Are a lot of English teachers closet radical feminists?

[cuppajoe_9]

Or have I just been having a run of good luck? A breakdown of my past few English teachers:


Grade 12: Mr. Anderson

The Evidence: Assigned his class no fewer than four works by Margaret Atwood, all poems or short essays. A lengthy discussion of gender roles in A Doll's House by Henrik Ibsen. Was greatly impressed with my friend and I for having read Charlotte Perkins Gilman's The Yellow Wallpaper.

The Verdict: An extremely progressive sort of fellow.

-------

College: Dr. Harvey

The Evidence: Makes frequent comparisons to the above-mentioned Ms. Atwood's novels, even though she is not covered in the classes he teaches (English and American Lit). The reading list for the classes that I am taking from him includes Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Sarah Orne Jewett, Mary Wollstonecraft Shelly and Sylvia Plath, and that's just in the first week. Was, however, slightly bemused that his daughter chose not to take the traditional anglican vow to 'obey' her husband.

The Verdict: Almost certainly sympathetic to feminism.

-------

College: Dr. Johnson

The Evidence: The theme of his general lit class this semester? Women in Patriarchal Societies.

The Verdict: Guilty, guilty, guilty.

[Virgil]

In my experience, YES

[cuppajoe_9]

I thought you'd like that, Virg. :D

[kathycf]

Hmm, so simply assigning or discussing works by female authors is radical feminism? While Atwood is not my cup of tea, it would seem to make sense that most of the other writers you mention would be part of or included in discussions about literature.

[bluevictim]

Wait ... I might be a closet radical feminist! Check this out! I better go see an exorcist.

[Scheherazade]

Wait ... I might be a closet radical feminist! Check this out! I better go see an exorcist.*rubs on some motor oil to keep BV away from herself*

In the name of all things masculine and unhygenic, I ask you to give up your (feminist) evil ways, BV!!!

:p

[kathycf]

I am going to get some raspberry jam with bits myself, my supply of motoroil ran out...:p

*edit* including works by mostly mainstream writers doesn't seem very radical to me. There is a difference (at least in my mind) between advocating that women be recognized as worthy human beings with all the flaws, frailties, strengths and weaknesses that go along with the human condition...and being "radical". That is what feminism means to me, that women are no better or worse than men and that we must look at people as individuals first. That isn't radical to me. Radical feminists or "feminazis" as some clever pundit calls them may or may not agree with me.

[cuppajoe_9]

Some clarification: radical feminists, by definition, are those which see patriarchy as a harmful institution, not those which hate men.

*edit* Some more clarification: I am a radical feminist, and in fact am very loud and obnoxious about it.

[bluevictim]

In the name of all things masculine and unhygenic, I ask you to give up your (feminist) evil ways, BV!!!I'll read some Hemingway.

cuppajoe_9: The conventional wisdom is that academia leans to the left of the political spectrum, so I guess there are probably more radical feminist English teachers than radical feminist NASCAR drivers.

[dramasnot6]

I usually call myself a "hardcore feminist" but may switch to radical after seeing how much nicer it looks in this thread....
I love when my english teachers are feminist and sometimes cross my fingers that it may win me a little bias marking for my consistently feminist take on everything. :p I hope someday to get more involved in the feminist community though, I certainly have not experienced much oppurtunity so far,only personal writing and discussion.
:lol: bluevictim! But i agree, although there are the exceptions. My english/drama teacher in 8th grade once said "There are too many wussy(he used a word besides "wussy" though :sick:) left wing female teachers in the world. We need more right wing liberatarians like me." I found it infuriating at the time but look back at it and laugh now.

[B-Mental]

well, right wing feminist is kind of an oxymoron. How do you say you don't want things to change and then try to promote change. There is a reason why these professors may lean this way, but really who cares what way they are leaning. Women have been misrepresented in the affairs by men for millenia. Whats wrong with a couple of english professors opening some minds to the writings of an underepresented half of the population...(actually population is approx 52% female 48% male).

