Tải bản đầy đủ - 0 (trang)
2 Challenges and Opportunities in Discussing Gender Inequity

2 Challenges and Opportunities in Discussing Gender Inequity

Tải bản đầy đủ - 0trang


Gender Bending in the Classroom: Teaching Gender Inequity Without Reifying…


people with unwanted pregnancies feel welcome to access their services. This

challenge is deeply related to the struggle that results from a cultural and academic

focus on dichotomous gender categories. Such challenges for organizations and that

daily pain experienced by genderqueer can be avoided with more consistent resistance to enforcing gender dichotomies.

The question then is: how do we consistently challenge gender dichotomies

when research persistently reifies the idea that men and women are meaningfully

different? First, we need to continue our efforts to teach the spectral and complex

nature of gender and sex, as discussed by Sumner McRae, and Tre Wentling, in this

volume. Secondly, we need to find and use better research on gender and gender

inequity in our classrooms. While quantitative data is often limited in its ability to

capture the spectrums of either sexuality or gender identity, there are quantitative

studies that are more inclusive than others. For example, the Rainbow Health

Initiative, a nonprofit in the Twin Cities, has an annual survey they conduct on

LGBTQA Health in Minnesota (Flunker et al. 2014). This project surveys nearly

2000 local residents and includes a variety of options for sexual orientation and

gender identity. While this is just one local example, there are dozens of other community groups throughout the country conducting similar research. Finally, there

are some large data sets that include a greater number of options for a respondent’s

sexuality, including the General Social Survey and a number of smaller, more local

projects. While these sets don’t completely resolve the challenge of categorical

variables, coupled with rich qualitative data, they can provide more accurate information distribution in the classroom.

As mentioned, one important tactic we need to subvert the traditional gender

paradigm is to provide students with better data. However, given our socio-cultural

histories, there is not always data present that queers these gender binaries. We are

then left with a different challenge: do we present limited data that reinforces false

dichotomies and heteronormativity, or do we omit a potentially important area to

analyze our patriarchal society? When such situations arise, we must present the

limited data we have but also acknowledge its confines. It isn’t that we can’t talk

about gender inequity: we simply need to recognize and name what we are seeing.

In short, we need to be accurate about society and the expression of gender as it

truly operates.

In this process we need to resist slipping back into the seminal focus of men, on

the one hand, and women on the other. This can be particularly difficult when discussing topics such as domestic violence in which women are primarily victims

vis-à-vis male partners. Approaching the study of gender with a queer lens doesn’t

mean that we should minimize the frequency or magnitude of male violence against

women, it means that we should also explore the similarities and differences that

produce violence in these relationships as well as those with other gender dynamics.

Thus, it is essential that we also explore and examine domestic violence between

same sex partners, in genderqueer relationships, and situations in which men are

victims at the hands of female partners. Such a tactic helps us better understand the

root causes of violence and the socio-cultural forces at play in situations of domestic




K. Haltinner

Constraints of Language

A second and related challenge is the constraints of our culturally rooted language.

The most obvious examples are gendered terms we use (freshman, mailman, etc.)

and the ways that we demean women by calling them girls (while we call men

guys). Language is constrained by the socio-political-cultural history from which it

arises. Said differently, language and culture are mutually influential and wholly

connected (Jiang 2000). It is through language that culture is expressed (Kim 2003).

One of the most challenging ways in which cultural hegemony is brought into

our classrooms is the use of the word “normal”. For example, this spring I attended

a support group for allies of queer individuals. The organization was hosting a panel

of people telling their experiences of becoming more supportive of queer people in

their lives. Though incredibly well-meaning, one member of the panel kept distinguishing between gay or transgender people and “normal” people. The language of

normal insinuates that there is something deviant or wrong with not following traditional scripts of gender or sexuality. The language of “normality” or “regularity”

is highly dangerous to the wellbeing of queer and transgendered people in our society and to creating the society in which we seek. Furthermore, this language is also

historically and culturally inaccurate as heterosexual monogamy has not (and many

argue that rates of infidelity and divorce demonstrate it still is not) been the global

social norm. (For eye-opening and accessible texts on this history, see Ryan and

Jetha 2010; Coontz 1993; Coontz 2006).

