Yesterday, I mentioned how I don't read for pleasure when I have classes. Well, I have to admit that I am currently reading a non-class related book and, while it isn't for pleasure, it isn't for school, either, so I am a little cheat and a big fat liar. The book is First Impressions by Ann Demarais, PhD and Valerie White, PhD. I came across it while reshelving some books at the library. The authors run a consulting company that seems geared mainly toward business clients. The book also seems geared toward business purposes, although much of what they say can be applied to other situations.
Anyway, I thought it might be an interesting and helpful read. As I've posted a few times before, I've had concerns about my participation in class. Also, I've been thinking about gender differences in class. Recently, a few strains of thought along these lines have kinda come together.
E.g., on the ride to the GRE the other day, I found myself thinking, 'What if I forget the formula for x or the rules re: y's and z's?' It reminded me of something I read a few years ago about expectations men and women have of themselves re: knowledge (unfortunately, I don't recall where I read this). Now, before I go too much further, please understand that I don't think all men do x and all women do y, end of story. And when I report an observation, it's just that: an observation. Sure, I wonder if some observations would pan out in a larger batch of observers and observations, but here, I'm not claiming that they do pan out.
Now, back to forgetting the formula for x. What I read a few years back was that men and women often approach their grasp of knowledge differently. And, whether or not this is an accurate general representation, I can say that I recognized the female approach in myself and I believed that I recognized the male approach represented in men in my circle at the time (business setting). The idea was this: women tend to think they need to understand everything about x, and that they need to do so before they move on to use x. So, how might this show itself? Some examples:
- I think that I'll bomb on the math portion of the GRE bc I'm not fully competent in all areas of math.
- If I don't completely understand x, I will not negatively criticize x, although I will ask for clarification about x so I can move forward with understanding and evaluating x.
- If I don't completely understand x, I will also not make claims about the implications of x. Actually, I first wrote, '...I will also not blather on about the implications of x'. I think this first version reveals a bit about this approach: If I don't fully understand x, it seems irresponsible (to me) to say that such-and-such is a positive/negative implication of x.
- Also, if I'm going to talk about x, I need to be able to fully backup whatever I say. This surely makes sense, but I don't need to take it as far as I do. E.g., up above where I mentioned how I'd read a few years ago about gender differences wrt knowledge: I couldn't remember where I read that, but I felt (and still feel) the need to noodle around the internet until I found where I might have read it; as if I shouldn't go forward until I could provide that source.
Now, the idea that there are gender differences wrt knowledge, in the classroom, etc. was not news to me. As an undergrad, it seemed clear that there were such differences. Sometimes I was the only female in the class, so these differences could be a bit overwhelming. The first thing I noticed is that men (and I subsequently saw this in many different settings, not just the classroom) tend to speak ito what is, not what they think is. E.g., it seemed more typical that a male student would say, 'The argument is clearly flawed bco...', whereas the female student would say, 'I think the argument is flawed bco...' or 'It seems like that argument is flawed bco...'. I still find this difference interesting.
It also seemed to me that male students are more likely to assert something, with less backup than a female student - or, at least, this female student - would. And that ties in with the bit above about full comprehension and backup. This will sound unfair, but as an undergrad I often thought that some male students would say anything. So they'd say, X and the professor would say Y which would lead to ~X and the student would back down wrt his claim to X. I didn't understand the point of that. If the student thought about it for, say, maybe 2 more minutes, they would've arrived at ~X.
Now, that was an uncharitable opinion. Well, maybe not uncharitable, but something along those lines: unhelpful, maybe. Okay, how about 'wrong'? Sure, if the student thought about it a coupla more minutes he might have arrived at ~X, but I neglected to consider that it may have been a helpful exchange for that student and/or others, including myself, in the class.
And yet, while I no longer think this of others' questions, I still practice 'questionable restraint' myself. E.g., I generally don't ask a question as soon as it pops into my head. I think about it and usually, after thinking about it a little bit, I see where the answer is or at least where the answer is going and that it is or is not going anywhere helpful wrt the issue at hand. Or, if I think that the answer must be addressed somewhere in the reading, and I just don't recall where or what the author would say about it, I just look it up later. If the question is still there and I don't see where it's going, I'll ask. Again, nowadays I really don't care what other people say or ask in class (except on the few occasions when someone's talking just to talk); since somebody might possibly get something out of a discussion, it's all good. Still, I neglect to consider that asking my question might be helpful to someone else in some small way or other (or helpful to me, even if I would end up figuring it out myself).