[dramasnot6]

I am going to get some raspberry jam with bits myself, my supply of motoroil ran out...:p

*edit* including works by mostly mainstream writers doesn't seem very radical to me. There is a difference (at least in my mind) between advocating that women be recognized as worthy human beings with all the flaws, frailties, strengths and weaknesses that go along with the human condition...and being "radical". That is what feminism means to me, that women are no better or worse than men and that we must look at people as individuals first. That isn't radical to me. Radical feminists or "feminazis" as some clever pundit calls them may or may not agree with me.

That's a really interesting take on "radical feminism" Kathy. I always assumed Feminism meant promoting women to be seen and treated as equals to men in all aspects of society. I too believe that gender makes no difference to how flawed a human is, although sometimes a society's treatment and expectations of a gender can lead to them exhibiting those flaws unintentionally. That is really what feminism is about,isn't it? Making society aware that both men and women are equally capable to shape themselves as individuals.That we should not conform to stereotyping or prejudice in order to allow people to become their own person, not just a product of external influence. A boy in my 11th grade Lit class once asked why there was feminism but no equivalent for males. It makes sense as a question, but when seeing feminism as a strive for equality between both gender, it also serves as the equivalent for males. If males were the ones prejudiced in most aspects of society the name would probably be different, but still essentially mean the same thing.

[B-Mental]

I personally think its funny that two women I respect in the forums have decided to smother their bodies with motor oil &/or raspberry jam in a post about feminist.:lol: :lol: :lol:

[cuppajoe_9]

The conventional wisdom is that academia leans to the left of the political spectrum, so I guess there are probably more radical feminist English teachers than radical feminist NASCAR drivers.Well, the convention wisdom on matters such as this is, quite often, wrong. I haven't seen any actual studies recently, but my professors are generally represenatative of the political beliefs of the rest of my area (meaning that they're flaming reactionaries), but it doesn't seem to be the case for the English profs, which is why I ask.

I doubt if many NASCAR drivers could spell 'feminist".


well, right wing feminist is kind of an oxymoron.Not at all. One could easily support laissez-faire capitalism as an economic system, and thus be right-wing, and stilll be a feminist.


I personally think its funny that two women I respect in the forums have decided to smother their bodies with motor oil&/or raspberry jam in a post about feministFeminists don't like smearing themselves with raspberry jam now? :confused: :confused: :confused:

[Scheherazade]

Feminists don't like smearing themselves with raspberry jam now? :confused: :confused: :confused:But they still have an aversion to motor oil, right?

:p

[kathycf]

Oh, cuppa, I have always had the impression that you were a feminist, I meant no offense with my post. It just struck me as funny that the act of including women authors is seen by some (not necessarily you) as being feminist. It seems natural to me that works by all sorts of writers are included in literature classes or discussions.

Drama, I don't know that my thinking on feminism fits in with accepted definitions of what feminism is. I talk to different people and read alot and have my own viewpoint on the subject. I sometimes get the impression from folks I talk to that they think feminism is a belief that women are intrinsically better than men, but I think that is a load of hogwash. People are individuals and we all have strengths and weaknesses. To me, in my mind...feminism is recognizing that women are people ....we have the potential to be brilliant, strong, capable, brave, stupid , mean, weak and half-witted. Women have all the same potential as men (except for some physical differences of course...which in modern times means less and less)

Anway I am rambling. I am a rambler, but I never said that I was a radical....:D

[cuppajoe_9]

How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb?

That's not funny.

[cuppajoe_9]

It just struck me as funny that the act of including women authors is seen by some (not necessarily you) as being feminist. It seems natural to me that works by all sorts of writers are included in literature classes or discussions. No no, it's not that the authors are women, it's that they are all themselves fairly radical feminists (particularly Plath and Gillman), and that my prof tends to dwell on the feminist readings of their works.


