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 You're asking a different question from the OP and I might approach it slightly differently, but I wouldn't be interested in addressing it as a purely theoretical question. I don't think a 'theoretical, ideal world', as you put it, exists.

I'm rather resistant to the idea that if a man 'has' the 'knowledge' to teach 'objective facts' about feminism he is therefore able to teach feminism. Any man who considers himself a suitable teacher of feminism should probably be encouraged to read up on feminist epistemology. Because feminist epistemology raises questions about how knowledge is produced and about what counts as knowledge, about the relationships between knowledge and power, and about objectivity.

So in the real, non-theoretical world most men who introduce a modicum of feminist theory in class know that they're not teaching feminism.

And I suspect this is why courses in gender studies are offered, rather than courses in feminism. It's easier to include men at every level.

chemistry feminism isn’t just factual and objective though is it? It’s about people and therefore it includes subjectivity and nuance. People and theories about them can’t be reduced to simple, regurgitable facts imho and ime and it does us a disservice to do this.

The implication throughout has been a male academic would be better at being impartial about feminist theory, rather than one of those radical feminists who might have her own ideas.

As no one teaches it, it is a pointless argument anyway.

Kittens, are you not starting with the assumption that feminist theory is right though? (I'm not saying its wrong!!)

Surely learning at university level is about giving students the tools to analyse and conclude their own opinions based on the evidence available and their experiences, so its about providing opinions and counter opinions and the research about the contradicting evidence.
On that basis surely a radical feminist can teach feminism, a man can teach feminism and a non feminist woman can teach feminism.

If a woman has studied feminism academically and disagrees with a lot of the assumptions, should she be banned from teaching it too... No as long as she is teaching a balanced course she or anyone with the qualifications can do it.

It's not about converting people, and it's not about saying feminism is right surely?

Many participants in this thread believe that men can be objective about feminism. I think this belief comes from an assumption or hope that this is true or could be true, giving men the benefit of the doubt
BUT
where is the evidence that any man is objective about feminism? So far, I've seen more evidence suggesting that men are not objective about feminism.

golden like I said, I think we are talking about 2 different things here, you and I, in terms of what the study of feminism should entail, which is fine, however you say The implication throughout has been a male academic would be better at being impartial about feminist theory, rather than one of those radical feminists who might have her own ideas and that is simply not true, no one has said that or implied it, or come close, I believe in equality, and individuality, and women are perfectly capable of presenting facts impartially about everything under the sun and having their own ideas too.

Lichtie I'm starting with the assumption that feminism is worth studying. And if it's worth studying, it should be taught by someone who has the necessary background to teach it. In the case of a whole university course, rather than a couple of ad hoc lectures, this will be the sort of person I've described in my earlier comments.

I'd expect plenty of rigorous debate on issues within feminist thought. At the moment key topics seem to be things like porn, prostitution, marriage, childcare, women in the workplace, sexuality, fertility and birth control, ethnicity, gender identity and of course male violence. So I'd expect to be looking at those kinds of issues from feminist theoretical perspectives, and relating the theoretical material to feminist practice. I'd also expect to encounter feminist pedagogies and feminist epistemologies.

If I were a student, I simply wouldn't be interested in doing that kind of study with a male lecturer. I also don't think converting people is remotely at issue - I think the people most likely to sign up for a feminism course would already consider themselves feminists who want to learn more, and want to learn with others.

This interview with Sheila Jeffries is interesting in the context of this discussion. She talks about the loss of women's studies to gender studies and the impact of the corporatization of higher education.
itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/feminist-current/id603245791?mt=2&i=410995168

"Can you explain to me"

I don't have to, that is massive goalpost shifting. The question is can a man teach feminism. Your answer has all been about how only a woman can be inspiring through lived experience. What you are talking about now is completely different. You are also assuming that in order to understand something truly, you must somehow been the one to research it. I have had great lecturers doing topics they do not research in.

"But if you have no personal experience"

There are plenty of subjects where people do not have "personal experience". All of history pretty much is no "personal experience".

"where is the evidence that any man is objective about feminism? So far, I've seen more evidence suggesting that men are not objective about feminism."

Women are not objective about feminism either. Have a libfem teach a course and have a radfem teach the course and you have vastly different outcomes.

Women are not objective about feminism either.

Waa waa women do it too.

"I think the people most likely to sign up for a feminism course would already consider themselves feminists who want to learn more, and want to learn with others."

That's fine, but that's not what university is for. That's what a feminist group or organisation is for. University should not be about teaching one point of view unless it is factual or profession based. When it comes to theory it should present all views in a balanced approach.

People who would only want to study with and under people with the same beliefs as them or the same sex as them would probably be better suited not doing an academic course.

What is feminism? Surely it comes down to that and this appears to be subjective (dictionary definitions aside). I think it involves the here and now as women live their lives, others appear to think it’s purely theoretical in an academic sense. Perhaps one can learn media studies without watching a film or English literature without reading a novel?