A second example of how language is tied to cultural norms and power comes

from a recent class I had in which there was a transgender student, whom I will call

Jo. A number of this students’ peers had attended high school with Jo where they

had previously used a male name, which I will label James. In my class, the students

with whom Jo had attended high school repeatedly called them James, despite

requests to use Jo, and employed this name even when it was unnecessary to use any

name at all. It was only by talking about power and language that students began to

understand how hurtful their actions were and how, in doing so, they were stealing

the right for Jo to define themself.

When learning about language students often respond with a critique of people

“being too PC” or the difficulty they have with keeping track of politically correct

language. It is important, when dealing with such conversations, to consider the

goals of those who advocate for politically correct language. Namely, cultural

change. People who advocate for evolving language are seeking to not only change

the way we speak about certain topics, but also the ways we socially engage with

them (Fairclough 2003). Similarly, those who advocate against such change are

claiming allegiance to an earlier, perhaps not as culturally enlightened, era. The way

we speak, the language we use, shapes our cultural understandings of the events and

people we discuss. Words are not innocuous, but have great influence in our sociocultural discourse, our ideologies – the way we see and understand society.

Language is not neutral and our job as instructors is to help students recognize the

power in the words they use and to learn a new, inclusive, and power-equalizing



Gender Bending in the Classroom: Teaching Gender Inequity Without Reifying…




All of this is deeply tied to hegemonic notions of gender and sexuality in society.

Students enter our classes unable to see the taken-for-granted assumptions about

gender roles; the relationship between gender, sex, and sexuality; and other related

ideas. Because these notions are so deeply rooted in our patriarchal and heteronormative culture, students are oblivious to their presence in their own life.

One of the most popular examples that I use in class to illustrate this is the recent

news scandal involving football player Ray Rice. Rice was caught on video punching his then-fiancé Janay Palmer. News headlines sprouted across the country asking “Why doesn’t she leave?”, “Why does she stay?” and “Wake up Janay!”. Few

posed questions of Rice such as “Why does he hit?” and, as a result, the public

discourse surrounding domestic violence remained in the all-to-common place of

victim blaming. In class, this example demonstrates to students the way that our

social ideas about gender can cause us to make erroneous assumptions and ask limited questions of social phenomenon. Following this realization, students can ask

better questions such as: why do people commit violence against their partners?

How common is domestic violence? Who is likely to commit violence and why?

How can domestic violence be curbed? How is domestic violence related to other

forms of violence in our society? How does patriarchy factor into domestic


It is important to have a discussion about hegemony early in the semester in all

social science classes and to expect students to interrogate their taken-for-granted

beliefs at all times. To that end I use an assignment in my courses that I call the

Single Story Paper (see assignment handout and grading rubric in Appendix A).

Inspired by an amazing TED talk by Nigerian author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie

(2009). In this talk Adichie presents numerous examples of, what she calls, “the

danger of the single story” – the taken-for-granted assumptions and stereotypes constructed by people with social and political power at the expense of those who have

been historically marginalized.

This assignment asks students to first identify and describe a taken-for-granted

belief they see in society (or, ideally, hold themselves). They are then expected to

do research and to explore the origins of the single story. What was the social context in which it arose? Who benefits from the single story? How does the single

story expose the operation of power and privilege in society? After exploring these

questions, students are asked to start the story earlier. What happens when we

explore the socially dominant belief that women are innately wired for childraising?

What is uncovered when we look at the history of childrearing and crosscultural

norms of childcare and recognize that such tasks have not universally been

“women’s work”? How does exploring the history of the story reflect who benefits

most from these stories, how it limits social change, and hurts families?

Following an awareness of the single story and the way it operates in society, the

next step is for students to listen to alternative stories. What are people most affected

by the single story saying? What are the subaltern narratives? Using the same


K. Haltinner

example: what do we learn from men who caregive and from women who work?

How does the narrative change when we listen to the experiences of those on the

margins or whom are genderqueer? Through this process, students are asked to

develop tools for challenging the single story they have analyzed in their daily lives.

This activity, and discussing hegemony regularly, helps students start to see the

ways in which society makes certain possibilities invisible. It empowers students to

see beyond the limits of our culture and to question elements of their daily lives.

Two of my students recently talked to me about how important this activity was for

them. Having taken my course and written these papers the previous semester, they

returned to share with me how much seeing and challenging the edges of hegemonic

ideologies has changed their lives – in both difficult and important ways.