I sometimes get the impression from folks I talk to that they think feminism is a belief that women are intrinsically better than men, but I think that is a load of hogwash.:banana: :banana: :banana: :thumbs_up :thumbs_up :thumbs_up :nod: :nod: :nod:

[kathycf]

:lol: :lol:

Ok I am running to the store now to get that motor oil....even if it means driving to the 24 hour store and paying double. The heck with the jam.

How many feminists to change a lightbulb?! Lightbulbs are the tools of the oppressor my friend...the oppressor. :p (what did I even write? I have no clue...should get some sleep..)



No no, it's not that the authors are women, it's that they are all themselves fairly radical feminists (particularly Plath and Gillman), and that my prof tends to dwell on the feminist readings of their works.


Oh, ok. I still need to get some sleep so I can communicate more coherently...

[bluevictim]

I personally think its funny that two women I respect in the forums have decided to smother their bodies with motor oil &/or raspberry jam in a post about feminist.:lol: :lol: :lol:They can't resist my charms. I've got the Kavorka!

[Nightshade]

Well while Im not anti feminist nothing has ever made me laugh or :goof: so much as the radical femanist interpritaton of La belle dan sans merci by keats, it was jus the most ridiculous thing...:lol:

but atwood some books eing just that little bit too much for me is really enjoyable to read her way with words is awesome:nod:

[jon1jt]

I'll read some Hemingway.

cuppajoe_9: The conventional wisdom is that academia leans to the left of the political spectrum, so I guess there are probably more radical feminist English teachers than radical feminist NASCAR drivers.


well that's true; but i bet there are more right-wing republican NASCAR drivers than politicians in Washington. :lol:

[B-Mental]

They can't resist my charms. I've got the Kavorka!

Dang Man! I need a Kavorka where can I get one...LOL

[Petrarch's Love]

I, for one, am going into university teaching for the sole purpose of brainwashing our youth to revive the kingdom of the Amazons. http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e386/LeonardoD/medieval.gif

[bluevictim]

Dang Man! I need a Kavorka where can I get one...LOLI'm not sure how to get it, but evidently (http://www.seinfeldscripts.com/TheConversion.htm), a Latvian Orthodox priest or bishop can help you get rid of it.

[Miss Darcy]

Are a lot of English teachers closet radical feminists?

YES!!!

It's the main thing that turns me off Literary Studies at uni. Though I still love it.

[Nightshade]

I, for one, am going into university teaching for the sole purpose of brainwashing our youth to revive the kingdom of the Amazons. http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e386/LeonardoD/medieval.gif

You do realise they are called amazons because they chopped off thier breasts to fight better? My etmalogical dictionnary says this and then it says. Obviously an invention I wonder what it means by that :confused:.

Actaully if were not for me being squuemmish about blood and pain, you could sign me up for your new amazon race:nod:

[Pensive]

Most of my English teachers have been vice versa.

I have not got anything against feminism as long as it does not provoke people to hold the banners of "Women are better than men". All genders should be respected equally. Things like "first ladies" annoy me a lot as well.

Women in the world are suffering and they should be helped, not because they are women, but because they are human-beings. Where women are suffering, there are millions of men facing problems like unemployment, poverty, responsibility of many children, especially in developing countries; these men should also be helped, not because they are men. But because they are human-beings. So it is "human rights" organizations that we need more than "go-feminists". Just my opinion.

[Virgil]

Most of my English teachers have been vice versa.

I have not got anything against feminism as long as it does not provoke people to hold the banners of "Women are better than men". All genders should be respected equally. Things like "first ladies" annoy me a lot as well.

Women in the world are suffering and they should be helped, not because they are women, but because they are human-beings. Where women are suffering, there are millions of men facing problems like unemployment, poverty, responsibility of many children, especially in developing countries; these men should also be helped, not because they are men. But because they are human-beings. So it is "human rights" organizations that we need more than "go-feminists". Just my opinion.