I think this hesitant approach is due, in part, to several things. First, I definitely attribute some of it to the gender difference mentioned above. I don't feel comfortable with some styles of discourse. One seminar is fairly large and so there's a good number of questions every meeting. There are a coupla students who, IMHO, tend toward an aggressive style of discourse. The guy's trying to answer the student's question and the student will interrupt, turn up the volume and talk over the professor. Why anyone - in any setting (other than, say, an emergency) - would do that, I don't understand. It seems rude. Ya know, people have been trying to figure out some of this stuff for thousands of years; y'all can wait two minutes for the guy to finish his sentence to tell him that he simply doesn't understand your insight. And I'm not comfortable with that style. Of course, just bc I don't care for it, doesn't mean it's wrong.
Second, personally, I like class discussions to move. The large seminar is the one wherein the professor asked that non-grad students refrain from asking questions. That kinda annoyed me at first, but turns out I ended up not really minding. And I like that the lectures keep moving, that there are questions left outstanding, that he leaves things unanswered for us to explore as we see fit.
I just noticed that I referred to my approach as a hesitant approach. I describe it as such bc I figure that's how it might appears to others; I don't actually feel hesitant. In this book I'm reading, there are some interesting discussions comparing what we think we're doing with what it looks to others like we're doing. Now, these authors could be full o' crap, but I can say that I definitely see where I come across as one thing when I don't intend that at all. E.g., - and, again, this is just how I view my own participation, not anyone else's; I certainly don't hold others to this view - I consider it a bit selfish to stop a discussion to ask a question that I could've answered with 2 more minutes of thought. Or 5 minutes of looking at the material again. Why would I ask a question to which I could easily find the answer in just a few minutes? I think I'm being considerate of others in the class, but this could easily be interpreted otherwise, e.g., as disinterest, incompetence, incomprehension, etc.
Also, I have to admit that I often feel a bit old fashioned wrt my ideas around interpersonal communication. As an aside, it was a bit of a shock when I moved to NJ. It seemed like people would say anything! And ask anything! My New England Yankee upbringing did not prepare me for people saying, ya know, what they really thought about you, and asking all manner of personal questions. E.g., I didn't know what to say when people would ask about money: 'How much of a raise did you get?' 'That's a lovely x; how much did it cost?' I was not and still am not comfortable talking about financial details with people I don't know very well. Or very personal matters: 'When are you going to have children?' I'm not. 'Oh, but why not? Whatsa matter? Is it his sperm count? Or is it you? Ya know, my niece had endometriosis and it took her fuhevah to have a baby, but she finally did it and you could, too, ya know, ya just need a good doctor. I'll get the name of her doctor for ya....' I'm now reconciled to this, shall we say, straightforward attitude; in fact, I've grown rather fond of it. I find something very interesting about a state's consitutents who, when asked to nominate new state slogans, come up with stuff like, 'New Jersey: What's it to ya?' and 'Three quarters of the state is really nice' and, my personal favorite, 'New Jersey: You got a problem wit dat?' I'm not sure what it says about NJ, but it says something.
But, I digress.
And so, I think (there's that 'I think' again!) that this semester has included an interesting intersection between concerns about class participation, personal attitudes toward communication, gender influences and surely other elements of which I'm completely unaware. I've certainly stumbled in trying to go at least halfway, in trying to figure out a way to participate in such a way that works for me and others, and I think (more thinking!) my lack of success in this area has been detrimental for me. I also wonder about how, in the long term, to best work within a male dominated field. Would I have had this lack of success and resulting detriment in a less male dominated field? Would I even think my efforts in this area equal to a lack of success in a less male dominated field? Maybe, maybe not; there's no way to say for sure, I suppose. How far can I go to adapt to this culture? How far should I go? It goes without saying that it would sure help to have a few more female role models around. I've only had two female philosophy professors: one in undergrad, one recently. My take, in and out of philosophy, is that there's definitely a different feel to classes taught by female professors. I feel much more comfortable participating in classes taught by female professors, but the reality is that philosophy is a male dominated field with mostly male professors. Since this is what I want to do and where I want to be, I need to carve out a way to work within this framework. This should be interesting.
Well, I reckon that's more than enough navel gazing for all of us for one day!
Recent Comments