My sister is "not a feminist."

[Janeway]

2 hours ago, Garga said:

 

 

 

 

Ok, I think Janeway didn’t actually mean SAT tests, but meant to say more subjective tests.  I’ve heard that there are some orchestras where the people judging a new musician will not see the musician.  They will only listen to the music the person creates.  When they do that, men and women are chosen equally, but when they can see the people auditioning, they choose men more often.  They aren’t even really aware they’re doing it, it’s just so culturally ingrained that man are seen as more competent than women.  

 

I am sorry. I should clarify. Now they are adding in some sort of adversity score to the SAT. I do not think this is okay. But also, when the SAT is submitted to college, it says race and gender. A lot of scholarships including national merit type ones are tied to race and gender.  I remember in college being insulted by the suggestion of a female only scholarship and said I could compete just fine with the men. In hindsight, I should have taken the scholarship I guess because my stance changed nothing. But people should be insulted by the idea of getting hired, admitted, or even receiving scholarships, grants, or other money based on race or gender. And don't even get me started on sexual assault. I saw some grown men, one of whom was on the town council, passing around an article that showed a picture of a "hot" woman who had been convicted of raping a teen boy and these men were making fun of the young man and talking about how they wished they could be raped. Likewise, if a woman lies about rape, nothing ever happens to her, rarely anyway. It goes on and on. Back to the SAT..I was thinking about the handwriting thing. Shoot...my little one needs me..but..a little bit ago I read about females scoring higher on "standardized" tests that have writing when the handwriting looks nicer even though the quality of writing is not better. I cannot expand on this or look for the link..have to go..sorry.

[Frances]

1 hour ago, Murphy101 said:

 

Or... it's frustrating to have to defend one's private opinions in a public manner.  Granted, she opened that can of worms when she didn't just parrot what they wanted and expected to hear.  But I've done both, been honest and just silent, and either way it's frustrating because quite frankly the vast majority of people, academics or otherwise, do not seem to want to have a reasoned discussion.  Most of my frustration is not that I can't articulate myself, it's that everyone takes it as a personal insult instead of engaging in discussion.

I guess it probably depends on the setting or the school. In the honors college humanities classes at my son’s very liberal university, he found his more conservative views to be very, very welcome by the faculty, and he loved engaging in class discussions. The faculty would sometimes get so frustrated by the majority of students expressing the same liberal views that some would force students to take opposing views during class discussions. And when he attended an economics conference at Yale and quite forcefully argued against the majority (liberal) position on corporate taxation after a film/paper presenting that view, the moderator approached him afterward to inquire about his future plans. Upon hearing them, he offered to do everything possible to gain him admission there for his graduate professional degree (unrelated to economics), as he said the university really valued a variety of perspectives among the students. 

I think Kung Fu Panda’s sister will add a great deal to discussions in her literature class, as long as she willing to thoughtfully share and explain her ideas and views. Any good professor will welcome a variety of well-reasoned perspectives. I don’t think it’s uncommon for new college students to go through an adjustment period when having to defend their beliefs and ideas at a new, higher level. I’ve certainly seen some go though a similar process on this very board and have experienced it myself more than once when discussing certain topics.

[kiwik]

7 hours ago, SKL said:

The term feminist has changed so much that it's almost like the term gay.  A hundred years ago I could have said I was feeling gay at a party and it would have meant one thing.  Now it would mean something so different, I am literally not allowed to say it.

Right or wrong, folks are teaching young girls that, for example, feminists believe in the right to access abortion services.  OK then.  We are not feminists at my house.

I was taught that a true Christian would never join the military or take part in a war in ANY way (including as medics).  There are many Christian people on this board who have been or are in the armed forces.  What I was taught does not make those people less Christian.  Many are taught no Christian would be pro choice.  I am both Christan and pro choice.  The fact the people are taught something does not mean you have to accept it as truth or allow it to change the way you live or believe.

 

The OP's sister may or may not be or consider herself to be a feminist but she has more than many to thank feminists for.

Edited June 23, 2019 by kiwik

[Frances]

25 minutes ago, Janeway said:

I am sorry. I should clarify. Now they are adding in some sort of adversity score to the SAT. I do not think this is okay. But also, when the SAT is submitted to college, it says race and gender. A lot of scholarships including national merit type ones are tied to race and gender.  I remember in college being insulted by the suggestion of a female only scholarship and said I could compete just fine with the men. In hindsight, I should have taken the scholarship I guess because my stance changed nothing. But people should be insulted by the idea of getting hired, admitted, or even receiving scholarships, grants, or other money based on race or gender. And don't even get me started on sexual assault. I saw some grown men, one of whom was on the town council, passing around an article that showed a picture of a "hot" woman who had been convicted of raping a teen boy and these men were making fun of the young man and talking about how they wished they could be raped. Likewise, if a woman lies about rape, nothing ever happens to her, rarely anyway. It goes on and on. Back to the SAT..I was thinking about the handwriting thing. Shoot...my little one needs me..but..a little bit ago I read about females scoring higher on "standardized" tests that have writing when the handwriting looks nicer even though the quality of writing is not better. I cannot expand on this or look for the link..have to go..sorry.

