The fourth week of classes is just as ho-hum as the first week.

In the early mornings I have political sociology, which is a really interesting class for me as far as the reading content goes. G. William Domhoff‘s Who Rules America? Power, Politics, & Social Change is a text I would recommend to everyone currently living in the US. His thesis (roughly: Who rules America? The elites. How? Through an intricate web of economic, buisness, and social connections. What about the masses? Useless, unless they band together in large social movements.) relies upon social network analysis, and according to my professor, this style of critical examination of class and power was a new thing when Domhoff first published this text back in 1967.

We’ve thus far had one guest professor speak to our class regarding his own three-decades long research into local power. Greater Lafayette is ruled by the elites just like Chicago.

It’s a small class, which would prove much in the way of discussion. The professor, however, doesn’t engage us in discussion. He lectures at us using the overhead projector and his brain. Sometimes he’ll ask a question and I’ll think, “Oh, now we get to start discussion”, but then he’ll quickly answer it himself. Occassionally, he asks the class for examples of this or that topic but continues his lecture. At least the texts are engaging.

Philosophy/religions of the east is a huge lecture class. Professor lectures using overhead slides and we copy down what he says. Every class, though, he’ll ask if there are any questions, and the good students that sit in the few front rows ask questions about belief because, as primarily Christians, they just don’t understand how anybody can believe in more than one god and still go to heaven. The “text” we’re currently reading sucks and is boring as hell, something the professor addressed during the first class but said he didn’t have time to find a replacement. Up next I have to read through The Bhagavad Gita: Krishna’s Counsel in Time of War, which really has nothing to do with war per se (translator’s error), but is a tale about patriarchy and being a man, about living life according to how [your] society is set up and that you’ve just got to get used to it because HEY! that’s life and life kinda sucks sometimes. Suck it up, Arjuna! I do think it is much better than the Christian tale, though.

The psychology of women class is a real bummer. It’s a large class and the professor gives us her PowerPoint presentation ahead of time so instead of sitting in class writing a whole bunch, we sit in class and are bored to death. I haven’t decided which I needn’t bother with: reading the textbook or going to lecture.

The kicker is the social psychology class. The professor goes on and on, giving tons of examples for relatively easy to understand concepts. He’s even showed clips from studies that I’ve been watching since introductory psychology.

The thing that I’m having a hard time with is that the professor will be talking about, say, role behaviors, and he’ll say something along the lines of, “Now, The Feminists™ have their own take on this issue, but what I’m going to show disproves The Feminists™.” or “The Feminists™ have written about this, but what I’m about to tell you shows how wrong The Feminists™ are.”

Every single class.

The Feminists™.

He even says it like it’s a bad thing.

He never once tells us exactly what The Feminists™ have as theory. He just says there generally is a The Feminists™ theory and goes on. No specifics whatsoever.

Tomorrow, when he brings up The Feminists™, I’m going to raise my hand and ask, “What, exactly, do The Feminists™ say on this topic, because it’s not in our textbook [which is written by a man and doesn't mention the feminist perspective] and you haven’t clarified what their position is at all.”

Fair is fair and I call sexism.