I'm just finishing up my Freshman year of college. Recently for my English class, we had to write a persuasive argument paper. I chose to write mine about the complicated and unfair nature of gender roles. Today in class, we had our final and received our papers back, along with the grade and a page of my instructor's comments.
If anyone was wondering, I got a B on the paper, but I was shocked by my professor's comments. Well, maybe shocked is a bit of an understatement- I was livid. Basically, she was counter-arguing my paper in a way that seemed to say, "Women are weaker than men, there's no such thing as gender roles, nobody really wants to be gay, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it."
She disagreed with my critique of The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality . She says, "It's actually a pretty good website: balanced, logical, and supported by research. It recognizes that some people are genuinely stressed over their feelings of homosexual attraction and want to overcome these feelings."
Um, WHAT?
What I was getting at in my paper (which I won't post here becase it's eleven pages long and we haven't got all day) is that the only reason people are "genuinely stressed" about their feelings of same-sex attraction is because society looks down on it.
As far as I know, if you are attracted to something, that means you like it. Therefore, if a woman feels attracted to other women, that means that she gets some degree of pleasure from them. Since a large chunk of society, along with brainwashing organizations like NARTH believe that "homosexuality is not a healthy, natural alternative to heterosexuality," some people who feel attracted to people of the same sex feel as if they are doing something wrong by having these attractions. (It's worth mentioning that I used that exact quote from NARTH in my paper.) NARTH tells people that they are wrong for feeling attracted to people of the same sex, but I'm going out on a limb here to say that NARTH is actually wrong.
If nobody were pressuring these people to "pray the gay away," then they wouldn't feel "genuinely stressed" about their feelings in the first place! Can you imagine a world where a boy grows up feeling attracted to girls and his parents tell him that he's a pervert?
No, you can't, because that shit would never happen.
In my paper, I quote an excerpt from a book written by that organization's founder, Joseph Nicolosi called A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality. (If nothing else, the fact that the same guy who created that website also wrote that book should prove that NARTH is anything but balanced.) In his book, Nicolosi talks about a family who fears that their little boy, Jimmy, is "turning gay." Here's an excerpt from my paper:
"The parents, Gloria and Gordon, were concerned that their youngest son, Jimmy, was “showing many signs of pre-homosexual behavior.” That is, he liked to play with jewelry and makeup and he had developed a very close bond with his mother, not his father. When Jimmy seemed withdrawn and depressed, his parents were too self-absorbed to notice. His father Gordon said, "When Jimmy was little, I went through a tough time. Our marriage was stretched to the max, and I was having a lot of trouble at work. I guess I just didn't want to be bothered reaching out to a temperamental little kid who pouted and stomped off to his room whenever I said something he took as criticism." Joseph Nicolosi, in a dazzling display of genius professional advice, told Gordon to simply spend time with his son in order to cure him of his impending homosexuality."
Next to this, my teacher has written, "But was it wrong to tell Gordon to spend time with his son?" Read on...
"...Quality time as a cure for Jimmy’s sadness was obvious, but somehow, it never occurred to Jimmy’s parents that maybe the stress from their “stretched marriage” might be affecting their son negatively. Instead, they only worried that his preference for feminine things was turning him gay. Maybe the reason Jimmy seemed withdrawn was simply because he felt genuinely sad. Maybe he felt closer to his mother because his father explicitly said that he “couldn’t be bothered” to give Jimmy any special attention. Jimmy’s interest in supposedly “feminine” things sent his parents into hysterics; they would rather blame their son’s problems on homosexuality (as if it were the worst thing in the world to have a gay or effeminate child) rather than examine their own behavior as parents. Their homophobia stems from the fear that their son will not be manly. According to this line of thinking, if Jimmy is not manly, he must be girly, which means that he will eventually be gay. This means that in his parents’ eyes, there is something wrong with him."
I don't think Joseph Nicolosi is some kind of psychiatric, child-rearing genius for telling a father to spend time with the child whose relationship with him is obviously growing distant. I have a problem with the fact that both Nicolosi and Gordon chalked up his son's problems to homosexuality rather than realizing that he needs to be a better father to his little boy.
