Comment for Christy

I've been trying to comment for about 24 hours and it keeps saying its done and it isn't.  Anyway it is driving me insane and ive given up, so this is the next best thing.  So, as promised, here is my comment... 

Wow, Christy, I am really sorry to read that you felt like that on Saturday.  I can't speak for anyone else in the class, but my interpretation of what people were saying was not an attack at you personally. In fact, I felt that there was a real respect for how you were so adamant to include critical lessons within the restraints that you have (your situation seems to be the most difficult in terms of having space to do what we are talking about every week). 

I think there is a sense that idealistically all these ideas that we trawl through every week are great in situations such as those who work in the university setting, but for people like me and you, it’s not so easy.  We live in a system where standardized testing is not only a reality, it’s the most important part of the students’ education (in terms of progressing and/or succeeding beyond schools).  And that is true in the UK as much as it is here. 

What struck me the most when I read your blog, is that you felt uncomfortable about how you were positioned in the class on Saturday.  It is far easier for some people in the class to advocate that critical pedagogies are easy to implement in their classrooms, without fully understanding the different realities that we are all faced with every day.  I also feel that when I talk about the obstacles that I am faced with I come off sounding defeatist and negative, and like I am not fully invested in moving toward achieving our goal.  Like you and I have discussed, it isn’t easy to be vocal in class at times as we leave ourselves open to attack and we can often lose face when others’ misinterpret what we are saying.  However, it is still incredibly brave to do so, especially in a situation where there are lots of louder voices ready to react and where silence has its own rewards.

Idiot(s) at the Bar

For the last few weeks, I have struggled with the readings.  Not because they are too difficult for me academically, but because they have heightened negative feelings I have.  The comic strip that was discussed in the Norton and Moffet article infuriated me, and the Williamson article was (actually) painful for me to read, yet when I discussed this with a (male) classmate to see if he’d had the same feelings he told me that he hadn’t.  Why? Because he isn’t a woman and therefore can only see the struggles of women as “analytical”.  Yet, it is not simply because I'm a woman these articles have resonated so deeply with me, but because of my experiences as a woman. 

However, what I struggle with is the disconnect between how I think I feel and how I actually feel.  I don’t think that I am oppressed, marginalized, or treated as a second class citizen, most of the time I feel strong, empowered and, dare I say it, equal.  Yet, if that were true then how could the readings that I mentioned above be so powerful for me?   What are these experiences?  I tried to think of some and I couldn’t come up with any examples.  With a heightened sense about where these feelings had come from, I went out on Saturday night with my friend.  I soon realised how I feel the way I do. 

My friend (who happened to be male) and I went to a bar in Seoul.  We sat down at the bar, it was late and we had had a few drinks at this point.  Facing us at the bar was this sticker: 

("put a little sex in your violence")

Of course, this sparked a reaction from me, so I started to talk to my friend about it.  We had both had different reactions to it, and I started explaining why it was so offensive to me.   

Whilst I was talking, I accidentally bumped the man sitting beside me at the bar, so I naturally turned and apologised, to which he scorned me for my “moaning” about the sticker, and I simply retorted that bumping him was an accident, I had already apologised and there was nothing more I could do. To which he replied:

“I hate Irish women”.  

I shrugged and laughed.  “I’m not Irish”. 

“I hate Scottish women then”. 

Again, I gave him the same reaction.  At which point his embarrassment at making himself look both stupid and ignorant whilst trying to make me look stupid and ignorant, he replied, “whatever.  Just another stupid woman with too much to say”. 

Wow!  I was (ironically) dumbfounded. I had nothing to say, let alone too much.  Yet, more ironically, I wasn’t even slightly surprised.  In that moment, I had a choice of how to deal with it, with him, with his words.  What good would it do me to enter into an argument with this guy who already thinks that women have too much to say?  However, what good would it do to remain silent and allow him to take away my voice because I was afraid that he would come at me with more remarks that questioned my femininity or 'womanness' as he sees them?  Whilst the whole time questioning why I even care what he thinks.  I wasn’t afraid of this man, yet I knew that his words could hurt me. 

My choice was to remain silent.  In which I both gained and conceded power.  He wanted to enter into an argument with me, and I wouldn’t allow it.  Yet, it didn’t feel like a victory.  And if it doesn’t feel like a victory, then is it even a victory at all? 

