Feminism in Schools: Teaching Feminism When You’re Not a Feminist

Red Delicious

Image via Wikipedia

How do you teach feminism if you are not a feminist?

The question was originally asked of me by Laura, and I didn’t immediately have a comprehensive answer, but I think it is a vitally important question for teachers. Many, many people do not identify as feminists for various reasons, or just do not think about feminism on a daily basis, and it is important to recognize that when talking about what should and should not be taught in schools.  Of course we, as feminists, thing about feminism every day and agree with the fact that it should be taught in school, but if a teacher does not believe something is important, and it is not explicitly written in the curriculum, it can very often fall through the cracks or be replaced by something else the teacher deems important enough to teach.

If someone decides not to teach feminism, this does not make him/her a bad teacher or a bad person.  Perhaps they feel they don’t know enough about feminism to do it justice and, therefore, leave it alone.  Perhaps they, unlike us, don’t think about feminism every day and, therefore, just haven’t thought about teaching it before.  Perhaps they didn’t have time to teach feminism because they were busy teaching about another historically marginalized group.  I highly doubt, in this day and age, with such progressive teachers in the classroom, that many teachers don’t teach feminism because they are anti-feminist.

Although I absolutely agree that the concept and historical aspect of feminism is important for our youth to understand, I don’t know that it is necessary to explicitly teach feminism in order for the same effect to happen.  As L alluded to in her guest post, simply rearranging the classroom or, as Laura herself mentioned in her guest post, allowing girls to have as much as a say as boys can help girls feel empowered, which is as much a part of feminism as anything else.  As Sophia suggested in her guest post, teaching the literature and history of women is also integral.  And you don’t have to be a feminist or even talk about feminism to do any of these things.

Also, I would hope that any good teacher would do what is best for his/her students, which means confronting bullying and harassment within a school setting and alleviating any threat of both – stopping a boy from pushing his girlfriend around in the hallway, stopping someone from making unwanted advances, stopping a boy from whistling at a girl in class, etc.  This may not be explicitly teaching feminism, but it does help boys and girls understand what their actions mean, and what the implications of their actions are.

The bottom line in teaching is that you have to do what is best for the students.  This means empowering young women in the classroom.  Giving girls a sense of ownership over their education helps them as well as the male students understand the basic concepts of feminism and implement them in their every day lives.  That is, after all, what we want, right?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post Post to Yahoo Buzz Buzz This Post Post to Delicious Delicious Post to Digg Digg This Post Post to Facebook Facebook Post to StumbleUpon Stumble This Post

22
Sep
2009

Guest Post by Sophia: Why feminism is necessary in today’s schools

Teaching feminism in schools is one of the most important feminist issues of our time. In order to empower young women, we need to teach them about women’s accomplishments through history, and we need to explore teaching methods that inspire girls to speak out and make a difference.

Today’s guest post in the Teaching Feminism series is from Sophia. You can find her blog at http://womenundefined.blogspot.com and you can follow her on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sophiabiabia.

More than 300 years of major progress. Thousands of battles won, and yet the war still rages. Feminism isn’t dead; its use is not irrelevant. We the people are still fighting for the same “inalienable rights” that white, upper class men have enjoyed for years. One of our most fervent needs is to replace old notions about what it means to be a woman. To dispel stereotypes, combat gender discrimination, and attempt to overturn patriarchal social and gender constructs.  One of the best ways to accomplish these goals is to integrate a new point of view into the consciousness of students, to re-imagine the standard American curriculum. To embrace the following ideas: that Feminism is relevant and necessary in American schools, that the lack of diversity in American literature contributes to the inability of women to define our own history, tradition, and form, and that integrating feminist theory into schools can contribute to achieving modern feminist goals.

Modern  feminist theory includes three major themes which pertain directly to education.
1. Reshape the canon of literature to include writers that are women, women of color, and minorities.
2. Define art and literature by women as woman; creating a history for modern writers to be inspired, and which disassociates completely with the male literary construct.
3. Use the woman’s perspective to analyze old and new literature.

