On Boys and Tyranny

Upon finishing my first read of Morphing Literacy: Boys Reshaping Their School-Based Literacy Practices by Blair and Sanford, I was struck by the monolithic swath with which boys seemed to be painted. It almost seemed as if stereotypes of boyness were simply confirmed and a sound pedagogical approach that applies to any child was enacted: making literate activities personally relevant; bridging school and home literacies. My more positive "take-away" message from this article at a more general (humanist??) level is that teachers need to know their kids. We need to know what they know, and use that as a springboard for growth for the purposes of motivation and independent control of learning beyond the classroom.

Upon further reflection, the post-structuralist part of making learning purposeful and relevant in this article involves a recognition of our gendered "regimes of truth." In this case, the fact that living a particular masculine identity influences the very possibilities of connecting personal literacies to school literacies. And if we do not tend to this pervasive, almost invisible structure, kids lose out. But even more remarkable in this article, is that kids will actively engage in attempting those connections without you! The agency required to reshape school tasks into something more befitting one's identity as a boy is impressive. What is of concern is that these displays of agency and literacy are misread by teachers as things like defiance or avoidance.

And so the value of deconstructing gender identities as they inform a child's motivations and readings of a task we set up for them becomes key. The first act of deconstruction is simply recognizing that boys might behave a certain way, transforming school tasks to suit their identities. If we do not see this, boys will act on their own, and those actions often go misinterpretted by teachers. A little awareness of something so usually pervasive and nearly invisible goes a long way.

Some concerns, however, continue to nag me after reading this piece. While I appreciate the value of making school sensitive to masculine identities, I wonder if it doesn't stop short there. I mean, OK, it's great to recognize that boys might need more time to settle down, or that the types of stories they get into involve a lot of action, or that literate activity is used as a tool to build and maintain social relationships (the whole social-cultural capital thing). This article is a good stepping stone for the unveiling of structures that can get in the way of our teaching, and even unfairly mark boys as less than they really are when it comes to literacy. But, the article does not move further into deconstruction. These gender identities are merely recognized and, I daresay, pandered to. All children should be provided structured choices that allow them to experience education that is personally relevant. But with learning also comes growth beyond seeing ourselves in one limited way. Recognizing a certain kind of boyness (most, but not all boys fit the mold revealed in this piece) and using it as a way into learning is one thing. But showing boys that they do not have to be bound to one way of living, thinking, feeling is quite another that goes unexamined here. It's almost too reverent of stereotypes here.

Which is why I was happy to have also read the Davies article: Constructing and Deconstructing Masculinities through Critical Literacy. The examples of teacher interactions with boys in this piece show how the -- what I have referred to as stereotypical -- masculine identities cannot only be recognized and even celebrated, but also employed in the service of deconstructing those indentities so that masculinity can become something more and new. The goal is not only to make boys feel good about being boys in school by valuing how their cultures expect them to behave as boys. It actually opens up new, even liberating, ways to express boyness. Boys can feel heroic, tough, etc. and still express emotion and all those other girlie things!!!

In seeing through the deconstruction process, we are no longer simply pandering to binaries and regimes of truth. We are transforming the binary into multiple ways of being, in this case, male. As with most good teaching, there simply is a good bit of trickery involved! Getting boys to feel masculine about things previously relegated to the feminine may be necessary. But feeling safe with one's identity (gender and otherwise) intact is necessary for taking risks beyond the constraints that those same identities previously imposed. How insidious it is to think social construction, through the simple act of labeling a person in a binary, hierarchical sense like male/female, can actually be so invisible and presumed "natural," yet so pervasive and influential/constraining! While it is rather apparently unjust to impose constraints on the possible ways of being for the subordinate members of this binary (female), the dominant end of the binary is no more free to explore beyond their boundaries set by social expectations.

Alexis De Tocqueville didn't realize it, but his fears of the "tyranny of the majority" in a representative democracy such as ours was one of the first islands of post-structuralism in a sea of humanist/enlightenment thinking. While we have freed ourselves of kings and other more salient tyrants, we still have much work to do on breaking loose from those less obvious, yet perhaps more debilitating, shackles we have imposed upon ourselves as a society. The fact that the names we give things can so shape something as deep in our cores as our very own desires and our possible selves is quite amazing at best.

Response to prompt 1- I hope I've never been called a Poofter!!

In response to your propmt for the Martino article, It is amazing how boys (and girls for that matter) have to acta certain way that is gender acceptable. I have been around, and probably even spreading rumors about a boy during my school years, that made them fac`e a hard decision. " Change peoples perceptions of you or be a squid or an outsider. Imagine trying to be like someone you hate, (football-surfie guys) just so they leave you alone knowing that others like you now hate yu as well. Peer preasure is a messed up thing for sure!!!

