I have just finished reading Mary R. Boland's article, "Teaching that Language Matters." Her commentary on the masculine nature of the English language really makes a person (in this case, a woman) think about the stereotypes and expectations of women especially in terms of how our language oppresses. While reading, I picked out a few quotes that really spoke to me. Here we go...
"A lot of scholarship on feminist pedagogy…
suggests the necessity of making the classroom
a safe haven for negotiating social differences.
For feminists, this necessity arises from the desire
to establish environments that respond to
women’s particular orientations to learning
and the related desire to find alternatives to
masculinist paradigms that value hierarchy,
individualism, and power” (67).
I found this quote important because the masculinist paradigm seems to fit well with a theme in academia-- that being an “age/education paradigm” that suggests older, more educated teachers are more valuable than younger, still-learning teachers and even more valuable than the student. Afterall, who hasn't experienced a moment where communication across generations was difficult. Stereotypically, youth is less mature linguistically.
(Click to enlarge.)
Does it have to be this way, though? The term power in the previous quote suggests that the older generations (as well as the masculinist and academic paradigms) have been assigned (self-assigned?) authority. Parents, teachers, and of course ALL men are situated (whether they put themselves there or not) at the top of the hierarchy. Intimidating. Sadly, this hierarchy places female graduate TA's in a world of trouble. Woe is me!
“In [classrooms geared towards feminine ethic],
teachers often adopt a maternal orientation
in teaching, relinquishing a position of central authority
and employing collaborative tasks to help
students develop their own sense of authority
with language” (67).
In reading this quote, I couldn't help but think that this follows the stereotype that women are not deserving of authority. A "nurturing" style of teaching would, therefore, further the masculinity of our social order. A woman would then be fitting into her role in the masculine world. In the end, what does this really teach students? Boland says just that in claiming that “the female teacher who brings a nurturing attitude to her work with students may simply be viewed as “appropriate” instead of radically challenging. The male teacher who adopts a maternal approach in his classroom may more successfully validate a traditionally feminine social orientation because he will be regarded as making choices about his teaching style” (68). Does it seem fair that men can act like me -- being that I tend to be maternal with family, friends, small children and animals -- as a tool, but me acting like me only enforces the sexism of our world?
“What seems especially significant is the
flexibility of the maternal role: mothers
set rules and encourage autonomy; they
judge behaviors and sit on floors to join
in play groups. ...This flexibility offers a
compelling model for the classroom. Rather
than positioning the teacher as either central
authority figure or nurturing facilitator,
I’m interested in the possibility of teacher
as one who pivots between ‘mothering’ roles,
exerting a directive hand and asserting an active
membership in the classroom community” (71).
Reading this, I felt quite satisfied with my gender. It is true that mothers are for more than a shoulder to cry on. It makes sense that the tactics of mothering would be beneficial in a classroom as a teacher must be able to engage students emotionally and academically. A female graduate TA's can take solace in knowing that a maternal nature allows her an upper hand; she is capable of "exerting a directive hand" while also acting as a nuturer.
How nice to beat the system. And all it takes is following one's nature!
--Missy
No comments:
Post a Comment