Pedagogical Equality and Equity
As educators I feel that it is our responsibility to provide a bias free, balanced view of events (socio-cultural,political, etc.) and give our students the tools to come to conclusions themselves. I try to do this everyday in the classroom, however biases being biases, I am sure my feminist ethical roots show.
It has become harder and harder this week to keep my feminist roots in tow in the classroom (though sometimes I struggle as to whether I need to keep it in tow, is it ethical, unethical, etc.). I don't know what is going on but society seems to be in topsy turvy conservative, let's offend every group land. It started last week with this, where Jason Kenney blocked all reference to gay rights and gay marriage in the citizenship guide. This is a pedagogical document used to educate new and potential Canadian citizens, and it is devoid of something that is the cornerstone of Canadian rights. Our gay rights legislation is something that other countries look to as a template for ethical interaction, and Minister Kenney has basically created his own piece of revisionist history. Pedagogy requires equality and equity, regardless of your personal views on issues.
This same disregard to equality was continued when Gerard Latulippe was put in charge of Rights and Democracy this week. As seen here Mr. Latulippe has said things in the past in regards to Muslims undermining Quebec society, as well as being anti-gay marriage and pro-capital punishment. This is not the type of balanced equitable leadership that an organization like Rights and Democracy should have, it seems to be devoid of "moral authority" as the article suggests. This is another teachable moment, where what goes on in Rights and Democracy is what other countries look to when they are creating their own legislation, therefore it is imperative that this legislation is ethical and accountable to all people.
Just when I thought I could not be more offended, I came across this ridiculousness as a wrap around ad in the Metro paper yesterday. Well actually the ad looked like this. Yesterday was International Women's Day and having an ad such as that, though I suppose ideally tongue-in-cheek, was just upsetting to me, especially when juxtaposed with the importance of the day. It is in poor taste regardless of the day. The ideas expressed in this ad, set back ethical gender equality 50 years. Dockers' claim that we live in a "genderless society" though progressive (?) is completely and sadly unfounded. Ideally all genders should be equal, this is the basis of feminism, despite what other stereotypes about feminism and feminists abound. This men wearing THE pants idea that the ad is promoting has been called a return to ideal manly attributes which have been lost, however who says these are "ideal" or even manly attributes. As a friend of mine joked, dockers are not really what you think of when you are trying to describe an over the top manly man (a la Marlboro man, which is another stereotype gone awry.)
All this relates to how we teach or do not teach feminist ideas and ethical positions in the classroom. A friend of mine posted a lovely article on his facebook the other day, seen here. This article attributes anti-feminist backlash to media and renames what the younger women seem to embody as "enlightened sexism." As the article suggests: "Enlightened sexism is feminist in its outward appearance (of course you can be or do anything you want) but sexist in its intent (hold on, girls, only up to a certain point, and not in any way that discomfits men)". The base structure of this movement is still and always that feminism is an "ugly" word, something to be avoided because antifeminism "has become cool, even hip."
I taught my class the other day that name-calling is a type of fallacy. It always fascinates me that writers of copy have still not caught on to that. Somehow personal attacks are used instead of arguments all the time. The sad thing is that all this aggravating negative and unethical news could be rectified if in the past we pedagogically instilled the absolute importance of equality, equity, and ethics. Taking a time out to realize that a certain position could be hurtful to others, makes all the difference in the world. I am all about freedom of opinion and expression, however if statements are to be made publicly, some acknowledgment of opposing ideas and arguments is necessary (my students could tell you that as well). Discussion and discourse is not a one way street, we need to learn from each other, and ultimately learn to accept each other; this is ethical pedagogy in practice.
I am going to try to breathe more this week; hopefully putting this out into the universe will somehow counterbalance the one sided views stated in the articles above.