The next part is where my brain almost exploded. The main idea of my paper was that gender roles are what make society stuck in a position that devalues women because they are seemingly inferior to men because of a false association with weakness. Thus, feminine traits are devalued. For some reason, my teacher felt the need to say the following:
(bold emphasis = my own commentary)
When you speak about how society views women as weak, part of that is basic human anatomy. Physically speaking, women generally are smaller and weaker than men, so it is not surprising that we do tend to view women as weaker. (Yes, and the entire point of my paper is to say THAT IS CRAP. ) Because humans are naturally aggressive, we innately uphold strength, power, and competence because these traits prevent us from being vulnerable. Since this is true, it is no surprise that we have consistently preferred male traits over female traits. Whether we like it or not, females are more vulnerable: we can be sexually assaulted, (And men can't be sexually assaulted? Does my teacher live under a rock?) we aren't usually as strong as men, and we get pregnant. (So because we have the ability to create life, that somehow makes us weaker...?) In fact, the UN has recognized that women and children are deserving of special rights and protection because of the fact that they are more vulnerable than men. This is something that we really cannot help: (Crazy person says WHAT? Seriously? Are we just supposed to lie back and accept this?) in fact, in the case of Bruen*, she is a strong, athletic woman that does not look weak at all. However, since she is a woman, she was in more danger when she walked in that specific area of campus. Yet, even with her obvious physical strength, she was still more vulnerable simply because she is a woman. In all practicality, women will be continued to be viewed as the "weaker sex" by virtue of their basic human anatomy. This is a fact of life: (Who does she think she is, my mom? I don't care if she thinks sexism is a fact of life- it's not a fact that women are inferior, it's a MYTH.) it may not be fair, but many things in life are not. Gender roles have little to do with this: (Gender roles have EVERYTHING to do with it!) anatomy is the e basic factor here. A very small, slight man will be in more danger than a strapping big fellow and women will continue to be weaker and more vulnerable than men due to their basic physiological characteristics."
*= Bruen refers to Melissa Bruen, a college student who was sexually assaulted on campus and was assaulted again by a different group of guys after she punched the first assailant in the face. I cited Jessica's book, The Purity Myth (which I am in LOVE with!) as a source, which is how I found out about it in the first place.
Here's my excerpt referring to Melissa's story:
"Sexual harassment in the workplace makes it difficult for women to succeed, but other forms of sexual harassment endanger women’s lives, as well as their dignity and autonomy. In 2008, Melissa Bruen, a student at the University of Connecticut was walking home along a campus trail when a man “picked [her] up by [her] shoulders, pinned [her] up against a nearby pole,” and started thrusting up against her. Bruen fought back: she shoved the man off of her and pushed him to the ground. Then, she punched him in the face. Just as her assailant ran off, a group of men started to crowd around her. “Another man approached me and said, ‘You think that was assault?’ and he pulled down my tube top, and grabbed my breasts. More men started to cheer. It didn’t matter to the drunken mob that my breasts were being shown or fondled against my will. They were happy to see a topless girl all the same.” (“Weekend Nightmare” par. 3) In The Purity Myth, author Jessica Valenti wrote of this incident, “Bruen, who presumably did what one should do when being attacked – fight back - was assaulted because she was breaking the mold that expects women to be docile victims. Fighting back, after all, isn’t ladylike” (172). The men who attacked Melissa Bruen were obviously opposed her defending herself from what probably would have resulted in rape. Bruen’s aggression towards her first assailant isn’t expected from females, which is probably why the man chose to attack her in the first place; it is likely that he assumed she would just stand there and let him have his way with her, since girls are, of course, regarded as passive and quiet. Women are trapped in a paradox bind where they must either sit back and suffer the assault, or fight back and possibly risk making the situation worse."
My so-called educator wrote on this page, "Bruen was foolishly walking in [a part of campus called] the 'Rape Trail.' She should not have been in that dangerous place."
... Okay. So because Melissa Bruen was walking through that part of campus, she deserved what they did to her?
So it's her fault because she should have known she would get attacked on the "Rape Trail?" After all, they wouldn't call it the rape trail for nothin'!
Here's what I think: There is NO reason whatsoever for ANY part of that campus to be so dangerous for women that it earns such a sick nickname. There is no reason why female students shouldn't be able to go to certain parts of campus because certain guys think it's okay to be drunken rapist assholes. The fact that this area exists proves that there is a problem with the way women are viewed. There is no justification for sexual assault, under any circumstances, ever. Period. I don't care that it is "accepted" as the "dangerous part of campus." The fact is that it should NOT be that way, and attacks on females like Melissa Bruen in that area of campus are entirely preventable.
I am so glad that I never have to see that instructor after today. What do y'all think? Is my teacher deluded, or am I just whining? My apologies for the length of this post, but I can't for the life of my figure out how to put it behind a cut.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: My English teacher doesn't believe sexism exists..
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13487
There's definitely something strange about your professor's comments ... and not just because they're so wrong. As a graduating English major, I've never had a professor make comments along these lines. It's hard to characterize what it is that makes her comments kind of "off" ... I mean, sure professors are supposed to help us deepen our thinking and point out ways in which our understanding is lacking, but it just seems like her version of doing that was inappropriate. First of all, when something is debatable, she should be able to go along with the argument that YOU want to make, and to help you strengthen THAT argument, not try to change the judgment that you have made. Especially since the paper was to write a persuasive essay. In a class where the content was concerned with gender roles specifically, and where you talked about it from different angles, MAYBE she could expect you to take some of the contradictory material into account (if only to rebut it), but that's not the case here. At the very least, I think she should just have left it as, ok if this is what you think, then you need to let your reader know how you would handle [this argument to the contrary]. Does that make sense? I think about it in terms of writing an interpretive essay on a piece of literature ... a professor can't tell you that you're just wrong, but they can say, if you're going to argue that, then you need to explain this other aspect of the story in light of that argument. And then if you can't explain it, it's up to YOU to decide that your interpretation was wrong. I don't know, that's just how I would have felt about it. Since nothing can be technically "proven" through these types of essays, only supported, there can't be wrong theses and right theses, only poorly-supported and well-supported theses. That's what I think, anyway, if it makes any sense. Basically, I think that instead of trying to debate all of the points that you make, she should have limited herself to viewing your points in light of your over-all thesis ... do they support it, and is there soemthing missing that would make your argument for your thesis stronger.
