Feminism Blip
Jan. 6th, 2009 09:46 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mhuzzellIn a break from writing my dissertation staring at my screen with consternation, I was trawling through some archives of a feminism message board in search of a thread that no longer seems to exist. However, I found this one, which is way too old for me to reply to, but way too interesting for me to let lie.
Basically, the OP described how the parents of her piano students treated their boys differently from their girls, and did so consciously with the justification that boys are inherently different from girls. The OP countered that the little boys and girls in her preschool classes behaved pretty much the same, they were just socialised to behave differently as they got older.
Discussion ensued about the different treatment of boys and girls in different contexts, and there was general agreement (certainly backed up by my own experiences and more-than-average observations of preschool classrooms!) that teachers, usually unconsciously, were harsher on girls who misbehaved than on boys. That, further, girls at preschool age were strongly socialised towards being quiet, attentive and 'good', whereas boys were given more leeway to act rowdily.
Later on down the thread, someone replied with a 'Hey wait a minute now!'-type post, citing the by-now-familiar concern that schools (once grades and such are involved) may be 'favouring' girls over boys. Or that schools are somehow geared towards a 'female' way of learning.
Now, wait just an Oedipal-mother-fucking minute.
FIRST of all, the way children are taught in most schools has not changed that much over the past 2-3 decades. But it is only in, what, the last 10 years or so, that girls have started to 'overtake' boys in the classroom, and in (shock, horror) higher learning?
SECOND, granted this information is not super-recent, but elementary classroom observation education studies I read from the early 90's (i.e. the students who became today's wave of female undergraduates) showed that teachers unconsciously called on boys more, that boys spoke up more in class anyway and, in a continuation of the preschool standards, were harsher on girls for misbehaviour and rowdiness. (They also showed that teachers unconciously steered boys toward the sciences and girls towards humanities, but that's another rant for another day.)
BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, haven't we all just agreed that girls are socialised from preschool to be quieter, more placid, and more content to 'sit still' than boys? Our school system is set up to reward those qualities, especially at a higher level. These studies keep indicating that boys are more likely to be suspended or expelled, more likely to fail tests, more likely to drop out, etc. Doesn't it make more sense to say that the schools favour the learning styles of 'people socialised to sit still and be quiet', rather than 'girls'? And if you are not so socialised (i.e., are male), wouldn't you be more likely to have trouble in such a system? Wouldn't you then be more likely to drop out of it?
Anyway, I should return to my dissertation. This year is the last hurdle in the above-mentioned system, and I am more than ready to grab my piece of paper and GTFO.
Basically, the OP described how the parents of her piano students treated their boys differently from their girls, and did so consciously with the justification that boys are inherently different from girls. The OP countered that the little boys and girls in her preschool classes behaved pretty much the same, they were just socialised to behave differently as they got older.
Discussion ensued about the different treatment of boys and girls in different contexts, and there was general agreement (certainly backed up by my own experiences and more-than-average observations of preschool classrooms!) that teachers, usually unconsciously, were harsher on girls who misbehaved than on boys. That, further, girls at preschool age were strongly socialised towards being quiet, attentive and 'good', whereas boys were given more leeway to act rowdily.
Later on down the thread, someone replied with a 'Hey wait a minute now!'-type post, citing the by-now-familiar concern that schools (once grades and such are involved) may be 'favouring' girls over boys. Or that schools are somehow geared towards a 'female' way of learning.
Now, wait just an Oedipal-mother-fucking minute.
FIRST of all, the way children are taught in most schools has not changed that much over the past 2-3 decades. But it is only in, what, the last 10 years or so, that girls have started to 'overtake' boys in the classroom, and in (shock, horror) higher learning?
SECOND, granted this information is not super-recent, but elementary classroom observation education studies I read from the early 90's (i.e. the students who became today's wave of female undergraduates) showed that teachers unconsciously called on boys more, that boys spoke up more in class anyway and, in a continuation of the preschool standards, were harsher on girls for misbehaviour and rowdiness. (They also showed that teachers unconciously steered boys toward the sciences and girls towards humanities, but that's another rant for another day.)
BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, haven't we all just agreed that girls are socialised from preschool to be quieter, more placid, and more content to 'sit still' than boys? Our school system is set up to reward those qualities, especially at a higher level. These studies keep indicating that boys are more likely to be suspended or expelled, more likely to fail tests, more likely to drop out, etc. Doesn't it make more sense to say that the schools favour the learning styles of 'people socialised to sit still and be quiet', rather than 'girls'? And if you are not so socialised (i.e., are male), wouldn't you be more likely to have trouble in such a system? Wouldn't you then be more likely to drop out of it?
Anyway, I should return to my dissertation. This year is the last hurdle in the above-mentioned system, and I am more than ready to grab my piece of paper and GTFO.
