Take a look at the link. Here we have a professor at a prestigious university (my own) state that he only has interest in teaching the books he loves, and that incidentially none of the books he loves are written by females. Thus, he says than he does not have an interest in teaching books written by females. Of course this not a general rule; it is another something against female authors per se; it is just a survey of the books he loves. That none of them are written by women is just incidential to his preference of only teaching books he loves.

Never mind the facts, at least if you're a professional victim. There is a spin to be made here. There are victims to be made. They take his quote out of context; they make him appear at if he has something against women authors per se. Check it out:


http://www.randomhouse.ca/hazlitt/blog/ ... transcript

And

http://m.thestar.com/#!/gta/redirect/0e ... f6d3ab4981

I can picture the Rebecca Watsons of the world salivating at his.

Edit: news link broken. I will fix


Eta: links fixed

I just brought it up to a female colleague. She shouted at me a lot. Hah.

There was a good discussion of this on the radio show Metro Morning today, w/ one of Gilmour's U of T colleagues, whose name I unfortunately did not catch. He made some good points, among them that to a large degree he was heartened by Gilmour's position of teaching books that he loved, saying that academic literature classes had been too long dominated by professors who approach the works from a critical position of superiority. But he also suggested that a University has a responsibility to broaden perspectives and experiences for its students, and that this responsibility also puts some obligations on profs to teach outside their own personal interests and preferences. As I see it, that is the issue here. I agree, his statement is being perceived as "I don't like women writers" as opposed to, "There just happens to be few women writers whose work I love, and I don't want to teach works I don't love." He can perhaps be taken to task over the latter statement, but the former is just an honest expression of fact.

And he does acknowledge loving Virginia Woolf.

There are two different issues there. The one is whether he should consider broadening the material taught, and the other is whether his refusal to do so is predicated on sexism. I am uninterested in the first, and quite frankly I am unsure where the buck would stop. That is, if we insist that he broaden his curriculum to women authors, then why not also insist include other minorities? Why not insist on ethnic minorities, the disabled, transsexual authors, or homosexuals?

Here's a solution. Teach what you know best. Hire other professors to teach other material, and if the other material is what you went to learn, then, as he said, go down the hall.

Mick wrote:There are two different issues there. The one is whether he should consider broadening the material taught, and the other is whether his refusal to do so is predicated on sexism. I am uninterested in the first, and quite frankly I am unsure where the buck would stop. That is, if we insist that he broaden his curriculum to women authors, then why not also insist include other minorities? Why not insist on ethnic minorities, the disabled, transsexual authors, or homosexuals?

Here's a solution. Teach what you know best. Hire other professors to teach other material, and if the other material is what you went to learn, then, as he said, go down the hall.

Whereas I actually find the first issue the more interesting. Possibly because my daughter has just started University and is complaining that her art history prof is teaching from an exclusively feminist perspective. My response has been that this is one of things she will find different about university vs. high school, that a professor will, and should, be more open about her personal biases and take firmer positions on controversial issues. There's a point, of course, this risks becoming top doctrinaire and rigid. But you're paying good money for someone's expertise, and you don't want to then squander that by forcing them to do a job their less expert at. Her university experience will be more than one class and, more importantly, by learning about feminist theory, she learns more about art theory, period, and has a basis to learn about other approaches on her own if she wishes.

I'm just surprised that someone can get to the level of being a professor of literature without encountering a single woman writer whose novels he enjoys; it's surely not for the lack of them out there, writing in a myriad of different styles and whose work alone wouldn't necessarily inform you correctly of their gender. Rather, you'd have to expect that he's either exceedingly picky - and the number of authors whose work truly does it for him are in single figures, in which case he's made a strange career choice - or there's something at least mildly misogynistic at work in his thought processes on the matter.

It's a bit like if a teenage boy says that all music other than heavy metal sucks. He might be entitled to his opinion, but you can't help but feel that he's needlessly narrowing his musical horizons through innate prejudice.

Firstly, a university professor is not entitled to teach only the things that he likes. He needs to teach the goddamn prescribed curriculum, or what the students need to learn in order to graduate.
Secondly, statements like

"When I was given this job I said I would only teach the people that I truly, truly love. Unfortunately, none of those happen to be Chinese, or women" and

"I say I don’t love women writers enough to teach them, if you want women writers go down the hall"

raise reasonable suspicion about underlying misogyny and racism. "Unfortunately, none of those happen to be Chinese, or women" is completely unnecessary and adds no additional meaning to the first statement. If he didn't want people accusing him of sexism and racism, then he shouldn't have been making such statements.

Matt_B wrote:I'm just surprised that someone can get to the level of being a professor of literature without encountering a single woman writer whose novels he enjoys; it's surely not for the lack of them out there, writing in a myriad of different styles and whose work alone wouldn't necessarily inform you correctly of their gender. Rather, you'd have to expect that he's either exceedingly picky - and the number of authors whose work truly does it for him are in single figures, in which case he's made a strange career choice - or there's something at least mildly misogynistic at work in his thought processes on the matter.

He does mention at least one female author he loves, and has even tried to teach. And he also speaks admiringly of Proust, so the soundbite that is making the waves about his liking only writing by "heterosexual guys' guys" is obviously a misrepresentation.

And the simple fact of the matter is that it is perfectly reasonable to teach a comprehensive and representative Intro English Lit course with only male writers. Frankly, I find the example of my daughter's prof focussing on feminism far more problematic.

It's a bit like if a teenage boy says that all music other than heavy metal sucks. He might be entitled to his opinion, but you can't help but feel that he's needlessly narrowing his musical horizons through innate prejudice.

