Author: Melody Kology

Pedagogy Problems

Introduction:

Qué vale la pena?

 Daniel Morales‐Doyle poses this question in his study on curriculum, and offers the translation, “What is worthwhile?”. According to Doyle, asking Qué vale la pena as an expression emphasizes the further sidelining of marginalized communities at the hands of hegemonic curriculum. [1] The battle over what is worthy of teaching and learning is one that has always existed.

In this paper I seek to explore facets of curriculum that uphold hegemonic curriculum content, and, therefore, can be understood as a struggle for power, for control over the narrative of human history, and ultimately the ability to influence how future generations grow to see the world and interact with it in ways that uphold dominant oppressive structures. This being a Gender and Women’s Studies class, and with this being such a broad issue, this paper will primarily focus on the erasure of women and the intersectionality of erasure from Social Studies curriculum.   

Pt 1: Social Studies – Erasure of Women is the Norm:

I recall noticing the absence of women in history and social studies textbooks in grade school. It was around when we learned about Harriet Tubman and Joan of Arc, and I realized they seemed to be the only women in my history book that weren’t mentioned as merely a supporting character to a more notable man. Pages and pages of accounts of men, stories of their experiences and upbringings and motivations were the foundation of history, and women were relegated to supporting roles, or tokenized. Where were all the women?

Turns out I was picking up on a hard truth. According to a study performed by the National Women’s History Alliance in 2019, only three percent of educational materials contained information relevant to the contributions of women measured against total contributions referenced. In their study, 53% of these references to women included domestic roles of women, while only 20% included the women’s suffrage movement. A paltry 2% contained women in the workforce or depicted accomplishments for the sake of accomplishments. Moreover, when women are included in history books, they are often portrayed in stereotypical gendered roles, and most often, are only mentioned in relation to their husbands, and most represented are those from socially and politically conservative circles [4].

Some might argue this is in large part due to the very oppression of women, since for so long women were barred from academia and the workforce, but this would be a copout. A lack of equal military, political and academic achievement should not be reason enough to exclude 50% of the human population from history. It does, however, offer a relevant opportunity to provide context for this oppression and to illuminate the lived experiences of women through, and their resistance to, that oppression.

Minimizing women’s roles in history contributes to the very culture that continues to diminish the labor traditionally associated with “women’s work”. By omitting descriptions of this labor from our history books we confirm that we do not value this work, which is fundamental and foundational to the survival and progression of humanity. But history is written from a male perspective that places value on politics and war and robs us of a more holistic view of the lived experiences of those that came before us. When you don’t see yourself represented in ways that value your contributions to society, it becomes harder still to think of yourself as capable or worthy of taking up space, defying norms, and daring to break barriers of achievement, in this way representation is everything.   

Pt 2: Intersecting Erasure: A Whitewashed Curriculum:

“Seeing the Chicana in light of her history, I seek an exoneration, a seeing through the fictions of white supremacy, a seeing of ourselves in our true guises and not the false racial personality that has been given to us” – Gloria Anzaldua, La Frontera

Intersecting with the erasure of women in history is the erasure of all non-dominant groups, so much so that it’s hard to mention one without mentioning others, even if you could write a lengthy individual thesis on the systematic erasure of each separate group.

In attempts at writing inclusivity into modern textbooks, the mark is missed because those powerful groups who dictate what is taught, how it is taught, and how that knowledge is assessed are typically controlled by members of the dominant culture. This cycle, even under the best of intentions, leaves groups with comparatively less power and voice to continue to be left out of the history books, and curriculum at large. Those with such hegemonic, dominant-group identities are often unable to see the mechanisms upholding their own privilege, whereas those groups who experience oppression or invisibility would be in a far better position to contribute a more comprehensive view of history and social studies as it is shaped into curriculum. As it stands, much US curriculum is legitimized by existing faulty education, so the very act of seeing the need for this shift of mindset in curriculum writing is obfuscated [4].  

In fact, most of the recent inclusion of traditionally underrepresented groups are presented within standards that award and make heroes of those individuals that assimilate to white culture. The Black activists featured are those whose actions have been sanitized to make them “more palatable” to white teachers and students. Many stories that include Native Americans seem progressive on their face but speak mostly to the resistance and reaction to white expansion, and very little has to do with independent representation of their culture and who the people are independent of an overarching white narrative. [6]

Major rethinking of the way we tell our history would have to take place to make steps toward creating an anti-racist curriculum. One initial step is to decenter Eurocentric norms on curriculum and pedagogy that consistently prioritize white authors and instead focus more on inclusive curriculum, but also on using these imbalances as a sounding board for where we can begin dialogues about why there is an imbalance in the first place. As discussed in A Qualitative Study of Black College Women’s Experiences of Misogynoir and Anti-Racism with High School Educators; “Researchers suggest that teachers must “consider whose perspectives are at the core of their curriculum, who put them there, and why—what are the politics within their subject?”[8]