Great post Pensy. You captured how I feel exactly. :)

[SleepyWitch]

Drama, I don't know that my thinking on feminism fits in with accepted definitions of what feminism is. I talk to different people and read alot and have my own viewpoint on the subject. I sometimes get the impression from folks I talk to that they think feminism is a belief that women are intrinsically better than men, but I think that is a load of hogwash. People are individuals and we all have strengths and weaknesses. To me, in my mind...feminism is recognizing that women are people ....we have the potential to be brilliant, strong, capable, brave, stupid , mean, weak and half-witted. Women have all the same potential as men (except for some physical differences of course...which in modern times means less and less)


i like your definition of feminism a lot :)

Pensy, very well spoken, if only the world's leader and influential people thought like you! there are still so many people in influential positions who still haven't bent their head round the "human rights" aspect of the problem.

cuppa, maybe those teachers are also trying to catch up on books written by women because these have been neglected for ages. maybe they assume that you've already read all the books by men (my professors invariably assume we read all the classics in kindergarten and are always setting us the second most famous book by an author as if we'd already read the most famous one).

[Scheherazade]

Women in the world are suffering and they should be helped, not because they are women, but because they are human-beings. Where women are suffering, there are millions of men facing problems like unemployment, poverty, responsibility of many children, especially in developing countries; these men should also be helped, not because they are men. But because they are human-beings. So it is "human rights" organizations that we need more than "go-feminists". Just my opinion.Very nice sentiments, Pensive.

However, it is noteworthy that those men are not facing the problems they have because they have been oppressed/repressed or ignored by women; it is a worry for the whole of humanity, like you said.

When it comes to defending women's rights it is vital to remember that most of their problems (eg, not getting proper education, not being offered the chance to make their own decisions, or lack of equal pay etc) have stem from the fact that they live in patriarchal / male dominated societies. So, there is a need for extra effort until all women and men have the equal chances and we can start treating it all as a mere human rights issue.

However, this is hard to achieve, I believe, when there are many so many obstacles in the way. How can we assume it is fair play when there are societies where it is acceptable for women to be married or circumcised against their wish, where their legal testimony is not considered half as worthy as a man's, where they cannot even ask for a divorce without getting a 'bad' name for themselves, where they get sentenced to jail sentences or killed by their own families because they have got raped?

How can we ignore all these and simply assume that there is no need for extra effort when it comes to defending women's rights on certain occasions? How can we correct all these wrong doings when we, as women, think these are non-issues and rather believe that some girls lose their 'good' name and religious 'credibility' because they happen to engage in something as purely entertaining as dancing in the presence of men?
I also saw dancing of the girls behind their Abayya. It was what surprised me the most. They danced, and like mad and nothing happened to their religion then. There were men over there as well. Though boys over ten were forbidden but still there were college lab workers, the people who arrange sound system and stuff. At that time, I felt the whole Abayya thing very fake indeed. Humbug! These liars call themselves very religious-oh-so-good girls, and when given opportunity, they can show themselves naked.
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=300841&postcount=4131

[Madhuri]

Very Well said, Scher, very well said :thumbs_up. I think exactly the same way. There is really a need for the 'extra effort' even to bring it to the level of making it a human rights issue.

I have never seen or heard men being oppressed by women, it is quite posible, though. What about dowry deaths? I am sure Pensy will be aware of such tortures, I read about it a lot in newspapers, and if you believe me, I have seen it happen too. It is heard and seen everywhere in India and Pakistan, I can say for Pakistan as well, as I know the social structure of India and Pakistan is very very rigid. Is it justifiable that a man should kill his wife because she did not fulfill his dowry demands? Women are being burnt/poisoned/killed someway or the other because of that. How many times has one heard a wife burn her husband because he was not able to provide for the family. I have also quoted in another thread about female infanticide/abortions. Who gave anybody the right to kill a girl child because of their gender? I am sure it is not because both men and women are suffering in 'general,' as such tortures are inflicted not because they are human beings but more because they are women. It is agreed that the suffering is there, but there is a greater need to protect women because the magnitude of their suffering is bigger as compared to men.

I am sorry I quote Indian scenarios always, but this society is what I have seen most. It presents a very dismal situation with regards to women.

