On Identity and Masculinity:

Water’s article on ethnic/immigrant identification was everything short of eye-opening or mind-blowing. It was interesting and easy to read, but I didn’t feel like I really learned anything by it. It seemed like it was just spewing common sense. If identifying as a an immigrant or as an American benefited an individual, they identified appropriately. The benefits of identifying covered getting a good career to just getting along in school. I will say that I found it interesting that Waters explains how much parents strictly regulate their daughters’ lives, because (and Waters admits this by the end), the boys have it much harder, both in employment and social events.

As teachers, it seems important to remain sensitive to social pressures to conform. There’s a gazillion (I rounded up) posters on being an individual in my school, but you never see the poster discussing the benefits of “fitting” into an identity. While I think it’s important to convey the importance of being an individual, and not doing something or behaving in some way to fit a category or group, I recognize that beyond the pressures of “fitting in” there are also benefits. I am unsure of how to use this to my students’ advantages, though.

Moving on, I found Kimmel’s piece on masculinity very interesting. I felt it really tied in with the Gilligan reading, in regards towards males creating ourselves as the complement, or antithesis of females, in particular, of our mothers. I also found it interesting how the history of American masculinity presents itself as not just the opposite of “sissy’s,” but also of different races given the time period. I was taken aback by Italians and Irish not being considered “manly,” however, that could be because my scope of masculinity has been narrowed down to the opposite of femininity. Qualities that I think partially represent a decent human being (modesty, cleanliness, politeness, and neatness), were looked on as of feminine demand, and therefore, not masculine. Not only must we be set apart from females, any and all valid perspectives of and demands on our character must come from the manliest of manly men (no girls allowed). The Waters article also touches on how the inability to be like your group (race, ethnicity, etc) resulted in an un-masculine view: being perceived as homosexual. To combat all of this, Kimmel proposes that the very idea of masculinity is “homosocial,” which, shockingly, looks a lot like the word “homosexual.” We are now eliminating certain types of men from being “masculine.” Kimmel goes further to show all of the groups that have been used as the counterpoint for masculinity, many of which make up a great portion of the men in the United States (I may have failed to say that the views presented above tend to reflect a US masculinity, not a global masculinity). So... 1% of men get 80% of the masculinity. I am the 99%.

On a disturbing note, Kimmel works through the Freudian concept of Oedipal growth, mentioning how the son eventually sees himself as a continuation of masculine tradition by identifying himself in terms of his father. That in itself is not disturbing, but I am left wondering about the children of abusive, negligent, or inconsistent parents. We know that violence begets violence, and abused children learn the nature of abuse, and eventually execute it. What about negligent parents, or the child who moves his way through a foster system, having multiple parents. Do they identify with what little experience they have with the father, or are they given some divine gift to define themselves on their own terms?

In brief, I think it is important for adults, especially public figures like teachers, to represent the positive characteristics of humanity, to be examples of what we’d want for our students, children, and neighbors’ children to identify as. More-so, Kimmel places a large burden on men’s shoulders: we will always look for approval of our masculinity from other men. To that point, we (men) need to be (and show that we are) proud of who are, as we are, and are not looking for approval on our character (beyond internal approval, of course). The terms that define masculinity have changed, and are most likely going to change again. As teachers, it is our duty to society to instill the positive kind of thinking in our students that will prevent masculinity from being a way of denying a culture or walk of life. As a male teacher, it is equally pertinent that we do not allow masculinity to be an excuse for a student to be a bully, or for another student to feel inadequate. We must be pillars of what masculinity should (and could!) be.

On Gender:

Before I even began reading the book, I felt that the premise is both outdated, and unfair. We’re living in a world where, according to a friend, who is a lesbian, “Gender is a social construct.” Despite the advances in science and all things exact and proven, elements as huge as “what makes a boy a boy and a girl a girl” are still determined by the individual, and there is no equation to predict how an individual will feel, or how they will identify. The truth of the matter is that we have so many different ways of identifying (straight male, transgender female, etc) that the gray area is, by far, too expansive to cover with labels of male and female.That being said, I’m along for the ride that the book is offering. I understand that you are either born with a penis, or a vagina, or both, or neither (I have no evidence to back up the latter), and that genetics have passed on to you a predetermined sex, which can have an affect on how you interact with your environment.

The book immediately places the blame (or credit) on the mother for the psychological differences between boys and girls, as girls are able to identify as a continuation of a mother-daughter lineage steeped in femininity, and boys, seeing themselves as separate from this heritage, are left to complement their sisterly counterparts by being masculine and manly and other macho words.