These goals combine to break the mode of literary criticism that is based upon patriarchal hierarchy, deciding what is and isn’t a classic piece of literature from the perspective of the affluent, white male. I will attempt to convey why each theme should be integrated into the curriculum of the American school system as it pertains to education and feminism in general.

As I mentioned above, great strides have been made to include women in the canon of classic literature taught in schools. Works from women such as Charlotte Bronte, Jane Austen and even Mary Wolstonecraft have gained great popularity. This is due in part to their strong message of female empowerment and in part to their perhaps unconscious adherence to the traditional male manner of writing. As is described in an essay by Paul Lauter, the development of modern literature began taking shape in the 1920’s, developed by white men of significant social status, wealth and education.

The professors, educators, critics, and arbiters of taste of the 1920’s, were, for the most part, college-educated white men of Ango-Saxon or northern European origins. They came from the that tiny, elite portion of the population of the US which, around the turn of the century, could go to college.. . The old elite and their allies moved on a variety of fronts, especially during the and just after World Ward I, to set the terms on which these demands would be accommodated. They repressed, in actions like the Prohibition Amendment and the Palmer raids, the political and social, as well as the cultural, institutions of immigrants and of radicals.(Lauter)


At the same time that Lauter hypothesized how literature came to be, feminists also began to question the manner in which works were selected and then included. Their purpose was plain: to combat oppression against women in writing, reading and the very mode of literary criticism. Later, the feminists of the 60’s and 70’s fought against literature’s established norms, arguing for the greater inclusion of women authors. Their findings and motivation were based upon the evidence that the development of modern literature negatively influenced female artists, their work, and the manner in which it was criticized; in every sense, the canon of literature, and model for criticizing literature, was oppressing women by conveying the main themes feminists at this time were so desperately fighting against.


Certainly if we acquiesce in the patriarchal Bloomian model, we can be sure that the female poet does not experience the “anxiety of influence” in the same way that her male counterpart would.. Not only do these precursors incarnate patriarchal authority, they attempt to enclose her in definitions of her person and her potential, which by reducing her to extreme stereotypes (angel, monster) drastically conflicting with her own sense of her self-that is, of her subjectivity, her autonomy , her creativity. (Gilbert, Gubar)


Today the need for these efforts still rings true; the inclusion of a diverse array of authors of all race, class and sex is still blatantly missing from established curricula. As a result, the manner in which arguments, criticism and how we are taught to read this canon of literature, remains inherently sexist. (A further illustration: I have developed this very argument by following a model developed by Aristotle, a man who believed a woman to be “deformed’ and an “accidental” form of man.) Enough is enough: students should and can be taught from a more diverse literary canon and learn from more than the affluent white male.

The stakes remain incredibly high.  If we succeed in establishing a completely diverse canon of literature, one result will be the development of a more concrete definition of “woman.” Not as an ‘other,’ thereby lesser, form of man, but woman- a being socially, economically, physically, emotionally, and intellectually as capable and equal as any man. A definition that includes her own history, tradition and world views completely independant of men, however respected within literary communities and whose ideas and works of art are instituted alongside men within the educational curriculum. “Such sociosexual differentiation means that.. women writers participate in a quite different literary subculture from that inhabited by male writers, a subculture which has it’s own distinctive literary traditions, even… a distinctive history”(Gilbert, Gubar). When women writers define “woman,” they provide an independent model upon which women and minority writers of the future can allude to, be inspired by and learn from. The work of women must, as Mary Eagleton puts it, “speak as woman,” rather than simply speak as man from a female body.

The importance of this definition of “woman” within the curriculum of schools cannot be underestimated. For learning purposes, students have a tradition, a sense of who “woman” is to base their work upon. Socially, this more definitive sense of “woman” provides another subconscious role model which young women and girls can look up to. This would be apart from the stereotypical image of  the “perfect woman,” which is according to, and aimed towards, men. With a more concrete background of what “woman” is, perhaps some of the many negative effects of current patriarchial stereotypes and gender constructs will be blunted.

