The University of Michigan is offering students a class in

[no name 1]

I think you're taking the statement too literally. They're talking about how to fit into gay culture.

So then it is about teaching stereotypes and not about teaching how to be gay then. Some gay people I've known over the years would take offense to the fact that people think they have to be a flaming ** to be gay. One of the most masculine men I've ever known was gay and he never once felt the need to act like a woman or dress like a circus clown to be that way.

This school may as well have a foreign language class in "ebonics" and how to be a "hillbilly" if that's the case.

Did you even read the description?

I'll admit I didn't read the description. After having done so, I'd say that first sentence is very misleading.

You don't think the name of the course implies something different than what the content actually is?

Considering it is in this category:

ENGLISH 317. Literature and Culture.

Section 002 â€" How to be Gay: Male Homosexuality and Initiation.

But I read the description to verify what it was about before I debated/defended it.

Wow! Awesome!

Feel free to dismiss my uninformed opinion. I don't mind.

Well, you admitted you hadn't read it. I'm shocked that you went on about it but hadn't even read what it was about, is all.

You're easily shocked.

I still think the class could have a more suitable title.

I think taken out of context it is misleading. But under the Lit/Culture subhead, as oppsed to Sociology, it seems more thought out.

I'm not easily shocked, but the OT group is pretty tough on sources & reading full articles before defending/posting.

[Jenn! 918]

Well, you admitted you hadn't read it. I'm shocked that you went on about it but hadn't even read what it was about, is all.

You're easily shocked.

I still think the class could have a more suitable title.

I think taken out of context it is misleading. But under the Lit/Culture subhead, as oppsed to Sociology, it seems more thought out.

I'm not easily shocked, but the OT group is pretty tough on sources & reading full articles before defending/posting.

Ok, you've harped on it enough now. I get it.

[no name 1]

Well, you admitted you hadn't read it. I'm shocked that you went on about it but hadn't even read what it was about, is all.

You're easily shocked.

I still think the class could have a more suitable title.

I think taken out of context it is misleading. But under the Lit/Culture subhead, as oppsed to Sociology, it seems more thought out.

I'm not easily shocked, but the OT group is pretty tough on sources & reading full articles before defending/posting.

Ok, you've harped on it enough now. I get it.

you said I'm easily shocked, so I explained it. VJ SHEESH.

[Jenn! 918]

Well, you admitted you hadn't read it. I'm shocked that you went on about it but hadn't even read what it was about, is all.

You're easily shocked.

I still think the class could have a more suitable title.

I think taken out of context it is misleading. But under the Lit/Culture subhead, as oppsed to Sociology, it seems more thought out.

I'm not easily shocked, but the OT group is pretty tough on sources & reading full articles before defending/posting.

Ok, you've harped on it enough now. I get it.

you said I'm easily shocked, so I explained it. VJ SHEESH.

Right back at ya!

[no name 1]

Well, you admitted you hadn't read it. I'm shocked that you went on about it but hadn't even read what it was about, is all.

You're easily shocked.

I still think the class could have a more suitable title.

I think taken out of context it is misleading. But under the Lit/Culture subhead, as oppsed to Sociology, it seems more thought out.

I'm not easily shocked, but the OT group is pretty tough on sources & reading full articles before defending/posting.

Ok, you've harped on it enough now. I get it.

you said I'm easily shocked, so I explained it. VJ SHEESH.

Right back at ya!

oic, it's about having the LAST WORD.

How cool.

[Jenn! 918]

Well, you admitted you hadn't read it. I'm shocked that you went on about it but hadn't even read what it was about, is all.

You're easily shocked.

I still think the class could have a more suitable title.

I think taken out of context it is misleading. But under the Lit/Culture subhead, as oppsed to Sociology, it seems more thought out.

I'm not easily shocked, but the OT group is pretty tough on sources & reading full articles before defending/posting.

Ok, you've harped on it enough now. I get it.

you said I'm easily shocked, so I explained it. VJ SHEESH.

Right back at ya!

oic, it's about having the LAST WORD.

How cool.

No me!

[Alhamdulillah 0]

Did you even read the description?