Only by shining a light into the corners made invisible by societal norms can we

begin to talk about gender and sexuality in a way that challenges patriarchy and

heteronormativity without simultaneously reproducing and reinforcing their power.


Queer Everything

It is overwhelming to consider all of the ways that we have been conditioned by our

culture, and all of the ways our own beliefs are rooted in erroneous cultural assumptions. Yet, it is also part of the joy of teaching students to think critically in this way:

not a week goes by that I do not learn, from conversations in class, of additional

ways in which I am blinded by social discourses.

The key to teaching students to see through hegemonic discourses is to empower

them to “queer everything”. As mentioned, we need to use better data to teach about

inequality, we need to pay more attention to the cultural limitations of our language,

and to see through hegemonic norms.

We fail as instructors when we remain uncritical and trapped in our own cultural

lenses. In the words of Judith Butler (1990): “To operate within the matrix of power

is not the same as to replicate uncritically relations of domination.” In other words,

we are all products of our culture, but our socio-historical position need not limit

our ability to explore the boundaries and challenge damaging social discourses.

Queer everything!


Adichi, C. N. (2009). The danger of a single story. http://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_

adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story/transcript?language=en. Accessed 7 May 2015.

Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble. New York: Routledge.

Coontz, S. (1993). The way we never were: American families and the nostalgia trap. New York:

Basic Books.

Coontz, S. (2006). Marriage, a history: How love conquered marriage. New York: Penguin.

Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing discourse. New York: Taylor and Francis.


Gender Bending in the Classroom: Teaching Gender Inequity Without Reifying…


Flunker, D., Nezhad, S., & Salisbury, J. (2014). Voices of health: A survey of LGBTQ health in

Minnesota. Rainbow Health Initiative. http://www.rainbowhealth.org/files/4714/2419/5548/

2014_Voices_of_Health_Data_Release_Report.pdf. Accessed 14 June 2015.

Halberstam, J. (2013). Gaga feminism. Boston: Beacon.

Jiang, W. (2000). The relationship between culture and language. ELT Journal, 54(5), 328–334.

Kim, L. S. (2003). Exploring the relationship between language, culture, and identity. GEMA

Online Journal of Language Studies., 3(2), 1675–8021.

Pollitt, K. (2015). Who has abortions? The Nation. http://www.thenation.com/article/who-hasabortions/. Accessed 15 July 2015.

Ryan, C., & Jetha, C. (2010). Sex at dawn. New York: HarperCollins.

Chapter 6

Make Us Whole!: Deconstructing Gender

Narratives to Build Solidarity

Annie D. Jollymore

Patriarchy may dehumanize men, but the costs of masculinity are linked to men’s power.

(Messner 1998, p. 256)

In 2010, Paul Elam declared October “Bash a Violent Bitch Month” in response

to what he described as “the entire domestic violence industry masturbating to a

frenzy of trumped up stats and sadistically titillating lies” (Elam 2010). According

to him, women are bullies who exert power over men with an impunity that should

be violently stopped. Elam is a men’s rights activist and public figure whose ideas

represent the epitome of misogyny. He is not representative of all men, nor even of

all men involved in the men’s rights movement. However, his ideas have gained

purchase with some men and share something in common with a number of more

mainstream gender narratives: they turn patriarchy on its head, declaring women to

be the beneficiaries of unjust levels of social power. While more moderate men’s

rights activists distance themselves from the violence of Elam’s ideas, they still

embrace the concept that men are now (or have always been) the primary victims of

gender discrimination. Though this inversion of patriarchy does not accurately

describe current gender relations, such ideas appeal to many men who feel trapped

and frustrated by the demands patriarchy places on them; demands that have become

increasingly difficult to meet in large part because of the massive economic changes

over the past 40–50 years (Kimmel 2013). Addressing these kinds of gender narratives when teaching is a necessary part of challenging common sense knowledge.

Having students decouple such narratives from the subjective experiences they

interpret can be useful both for engaging male students in learning about the sociology of gender, and for helping both male and female students understand the ideological underpinnings of narratives in general.

