Can a man teach feminism?

[lucydogz]

Reading the Guardian colour supp today, an article about gal dem quotes 2 young black women saying they were shocked, when taking a class on Feminism at Bristol university, that it was taken by white man.
Firstly, I see no relevance in his race. But why shouldn't a man teach 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

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

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?

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.

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.

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

"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."

So you admit to wanting a biased, personal take, rather than an objective analysis.

Way to promote it as an "academic discipline". Though I suppose in your case, it is not meant to be an academic discipline so your take on it is fine. But I don't think it transfers to feminism being taught as an academic class at university.

Education is absolutely not about faith

This is an interesting, but, I think, almost entirely incorrect statement. Certainly education is about socialisation into a particular world view or ideology (even if that ideology is one which prizes critical thinking)

The problem with men teaching feminism is that a key goal of feminism is to free women from having our world view and ways of understanding our own experience filtered through and limited by male perspectives and male authority. We are socialised to accept this authority and men are socialised to exert it over us. It's like asking cats to teach mice self-defence.

"So you admit to wanting a biased, personal take, rather than an objective analysis. "

That's your view, not mine.

Education on faith issues is about faith. I was giving my own example. Not sure anyone else will agree with me. That's 100% fine.

BUT TallulahWaitingInTheRain explains it a lot better than me. Maybe I am wrong to confuse faith and education, but Tallulah has nailed it...

"The problem with men teaching feminism is that a key goal of feminism is to free women from having our world view and ways of understanding our own experience filtered through and limited by male perspectives and male authority. We are socialised to accept this authority and men are socialised to exert it over us. It's like asking cats to teach mice self-defence."

I think the thing I was getting at was that with religious education some people have more investment in it (and it was one of the examples given early on, being taught Hinduism by a non-Hindu or something).

Yes he can.

I wonder if academics who disdain politics teaching political theory isn't a problem for more than just Feminism.

No, he can't.

He may have all the academic knowledge in the world of feminist theories and discussions, and he may be 100% sympathetic towards women. But he will still be experiencing, seeing, reading, interpreting etc, all feminism from the perspective of him being a male, male-bodied, male upbringing and male socialisation.

For me, that would still, ultimately, be a man telling his students, women and men, what feminism is - doesn't matter how benign he may be, or believes himself to be; and I don't care how many other women tell me that I should accept that his own academic studies overrule my own lived experience. I don't agree.

As said above by TallulahWaitingInTheRain:

The problem with men teaching feminism is that a key goal of feminism is to free women from having our world view and ways of understanding our own experience filtered through and limited by male perspectives and male authority. We are socialised to accept this authority and men are socialised to exert it over us. It's like asking cats to teach mice self-defence.

think the thing I was getting at was that with religious education some people have more investment in it (and it was one of the examples given early on, being taught Hinduism by a non-Hindu or something)

You seem to be confusing the idea of objectively teaching about various beliefs or philosophies and teaching for the purpose of cultivating active followers of those beliefs and philosophies. Had the religious education my son received at school been given by a teacher who was demonstrably involved in a religious faith, with the view of encouraging him to follow that faith I would have withdrawn him from it. To answer your question- religious studies should be taught by a biblical scholar.

Education on faith issues is about faith. I was giving my own example. Not sure anyone else will agree with me. That's 100% fine

Again you are confusing education with the intention of telling the student "x religion believes a " and "z religion believes b" with education which seeks to make the student a follower of x or z.

Universities should not be teaching faiths (with the exception obviously of purpose specific seminaries)

For me, that would still, ultimately, be a man telling his students, women and men, what feminism is

But that is exactly what it should be at a university. If you want feminism to be some sort of conciousness raising effort that should be done by a feminist group, or society which may well be on campus, but not part of the academic syllabus.

But my point is that he would have only an academic, book-read, studied, version of his subject; versus actual girls' and women's real lived experience.

" To answer your question- religious studies should be taught by a biblical scholar." I was talking Sunday Club not religious studies.

"Again you are confusing ..." I am not confusing anything, I'm giving my views. The thread moved on, but getting back to the OP I agree with the two black women, surprise that a feminism course was taught by a man.

We're not seeing eye to eye, lass so it's fine to agree to disagree.

You seem to be confusing the idea of objectively teaching about various beliefs or philosophies and teaching for the purpose of cultivating active followers of those beliefs and philosophies.

It is not humanly possible to objectively teach about various beliefs or philosophies.

I am not talking about religion. I have no religion, no god or gods or goddesses.

I am writing about being born female, correctly identified as a girl at birth because I have a vulva and not a penis; and consequently being raised as a girl, becoming a woman in the fullness of time, - that is not a belief or a religion. It is just biological, physical reality.

Why should women allow men, with a theoretical grasp, to lecture people on what it is to be the reality of being a woman?

It is not humanly possible to objectively teach about various beliefs or philosophies

It is possible to teach what Marx said, what Christ said, Hitler said, what Adam Smith said, what Andrea Dworkin said, what Germaine Greer said without then following through to convert your students to be followers of Marx, Christ , Hitler, Dworkin or Greer.

Why should women allow men, with a theoretical grasp, to lecture people on what it is to be the reality of being a woman?

They aren't. They would be teaching what feminism is as a political theory- same as teaching what Marxism is as a political theory.

CardsforKittens, absolutely right. She was awarded her degree several years afterwards when women were finally awarded degrees.

Half of this conversation seems predicated on the idea that knowledge is a matter of uncontested facts. While the world is full of facts, the way those facts function in society is complex and open to interpretation.

No scholar is teaching from a position of neutrality; all good scholars acknowledge their inherent bias, whether teaching feminism or the influence of Shakespeare.

Indeed, no good teacher would consider their job as one of simply pouring facts into the open mind of a student.

It is possible to teach what Marx said, what Christ said, Hitler said, what Adam Smith said, what Andrea Dworkin said, what Germaine Greer said without then following through to convert your students to be followers of Marx, Christ , Hitler, Dworkin or Greer.

Perhaps. But is it possible for a man to employ a feminist pedagogy? I'm thinking of the sort of thing that bell hooks writes about, which involves critiquing the sexism present in the wider university context (among other things).

This means that reflecting on lived experience becomes part of the learning process, and part of the means of assessment. I'm not sure a man could adequately facilitate this in a university course on feminism.

I imagine a man could deliver a couple of lectures on how feminist theory has impacted on English Lit or history or philosophy of science. I'm less convinced that he could legitimately teach a whole course on feminism.

So, a sort of version of feminism as seen through the filter of a lifelong male life, male biology, male socialisation, then? Feminism as preached by men?

Bollocks.

Please correct me if I am wrong!

Emma I crossed posts with you, and completely agree with all your points!

I think you are wrong. You seem to be under the impression a lecturer is some sort of motivational life coach.