Ten minutes

I'm trying this new thing where I take ten minutes to write in my blog. If I don't do it, I don't post, and that's no good. Or at least it's less fun. So, I've got ten minutes to tell you about class yesterday.

In short, it rocked. Now I have 9 minutes and 56 seconds left. No, really, it was an amazing class. I've got a class that's senior-heavy, which might have negative reprecussions later in the semester when they're getting itchy to be done, but right now, they're mostly a delight. I'm incoroporating feminist rhetorical theory into my persuasive writing course (as I've done for the last year or so) and yesterday, based on their discussion board posts and what they're reading, decided that we had to talk a bit about feminism(s). I had them take a few minutes and write their own definition of feminism. I instructed them to write not what they think I want to hear, but what that term, or the term "feminist" calls up for them. What do they think of when they hear those terms? Then I gave them five minutes to think and write about where they learned their definitions. Where did they learn what a feminist is or what feminism is. Then they got into small groups and, in the spirit of invitational rhetoric, offered each other their definitions. They were also asked to engage in dialogue, not debate, about the terms. I gave them about 10 minutes on their own and then started walking around the room.

What was so interesting was that just about everyone had written down a pretty standard, pretty distanced and sanitized version of a definition. They said that feminism was basically the desire for equality between the sexes. Women want to have the same rights as men. One young man said he'd rather say "benefits" than rights. I asked what the difference is for him and he pointed out that while women and men might have the same rights, technically, that men, by their gender, are afforded more priviledges. I mean, how much do we love that kid?

But even though almost all of the students wrote a similar definition when I asked them in their small groups if each of them identifies themselves as a feminist, almost all of them said now. "So," I said, "you're not actually for equality of the sexes?" Well sure. "That's the definition you gave me. If that's true, then why wouldn't you call yourself a feminist?" Which of course got us to talk about the difference between denotative and connotative definitions, and exposed the stereotypes and lead to an interesting discussion about different definitions of feminism and the ways in which they operate in our society.

But I think I really had the most fun talking with them about Rogerian argument and invitational rhetoric. They asked fantastic questions, challenged the traditional definition of rhetoric, and really engaged the question of whether or not conversation without intent to persuade is possible. We haven't found answers, but wow are they asking some fantastic questions.

Very very cool.