance of one's points adds nothing to the debate that hasn't been repeated ad nauseum in the English, and now most other departments (including economics, where women's issues make it to top journals consistently now), for the last thirty years. But I suppose that's fine, if the objective of scholarship in the English department is to beat to death old, widely accepted politics, then this thread duly serves its purpose and you all will no doubt have fortuitous careers ahead.

Edited December 20, 2012 by econosocio

[asleepawake]

Context matters. So, yes, in a discussion of race, the fact that I am white matters. The fact that I have that privilege, and that I have not been systematically oppressed because of my race, matters. I cannot speak directly to that oppression. Identity matters. The way others read you matters, the way that people hear you when you speak, see you when you walk past, answer to you when they disagree, or speak to you in public. Identifying the ways that identity is a huge contributor to our beliefs, our perspectives, and simply what we see and what we have knowledge of, is not synonymous with an ad hominem attack. You are not wrong by virtue of being male. However, being male means that you are far less likely to see sexual harassment if you aren't perpetrating it (because women are harassed and assaulted at a much higher rate): It becomes invisible to you. It happens when you are not there with the door closed. That is what privilege is. It is not your fault, but it exists.  

 

Anyway, the rest of us are making cookies, and you're invited.

 

[practical cat]

We weren't having a discussion. I expressed a relevant opinion and then was told, mostly by econosocio admittedly, that it was an opinion that I wasn't allowed to express. I didn't feel as though I had anything productive to add (especially after being utterly shut down) so I removed myself from the really circular nonsense that was going on. Please stop acting like I'm attacking you because I don't wish to engage in these antics. I was really, really trying very earnestly to have a conversation and, yes, that involved bringing in a different way of approaching the situation because I didn't and still don't believe the language being used was helpful. I'm really sick of the drama and I have a really short fuse with it after however many weeks this has been going on. If you weren't going to have a real conversation with me (and no, belligerently telling me I don't know how to express myself is not having a conversation), then I am not going to continue to try. Please just leave me out of this going forward. Thanks.

[practical cat]

Also, asleepawake, get it. If I hadn't already used all of my up votes for the day on you (by like 9am lol), you would get them all anyway.

[DontHate]

It's really sad that some people can't tolerate any kind of discussion that's not fawning agreement. I hope you know that academia isn't just a bunch of back-patting and group hugs. People will contest your opinions. You will have to defend them. Whining and telling everyone to leave you out of the conversation will not go down well during your orals or your dissertation defense.

[practical cat]

Ok, thanks guys!

[DontHate]

Here's another gender-based question for you all:

 

Why does it seem like the girls on this forum are incapable of debating a topic without immediately taking a disagreement personally and getting their feelings hurt, while the guys can give and take ide-o-logical jabs without getting so upset about it? I ask this as a girl. A very frustrated girl, feeling somewhat embarrassed by other members of her gender.

 

Asleepawake, I don't mean you. I feel like you've been good about these things.

 

Edit: this may be somewhat related to the fact that women also tend to be worse at negotiating their contracts during hiring. Women, we need to learn to be more aggressive and thick-skinned. Seriously!

 

And girl with glasses, if you don't want to be a part of this thread anymore, stop contributing. Your passive-aggressive little one-liners are pointless and unnecessary. If you DO want to contribute, say something meaningful. Downvoting all my posts does NOT count as a meaningful contribution.

Edited December 20, 2012 by DontHate

[lisajay]

ETA: well played...  

Edited December 20, 2012 by lisajay

[Phil Sparrow]

 I hope you know that academia .....

 

Sheesh. You've been in grad school for like three months. Stop lecturing everybody as if you're such an expert. 

[DontHate]

Sheesh. You've been in grad school for like three months. Stop lecturing everybody as if you're such an expert. 

Look who's talking. You act like you're the resident expert or faculty or something when you're, what, a fourth year PhD student?

 

And let me guess, you go to a "less competitive" school?

Edited December 20, 2012 by DontHate

[asleepawake]

Also, asleepawake, get it. If I hadn't already used all of my up votes for the day on you (by like 9am lol), you would get them all anyway.

 

<3. I don't have any more up votes either, so I'll just post more cookie gifs to further lighten the mood in this place.

 

 

[DontHate]

Enough with the cookies! Stop being such a girl! We don't have to all paint our nails together for everything to be ok!

