Should professors instruct students in what opinions to hold?

[Moriarty]

@octopus

Using male and female is perfectly valid though. Just like referring to a person as a man or woman. I’m surprised that professor tolerates speciesism and allows people to be called people.

The professor isn’t prohibiting the use of “female” and “male”. Her syllabus prohibits “referring to women/men as females or males”. You are twisting words to make a presumption about the tone of the entire class.

Inspired by the best of the Dope, I emailed the professor (her email address is on the syllabus in question!), and asked her why referring to women/men as females or males was prohibited in her classroom. We shall see if she answers.

The more important question is why are people wasting time and money to study something that won’t qualify them to man, sorry, person the cash register at a Starbucks?

There’s sarcasm in this comment, right? Something about how getting a liberal education only qualifies you to sell coffee? Because nobody ever went on to graduate school after getting a social sciences degree.

[QUOTE=wolfpup]
Indeed, I was going to ask if this is another version of the “elitist liberal academics are brainwashing our kids” thread that seems to crop up around the Interwebs in various guises.
[/QUOTE]

It’s ironic, isn’t it, that the people who rail against “Political Correctness” freak out when their children are exposed to a narrative of America that doesn’t coincide with their traditionalist viewpoint?

[Fenris]

@Peremensoe

I think that example has been given, and with respect, if you don’t see the difference in the “females” case as more than microscopic, it sounds like you’re just not as sensitive as in the “Jew” case.

The “Jew” example just barely would cause me a momentary raised eyebrow. Short of any other comment, I’d just assume a bad word choice.

In my experience and estimation, the set of men who say “females” strongly overlap the set of those who would (should the subject come up) make a point of saying that trans women are not “real” women/females.

I’ll accept your experience in this, but then…the problem is with douchebags who claim that trans women aren’t “real” women, and not with the actual words female and women. I can see it being a warning flag that you might be dealing with a transphobic jackass, but the words aren’t the problem.

[Fenris]

Dup post. Ignore

[Miller]

@Fenris

Who knows whether they would? They may just be a pedantic twit (Sheldon on “Big Bang Theory”).

In any case, we’re getting far afield of my original question which was: find a usage where we’re talking of a substantive difference. I’m not talking about microscopic shades of tones of shadows of connotations between “female” and “woman”. Show me two otherwise identical sentences where there’s at least as large a difference as in Miller’s “Jew-Lawyer”/“Jewish-Lawyer” example. That’s the bare minimum (and Jew-Lawyer vs Jewish Lawyer is just barely on the “there’s a real difference” side of the line) it’ll take to satisfy me that there’s a difference.

But… there is no difference between the two sentences I gave. They have the exact same literal meaning. Indeed, there’s no sentence that uses “Jew” as a adjective where you could not substitute “Jewish” and maintain the exact meaning. If you’d never encountered an anti-Semite in your life, you’d never recognize “Jew lawyer” as a pejorative. It would just sound kind of awkward. It’s only because you’ve experienced what tends to come after that phrase that you recognize that there’s a big red flag in that sentence.

The exact same is the case with female/woman. If you’ve never experienced this particular brand of misogyny, the phrasing just sounds kind of awkward. If you’re familiar with the rhetoric common in men’s rights and pick-up artist organizations, you’d know that after a sentence like, “There’s a lot of females in this bar,” there’s generally going to be something appallingly sexist. You see it often enough, you realize that this isn’t just someone uncomfortable with the English language, it’s a deliberate word choice made to signal their attitudes towards women in general.

[Shodan]

@Miller

If you’d never encountered an anti-Semite in your life, you’d never recognize “Jew lawyer” as a pejorative. It would just sound kind of awkward. It’s only because you’ve experienced what tends to come after that phrase that you recognize that there’s a big red flag in that sentence.

The exact same is the case with female/woman.

If you’ve never experienced this particular brand of misogyny, the phrasing just sounds kind of awkward. If you’re familiar with the rhetoric common in men’s rights and pick-up artist organizations, you’d know that after a sentence like, “There’s a lot of females in this bar,” there’s generally going to be something appallingly sexist. You see it often enough, you realize that this isn’t just someone uncomfortable with the English language, it’s a deliberate word choice made to signal their attitudes towards women in general.
[/QUOTE]

[Fenris]

@Miller

But… there is no difference between the two sentences I gave. They have the exact same literal meaning. Indeed, there’s no sentence that uses “Jew” as a adjective where you could not substitute “Jewish” and maintain the exact meaning. If you’d never encountered an anti-Semite in your life, you’d never recognize “Jew lawyer” as a pejorative. It would just sound kind of awkward. It’s only because you’ve experienced what tends to come after that phrase that you recognize that there’s a big red flag in that sentence.