Damn, I thought my teacher was unprofessional by using double exclamation points in his comments on my paper while correcting my grammar.
This teacher is pretty crazy. While teachers generally ask students questions on papers or correct them when they haven't gone deep enough into an argument, no teacher (and I've had quite a few bad ones) I've had has done so much to place their opinions in a paper. Has this teacher done this before? Good thing it's just about the end of the year and you don't have to deal with it anymore.
I think that in this case you need to contact the head of the department and show your paper to him/her. What your teacher has done here is pretty inappropriate - yes, she is supposed to poke holes in your argument so that you can know where you need more support to make your paper persuasive, but instead she has become too caught up in her personal feelings about this issue to be impartial. Your grade probably reflects this, and you shouldn't allow her to potentially harm your GPA. As a teacher it is her responsibility to be fair and impartial, even when she disagrees with the argument being made, but it is clear that she is incapable of this and therefore shouldn't be teaching.
I completely agree with the above comment. I think a head of the department would clearly see the way your teacher graded your paper as being unfair and biased.
I third this, but not because of the grade, but because your teacher just told you that you are the "weaker sex." Sexist professors should not be professors unless they can keep it from affecting how and what they teach.
Definately not professional regarding your teachers response. The professors aren't always unbiased regarding matters, which makes it difficult when it comes to persuasive writing. Though I can understand a bias on a topic, I think they should have the maturity and common decency to look at it from all perspective without so much as an eye twitch or moan.
Related but not (related in the respect that some college's can't pick good candidates for teachers), we have a couple of professors at the college I go to who deliberately would give women a rough time. One professor is actually telling a family friend she is stupid and poor (in those words and loud enough for the entire class to hear) and that she has no voice because of that.
Had she ever thought the reason women and children need those protections because of usually what kind of people are in politcal power in most countries?
I think your prof is out of line on most points, but I don't entirely understand your objection to her comments on human anatomy.
Physically speaking, women generally are smaller and weaker than men
Reading that statement out of the context of everything else she said, I don't see a problem. On average, the human male is larger and more muscular than the human female. If we were spotted hyenas, the exact opposite would be true. How is such a statement about anatomy sexist? I realize there are certain negative connotations to the word "weak," but if you take it to mean "have less muscle mass," I don't think this particular statement is sexist.
I do have issues with the last half of that sentence, and the rest of her paragraph on supposed biological differences between males and females. To interpret an anatomical difference as inferiority, or as an invitation to sexual assault, is disgusting and inappropriate.
Dude, my brain just exploded.
I'd love to read your paper in its entirety though :)
My brain too exploded! I cannot believe a teacher would say something like that! I agree with what others are saying...it was totally and completely biased - the way she graded and commented your paper.
I am so tempted to show this post to two of my professors...they would flip a shit, as they both are hardcore feminists. Hell, I even flipped a shit!
wow. I completely agree with jlw about the fact that she should have helped you with the assignment as opposed to converting you to the victorian era gender philosophy. There is probably nothing you can do to convince her that she is wrong, and she is entitled to her opinions. But they should not affect the grading in her class. I suggest, along with others, that you go to the appropriate authority about this essay or your final grade (I assume its not going to be A+...), and bring her comments along. Hopefully, they will see how this professor's sexist personal beliefs are affecting her judgment. If not, and if you find that this is representative of the overall sentiment of the faculty and the administration, may be you should transfer...write your transfer admissions essay about this or something...I hope this turns out to be an exceptional case though.
I agree that you should appeal the grade through whatever procedures are in place at your school. If your instructor's opinions have coloured your grade, then I think you should appeal and rectify the issue.
As someone who is working on a Masters thesis about gender, in which "natural physical ability" is an issue, I can tell you that this kind of thinking is sadly pervasive, though maybe not to the extent demonstrated in your paper comments. Gender theory in general can be a tricky subject, but there is also a LOT of great feminist material on point. I hope you plan to keep working in this area as your education continues.
Good luck!!
"Because humans are naturally aggressive, we innately uphold strength, power, and competence because these traits prevent us from being vulnerable. Since this is true, it is no surprise that we have consistently preferred male traits over female traits."
I was particularly appalled by this statement. It may be true that most men have more strength and power than most women, but competence?????? She sure seems to be saying that competence is a male trait, also. Un-freaking-believable!
I was struck by this comment too. It seems odd that she singles these traits out as "human" and therefore admirable, and then equates them with men only. Does that mean that women aren't human?