Can a man teach feminism?

Teaching is very different to proselytising. Education is absolutely not about faith. To confuse the two is very, very dangerous.

How can a man really understand what he is teaching? He might think he is very sympathetic etc bit I don't know if many men can get it

It is being taught as an academic subject at university not a faith or a self- help course. Sympathy is irrelevant. Do you think only Communists can teach about the theory of Marxism and Communism?

The comparison with teaching a Sunday
Club is nothing like the same.

The correct comparison would be a teacher teaching religious studies in school. I had no objection to my son being taught about the different religious beliefs. I have no idea what the personal faith beliefs , if any, of his teacher were. Quite rightly they should not have been made known. I certainly would have objected if it had been presented in the subjective way you presumably teach at Sunday Club. Obviously if my son had decided to enrol for the priesthood I would expect his teachers to be speaking to their faith- that is completely different.

This is an academic course about the theory of feminism- it is not a course teaching students how to be feminists.

LassWiADelicateAir I don't want to be taught feminism by a man. How can a man really understand what he is teaching? He might think he is very sympathetic etc bit I don't know if many men can get it.

The comparison with teaching religion thing is a good example, I think.

I teach Sunday Club. My knowledge and understandings is way below that of all Biblical scholars. There may be biblical scholars of no faith at all.

Who do you think I would rather having teaching my own kids in Sunday club; a person like me, who has s faith and experience and knowledge but is not a biblical scholar, or a biblical scholar of no faith?

I'd go for the former.

Like wise As a singteon I read a book on being single. When I found out the author was married I lost all respect for the book.

Not everyone will agree with either of my analogies, they are just my interpretation.

I'm having a Gaudy Night moment, as the evil women take bread from the mouths of hard-working men, in the name of their misplaced insistence on intellectual rigour.

Indeed. Am I right in thinking Sayers was unable to graduate when she finished her exams at Oxford? I think it was during the time when a woman could go to lectures and sit exams, but the University refused to award them degrees because they were women.

And this makes me wonder: even if a man could teach a university course in women's studies, to what extent would he be able to maintain a feminist pedagogy?

Lass saying a man can't do something for an't mean any woman can

A woman cannot be a sperm donor. Doesn't mean every man can either

Those are physical objections, not intellectual. There is no reason why a man cannot teach the philosophy of feminism.

Lass saying a man can't do something for an't mean any woman can

A woman cannot be a sperm donor. Doesn't mean every man can either.

I'm having a Gaudy Night moment, as the evil women take bread from the mouths of hard-working men, in the name of their misplaced insistence on intellectual rigour.

Early in the thread someone observed that a man shouldn't teach feminism because any man who wanted to teach feminism had by definition failed to understand it. I think this bears repeating

Repeating it does not make it correct. There is no reason why feminism as a political or philosophical academic concept cannot be taught by a man.

I have asked this before but if it can only be taught by a woman then which women?

Any women? Including liberal feminists ? Right wing women? Left wing? Women like Laurie Penny or Polly Vernon are usually written off on here as the wrong sort of feminist. Are they suitable candidates?

user that is not the issue being debated here. Also you’re quite clearly just baiting.

Feminism is historical. There is no need for a feminist movement anymore because we have achieved (unless I am mistaken) equal rights with men.

No. That’s exactly my point pajamas. Neither teacher nor actor have. And yet this board deemed it fine to laugh at the criticism about the casting, but here it’s suddenly fine. You’ve also yet again managed to dodge the issue.

Is that right?

It is all irrelevant. Haven't you heard?

So to sum up we should, as a country, not make any effort to teach feminism as a political theory because it might have to be taught by a man.

Young people studying an A level in politics can study socialism, liberalism, conservatism, environmentalism etc but the feminists on MN feel feminism should be removed from the syllabus.

Is that right?

Early in the thread someone observed that a man shouldn't teach feminism because any man who wanted to teach feminism had by definition failed to understand it. I think this bears repeating

Aw shucks.

Question is, can a cartoon character teach feminism? Or is it too irrelevant, even for them?

Early in the thread someone observed that a man shouldn't teach feminism because any man who wanted to teach feminism had by definition failed to understand it. I think this bears repeating

I should say, forcibly transitioned a Lesbian, post mortem.
Becoming quite the latest trend in female erasure, eh?

Feminism is irrelevant today

It is so irrelevant you came here to tell us that. Weird.

So you’re saying one can’t teach something one hasn’t experienced? Why?

You think some actors used to be/have experienced being/identify as/are cartoons?

Ok.

Have the transgender advocates forcibly transitioned another Lesbian? Is that what you are talking about?

Feminism is irrelevant today. I went to Bristol Uni and I can't believe that there would be any reason to teach 'feminism' other than in a historical context in which case I don't see why there should be a problem with the gender or race of the person teaching it.

True. But the answer to all a-c is yes. It’s intellectually dishonest to deny this.

So you’re saying one can’t teach something one hasn’t experienced? Why? History teachers haven’t experienced history unless maybe it’s a very recent topic.

In both cases Ppl are claiming that someone’s is taking the job of a minority group. In Both ppl are claiming the person cannot fully understand what they are doing.

People can claim what they want, doesn't mean each instance is:
a - valid
b - the same
c - relevant

And of course you are missing the point that the jobs in question are acting roles. Not teaching roles.

But that’s irrelevant. The role was to be trans. Whether or not that’s right is irrelevant to the fact that now an existing trans role was not given to a trans actor. And here we have ppl mad a role they think should go to a woman not given to a woman. And yet in the former ppl generally on this board ridiculed it, as they did with ruby, but in this thread it’s suddenly ok.

In both cases Ppl are claiming that someone’s is taking the job of a minority group. In Both ppl are claiming the person cannot fully understand what they are doing.

You’re also wrong about ScaJo, it wasn’t about whether the character was trans or not, it was decided it was to be and then ppl were mad no trans actor got the role of a trans character.

The role wasn't a trans one, it had been 'historically transed' and of course, it was a cartoon - so never existed in the first place. People get mad about everything women do, I believe there is a rule about it.