How this definition of “woman,” in terms of literature, is important lies in how her work is read, taught and applied. One may question the realistic educational need and thereby use of a distinct definition of “woman.” My answer is that with the “woman” perspective, old texts (hitherto criticized by a male derived model of analysis and thus taught in this same way) are re-examined by student and teacher to get a truly diverse analysis and perspective of the literary subject in question.

Enjoy this series? Have something to add? Want to write a guest post? Leave your voice in the comments or e-mail me at smallstroke (at) gmail (dot) com.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post Post to Yahoo Buzz Buzz This Post Post to Delicious Delicious Post to Digg Digg This Post Post to Facebook Facebook Post to StumbleUpon Stumble This Post

10
Sep
2009

Guest Post by L: Best Practice, Feminist Practice

Today’s guest post in the Teaching Feminism series is from L, a feminist blogger and college composition teacher. You can find her blog at http://heartoffalsehood.wordpress.com and follow her on Twitter at http://twitter.com/lazerbug.

The theme of this series, Teaching Feminism, is near and dear to my heart. I recently graduated with my master’s in English, and I spent much of last and this year researching feminist pedagogy to write my master’s thesis. In my thesis, I focused on creating a women-only, feminist developmental composition class for the community college setting. Despite the specificity of this focus, many of the issues I addressed have great import for the secondary classroom as well.

In my research, I found that there are broadly two ways to “do” feminism in the classroom. The first is by way of incorporating feminist/woman-centric content. Ashley — my gracious host — has demonstrated this in her post about teaching “The Yellow Wallpaper” and discussing its gendered themes outright. The other way is touched on by guest blogger Laura in her post about the importance of respect in feminist classrooms: instructional technique is another important way for feminist teachers to teach and do feminism in their classrooms. For the purposes of this post, I’ll be focusing on this second way of doing feminism in schools, with a few ideas for classroom activities to demonstrate or practice these techniques here and there.

But first, some theoretical background:

Feminist pedagogy is deeply rooted in the examination of power relationships in society. In its inception in the 1960s and 1970s (at least in the US), feminist pedagogy was primarily concerned with gendered power relationships; however, as feminist pedagogy has grown and adapted to our changing society, feminist pedagogy has become concerned with all kinds of power relationships. Really, feminist pedagogy keeps up with feminist activism at large: as mainstream feminists have redefined what it means to be a feminist — not just fighting male privilege, but calling into question white, class, able-bodied, and cis privilege — so has feminist pedagogy redefined its boundaries. Therefore, feminist pedagogy overlaps heavily with other liberatory pedagogies, such as critical pedagogy.

One power relationship that is called into question in feminist pedagogy, making it unlike other forms of feminist activism, is the teacher-student relationship. In traditional classrooms, especially those that use a “banking” approach, the teacher has complete control, complete power, and the student has none. The teacher is considered a benevolent dictator in such classrooms, and the persona of such traditional teachers takes on a bit of a colonialist air: they’re doing “what’s best” for the uncultured, blank-slate students.

In many ways, the public school system in the US promotes this sort of teacher-student relationship. You can see it in the way most classrooms are designed: blackboards on one side of the room make it easy for the teacher to stand there and pass down knowledge to the empty heads of the students, who are sitting individually in desks all facing the teacher. Even teachers who attempt to mitigate this by putting students in circles or desks in small groups face challenges and find themselves reverting to traditional techniques in order to pass knowledge on more efficiently. And it can be difficult to find the money to buy texts written by women and/or that address feminist concepts if your school has already sunk its dollars into “the classics” or into other textbooks.

Despite the many obstacles for feminist teachers, there are still many ways to enact a feminist pedagogy — because feminist pedagogy is so much about examining power: who has it and who doesn’t.

