Just agreeing with @Hanna in #195, and expanding in a direction it got me thinking along.
I’m a sociolinguist. I’m teaching a class in sociolinguistics this year. We’re going to be discussing things like racial/ethnic/sexual/… slurs as part of it, because that’s part of natural language use—to avoid that because some students might be offended by some of those terms (and I think it’s safe to say that pretty much everyone in the class will find something to be offended by in that unit, at least!) would be to avoid coming to an understanding of why these terms exist, and why they have power.
It seems to me that those arguing that Duke shouldn’t hope for their assigned summer book to be read by those who might be offended by depictions of lesbianism (or whatever else) also shouldn’t take a class like mine, because they’re entirely within their rights to avoid things they’re morally offended by. Is this so? If not, why the difference?
Actually, given the existence of human chimeras and the (to many) surprisingly-high rate of hermaphroditism among humans at birth, even straight-up anatomy finds the claim here (and elsewhere in the post it was lifted from) a bit simplistic, to put it mildly.
Gender is one thing, biology is another. Plenty of ambiguity in the first but the second isn’t without some gray areas either, for a minority of people.
I remember a college discussion in a small seminar class in which the professor asked us to explain and diagram the differences between various slurs/insults. What was the difference between a nerd and a dweeb? A wuss and a wimp? In what order are slurs ranked in terms of offensiveness and to whom? If the N word is used by people of color what does that mean in terms of it’s offensiveness to Caucasians? Why do slurs aimed at women seem to have more power than those aimed at men? How does the impact of a slur change depending on how it’s claimed by the group at which it’s aimed, e.g. “queer”? It was an interesting learning moment for all of us, and I have to give the professor credit for taking on a tough subject that arose naturally from the class discussion but was nowhere in the syllabus.
“Are you for the normalization of all consensual sexual relationships between adults? What about when we move on from Heather has two mommies to Heather has three mommies? Two mommies and one daddy?”
I guess I find Heather having two mommies rather shrug-worthy in this day and age. It’s no more “controversial” than finding that Heather’s mommy was Catholic and Heather’s daddy was Jewish, or that Heather’s daddy was married once before he married Heather’s mommy, or that Heather’s mommy is white and Heather’s daddy is Asian, or that Heather’s mommy and daddy only got married after Heather was born.
There are people who object to Catholic/Jewish marriages, or divorce/remarriage, or interracial marriage, or premarital sex /babies born out of wedlock. Their objections are sincerely held. Is Duke obligated to make sure all reading material it recommends for its “One Book” program not show any of those things for fear of offending? Why is homosexuality any different?
The link he is pointing to is part of a discussion about Wellesley admitting transgender students (those who live / present as female).
I’m a tangential part of the Wellesley community, as my daughter is a new grad. It’s really simple. After some internal review, Wellesley has made their policies on the gender of applicants clear. If you are uncomfortable with that apply, don’t apply; it’s as simple as that.
“I been telling people all of my life that I am male. What does it mean to be a male? Is there any such thing at all, or does being male or female really only exist on some sort of continuum?”
I’ve been telling people all of my life that I am female, mostly because - well, I am, it’s an incontrovertible fact. I’m heterosexual. That’s an incontrovertible fact (for me, at least). Maybe there is a continuum. But the existence of that continuum, however personally puzzling to me, doesn’t change the reality of what I am, and therefore it’s not threatening to me. Why is it threatening to you? Is someone claiming you’re no longer a man? I haven’t heard anyone claim that I’m no longer a woman.
No one is telling you that you can’t be male. There is nothing lurking around that corner. You may find non-gendered bathrooms in some spaces, maybe. But of course, those don’t keep you from being male, from other people recognizing your maleness, etc. That’s not going anywhere.
This kid is really going to have a culture shock when he arrives on campus. More and more commonplace? When was sexuality NOT “commonplace”? Look in your bible! Sexuality is integral to humanity.
Pro-sex? Who is not pro-sex? Are there people who are anti-sex? Boy, would I love to be a fly on the wall when this student experiences freshman dorm life, or when he walks around campus and sees pavement-chalking or posted notices for LBGT events, talks on contraception, and seminars about sexual consent. What will happen if he accidentally walks in on his roommate in bed with a girl? What if there is a sexually explicit billboard on the highway on his way to Durham? His objection is like saying you are allergic to air. You just can’t . . . be.
But seriously, why would Conservative Christian students even choose a mainstream, secular university? They surely must know that their way of life and their values are not mainstream—that’s precisely why they do not watch most TV shows, why they homeschool, and why they do not live in San Francisco or New York—to be shielded from what they find objectionable. I am sorry, but anyone who refuses to read a book like Fun Home does not belong in a school like Duke.
On the contrary, he is isolating himself, not vice versa.
“Pro-sex? Who is not pro-sex? Are there people who are anti-sex?”
Sure there are. They probably wouldn’t characterize themselves that way, but I would. There are lots of Americans who think sex is for procreation, or at a minimum only belongs in hetero marriages, and that we’d all be better off if we culled immodest clothing, frank discussion, and racy plotlines from our culture.
Did you read Grasso’s note in the Washington Post? He said HE DID read the book after someone told him the pages which contained the objectionable material – which he skipped over. You’re making assumptions of this young man based on suppositions you hold against the more extreme fundamentalists. His article in WAPO makes him sound very engaging and thoughtful.
I am really uncomfortable discussing Grasso, even though he put himself out there. I hope he writes an op-ed in four years and tells us what he thinks about his education at Duke.
My interest in this thread is that the discussion seems useful to me for parents, and maybe students, who don’t seem familiar with the courses of study and campus culture at schools like Duke. There is no reason anyone should have prior understanding of colleges before investigating them. That is one reason the board exists.
There is at least one parent reading and posting who said her son is applying there.
and also I like to read JHS’s posts where he gives us literary history and analysis. Those are always great.
ucbalumnus: Thank you. That is fascinating. Do you have any surveys showing the percentage of those believing in Bible based creation, rather than science based creation, applying to the most competitive universities?
Frankly, if he read the book and found it conflicting with his beliefs, then I have no issue at all. That was the whole point, and it may, (and indeed has right here) lead to some interesting discussion,
My S is still considering Duke ED. He thought the whole thing was silly.