It becomes clear how much additional effort must be exerted to argue for intersectional reforms, especially for BIPOC women and nonbinary groups, and especially those from working class, immigrant and other marginalized backgrounds when a Eurocentric, whitewashed, economically oppressive and misogynistic narrative is presented as culturally neutral or politically objective and even incremental change remains sluggish and uninspired. [7]

Our standard for our baseline level of historical and social knowledge for grade school and higher education must be reexamined. What we view as being a story worth telling about how humanity got to where it is now should be deeply inspected, especially present in these examinations should be those that live at the crossroads of intersectionality, whose stories are not fully told. For example when Black women are positioned between the feminist and antiracist identities.  Both groups tend to ignore intragroup differences. But identities are shaped by lived experience as black women specifically. This indicates a necessity for educational reform initiatives and pedagogies that consider the tangible needs of women who are students of color. [7]

Research reveals that much of Black girls’ acedemic challenges with teachers and school administration involve discriminatory practices at the intersection of racism and sexism, falling under the description of misogynoir [9]] Misogynoir is a term referring to the ways in which racism and sexism intersect and contribute to specific harm against Black women and girls. [8] . So much is in a name, and naming something gives it more power, so more specific language can be enormously helpful in ensuring groups can have an identity when they are faced with intersecting forms of oppression resulting in an entirely unique set of challenges.

Understanding a concept such as misogynoir can help educators and scholars to better represent these inequities in the classroom, not just in terms of the course materials, but the ways educators and administrators react to how racism is intertwined with everyday routines and practices in the very structure of schools. Moving closer to anti-racism in schools requires that teachers openly examine the age-old institution of U.S. classrooms as sites of oppression for Black girls and other students of color [8]. Considering the ways in which gendered experiences are racialized, and experiences with racism are gendered, and how both factors burden students with an undue social pressure to conform to a society that is oppressive.

 Research suggests women of color and immigrant families work to assimilate to and navigate a school system that does no work to bridge gaps of difference. When we don’t create supportive environments for students to self-identify their oppression or feel seen through their curriculum and the practices of learning it, a lack of confidence in oneself emerges in a student. This vacuum of representation, which is often paired with exposure to negative stereotypical messages, creates a cultural dissonance that harms the self-esteem of these growing individuals.[9] Schools in every level of learning need to establish classroom environments that allow those individuals that carry the burdens of intersecting oppressive forces to critically examine their experiences with the curriculum they are fed, with opportunities to create a greater dialogue about how they are represented, or not represented.

Conclusion: A Perspective on Progressive Change:

In some states, notably Texas and Florida, the organized right exerts enormous sway in textbook selection, ensuring that topics such as global warming and evolution are downplayed in science texts and issues such as racism, sexism and imperialism remain embroiled in the messaging [7]. This reflects accessibility to advocacy being related to the privilege of having extra time, or extra money, usually the two are linked.

In the public school system, some districts wind up with more funding, more resources, smaller class sizes with better teachers, newer editions of textbooks first. Indeed, “students of color are concentrated in under resourced schools, are more likely to be suspended, have less access to high‐quality rigorous curriculum, and are taught by lower‐paid teachers with lower qualifications” [10]. Starting off with less of a solid foundation academically is hard enough, the additional curveballs thrown to those who learn a history they are scrubbed from adds insult to injury, and more injury to that injury. We are what we are taught, and then we become more than that only if we have acquired the skills to seek knowledge of our own accord in life, and both critical thinking and an honest, comprehensive evaluations of our past is missing from most school’s curriculum today.

Because curriculum is controlled by state and local governments, it is imperative to unite educators and activists in school districts across the country, particularly those from traditionally marginalized groups. We will need to demand textbook reforms that more accurately represent the past through more than one dominant perspective, but from many angles that reflect the complexity that is our past and recording it, while remaining accountable for the fact that we don’t have all the facts. We need people for progressive reforms aggressively running for local school board positions with as much zeal as those conservative groups pushing regressive agendas. We should be looking to models such as Critical Race theory, which are conceptual frameworks with which to understand better social justice driven issues. We should be re-organizing the organizations that create curriculum, innovating accessible means of communication for feedback from communities. It’s an uphill climb for those who have traditionally less access to higher education to fight their way to positions of power within the very system they seek to change, but the good fight is being fought all the time.

References:

[1] “Students as Curriculum Critics: Standpoints with Respect to Relevance, Goals, and Science.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 55.5 (2018): 749–773. Web.

[2] Zeidler, D.L. STEM education: A deficit framework for the twenty first century? A sociocultural sociocentric response. Cult Stud of Sci Educ 11, 11–26 (2016). https://doi-org.bmcc.ezproxy.cuny.edu/10.1007/s11422-014-9578-z

[3] “Students as Curriculum Critics: Standpoints with Respect to Relevance, Goals, and Science.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 55.5 (2018): 749–773. Web.