Again, the theme of the traditional classroom is the all-knowing teacher bestowing knowledge upon the student. This is a paternalistic conception of the classroom that disregards the knowledge that students already have and the fact that teachers are human and therefore flawed. Though the vast majority of teachers don’t actually teach this way and don’t actually believe their students know nothing, many, many students have experienced learning situations where their knowledge was ignored and they were treated as ignorant. Feminist pedagogy — even if it isn’t presented as such (which can be good in more hostile schools/districts or in classes where saying “feminist” would distract students more than help them) — can help all students, regardless of gender identity, feel more empowered in their learning.

What I think is excellent about instructional techniques associated with feminist pedagogy is that they’re just best practice when you get right down to it. Most of you reading probably already do a lot of these things in your classes. Now you have good reasoning for why it’s also feminist.

Small groups AND independent work

Obviously, we need to teach students how to work both independently and collaboratively: both are part of being human and, more practically, part of being a productive member of a workforce. (Having students work in small groups can also be a break for teachers who’ve been lecturing all day, and it gives students a chance to apply concepts hands-on.) However, we live in a patriarchal and therefore competitive society, one which devalues teamwork and collaboration and demands that each student be the best — at the cost of others’ success. Small group work has the potential to give students a chance to develop their teamwork skills, in addition to showing students that they, too, have the ability to create knowledge and to learn without the guidance of The Teacher. If implemented within a framework of authentic collaboration and student empowerment, group-work has the capacity to mess with all kinds of unfortunate and oppressive power relationships.

Authentic questions

Teacher educators call asking questions a way to gauge student understanding. I call asking questions a way for teachers to tell their students that knowledge is created and that they, too, can create knowledge — not just the teacher. The difference between gauging comprehension and empowering students, though, is in the question asked. There are “teacher questions” — the questions you already have the answer to — and there are authentic questions. Asking authentic questions — ones that you really don’t know the answer to and/or are aware that there are many possible answers to — allows students to play a useful role in the creation of knowledge. It also positions you, the teacher, as another learner, as someone who doesn’t have the answers and is engaging in the education process alongside students. You’re no longer the Holder of Knowledge: you’re a seeker of truths, your students have some of the answers, and you all have to talk it out to get the bigger picture.

Encouraging reflection in the name of student empowerment

As a composition teacher, I teach a lot of writing, and I assign a lot of papers. In the last couple of years, I have begun assigning reflective essays along with the typical essays students write in my class. This initially came out of a desire to show students that their learning is up to them, not me, that they can’t blame me for everything they don’t understand, that they earn grades rather than receiving them. (In other words, I was getting some disgruntled evaluations from students who thought they could get an A with C-level writing and no effort to improve their skills.) Even though the initial intent of these new reflective assignments was more practical in nature, I’ve come to see how fostering reflection is an important part of doing feminist pedagogy. My students generally see me as the Composition Expert who is going to pass down all of the “right” composition facts to them. Because I’m the “Expert,” they also see me as superior to them, which imbues my relationship with my students with a power differential. Reflective writing allows students to think about writing — or whatever other concepts they are addressing — in their own terms, to explain what they understand, and to see how it fits into their lives, either academically, personally, or both. My class becomes less about “doing what the teacher wants” and more about “this is what I learned and why it’s important to me” (especially because I don’t focus on grammar/mechanics/style as I read these papers). Creating an opportunity to see knowledge as constructed and to see their own personal role in how that knowledge is constructed helps students be empowered as individuals with agency in their educational lives.

Gender segregation

I commented on the first post in this series about the uses and misuses of sex/gender-segregation in the classroom. I think dividing classes into boys and girls has a lot of potential to benefit students. Not only does this allow for the discussion of sensitive topics without fear of shame from the “opposite sex,” but it allows both girls and boys to be more themselves without feeling the need to perform for each other. Gender segregation, however, can also inadvertently lead teachers and administrators down the “gender-based education” path, a path paved with gender stereotypes, sexism, and misogyny. I’m not sure that doing gender segregation within one classroom would be a good idea. But if your school has considered segregating genders into different classes, keep in mind that this can be a powerful way for students to examine gender — and it can also be damaging for them if classes are designed around gender stereotypes about how boys and girls learn. Basically, avoid people like when designing single-sex courses, and think about the many, many ways boys and girls benefit from typically masculine and typically feminine forms of instruction.