A.D. Jollymore (*)

Department of Sociology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

e-mail: anniejollymore@gmail.com

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

K. Haltinner, R. Pilgeram (eds.), Teaching Gender and Sex

in Contemporary America, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-30364-2_6




A.D. Jollymore

Perniciously Popular Gender Narratives

Gender scholars and feminist activists have noted a continuing backlash against

feminism (Chamallas 2011; Faludi 1991; Valdivia 2010), and observed that it is

commonly believed that the gender revolution was successful (even overly successful) and is over. This backlash has rallied around a general narrative that claims not

only did feminists achieve what they set out to, but they have in fact overreached in

ways that are currently victimizing men and boys. This narrative runs through the

men’s rights movement, which splintered off from the men’s liberation movement

of the 1970s (Messner 1998), and continues to attract new participants (Blake

2015). William Farrell, intellectual founder of the men’s rights movement, has

become a guru of kinds by authoring a series of books explaining the challenges

faced by men as stemming from the overzealousness of feminism, and the sexual

power that women use to manipulate and dominate men. Gender scholar Michael

Kimmel refers to Farrell’s 1993 bestseller (recently re-released in its 21st anniversary edition), The Myth of Male Power: Why Men Are the Disposable Sex, as the

“bible” to men who are concerned about being socially devalued and exploited

(Blake 2015). This kind of narrative is not exclusive to the men’s rights movement

and has found expression in deepening public concern over the higher relative academic success of girls over boys, as well as boys’ difficulties in forming emotional

bonds with one another, a situation popularly known as “the boy crisis” (Sommers

2000). Both of these formulations fit into the larger narrative describing contemporary American society as a post-feminist society in which any legitimate goals of

feminism have been achieved, and further struggle is only an attempt on behalf of

women to gain (further) dominance over men.

Underlying these narratives lurks an ideology of essentialism, that men and

women are fundamentally and naturally different. Narratives such as the victimhood or disposability of men and the boy crisis are also premised on an inherent,

zero-sum conflict between men and women. According to these narratives, men are

socially devalued in the interest of, and to the advantage of women, and boys are

suffering in school because school structures, processes, and personnel favor girls.

In addition, this is understood as a result of vociferous campaigning by feminists for

unidirectional changes that help girls and ignore boys (Sommers 2000). Such formulations render the fundamental problem as the difference between genders, and

the solution implicitly becomes a choice between catering social institutions and

relations to the benefit of men or women. These ideas rest on an ideology of essential sex difference, one that works to preserve and reproduce patriarchy.


Using Gender Narratives in Class

Arguing for the importance of narratives, Hayden White observes, “[r]eal events do

not offer themselves as stories” (1980, p. 8). Narratives lend coherence and cultural

meaning to events, situations and experiences; in other words, they do the


Make Us Whole!: Deconstructing Gender Narratives to Build Solidarity


ideological work of interpretation. Narratives are integral to social life itself, providing actors with both substance and form for shared meanings. For example, the

male victimhood narrative is one that begins with a sense of powerlessness and

anomie among men – the subjective experience – brought on by the rising dominance of women who subordinate and exploit men – the interpretive story.

Discussing popular narratives in the classroom can be challenging, but pedagogically effective. Narratives like male victimhood that underlay at least some

public rhetoric and debate around gender relations and inequality are certain to

inform many students’ reactions to class discussions on gender, particularly those

of male students. They create a backdrop of common sense knowledge of gender

that can be challenging to overcome. Precisely because of this, it can be extremely

useful to help students learn to recognize the component parts of narratives, so that

they can begin to critically assess the stories they hear and tell, while remaining

sensitive to the subjective experiences such stories interpret. Critically deconstructing male victimhood narratives aids students in identifying the roles of patriarchy

and hegemonic masculinity in organizing public understandings of gender issues

more specifically. And importantly, centering the discussion on male victimhood

narratives (rather than the “angry feminist” narratives that are their frequent counterpoint) allows male and female students to consider ways that patriarchy hurts

men without abandoning the concept of female subordination, or painting gender

inequality and conflict as a zero-sum game.

Kimmel’s (2013) book Angry White Men provides an excellent example of

decoupling subjective experiences from the narratives that describe them by identifying the aspects of hegemonic masculinity that shape and support narratives like

male victimhood. He acknowledges that the anger, frustration, and powerlessness

experienced by many men is real, though not for the reasons many of them imagine.