[4] Rayle, Crystal, “Herstory: An Analysis of the Representation of Women in Middle Grades U.S. History Textbooks” (2020). Student Research Submissions. 374. https://scholar.umw.edu/student_research/374

[5] http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/

[6] Situating the Georgia Performance Standards in the Social Studies Debate: An Improvement for Social Studies Classrooms or Continuing the Whitewash

[7] Other People’s Daughters: Critical Race Feminism and Black Girls’ Education

[8] A Qualitative Study of Black College Women’s Experiences of Misogynoir and Anti-Racism with High School Educators

[9] (Carter Andrews et al. 2019; Davis 2020; Morris 2016a; Neal-Jackson 2018; Watson 2016)

[10] Museus, Samuel D, María C Ledesma, and Tara L Parker. “Racism and Racial Equity in Higher Education.” ASHE higher education report 42.1 (2015): 1–112. Web.-  Racism and Racial Equity in Higher Education

Melody Kology DB #13

It was great that you brought in Victoria and Robert for the workshop on relationships. Relationships are always complicated, and each one is different. Each person feels differently about boundaries, and what they want out of a relationship, whether romantic, intimate, platonic, familial or otherwise. In any relationship, toxic behaviors and patterns can arise, and they can come in all shapes and sizes.

Especially if you were raised in an environment where toxic behaviors were the norm, it can be difficult to know what a healthy relationship even looks like. If you have unhealthy behaviors modeled, you might not recognize certain red flags of unhealthy or even abusive behavior in your relationships as an adult, and I can speak from experience there. It’s so important to have that outside perspective at times to remind us what healthy parameters and boundaries look like, and workshops like these can step in with that non-biased perspective of what is and isn’t healthy. I mean, living in a society like ours that so often models creepy behaviors as being romantic gestures, I know I have been confused when swept up in a charged romantic relationship about what should or shouldn’t be acceptable behavior.

In my view, as someone who has tremendously benefited and continues to benefit from therapy, I’m so glad BMCC offers these resources. Connecting with that department in a human level is so helpful, and encouraging to actually utilize that resource since I’ve seen how competent and lovely some of their people are. Especially after this year, managing all of the relationships at home, or conversely dealing with being alone, it can be a lot, and I seriously don’t know where I would be without a therapist to help guide me through it all. Having that advice can truly be a salve to your sanity. Any encouragement and accessibility to any counseling sessions is so wonderful.

Final Project: Draft #1

Pedagogy Problems

Introduction:

Qué vale la pena?

Daniel Morales-Doyle poses this question in his study on curriculum, and offers the translation, “What is worthwhile?”. According to Doyle, asking Qué vale la pena as an expression emphasizes the further sidelining of marginalized communities at the hands of hegemonic curriculum. [1] The battle over what is worthy of teaching and learning is one that has always existed.

In this paper I seek to explore facets of curriculum that uphold hegemonic curriculum content, and, therefore, can be understood as a struggle for power and control over the narrative of human history, and the ability to influence how future generations grow to see the world and interact with it in ways that uphold dominant oppressive structures. This being a Gender and Womens Studies class, and with this being such a broad issue, this paper will primarily focus on the erasure of women and the intersectionality of erasure from Social Studies curriculum.  

Pt 1: Social Studies – Erasure of Women is the Norm:

I recall noticing the absence of women in history and social studies textbooks in grade school. It was around when we learned about Harriet Tubman and Joan of Arc, and I realized they seemed to be the only women in my history book that weren’t mentioned as merely a supporting character to a more notable man. Pages and pages of accounts of men, stories of their experiences and upbringings and motivations were the foundation of history, and women were relegated to supporting roles, or tokenized. Where were all the women?

Turns out I was picking up on a hard truth. According to a study performed by the National Women’s History Alliance in 2019, only three percent of educational materials contained information relevant to the contributions of women measured against total contributions referenced. In their study, 53% of these references to women included domestic roles of women, while only 20% included the women’s suffrage movement. A paltry 2% contained women in the workforce or depicted accomplishments for the sake of accomplishments. Moreover, when women are included in history books, they are often portrayed in stereotypical gendered roles, and most often, are only mentioned in relation to their husbands, and most represented are those from conservative circles [4].

Some might argue this is in large part due to the very oppression of women, that for so long women were barred from academia and the workforce, but this would be a copout. A lack of equal military, political and academic achievement should not be reason enough to exclude 50% of the human population from history. It does however, offer a relevant opportunity to provide context for this oppression and to illuminate the lived experiences of women through, and their resistance to, that oppression.

Minimizing women’s roles in history contributes to the very culture that continues to diminish the labor traditionally associated with “women’s work”. By omitting descriptions of this labor from our history books we confirm that we do not value this work, which is absolutely fundamental and foundational to the survival and progression of humanity. But history is written from a male perspective that places value on politics and war.

Pt 2: Intersecting Erasure: A Whitewashed Curriculum:

“Seeing the Chicana in light of her history, I seek an exoneration, a seeing through the fictions of white supremacy, a seeing of ourselves in our true guises and not the false racial personality that has been given to us” – Gloria Anzaldua, La Frontera

Intersecting with the erasure of women in history is the erasure of all non-dominant groups, so much so that it’s hard to mention one without mentioning others, even if you could write a lengthy individual thesis on the systematic erasure of each separate group.

