Professor-Student Relationships: How Close Is Too Close?

[DontHate]

As usual, 1Q84 adds incredibly pertinent content to the thread.

Edited December 20, 2012 by DontHate

[rosales]

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?

 

You're generalizing. A relationship between a student and a professor is wrong mainly because of something unique to academia: tenure.

 

Edit: What's to stop you from hiring a hitman?  The law, financial limitations, the difficulty of finding a hitman. Even though your example is obviouslly silly, it illustrates the point that for someone outside of a professorial position, there would be repurcussions for their actions. Because of tenure and their place of power, a professor could get away with a great many things.

Edited December 20, 2012 by rosales

[DontHate]

All relationships have power dynamics. And the power isn't all on the professor's side. While the professor has tenure, the student has the advantages of youth and mobility. Tenure is as much a prison as it is a permanent job security. If the student wants to switch schools, she can, while the prof might have a lot more problems doing so.

Edited December 20, 2012 by DontHate

[gilbertrollins]

I don't think most everyone here has reacted with grade-school ethical offense because they're women, I think it's because that's the standard of argument in the English department. Dazledandbemused said some of the smartest things I've read on gender in a while. DontHate continues to argue, correctly, that deliberative discourse is more important than protecting everyone's hurted feels.

I think, broadly, the problem here is structuralism and politics in extremum in the English department. Once upon a time, the emphasis in classical Rhetoric was on developing reasoned arguments, picking sides, and torturing warrants until something useful emerged.

Pomo gender scholarship and critical theory have taken a giant shit on that enterprise, and we're now left with ideological parroting disguised as "criticism," merely because it claims to undermine ideology and structure -- while of course building up a brand new and fantastically skewed ideology of its own.

[rosales]

Youth and mobility? So what? How does that lastingly affect the professor at all? I'm talking about serious, professionally crippling actions. Purposefully writing a bad letter of rec without the student's knowledge. Speaking ill of the student when he or she goes on the job market and institutions come calling. Deciding that he or she doesn't want to serve as a dissertation advisor anymore. 

Edited December 21, 2012 by rosales

[damequixote]

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

 

I suppose it's that your questions--and some comments--imply that femininity is bad, that it should be muted, or that we should work harder to be masculine... or genderless?. I'm just not sure what's wrong with being obviously female or arguing like a woman... Especially in an environment like this where the conventional, negative sterotypes about women are clearly not being realized.

[DontHate]

Youth and mobility? So what? How does that lastingly affect the professor at all? I'm talking about serious, professionally crippling actions. Purposefully writing a bad letter of rec without the student's knowledge. Speaking ill of the student when he or she goes on the job market and institutions come calling. Deciding that he or she doesn't want to serve as a dissertation advisor anymore. 

Then the prof could get sued for sexual harassment, the university could get sued, there would be seriously awful repercussions for the prof's career. Having tenure doesn't mean it's okay to break the law.

 

As far as arguing like a woman: what I was saying was that women don't seem comfortable arguing. They seem to quickly get upset, and are most comfortable agreeing about things and backing each other up, even if the agreement is somewhat put-on.

Edited December 21, 2012 by DontHate

[rosales]

Then the prof could get sued for sexual harrassment, the university could get sued, there would be seriously awful repercussions for the prof's career. Having tenure doesn't mean it's okay to break the law.

What law are they breaking?

[Two Espressos]

I don't think most everyone here has reacted with grade-school ethical offense because they're women, I think it's because that's the standard of argument in the English department. Dazledandbemused said some of the smartest things I've read on gender in a while. DontHate continues to argue, correctly, that deliberative discourse is more important than protecting everyone's hurted feels.

I think, broadly, the problem here is structuralism and politics in extremum in the English department. Once upon a time, the emphasis in classical Rhetoric was on developing reasoned arguments, picking sides, and torturing warrants until something useful emerged.

Pomo gender scholarship and critical theory have taken a giant shit on that enterprise, and we're now left with ideological parroting disguised as "criticism," merely because it claims to undermine ideology and structure -- while of course building up a brand new and fantastically skewed ideology of its own.

 

I agree with some of your points to some degree, but I'm wondering how you know any of this.  It comes off as just pontificating, especially since structuralism certainly isn't dominating English departments and hasn't for 30-40 years or so.

[DontHate]

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm

 

Sexual harassment is against the law.

Edited December 21, 2012 by DontHate

[rosales]

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm

 

Sexual harassment is against the law.

How is anything I described sexual harrasment?

[gilbertrollins]

I agree with some of your points to some degree, but I'm wondering how you know any of this.  It comes off as just pontificating, especially since structuralism certainly isn't dominating English departments and hasn't for 30-40 years or so.

Structural arguments have dominated this thread. More broadly - I draw from one of my primary advisers, who's an English professor who's written several books on rhetoric, my friends in the rhetoric program at my school, and other reading outside of economics and sociology.

Edited December 21, 2012 by econosocio

[dazedandbemused]

I don't think most everyone here has reacted with grade-school ethical offense because they're women, I think it's because that's the standard of argument in the English department. Dazledandbemused said some of the smartest things I've read on gender in a while. DontHate continues to argue, correctly, that deliberative discourse is more important than protecting everyone's hurted feels.

