Well, I've been at home and unable to reply after reading all
the messages. I believe we have diverged into two general threads
here:
The first was which intro texts we prefer and why.
The second was whether or not Plotnik's treatment of date rape
is problematic.
So I guess I have two general comments. I want to echo Miguel's comments
that one small section of a text does not lead me to an adoption decision
I am a cognitive-type person so I tend to emphasize those chapters
in the text and just cover the very basics in some of the others which
I personally find less interesing--like social and developmental--and
I don't mean that to offend anyone--I suspect to some extent we all do
this.
Well, the bottom line is that I have yet to find ANY intro text,
that is not completely encyclopedic (and therefore unacceptable
for my needs), that covers all the cognitive stuff in a way that is
completely adequate in my terms. So what I do is talk about "well, this
is what the text says, but this is what I want you to know...."
I think that if one likes a text overall then one will have to do that
with any intro text, given the breadth and the variety between users.
So, I don't pick a text for its "correctness" across the board,
because there is probably no such animal.
As for the second issue, I still have a different perception of that
contested section and think this may reflect just each our own
individual personal biases and idiosyncracies. I did not find that
section on first reading to be blaming women as victims; particularly in
light of how it fits into the entire chapter.
Upon being told that some people do interpret it that way, well, I guess I
can see that; but for me it was a fairly neutral, innocuous section trying
to address a difficult issue which many texts don't even try to address.
Going back to the Golda Meir script--even if it would be punishing the
victim to instill a curfew for women; and that really the men--even the
not guilty ones should be punished for being born male by having a curfew
instilled for them--the reality is that there is no curfew--hence wouldn't
it be prudent to instill a personal curfew? And that is the message that
I got from Plotnik--it is prudent to know how men interpret what women
say and therefore to act accordingly.
I perused the many desk copies in my office, I find that they take a very
similar stance and approach--for example, I have one open on my desk now
that talks about how to avoid acquaitance rape and the picture shows one
woman and three men all having fun and laughing. The men are clothed but
the woman has a bikini on! Now if that doesn't send a message of "asking
for it" then what does?
Another one covers exactly that same 'no means no' and working on social
assertivness skills emphasis as Plotnik, although it does add a section
for men saying they should take 'no as no' (gee, that sounds about as
effective as telling adolescents to 'just say no' to drugs, cigarettes,
sex, etc.)
Well, for me the bottom line is that it's all a matter or seeing what we
are looking for--and in this particular case I wasn't 'looking for'
anything in particular.
I've used many texts before and I get back to the general plan for
picking a text. I've used Feldman, and liked the writing very well; I've
used Coon and liked the earlier version but thought it got too
encyclopedic so changed in later versions. Whenever I change a text
I have students evaluate the new text at the end of the first semester
so I know how they like it and they've liked all of them about equally.
When I first started teaching I changed texts every semester so I
could get all the ancillaries! As a new professor I needed all the
help I could get; I suspect the publishers would actually give those
out if we ask nicely but I just felt I should use the texts and get
a feel for them. That is how I decided I did not like using the the
encyclopedic texts--I started with a Kagan text I believe; the students
either were hopelessly lost in the complexity and quantity of material or
simply didn't read before coming to class because it was just toooo much
for them.
Ok that's way more than 2 cents (and I'm still P.O.ed that they took
the cents symbol off my keyboard!)
annette
Annette Taylor, Ph. D.
Department of Psychology E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
University of San Diego Voice: (619) 260-4006
5998 Alcala Park
San Diego, CA 92110
"Education is one of the few things a person
is willing to pay for and not get."
-- W. L. Bryan
