Because over the past week I have realized that I'm filled with righteous feminist anger.
So, I was writing an unreasonably lengthy comment over at ontd_politicaland I realized I should probably just post about it, along with some other, vaguely lady-related things that have been bothering me.
Firstly, this: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/education/11gender.html
I was willing to give the idea of single-sex education a chance. I have no firsthand knowledge of it, although the arts schools I have attended since fourth grade have been overwhelmingly female (apparently culture isn't macho), and I suspect I personally would not enoy it considering that more than half of my friends are male, but it has received glowing reviews from those who have experienced the results of it directly. That said, this article got off to a pretty poor start:
Michael Napolitano speaks to his fifth-grade class in the Morrisania section of the Bronx like a basketball coach. “You - let me see you trying!” he insisted the other day during a math lesson. “Come on, faster!”
Across the hall, Larita Hudson’s scolding is more like a therapist’s. “This is so sloppy, honey,” she prodded as she reviewed problems in a workbook. “Remember what I spoke to you about? About being the bright shining star that you are?”
They are not just two teachers with different personalities. Ms. Hudson, who is 32 and grew up near the school, has a room full of 11-year-old girls, while Mr. Napolitano, a 50-year-old former special education teacher, faces 23 boys. A third fifth-grade class down the hall is co-ed.
"the bright shining star thet you are."
Really? Ugh. But it didn't stop there.
More blatant and ridiculous gender-role reinforcing by the boys' teacher:
Mr. Napolitano, one of four men among the school’s 30 classroom teachers, said he thinks of his students as “23 sort-of sons,” and engages them with Marvel Comics and chess. He proudly held up the book “Patrol Boy,” with a picture of a young man with a large tattoo on his back, as an example of material he would not have used in a co-ed class.
“There’s an aspect of male bonding, a closeness that we wouldn’t otherwise have,” he said. “I feel more like I am teaching them about right from wrong than I might have normally.”
And he said he can “be a little more stern” with his students now. “If I get in the face of a girl, she would just cry,” he said. “The boys respond to it, they know it’s part of being a young man.”
A girl would just cry? Really? And as a girl, I would like to point out that I thoroughly enjoy comics and chess, and fail to see how the difference between right and wrong can only be conveyed by someone of the your own gender. Also, I'd really like to know what is in the tattooed "Patrol Boy" book that girls would object to.
I understand that many supporters of single-sex education have experienced positive results firsthand, and I'm not disputing that there are some advantages to it. The presence of the opposite gender and the pressure to impress that often comes with it can be distracting to some students, and many work better without it, I understand. Still, a voice in my head keeps saying segregation. I just can't get past it. Have we not learned that separate but equal doesn't work, people?
School is supposed to prepare you for real life. Real life is not separated according to gender, and if it is, it shouldn't be.
Another Times article, this time about the new White House Council for Women and Girls: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/obamas-and-clinton-honor-women/
and some Times parenting blog's reaction:
http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/obamas-council-on-women-and-girls/?hp
(nytimes.com is set as my homepage, can you tell?)
I am happy about this. Really, I am. Another step toward closing the wage gap? Awesome. Adequate maternity leave? Great.
But still, when I read "The White House celebrated women on Wednesday" I got a little annoyed, probably because I'm hypersensitive to this shit right now and mentally replaced "women" with "men". I do this sometimes to police myself, (I've decided to make a conscious effort to be a better feminist and am trying to at least have gender equality in my brain) but in this instance it just seemed to make painfully clear how far we still have to go.
Childcare is still considered a "women's issue", for Christ's sake! What kind of shit is that? They're our responsibility? Only women are supposed to care about them? Yes yes, I know, statistically there are far more single mothers than fathers, y'know, due the whole uterus business, but shouldn't childcare just be an "issue"?
Here, if you aren't upset yet, have some crazy ex-gay talk: https://livehope.org/resource:59
This gets extra disturbing points for being obnoxiously religious, upsettingly, misguidedly homophobic, and hilariously, outrageously sexist.
Also, I think ex-gays are some of the most depressing people ever. They must live in constant denial and fear. Their whole lives are based on repressing basic parts of themselves to serve "God" and convincing others to do the same.