When applications are submitted to colleges, they indicate race and gender. The SAT is not needed for this information. None of the National Merit Scholarships are tied to gender. While I don’t doubt there are some scholarships available based on gender, as a woman with a graduate STEM degree, I never heard of any during my time in undergrad or grad school.

The most common correlation I’ve heard between written standardized exams and scores concerns the amount written. Those who write more generally score higher, regardless of quality. As someone who used to grade lots of papers, I’m not surprised neater handwriting would be correlated with higher scores. When it takes so much effort just to decipher handwriting, it’s hard to both do that and follow the author’s train of thought, as the flow is constantly being interrupted. In the not too distant future, I’m guessing most high school standard exams will go the way of graduate ones and all be done on computers, so it will become a mute point.

I’m completely confused by the point you were trying to make about sexual assault with the town councilmen and article anecdote and the segue into women lying about rape.

[moonflower]

44 minutes ago, Janeway said:

I am sorry. I should clarify. Now they are adding in some sort of adversity score to the SAT. I do not think this is okay. But also, when the SAT is submitted to college, it says race and gender. A lot of scholarships including national merit type ones are tied to race and gender.  I remember in college being insulted by the suggestion of a female only scholarship and said I could compete just fine with the men. In hindsight, I should have taken the scholarship I guess because my stance changed nothing. But people should be insulted by the idea of getting hired, admitted, or even receiving scholarships, grants, or other money based on race or gender. And don't even get me started on sexual assault. I saw some grown men, one of whom was on the town council, passing around an article that showed a picture of a "hot" woman who had been convicted of raping a teen boy and these men were making fun of the young man and talking about how they wished they could be raped. Likewise, if a woman lies about rape, nothing ever happens to her, rarely anyway. It goes on and on. Back to the SAT..I was thinking about the handwriting thing. Shoot...my little one needs me..but..a little bit ago I read about females scoring higher on "standardized" tests that have writing when the handwriting looks nicer even though the quality of writing is not better. I cannot expand on this or look for the link..have to go..sorry.

 

The handwriting thing I can 100% believe.  I scored ACT writing tests for a while as a job; we were paid by the piece so as long as scores maintained a certain level of accuracy (that is, agreement with other scorers, basically, and accuracy on pre-scored tests that came though occasionally as accuracy checks), speed was rewarded.

So I could score a paper within the accuracy limits by skimming, basing the score largely on length, transitions, vocab, some sentence structure picked up, and handwriting.  It wasn't necessarily that good handwriting correlated with higher scores, but that consistent mature handwriting correlated with higher scores.  Probably this is because people who do a lot of writing, physical writing, are often studying more and therefore have more consistent, practiced handwriting on the whole (and also practice actually writing, if that makes sense).

It's not fair to grade papers that way, of course, but I am sure that is how some people are doing it.  Grading at top speed this way (there is a max allowable speed) I could do a paper every couple/few minutes.

[gardenmom5]

22 minutes ago, Janeway said:

I am sorry. I should clarify. Now they are adding in some sort of adversity score to the SAT. I do not think this is okay. But also, when the SAT is submitted to college, it says race and gender. A lot of scholarships including national merit type ones are tied to race and gender.  I remember in college being insulted by the suggestion of a female only scholarship and said I could compete just fine with the men. In hindsight, I should have taken the scholarship I guess because my stance changed nothing. But people should be insulted by the idea of getting hired, admitted, or even receiving scholarships, grants, or other money based on race or gender. And don't even get me started on sexual assault. I saw some grown men, one of whom was on the town council, passing around an article that showed a picture of a "hot" woman who had been convicted of raping a teen boy and these men were making fun of the young man and talking about how they wished they could be raped. Likewise, if a woman lies about rape, nothing ever happens to her, rarely anyway. It goes on and on. Back to the SAT..I was thinking about the handwriting thing. Shoot...my little one needs me..but..a little bit ago I read about females scoring higher on "standardized" tests that have writing when the handwriting looks nicer even though the quality of writing is not better. I cannot expand on this or look for the link..have to go..sorry.