Even in attempts at writing inclusivity into modern textbooks, the mark is missed because those powerful groups who dictate what is taught, how it is taught, and how that knowledge is assessed are typically controlled by members of the dominant culture. This cycle, even under the best of intentions, leaves groups with comparatively less power and voice to continue to be left out of the history books. Those with such hegemonic, dominant-group identities are often unable to see the mechanisms upholding their own privilege, whereas those groups who experience oppression or invisibility would be in a far better position to contribute a more comprehensive view of history and social studies as it is shaped into curriculum. As it stands, much US curriculum is legitimized by existing faulty education, so the very act of seeing the need for this shift of mindset in curriculum writing is obfuscated [4].   

In fact, most of the recent inclusion of traditionally underrepresented groups are presented within standards that award and make heroes of those individuals that assimilate to white culture. The Black activists featured are those whose actions have been sanitized to make them “more palatable” to white teachers and students. Many stories that include Native Americans seem progressive on their face but speak mostly to the resistance and reaction to white expansion, and very little has to do with independent representation of their culture and who the people are independent of an overarching white narrative. [6]

Conclusion: A Perspective on Progressive Change:

Because curriculum is controlled by state and local governments, it is imperative to unite educators, historians and activists in school districts across the country, particularly those from traditionally marginalized groups, to demand textbook reforms that more accurately represent our past through more than one dominant perspective.

In some states, notably Texas and Florida, the organized right exerts enormous sway in textbook selection, ensuring that topics such as global warming and evolution are downplayed in science texts and issues such as racism, sexism and imperialism remain [7].

References:

[1] “Students as Curriculum Critics: Standpoints with Respect to Relevance, Goals, and Science.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 55.5 (2018): 749–773. Web.

[2] Zeidler, D.L. STEM education: A deficit framework for the twenty first century? A sociocultural sociocentric response. Cult Stud of Sci Educ 11, 11–26 (2016). https://doi-org.bmcc.ezproxy.cuny.edu/10.1007/s11422-014-9578-z

[4] Rayle, Crystal, “Herstory: An Analysis of the Representation of Women in Middle Grades U.S. History Textbooks” (2020). Student Research Submissions. 374. https://scholar.umw.edu/student_research/374

[5] http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/

[6] Situating the Georgia Performance Standards in the Social Studies Debate: An Improvement for Social Studies Classrooms or Continuing the Whitewash

Final Project Self Evaluation

So far its clear that I need to do more to focus my thesis and develop my closing statements, the “manifesto” part. As it stands, a lot of what I have is based on readings of research papers on curriculum and pedagogy. I don’t feel like it has a lot of my own writing style showing through the patchwork of ideas at times. I have the facts that will back up my manifesto and hope to build on that to figure out a strong conclusion.

 I still managed to fall into the trap you warned me of, even though it was at the front of my mind. On this one, I realized initially I’d focused a lot on STEM curriculum and impacts it has on upholding homogenic culture for underrepresented groups, and the intersectionality there, but that was becoming its own whole thing that was getting into learning types and all sorts of stuff that could be its own paper, lol. I had to refocus/remove a lot of that portion because it was a little disjointed, and while I love the STEM section it didn’t feel so relevant to the GWS final.

It does seem like just about everything has some greegree of intersectionality, and these problems are deeply connected, so it’s easy to bounce around a bit, but hopefully after taking that part out I have more of a flow going. It’s been a struggle sometimes knowing how to effectively search for the right studies, honestly, at times I can’t tell if this is because I am using the wrong terms in my searches or because research is so imbalanced. I have really been enjoying getting into focusing on the fields of study that inspired me back to school, and specifically, through the perspectives we have been sharing in class.

Melody Kology DB #10

I watched Anita: Speaking Truth to Power this week. Anita Hill’s treatment in 1991 was a fitting example of how Crenshaw’s Ted Talk describes intersectionality doubly harming someone experiencing two or more forms of marginalization.

Clarence Thomas was able to claim that his being on trial for workplace sexual harassment was a “high-tech lynching”, and an example of racism against him. If that were true, wouldn’t the same be true for how Hill was treated? Was she not black too, and having her character put on trial by a panel of white men, having her reputation compromised by a vindictive media, all because she anonymously told the truth when confronted?

She had to leave a job she loved because of rampant harassment, and years later, only when asked, provided an honest account of her working relationship with Thomas as being rife with inappropriate behavior that caused her to leave. She reported this anonymously, and yet was singled out, her name leaked. It was clear she never wanted to be called forward, especially in such a negative and public way.  Through the hearing, Anita remained unflappable and poised, but you can see how much the pervasive, graphic and probing questions weighed on her to vocalize repeatedly

But that was not the way she was treated, by a panel of white men who made it seem as though she had “come forward” with this information, and with questionable intent, treating her as if she were on trial, not Thomas. It is gut-wrenching to see them actually accuse her of being a “woman scorned”. This was all while colleagues, family, and friends of hers readily came forward to testify on behalf of her respectable character. Many of those who stood up for her even backed her claims with viable evidence – testifying that she had come to them in confidence and named the harassment as it was happening those 7 years ago. It makes you wonder, would this particular panel have treated her so horribly if she had been a white woman who had such clearly upstanding character?