Anyway, this guy is basically arguing that not only is homosexuality sinful, it is impractical because two men (he doesn't acknowledge lesbians at all) aren't suited to serving eachother's emotional needs.
"...all men, at their core beings, need to be leading an adventure, need to be respected/feared/admired, and need to fight for/win a beauty. Women, by contrast, need to BE the beauty, need to be loved/cherished/viewed as precious, and need to be caught up in a man’s adventure."
"Submissiveness is something that must be taken in-turn; otherwise one of the men is permanently stuck in this role and is miserable there. For instance, who is the chivalrous one on a particular evening? ... Suppose you give up your right and let your partner do “it,” then how does that make a man feel? What is it like on the other side-to be the one receiving chivalry? What do you suppose it’s like? I can tell you from experience that it is insulting and disappointing."
Because women like to be insulted, disappointed and submissive. Also, they don't care at all for respect, just to be treated as "cute and precious":
"Eww! Yuk. I’m a man. I want respect, damn it. Not to be precious. I’m not precious; such a thing is weak in my eyes. I want to be feared and command the presence of a room-not be viewed as too precious for words-too precious to pull out my own damn chair! NO THANK YOU."
And:
"I NEED respect. At the core of my being, I was created to need it. Men were not designed to give respect in the same great way they need to receive it. Another man does not have the ability to give me the kind-of respect a woman does; furthermore any respect from a man will be lacking in certain qualities. What I mean by that is respect from someone who views me as strong, courageous, and their leader, is the deepest kind of respect I need. "
"I need an exhorter who can make me feel like I am the courageous warrior who can do anything. Only a woman-the true nurturer-has this ability. It is her God-given ability. If it is a man, sure he can encourage me, but he cannot give me the same fuel as a woman can when she believes in me. With a man, it is more like a brotherly pep-talk full of correction and conviction. With a woman, it is like my personal cheer-leader who has a blind-faith in me as her man. It is something entirely different-something very incredible."
Should I re-iterate? "Personal cheerleader". "Blind faith." "Respect from someone who views me as strong, courageous, and their leader". This is what this guy sees in women.
Firstly, this: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/education/11gender.html
I was willing to give the idea of single-sex education a chance. I have no firsthand knowledge of it, although the arts schools I have attended since fourth grade have been overwhelmingly female (apparently culture isn't macho), and I suspect I personally would not enoy it considering that more than half of my friends are male, but it has received glowing reviews from those who have experienced the results of it directly. That said, this article got off to a pretty poor start:
Michael Napolitano speaks to his fifth-grade class in the Morrisania section of the Bronx like a basketball coach. “You - let me see you trying!” he insisted the other day during a math lesson. “Come on, faster!”
Across the hall, Larita Hudson’s scolding is more like a therapist’s. “This is so sloppy, honey,” she prodded as she reviewed problems in a workbook. “Remember what I spoke to you about? About being the bright shining star that you are?”
They are not just two teachers with different personalities. Ms. Hudson, who is 32 and grew up near the school, has a room full of 11-year-old girls, while Mr. Napolitano, a 50-year-old former special education teacher, faces 23 boys. A third fifth-grade class down the hall is co-ed.
"the bright shining star thet you are."
Really? Ugh. But it didn't stop there.
More blatant and ridiculous gender-role reinforcing by the boys' teacher:
Mr. Napolitano, one of four men among the school’s 30 classroom teachers, said he thinks of his students as “23 sort-of sons,” and engages them with Marvel Comics and chess. He proudly held up the book “Patrol Boy,” with a picture of a young man with a large tattoo on his back, as an example of material he would not have used in a co-ed class.
“There’s an aspect of male bonding, a closeness that we wouldn’t otherwise have,” he said. “I feel more like I am teaching them about right from wrong than I might have normally.”
And he said he can “be a little more stern” with his students now. “If I get in the face of a girl, she would just cry,” he said. “The boys respond to it, they know it’s part of being a young man.”
