Friday, March 4, 2011

Finally figured out what was bugging me about this..

So, as you've probably heard, a psychology class in sexuality at Northwestern University was followed up with what boils down to have been a live demonstration in the use of toys.  It was optional and only 100 of the 600 students enrolled in the class showed up.  While this demonstration walked the edge of appropriate as far as venue, it is not the demonstration itself that bothers me about this (it was adults, consenting, voluntary attendance, and in the context of the class).  It's the attitude of the instructor that bothers me.  Prof. Bailey said of the students who stayed for the voluntary lecture: 
"I certainly have no regrets concerning Northwestern students, who have demonstrated that they are open-minded grown ups rather than fragile children.”
And this statement is what bothers me.  It's the typical liberal attitude that people who do not share a worldview or morality are somehow lesser or are 'children' who just don't know any better.   It is denigrating, derogatory, and condescending towards those students who choose to either keep their sexuality more private, do not wish to watch sexual acts in a public venue, or for whatever reason chose not to attend the lecture/demonstration.  Also implicit is that if any of the students complain about the demonstration then they are being childish.

It is a difference in degree of the attitude that 'progressives' have towards religion and religious folks or someone that does not share their views on gay marriage, 'entitlements', or any other social issue and that's what bothers me more than anything else.


Michael Fagan said...

"It's the typical liberal attitude that people who do not share a worldview or morality are somehow lesser or are 'children' who just don't know any better."

These people aren't "liberals" MC. Why not just call them "democrats"?

Brigid said...

This had nothing to do with education and everything to do with a liberal professor thumbing their nose at those with conservative values, be they students or the parents who pay tens of thousands for their children to go to classes such as that.

I would venture to say that the students who stayed were not there for "knowledge" but for the shock value. The "presenters" were there to fufill their own fantasy, not to teach, and then we have a teacher gets a paycheck for subsidized pornograph­y and then mounts the straw man arguments of "higher academia".

I have a well defined and open sexuality and still found the whole thing disgusting.

Midwest Chick said...

Michael: Good point. The two terms are becoming synonymous. We do have the 'Blue Dogs' but they generally toe the party line.

Brigid: You're right. The professor probably did it just to see if he could get away with it while smacking down more conservative valued-students.

For me, it really wasn't *what* happened but it was the bottom-line motivation(s) that I find disturbing.