It is amazing that wasn’t enough, but as we see, Clarence was able to dismiss the notion that a black man could be legitimately accused of harassment, even if this accusation was being made by another black person, the media ran with smearing Anita, and the legal system acted as though she had done something wrong in ways thick with undertones of racial stereotyping. Anita hill was at a crossroads of intersectionality that attacked her from multiple directions.

But what was worse was what happened after. Not only was Thomas’s nomination upheld, not only was he sworn into the Supreme Courts where he still sits, but powerful people had the nerve to actually retaliate against Hill for coming forward, trying to attack her job, and when unsuccessful, trying to attack the dean of her college and even the department she taught in altogether. This to me, is even more emblematic of the deep-rooted vitriol against speaking truth to power, she didn’t just get her name smeared in the courts and by the media, no, that wasn’t enough, they went after her afterward to send a message. It is such a testament to her strength that she has continued to speak out through the years.

I wonder how we as a society can so easily collectively forget how we treat women who come forward with harassment in the legal system, faulting them for not coming forward when they are harassed in the workplace, when we know that means running the risk of ruining their careers to name the harassment or press charges.

I wonder how many cases this precedent with Thomas wound up impacting, giving workplace harassment cases less power in the courts for less visible cases, and that leads me to wonder if any such prescient has actually been moved or impacted by the MeToo movement since 2016.

Melody Kology DB8

 I LOVE The Takeaway, and this episode laid out some ridiculous inequities of domestic work. This pandemic illuminated issues for so many that never pause to consider domestic workers and the inequities they already faced before the pandemic. Now it is brought into focus that this “invisible workforce” is undervalued, to the point where we expect these services at wages where domestic workers break their own backs, and then cannot afford to care for their own selves or families, let alone feel they are in the position to demand PPE and safe working conditions.

According to The Takeaway, $17,000 per year is the average annual wage for domestic workers. That number was my exact income as a domestic worker in New York City, coincidentally. Looking back, I’m not sure how I did it, but I know it was a horrible time in my life, and I was just taking care of myself. I didn’t have my own children to care for. I saw colleagues who did have children, who were leaving them at home either alone or with family/community groups providing informal childcare, so they could work watching wealthy children, not just ensuring safety but constant entertainment (a problem in itself!), shuttling them to-and-from fancy classes and exclusive, socio-economically segregated playdates.

As a domestic worker, I didn’t think “sick leave” was a real thing. I didn’t think “paid time off”, or even unpaid vacation time was a thing either. Reliable hours and pay were never the norms. I was stuck in a survival game where I didn’t have the time or resources to critically think about the fairness of it all, that consideration was, in-and-of-itself, a luxury, not a given.

Society often refers to this work as “help”, a demeaning way to further diminish this valuable work that privileged families rely on for their own survival, or so privileged women might have their own careers. But these workers are not doing this work for fun! It is WORK that is ESSENTIAL, the infrastructure of our community, and imperative to maintaining a successful complex economy.

Confronting the realities of our workforce can be maddening, especially when I consider that I finally made it out of that endless seeming cycle through the privileges I was born with enabling me to “fake it till I make it”, charming my way into privileged circles. I had to conform to their standards, culture, and conversations, and do my best to mask myself as being from a different socioeconomic class, which was draining and difficult, but doable.

Not everyone is afforded the combo of privilege, hard work, and sheer dumb luck that converged all at once, giving me a battering ram with which to smash my own misshapen windows and climb through the walls that had bound me. As I read in AAUW, “The Simple Truth About the Gender Pay Gap”, the wage gap is closing faster for white women than it is for women of color, to the extent that even with a degree many women of color barely feel a narrowing of the wage gap at all, where white women who eventually receive a degree will experience a shrinking of that gap.

I also found Kims, “Policies to End the Gender Wage Gap in the United States” to be highly informative, and had me “mhmm-ing” along with every point made. Despite typical conjecture from men on the subject (at least in my experience), this study was able to dispel some of the commonly used arguments that attempt to disprove any existing disparity in the gender wage gap by controlling for factors that might “explain them away”, mostly in relation to women “choosing” lower-wage and part-time work to maintain their ability to later raise a family.

I nearly broke my neck nodding along with the passage that explains why it’s important to equalize family-friendly policies, which of course are another example of the ways feminist labor fights for men’s equality too, in this case especially single fathers and m/m partnerships that choose to have children. Kim writes, “One must ensure that family-friendly policies do not reinforce the gendered division of labor, however (Bergmann 1997; Singley and Hynes 2005). Allowing part-time work only in low-paid female jobs, paid parental leave for women but not men (e.g. women receive disability payments for childbirth in some U.S. states), and higher pay for men ensures that women rather than men will care for families. Thus, part-time work should be available in high-paying fields, both parents should be required to take alternating periods of “use or lose” paid parental leave, and families should not forfeit the higher pay of fathers who take such leave (Singley and Hynes 2005).”

