In late September, we went to a Professional Development Workshop to talk about time management. Three guest professors were there, and they all gave us their tips and tricks for managing our (and their) hectic lives. I remember Dr. Spurgeon’s talk most clearly. Partly, that’s because she based her rules for survival in academia on Columbus’ rules for survival in Zombieland. Gosh, I love that movie. Another reason her talk stuck with me was that some of her advice was directed primarily at female students. “Don’t be afraid to say ‘no,’” she told us. When someone asks you to serve on such and such committee, don’t be afraid to refuse if you really don’t have time. In our culture, women tend to say yes. Yes, I’ll do that. Yes, I can take care of that. We’ve been raised to be accommodating. But don’t fall into that trap! Know when to say “no.” She then gave us a polite, non-combative verbal formula we could use to refuse these hypothetical coworkers.
There is a certain amount of truth to that sentiment. My mom and all three of her sisters, for instance, are all compulsively accomodating. There’s more to the issue though. Take Gloria Anzaldua, who was a feminist as well as a member of a traditional Hispanic community. How do you reconcile your beliefs, your sex, and your heritage? Or take the term “feminazi” (thank you, Rush Limbaugh). A militant feminist. Man hater. Is this a “right” and “accurate” term for certain kinds of feminists, or is it just crass and offensive?
Most of these ideas are really too complex for me to deal with adequately here, so I’m going to drop it now. The point is that issues of gender and sex are still relevant. They exist, even in 2010. As for injecting these issues into First-Year Composition—well, it’s happening this semester. I was grading peer critiques last night, and I came across one that dealt with a Draft 1.1 that analyzed “Who Wants to Marry a Feminist?” by Lisa Miva-Jervis. Later, I came across another one (I graded a lot last night). The article is concerned with dispelling the myth of the feminist as a “hairy-legged man-hater.” Talking about feminism can be tricky, but the two drafts I read seemed to be fairly straightforward rhetorical analyses. I found no impassioned arguments for or against feminism. The critiques seemed fairly neutral too. Are our freshman getting more mature? Maybe, maybe not. After all, I did only see two drafts based on that article. But is it wrong for the article to even be involved with ENGL 1301? We’re asking them to analyze rhetoric rather than argue content, but that seems like an article that lends itself to content-based consideration anyway. How can you read that and not think about sexism? So, are we socially engineering students?
I think the issue of social engineering at the end of your commentary here is an interesting one. To digress slightly and then come back around I'll begin with discussing another article: "Why a Global Language?" by David Crystal. I remember reading it at the beginning of the semester and thinking it was a pretty good article. It wasn't totally biased (maybe not even at all), and just looking at the title, we can see that it's not all about English being a global language. However, I was shocked when I read BA after BA that looked to that article as an argument that English should be "the" global language. I'm still not entirely sure how that became the main purpose of the article to the students. English is mentioned a lot, but I think the main purpose of the article was to discuss the problems that are inherent in finding and implementing a global language but also the need for one. I actually remember not even thinking that he was fighting for English to be a global language--let alone "the" global language. Maybe I read it wrong? Anyways, back to your commentary (I promise there's a correlation here). I guess I'm just really surprised that the students would pull such a strong opinion from a, basically, scholarly article, but then them not pulling a strong opinion out of a feminist article. What does that say about the students? I just find it strange.
ReplyDeleteNow, on to the issue of social engineering students. I'm not sure that it can be seen as social engineering. The articles that were originally allowed were the three from the "First Year Writing" textbook. The others were all given as "options." The students didn't have to choose those outside texts, but they could if they wanted to. I think the question becomes then if we should allow the students to do any articles outside of the ones that were in the original syllabus. Will their optional inclusion mean we're trying to socially engineer the students? I don't have a clear idea, but it was what popped into my head after reading your post. I'm in no way disagreeing, though. I'm just shifting the question.
Good post. I'm not sure that bringing up the issue of feminism as something to be examined gets into "social engineering," unless it is pounded on. That is the principal concern, I think, the intensity with which the teacher stresses injustice rather than analysis.
ReplyDeleteI agree with so many of the things you had to say, Hannah. These things always come to the surface when people feel that someone is not living out their "gender roles." I am so sick of thinking about how I'm supposed to act. When it's not brought up, I rarely think about it. But when it is, it feels as though I have to constantly self-correct or accomodate everyone around me. My mom is notoriously accomodating, too. Maybe it's the generation above us, because I feel as though the females in our generation aren't buying into those gender practices. How do we know what the heck we're supposed to do?
ReplyDelete