It has become harder and harder this week to keep my feminist roots in tow in the classroom (though sometimes I struggle as to whether I need to keep it in tow, is it ethical, unethical, etc.). I don't know what is going on but society seems to be in topsy turvy conservative, let's offend every group land. It started last week with this, where Jason Kenney blocked all reference to gay rights and gay marriage in the citizenship guide. This is a pedagogical document used to educate new and potential Canadian citizens, and it is devoid of something that is the cornerstone of Canadian rights. Our gay rights legislation is something that other countries look to as a template for ethical interaction, and Minister Kenney has basically created his own piece of revisionist history. Pedagogy requires equality and equity, regardless of your personal views on issues.
This same disregard to equality was continued when Gerard Latulippe was put in charge of Rights and Democracy this week. As seen here Mr. Latulippe has said things in the past in regards to Muslims undermining Quebec society, as well as being anti-gay marriage and pro-capital punishment. This is not the type of balanced equitable leadership that an organization like Rights and Democracy should have, it seems to be devoid of "moral authority" as the article suggests. This is another teachable moment, where what goes on in Rights and Democracy is what other countries look to when they are creating their own legislation, therefore it is imperative that this legislation is ethical and accountable to all people.
Just when I thought I could not be more offended, I came across this ridiculousness as a wrap around ad in the Metro paper yesterday. Well actually the ad looked like this. Yesterday was International Women's Day and having an ad such as that, though I suppose ideally tongue-in-cheek, was just upsetting to me, especially when juxtaposed with the importance of the day. It is in poor taste regardless of the day. The ideas expressed in this ad, set back ethical gender equality 50 years. Dockers' claim that we live in a "genderless society" though progressive (?) is completely and sadly unfounded. Ideally all genders should be equal, this is the basis of feminism, despite what other stereotypes about feminism and feminists abound. This men wearing THE pants idea that the ad is promoting has been called a return to ideal manly attributes which have been lost, however who says these are "ideal" or even manly attributes. As a friend of mine joked, dockers are not really what you think of when you are trying to describe an over the top manly man (a la Marlboro man, which is another stereotype gone awry.)
All this relates to how we teach or do not teach feminist ideas and ethical positions in the classroom. A friend of mine posted a lovely article on his facebook the other day, seen here. This article attributes anti-feminist backlash to media and renames what the younger women seem to embody as "enlightened sexism." As the article suggests: "Enlightened sexism is feminist in its outward appearance (of course you can be or do anything you want) but sexist in its intent (hold on, girls, only up to a certain point, and not in any way that discomfits men)". The base structure of this movement is still and always that feminism is an "ugly" word, something to be avoided because antifeminism "has become cool, even hip."
I taught my class the other day that name-calling is a type of fallacy. It always fascinates me that writers of copy have still not caught on to that. Somehow personal attacks are used instead of arguments all the time. The sad thing is that all this aggravating negative and unethical news could be rectified if in the past we pedagogically instilled the absolute importance of equality, equity, and ethics. Taking a time out to realize that a certain position could be hurtful to others, makes all the difference in the world. I am all about freedom of opinion and expression, however if statements are to be made publicly, some acknowledgment of opposing ideas and arguments is necessary (my students could tell you that as well). Discussion and discourse is not a one way street, we need to learn from each other, and ultimately learn to accept each other; this is ethical pedagogy in practice.
I am going to try to breathe more this week; hopefully putting this out into the universe will somehow counterbalance the one sided views stated in the articles above.
I know this is late, but...well put, Gagne. The freshman comp text used where I teach has a section on work, with an selection from Steinem on...work, or course, and the fuss over "the working woman" in the early 70s. Every quarter during our discussion of this essay, it never fails that a student will AGREE with Steinem yet preface it with "I'm not a feminist, but..." So, I always ask, "Do you believe that women should be allowed to vote?" To which she or he always replies, "Sure." Well, then to some degree or another YOU'RE A FEMINIST. People are so put off by the very word that they go around misrepresenting themselves and their beliefs just to avoid being associated with the word. Not the ideas, but the WORD. It's just frustrating as hell. Hell, call it gummybearism, for all I care, but if you value the ideas, fn value the ideas.
ReplyDelete