But that doesn't mean he could not still teach a killer course on the history of heavy metal, does it?

I'd only teach Robert Heinlein, Ernest Hemingway, Robert Rourke and Mickey Spillane.

iamthereforeithink wrote:Firstly, a university professor is not entitled to teach only the things that he likes. He needs to teach the goddamn prescribed curriculum, or what the students need to learn in order to graduate.

Right. So if the calendar for his course specifies a quota of female writers, then he has to either fall in line or quit that course. If, OTOH, he can fulfill the curriculum requirements and teach only the books he loves, then I don't see the problem.

Secondly, statements like

"When I was given this job I said I would only teach the people that I truly, truly love. Unfortunately, none of those happen to be Chinese, or women" and

"I say I don’t love women writers enough to teach them, if you want women writers go down the hall"

raise reasonable suspicion about underlying misogyny and racism. "Unfortunately, none of those happen to be Chinese, or women" is completely unnecessary and adds no additional meaning to the first statement. If he didn't want people accusing him of sexism and racism, then he shouldn't have been making such statements.

I think it's instructive to read his comments in context, and compare that to the quotes that are being disseminated and which have led to this kerfuffle viz:

Edited version:

I’m not interested in teaching books by women. Virginia Woolf is the only writer that interests me as a woman writer, so I do teach one of her short stories. But once again, when I was given this job I said I would only teach the people that I truly, truly love. Unfortunately, none of those happen to be Chinese, or women. Except for Virginia Woolf. And when I tried to teach Virginia Woolf, she’s too sophisticated, even for a third-year class. Usually at the beginning of the semester a hand shoots up and someone asks why there aren’t any women writers in the course. I say I don’t love women writers enough to teach them, if you want women writers go down the hall. What I teach is guys. Serious heterosexual guys. F. Scott Fitzgerald, Chekhov, Tolstoy. Real guy-guys. Henry Miller. Philip Roth.

In context:

Keeler: I notice that you don’t have many, like, books by women.

Gilmour: I’m not interested in teaching books by women. I’ve never found—Virginia Woolf is the only writer that interests me as a woman writer, so I do teach one short story from Virginia Woolf. But once again, when I was given this job I said I would teach only the people that I truly, truly love. And, unfortunately, none of those happen to be Chinese, or women. Um. Except for Virginia Woolf. And when I try Virginia Woolf, I find she actually doesn’t work. She’s too sophisticated. She’s too sophisticated for even a third-year class. So you’re quite right, and usually at the beginning of the semester someone asks why there aren’t any women writers in the course. I say I don’t love women writers enough to teach them, if you want women writers go down the hall. What I’m good at is guys.

Keeler: And guys’ guys, too.

Gilmour: Yeah, very serious heterosexual guys. Elmore Leonard. F. Scott Fitzgerald, Chekhov, Tolstoy. Real guy guys. That’s a very good observation. Henry Miller. Uh. Philip Roth.

Shrunk wrote:

He does mention at least one female author he loves, and has even tried to teach.

Sorry, but that sounds too much like "I'm not racist, I even have a black friend!". The full context that you quoted doesn't seem to do much to exonerate him. If he isn't actually misogynistic, then he's a loose cannon with little control over what leaves his mouth. Considering that he is a Professor of English Literature, one would have expected him to be more adroit with words.

iamthereforeithink wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

He does mention at least one female author he loves, and has even tried to teach.

Sorry, but that sounds too much like "I'm not racist, I even have a black friend!". The full context that you quoted doesn't seem to do much to exonerate him. If he isn't actually misogynistic, then he's a loose cannon with little control over what leaves his mouth. Considering that he is a Professor of English Literature, one would have expected him to be more adroit with words.

Yes, it smacks of tokenism, which is presumably what he's trying to avoid by only teaching literature that he personally enjoys.

He's also being taken to task for this part of the interview:

Keeler: So do you teach mostly, I guess classic lit, or Russian?

Gilmour: I teach modern short fiction to third-years and first. So I teach mostly Russian and American authors. Not much on the Canadian front.

Keeler: That’s too bad.

Gilmour: I know, it is, but I can only teach stuff I love. I can’t teach stuff that’s on that curriculum, and I just haven’t encountered any Canadian writers yet that I love enough to teach.

So what do we call that? Is it racist to not enjoy Canadian writers? Are Canadians a race? Can one be prejudiced against one's own nationality? Or is it just possible that someone can fail to emotionally connect to no single writer from a particular demographic group without being prejudiced against the members of that group?

"Quick, bump Nineteen Eighty-Four off the curriculum and replace it with 50 Shades of Grey!"

More sensible to replace it, or augment it, with The Handmaid's Tale.

Evolving wrote:More sensible to replace it, or augment it, with The Handmaid's Tale.

Atwood would be the first Canadian author that sprung to my mind too; it's just coincidence that she happens also to be a woman.

She's probably way too obvious for Professor Gilmour, but then again she's also a lot better than him.

Interesting thread title.

But anyway, I just thought those commenting here might like to read this interesting piece...

David Gilmour is not a colleague of mine.

Oh, yeah, and a comment from ratemyprofessors

Very full of himself. Painfully obvious that he favours the guys in the class. When asked why there were no female authors on the syllabus said "I don't believe in 'good for you' literature". Some students love him, but I honestly think while he might be intelligent he hasn't matured past adolescence.

So - it appears he's not actually teaching much at all, never mind a whole syllabus because he isn't actually a professor.

Illuminating.

And rofl.