I could go on and on about this stuff, but I’ll stop there for now. I am planning a follow-up post that will touch on some of the stickier parts of doing feminist pedagogy — such as what happens when embracing the “feminine” stops being feminist, dealing with conflict in a feminist space, and being a female feminist teacher who questions authority in her classroom — because, let’s be honest, the ideas I’ve discussed here are pretty mainstream. The revolutionary thing about this is calling mainstream approaches like this feminist. Yes, it’s excellent that these things are mainstream and an expected part of educational culture; however, without naming these approaches as feminist in intent and in creation, feminist pedagogy loses its relevance, its educational edge, and its healing power. So go out there, get your kids into groups and ask them to work as a team to accomplish a shared goal, and continue being a feminist pedagogue.

Enjoy this series? Have something to add? Want to write a guest post? Leave your voice in the comments or e-mail me at smallstroke (at) gmail (dot) com.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post Post to Yahoo Buzz Buzz This Post Post to Delicious Delicious Post to Digg Digg This Post Post to Facebook Facebook Post to StumbleUpon Stumble This Post

08
Sep
2009

Guest Post by Laura Sundstrom: On Not Silencing

Teaching feminism in schools is one of the most important feminist issues of our time. In order to empower young women, we need to teach them about women’s accomplishments through history, and we need to explore teaching methods that inspire girls to speak out and make a difference.

Today’s guest post in the Teaching Feminism series is from Laura Sundstrom. You can find her blog at http://youngfeministadventures.blogspot.com/ and you can follow her on Twitter at http://twitter.com/YFemAdventures.

One thing that I have been thinking a lot about lately is silencing. So when Ashley asked me to write a guest post for her teaching feminism in schools series, I thought I would write about the effect silencing has in a school setting.

Just one thing to remember: this is coming from the perspective of a student, not a teacher.

Feminism and women’s studies were not taught in my high school. We’d have a unit on women’s history, a unit on books written by women, etc. But those were usually some of the shortest units of the class and nothing was incorporated into the rest of the class. It just seemed like something the teachers wanted to get through because they had to, not something they were actually interested in.

The high school that I went to was overwhelmingly white, upper middle class, conservative, and Christian. I fit the mold in kind of two of these demographics. I’m white and middle class — but by the standards of my fellow classmates, I was on the lower middle class end of the spectrum, though not by society’s standards. I am not, however, conservative or that religious.

When I was in high school I definitely had feminist values, because that was the way that I was raised, but I don’t remember ever calling myself a feminist during that time. I think a lot of this had to do with my high school atmosphere and the people that I associated with. While teachers claimed that the classroom was a “safe environment,” it wasn’t really true. Having an opinion that was different (and sometimes radically different) than most of the other people in the class was not an easy thing and the teachers didn’t really do a whole lot to encourage any type of discussion about it.

I really shouldn’t blame the teachers entirely. In high school, I wasn’t really the kind of person that raised their hand a lot. It wasn’t cool to be smart and it definitely wasn’t cool to have differing opinions. I didn’t really fit in anyway, but I was too shy to actually say anything in class. But I often wonder if my voice was encouraged to be heard more often, if I would have been more willing to share it. But there’s really no way of knowing.

Teaching feminism and women’s studies in high school comes with a lot of responsibility. I think it is a great idea and necessary to the development of well-rounded students that feminism and women’s studies be taught in middle school and high school. But where the responsibility comes in is making sure that you are discussing these topics in a truly safe environment for the students. It shouldn’t be about “preaching” your values as a teacher but about fostering discussion about these important issues.

Students who voice differing opinions are often silenced in a classroom setting, not only by fellow students out of peer pressure, but also sometimes from teachers. While teaching feminism and women’s studies, it is also important to teach about respect and practice respect yourself. It’s important to encourage all opinions, even anti-feminist ones if they are made in a respectful manner. Silencing opinions of students, whether you agree with them or not, is not what is going to build confident students who are ready for the “real world.” High schoolers can be cruel, but when the silencing comes from teachers, I think it might be even more damaging.

