There’s a discussion going on at Dacia’s blog (here and here) centering around an ignorant statement one of her professors made:
During our class this week, I was attempting to explain that one of the main things I want to explore in the paper is the emergence of a growing middle class of sex workers as a result of the advantages of the Internet, and the fact that the Internet is creating a more visible and politicized digital space which some women create workspaces that allow them to opt out of other jobs and lifestyles. The prof simply didn’t accept the idea that some women would chose sex work or that a sex worker could be an intelligent (or even sentient) being. Incredulous, she said: “It’s not as if sex workers are writing master’s papers at Columbia!” And the whole class laughed.
Well, that’s some shit. In the comments I said something about how Dacia herself is proof enough to contradict the professor’s statement. Then another commenter said one example isn’t enough to “prove” anything, to which I replied:
One example won’t suffice? Really? Even when that “one example” is the person STANDING RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU after you’ve just denied that such a person can exist? (”You” in this poorly-constructed sentence referring to the asshat professor, of course.) On the contrary - one is all you need in that case.
In the follow-up post Dacia wrote about how anecdotal evidence won’t cut it in an academic paper. This is true; obviously I know this. In fact, some of you may recall that very recently my header quote was this awesome line from Belledame: “The plural of anecdote is not data.” However, there is a MAJOR difference here.
Of course anecdotal evidence isn’t enough for an academic paper. But I wasn’t talking about an academic paper. I also wasn’t talking about instances where - and this is what happens a lot in the blogosphere - people go, “Such-and-such happened to me, therefore it must’ve happened to everyone!” or “I knew X and Y people who did this, therefore everyone does this!” and so on. That, of course, is total bullshit - extrapolating from a few individual cases to The World At Large doesn’t work. I’m every woman; I’m cold, put on a sweater; and all the rest of it. HOWEVER. What happened in the situation Dacia described was very different. The professor was effectively saying, “A person fitting this description cannot exist.” And yet, Dacia IS that type of person and very much DOES exist. So, when someone is basically erasing the possibility of your existence, and yet you’re standing right there? Yeah, one example is all you need.
Anyway, the threads are interesting, if infuriating; you should check ‘em out. It’s definitely true that this issue brings out the bigotry in damn near everyone.
READ ME: Disclaimer
3 Responses to "Erasing and silencing"
Hmm… I take “It’s not as if sex workers are writing master’s papers at Columbia” to mean that sex workers as a class are incapable of such academic prowess, or at least have not been inclined to excel in that field historically.
It’s a despicable statement in its intent, but I don’t see it as saying “There is not any known case of XYZ”.
Well sure it is. Come on. If the prof is saying it’s basically impossible for sex workers to write Master’s papers at Columbia, then…?
The joke will be on the prof, of course, when she learns that one of her students is indeed a sex worker writing a Master’s paper at Columbia.
I do agree with you Amber. My comment was aimed at commiserating about the lack of objectivity that’s often found in academia. It’s almost like an insular community, where new ideas almost never get in, and any attempt to change whatever “ideas” any given professor has is nearly impossible.
I was fortunate enough to have a fairly open-minded committee during my grad work, but some of the stories I heard from friends in other departments, and the environment I discovered when I entered my first college as a professor was really surprising. In fact, this is one of the reasons I left academia for the non-profit world.