Posters on feminist blogs lose patience with having to explain Feminism 101 to trolls. Historiann observed that people were being more patient with Clarissa because Clarissa had a female name — that a troll assumed to be male would have been ignored earlier. As I understand it, Historiann actually was telling people NOT to do treat trolls differently and making the point that a troll was a troll. Go back and reread.

Moreover, Historiann is a blogger, not an oracle. She is a popular blogger and people admire her, yes. But she talks in the language of feminist sociology and theory that many of us know and understand. If you do not understand what we’re talking about, it’s not because everyone else is engaged in hero worship of Historiann. It’s probably because you don’t get it.

>More generally, I think the discussion here lacks nuance and sophistication. Take >cooking, for example. Most folks would probably say that cooking is “gendered” >female — but not when it comes to chefs! And if college teaching is now >“gendered” female, that is probably a byproduct of he progress women have made >in this field — 50 or 100 years ago, it would have been “gendered” male.

To many of us, this reads as a rather naive paragraph, and one that suggests you’re not well versed in feminist thinking. That’s okay, but just know that you’re not raising original points here and you’re really not seeing the whole argument. In fact, the gendering of household versus professional cooking is a textbook example of gendered hierarchies … but I’ll let you research that on your own.

>And by the way, folks — how do you know I’m a guy? Or are you just assuming >that Jack Daniels drinkers are “gendered” male?

I have no idea what gender you are, but it doesn’t affect my statements. I will say that very often trolls / aggressive newbies on feminist blogs are men who are defensive about their privilege, but that doesn’t mean it’s always true. At any rate, it sounds like this blog won’t be a good experience for you and I suggest you move along.

The two teachers who ran the best literature discussions during my time as an undergrad did the kind of teaching that I recognize now was time-consuming, the kind frequently described as “nurturing.” They ran small-group paper draft conferences. They varied their seminar classes substantially from term to term, so that being umpteen times more familiar with the texts than their students didn’t tempt them to lecture instead of discussing. And they were incredibly accessible– they were in their offices when they said they would be and offered no visible signs of annoyance at being interrupted. In fact, they were frequently in their offices even when they hadn’t said they would be, and if they were present and not in a meeting, their doors were open. My advisor, who was one of these teachers, read my drafts when I was applying for graduate school. In fact, we’ve stayed in at least intermittent contact since I began graduate school; we trade reading lists and chat occasionally about teaching techniques and professionalization.

One of those teachers was female; the other (my advisor) was male. Initially, both of them were denied tenure for not publishing enough. In the case of the male teacher, the tenure decision was reversed after he won the school’s Young Teacher of the Year award. I’m grateful that my advisor stayed– he was by far the best fit for me in the department. But it’s always been odd to me that even the SLAC I attended, which ostensibly prized intensive teaching over research, seems to have made it very difficult for teaching-focused professors to get tenure and stay.

I don’t have enough information about how the tenure process works (even at a single school) to make a solid argument here. But I have heard from a professor at my graduate school, who has been helping advisees through the placement process, that the English department at my SLAC has a reputation as an uncomfortable place for female professors (and, perhaps, extrapolating from my advisor, an uncomfortable place for male professors who are much more nurturing teachers than their male colleagues). And my undergrad advisor has told me in somewhat rueful tones that when I go on the market, departments are going to be looking for an interesting researcher first, a committed teacher a rather distant second, and a collegial and decent person somewhere way on down the road.

Oops, I just linked this post in Shakesville’s monday blogaround, so some more readers may swing by. I doubt they would engage Jack, though.

I think this thread is dead–no one else need comment or rise to Jack’s bait.

More generally, I think the discussion here lacks nuance and sophistication. Take cooking, for example. Most folks would probably say that cooking is “gendered” female — but not when it comes to chefs! And if college teaching is now “gendered” female, that is probably a byproduct of he progress women have made in this field — 50 or 100 years ago, it would have been “gendered” male.

And by the way, folks — how do you know I’m a guy? Or are you just assuming that Jack Daniels drinkers are “gendered” male?

(When I was much younger than I am now I thought I had outrun sexism or could. However, closer to the truth is that I didn’t know how to recognize it when it happened to me.)

@Jack – you’re going to have to try harder. There are several men in this conversation…

(When I was much younger than I am now I thought I had outrun sexism or could. However, closer to the truth is that I didn’t know how to recognize it when it happened to me.)