The incorporation of feminism and women’s studies into the curriculum has to be done in a way that avoids silencing. I don’t really have any concrete ways to go about doing this because I am not familiar with teaching techniques. All I can say is try to be respectful and encourage respect in your students. Teaching feminism and women’s studies should be about fostering discussion and bringing awareness to feminist issues, not only in the lives of students but in society as well. Silencing students who are respectful in their opinions is not the way to go about doing this.

Enjoy this series? Have something to add? Want to write a guest post? Leave your voice in the comments or e-mail me at smallstroke (at) gmail (dot) com.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post Post to Yahoo Buzz Buzz This Post Post to Delicious Delicious Post to Digg Digg This Post Post to Facebook Facebook Post to StumbleUpon Stumble This Post

28
Aug
2009

Feminism in Schools: Women's Studies vs. Core Classes

Let’s start with some business: There have been some great comments about teaching feminism in schools, and I’d love to respond to every one (I started to, but it became too time consuming and, being the good teacher I am, I like it when you respond to each other rather than when I bust in and break up the conversation).  Keep it up, though, seriously!  This is becoming a really fascinating series; who knew people were so jazzed about feminism in schools?!

There are a few things I’m seeing in the comments, though, that I want to address.  There seem to be two seperate arguments going on: 1) Feminism should be incorporated in core curriculum classes (English, history, etc.), and 2) Women’s Studies classes should be offered in high school. While both of these are manifestations of feminism in school, and both arguments are similar and have similar rationale behind them, I do believe they are seperate arguments.

First of all, Women’s Studies classes, as we’ve all been saying, if present in a high school setting, would be elective classes.  Students would have to choose to take these classes, and those that choose to take them probably don’t have to.  Meaning they probably already have an interest in women’s rights and, therefore, don’t need to be “taught” to be progressive young adults.  We can argue till we’re blue in the face that Women’s Studies classes should be required, but the fact of the matter is that will probably never happen.  There are too many testing and funding issues for that to happen right now.

Core classes, however, are classes that students must take in order to graduate.  In the interest of full disclosure, for those of you who don’t know, I am a high school English teacher, so I’ve been leaning toward ways to incorporate feminism into English classes.  In fact, when I first started writing this series, I said “Why Feminism Should Be Taught In School,” but I meant “Why Feminism Should Be Taught In English.”  It’s not that I don’t think other possibilities are just as important; it’s simply that I didn’t see them until your outstanding comments.  It is impossible for me to talk about teaching without talking about teaching English, though, so that’s where I’m coming from.

However, I will argue that teaching feminism in a core class such as English or history may be more beneficial and influential to students.  They must take these classes, so you are sure to reach a wider audience – perhaps an audience that wouldn’t normally be interested in women’s issues.  Also, there is the added benefit of being able to teach multiple perspectives within these classes (the lit crit terms: Author Centered, Historical, Reader Response, Psychological, Formalist, “Otherness” Theory, etc.) which encourages studenst to look at everything from multiple perspectives.  It also gives them resources to “walk a mile in their shoes,” to use an old cliché and become more tolerant, enlightened, and progressive members of society.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post Post to Yahoo Buzz Buzz This Post Post to Delicious Delicious Post to Digg Digg This Post Post to Facebook Facebook Post to StumbleUpon Stumble This Post

27
Aug
2009

The Feminist Lens: The Yellow Wallpaper

yellowwallpaper“The Yellow Wallpaper” by Charlotte Perkins Gilman* is one of the most interesting short feminist texts I’ve ever read (need a refresher? Check Wikipedia!).  I have a feeling several people agree, so this will be less of a book review and more of an overlap between several things I have going on all at once right now.  Fortunately, I’m preparing to teach “The Yellow Wallpaper” as we speak.  In fact, incorporating this text into my curriculum might fit very well into a way to teach feminism in the classroom! In order to overlap my Feminist Lens and my teaching feminism posts, as well as prepare for teaching today, I’ll share with you a glimpse into my classroom and tell you how I plan on teaching this wonderful story.

