My son's lecturer - I was glad he was being taught by a radical feminist, but now...

[lborgia]

My son is taking a unit in Gender, Crime, and Justice.

I was a little surprised he took that course, but very happy, but now feel it is going horribly wrong.

Because the lectures are all available online, I've seen what she says, because I wanted to check that the comments were exactly as DS described, and they were.

The lecturer insists that men become criminals because they are dealing with feelings of inferiority, and as if they're not masculine enough, and compensating.

She insists that women are criminalised by controlling men, and/or the patriarchy. That no women becomes a criminal of her own volition.

She said that only women are victims of domestic violence.

She said that all women are victims of rape, even if only because their lives are ruled by fear of rape.

There were others, but these stuck in my mind.

Oddly, I consider myself a radical feminist, but I think that a lecturer needs to deal with academic concepts, supported by sources, rather than sweeping generalisations, which are announced in purely subjective terms. I think this throws the reality out with the bathwater.

If this was a postgrad course, this could lead to debate, but with 1st year undergrads, it is making pronouncements as if they're absolutes, isn't it?

I agree that many many women end up with criminal records via drugs, sex work, stealing, which are undoubtedly usually as a result of men in their lives.

I agree that women have to live their lives with rape as a potential reality.

I do not believe that only women deal with DV, and one of the reasons my son is so upset is that his first girlfriend was so controlling, and made his life miserable. I'm still mortified that I didn't realise because it didn't occur to me that she could be doing anything wrong.

Anyway, I thought I would ask you for your thoughts and advice. I'm not going to get involved directly, it's uni, not school, but I think she is actually having the opposite impact, implying that women are by definition victims, and making my son angry and confused, when he went in keen to learn.

I think I would feel the same if my daughter had the same teacher...?

Makes me laugh too

Not remotely extreme or ‘sweeping generalisations’, in your time as a radical feminist did you never undertake any rad fem reading or study?

These are core ideas and have been since I started uni in 1996 (and presumably before).

it’s fine to disagree and the whole point is to discuss. Your son will just need
go read more widely.

It's a unit in Gender, Crime, and Justice, though, not in radical feminism. While it's fine to have the unit taught by a radical feminist and for her to teach it from her point of view academically, it should be made clear that other types of feminism are available and provide different perspectives. And she's plain wrong saying that only women are victims of domestic violence.

It's not uncommon for violent domestic incidents to involves both parties landing blows in each other. These can either be defensive, or in some extreme cases the male purposefully goads the woman into hitting him as it's funny, or he can make hay from it in divorce and other legal proceedings.

Men are on average significantly stronger than women. If the 40-50% of women in the self reporting where using knuckle dusters to even out the possible injury rate, you might have a point.

Unis can really skimp out on lecturers, using cheap undergrad labour instead. In the context of short-term contracts and job insecurity, there's a tendency for the less intellectually confident ones to tow a percieved line. Worth asking whether this is a securely tenured staff member or a filler contract. Teaching is not held in high esteem by research heavy unis. So even the 'best' can treat teaching as a low key role not worth doing well.

I think you can be a radical feminist, without having been to radical feminist university.

@MarkWithaC is correct, her views and affiliations were not really core to the unit, she just decided to parse every element through her own lense. And AGAIN, this was not open to debate, both in the format of the lectures, and the way she spoke, there was no room for questions, let alone dissent.

Anyway, his final work was marked by a bloke, and his final mark for the entire unit is a credit, so he's pretty happy with that.

My 5ft2 mum was known by everyone outside the family to be charming and generous. At home she was violent, prone to fits of extreme rage, etc. My father tolerated her breaking my arms, fingers, etc, shaving my head, slapping me, so that he wasn’t scapegoated. I’m not at all excusing his cowardice, but in our home, it was ABSOLUTELY a woman who was the DV perpetrator.

Regarding the rape point: I actually think it is correct that all women are indirect victims of rape, as the threat of rape is used to keep us ‚in line‘ or confined. It took me til my late 20‘s until I dared to travel alone, or do (climbing) trips with sometimes only male acquaintances. Males generally take this freedom for granted, even though it can happen to them, too, even if at lower rate. From societal discourse, you’d never know, though. So the threat in essence keeps women confined while men roam free.

That said, it is sad that this lecturer misses the opportunity to highlight in the face of male students, how patriarchy also comes at a high cost for men, as they are forced to conform to patriarchal standards in order to not be cast out.
Thinking of how men in Ukraine (and sooner or later Russia) are plugged off the streets against their will to kill and die for a cause that obviously isn’t theirs (or they would have volunteered) - this is also an aspect of patriarchy in my book.

I totally agree about the missed opportunity to highlight how patriarchy also comes at a high cost for men.
On the rape point, I wouldn't say you were wrong per se, but one would hope that there was a discussion (like what you've written) to accompany it; it's a fairly bald statement otherwise and one that needs expanding/unpacking.

Just out of interest, OP, who is the lecturer? She has presumably published material. Could you link to it so that we can understand the issue better?