[SleepyWitch]

Very Well said, Scher, very well said :thumbs_up. I think exactly the same way. There is really a need for the 'extra effort' even to bring it to the level of making it a human rights issue.

I have never seen or heard men being oppressed by women, it is quite posible, though. What about dowry deaths? I am sure Pensy will be aware of such tortures, I read about it a lot in newspapers, and if you believe me, I have seen it happen too. It is heard and seen everywhere in India and Pakistan, I can say for Pakistan as well, as I know the social structure of India and Pakistan is very very rigid. Is it justifiable that a man should kill his wife because she did not fulfill his dowry demands? Women are being burnt/poisoned/killed someway or the other because of that. How many times has one heard a wife burn her husband because he was not able to provide for the family. I have also quoted in another thread about female infanticide/abortions. Who gave anybody the right to kill a girl child because of their gender? I am sure it is not because both men and women are suffering in 'general,' as such tortures are inflicted not because they are human beings but more because they are women. It is agreed that the suffering is there, but there is a greater need to protect women because the magnitude of their suffering is bigger as compared to men.

I am sorry I quote Indian scenarios always, but this society is what I have seen most. It presents a very dismal situation with regards to women.

yep, you're right there, Maddie, these things don't happen to men, so in this respect it's not a matter of 'human rights' only.
but still, to improve the situation of these women, it's not only necessary to give them more legal rights but also the role of man needs to change.
e.g. as long as men are regarded as the natural breadwinners (i.e. more valuable than girls) people will kill girls. But if men are to accept women as equals in all respects male gender roles need to change too, so that men don't need to feel threatened by assertive women.
bah, I'm not very coherent this morning, but you no what i mean.

I think there are lots of obstacles in the way, because gender discrimination goes together with economical exploitation. For example, international corporations employ thousands and millions of women in developing countries because they are cheap labour. So not everybody in the West/North will be happy if these women get more rights.

[Pensive]

Very nice sentiments, Pensive.

However, it is noteworthy that those men are not facing the problems they have because they have been oppressed/repressed or ignored by women; it is a worry for the whole of humanity, like you said.

Yes, when feminists talk about women rights, then they actually forget this aspect that men are bound by certain things as well. They are expected to do certain things and if a woman tries putting herself on man's place in a country like Pakistan, she will notice that a man's part is not as easy as some feminists say. Saying that men should be beneath women is wrong. And some feminists come with such ridiculous stuff as well.


When it comes to defending women's rights it is vital to remember that most of their problems (eg, not getting proper education, not being offered the chance to make their own decisions, or lack of equal pay etc) have stem from the fact that they live in patriarchal / male dominated societies. So, there is a need for extra effort until all women and men have the equal chances and we can start treating it all as a mere human rights issue.

I agree. Where did I say that women should not be educated? Education is the key for the sucess of the WHOLE nation, not only for women. If you will ask me - I will say that women's education in the country will be as good for men as for women. And why not do something that will put both genders in an equal line? Surely, such organizations don't hurt, but what I am against are the people holding banners of "ladies first" and "women should be respected more than men because religion/this/that/blah blah states so".


However, this is hard to achieve, I believe, when there are many so many obstacles in the way. How can we assume it is fair play when there are societies where it is acceptable for women to be married or circumcised against their wish, where their legal testimony is not considered half as worthy as a man's, where they cannot even ask for a divorce without getting a 'bad' name for themselves, where they get sentenced to jail sentences or killed by their own families because they have got raped?

Yes, this sucks. I know. Living in a place where all these things are common, very common indeed I can understand how it feels. But the whole thing is, as I have already stated that making a woman so much mighty creature (as many feminists do) is not going to work. What is going to work is to arrange organizations which are just based on EQUAL HUMAN RIGHTS. Not those feminists things which end in "ladies first".