All families that are doing the incredibly taxing and undervalued labor of bringing children into this world and raising them deserve to make their own choices about the breakdown of that labor depending on their preferred family structure, it shouldn’t be assumed (like many experienced during the pandemic) that the woman/mother will be the parent that assumes these caretaking roles.

Other insightful points were made, one about pay secrecy stuck with me too. It’s always seemed remarkably blatant that this social taboo, and even workplace rules, surrounding talking about how much money you make is another tool of oppression at the end of the day. If it’s against company policy to share how much you make in comparison to your colleagues, how would you ever measure if there is pay discrimination happening in the first place? Abolishing these practices (which are often not legal but practiced anyways) would be immensely helpful in terms of the ability to organize, and even see oppression for what it is.

This week’s readings further expanded my awareness of the misleading distinctions (or lack thereof) between race, and how lumping different groups together in the way that we do now seems fundamentally skewed and racist. I learned from AAUW, “The Simple Truth About the Gender Pay Gap” that Asian women lumped all together will on the surface appear to have a far smaller gender pay gap disparity, but, if you separate Asian women into more regionally specific subgroups, you can see that only specific groups enjoy higher earning wages, while others will face extreme disparities. Surveys that ask about race typically seem reductive and seeped in white supremacy, the categories are so broad themselves and typically offer a single selection.

I also resonated with the point stressed that we need to focus more on state legislature than federal. This country is VAST, and while human rights are universal, many of the paths we take to equality will look different based on the size and locations of the communities we are in.

Melody Kology DB7

This week’s material tied in with a lot of what I’ve been learning in readings and research for my Human Health and Sexuality course on the ongoing social, philosophical, political and scientific debate regarding gender and trans rights.

Gender is complex, and research is being done all the time that helps us better understand how cultural gender norms and our biology intertwine to define aspects of our gender identity and expression. We are learning there is a much more accurate way of describing gender than binary norms, which is on a spectrum.   

In many ways there has been deliberate societal erasure of the natural state of the gender spectrum, which has been more readily recognized in different cultures for centuries, but concepts of social control have relied in some cases on an oversimplification of very narrow and binary gender roles that can exist in many forms on a scale, both in terms of the biological/hormonal structure of an individual, and either separately or in conjunction, the gender identity of the individual in terms of how they fit into these limiting binary terms of Male/Female that we are assigned at birth, and the roles and baggage that come with those expectations.

Our trans and non-binary siblings face so much difficulty in this world, where to exist is to defy this limited and oppressive view of gender, facing pushback from those afraid of parting from the social norms that they are used to, if not comfortable with. It is even more disheartening and gross coming from TERFs, because those unenlightened feminists fail to see outside of their own oppression to see that we are sisters/siblings with our transfems, and all trans folk too, who all suffer oppression from a paternalizing patriarchal binary structure. This discrimination against them is unacceptable, harmful, and unproductive too. When we could accept and talk about our differences and become better for our empathy towards one another, we see how we can work together to dismantle the systems that do us all harm. Especially when cis women hold relative power over trans people, it is abhorrent to further marginalize them rather than extending a hand, an ear, a voice.

Our trans sisters are much like real life sisters, you might not always see eye to eye about each others lived experience, but, we are here to hear and support each other and we have more in common than not. We might face different flavors of oppression, but the unique struggle of cis fems doesn’t have to be untold just because we uplift the oppression specific to our trans sisters. This could be a “yes and” conversation, much in the same way we have been discussing the importance of acknowledging difference in class and race within feminism. To give others who are traditionally silenced a voice doesn’t mean you need to silence yourself, it means you need to share the platform you’ve been hogging, and listen twice as much as you speak, but still speak.

As far as bathrooms and sports are concerned, if we can recognize the jury is still out on what the heck gender even is, can we also begin to rethink why we have sex separation in sports and bathrooms in the first place?

As far as sports are concerned, this scrutiny of trans athletes does more to shine a light on the tradition of scrutiny over women’s bodies as discussed by Chase Strangio in that illuminating podcast, and the fact that gender is not binary. It is on a spectrum which is impacted by many factors. It would be interesting to see sports shift to build some teams in more scientifically measured levels (kinda like wrestling has weight categories) than such a binary men/women divide in the future. After all, differences in hormones, weight and muscle mass can vary wildly within the gender binary, sports have so much more to do with physical structure, muscle mass and density, power generated, and other factors than strictly gender alone.

I think we can benefit from de-mystifying and de-segregating ourselves based solely on gender with more all-gender bathrooms, which I have used many of and liked. Yes, men can assault women in shared bathrooms, but men who will assault women in the bathroom tend not to care so much about the gendered sign on the door, I promise you that, and these men are not confined to bathrooms either. Sexual assault and how our society deals with that should remain a whole other conversation that exists about all spaces, not just bathrooms.

