Fragile Female Egos, Fragile Pomo Slacker Egos, and Questions

My musings in the post Fragile Male Egos yesterday got me thinking more about reactions to my teaching style in Gender Studies than the reaction of female students to disengaged male students in Gender Studies courses. I decided to rethink the same scenario changing some details to get at the assumptions of critics of my teaching style.

Case One: Fragile Female Egos

My new colleague asked me to take her Introduction to Under Siege* European Male Hegemony course this morning at 8 am! I am amazed that the students make it for that hour. I have to be up; Maddie makes sure of that.

Anyway, my colleague asked me to show Girls Shouldn't Cry Wolf and then get the students in small groups for discussion. I had some trouble getting the film started, so I threw out her plan. Showed part of the film, then had them put questions on the board and we started a discussion.

I was my usual, in-your-face-let's-talk-about-false accusations of rape-and-feminazi-revelry in victimhood self. I mostly pushed the group of women huddled together in the back of the room clinging for dear life. (They may have been perfectly at home--this was my perception based on past experience).

I wanted the students to think about the relationship of female coquettishness and false rape accusations. Why do women continually say “no” to their boyfriends sexual advances even though their eyes say “yes”? (In the back of my mind I had Kerry's observation about the normality of false rape accusations among our students).

Jane, played brilliantly by Melanie Griff, continually seduces men, winds back at their place after a few drinks, and then cuts the sexual act off. . At one point, Dirk (John Makeovich) asks her why she wears such seductive clothing and makes eyes at men in bars and then dares to accuse men of hurting her—raping her in fact—when she agreed to sex by the way she dressed and acted. Jane's response: "it just seemed like what feminists do here."

The film gets to the heart the rituals--painful ones at that--women go through to prove they are feminists. Proving you are a feminist, means proving you are frigid. That is why you have to dress sexy, then protest the sexual act, and then call rape.

In any case, I started directing some of my, admittedly, pointed questions to the women huddled together in the back row. One woman was doodling, and so I dubbed her "doodler." She didn't want to answer my question so threw it to her side kick. She lowered his eyes, hoping I wouldn't see her text messaging. Didn't work. Then a third woman said: "look, men cry rape as much as women do."

I turned back to others in the class. But, I returned to huddlers again and finally the men started "protecting" them. One man said: "they think you are picking on feminists." Another: "they feel attacked."

I found this phenomena fascinating. The men were rushing to protect the "fragile" egos of these women, because I was asking them the same questions I was asking everyone else? Sure, I was mocking doodler a little bit to get her to lighten up and answer the question. But, she further retreated into himself.

Clearly, these three women don't analyze feminazis and false rape accusations much. That's the point of the film. They get punished—violently by other feminists--if they do. But, I am still bemused by the mens' reaction to my attempt to get these women to think about these connections.

I have to go back on Wednesday. Any ideas what I could do to make this observation worthy of discussion in relation to the film?

Case Two: Fragile Pomo Slacker Egos

My new colleague asked me to take her Introduction to Epistemology course this morning at 8 am! I am amazed that the students make it for that hour. I have to be up; Maddie makes sure of that.

Anyway, my colleague asked me to discuss Searle’s account of the social construction of reality and social facts and then put students in small groups for discussion. I had some trouble finding the classroom, which cut into our time, so I threw out her plan. I gave a quick summary of Searle’s point, then had them put questions on the board and we started a discussion.

I was my usual, in-your-face-let's-talk-social facts-ultimately-referring-to-physical-facts-anti-french-pomo-social construction self. I mostly pushed the group of slackers huddled together in the back of the room clinging for dear life. (They may have been perfectly at home--this was my perception based on past experience).

I wanted the students to think about Searles’ claim that X counts as Y in C, using his example of money. Why do pomo thinkers miss the point that the value of money ultimately refers to precious objects? There is, duh, some physical fact that we then interpret socially. Ideas don’t make reality! (In the back of my mind I had Kerry's observation about the normality of Lyotard worship among our students).

I showed a tiny clip of the Derrida film to give students a flavor of the incoherence of French pomo claims about reality. At one point a young student studying under Derrida at Irvine is asked: “why do you continually subject yourself to this unintelligible drivel.” He responds: “It seems like what grad students do here!”


Searle gets to the heart of postmodern vapidity—which involves painful rituals of reality denying and extreme relativism.

In any case, I started directing some of my, admittedly, pointed questions to the slackers huddled together in the back row. One ambiguously gendered emo student was rolling his/her eyes, and so I dubbed him/her "eye roller." She/he didn't want to answer my question so threw it to his/her side kick. He lowered his eyes, hoping I wouldn't see him under his beanie* . Didn't work. Then a third woman said: "look, Searle is a right wing lunatic."

I turned back to others in the class. But, I returned to huddlers again and finally the other students started "protecting" them. One man said: "they think you are picking on post-modernists." Another: "they feel attacked."

I found this phenomena fascinating. The students were rushing to protect the "fragile" egos of these French theorists, because I was asking them the same questions I was asking everyone else? Sure, I was mocking eye roller a little bit to get him/her to lighten up and answer the question. But, she/he further retreated into himself/herself.

Clearly, these three slackers don't analyze the epistemological incoherence of their social construction theories. That’s the point of the film. They get punished—violently by other pomos--if they do. But, I am still bemused by the class reaction to my attempt to get these slackers to think about these connections.

I have to go back on Wednesday. Any ideas what I could do to make this observation worthy of discussion in relation to the film?


SOME QUESTIONS:

(1) Is the Case One ("fragile female egos") structurally equivalent to my "fragile male egos" post?

(2) Is Gender and Sexuality studies equivalent to European Male Hegemony studies?

(3) Does Gender and Sexuality studies strive to demean men as group or dehumanize them?

(4) Was asking pointed questions of the male students, who seemed unengaged, equivalent to pushing female students to recognize that feminism forces them to make false rape accusations? [For the record, in the class I taught yesterday, I didn't use the men as foils for any argument, I just pushed them to consider the content to the same degree that the women were.]

(5) In Case Two ("fragile pomo slacker egos"), does the in-your-face Socratic style unfairly beat up on 18-22 year olds?

(6) What makes Case Two different from my discussion from yesterday? I am willing to see the important differences that implies different pedagogical techniques, but let's spell them out.

(7) Does asking pointed questions to students who are unwilling to defend their viewpoint, picking on them? It might very well be.

**P.S. I think the best observation of the dynamics in my class yesterday come from Lesboprof who points out that I haven't yet earned the trust of the unengaged students in the class I was visiting. Having reflected a lot more on this, I think that is why my style could've come off as unfairly picking on the male students--given the pervasive stereotypes of angry feminists at work. This style doesn't seem to cause as much friction if the content is abstract and conceptual, e.g. what Linda Alcoff calls a "normative, familiar, trustworthy" "postural body image." ("The Phenomenology of Racial Embodiment," in Visible Identities.

*These changes are made thanks to *I*'s comment.