How can we ignore all these and simply assume that there is no need for extra effort when it comes to defending women's right on certain occasions? How can we correct all these wrong doings when we, as women, think these are non-issues and rather believe that some girls lose their 'good' name and religious 'credibility' because they happen to engage in something as purely entertaining as dancing in the presence of men?http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=300841&postcount=4131

Ummmm actually, you did not see my point in that post which was on a very different topic. It meant that the world is full of hypocrisy. People say that dancing is forbidden in Islam, and talks ill about others when they do it. But when they themselves do this; everything becomes right for them. I didn't think that you would take it as if I meant that it was wrong of them to dance. What hurt at that time was their hypocrisy, NOT DANCING. Why would have been I there watching all that stuff if I was against it? :)

And if you take this point to show that how miserable women are; then I will have to say that men are not free from this over here, dear Scher. You would not find a respected man who drinks in the stereotypical Pakistani society. Believe me, you wouldn't! You wouldn't find a man who rapes and everyone praises him for that. No, you wouldn't! But yes, you will find a man praised who killed his wife because she tried to run away with her lover, because he did not ruin his "respect" (yes, a wife is called respect of her husband). A husband who does not kill such a wife is jeered/sneered at. This is strange, isn't it? But this is how things go in some parts of world.

Mostly, this is because the men as well as women are not educated. I agree that women need education, but my point is so do men. Ignoring men's education (which many feminists do) is not a right thing to do. So personally, I will stick to my opinion that human rights' organizations are what we need and they can cover all aspects, not to mention middle-sexes who are also not getting rights in this world. By human rights organization, I mean organizations based on this fact that all THREE GENDERS are equal.

This is people's own choice if they want to categorize it into "women rights" or other sub-categories. This is called devision of something for good, and it surely doesn't hurt. And I have never actually stated that there is anything wrong in feminism unless you start saying that women are better than men which many feminists do. (At least I have heard some women who call themselves feminists saying so.)

[Nightshade]

OH i ddont know the world is crooked place and thats the truth, in someways I am all for equality etc etc at the same time I cant help but feel the feminist are trying to say you can eat your cake and have it. Well you cant. Fairly recently some feminist person came on tele and apologised to the women and teenagers of today and actually said she was wrong. You cant have a perfect home a major sucessfull high flying carreer always look beautiful have perfect family and have time to do things like bake and those little housewiffy things women sterotypically from the 1950's did. you can have one or the other or somthing in the middle but you cant have both completly , frankly I dont know why anyone would want to, too much stress, but it is the expectation feminism has given us I think.

Personally Im a womanisit, I think women should have the choice to do what they want, whether its stay at home and have babies and the perfect house or go out and work till you drop. or somewhere in the middle but they should have a choice.

[Virgil]

Here, here. You girls (Pensy and Night) are great! Let me make it clear, I am not against women's rights. But anyone that listens to the radical feminists can see they have gone way beyond that.

[Redzeppelin]

In answer to joe's original question - at least in college, it is probably true; universities these days - overpopulated with liberal theorists - have almost made it required that its English professors have some sort of ideological "filter" through which they view literature. That's fine in its place, to a certain extent, but I'm not sure that that filter can always be trusted to examine the heart of the work without violating it in some way. Ideologies - used properly - can bring out enlightening facets of a work; but, used as an interpretive device through which all works of literature must be passed, well, I wonder how accurate it is in terms of its conclusions.

As such, "feminist" interpretations may or may not be valid - but the "feminist" professor will insist that it's always a valid interpretation of any work.

[Virgil]

red, you might find this old thread interesting:http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15115.

A discussion along similar lines mostly between me and Unnamable, a fellow who is no longer with us here.

[kathycf]

I am getting a little off topic here myself, but I tend to agree with Night. Women as individuals have the right to make choices for themselves about their own lives. It is wrong to take away freedom from people, regardless of their sex. There are many horrible wrongs being commited against females simply because they ARE female. I don't see this much on a first hand basis, as an American there aren't customs regarding female circumsion and other terrible things.

(btw, feminism does not have to mean "women are better, superior beings". I believe in equality and to me, equality means equal, not better. This is not to say the sexes do not have differences, of course they do. It is simply saying our differences as females do not make us "less than". )