Tải bản đầy đủ - 0trang
2 Maria and Courtney: Former Students’ Interpretations of Engaging with Resistance
They Don’t Get It: The Promise and Problem of Using Student Resistance…
instructors to realize that using resistance as a teaching strategy may be frustrating
or alienating for students who do not fall into that category. As feminist students, we
saw Patti as an ally capable of mirroring or validating our frustrations with day-today gender inequalities. We hoped that she would confront students in the class who
voiced ideas that were intentionally or unintentionally sexist. In fact, when we were
undergraduates taking our ﬁrst gender class with Patti, we at times felt disheartened
by her ability to remain so collected and fair when confronted with extremely gendered comments from our classmates. Why was she giving him/her a platform to
speak that? How is her blood not boiling or face contorting in reaction to these comments/questions? Why doesn’t she confront them and “set them straight?” We
wanted conﬁrmation that she too was outraged by what we perceived to be ignorance reﬂected in the comments of our classmates. After gaining a bit of experience
instructing students ourselves, we now see that Patti’s approaches are far more
effective in cultivating a productive learning environment. Further, using student
resistance as a teaching tactic helps students see how their own personal backgrounds, assumptions, and viewpoints can be examined sociologically alongside the
ofﬁcial course material.
For example, Courtney remembers lecturing on Adrienne Rich’s (1980) classic,
“Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence,” which compelled one seemingly annoyed student to ask, “Why is she (Rich) so angry?” This somewhat mirrors
the charges of “male-bashing” Moore (1997) endured as she taught courses on gender. Courtney’s ﬁrst thought was to counter the question harshly with something
like, “Well, let me tell you why she was angry!” But, as Moore points out, students
often evaluate women teaching about feminist issues as less scientiﬁc, politically
motivated, and biased from the outset. Thus, a harsh response likely would have
brought the discussion to a halt and deterred other sincere questions. Instead, an
instance like this is an excellent opportunity for an instructor to cast one student’s
question onto the entire class to commence a productive discussion and exercise in
self-reﬂexivity. Using student resistance as a pedagogical tool (as opposed to
explicit confrontation) not only teaches about gender and critical thinking regarding
gender, but it also demonstrates what feminist theory looks and feels like (e.g.,
Carillo 2007). In other words, students are not treated as mere passive recipients of
instruction, but are themselves worthy of sociological reﬂection and interrogation.
By deliberately making student resistance a topic of classroom discussion, Patti
encourages and promotes self-reﬂexivity among her students. This is an effective
strategy for easing students into discussions of gender inequality. Popular media
and common discourse frame feminists and gender scholars as bastions of biased
liberal propaganda and anti-male rhetoric (Grauerholz and Baker-Sperry 2007).
However, from our experiences, real-life sightings of such stereotyped feminists
and gender scholars are not unlike those of the Loch Ness Monster. Yet, we know
that many students arrive to discussions of gender with their guards up. Rather than
promote discussion and learning, confrontational approaches to teaching may compel students to disengage or perhaps grow dismissive of their professor entirely.
It is easy for students to forget that our professors have viewpoints. They do not
live and teach inside vacuums; their viewpoints have been shaped by years of
C. Caviness et al.
personal and academic experiences with the topics many of us are only beginning to
read about. Certainly, we hope our professors are conscientious about how they
wield their intellectual power. But sometimes, perhaps more so at the graduate level,
we seek their genuine opinions and where they stand on certain topics or issues. At
this point in our education, we are developing a better grasp of how objectivity and
subjectivity are established and generally treated in academia as binary oppositions.
While a graduate student, Courtney recalls a little disappointment with how seemingly neutral Patti remained in class discussions of controversial topics. Though
interested in what her classmates had to say, Courtney thought hearing Patti’s experiences and perspectives could have provided some additional context and substance
to her graduate seminar discussions. Unfortunately, as Messner (2000) points out,
the success of pushing students to think critically about gender might depend
heavily on the gender (not to mention the race/ethnicity, sexual orientation) of the
Patti’s practice of encouraging students to interrogate their own resistance led to
enthusiastic and respectful discussions among contrasting viewpoints. It also established a space in which many students heard opinions and perspectives largely
absent in their own homogenous social circles. Oftentimes, as students in university
classrooms, we naively assume everyone thinks the way we do. It is important to be
made aware that that is not the case. Patti’s strategy of encouraging students to interrogate their own resistance gives students opportunities to explain their perspectives. Courtney recalls an undergraduate classroom discussion in which Patti asked
students to discuss whether or not the military physical ﬁtness standards should
differ based on gender. Responses varied greatly, and some clearly relied on assumptions of biological determinism. Never once during the discussion did Patti rebuke
a student or privilege one viewpoint over another. She cultivated a non-threatening
environment in which all students could feel equally entitled to share their viewpoints. After each student comment, Patti asked who agreed or disagreed and why.
She then asked the class to reﬂect on the potential assumptions of gender underlying
their viewpoints. By encouraging students to voice their perspectives and opinions,
Patti’s strategy opens the door for students to respectfully challenge viewpoints they
disagree with in a safe and productive environment.