THIS!

my son is an engineer.  75% of engineering scholarships are ONLY for non-white/non-Asian, and females.  SEVENTY - FIVE percent!  then a few more for ham radio operators.  the rest are open to 'everyone'.

if they want to do qualifying - it should be income based.

and on to the female rapist thing - the number of people who thought mary kay letounreau was "cute"... never mind she had a 12 year old.  the age of her victim.  then hollywierd went and made a movie about it because they thought it was "romantic".  hello - HE WAS 12!!!!   there were a lot of people who said because the boy couldn't get pregnant, - it wasn't a big deal.  no instead, he impregnated his teacher. twice.  and *his family* censured him for doing it!

now, it seems like we're seeing these stories more and more -  of a 20/30 something teacher having sex with a student.  its still rape - and they still get a lighter sentence than a man would get for the same crime.

[moonflower]

12 minutes ago, kiwik said:

I was taught that a true Christian would never join the military or take part in a war in ANY way (including as medics).  There are many Christian people on this board who have been or are in the armed forces.  What I was taught does not make those people less Christian.  Many are taught no Christian would be pro choice.  I am both Christan and pro choice.  The fact the people are taught something does not mean you have to accept it as truth or allow it to change the way you live or believe.

 

The OP's sister may or may not be or consider herself to be a feminist but she has more than many to thank feminists for.

 

This is going about the argument backwards; these Christians all consider themselves Christian so you're not trying to apply the label to someone who rejects it.

It is more akin to telling someone who rejects Judaism as a religion that they are still Jewish, or telling someone who rejects Christianity but has been baptised that they are still a Christian.  Perhaps they are under one meaning of the word, but on the whole I'm willing to allow people to self-define what their ideological beliefs mean to them wrt who they associate with.

[SanDiegoMom]

2 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

 

Or... it's frustrating to have to defend one's private opinions in a public manner.  Granted, she opened that can of worms when she didn't just parrot what they wanted and expected to hear.  But I've done both, been honest and just silent, and either way it's frustrating because quite frankly the vast majority of people, academics or otherwise, do not seem to want to have a reasoned discussion.  Most of my frustration is not that I can't articulate myself, it's that everyone takes it as a personal insult instead of engaging in discussion.

As an English major having taken some pretty specific literature classes, I would seriously be questioning why someone is in the class if they think it's a waste of time.  It's fine to have that opinion about the relative merits of the class, but imo it's just kind of rude to say it IN THAT CLASS.  Because most of the students are there because they do think it's important.

[moonflower]

Yes, I am evidently a confirmed non-feminist because I am not pro-choice, which works for me 🙂

I do appreciate the argument about feminism and some basic rights we take for granted (as well as unions and some basic rights we take for granted); I would say that unfortunately imo feminism and especially the sexual lib movement have gone too far and given society stuff it doesn't need, "freedoms" that are harmful.  Also, I've often thought something similar when people denigrate straight white males, or even the patriarchy (to a degree) - want to give back your washing machine, or electricity, or democracy, or the internet, or cars? 

[SKL]

41 minutes ago, kiwik said:

.

The OP's sister may or may not be or consider herself to be a feminist but she has more than many to thank feminists for.

Well the feminists who fought for the things we're thankful for would probably not align with the recent feminism movements either.  Some of them would probably be rolling in their grave to realize what people are doing and saying in their name.

[moonflower]

20 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Again, not what I said. I think feminists can be personally against abortion for themselves in any context.

But if it's a game of 'oh let's be mean to liberals' then I'm about as out as I would be if it was a game of 'lets be mean to conservatives'. 

And I am thankful, very, for bridges, electricity, washing machines (but not really cars, since I don't use one). Thank you, men of whatever political persuasion, for inventing my washing machine, which has freed me from household labor and enabled me  the time to argue on the interwebz 🙂 More power to your imagination, inventors both male and female, of the future. 

 

I didn't mean to be mean to liberals 🙂

I should have clarified: I'm personally against abortion for myself and also against abortion for other women; I think abortion should be illegal in almost every context.  I don't think of myself as a feminist

[Condessa]

1 hour ago, StellaM said:

Personally, I think women who would never consider a termination for themselves in any context can be feminists; women who want to make that determination for others aren't. . .

 

55 minutes ago, StellaM said:

“42 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

At least one person in this thread has already said that those who would not argue for access to abortion for women can not be considered feminists”

Nope, not what I said. 

 

50 minutes ago, StellaM said:

Again, not what I said. I think feminists can be personally against abortion for themselves in any context.

 

She didn’t claim you said feminists can’t be against abortion for themselves, she claimed you said people who are against abortion access for women can’t be feminists.  And you did.  You said feminists could be against abortion for themselves, but not against abortion for others/in general.

Edited June 23, 2019 by Michelle Conde

[moonflower]

27 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Yes, and neither do I, and presumably you have no issue with that. 

I'm not sure why feminism should be the sole political movement that is damned for being clear on some core values. If that's due to your conservative political beliefs, have at it. But no need for snide asides about being told you're not a feminist. You know you're not, you're happy not to be, it's no surprise to you that your position on this is not a feminist position. 