This was the point I tried (miserably) to make to Matthew in class on Saturday.  His perception of a person’s silence may not be their own perception of it.  The idiot at the bar, surely thought he had in some way beat me.  I’m sure he thought that his comment had made me realise that I did in fact have too much to say and that I’d better be quiet.  That wasn’t my reason for being silent.  I had nothing to say to him.  I didn’t want to enter into any kind of dialogue with him.  He was nothing to me.  Yet, I somehow managed to both challenge his words and uphold them at the same time.  If I think that I am challenging him, yet he thinks that he has won, then were my actions subversive at all?  Like with the discussion in class, if those who speak read others’ silence as a ‘lack of knowledge, understanding or intelligence’ then regardless of the actual reasons behind the silence, does it then come to mean what whoever names it chooses it to mean?  Of course, we judge others on our own standards.  Perhaps for those who speak often only choose to remain quiet when they lack knowledge and therefore conclude that others do too.  And, as Matthew, suggested, if he names the silence then can he influence others’ opinions about those people who refuse to defend themselves, verbally, against his comments?  My answer to that would be yes and no.  Obviously words can be influential and powerful, but I think that it is a massive underestimation of people and their ability to resist, question and reject what they hear (especially if what they hear seems an attack at what they are). 

However, what I struggled with after my experience with the idiot at the bar, was that despite me choosing my silence, if he interpreted a different way then it didn’t really empower me at all, did it?  To demand that someone enter into a dialogue with you because that is the only way you see that they can have power is, of course in many ways, oppressive, and was what was being suggested in class on Saturday.  Yet, is it at times necessary to enter into power struggles with a person in the only way that they see power in order to gain a small piece of it for yourself?  Or is this in itself conceding power?

Paradoxically, later on the same night, when my friend had gone to the bathroom, another guy came over and sat in his seat.  I, politely, told him that someone was sitting there and could he please move.  He wouldn’t.  “I just want to talk to you”, he told me.  To which I again politely told him that I didn’t want to talk to him.  At this point another guy in the bar, (not my friend) came over and told him to leave.  Oh my Knight in Shining Armor!  The first guy immediately apologised to him (not me) and left.  Why were this guy’s words so much more powerful than mine? Why did he deserve an apology and not me? Unlike with the idiot at the bar, where I had chosen my silence, this time I had chosen to speak and been ignored.  I clearly had no say over how this was going to go.  I didn’t want to be rescued anymore than I wanted to be spoken to, yet none of that mattered to the two men who had engaged in an exchange over me.  I was simply an object.  I didn’t want my silence anymore, but now I  had no voice. 

Lesson Plan

Basic Information
My lesson plan is designed for high-level, middle school students in the 3rd Grade (16 years old).  I made this lesson plan as part of both my work for this class and Douglas' reading class. 


This lesson was taught in 3 x 45 minute periods.  This class was an extra class therefore the students were high level only and the groups had no more than ten students in each.


Lesson Goals 
My goal was to encourage an oppositional reading from students through removing elements that may lead them to come to a particular or desired conclusion.  As the received reading is not clear, students had to work to create their own answers.  I also wanted to encourage them to reflect on how they imagined the story as they did and understand how they may interpret things differently based on their own experiences and identities. 


I did not focus on any language function or structure.  However, I was trying to encourage my students to use top-down reading strategies with the final passage, therefore I limited the use of dictionaries and gave them a time limit for completing the reading.   


Lesson Plan and Activities
The students were initially given a short extract from a story (handout 1). In the extract, all names and personal pronouns were removed so that students weren’t given any information about the characters.

They were required to read the extract in pairs and then write a description of the four characters (W, X, Y and Z) including age, gender, race and job (handout 3), as well as answering four questions (handout 2).   They were reminded that this was not a creative writing exercise and to answer the questions based on the initial thoughts they had when reading the extract.  As they were working in pairs the studens had to justify their answers to each other and come up with the one that they thought the most likely and give reasons as to why. 

Students then presented their ideas to the rest of the group, giving reasons for their choices and compared similarities and differences. 

Once they had given their ideas about the story, students read the real story from which the extract was taken (handout 4-6). Then students answered the four questions again using the real story and compared these to their own answers. 

Students then compared their answers to the real story and took part in a discussion as to why their answers were so similar/different (all the students’ answers were different to the story when I did this in my classes).

Once they knew the characters they completed the character chart again (race, gender, age, job) and then were given the real pictures (handout 7). Again they discussed the reasons for their answers and surprise (or, in some cases, lack of) at the real character pictures. 

Reflections

There were times when the students struggled to express what they meant due to a limited language ability, which (as they told me) was both frustrating and difficult for them. However, their ideas were interesting and perceptive and their reflections at every stage were both insightful and thoughtful.

. 

Fairytale Land Revisited

I found a copy of the comic that we talked about in class last week. 

Its on P.162-167 of the article.  If you follow this link:  https://circle.ubc.ca/handle/2429/9205 then click on the link under "files" there is a copy of the comic in the apendix of the article. 

