Paechter, C. (2006). Reconceptualizing the gendered body: learning and constructing masculinities and femininities in school. Gender and education, 18(2), 121-135.
1. What are the major ideas in the article?
Education institutions are heavily influenced by Cartesian understandings of the mind/body separation, and work towards singularly improving students’ minds, while disregarding their existence as corporeal bodies. Paechter further explores the duality of gender/sex and compares it to that of mind/body – gendering being in the mind, and sex being biology. She observes that this thinking is flawed in that the gender an individual chooses is inextricably linked to the experience of their bodies. Sex is as fluid and socially constructed as gender: “people have to be considered as both sexed and gendered, with sex/gender (or whatever we want to call it) considered as both physically and culturally produced” (p. 132).
2. What serious questions/issues does the reading raise regarding gender and sexuality and young people?
The lens through which academia comes to understand issues in gender and sexuality in young people is research – and this article condemns that research for the way in which it negates the corporeal existence of students’ bodies. This observation then calls into question the body of literature we have on the subject, and prompts new discovery methods to be adopted. This has far-reaching implications not only for researchers, but for the practitioners and educators who rely on that research for pedagogical models.
3. In what ways does this article reinforce, extend, challenge, or oppose your own views on gender and sexuality study/research/practice?
I believe there is a social stigma around students’ bodies because of the social stigma attached to the sexualization of youth. To affirm and encourage the existence of a young person’s body is to acknowledge their sexual life, therefore society chooses to negate their bodies, and focus on their minds. This is echoed in other readings from this course, such as Renold, who observes that children even in primary school begin to act out sexualized gender roles, which has, at times, caused a "moral panic" (Renold, 2000, p. 313). Part of the way society chooses to deal with this "moral panic," is to banish the body from education thereby stifling its currency in that setting
4. What do you take away from the reading in terms of your own gender inclusive practice as a future educator?
This article raises the idea that educators must not constantly champion mind over body, sex over gender in their classrooms. “We need to find ways of thinking about sex and gender which do not separate them in a dualistic way, but which treat individuals as fully and always embodied” (p. 132).This is easier said than done, and I think further research and inquiry into ways of undoing this duality are necessary. Perhaps starting with small changes such as developing lessons that engage students’ bodies as well as their minds is a positive place to start.
Davidson, S. M. (2009). Mouths wide shut: Gender quiet teenage males
on gender–bending, gender passing and masculinities. International
Review of Education, 55, 615–631.
1. What are the major ideas in the article?
This article explores the multi-faceted experience of youth who “gender-bend” or act outside of masculine gendered norms, and embrace ideas of femininity as a part of their gender identity. This qualitative piece combines the interviews of three particular youth who live the experience of gender nonconformity. Notions of manhood, spirituality, and, particularly, emotionally safe spaces are discussed, and Davidson observes these young peoples’ strength in building safe spaces for each other through means of silent communication. Because they exist in “borderlands” between genders, and are tested daily on their manhood, they pay a “social price tag” for their actions, and do not feel welcome in either gender conforming community; thus, they create their own welcoming community. However, because of oppression, these communities operate in strict silence, and are maintained through codified gestures and nods between those who make use of them.
2. What serious questions/issues does the reading raise regarding gender and sexuality and young people?
That Davidson chooses to approach this topic through the lived experience of three different youth speaks to how specific certain student’s situations can be. It is not useful in this context to generalize experience, because each and every single student has a different experience that must be approached and treated differently.
3. In what ways does this article reinforce, extend, challenge, or oppose your own views on gender and sexuality study/research/practice?
While this article is focused on the specific viewpoints of three young men, I feel the general school population is somewhat vilified in its depiction, by framing them as “power-broking peers” (p. 628). I think it would be useful to ascertain why their peers react to their gender-bending in this specific way, as opposed to characterizing them as an organized group with ill-intentions. Viewing the general population as simply uninformed is more useful the context of a school, as it allows that they may change and become informed in their decisions.
4. What do you take away from the reading in terms of your own gender inclusive practice as a future educator?
Safe spaces are so important for students – so important, in fact, that they will create them, at great risk to themselves, if they cannot find them on their own. As educators, it is our responsibility to ensure that we explicitly and intentionally signal to students that our classrooms are safe and inclusive. This involves more than just putting a sign up on the wall – it is about living inclusion through your actions everyday, and modelling to your students what that looks like.
No comments:
Post a Comment