Regarding abortion, I liked how the arguments for and against come down to selfishness/selflessness or responsibility (to others or self). While I don’t feel adequate enough (not my body, not my call) to comment on the topic of abortion, I will say that I agree that the choice is not one easily made. I liked how the interview excerpts represented a wider variety of women considering/that have considered abortion, than the typical floozy or rape victim, in context of the arguments for and against abortion. The women presented had so many other conflicts to be concerned with than just ending or saving a life (one had a relationship that would end without an abortion). Considering the rest of the book, I suppose that it is safe to say that the focus on women does allow the author to present widely varied sample, from different walks of life, and possessing different perspectives. However, it is also safe to say that the perspectives presented do not speak for the entire female community.

I also took note of the children’s responses to hypothetical situations. Where the males were focused on law and justice, the females were more concerned with interpersonal relationships. This divergence in logical reasoning reminded me of my social psychology class when I was an undergrad. The professor was describing differences between men and women:

1. Women are more likely to trust someone.

1A. Men are more likely to discover/sense a liar.

2. Men communicate to report.

2A. Women communicate to build rapport.

These guidelines, I believe, are “supported” by Gilligan’s research. Do I think they are accurate? Nope. Do I think it’s a bit of a stretch? You bet.

Gilligan is able to “justify” these, though, in the sense that her analyses on interview subjects (particularly the interviews with the 27-year olds in the final chapter, where they are asked to describe themselves) tends to reflect the stolid, justified male, and the caring, soft woman. I find it tough to trust her analyses, because it seems as though she is looking for the response to carry the meaning that would fit her idea of the “female way of thinking” versus the “male way of thinking.” I feel if a man and woman were (separately) walking down the street holding holding ice cream cones, Gilligan would assume it typical of the man to have that, because the ice cream is cold, and the cone is hard; it would be equally assumed that it is typical of women to eat sweet things, and that the cone is in place of a wasteful styrofoam bowl, making her meal eco-friendly. In short, I believe that the differences between men and women is loosely supported from the data presented, although Gilligan’s pursuit in defense of her opinion causes some “facts” to be more apparent than others. I think this mostly stems from trying to find opposing factors in male and female psychology, again trying to cover the gigantic gray area in a simplistic manner.

On Linguisms of all sorts:

This week’s reading on ELL students has helped shine more light on the imperfect business that we, as teachers, have chosen to pursue. We’ve learned that bilingual students have higher cognitive abilities, and we still put off foreign languages until the early teenage years. I will say that I liked (what’s not to like, really?) the Two-Way Bilingual Education model where ELL’s and native English speakers are put together to further each individual’s ability in the other’s native language (as well as other benefits). If this is the most effective practice for improving the education for ALL students, why isn’t it a system being utilized (or if it is, WHERE?!)? There needs to be a jump somewhere, otherwise students we have now will be fighting the same battle years from now.
It was mentioned how important it is to refer to students (or anybody) by their actual names, not their names as they would be in English. When I worked at a movie theatre, it used to get on my nerves (to no extent!) when new employees would tell me to call them by the English version of their names. If someone was shouting for Juan, or Gianni, I wouldn’t look twice. My name is Jon. In Spanish, it’s Jon. In Italian, it’s Jon. As far as I’m concerned, your name is your name, regardless of the language being spoken.
Moving on, the case studies present advice for teachers, and I found that both present the idea of acknowledgement and allowance of the student’s background. Manuel Gomes wanted teachers to know their students before they attempted to influence them. (Bode, p. 243) While we see the students a lot, we only see them maybe eight out of the twenty four hours of a day. We have to acknowledge that there is a life unraveling outside of school. If we hope to get through to them, we need to go that extra mile to understand them. Twice a week (it could be much more) in our classroom, we ask the students about their plans for the weekend, their grievances for the day, how yesterday was. In a classroom with students who may not be coming from the best homes, it is a comfort to know that someone wants to know how their day went, or what their interests are, or who they’re hanging out with. I will admit, that it’s not a lot, but for a great amount of students (I can safely assume for ELL’s as well), it’s one more conversation than what they would have had.
Alicia Montejo suggests that ELL’s have time to speak their native language. (Bode, p. 249) This could be an opportunity for ELL’s to maintain a sense of self, while offering the opportunity of English speakers to enhance their knowledge of another language. I don’t see a room of only Spanish-speakers speaking Spanish, but a crowd of mixed speakers (Spanish and English and other?) where the focus can shift. As we’ve learned, this two-way bilingual education doesn’t just support linguistic achievements, but “academic achievement, and positive cross-cultural attitudes and behaviors” (Bode, p. 235) as well.
I believe that an after-school program would be a great way for students to practice and put to use their bilingual skills. Imagine: A drama club has actors reciting Shakespeare in Korean. A football team calls plays in German. An art club member asks someone to pass the red paint in Urdu. A dance is thrown in a style similar to what one would find in Greece or Italy. It would be a stress-free (well, grade-free) environment that would promote bilingualism, and give the students a platform to try out their new tongues. From there, they may try it at home, or maybe not. All the same, when it comes to culture and language, school must serve as a sanctuary, not a graveyard.