Basically, when I make sure to be fair to the opposing side (conservatism) and acknowledge a role for it in society, and am prepared to examine the flaws in my own belief systems, I expect the same courtesy in return. 

I'm sure as hell not gonna say that the anti-suffragettes were pro-women though. That's kind of like suggesting pro-slavers were pro-black.

 

I would say that calling anti-suffragettes pro-women implies that the person arguing that position thinks it is better for society (and thus for women as a part of society) for women not to vote; the corollary would be saying that a person arguing for slavery thinks it is better for whatever population is being enslaved to be enslaved than to be free.  Certainly it's a difficult argument to make, and imo impossible if we're talking about American slavery.  

I don't damn feminism for being clear on some core values; I'm not a feminist!  The reason I'm not a feminist is because they stand clear on some core values that I don't share; it's no different than saying I'm not a gay rights advocate or a democrat or a religious fundamentalist or whatever else I'm not.  I didn't mean to be snide about not being a feminist; I was more irritated that people were trying to tell me I AM a feminist, even though it's pretty clear to me that I'm not.  I was thankful you were, as a leftist, saying that some people clearly are not feminists, even if they enjoy some of the benefits of early feminism.

For the record I don't vote 🙂  But I do own property.  

[SKL]

37 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Yes, and neither do I, and presumably you have no issue with that. 

I'm not sure why feminism should be the sole political movement that is damned for being clear on some core values. If that's due to your conservative political beliefs, have at it. But no need for snide asides about being told you're not a feminist. You know you're not, you're happy not to be, it's no surprise to you that your position on this is not a feminist position. 

Basically, when I make sure to be fair to the opposing side (conservatism) and acknowledge a role for it in society, and am prepared to examine the flaws in my own belief systems, I expect the same courtesy in return. 

I'm sure as hell not gonna say that the anti-suffragettes were pro-women though. That's kind of like suggesting pro-slavers were pro-black.

The OP and some others seemed to be implying that unless you're opting out of everything any feminist ever fought for, you have to be a feminist.

You don't seem to agree with that, and neither do I.

The OP's sister said she is not a feminist.  I don't think she is required to also add that she admits some historical feminists did some things that now benefit her.  Not saying it does not mean she denies it.  People of all sorts of belief systems have improved the world in various ways - it goes without saying IMO.

[Condessa]

17 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Seriously ?

I did not say 'a rule of feminism is that you have to ARGUE FOR ACCESS TO ABORTION'.  You can be a feminist, and be totally quiet about abortion. You could do feminist activism your entire life without touching the issue of abortion. If a woman dedicated her life to feminist politics, she could, for example, spend decades on the shameful maternal health stats for black women, without ever saying the word 'abortion', and she would be no less feminist.

But yeah, if you are going to be actively anti-feminist - that is, your labor and your vote are explicitly aimed at making sure other women cannot ever access abortion - then it comes as no surprise to anyone, least of all the woman herself, that you are not a feminist. 

 

Interesting.  Honestly, it didn’t even occur to me that you meant people could have no stance on abortion whatsoever.  I don’t think I have ever known an adult in this country to evince no feelings on the morality of this issue when it came up.  And especially not someone who was actively involved in other human rights issues.  My oversight, I guess.

[moonflower]

I took a lot of classes in college because they fit in the schedule right.  Swedish, aerobics, Carribbean Lit, all kinds of things.

[moonflower]

1 minute ago, Michelle Conde said:

 

Interesting.  Honestly, it didn’t even occur to me that you meant people could have no stance on abortion whatsoever.  I don’t think I have ever known an adult in this country to evince no feelings on the morality of this issue when it came up.  And especially not someone who was actively involved in other human rights issues.  My oversight, I guess.

 

I take Stella to mean that you can have whatever beliefs you want about it, but not advocate for them (to be a feminist who is pro-life).  In essence, you'd be putting the cause of women's rights above the cause of (to you) the rights of the unborn, I guess, and just not talking about the unborn in order to prioritise women.  

But I think maybe it misses the point somewhat because for me, abortion access is bad for women in addition to being bad for the unborn (half or over half of whom, of course, are women).  So I don't know that it could work if you saw abortion as fundamentally morally wrong, but maybe.

[Condessa]

21 minutes ago, StellaM said:

But yeah, if you are going to be actively anti-feminist - that is, your labor and your vote are explicitly aimed at making sure other women cannot ever access abortion - then it comes as no surprise to anyone, least of all the woman herself, that you are not a feminist. 

 

I agree with you, and only find it surprising when I have had feminists try to tell me that I must be a feminist, too, because I am for equal rights and opportunities for both genders.