One of the most interesting things about this text is that it was originally categorized as a horror story or Gothic text because there was no “feminist genre” in which to place it when it was originally written.  Some still see it as a horror story, thinking the women in the walls are ghosts rather than hallucinations.  Because of this, “The Yellow Wallpaper” is perfect not only for an introduction to feminism, but an introduction to reading literature from different points of view.

My intended audience is college prep sophomores in an English 2 class during a 50-minute class period.  This is the first full week of school, so I’m keeping that in mind as I create rigorous plans, yet ease them into thinking after a long summer.

Day 1: I’m going to start class with a Bellringer (something that is on the board for the students to get started with as soon as the bell rings).  I’ll ask them to answer these questions in a journal: Have you ever had something bother you that you just couldn’t get out of your head?  Tell me about it.  How did it make you feel? I will give them 10-15 minutes to finish this.  We will discuss their answers for about 5 minutes before transitioning into reading “The Yellow Wallpaper” aloud in class.  Since this is the first story in our short story unit, I will read it aloud to them while they follow along.  We will discuss plot elements as we go along, and I will assign them a worksheet asking them to give examples from the story for plot, characters, theme, setting, etc.

Day 2: The Bellringer to start this day will be on the board.  They will be asked to answer a journal question answering the following question: Would you categorize “The Yellow Wallpaper” as a horror story or as a story about women’s rights?  Explain your answer. I will give them a few minutes to answer this question in writing, then we will discuss their answers.  As we talk, I will explain to them the history behind the story’s categorization.  We will find out if anyone changes their opinion, and I will give them a chance to add to their journals if this is the case.  After I collect their journals, the students will get into their (already defined) cooperative learning groups to write about the story.  Each group will be asked to answer “What does the story say about…?”, although each group will be assigned a different end to that question: psychology, women, work (writing), how men see women, how the narrator sees men (her husband in particular), marriage.  They will write their answers down as a group, pulling examples from the text to support their answers, and they will share their answers with the class when everyone is finished.

So, here is a good way to teach a great story that is part of the curriculum while reviewing short story elements AND generating productive discussions about feminism in the classroom.  See?  Easy. :)

*Full Citation: Gilman, Charlotte Perkins. “The Yellow Wallpaper.” Fiction: A Pocket Anthology. Ed. R.S. Gwynn.  New York: Penguin, 2007. 86-101.

Liked this feminist book review?  Read more by clicking here.  Hated it?  Completely disagree with it?  Have something to add to it?  Have a book to recommend? Leave a comment or e-mail me at smallstroke (at) gmail (dot) com.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post Post to Yahoo Buzz Buzz This Post Post to Delicious Delicious Post to Digg Digg This Post Post to Facebook Facebook Post to StumbleUpon Stumble This Post

26
Aug
2009

How Feminism Should Be Taught in School (Part 1): How Feminism Should NOT Be Taught in School

I’m hoping this will be part 1 of many.  I’m looking for questions, suggestions, and ideas, so feel free to add yours in the comments and I’ll try my best to incorporate them in further posts.

We’ve got the “why” feminism should be taught in school down, and we all seem to be in agreement on this fact.  Now, how do we go about it?

In this post, I’ll start with how NOT to incorporate feminism in school: We should not, under any circumstances, treat women’s issues* as a box in the margin.  This includes, but is not limited to: relegating feminism and women’s issues to a singular unit, making a few mentions about what is going on with the women of the time periods between war stories, teaching books and poetry by women in a condensed unit while teaching the “dead white guys” for the rest of the year.  This makes women’s issues appear as just a tag to the canon and to history, not an integral part of either.

