They get famous, write zillions of books, and reap the benefits. Just ask
Henry Giroux or Peter McLaren! (raw answer)
Of course, it depends on which "men", and the degree to which their
masculinity and race and class and sexuality priviledge are also
on the line. In my university, those male profs who profess critical pedagogy in
their classes, and yet act like pigs outside of their professorial role are
white, virulently heterosexual, and extremely ambitious and I might add
successful. For those guys, critical theory simply represents another
authoritative discourse with which to represent themselves as
sumultaneously powerful and heroic. A master narrative of good versus
evil. For them, professing critical theory in no way problematises
their own identity.
My theory is that this is why it is precisely these same guys who (not only at
my university) who go nuts and actually agressively apeshit over folks
like Liz Ellsworth- folks who could actually require some accountability on
their part. It is critical theorists who lambasted Liz Ellsworth in
Harvard Ed REview and elsewhere just 'cuz she challenged their
authority- not some band of right-wing fascists.
>What would be the benefits of men teaching this way?
depends
>What do you see as problematic?
everything, except for dogs, coffee and chocolate
Mary
Mary Bryson, Associate Professor, Education/UBC
Principal Co-Investigator: GenTech Project
http://www.educ.sfu.ca/gentech/index.htm