A girl would just cry? Really? And as a girl, I would like to point out that I thoroughly enjoy comics and chess, and fail to see how the difference between right and wrong can only be conveyed by someone of the your own gender. Also, I'd really like to know what is in the tattooed "Patrol Boy" book that girls would object to.
I understand that many supporters of single-sex education have experienced positive results firsthand, and I'm not disputing that there are some advantages to it. The presence of the opposite gender and the pressure to impress that often comes with it can be distracting to some students, and many work better without it, I understand. Still, a voice in my head keeps saying segregation. I just can't get past it. Have we not learned that separate but equal doesn't work, people?
School is supposed to prepare you for real life. Real life is not separated according to gender, and if it is, it shouldn't be.
Another Times article, this time about the new White House Council for Women and Girls: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/obamas-and-clinton-honor-women/
and some Times parenting blog's reaction:
http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/obamas-council-on-women-and-girls/?hp
(nytimes.com is set as my homepage, can you tell?)
I am happy about this. Really, I am. Another step toward closing the wage gap? Awesome. Adequate maternity leave? Great.
But still, when I read "The White House celebrated women on Wednesday" I got a little annoyed, probably because I'm hypersensitive to this shit right now and mentally replaced "women" with "men". I do this sometimes to police myself, (I've decided to make a conscious effort to be a better feminist and am trying to at least have gender equality in my brain) but in this instance it just seemed to make painfully clear how far we still have to go.
Childcare is still considered a "women's issue", for Christ's sake! What kind of shit is that? They're our responsibility? Only women are supposed to care about them? Yes yes, I know, statistically there are far more single mothers than fathers, y'know, due the whole uterus business, but shouldn't childcare just be an "issue"?
Here, if you aren't upset yet, have some crazy ex-gay talk: https://livehope.org/resource:59
This gets extra disturbing points for being obnoxiously religious, upsettingly, misguidedly homophobic, and hilariously, outrageously sexist.
Also, I think ex-gays are some of the most depressing people ever. They must live in constant denial and fear. Their whole lives are based on repressing basic parts of themselves to serve "God" and convincing others to do the same.
Anyway, this guy is basically arguing that not only is homosexuality sinful, it is impractical because two men (he doesn't acknowledge lesbians at all) aren't suited to serving eachother's emotional needs.
"...all men, at their core beings, need to be leading an adventure, need to be respected/feared/admired, and need to fight for/win a beauty. Women, by contrast, need to BE the beauty, need to be loved/cherished/viewed as precious, and need to be caught up in a man’s adventure."
"Submissiveness is something that must be taken in-turn; otherwise one of the men is permanently stuck in this role and is miserable there. For instance, who is the chivalrous one on a particular evening? ... Suppose you give up your right and let your partner do “it,” then how does that make a man feel? What is it like on the other side-to be the one receiving chivalry? What do you suppose it’s like? I can tell you from experience that it is insulting and disappointing."
Because women like to be insulted, disappointed and submissive. Also, they don't care at all for respect, just to be treated as "cute and precious":
"Eww! Yuk. I’m a man. I want respect, damn it. Not to be precious. I’m not precious; such a thing is weak in my eyes. I want to be feared and command the presence of a room-not be viewed as too precious for words-too precious to pull out my own damn chair! NO THANK YOU."
And:
"I NEED respect. At the core of my being, I was created to need it. Men were not designed to give respect in the same great way they need to receive it. Another man does not have the ability to give me the kind-of respect a woman does; furthermore any respect from a man will be lacking in certain qualities. What I mean by that is respect from someone who views me as strong, courageous, and their leader, is the deepest kind of respect I need. "
"I need an exhorter who can make me feel like I am the courageous warrior who can do anything. Only a woman-the true nurturer-has this ability. It is her God-given ability. If it is a man, sure he can encourage me, but he cannot give me the same fuel as a woman can when she believes in me. With a man, it is more like a brotherly pep-talk full of correction and conviction. With a woman, it is like my personal cheer-leader who has a blind-faith in me as her man. It is something entirely different-something very incredible."
Should I re-iterate? "Personal cheerleader". "Blind faith." "Respect from someone who views me as strong, courageous, and their leader". This is what this guy sees in women.