I think feminism should be taught because I believe we need it. It’s sad it is not. However my knowledge and understanding of the topic is in no way academic and I don’t think it’s especially diminished for that, though it is easier to dismiss if you’re that way inclined.

That's fine, but that's not what university is for. That's what a feminist group or organisation is for. University should not be about teaching one point of view unless it is factual or profession based. When it comes to theory it should present all views in a balanced approach.

Well, when I was a student, I and my friends chose subjects/modules according to what interested us. Now my daughter is a student and she does the same. That's why I think students choosing a feminism course are likely to be feminists.

Also, as you've probably gathered, there's more than one point of view in feminism!

MrGHardy wrote - "Women are not objective about feminism either. Have a libfem teach a course and have a radfem teach the course and you have vastly different outcomes."

I was not addressing how a woman would teach feminism, because the way in which a woman teaches feminism does not excuse any bias that a man may have in his teaching of feminism. If the man is subjective, he is still subjective even if a woman is also subjective.

I have already made the point that all lecturers have personal bias. I made the point in one of my posts on this thread, 9 days ago, but that has been met with claims that men would be objective when they teach feminism.

Therefore, I was challenging claims of men's alleged objectivity in their teaching of feminism.

If my requests for evidence of men's alleged objectivity about feminism are just going to be met with "women are subjective too", then I'm not optimistic about learning why men can allegedly teach feminism without bias.

Lass You're asking a different question from the OP and I might approach it slightly differently, but I wouldn't be interested in addressing it as a purely theoretical question. I don't think a 'theoretical, ideal world', as you put it, exists

The whole thread is theoretical. Poster after poster saying men can't/shouldn't teach feminism- yet the reality is that in at least one university they do teach it.

I really don't see what is so difficult about my question. There is poster after poster saying men can't teach feminism / shouldn't teach feminism as they lack the "lived experience"

Do these same posters then think there is no point in allowing men to study it?

I don't think feminism belongs anywhere near academic institutions

Feminism is a consciousness raising political movement

I think feminism like Marxism or capitalism or Maoism or libertarianism or anarchy can be taught as political theory. I don't think any of them should be taught with the aim of enthusing followers for the cause. There are plenty of non- academic groups within or without academe which can attend to that.

"It does feminist academics a great disservice to assume they are incapable of being impartial or will try and browbeat students to their way of thinking because they think a certain way"

Yet some are happy to assume male academics will do exactly that?

Acknowledging that human beings are incapable of impartiality does no one a disservice. Impartiality is a worthy goal, impossible to achieve.

Your answer has all been about how only a woman can be inspiring through lived experience. What you are talking about now is completely different

No, you are not paying attention. Try reading Beachcomber's post upthread: she has said what I've been trying to say but has put it more clearly.

A bloke could probably teach a class on feminist literature or something

I think feminism like Marxism or capitalism or Maoism or libertarianism or anarchy can be taught as political theory.

There's a big difference between teaching A Level Sociology where you take topics - the family, suicide and religion are three popular ones at this level, for example - and explaining how functionalists, interactionists, post structuralists and feminists approach them, and being the lead for a group of undergrads (and even postgrads) to explore the different strands of feminism and approach constructing their own research, say, a dissertation.

I think feminism like Marxism or capitalism or Maoism or libertarianism or anarchy can be taught as political theory. I don't think any of them should be taught with the aim of enthusing followers for the cause. There are plenty of non- academic groups within or without academe which can attend to that.

I don't think feminism is a political theory. And I don't think it is an academic subject or a subject for study. Actually I think it is deeply misogynistic to consider it so.

Feminism is female protest against a sociopolitical system which abuses, exploits and oppresses girls and women. I think it is weird and a bit psychotic to want to "study" that protest. It's an ongoing thing for crying out loud.

The idea of a man "teaching" women about feminism as an academic subject in an academic institution within the status quo is the antithesis of feminism.

Because feminist epistemology raises questions about how knowledge is produced and about what counts as knowledge, about the relationships between knowledge and power, and about objectivity.

Yes yes yes! One of the things that was so absolutely engaging about the Women's Studies MA I did was that it challenged the assumption that 'objective' facts / history / truth, even science were not necessarily immutable - that everyone has a vantage point and the vantage point that held sway was male/patriachal (and race & class inflected). Long time ago and maybe people aren't so stuck on 'the cannon' nowadays but it was a lightbulb moment for me. Ditto the understanding that 'the personal is the political'.
Doesn't mean that men shouldn't / can't teach feminism but they might struggle more to get beyond their own world view maybe?

I'm sure there is a difference- the complexity of the ideas being taught for one.

I still don't think that it necessitates teaching about these ideas on the assumption the students will put them into practice. In the case of Marxism and anarchy I truly hope they don't.

I'd agree that studying feminism is weird and psychotic. But feminists studying patriarchy and its impacts is a really good thing, where they're actually allowed to do it.

"Waa waa women do it too."

Waa waa I got nothing to actually say.

But feminists studying patriarchy and its impacts is a really good thing, where they're actually allowed to do it.

YY to this. And I think it would be bizarre and inappropriate for a man to think he has a "teaching" role in that study.