The exact same is the case with female/woman. If you’ve never experienced this particular brand of misogyny, the phrasing just sounds kind of awkward. If you’re familiar with the rhetoric common in men’s rights and pick-up artist organizations, you’d know that after a sentence like, “There’s a lot of females in this bar,” there’s generally going to be something appallingly sexist. You see it often enough, you realize that this isn’t just someone uncomfortable with the English language, it’s a deliberate word choice made to signal their attitudes towards women in general.

Hm…ok. I sorta see your point, but at the same time, if I’d just met someone and they used “Jew lawyer”, I wouldn’t assume a pejorative intent, I’d assume a bad word choice…but at the same time, I admit I’d listen for other signs.

I’ll grant that my knowledge of men’s rights twerps and those pick-up douches* is pretty close to zero.

So…I’ll concede that there may be some connotation in female/women that I’m not aware of. But, it’s not so offensive that it should get it’s own line in a syllabus (to drag the discussion back to the OP. )–it’s hypersensitivity and overkill. Unless there’s also a “Jew/Jewish” line and a “House/home” line and hundreds of other word pairs

Assuming you mean the “Hey, babe: for a chick with a huge nose like yours, your smile almost makes up for it” types.*

**How in the world is that line supposed work for anything beyond getting your teeth knocked in?

[Shodan]

@Miller

If you’d never encountered an anti-Semite in your life, you’d never recognize “Jew lawyer” as a pejorative. It would just sound kind of awkward. It’s only because you’ve experienced what tends to come after that phrase that you recognize that there’s a big red flag in that sentence.

The exact same is the case with female/woman.

Could you please produce a cite that demonstrates that use of the term “female” is followed by some sexist remark a significant percentage of the time? Say, 25% of the time.

It doesn’t seem right to me to assume something like that without hard data.

If you’re familiar with the rhetoric common in men’s rights and pick-up artist organizations, you’d know that after a sentence like, “There’s a lot of females in this bar,” there’s generally going to be something appallingly sexist.

We are not discussing use of the term in a men’s right organization - we are talking about a college classroom.

You see it often enough, you realize that this isn’t just someone uncomfortable with the English language, it’s a deliberate word choice made to signal their attitudes towards women in general.

I haven’t seen it often enough to convince me. That’s why we need a cite - some kind of objective demonstration that your assumptions about motives are generally valid.

I expect that avoiding questions like that underlies much of the idea that white males should defer to the experience of blacks, gays, women (and this professor). Once they announce “this is my experience and you should defer to it”, disallowing questions like “how do we know your experience is reflective of reality and not just stereotyping” forestalls the unpleasant process of actually backing up what you say in some general sense.

Saying “people who call women females are usually sexist” is exactly the same thing as saying “people who listen to rap music are usually criminals”. It may or may not be true. But I am not going to believe it’s true just on someone’s say-so, even if that someone is a particular color.

Regards,
Shodan

[iiandyiiii]

@Shodan

I expect that avoiding questions like that underlies much of the idea that white males should defer to the experience of blacks, gays, women (and this professor).

My understanding of privilege is not that white males should defer to the experience of blacks, gays, women in all things or in general, but that white males, in general, should defer to the experience of black people on the subject of anti-black racism, and to gay people on the subject of homophobia and anti-gay prejudice, and to women on the subject of sexism and misogyny, and the like.

This seems very wise to me. Do you disagree with this?

[Velocity]

Teachers should provide the facts, the complete facts, and nothing but the facts. Let the students see the truth and come to their own conclusions. No distortion of facts.

[elucidator]

How can that go wrong? After all, when you got the facts, you got the facts! Never any controversy about the facts.

[aldiboronti]

@Bridget_Burke

These courses are hardly core requirements–why would racists, sexists, xenophobes & homophobes want to take them anyway?

Or indeed why would anyone with a modicum of intelligence wish to take them when there is a whole world of learning available to them (at least in most universities)?

[Shodan]

@iiandyiiii

My understanding of privilege is not that white males should defer to the experience of blacks, gays, women in all things or in general, but that white males, in general, should defer to the experience of black people on the subject of anti-black racism, and to gay people on the subject of homophobia and anti-gay prejudice, and to women on the subject of sexism and misogyny, and the like.