Gender

I was always very interested in the gender courses that I took as a sociology major because the topics discussed seemed so basic, but yet unnoticed. I always found the power that we have as a society in terms of gender fascinating. Individuals are born as either one sex or the other but their "gender" is something that they are socially taught and brought into. I have always found this so interesting because we automatically have certain expectations for males and females, and treat them as such. Therefore we continue this cycle of gender and give a very strict definition of what it means to be male or female.

While I was reading the articles, I began to wonder about age-appropriateness in terms of talking about gender and gender roles. It is hard to articulate what I mean by this, but I'll try to present it in terms of a question: How does the age of children factor into our discussions of gender and our use of literature?

In the Smith article, the girls in the group are 6th graders. Smith writes "the girls teetered on the line between childhood and adolescence." Davies observes (mostly male) pre-schoolers, and Wason-Ellam works with girls in the primary grades. Obviously, each of these age groups read different things and responded in different ways. But how are teachers supposed to react or address the rifts amongst gender, depending of the age of the students? With only a limited knowledge of child psychology, I am wondering if addressing (not "correcting" necessarily) boys' and girls' stereotyped ideas about gender too early leaves them confused rather than enlightened. Is there a base of knowledge about gender that teachers need to work from, or should we intervene as soon as possible in getting students to look at themselves as dynamic within their gender? What affect does it have on their view of themselves, and/or their view of gender?

Saab Commerical

I am dying to share this and it can relate to our class.
Last night I saw a local Saab commercial in which the 'car' was speaking as if it was joining a dating service. Everything was innuendo and in a low, raspy, sexy voice. It was incredibly suggestive and [I thought] inappropriate.
Sex sells and unfortunately this dealership will probably see an increase in sales. This is what little girls look up to.

In response to prompt 9

I am a male teacher who teaches in the elementary grades and I guess that I just got used to the fact that I am always a minority in my workplace. I have asked some of my female coworkers over the years, some questions similar to this prompt. "Why did you become a teacher"? "Why did you become an elementary teacher instead of a high school teacher"? Most of them said similar things. I like children, I like watching them succeed, I wanted summers and holidays off to be with my kids. If you watch tv and movies, FBI field agents are men, CEO's and bank Presidents are men. Men might love their children, but STILL feel like they can be more useful making the money of the house... You don't find that in teaching. Men look at their dads and uncles in the business world, when it comes time to choose a path (at 18 yrs old) they choose corporate over nurturing. AS to why there are less women in math and science, I can't speak for the math but at the school I last worked at, there were 11 women out of 18 science jobs in the middle and high school. My wife has worked for SUNY for 15 years and has worked for female science professors and with female phds in the field of science. I guess my point is that more women appear to be teaching high school science now than ever before which is great, unfortunatly, we will probably continue to see few men in elementary. Partly because of the salary and partly from listening to my guy friends say "my own Kids are hard enough to raise, now why would I want to raise someone elses"

Response to 6

I think we can all agree that whether or not we mean to, we are socializing our students towards certain genders. We absolutely have different expectations for certain genders, and gear them towards certain opportunities. I also notice myself disciplining students in different way sometimes, which I know needs to be reflected on and changed. What makes us feel this way and where are we learning to act on these stereotypes? Why do we give a male some supplies and expect that they will be interested in constructing something, and give a girl a blank piece of paper and expect her to like to draw something pretty? Seems so interesting to me.

In Response to Prompt 9

I find this prompt very interesting because I am always analyzing my own thoughts in terms of math and science. Growing up I was always disinterested in math and science, not because of bad teachers, but because I really felt like I "couldn't" do it. I had so many male friends that loved the subject and in turn, did really well. I have to say that I also had female friends that excelled in these subjects so I have trouble saying that it is completely a gendered situation. I do think that the encouragment level for girls is a little less than the encouragment levels that males recieve towards these subjects. I think that this has more to do with it, and as a society we glorify males in types of professions that deal with math and science, and glorify female professions that deal more with nurturing or teaching. It's all a very interesting stereotype which seems to prove true a lot of times. I do think that we are starting to turn a corner, is this true?

While reading these articles, I was able to think back to my own childhood and reflect on my own gender identity. I was not the typical girl growing up. I had an older brother and I think that had a lot to do with it. First, I hated playing with Barbies. I remember on my fourth birthday one of my friends gave me Barbies, and I immediately cut the hair to a short haircut. I didn't like having those Barbies! Also, my mom dressed me in my brother's "hand me down" clothes, so I was always mistaken for a boy. I had a short hair cut and I commonly wore navy blue and green. My mom still laughs when she tells me about people saying hello to me in the supermarket by saying, "Hey Buddy." I think I can attribute this to my mother being sort of a tom boy growing up and also having an older brother. My mom played many sports and did not take on the traditional female role. My mother was always out on the lawn mower, gardening, and playing soccer with us in our yard.