[Reefgazer]

On ‎6‎/‎21‎/‎2019 at 10:32 PM, KungFuPanda said:

My sister, who I love and get along with, told me today that she's not a feminist.  Let me clarify.  She told her entire class this on the first day of her Women in Literature class and was telling me about her frustration when the professor asked her to clarify her stance.  My sister, who is taking pre-med courses, using the GI Bill, after spending over a decade in the Army and has daughters sincerely believes she is not a feminist and doesn't believe in "feminist propaganda." Additionally, she sees no need for a Women in Literature class and feels there would be an uproar if she suggested a White Men in Literature class AND feels that white men are the most discriminated against group in America.  That's going to be one interesting classroom this semester!

 

Eh, there are a lot of women who don't buy into the current definition of "feminist"; I don't think this means she is against equal opportunity.  I agree with her, and so do many women who won't speak up for fear of being ridiculed by the "tolerance" crowd.  Sit back, grab your popcorn, and watch the fireworks, LOL!

Edited June 23, 2019 by Reefgazer

[SKL]

So now I am wondering if the suffragettes (most of whom did not support abortion) have any business being called feminists ....

And if not, then I guess we don't have to thank "feminists" for the right to vote ....

[LMD]

Heroic efforts Stella! Feminism has always been controversial. 😉

Also, I'm a conservative-leaning centre, pro-life feminist. My pro-life thoughts are not so much about criminalization nor withdrawing access, but more of a cultural philosophy about the (current lack of) value of human life, children, motherhood... 

It's pretty disheartening that we can't be nuanced in these discussions. Tribalism and identity politics have a lot to answer for. 

[SKL]

My point is that the so-called "feminists" who fought for the rights we are thankful for are not really comparable to those who fight for "rights" we don't believe in.  The whole "then give back your right to vote if you don't support pro-choice feminists today" does not work IMO.

[Carrie12345]

15 hours ago, hshibley said:

I think you’re comparing apples and oranges. If I’m just looking for books to suggest yes I think of what interests my son or daughters. If I’m designing a lit class for my child for the year I’m choosing commonly covered classics which inevitably leans towards male authors. That’s what Garga driving at. 

I agree.  I have 3 sons and 2 daughters.  I’ve definitely chosen some “girly” books for my girls and “boyish” books for my boys for general reading pleasure.  But, for Literature, I’ve scoured a million lists to create a library of classic and modern titles by and about diverse people, including women, people of color, people in or from other countries, and other cultures within our country.  

I have an English professor relative, and she’s not thrilled with how light I am on the classics, but I’m pretty much forced to go heavier on the more modern titles in order to get a decent array of representation.

[SanDiegoMom]

10 hours ago, moonflower said:

I took a lot of classes in college because they fit in the schedule right.  Swedish, aerobics, Carribbean Lit, all kinds of things.

I guess my point was that yes, it happens, but it's just rude to go in spouting opinions about the subject matter that you are taking just because it fits the schedule.  I mean, my daughter took Earth Science last year because it fit the schedule and she needed a science.  She thought it was absolutely the most dull class she had ever taken and that there was little use in spending so much time classifying and studying rocks. And I guess if it was in a small group she might tell her fellow students that she thinks rocks useless and boring, and I'm sure if someone in her International Politics of China and law class (or whatever it was called) thought it was a useless topic, they would save it for a small group setting to express that opinion.  If that were the case, then sure, go for it. But to state in class in front of students that are there for a reason -- because they think it IS important, is just inflammatory for no reason.  But it all really depends on the delivery. 

 

[moonflower]

I am definitely non-confrontational and did not, in any circumstance, state any sociopolitical opinions that were outside of the mainstream in any college class, except maybe once in Caribbean lit (which was taught by a black lesbian woman and turned out to be about only (primarily black, fair enough as it was the Caribbean) women's Caribbean lit) when someone asked how many people in the class were feminists and I didn't raise my hand.  

The professor was personally very kind and stopped to talk to me once the semester after that, when I was 7 months pregnant and eating lunch alone in the hallway.  For me, the interpersonal kindness so far outstrips in importance any ideological agreement or disagreement that I remember both her and the class kindly, although we probably agree about exactly nothing sociopolitically.

[Murphy101]

12 hours ago, SanDiegoMom in VA said:

As an English major having taken some pretty specific literature classes, I would seriously be questioning why someone is in the class if they think it's a waste of time.  It's fine to have that opinion about the relative merits of the class, but imo it's just kind of rude to say it IN THAT CLASS.  Because most of the students are there because they do think it's important.

 

Honestly?  That's not as true as you think.  Bottom line is any degree requires a not small amount of classes be taken that are not directly related to the main goal/interest subject.  It's just optimism to think most of those students taking most of those non-related to degree classes think it is important.  Truth is many, if not most, think it is a waste of their time.  They take what they have to take that fits the criteria and can fit in their hectic schedule and finance limits.  Given that very common scenario, professors are just going to have to get over their ego about how valued the class is going to seem to many of their students.