Moreover, trans persons can be and are harassed assaulted in bathrooms. We should be more worried about that very real and all too frequent reality. Most importantly, when you gotta go you gotta go, and it is a cruel and horrible abuse of human rights to deny anyone the right to use of a bathroom they feel safe to use. To say you need to look or dress a certain way to use a certain bathroom is ultimately ridiculous, and makes people feel like they can’t even participate in society at work or school when they have to worry about whether they can use the bathroom while being a human doing their thing in the world. It’s so harmful, and it needs to stop.

Melody Kology DB6

This video was shared in my creative writing class, Stacyann Chin makes the personal political in such a powerful and moving way. :

*Trigger Warning* this video does contain subject matter pertaining to sexual assault. This video might make you cry no matter what your experiences have been, but it might also make you feel less alone and empowered and just completely blown away.

I also made a playlist of some songs that I like; different artists, different moods and very different genres, these are some songs that help to empower me. Some are angry and loud, and some are soft but strong, some are totally doing their own unique thing, and some are classics, but they all have a message that resonates with me, I hope some can resonate with you too.

Big thank you to this lovely and supportive class, I appreciate you all so much. Thanks for a great semester so far!

Melody Kology DB5

These engaging and illuminating readings speak to racism in the feminist movement, false claims of sisterhood, and different types of oppression needing different examinations and solutions; which is not to fragment the greater movements against all human rights violations and forms of oppression but to acknowledge the complex hierarchy that even those oppressed individuals face within larger systems of oppression.

In How We Get Free, the Combahee River Collective raises problems of exclusion in second wave feminism, “both outside reactionary forces and racism and elitism within the movement itself have served to obscure our participation”. These movements were focused not just on the liberation of women from sexism, but moreover from economic oppression under capitalism as well, but also call for a further consideration of the theories of Karl Marx to be expanded to include these multi-faceted issues of oppression. The voices and intersecting concerns of black, working-class, and third-world feminists were not included in the second-wave feminist movement, and this reading delves into this exclusion.

They speak to the very specific characterization directed specifically to black women, and how this dehumanization requires an independent movement to specifically combat these stereotypes. They describe how the ways black women experience sex, class, race oppression is all used simultaneously against black women, and thus the response to this racism must be equally specific and multifaceted. They go on to describe this is not an attempt to divide themselves from their shared struggles with black men and white women, but to specify and combat the issues that are specific to them. It is incredibly important that we can acknowledge the differences as well as the similarities different groups face under the larger umbrella of issues of sex oppression, race oppression, economic oppression, or of oppression altogether.

They make clear that the patriarchy does not stem in their view from the biological differences of the sexes, but comes from our gendered social conditioning, which is to say it is not an excuse man can make that their natural state is that of a dominant, oppressive figure, and the roles men are taught can be unlearned just as the roles women are given for their gender can be examined and reversed.

The poem by Jo Carrillo beautifully and powerfully expresses these ideas of a falsely claimed sisterhood we read about in Module 2, where white radical feminists are responsible for adding additional hurt to the burdens feminist women of color already bear. White women tokenize women of color, and worse, treat these women that they claim to fight alongside as two-dimensional, failing to see the difference and advocate for true equality, white feminists add insult to injury by showing their “sisters” as smiling through their oppression, whistling while they work. They falsely claim sisterhood while parading the cultural garments and smiles and children of these women whose backs they stand upon, and call them their sisters in struggle while leaving a mess for them to clean up both literally and figuratively, while continuing to put their own needs in the movement first and behave according to the very hierarchies they claim to want to fight against. This hypocrisy is visualized in the poem when Jo speaks to white women being displeased to experience the full range of emotions and anger that women of color actually feel, in stark contrast to the objectified smiling photos they might hang to show “solidarity” with these women that they do not actually try to understand and empathize with and hear fully.

Then, Gloria Anzaldua takes us from present to future struggles, struggles of identity that come with the mixing of cultures as people of different races and cultures encourage our continued evolution. Anzaldua speaks to envisioning what it will look like to create new culture, not just combat oppressive cultures or fight inwardly with being pulled culturally in multiple directions. This is difficult work, both personal and “of the soul” and larger, within entire cultures. It requires an attitude of tolerance for contradictions and ambiguity. It spoke not the immense pain, much like that of Plato’s Cave, which one experiences as one becomes enlightened and breaks down barriers.

“this step is a conscious rupture with all oppressive traditions of all culture and religion”.

This requires so much work, of examining who we are and why we are and what has been shaped (everything) by our environments and upbringings and cultures. The more you ask the more you learn, and the more pain you experience, seeing these harmful systems, recognizing yourself as an oppressor, as oppressed, reconciling both roles, constantly failing at being a more perfect version of yourself, constantly growing and feeling the growing pains.