I think, broadly, the problem here is structuralism and politics in extremum in the English department. Once upon a time, the emphasis in classical Rhetoric was on developing reasoned arguments, picking sides, and torturing warrants until something useful emerged.

Pomo gender scholarship and critical theory have taken a giant shit on that enterprise, and we're now left with ideological parroting disguised as "criticism," merely because it claims to undermine ideology and structure -- while of course building up a brand new and fantastically skewed ideology of its own.

Part of me agrees with you. I know quite a few established academics in English, as well as much younger hoping-to-be established academics lament the ascendent position of cultural studies in literature. I also agree that serious argument is one of the best ways to make progress and that political correctness is effectively rendering our ability to argue obselete.

However. I believe the real problem is when we confuse political correctness with terminological clarity. To return to queer theory, many people find it off-putting and excessive to hear someone self-describe as a "cis-gendered, heterosexual male" but a large part of the specificity of these labels is to assert a stance of respectfulness toward and engagement with whoever you interact with. This is for the sake of clarity. The thought that we would all walk around every day speaking to each other this way is frankly, exhausting. Feeling the need to tiptoe around people because you don't know if they like to be called hispanic or spanish or Peruvian...in my opinion, this is the kind of silence that too much political correctness breeds.

This doesn't really address the need for gender studies in Literature departments, but I'm starting to feel a bit long-winded.

[practical cat]

Just because I am a femme-y writer doesn't make me a woman. I often make deliberate choices that are often more feminine because I believe that to be more productive (and, yes, kind) and because I do not think there is anything wrong with writing like a woman. I, personally, have not once been upset during this thread. Just because I choose not to put up with belligerence and personal attacks does not mean I can't handle an argument. It means I choose not to put myself in this particular situation. That has nothing to do with my sex, my gender identity, or my gender presentation. It has more to do with knowing my personal boundaries and how I am willing to allow myself to be treated.

But seriously. No one has really told me WHY they think I'm a "girl."

[dazedandbemused]

But seriously. No one has really told me WHY they think I'm a "girl."

 

Don't feel bad; I haven't even gotten a gender guess yet. Maybe it's so obvious that you can just tell. Whatever "it" is.

[practical cat]

I totally think you're the TARDIS.

[Two Espressos]

Don't feel bad; I haven't even gotten a gender guess yet. Maybe it's so obvious that you can just tell. Whatever "it" is.

 

Discussions about gender cues and discourse popped up earlier this year, and I think during that thread someone made a guess at my gender.  But this time around, no one has for me, either.

[dazedandbemused]

If I have to choose between spending a night with a giant semi-educated cockroach and a Literature PhD, I'd choose the invertebrate.

 

I will never understand this kind of disciplinary hatred. These kind of wide, sweeping statements about the worth of an entire discipline seem utterly contrary to the investigative nature of a PhD. I've always been of the opinion that every discipline has merit, but maybe that's just because I do pathetic literature stuff.

[practical cat]

I think I've been lurking long enough to have known you to indicate, two espressos. I think.

[dazedandbemused]

I totally think you're the TARDIS.

 

Damn! I guess my picture made it pretty obvious...

[DontHate]

Girl who wears glasses: Do I need to explain why you sound like a girl? You just sound like a girl. You keep wailing that everyone is "personally attacking" you. That's 1. not true, and 2. the way you say it is just kind of female. Like I was describing before, the conflation of your opinion with your person is a very female approach.

Dazed and bemused: I would hazard a guess that you are a guy.

Edited December 21, 2012 by DontHate

[gilbertrollins]

Just because I am a femme-y writer doesn't make me a woman. I often make deliberate choices that are often more feminine because I believe that to be more productive (and, yes, kind) and because I do not think there is anything wrong with writing like a woman. I, personally, have not once been upset during this thread. Just because I choose not to put up with belligerence and personal attacks does not mean I can't handle an argument. It means I choose not to put myself in this particular situation. That has nothing to do with my sex, my gender identity, or my gender presentation. It has more to do with knowing my personal boundaries and how I am willing to allow myself to be treated.

But seriously. No one has really told me WHY they think I'm a "girl."

I now think you are a homosexual man.

[DontHate]

HEY YOU GUYS: how normal is it for your prof to sign off his email to you by saying "lots of kisses"?

[practical cat]

... I was compared to a Nazi several pages back. This is the only time I have referred to personal attacks but, yeah, that was a big one. I'm not always talking about you, donthate, promise.

Plus, yeah, when we're talking about whether or not their is room in the discussion for non-normative sexual identity, that IS about my person. Sometimes they do actually overlap. Unfortunately, acknowledging that opinions and arguments are not free from humans and feelings IS a feminine trait. I possess that trait.

[dazedandbemused]

I now think you are a homosexual man.

 

Girl who wears glasses: Do I need to explain why you sound like a girl? You just sound like a girl. You keep wailing that everyone is "personally attacking" you. That's 1. not true, and 2. the way you say it is just kind of female. Like I was describing before, the conflation of your opinion with your person is a very female approach.

Dazed and bemused: I would hazard a guess that you are a guy.

 

Well, I think we've just proven that we aren't actually talking about whether one is male or female, but rather whether one is masculine or feminine. Which, as any good gender theorist can tell you, is performed regardless of biology.