Yes I did and I still think it's a stupid class and possibly one of the reasons Americans, as a whole, have become so stupid over the years. Instead of learning important things like math, science, how to read... we are learning how to be gay

but you said:

So then it is about teaching stereotypes and not about teaching how to be gay then. Some gay people I've known over the years would take offense to the fact that people think they have to be a flaming ** to be gay. One of the most masculine men I've ever known was gay and he never once felt the need to act like a woman or dress like a circus clown to be that way.

and the course description clearly says that's NOT what they are promoting.

In particular, we will examine a number of cultural artifacts and activities that seem to play a prominent role in learning how to be gay: Hollywood movies, grand opera, Broadway musicals, and other works of classical and popular music, as well as camp, diva-worship, drag, muscle culture, taste, style, and political activism. Are there a number of classically 'gay' works such that, despite changing tastes and generations, all gay men, of whatever class, race, or ethnicity, need to know them, in order to be gay? What is there about gay identity that explains the gay appropriation of these works? What do we learn about gay male identity by asking not who gay men are but what it is that gay men do or like? One aim of exploring these questions is to approach gay identity from the perspective of social practices and cultural identifications rather than from the perspective of gay sexuality itself. What can such an approach tell us about the sentimental, affective, or subjective dimensions of gay identity, including gay sexuality, that an exclusive focus on gay sexuality cannot?

I don't know what Hollywood movies you watch but the gay man is usually portrayed as the flaming, feminine type.... and what the heck is a "diva-workshop" anyway? If one learns to be gay by watching movies then he wasn't born that way.... and if he was born gay then what he's learning here (according to this description) is the stereotypes associated with being gay.

[no name 1]

Did you even read the description?

Yes I did and I still think it's a stupid class and possibly one of the reasons Americans, as a whole, have become so stupid over the years. Instead of learning important things like math, science, how to read... we are learning how to be gay

but you said:

So then it is about teaching stereotypes and not about teaching how to be gay then. Some gay people I've known over the years would take offense to the fact that people think they have to be a flaming ** to be gay. One of the most masculine men I've ever known was gay and he never once felt the need to act like a woman or dress like a circus clown to be that way.

and the course description clearly says that's NOT what they are promoting.

In particular, we will examine a number of cultural artifacts and activities that seem to play a prominent role in learning how to be gay: Hollywood movies, grand opera, Broadway musicals, and other works of classical and popular music, as well as camp, diva-worship, drag, muscle culture, taste, style, and political activism. Are there a number of classically 'gay' works such that, despite changing tastes and generations, all gay men, of whatever class, race, or ethnicity, need to know them, in order to be gay? What is there about gay identity that explains the gay appropriation of these works? What do we learn about gay male identity by asking not who gay men are but what it is that gay men do or like? One aim of exploring these questions is to approach gay identity from the perspective of social practices and cultural identifications rather than from the perspective of gay sexuality itself. What can such an approach tell us about the sentimental, affective, or subjective dimensions of gay identity, including gay sexuality, that an exclusive focus on gay sexuality cannot?

I don't know what Hollywood movies you watch but the gay man is usually portrayed as the flaming, feminine type.... and what the heck is a "diva-workshop" anyway? If one learns to be gay by watching movies then he wasn't born that way.... and if he was born gay then what he's learning here (according to this description) is the stereotypes associated with being gay.

Point proven.

um, reading it as written, it's Diva-WORSHIP, not workshop. (as in Liza, Barbra, Madonna, etc)

Edited January 8, 2008 by devilette

[Amby 490]

I'm taking this class

[Alhamdulillah 0]

um, reading it as written, it's Diva-WORSHIP, not workshop. (as in Liza, Barbra, Madonna, etc)

Ah! See, if I had more time to learn to read and less time to learn to be gay I may have read that correctly

[Jenn! 918]

I'm taking this class

Let us know if you turn gay.

[Amby 490]

lol I'm halfway there

[no name 1]

lol I'm halfway there

are you a hag? I am!

[Amby 490]

no think more into halfway there

[no name 1]

no think more into halfway there