Like Messner (1998), he connects men’s suffering to masculine power, explaining

that it is largely the expectations and entitlements of patriarchy and masculinity,

combined with the rapidly deteriorating access to power and control experienced by

middle- and working-class men, that create the context of this suffering. As Kimmel

argues, “[i]f you define masculinity as about always being in control, then losing

control is a sign of damaged manhood, of a loss of manhood” (2013, p. 187). And

although the powerlessness experienced by many men has much to do with large

social forces like economic restructuring, women, who have gained increasing

(though by no means equal) access to social and economic power, are often scapegoated. According to Kimmel (2013), violence represents an act of restoration of

power and control within the context of patriarchy and masculinity. This is true of

violence towards women and acts of mass violence in schools and workplaces perpetrated exclusively by men. This powerlessness, combined with conformity to

hegemonic masculinity, can also be internalized, which is reflected by the higher

number of suicides committed by men, and the rise of male suicides during times of

economic crisis, particularly among groups of men who are normally least likely to

commit suicide (e.g. middle-class men with families whose social integration is

normally a preventative factor (Durkheim 1951)).



A.D. Jollymore

Engaging Male Students

Female students often enthusiastically enter into class discussions regarding gender.

They want to discuss their experiences as women, and often quickly grasp ideas that

help them make sense of those experiences. This is often not true of male students,

for three main reasons.

First, the pervasive gender narratives discussed above have convinced many men

(and more than a few women) that gender inequality is either over, or has tipped in

favor of women. Second, confronted with arguments regarding the persistence of

male power and privilege, many male students may feel either guilty or defensive,

and often both. This response is conditioned by common sense notions of discrimination and oppression as individualized and agentic, and the lack of understanding

of the impact of structure on social relations. Thus it is important and productive, as

noted by Berkowitz et al. (2010), to help students understand gender both as a social

construction, and as an element of social structure that helps organize the distribution of social goods, resources, and power.

Lastly, many male students simply do not consider gender issues to directly

involve them, interpreting “gender issues” as “women’s issues.” Of course, men’s

lives are as deeply shaped by gender as women’s lives. And while it is always

important to encourage students who occupy dominant social statuses to reflect on

ways that they receive unearned benefits from those statuses, accompanying such

encouragement with reflections on ways that men’s lives are also constrained can

help engage male students and encourage them to build empathy and solidarity with

women. I take seriously here Marx’s observation that in a system of domination no

one is free. And in fact, many scholars have suggested that at least certain norms are

more relaxed for women than for men. So, possessing masculine qualities or exhibiting masculine behaviors is more accepted for women than feminine qualities are

for men. This has largely been understood as a reflection of the devaluation of

“feminine” qualities, and a higher valuation of “masculine” qualities. Regardless of

the reasons, men who do not meet norms of masculinity are often subjected to discipline from a number of sources, not infrequently violent discipline. For instance,

violence against men perceived as gay (itself a violation of masculinity, which is

partly defined through robust and even aggressive heterosexuality) is far more common than violence against women perceived as lesbians (Federal Bureau of

Investigation 2000). And transgender women (individuals who feel improperly

assigned to the male gender, and now live part or all their lives as women) face

higher rates of violence – and more brutal violence – than any other

non-gender-conforming group (National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs

2014). Understanding gender roles as dichotomous can throw into clearer relief the

manner in which gender roles discipline women and men, and can potentially act as

a reference point for gender coalition in which the problems faced by men are connected directly to the problems faced by women.

It is important to engage male students in discussions regarding gender. On a

pedagogical level, it is imperative to give attention to presenting material in ways

that make it meaningful for multiple groups of students. But even more, if meaningful


Make Us Whole!: Deconstructing Gender Narratives to Build Solidarity


change to gendered roles and structures is to happen, it will have to involve the

combined efforts of women and men. Connell observes that because men still command most of the resources necessary for transforming gender structures, men and

boys are “significant gatekeepers for gender equality” (2005, p. 1802). In order to

create the kind of true solidarity between men and women necessary to effect

change, boys and men must begin to see gender issues as issues that affect them,

too, but in a way that stresses the role of patriarchy in shaping those issues. As college campuses can be one of the least safe spaces in American society for women,

this is a precious and timely opportunity to have men think more carefully, systematically, and reflexively about gender.


