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.    

Thatcher and women

Although I feel as though Freire refers more to the “oppressed” in terms of class struggles, I think his ideologies are transferable to other “oppressed” groups, for example, women. 

I am not a feminist! I dislike the label and would never refer to myself as such.  However, the Freire reading made me think about Thatcher (something I try not to do as it just makes me angry), and how she used, or rather didn’t use, her position to help other women.
 
Margaret Thatcher was the first and only woman so far to be prime minister of the United Kingdom, serving for 11 years and 209 days.  Thatcher fought her way to the top against a Tory party that was massively male dominated and faced huge resistance within the party.  However, during her leadership battle against Ted Heath, the party saw a number of everyday women sit up and take notice, many, I’m sure believing that with Thatcher in a position of power women would have a chance at real equality. 

But all she did was prove that it could be done.  In fact, less than doing nothing for women, she marginalized them more than ever, in both the workplace and within their homes and communities.  In fact, being a woman at the top made Thatcher less sympathetic to women’s rights.  As Thatcher congratulated herself on her massive personal accomplishment in the top job, she no doubt in many ways believed that she had done enough; if she could do it, then why couldn’t others? In an interview in 1982, Thatcher claimed that “The battle for women's rights has largely been won. The days when they were demanded and discussed in strident tones should be gone forever. I hate those strident tones we hear from some Women's Libbers."  

But this only showed how detached Thatcher was from the everyday realities of millions of women in the country that she ruled.  As she fought fiercely to succeed in a man’s world she didn’t relate her own struggles to those of other women. Thatcher became more aggressive towards women that any male PM has been since.  Like Freire says, “It is a rare peasant, who once ‘promoted” to overseer, does not become more of a tyrant towards his former comrades than the owner himself” (p.28) the same can certainly be said about Thatcher. 

This is not to say that women should not fight to gain positions of power, but one has to question how much these isolated instances contribute to the liberation of women.  The article below from the New York Times, which was published on International Women’s Day talks about just that.  Its critique is targeted at Sheikh Hasina, the Prime Minister of Bangladesh, yet as I know very little about her, I cannot comment on the writer’s personal views on Hasina and her policies.  What it does however touch on are instances where women have had a real, tangible impact on the lives of other women (it draws on an example from India) arguing that where women are in positions of power at a grassroots level, rather than as one of a minority in a central government, is when ordinary women feel the greatest impact. 

http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/do-women-leaders-matter/?scp=1&sq=women%27s+day&st=cse

Not that I would defend Thatcher at any time, any place, ever – she is a witch, but her position as a woman in a system dominated by men, and her complete inability to see herself as one of a group of oppressed peoples, surely contributed to the ferocity at which she executed her power over women and other oppressed groups.  By fighting not to be seen as “oppressed”, Thatcher became worse than the “oppressor” in order to be accepted by the very people that she should have been fighting against.  "Their vision of the new man or woman is individualistic; because of their identification with the oppressor, they have no consciousness of themselves as persons or members of the oppressed class".  (Freire, p.28)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdAVl1LvQL0

Video of the election process for one child in Yemen as he tries to get a seat in the Children's Parliament.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2011/mar/21/yemen-school-democracy-video

Ideally, I like the idea of a 'children's parliament', although, unfortunately I don't see it as anything more than political tokenism.  However, what was so positive to see in the video, were young people raising issues about their school provisions, job prospects and conditions on the streets of Yemen.  Despite my reservations about a children's parliament having any sway in the 'real' government, the process itself which takes place within the state schools, creates an opportunity for the students to think critically about their shared realities, something that the young people in the UK could benefit from rather than spending their time worrying about what Cheryl Cole is wearing on the X Factor (although she does always look great!)