This is a very rough draft…just a start to paper 2.
I am following in bell hooks footsteps and making a playful dialogue about feminist pedagogy. This dialogue takes place between myself, Rene, and several of the articles read in this section. I will find essential questions within the articles and then respond to them within my own voice. I want to be able to speak about what I find important and what I feel may be lacking within these articles. I agree with bell hooks and feel that by doing a fun dialogue like such will allow me an opportunity to examine the articles closer then I would be able to in a traditional essay. I also feel this will allow me the freedom to be able to critique the articles in a unique fashion.
Susan C. Jarratt: From my view feminist pedagogy does not necessarily entail an overt discussion of feminism as a politics or movement, although some teachers do include such discussions in their class. Feminist pedagogy can be described as a practice, but defining this practice is vexing because of feminists' desire not to reinscribe an orthodoxy, disciplining those who fail to subscribe. We can note that the basic practices of feminist pedagogy are ones it shares with the pedagogical innovations of the process revolution in writing instruction: the decentering or sharing of authority, the recognition of students as sources of knowledge, a focus on processes (of writing and teaching) over products. However, what makes feminist pedagogy distinctive is its investment in a view of contemporary society as sexist and patriarchal, and of the complicity of reading, writing, and teaching in those conditions (115).
Rene: Ms. Jarratt, I love the way you discuss what makes feminist pedagogy distinctive. I whole heartedly agree that feminist pedagogy is very invested in the view of contemporary society as sexist and patriarchal, plus the complicity of reading, writing, and teaching in these conditions. From personal perspectives it is very difficult being a female student in writing classes because society still holds a strong view of being patriarchal and very sexist language usage within reading materials. To take a further look at this idea and maybe get a deeper understanding we will discuss this idea with Elizabeth Flynn and her writing of Composing as a Woman."
Elizabeth Flynn: Feminist research and theory emphasize that males and females differ in their developmental processes and in their interactions with others. They emphasize that these differences are a result of an imbalance in the social order, of the dominance of men over women, arguing men have chronicled our historical narratives and defined our fields (field of composition) of inquiry. Women's perspectives have been suppressed, silenced, marginalized, written out of what counts as authoritative knowledge (245).
Rene: Ms. Flynn, after hearing what you have to say about feminist research and theory I see how it builds on what Susan C. Jarratt feels as the distinction for feminist pedagogy. From this if I was to develop my own definition I would combine the two of you and add more. One possibility would be feminist pedagogy is about embracing differences in developmental processes and interactions of men and women with others, looking at how the societal order is imbalanced because of the patriarchal view and use of sexist language in different writings, and finding ways to balance what was historically men chronicling narratives to define the field of composition studies. This definition can go further and include the fact that women have been suppressed, silenced, and marginalized, but with this knowledge feminist pedagogy can now work with composition studies to find ways to allow women to be heard with their voice and not having to be held to the patriarchal voice found in so many writings, especially scholarly works.
However, Eileen E. Schell needs to be brought into the discussion with her article, The Feminization of Composition: Questioning the Metaphors that Bind Women Teachers.
Eileen E. Schell: "Feminization" has a double-edged meaning for women in composition, simultaneously signifying their presence as part-timers, adjuncts, while also signifying their absence in positions of power and influence. Yet "feminization" does not necessarily correspond with a move toward feminist positions. Instead, it defines the work of women composition teachers as both literally "female" and "feminized" in the pejorative sense (552).
Rene: So looking at the idea of the definition I created for feminist pedagogy after talking with Ms. Jarratt and Ms. Flynn almost seems to be thrown out the window with what you just said, Ms. Schell. After reading this small part of the article, I feel that people, especially women should be questioning why there is an absence of a woman presence in power. Granted many universities are not as lucky as Texas Wesleyan University whose English department is comprised mostly of women professors, but as was voiced in a discussion recently over your article, do women not keep themselves in these lower positions. Since the majority of women teaching composition courses are part-timers or adjuncts, it is because of the scheduling that they chose to teach these courses. For there to be a change in the dynamics discussed in your article, more women need to choose to not allow themselves to be put in a place that is a never ending cycle so to speak. If women refused to teach these courses, then what is left to teach them? Men. Women have made great strides in changing how they are looked within academia, but at the same time they continue to hold themselves within the tightly bound world of being without power.
No comments:
Post a Comment