[Murphy101]

21 hours ago, maize said:

while I agree with your point here, I am even more concerned that when women--historical, contemporary, or fictional --are portrayed as having interesting and meaningful lives it is almost never in the context of doing the things that have occupied and continue to occupy significant roles in most women's lives, including especially caregiving, nurturing, and community building roles. Women's lives are most often seen as interesting when they take on more traditionally male roles.

 

This.  I will never be a feminist if the only way to being one is to be as much like men as possible.  And I'm not even talking about traditional role issues, though I can see your perspective on that too.  But my qualms with current feminism is that I feel strongly it serves the basest wants of men more than it serves women and does not seem interested in actually bettering the lives of women by making them genuine equals.  Forcing women to live like the worst of men is not equality.  Or not any version of it I'm interested in.

When feminism starts demanding that women have genuine choices, to work or stay home with their children (which I think men should have as well), healthcare that doesn't treat having female reproductive organs as an illness to be fixed, demands family polices that benefit families more than companies, and values non-paid work as the public service is very much is - until that happens I will never be a feminist. In fact, in its current political form, I would consider it an insult to be called a feminist because so far it doesn't stand for much of anything I believe to be a social good.

Edited June 23, 2019 by Murphy101

[Murphy101]

I'm not going looking for confrontation, but if put on the spot, I'll be honest about it.

For example if a teacher does a round of intros at the start of class such as, "tell us your name, degree goal, and why you think this class is important..." which is a somewhat common ice breaker.  I might quietly but cheerfully say, "blah blah blah.. as for the importance of this class, honestly, it's only importance is because it fit my schedule and I have to take a 3 credit humanities for my degree."

And I guarantee you I wouldn't be the only student to say such because I've heard similar lines in various classes.  About all kinds of classes.  "Biology for non-majors" was the most common one so far.

[SKL]

When I was in college, there was one sociology teacher and he was an actual communist.  He ran for government office on the socialist ticket.  I took a bunch of sociology courses, because I did not have enough other choices to finish my degree at the regional campus.

I disagreed in class when I felt I had a reasonable opinion.  He was always cool about it.  He would encourage the person to verbally explore why and understand both sides in class.  I think college professors need to be able to do this.  The worst professors were the ones who couldn't think outside the box.  I mean why are they teaching other people if they themselves can't even rationally explore the issues?

In the OP situation, who knows how respectfully the "non-feminist" commented ... it should be possible to have the discussion, and I suspect it wouldn't be the first time for the teacher.  If you can't ask questions in a college class like that, when can you?  God gave us all a brain for a reason, right?

[SanDiegoMom]

1 hour ago, Murphy101 said:

I'm not going looking for confrontation, but if put on the spot, I'll be honest about it.

For example if a teacher does a round of intros at the start of class such as, "tell us your name, degree goal, and why you think this class is important..." which is a somewhat common ice breaker.  I might quietly but cheerfully say, "blah blah blah.. as for the importance of this class, honestly, it's only importance is because it fit my schedule and I have to take a 3 credit humanities for my degree."

And I guarantee you I wouldn't be the only student to say such because I've heard similar lines in various classes.  About all kinds of classes.  "Biology for non-majors" was the most common one so far.

And I guess that is what I am saying as well -- there many ways to state an opinion.  Brashly and confrontationally is one way, but it's certainly not respectful and imo if you are taking someone's class that the professor has worked and researched for and comes every day in an earnest attempt to share his or her passion for the subject (unless they are just putting in time and could care less, but we will hope in most cases it's the former) then the least one can do is not tell the professor that the subject matter is a waste of time.  

 I will say one thing that was different about my experience was that the classes I didn't care about were so large that there was no ability for discussion, and in my major I launched almost immediately into upper division classes -- so everyone in those classes was a English major who DID want to be there. 

And I am by nature VERY non-confrontational. I just couldn't imagine stating something like that in front of people.  But it takes all kinds I guess, and if there were no opposing opinions to discuss then class would be extremely boring. 

 

Edited June 23, 2019 by SanDiegoMom in VA
Edited to save my husband's privacy:)

[Janeway]

20 hours ago, ChocolateReignRemix said:

 

I just have to ask - exactly how do you think the SAT is scored?