Working Through Patriarchy as a Class

In the remainder of this chapter, I present an activity comprising several steps

designed to get students to (a) understand the dichotomous nature of constructed

masculinity and femininity; (b) connect those constructions to the power dynamics

of patriarchy; (c) identify ways that both men and women benefit and suffer from

patriarchy (albeit not equally); and (d) deconstruct the narrative of male victimhood, replacing it with a new gender narrative that is sensitive to the previous analyses and reconceptualizes gender inequality as a shared (though not parallel)


To outline the dichotomous nature of gender constructions, I begin with a simple

brainstorming exercise in which students are asked to generate a list of adjectives or

characteristics that are associated with femininity and masculinity (these two concepts representing a normative fulfillment of gender roles). Students are often reluctant to begin, and may feel uncomfortable at the idea of offering up what generally

amounts to stereotypes. It is useful to remind students that they are not generating

their own private conception of gender traits, but attempting to draw on ideas that

commonly circulate in American culture. For instance, during this activity in one

introductory class, one male student finally broke the silence by saying, “the

B-word,” which incited a tumult of offended, accusatory, and somewhat gleeful

exclamations from the class. After reminding the class that the student was not

offering his own opinion of women, but rather taking a risk to help generate ideas,

and that we could learn about gender from discussing the others’ reactions, we had

a brief, but very productive discussion in which we identified that the “B-word” was

in fact a disciplinary word that was usually applied to women who had failed one or

another aspects of femininity. This helped us generate more terms, as we were able

to think about various reasons women are called bitches, and use those reasons to

suss out the underlying gender role expectations whose violation invokes such


Once a fairly sizable list for both masculinity and femininity has been generated,

I ask the students what they notice about the list. It never fails that the lists are

largely, though not exclusively, constructed of opposing qualities assigned to men


A.D. Jollymore

and women. In fact, the use of opposing qualities is often generative, so that after

yelling out “passive” for femininity, another student may call out “assertive” or

“aggressive” for masculinity. By emphasizing the dichotomous construction of

masculinity and femininity, we can help students begin to see how the wide range

of potential human attributes have been divided by gender, denying both women

and men the full range of human characteristics, a wholeness. Students also often

notice that generally women are discouraged from displaying power and men are

discouraged from displaying empathy and emotional connection/need. This can be

emphasized by asking students to categorize the terms that are up on the board, asking them which terms are connected to power or control (over self and/or others),

which terms are connected to fostering relationships, and asking them to generate

any other category that appears to them.

During this part of the discussion, I bring in the concept of patriarchy, explaining

it as a system of domination in which women are subordinated to men. I then ask

the students to consider how the traits listed on the board might support the notion

that our society is patriarchal. This can be connected to the discussion of power

versus relationality, but students can also be prompted to consider how each list

suggests an ideal set of roles, or place in society, for men and women. For instance,

“rational” and “aggressive” often appears on the masculine list, and “emotional”

and “caretaking” on the feminine list – students can connect these concepts to ideas

about what makes a good leader, or businessman, for example, versus what makes

a good mother or confidante.

These steps are useful in separating cultural norms and ideal types from the

messy reality of the world. Most students will agree with the way terms are assigned,

even though they also acknowledge that those terms do not actually represent all, or

even most, women and men they know. Here students can be asked why they agree

on the terms that represent masculinity and femininity, even though their actual

experiences provide them with many counter examples, and they should be encouraged to think about how these norms are invoked and used. This draws out the

socially constructed nature of gender, creatively interpreted and performed by individual agents, and simultaneously reinforced through disciplining those that stray

from norms. For instance, many of them know some quiet and demure boys/men,

and assertive and confident girls/women, but also recognize that such people are

often recipients of gender-disciplining slander (e.g. demure boys being called

“fags,” assertive girls “bitches”). Here, the concept of discipline, and of disciplinary

norms, reinforces the discussion of power, as men who do not display power and

women who do are both socially chastised.

Next, I ask students to enter into small, same-gender groups to brainstorm a list

of advantages and disadvantages of their own gender status based on the preceding

list and discussion, but also drawing on their personal experiences and feelings.

This need only take about 5 min, after which answers are listed on the board (by

group representatives, if the class is small and there are few groups – otherwise the

instructor can compile the list by asking volunteers to read off their answers). Once

the lists are taken down and visible to the students, we spend some time examining

them as a class. I ask students to try to make connections between problems

Tài liệu bạn tìm kiếm đã sẵn sàng tải về

2 Challenges and Opportunities in Discussing Gender Inequity

Tải bản đầy đủ ngay(0 tr)