I am not saying that students should not learn about the wars and the voices of men throughtout history.  I am, however, saying that women have a timeline and a canon of their own, not just a plug here and there.  Think about the American Girl dolls.  Remember when there were only a few of them before they were a multi-million dollar national company?  Those dolls were so popular among girls because they had their own historical timeline, and the timeline that was taught in schools was just a backdrop to each doll’s stories.  Perhaps having a women’s timeline and a men’s timeline running concurrently is a step in the right direction, although the true solution would be to have one huge timeline that incorporates everything.

Many teachers try to incorporate women’s issues and women’s writing in the curriculum, but often these important elements end up smushed between what’s always been taught.  These teachers mean well, but the message they are really sending to young people – young girls in particular – is that women’s issues are important, but not important enough to take up the majority of the textbooks and the school years.

*This advice all goes for teaching the history and works of any marginalized people, not just women.  Since this is a blog particularily devoted to feminism, I say “feminism” and “women’s rights,” but you can replace those with any group that experiences any sort of privilege.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post Post to Yahoo Buzz Buzz This Post Post to Delicious Delicious Post to Digg Digg This Post Post to Facebook Facebook Post to StumbleUpon Stumble This Post

25
Aug
2009

Why Feminism Should Be Taught In School

Should feminism be taught in school?

It may not surprise you that my answer is an emphatic YES.  Of course, it is important to present students with multiple perspectives so that they may see that, historically, people with different perspectives have caused much unrest and, from that unrest comes progress.  I would hope that any literature or history teacher would agree with this.

Historically, women have been quite literally marginalized – relegated to boxes in the margins of textbooks as if to say, “This is what the women were doing back at home while the men were off at war.  It fits into this little box which must mean that it wasn’t that important and it won’t be on the test.”  This is not a new concept, and teachers have been incorporating texts regarding marginalized people into their curriculum for a very long time.

It is not really a question of whether or not this should be done, but I wonder how many people have really explored why it is important to incorporate feminism into the curriculum.

First, the study of feminism can “reinvigorate girls’ sense of self-worth and to help pupils think about the gender implications of their language and image.” It is important for girls today to think about their role models.  Who are young women looking to as role models today?  Miley Cirus?  Britney Spears?  If these women are not good role models for young women, who is?  Simone deBeauvoir?  Susan B. Anthony?  Think of all that today’s young women can learn from these strong, self-assured agents of historical change.  By holding the work of these latter women up to be seen as at least as important as the wars fought by and the leaders who were typically men, we show young women that being strong and confident is nothing to be ashamed of, and we show young men that strong and confident women are to be respected, not coaxed into becoming something else, something they can control.

Which leads me to my second point: Girls are accepting sexual assault at school as a fact of life.  I am not saying that young women are being joked about and taunted by young men at school because they lack confidence and strength.  I am, however, saying that I think there is something that tells these girls that if they don’t let boys treat them this way, boys will not like them and there are few things worse when you’re in high school.  By teaching students about feminism, we are showing both young women and young men that equality in human rights is important, and treating someone as if they are beneath you is unacceptable.

Girls are not only under pressure when it comes to boys, but also when it comes to the clothes they wear and how that affects whether or not they will fit in with the right crowd in school.  “According to the Girls Inc. Supergirl Dilemma report, 84% of all girls say it’s true that girls are under a lot of pressure to dress the right way.” I’m sure we all remember days in our youth (and maybe in our adulthood) when we wondered if we were wearing the right clothes or wanted to look just like someone we saw on television.  Girls’ confidence can very often hinge on whether or not they feel they look “right” or fit in with the “right” other girls.  Maybe, just maybe, by instilling in young women that the positive women role models in history (and today! Feminism is alive and well!) have been auspicious agents of change – as much as the men that fill the pages of their textbooks – we can show them that what matters most are not the styles of clothing they wear, but the restyling of history made possible by extraordinary women.  And who knows; maybe they’ll even be inspired to take up feminism themselves.

Related Posts with Thumbnails

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post Post to Yahoo Buzz Buzz This Post Post to Delicious Delicious Post to Digg Digg This Post Post to Facebook Facebook Post to StumbleUpon Stumble This Post

24
Aug
2009