 

We are feeding into their stereotypes of us right now. Please don't

[asleepawake]

[dazedandbemused]

Here's another gender-based question for you all:

 

Why does it seem like the girls on this forum are incapable of debating a topic without immediately taking a disagreement personally and getting their feelings hurt, while the guys can give and take ide-o-logical jabs without getting so upset about it? I ask this as a girl. A very frustrated girl, feeling somewhat embarrassed by other members of her gender.

 

Asleepawake, I don't mean you. I feel like you've been good about these things.

 

Edit: this may be somewhat related to the fact that women also tend to be worse at negotiating their contracts during hiring. Women, we need to learn to be more aggressive and thick-skinned. Seriously!

 

And girl with glasses, if you don't want to be a part of this thread anymore, stop contributing. Your passive-aggressive little one-liners are pointless and unnecessary. If you DO want to contribute, say something meaningful. Downvoting all my posts does NOT count as a meaningful contribution.

Just out of curiosity, what makes you certain that you are aware of everyone's gender on this forum? I find it rather difficult to tell.

[gilbertrollins]

Context matters. So, yes, in a discussion of race, the fact that I am white matters. The fact that I have that privilege, and that I have not been systematically oppressed because of my race, matters. I cannot speak directly to that oppression. Identity matters. The way others read you matters, the way that people hear you when you speak, see you when you walk past, answer to you when they disagree, or speak to you in public. Identifying the ways that identity is a huge contributor to our beliefs, our perspectives, and simply what we see and what we have knowledge of, is not synonymous with an ad hominem attack. You are not wrong by virtue of being male. However, being male means that you are far less likely to see sexual harassment if you aren't perpetrating it (because women are harassed and assaulted at a much higher rate): It becomes invisible to you. It happens when you are not there with the door closed. That is what privilege is. It is not your fault, but it exists.

More first-course lessons in structuralism. I can and will speak directly to various forms of oppression and ideology, regardless what hangs between my legs and the color of my skin, and regardless the situated identity that emerges from my biology.

The structuralist jab at one's opponent that she does not understand her own position because of the glitches in the Matrix she is a product of is pretentious, and ad hominem.

[gilbertrollins]

From http://www.aauw.org/learn/research/upload/DTLFinal.pdf

62% of female college students and 61% of male college students report having been sexually harassed at their university.

Data!?!? Oh noes!

Edited December 20, 2012 by econosocio

[DontHate]

Just out of curiosity, what makes you certain that you are aware of everyone's gender on this forum? I find it rather difficult to tell.

I notice patterns, and people occasionally mention their gender in passing. I know girl who wears glasses is a girl, I know asleepawake is a girl, I know bfat is a girl, I know econosocio is a guy, I know waparys is a girl, I know rems is a girl, I know phil sparrow is a guy, eigen is a guy. Etc

[practical cat]

I'm genuinely curious because I am usually VERY careful about revealing my gender/identity. Have I said something to indicate that (I may totally have in my initial post in this thread eons ago) or are you going from my username?

[dazedandbemused]

More first-course lessons in structuralism. I can and will speak directly to various forms of oppression and ideology, regardless what hangs between my legs and the color of my skin, and regardless the situated identity that emerges from my biology.

The structuralist jab at one's opponent that she does not understand her own position because of the glitches in the Matrix she is a product of is pretentious, and ad hominem.

You seem to be willfully misunderstanding asleepawake's point. The statement is not that you are incapable of discussing other parties' issues because of your own privilege, but that you have to continually keep it in mind as you engage in that discussion. I'm not queer, but I'm a queer theorist and I often have to reexamine things that I take for granted because of that perceived privilege. In addition, we need to stop talking about privilege as though it only exists in one fashion that holds true across all societal interaction, because that simply isn't the case. There are instances where being LGBT will give you automatic privileges that straight people have to earn; there are times when being a minority is a help and not a hindrance. So yes, if we want to reduce the discussion of privilege to what is generally labeled heteronormativity, then we are missing the point. That seems to be what you're replying to, but I just don't think that's what's happening in this discussion.

Edited December 21, 2012 by dazedandbemused

[asleepawake]

From http://www.aauw.org/learn/research/upload/DTLFinal.pdf

62% of female college students and 61% of male college students report having been sexually harassed at their university.

Data!?!? Oh noes!

 

Is this the same data you were looking at when you called it "rare"?