Professor-Student Relationships: How Close Is Too Close?

[asleepawake]

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 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.

 

Yes. Thank you for articulating this so well.

[gilbertrollins]

Consider that I have examined the structural location of my identity rather thoroughly, and how it bears on my priors even more so, and continue to. And consider for your own scholastic integrity that everyone deserves to be given the benefit of the doubt that they have.

[gilbertrollins]

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

People's definitions of harassment are rather loose, mostly because the reactionary nonsense displayed in this thread, which is indicative of the academic culture. The staggering point is that even within those ridiculous definitions, where "ickiness" gets read incredibly as "intimidation," men and women report it in equal proportion, which undermines your entire argument than men are the perpetrators here, and that I am thus confused about my position on the appropriate place of sexuality in scholarship.

[gilbertrollins]

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?

Well, what of it? Are you a man or a woman? My money is on woman.

[rems]

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

 

What gave it away? Was it my vagina? Because I'm tired of it blowing my cover.

[Two Espressos]

What has happened to the English forums these days? 

[damequixote]

I used all of my upvotes today on you, but               . This made me lol like never before. 

[dazedandbemused]

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

Wow, the only one I was sure about was bfat and that's only because she said she just had a baby. I only remember that because I remember thinking there was no way I could ever take care of a kid and do this at the same time. Mad props (to her, not to your guessing. I'm rather reticent to guess those kind of things).

[practical cat]

asleepawake, stop stealing everyone's up votes.

[gilbertrollins]

I actually read some soc literature recently on naming (wtf - someone that studies the economy is interested in linguistics?). Gendered phonemes, prefixes and suffixes reliably predict the actual gender of the named. There is also some work on chat dialogues my roommate's girlfriend did -- you can pick up gender from the stylistic tendencies of the way people write.

[dazedandbemused]

I actually read some soc literature recently on naming (wtf - someone that studies the economy is interested in linguistics?).

 

Come on, don't act like we're a bunch of disciplinary segregationists over here. Not cool, bro.

 

 

Gendered phonemes, prefixes and suffixes reliably predict the actual gender of the named. There is also some work on chat dialogues my roommate's girlfriend did -- you can pick up gender from the stylistic tendencies of the way people write.

I didn't realize gender was so transparent. Good thing I'm an Ood.

[gilbertrollins]

 

Come on, don't act like we're a bunch of disciplinary segregationists over here. Not cool, bro.

Econosocio comes to us via economics, so there are some fundamental differences in the way we're approaching this discussion.

[DontHate]

You guys are more obvious about your vaginii than you seem to realize.

[gilbertrollins]

As should be apparent from my behavior here, I douche regularly, and my vagina is hence hard to detect.

[damequixote]

...and I'm pretty sure we're not embarrassed of them. I really like mine, anyway.

[IG-88]

So econosocio complains about ad hominem attacks and then proceeds to write a 250-word screed supported by little more than a stereotype of the female humanities scholar. Okay.

[IG-88]

Sorry I should probably quote this post in all of its bitterness: 

 

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.

[gilbertrollins]

So econosocio complains about ad hominem attacks and then proceeds to write a 250-word screed supported by little more than a stereotype of the female humanities scholar. Okay.

Elevated hand slap.

[DontHate]

...and I'm pretty sure we're not embarrassed of them. I really like mine, anyway.

Embarrassed? who said anything about being embarrassed? I just can tell who's a girl by how you write.

[gilbertrollins]

To be fair - that last paragraph is the only time I call into the arena the gender of my interlocutors, it is 106 words long, and I prefaced it transparently by saying I was about to exchange some ad hominem for the several rounds of them I'd received, based on my gender and home discipline.

[DontHate]

The central conflict on this thread is that people keep resorting to irrelevant emotional responses, instead of addressing the conceptual and rhetorical issues of the argument. Like how no one has ever explained how my controversial post on page 5 was "heterosexist." Or how the language with which I discussed it could be altered to be more politically correct. Or, more essentially, how altering this language would help anyone to deal with the situation that I was initially describing.

 

Why do women seem to argue differently from men (even on an anonymous, faceless web forum)? What is it about the way women are socialized, educated, or otherwise composed that makes them the way they tend to be? This is an interesting question and I'd love to hear anyone's take on it.

 

I clearly don't believe that all women are like this. I'm not like this. I don't think speech should be gendered. But why is it? Why is personality somewhat gendered? What's the deal with this stuff?

[rosales]

Just to throw in my two cents on what was this thread's original topic...

 

While the identity politics surrounding student-teacher relationships certainly have a place in this discussion, I don't think they are the chief issue here. Regardless of the participants' race or gender, a relationship between a professor and student shouldn't occur because of the absolute power that the professor receives. Shouldn't a professor recognize that even the best intentions and most sincere emotions might one day lead them to a spurned and spiteful place? Would they have the self control to not excersise the many methods of professional ruin that they have, and that their student does not? Maybe not. As an educator and mentor, they shouldn't put themselves in that place. Just wait until the undergrad graduates or the grad student hands in the dissertation.

[1Q84]

[DontHate]

Maybe we should all just not engage in any relationships at all. Because how can we guarantee that our emotions won't someday lead us to "a spurned and spiteful place?" And once we're in that place, who's to stop us from hiring a hitman to avenge our broken hearts?

[Two Espressos]

Why do women seem to argue differently from men (even on an anonymous, faceless web forum)? What is it about the way women are socialized, educated, or otherwise composed that makes them the way they tend to be? This is an interesting question and I'd love to hear anyone's take on it.

 

I clearly don't believe that all women are like this. I'm not like this. I don't think speech should be gendered. But why is it? Why is personality somewhat gendered? What's the deal with this stuff?

 

It certainly is an interesting question.  I think that there's only so much that can be said from a non-empirical basis, though, so we'd have to hear from the neuroscientists, biologists, and psychologists to really make progress (sorry, gender theorists!).