This reading seemed overly scholarly at first, and I had to look up expressivist and compositionist. Later, it became reflections of 3 lesbian professors and where they fit in their roles in academia.
Their personal stories were interesting as vignettes, but did not seem especially relevant to the teaching of writing or writing theory. These women offered insight into their personal experiences, but did not offer any information that was new. I am familiar with the gay and lesbian experience, albeit as an outsider, and this article, while perhaps informative to those with little prior knowledge, to me felt a bit outdated and stale. (Just checked, oh, it was published 15 years ago; that may be a factor.)
The first story tells of the professor struggling with her bi and working class identities in a traditional professional environment, and how her education and identity made it difficult for her to feel that she belongs anywhere. Her story could have been written from a "just lesbian" or "just working class" point of view, and it would have worked. In my opinion, her story was hackneyed.
The second author describes that everyone knows she's a lesbian because of her butch appearance. Also, she feels that this a more powerful position than straight female or lesbian female. Her story was the best of the three. I liked her voice and her story. I especially liked the part where a male colleague called her bossy, and how she didn't really address it or get ruffled by it. (Men bosses aren't called bossy; they are called powerful or in charge. Further, women who complain about being called bossy feed into the stereotype that not only is woman boss bossy, but she's whiney, sensitive, or emotional.) I found her story interesting and relevant.
The last story was about a lesbian professor seeking a promotion. She felt discriminated against for writing about her lesbian background on a job application. As an employer, I was unhappy with her description of being aimless and lacking in motivation, getting degrees not because she was intellectually curious, seeking employment, or wishing to better herself, but simply because she had nothing better to do. Frankly, I wouldn't hire anyone with that attitude. And what does that really have to do with being a lesbian, anyway?
She said that references to work experience such as cocktail waitressing and admissions that both my existence before I started college and my college career were "aimless"While she whines about not being accepted and perceives it as an attack on her lesbianism and otherness, I feel she has completely misinterpreted the hesitance to promote her. Her focus should be less on her sexuality and more on her employability, and what she brings to the table versus other candidates with whom she may be competing. The cocktail waitress gig, in my opinion, is not what worried the administrators the most. When she was told she was supposed to be more like the upper level administrators, I don't think they were expecting her to turn White or grow a penis. I think they were looking for drive, motivation, and a sincere interest in making a contribution to the university as an individual classroom teacher and as a departmental team player. She showed that she was an excellent teacher, but lacked the other aforementioned skills (not traits!) that could render her the best choice for promotion. Her story, to me, was annoying and self indulgent.
would make me seem to the provost and his peers as if I were not worthy of membership in the academic community.