Anzualdua speaks of the exhaustion white women subjugate Chicana women to as oppressors themselves, that many Chicanas and women of color are justly sick and tired of the emotional labor white women place in forcing women they otherize to then explain themselves, explain back to the white women their own role as oppressors. Although white women are oppressors, they are often also victims to the whitewashed history they are taught, but this does not excuse them from accountability for their role as oppressors, nor for the additional burden places on women of color to explain how inclusivity works. Indeed, there is still need for inclusivity, but as it stands it is on white women to do work to bridge these gaps, instead of walking on the backs of our sisters and then stealing the fruits of their labor, and only after we do this work can we reach true sisterhood.

Andualda speaks to the importance of knowing one’s history, to see the individual oppression a group faces, but then to tie them together in their commonalities to see that all oppressed people share some characteristics of shame and vulnerability, and then speaks to overcoming this shame and accepting vulnerability as a strength that binds and lifts, that vices voice to expressing those hurts and wrongs so that they might be corrected. She describes “the Chicana way”; “here we are weaponless with open arms, with only our magic”, here to reclaim essential identity, sense of purpose, and even greater, one’s spiritual identity.

Melody Kology DB4

This week’s reading shared themes that focused on women’s labor, and the ways in which men typically undervalue and evade this important work.

They examine some men’s reactions, those who go so far as to logically recognize it is unfair not to share their burden of the “women’s” work, and how when these men are faced with the true division of this labor, they display mental gymnastics and manipulative snippets like the ones so well documented by Pat Mainardi in The Politics of Housework.

In my own experience, often well intended men who like to claim the title of feminist start to find themselves experiencing difficulty when faced with the realities of what sharing household burdens actually looks like, and we are about 40 years from when these pieces were written.

Minimizing the unrewarded labor of women aids in viewing women as accessories in men’s life, putting women in the position of playing a supporting role at best to a man’s personal narrative. And still with this support, a man admitting he only reached great heights because he has been standing on the backs of others is painful, and too inconvenient. As Brady brilliantly puts it, who wouldn’t want a wife?! Sounds like a dream right now, while I’m in school.  

 But it’s a pre-packaged patriarchal lie for men too, this idea of “the wife” as a caretaker, as Steinem explains. Gloria Steinem speaks to the harm this does to men and boys this week in her Washington Post piece, exemplifying the ways that these norms are also harmful to them. She also speaks to more privileged feminism, that is might be easier to claim we are equals from a place of privilege, “The chains may be made of mink and wall-to-wall carpeting, but they are still chains.”. This made me think of a larger desire in many humans to abdicate their will entirely and embrace their role while refusing to admit they are in an oppressed role.  

I felt this overarching theme that the Redstocking Manifesto raises, that these issues of the patriarchy are made to seem like “a matter of interplay between two unique personalities, but, in reality, each relationship is a class relationship, and the conflicts between individual men and women are political conflicts that can only be solved collectively” This goes back to these concepts of defining womanhood as an oppressed class, and recognizing the systemic nature of these problems. It is like the birdcage analogy Frye used in previous week’s writings.

Melody Kology DB3

  1. What do you see as the relationship between women’s movements and abolitionist movements?

Grimke, Stanton and Anthony directly quote the same portion of the constitution; We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Anthony speaks of an encounter with a senator who wrote arguments for the abolitionist movement, “And this principle every republican said amen, when applied to black men by Senator Sumner in his great speeches for “Equal rights to all,” from 1865 to 1869; and when, in 1871, I asked the Senator to declare the power of the United States Constitution to protect women in their right to vote, as he had done for black men, he handed me a copy of all his speeches during that reconstruction period, and said, Miss Anthony, put sex where I have “race or color,” and you have here the best and strongest argument I can make for woman.”

Both Pieces by Stanton and Anthony take arguments that were used in legal battles for abolitionism and used them so to apply to women, and made arguments against taxations without representation, being bound to laws and the social contract of a society that does not, in turn, recognize you as a full person, but of the property of another. Stanton expresses that women have been “fraudulently deprived of their most sacred rights, we insist that they have immediate admission to all the rights and privileges which belong to them as citizens of the United States.”

Grimke, in her much shorter piece, illuded to some of these themes. In Well’s piece, she examines the visible outpouring of rage felt once black men had gained the right to vote, and the many repercussions taking the form of voter suppression and barbaric violence, some of which carry on to this day, which highlights the deliberate intent of some to control the bodies and freedoms of others and use them as commodities for their personal and economic gain. Wells writes, “By an amendment to the Constitution the Negro was given the right of franchise, and, theoretically at least, his ballot became his invaluable emblem of citizenship. In a government “of the people, for the people, and by the
people,” the Negro’s vote became an important factor in all matters of state and national politics. But this did not last long. The southern white man would not consider that the Negro had any right which a white man was bound to respect, and the idea of a republican form of government in the southern states grew into general contempt. It was maintained that “This is a white man’s government,” and regardless of numbers the white man should rule.”. This struck a note of similarity to the way Anthony describes the commodification of women by men that, for all intents and purposes, owned their daughters and wives.