This seems very wise to me. Do you disagree with this?

Yes, I disagree with this, for the reasons listed.

Miller’s assertion is that people who use the term “females” are usually sexist. Leaving aside that he is not female and therefore entitled to no deference even under the standard of this professor, why should I take his word for it?

If I believe that black people with baggy pants are usually criminals, and give my experience as the basis for that belief, should I be believed or disbelieved based on my skin color? How do we know that I, or a black man, or a gay man, or this professor, is not suffering from selective perception and confirmation bias?

Regards,
Shodan

[RickJay]

@Velocity

Teachers should provide the facts, the complete facts, and nothing but the facts. Let the students see the truth and come to their own conclusions. No distortion of facts.

What was the cause or causes of the American Civil War?

[iiandyiiii]

@Shodan

Yes, I disagree with this, for the reasons listed.

I have trouble understanding this. I believe that nuclear engineers have more experience with nuclear engineering than non-nuclear engineers, thus the opinions of nuclear engineers on nuclear engineering issues should be considered more valid than the opinions of people who aren’t nuclear engineers on nuclear engineering issues. Do you agree with this?

Would you agree that the average black person has probably experienced more anti-black racism than the average white person? If so, then why wouldn’t you believe that the black person’s opinions on anti-black racism, on average and in general, should be considered more valid than the opinions of non-black people on issues of anti-black racism?

Miller’s assertion is that people who use the term “females” are usually sexist. Leaving aside that he is not female and therefore entitled to no deference even under the standard of this professor, why should I take his word for it?

I don’t think you necessarily should.

[Robert163]

@Shodan

But I am not going to believe it’s true just on someone’s say-so, even if that someone is a particular color.

Regards,
Shodan

Hi, Shodan, How is your afternoon going?

If you were in a bar and heard some off duty cabbies saying, yeah, Tom Johnson Parkway is allways backed up every time there is a ball game in town, would you take their word for it, because they are more experienced in that area, or, would you ask them for a cite?

[Miller]

@Fenris

So…I’ll concede that there may be some connotation in female/women that I’m not aware of. But, it’s not so offensive that it should get it’s own line in a syllabus (to drag the discussion back to the OP. )–it’s hypersensitivity and overkill. Unless there’s also a “Jew/Jewish” line and a “House/home” line and hundreds of other word pairs

If you were not aware of the connotation until just now, how can you tell how offensive the connotation is? I mean, it might be an overreaction - if I were putting a syllabus for this kind of class together, it probably wouldn’t occur to me to include it. But then, I’ve never taught this kind of class (or any kind of class) before. Was this term included because the teacher is oversensitive? Or was it included because this specific term was disruptive when she’s taught the class before? If she’s had a problem with students using “female” in a derogatory way, but not had a problem with students using “Jew” in a derogatory way, it makes perfect sense for her to call out the usage that’s been problematic, and not the one that hasn’t come up before.

[Moriarty]

@Velocity

Teachers should provide the facts, the complete facts, and nothing but the facts. Let the students see the truth and come to their own conclusions. No distortion of facts.

I find it hilarious that someone would make such a comment in a thread which is debating classes that endeavor to teach people that the words we use to describe things (i.e. “facts”) have an inherent bias, and that it is an important skill to identify the biases in the messages they encounter.

[QUOTE=Introduction to Multicultural Literature]
As the struggle for gender-neutral language should have proven, language is never neutral. Even the simplest language of race is troubled. In his history of the color black, Michel Pastoreau discovers that the word “black” as the absence of all “natural” colors was once synonymous with “white.” Why do we assign the language of color to humans who are not really yellow, black, red, white, or brown? Even terms that avoid such color-based nomenclature, that derive from culture or from geographical regions, are problematic. For example, why did the U.S. Census form for 2010 restore the word “Negro” to racial categories? Why are Pacific Islanders grouped with Asian Americans in some systems and with Native Americans in others? And what does “Hispanic” really mean? Language is inadequate to name all aspects of social relations, and so we must be sensitive in our usage. It is also always changing, always trying to catch up. Writers of short stories, poems, novels, and plays must be especially sensitive to the politics of language. For all its inadequacies, language remains our best tool for framing our experiences, our memories, our feelings and ideas. Consider the ancient Chinese claim that a picture says ten thousand words: Does it say the same ten thousand words to everyone? Of course not. At its clearest, language remains our best tool for communication.