Now I've seen the comic, I like it even less.  I know from talking to/being around my female students who are 14-16 years old, there is very often only one thing that they think about...getting themselves boyfriends.  Betty may be strong, smart and independent, but she's still left alone at the end because she doesn't follow the norm of what a woman should be and she refuses to turn herself into a sex object to get Archie.  That is not to say that I don't think it is both admirable and completely likely that Betty isn't even concerned with Archie's affections, I just think that if young girls who are interested in the attention of men (which many of them are) the message could be a dangerous one.  Of course, that is my reading of this and my students may have a different view but, honestly, I doubt it.  

I find it sad and frustrating that a comic that is designed to challenge how women are represented seems to so blatantly miss the point and manage to possibly be as damaging as the stereotypes it claims to fight against.  For example, Helen Melon, who apparently shows us (us being women) that the way to fight against bullies like Georgie Porgie is to be just like him sends an equally dangerous message.  Helen Melon isn’t crying like the other girls because she’s too busy being aggressive and sexually harassing the boys herself, which surely can only send a negative message to young girls about how to deal with unwanted sexual attention from men.  I also very much doubt that Helen’s behaviour got her anywhere.  In fact, in reality, it probably stigmatized her as a ‘slut’ or ‘whore’ or ‘ladette’ or any of those other awful words that people use to talk about women. (Maybe that's why Helen Melon ran away)

If this comic was really meant to send a message to women and young girls about how to empower themselves then quite frankly it not only missed a massive opportunity, but the writers have a disappointing view about how women should achieve real equality.  If all it hoped to do was teach women to get away from the idea that they should be needy and “namby-pamby” in order to get what they want, then it, maybe was in some small way effective.  However, what it did was replace those ideas with the idea that women need to be either overtly sexy or just like men to get what they want, which is just as, if not more, damaging.  Quite honestly, I just don’t get it. 

I would be interested to see how my students (both male and female) reacted to the comic but, unfortunately, I’m not sure if they would have enough background information about the original stories for them to make a fair assessment.  I like the idea of tackling the stories we read as young children in the classroom, but I would need to find some original Korean fairytales in order to make it relevant. 

Class Activity

I'm not really sure what is expected of us this week in terms of blogging, which is why I waited til now to see what everyone else did.  But I get the impression everyone may have the same idea - so I'm just going to throw something out there and see if its right. 

I honestly can't remember the wording of the first problem I was talking about (this is the one I was the 'expert' on, ironically enough). 

The general theme was to do with students feeling safe to talk about their opinions, thoughts, feelings etc.  Matthew and I were talking about creating a safe environment for students to feel comfortable expressing their opinions, regardless of how contraversial they may be, yet being careful to make students fully aware that their words could be damaging to others if they are not put forward in a sensitive way.  We talked about how this may be acheived through the teacher offering his/her own opinions on topics that are being discussed and putting the students into pairs/small groups rather than having discussions in large groups. 

Secondly, I moved to Joseph who became the 'expert' on  trying to please the teacher.  Joseph pointed out that this was a positive thing as long as students realised that pleasing the teacher would require them to give an oppositinal reading.  We talked about how there is often silence in a classroom when the students aren't sure what answer it is the teacher wants to hear (often students may wait for a clue to what the teahcer thinks before giving their own views on the matter).  We discussed that this could be overcome, again by working in small groups and offering their agreed opinions to another group first.  Joseph also talked about how in his class he makes at least two statements every class that he strongly disagrees with (his students know that he will do this) so that students will never be sure if they are really agreeing or disagreeing with their teacher or not.

Class Reflections

I feel perhaps that I need to first defend my decision to use the airline advertisement as a response to Gee’s article about the literacy myth. Gee talks about different discourses that people are a part of which are dictated by the social contexts that we are a part of.  The advertisement had representations of class, gender and race, all of which are represented in our class, too. Although I don’t feel that I articulated my intentions well, I wanted to draw parallels between the video and our class and look at whose voice was favoured in the video, and whose voice(s) are favoured in our class.     

 

At some point in the discussion we questioned whether the woman was oppressed.  I argued that she was only using the power that she was afforded by men, that power being her sexuality.  Would she have had the same power if she did not look the way she looked? In this situation possibly not.  Its arguable that she wouldn't have the same job if she didn't look the way she looks.  This was not meant to argue that she is oppressed, we cannot make that assumption fairly, but that she is working within the power that she is afforded, and perhaps using that to her advantage.  This is something that all people do at all times. We work within the power we have in order to challenge discourses and social practices that are present.  And it is important to note that the man’s physical appearance was crucial to the advertisement  having its desired effect, too.  Both representations of man and woman reaffirmed (whilst also creating) common social perceptions of gender roles.      