I was referencing more of.....it should not ask gender or race or reveal any sort of demographics. And the essay should be typed to level the field for those who struggle with handwriting which is higher rate among boys. There should be no adversity score and when the writing is graded, the name, gender, race, etc, should not show. It should all be "blind" to allow for the highest chance at an unbiased score. And some have suggested admissions to college be the same way..completely blind. Show no race, gender, sexual orientation, nothing. Same for financial aid. It would be interesting and a game changer I think.  I know the multiple choice part itself is scantron style graded, but the final scoring is a full package. What the colleges will see when they get the score is everything from where the kids lives, a guess on the income level, race, gender, the demographics of his high school, the demographics of his neighborhood, whether or not his parents went to college, etc etc etc. 

[Happy2BaMom]

2 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

 

Honestly?  That's not as true as you think.  Bottom line is any degree requires a not small amount of classes be taken that are not directly related to the main goal/interest subject.  It's just optimism to think most of those students taking most of those non-related to degree classes think it is important.  Truth is many, if not most, think it is a waste of their time.  They take what they have to take that fits the criteria and can fit in their hectic schedule and finance limits.  Given that very common scenario, professors are just going to have to get over their ego about how valued the class is going to seem to many of their students.

 

Students may think that, but in my day, you didn't just get to get up and announce it to the whole class, using class time to do so.  Really, no one else cares why any other student is there. I think the students need to get over their egos. 

 

Edited June 23, 2019 by Happy2BaMom

[SKL]

She could have said something like, "I'm interested in all aspects of literature, but I do wonder why there isn't a class that also discusses Men in Literature."

[hshibley]

4 hours ago, Janeway said:

And the essay should be typed to level the field for those who struggle with handwriting which is higher rate among boys. 

Why must we constantly make accommodations to make it easier for boys? 

[maize]

3 hours ago, Happy2BaMom said:

 

Students may think that, but in my day, you didn't just get to get up and announce it to the whole class, using class time to do so.  Really, no one else cares why any other student is there. I think the students need to get over their egos. 

 

Probably it was in the context of everyone introducing themselves and getting to know each other on the first day of class. We often did that in discussion type classes.

[Murphy101]

37 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

You don't know much about feminism if you think there are no feminists who agree with the bolded.  

Being a feminist, imo, means working towards the above. 

There is no single political form of feminism. The 'lean in, sex possy' form has the dominant narrative atm, but your demands would not be out of place in many feminist places I have been. 

 

 

I know enough via experience in the world to know if that’s true, they have a huge PR problem because that’s not the message or the image they convey.

[Murphy101]

2 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Who is this 'they' ? Feminism is not a political party, it's not a centralised movement. 

There's no PR spokesperson for feminism.

 

Okay.  

Moving on. 

[Janeway]

3 hours ago, hshibley said:

Why must we constantly make accommodations to make it easier for boys? 

I don't think we should make it easier. I think we should make it equal. 

[Murphy101]

11 minutes ago, Janeway said:

I don't think we should make it easier. I think we should make it equal. 

 

Then we should help boys to have better penmanship instead of lowering expectations of them.

[livetoread]

1 hour ago, StellaM said:

 

Who is this 'they' ? Feminism is not a political party, it's not a centralised movement. 

There's no PR spokesperson for feminism.

I took several feminist oriented classes while in grad school, and it was eye-opening to me to learn about various strands of recent past and current feminism. Very helpful in seeing how they agree and differ, and I watched some of those differences play out in real time amongst the professors (an unforgettable workshop discussing The Beauty Myth by Naomi Wolf comes to mind 😄). I agree that there are some strands of feminism that do focus on many of those goals; others, not so much. Some strands get more press; others, not so much. I usually shrug when someone says they aren’t a feminist because I figure they usually mean they disagree with some strands, but might very well agree with others.

 I took lunch to a relative in her 90s yesterday, and she told me the following story. Her aunt and uncle didn’t have children, and her aunt desperately wanted them. After her grandmother pulled her uncle aside and gave him several talks, he finally told her, “Look, she’s never having kids. You know I don’t like kids. When she went in for that emergency appendectomy awhile ago, I pulled the doc aside and told him to make sure while he was in there to snip things so she would never have kids.” The doc did, of course, because women have never been seen as having full bodily autonomy. No one ever told my relative’s aunt what her husband and the doc had done. Yep, I’m a feminist, partly because I hear stuff like that and connect it to all sorts of mindsets that are still around currently.

[moonflower]

1 hour ago, Murphy101 said:

 

Then we should help boys to have better penmanship instead of lowering expectations of them.

 

Until penmanship is an official part of the rubric (it's not, I've graded these tests), it's just a subjective way to substitute reading the paper for biased grading.

Penmanship is good, but it shouldn't be part of a grade for the ACT writing or SAT writing.  and it isn't, officially.

But unofficially, and sometimes unconsciously, handwriting impacts the grade.

[Janeway]

1 hour ago, Murphy101 said:

 

Then we should help boys to have better penmanship instead of lowering expectations of them.

If they want a handwriting test, then have a handwriting test and call it a handwriting test. 