Literature is a record of the evolution of social relations. The best literature succeeds not only because it is most beautiful but also because it most faithfully and honestly tells the stories of those changing social relations.

By term’s end, you should have developed a better appreciation of the social as well as aesthetic role of literature.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Women in Popular Culture]
Learning Outcomes By the end of this semester, you should have the skills to:…
Identify areas of systemic and institutionalized racism, prejudice, misogyny, classism, sexism, and discriminatory practices in the casting, production, distribution, and reception of various media samples, and make connections to your personal experiences.
[/QUOTE]

[Shodan]

@iiandyiiii

I have trouble understanding this. I believe that nuclear engineers have more experience with nuclear engineering than non-nuclear engineers, thus the opinions of nuclear engineers on nuclear engineering issues should be considered more valid than the opinions of people who aren’t nuclear engineers on nuclear engineering issues. Do you agree with this?

Yes.

Would you agree that the average black person has probably experienced more anti-black racism than the average white person?

Yes.

If so, then why wouldn’t you believe that the black person’s opinions on anti-black racism, on average and in general, should be considered more valid than the opinions of non-black people on issues of anti-black racism?

Because their opinions are subject to possible confirmation bias and selective perception. For this and other reasons, black people’s opinions on anti-black racism should be subject to validation just like every other kind of person’s opinions on every other kind of subject should be subject to validation, where possible.

Where it is not possible, the opinion is worth no more (and no less) than any other unsubstantated opinion. It has not been proven true; it has not been proven false. Therefore one ought IMO to treat it as such. I for one would not proceed on the assumption it was true, because we do not know whether it is true or not.

The idea that I should defer to someone’s unsubstantiated opinion based on the color of their skin is not one I am liable to accept without question.

Plus you are kind of begging the question. If someone simply tells me that nuclear power is unsafe and causes widespread mutations, and simply announces that he is a nuclear engineer, and bristles when I inquire as to the nature and extent of his experience, I would tend to wonder if he might not have motives other than a deep-seated respect for minorities.

@Robert163

If you were in a bar and heard some off duty cabbies saying, yeah, Tom Johnson Parkway is allways backed up every time there is a ball game in town, would you take their word for it, because they are more experienced in that area, or, would you ask them for a cite?

It depends. If other cabbies had told me that sort of thing, but it turned out they were wrong, or were mistaken, or seemed to be trying to get over on me for some reason, then I would attempt some kind of independent verification before I took their word for it.

If I did ask them for some kind of justification, and they told me I had no right to ask them because I was a white male, I would not treat their word as gospel.

And again - if I announce that I was mugged by a black guy, would you accept me as an expert on black crime, its causes and motivations, based on the color of my skin? Why not? You have nothing to lose, and it is rude for you to deny my experience.

Regards,
Shodan

[Robert163]

@Shodan

It depends. If other cabbies had told me that sort of thing, but it turned out they were wrong, or were mistaken, or seemed to be trying to get over on me for some reason, then I would attempt some kind of independent verification before I took their word for it.

If I did ask them for some kind of justification, and they told me I had no right to ask them because I was a white male, I would not treat their word as gospel.

And again - if I announce that I was mugged by a black guy, would you accept me as an expert on black crime, its causes and motivations, based on the color of my skin? Why not? You have nothing to lose, and it is rude for you to deny my experience.

Regards,
Shodan

OK, I can follow your logic for all of that and agree to some/most of it… so my question then is, why are you doubtful that women/people trained in sensitivity training would make up false assertions that female is used in a derogatory manner? I can see a lot of things “feminists” might exaggerate about, but I would believe them if they told me a lot of times they had heard a man use the term “female” with a negative tone of voice. There is no real advantage to exaggerating such a claim.

[Robert163]

@Shodan

And again - if I announce that I was mugged by a black guy, would you accept me as an expert on black crime, its causes and motivations, based on the color of my skin? Why not? You have nothing to lose, and it is rude for you to deny my experience.

Regards,
Shodan

That is kind of a false correlation, is it not? Linking the two statements I mean. In other words, if I say that brand XYZ lawn mower from Home Depot is a cheap piece of crap, I am not claiming to be expert on economics, am I?

So if you were mugged by a black person, I’d believe you. Why are you trying to attach the next line of the sentence, that you are now an expert on inner city crime?

Maybe I’m not really sure the point you are making.