 

So what does that have to do with our classroom?  Can we draw any parallels of what we saw to what takes place in our classroom each week? I think certainly yes.  The first thing that is of concern to me, which may at first seem too small to be relevant, yet I think it is representative of the bigger picture, is that despite being in week six of our course, there are still two people in the class whose names I don’t know.  Is that my fault? By taking responsibility for that am I speaking from a position of assumed power which in itself is marginalizing? Do I favour some voices over others?  The simple answer to these questions is, probably, yes (maybe). That then brings with it new questions.  Why do I favour the voices I do?  Is it because it is easier to make connections with people that I have certain shared discourses with? If that is true, then obviously there are parts of my own discourses that I favour more than others.  I don’t relate to the men on a gender level, but I relate to the white men on a cultural/racial one. Is this then a more dominant part of who I am?  Perhaps within the classroom, yes (maybe).  Or do I just respond to what stimulus I’m given.  Silence is difficult to respond to, especially when there are louder voices to digest, challenge, and interact with.  Is it fair to take responsibility for favouring voices that are louder just because those voices speak, predominantly from a position of power? I don’t any less favour the other (vocal) voices in the classroom that are not those of the white males yet I am perhaps less likely to challenge them something which in itself is hugely problematic, and I don’t have the time or space to go into here.    

 

There are, as within all interactions, power relationships at play, yet as we saw when we tried to take the advertisement apart, that it’s not always as simple as it first appears. Like with the advert, the white man has a voice, and the Asian woman has only silence (and a giggle), it would be easy to say, if not irresponsibly so, that there is a parallel within our classroom.   But perhaps there is more to the silence and less to the voice.  Or perhaps each person brings and gains what they intend to. It would be unfair to allow my expectations of classroom discourse to make assumptions about others and their expectations.     

 

Finally, I am very wary of speaking for or on behalf of others, and that is not my intention here.  At the very least, it’s a huge responsibility, but at the worst, and most dangerous, speaking on behalf of others may work to silence them further. 

Education in whose interests?

I have just finished watching a press conference with UK and Pakistani Prime Ministers, David Cameron and Yousuf Raza Gilanir, in which the two announced the agreement of 650 million pounds in aid from the UK to Pakistan over the next four years.

 

In an age of massive austerity within the United Kingdom (670million to be cut from education alone over the same period), Cameron was questioned as to how he could justify such spending abroad when the money could be possibly better spent at home. 

 

Cameron defended his actions, arguing that the money would directly serve the interests of the United Kingdom in reducing migration and countering extremism from Pakistan against Britain and their interests.  He's advocating that the primary way in which this would be realised would be by pulling people out of poverty through education.

 

This made me think of what Gee talks about in this week’s reading about literacy and education for two reasons. 

 

Firstly, standing in front of the world’s press, Cameron and Gilanir both used the universally approved notion of ‘education’ as the all encompassing solution for greater security and as a direct answer in the fight against poverty.  As a teacher and an advocate for education I would find this difficult to argue with on a surface level.  However, like Gee, who sees little link between education and empowerment of certain groups of people, one could argue that this move is simply an attempt to lead Pakistani people, who in many ways hold beliefs that challenge those of British elites on to the ‘right track’, so to speak.   Like Gee says, “the history of literacy shows that education has not, for the most part, been directed primarily at vocational training or personal growth and development.  Rather, it has stressed behaviours and attitudes appropriate to good citizenship and moral behaviour, largely as these are perceived by the elites of society” (p.34).   

 

For Gee interpretation of texts was also a key point. Using examples from both Plato and Freire, he showed how despite their different interests they both advocated for texts to be interpreted in the “correct way.”  This brings me to my second point which was a reaction to what the Pakistani Prime Minsiter, Yousuf Raza Gilanir, said in the same press conference. He firmly stated that “the root cause of terrorism and extremism is illiteracy”.   This, it seems to me, is both highly offensive and flagrantly inaccurate.  For me, two key reasons for terrorism (amongst others) are religious extremism (which arguably can be seen as not reading texts in the “correct way”, ie in a way that suits Western ideologies) and countries such as Britain engaging in illegal wars in countries where Western ideologies have not been adopted.  This is not of course meant in any way to defend acts of terrorism, but to argue that these are borne out of “illiteracy” seems to be both a weak and misguided argument.  Not least because many religious extremists are indeed literate as it is in many cases interpretations of religious texts that defines their beliefs, demonstrates how they have acquired a certain way of interpreting the text and “hold certain attitudes about them, and socially interact with them in certain ways”, (p.41) something which for Gee only takes place within institutions, such as schools and churches. 

 

Implemented correctly, I do believe that education can be key to both ensuring people’s security and in pulling them out of poverty, but only when the system of education ensures equal access of ‘knowledge’ to those who are engaged in it.  However, like Gee states, the system under which we operate at present is two-tiered, with different “kinds of people” receiving different types of education in order to serve the system in which both ‘high’ and ‘low’ skilled workers are required.  Fundamental changes to the system of education are what are needed if education is to truly act as a tool for people to help themselves out of poverty.  Fundamental changes that neither Cameron nor Gilanir are advocating for or, not surprisingly, even acknowledging.