[Murphy101]

37 minutes ago, livetoread said:

I took several feminist oriented classes while in grad school, and it was eye-opening to me to learn about various strands of recent past and current feminism. Very helpful in seeing how they agree and differ, and I watched some of those differences play out in real time amongst the professors (an unforgettable workshop discussing The Beauty Myth by Naomi Wolf comes to mind 😄). I agree that there are some strands of feminism that do focus on many of those goals; others, not so much. Some strands get more press; others, not so much. I usually shrug when someone says they aren’t a feminist because I figure they usually mean they disagree with some strands, but might very well agree with others.

 I took lunch to a relative in her 90s yesterday, and she told me the following story. Her aunt and uncle didn’t have children, and her aunt desperately wanted them. After her grandmother pulled her uncle aside and gave him several talks, he finally told her, “Look, she’s never having kids. You know I don’t like kids. When she went in for that emergency appendectomy awhile ago, I pulled the doc aside and told him to make sure while he was in there to snip things so she would never have kids.” The doc did, of course, because women have never been seen as having full bodily autonomy. No one ever told my relative’s aunt what her husband and the doc had done. Yep, I’m a feminist, partly because I hear stuff like that and connect it to all sorts of mindsets that are still around currently.

 

And then there's the very self proclaiming feminist judge across the pond who ordered a woman have an abortion against her wishes and the wishes of her mother, who was willing to care for both.  Because the judge decided it was best for them both to not have to deal with a baby.

Sadly, many times these day I wonder if the biggest threat to women's equality is other women acting just like the oppressive men in history.  All done in the name of wiser and kinder good intention of course.  As though that makes it okay.

[Scarlett]

49 minutes ago, livetoread said:

I took several feminist oriented classes while in grad school, and it was eye-opening to me to learn about various strands of recent past and current feminism. Very helpful in seeing how they agree and differ, and I watched some of those differences play out in real time amongst the professors (an unforgettable workshop discussing The Beauty Myth by Naomi Wolf comes to mind 😄). I agree that there are some strands of feminism that do focus on many of those goals; others, not so much. Some strands get more press; others, not so much. I usually shrug when someone says they aren’t a feminist because I figure they usually mean they disagree with some strands, but might very well agree with others.

 I took lunch to a relative in her 90s yesterday, and she told me the following story. Her aunt and uncle didn’t have children, and her aunt desperately wanted them. After her grandmother pulled her uncle aside and gave him several talks, he finally told her, “Look, she’s never having kids. You know I don’t like kids. When she went in for that emergency appendectomy awhile ago, I pulled the doc aside and told him to make sure while he was in there to snip things so she would never have kids.” The doc did, of course, because women have never been seen as having full bodily autonomy. No one ever told my relative’s aunt what her husband and the doc had done. Yep, I’m a feminist, partly because I hear stuff like that and connect it to all sorts of mindsets that are still around currently.

I don’t see that so much a feminism issue as I do a basic human right to oversee our own medical care.  You didn’t mention when this happened, but no way do I believe this would happen today.  

[Murphy101]

32 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I don’t see that so much a feminism issue as I do a basic human right to oversee our own medical care.  You didn’t mention when this happened, but no way do I believe this would happen today.  

 

Careful. As little as 40 years ago, native Americans, POC and poor people were sterilized without their knowledge or told lies to make them consent.

There is still a LOT of pressure on POC, native Americans and poor people to get rid of their children or get sterilized and they are more likely to have their children taken from them by CPS. 

I’d be horrified to hear of this today because it’s awful. 

But I sadly wouldn’t be as surprised as one would hope to be by 2019. 

[Scarlett]

I have been reading along with not much to say because well as usual I do t fit into any of the usual pigeon holes.  I believe humans should be paid the same for the same work.  And that men and women are not the same. 

I am not political though.  

[livetoread]

10 hours ago, Scarlett said:

I don’t see that so much a feminism issue as I do a basic human right to oversee our own medical care.  

Through all of history there have been women who think their basic human rights are already met so why complain or rock the boat? There have also been women who disagree and fight for those basic human rights. It’s no different currently. We have come a long way, but I think we still have a ways to go before we can fully enjoy our basic human rights, and I don’t agree with separating feminism from basic human rights. That doesn’t mean I see eye to eye with all of the various feminist activists and strands, nor their tactics, but I agree overall with feminists that we still have a fight on our hands.

[Murphy101]

All morals are political and all human rights are political.

Politics at its core is nothing more than social groups working towards what kind of society they want to have.

[Scarlett]

5 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

All morals are political and all human rights are political.

Politics at its core is nothing more than social groups working towards what kind of society they want to have.

Yes I am not working to change the works. But I can still have an opinion on right or wrong and counsel individuals in my life without getting into politics.