3/? Insurance guy seemed to like to hear himself talk & felt his opinions, uninformed as they were by his own admission, were significant contributions to the group. The pastry chef has, again, self-admittedly, some very strong opinions about #PauliMurray & has read her works extensively & possibly obsessively. At least she/they were speaking from a position of knowledge. So why did I find pastry chef more irritating than insurance guy? I don’t really have an answer to that. At first blush, we should have had a great deal in common & a similar perspective, although I would guess I am older by a decade, maybe more. They/she is either in the angry phase of feminism or came into the class expecting to be disagreed with & prepared to tell everyone else why their perspective/opinion was wrong. Either way, it was annoying. Neither insurance guy or pastry chef was open to discussion or differing points of view.

2/? Two of the men like to regale the group with stories & opinions. One (insurance) guy tends to dominate the conversation (though he admits he doesn’t know much about #PauliMurray ) The other, a poet professor, actually met her & was at a service she celebrated & preached in NC. The young guy & older lady, didn’t leave much of an impression. All of us are white & #Episcopalian (something the pastry chef pointed out). I’m not sure but I think I’m the only one who isn’t a member of the Cathedral congregation. I don’t know if any of that is important, but it does lend some context to the discussion & my thoughts on it. Based on that description, you’d think we would engage in some robust discussion or at least lively conversation. That wasn’t what happened. The answers to the recommended questions didn’t spark any conversation (this may have been a function of the Dean trying to keep things moving). Insurance guy and pastry chef did most of the talking, which was irritating to me.