On Immigration:

The Suárez-Orozco team presents a well-balanced view on immigration. Immigration is a huge buzz-word in politics and dinner tables. Some are vehemently against it, or are for strictly and harshly controlling it. They believe that immigrants are illegally living in the U.S., and are responsible for the decline (socially and economically) of our nation. The Suárez-Orozco’s battle these negative stigmas not by glorifying immigration, but representing it honestly. For the other 150 pages of research and insight, they share with us the plights that the families, particularly the children, must endure when immigration is a factor in their lives.
I am thankful for the representation of immigrants from many different countries (and to many different countries), as well as the many modes they employ to accomplish this feat. Too often, immigration is looked at as the illegal act of Mexicans sneaking across, over, around and under the southern border. Immigration is almost a four-letter word in some circles. It was refreshing to read that immigration today consists of so much more than getting past a guard tower. It is the year 2012, and these characterizations of the immigrant’s journey are barely scratching the surface of what is a global phenomenon that employs the resources of its time.
Even still, the immigrant’s story is no where near over when they “cross the border.” Once they’re in their new location, an onslaught of trials and difficulties are waiting for them. I found the situations regarding reunification to be the most compelling. I haven’t had much experience regarding the process by which one does immigrate, but I’ve always assumed that when a family’s goal was to immigrate, they did it all together. While I recognize that assuredly some must deviate from this, and depart separately, I didn’t realize this to be the norm. In different forms of (mostly fictitious) media, we see the character of the immigrant worker sending money to the family left behind; rarely do we see him/her trying to lay down a means for the family to reunite in the new country.

More so, while time spent away from family members must be stressful and taxing, it seems as the the trials are hardly over once the family has reunified. The struggle to reestablish (or initially establish) a rhythm of authority, behavior, and other protocols seems overwhelming to me. I imagine that foster children face the same adversity in adjusting to a new household. Once the family dynamic is recovered, the battle becomes maintaining it. The children begin to adopt the culture of their new home, their new school, their new neighborhood, and it typically does not fit with the values of their family’s culture. Everyone (immigrants and natives) and wants to preserve their culture, and immigration threatens that. However, as new values, styles, and views are introduced, a new culture (a stronger, better culture, in my opinion) is born.

In the schools, we have the opportunity to expose not just our culture(s) to an immigrant, but also theirs to our students and from there, our communities. Last year, a student at my school had moved to Tewksbury from China. She spoke hardly any English, and that set up a huge barrier between her and the faculty, as well as other students. However, it was also an amazing vehicle for her to make friends, as a group of outgoing and kind girls sought her out, and made her eat lunch with them and checked in on her between classes. Together, they joined an after-school club that promotes decent character in middle and high school students. Her English is much better now, much in part to her cohorts. More importantly, however, do to her friends and supporters, this quiet, shy, reserved girl from China has found her place in Tewksbury, Massachusetts

The teachers had taken some steps to help her adjust to her new settings. Under frequently used terms like homework, essay, and book, they would have 作業, 文章, and 書 to help her understand the teacher’s request. The teachers each carried a sheet of other terms that might be useful, including both characterization and pronunciation. Eventually, I witnessed the new student writing 作業 on the board, on top of the students’ weekly assignments.

A trying (and strangely rewarding) experience for me was when I had to proctor a math test for her. The test contained a lot of word problems, and it didn’t matter how slowly or clearly I read them, the girl did not know English and that test was not going to show off her abilities to do math. Per her teacher’s instruction, I modeled how to setup some of the problems on the board. She not only understood what to do, and how to interpret the word problems, but in some cases was actually feeding me the information on the board before I could write it. What could have been a positively miserable experience took a turn for the better, and allowed the student to have some confidence in her abilities and excel.

I expect that more often than not, our classes’ ethnic diversities won’t have the same language barrier presented above, but rather a cultural barrier. Geneva Gay presents some teaching strategies to promote a multicultural education. I particularly took a shine to her suggestion of employing ethnobibliotheraphy. As a prospective English teacher, this idea really appealed to me, in terms of breaking away from the “Big Book of Everyone Reads the Same Stories.” It would be interesting to have a class read from a variety of ethnic perspectives to see how we each relate to familiar texts, and equally as important, how we’d relate to the unfamiliar. I’d love to be able to present the literatures of ethnicities represented within my class, coupled with ethnicities that we may only encounter through the news or other media. I want my students to experience topics that are vital to both their individual cultures, and the culture of their collective society.