The Most Boring Course
Archeology of Sex and Gender must be the most boring course being offered on the Berkeley campus this semester. Our professor is interesting, in many definitions of the word, but she's yet to stimulate me in relation to the course topic or material.
It's the third week into class, and we're discussing the differences between archeology and anthropology. Being an upper-division archeology course, I'd expect this knowledge to be widely understood by members of the course. If not, I don't think and entire course is necessary. Possibly a 5-minute overview with references to more information.
Being of sex and gender, I'd like to spend more time talking about controversy, about gender, about sex, about sexuality, ABOUT ANYTHING!
Anyways, the real reason I'm writing this is because I have 28 pages of reading for discussion tomorrow. It's horrible. Laquer is the author. His chapter is on the development of "biological sex" and its divergence from the "gender" of pre-industrial (mostly european) thought.
I know, shoot me now.
It's the third week into class, and we're discussing the differences between archeology and anthropology. Being an upper-division archeology course, I'd expect this knowledge to be widely understood by members of the course. If not, I don't think and entire course is necessary. Possibly a 5-minute overview with references to more information.
Being of sex and gender, I'd like to spend more time talking about controversy, about gender, about sex, about sexuality, ABOUT ANYTHING!
Anyways, the real reason I'm writing this is because I have 28 pages of reading for discussion tomorrow. It's horrible. Laquer is the author. His chapter is on the development of "biological sex" and its divergence from the "gender" of pre-industrial (mostly european) thought.
I know, shoot me now.