Similarly, Maria recalls an experience in an undergraduate gender class with
Patti in which students disagreed with, and even argued over, the notion that gender
was a social construct. In an introductory gender course, it is understandable that
undergraduate students new to sociology will be ignorant of the sociological concepts that more experienced students and feminist students may already be privy
too. At the time, Maria was frustrated that Patti didn’t correct the students authoritatively. For Maria, it was important to confront that kind of misinformed thinking
outright in order to “show them” and make them “get it.” However, Patti’s tactic in
remaining neutral and allowing both sides to discuss the topic of social constructionism, allowed the undergraduates to be more receptive to the evidence
One strategy that Maria has used in her own student teaching is to use a group
exercise in which she asks students to offer adjectives that describe “acting like a
They Don’t Get It: The Promise and Problem of Using Student Resistance…
lady” and “being a man.” As students offer their suggestions out loud, she writes
them on the board. After, she discusses the two gender “boxes” revealing the gendered assumptions we have about what it means to be a man or a woman. She then
uses sociological evidence and imagery from the media to show how these messages are culturally constructed and constantly reinforced. This exercise encouraged group participation and exploration of student resistance by making apparent
A professor who takes a more authoritarian approach, and confrontationally
shuts down dissent, makes the classroom inhospitable to students with opposing
views. Thus, out of fear of embarrassment or punishment, dissenting opinions are
never voiced. This just perpetuates the myth of homogenous perspectives on gender
and the unintentional (or intentional) “indoctrination” of the professor’s viewpoint.
After taking a subsequent course of Patti’s on gender, Courtney reﬂected on the
question Patti posed about military physical ﬁtness expectations. She realized that
her own in-class response, that men and women should be measured against the
same ﬁtness standards, was problematic because it ignored the history, structure,
and real-world applicability of such ﬁtness tests. Had Patti challenged her response
a bit more directly, Courtney may have confronted her own gendered assumptions
earlier than she did. Patti’s approach can inadvertently result in some resistant, less
“gender aware,” and/or simply uninformed students, especially those who never
take another course on gender, never knowing their assumptions and viewpoints are
implicitly sexist. Ultimately, for progressive students such as ourselves, it is important we not forget that alternative viewpoints on gender exist even within the university’s walls. By experiencing these strategies ﬁrsthand, we have learned how to
more constructively handle dissent in our own personal and academic interactions.
We continue to mull over a few questions about how best to teach about gender and
engage with resistance. First, what is more important: feminist teaching or teaching
feminism (Weitz 2010)? These two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Instructors can teach in a less authoritarian, collaborative, and feminist manner and
not teach about gender inequality. Likewise, they can teach about feminism in an
authoritarian way without attempting to engage students critically (e.g., do pure
lecturing without discussion). At the undergraduate level, “the F-word” (feminism)
has such a strong stigma that collaborative feminist teaching could have the potential to be more effective than teaching feminism. Even some graduate students (generally those who have never taken a gender course) cling to the tired, negative
stereotypes of feminism.
Second, what happens if resistant students simply do not get it (i.e., are never
able to think critically about gender inequality and decrease antagonism towards the
course material) using the aforementioned strategies? Regardless of how faculty
teach their students, there will be some classes that are more challenging than
C. Caviness et al.
others. In past semesters, some of Patti’s progressive students were disenchanted
with the class. They told her or indicated on student evaluations that her class and
teaching techniques were not radical enough, or, were frustrated that she allowed
resistant students to voice their ideas. Although a rare occurrence, there were other
semesters in which socially conservative students seemed to dominate some of
Patti’s class meetings to the detriment of the lectures and discussions. Fortunately,
instructors can learn from those difﬁcult semesters and “try again.” We can make
notes after each class meeting about what seemed to contribute to or alleviate various forms of resistance and shape discussion questions differently during the subsequent semester. We also suggest that faculty remind students about the diversity of
perspectives in their courses. For example, Patti tells her classes that there is a range
of perspectives on sexuality and gender and that there will be students in class who
think that her class is not radical enough, and others who think that it is extremely
radical. This statement alone often helps students to understand why different
groups of students might feel frustrated with the course material (and for different
Third, is it important for professors to distance themselves from their standpoints
while the class is exploring resistance? Whether and how instructors distance themselves from how they “really feel” in relation to the material will vary by the class
and university context, as well as their own status (e.g., untenured faculty might feel
less comfortable and safe, and distance more than tenured faculty), and social locations (race, ethnicity, gender and sexual identity).
Finally, as students, we (Maria and Courtney) did feel frustrated at times with the
students who didn’t get it. We also felt frustrated with the less confrontational strategies that Patti used with resistant students. To what extent was that our own manifestation of “difference feminism” and the challenge of seeing others’ standpoints
(see Weitz 2010)? Or was that our own expectations of traditional authoritarian
styles of learning (Carillo 2007)? Students have come to expect absolute objectivity
(and assume it’s possible) within the classroom walls.
Faculty who are teaching about gender inequality can engage with these questions as they deal with student resistance. We do not believe that there is one right
way of teaching about gender, but there are some methods that are more likely to
foster students’ critical thinking. We realize that there are possible criticisms of
Patti’s strategic engagement with student resistance. It can be seen as pandering to
more socially conservative or proudly biased students instead of confronting them.
Perhaps it weakens or softens the social justice message. Likewise, using resistance
as a teaching strategy can be a form of “implicit feminism” (Giffort 2011; Weitz
2010). Despite these valid critiques, we believe that it might also lead to more critical awareness and civility. Each student deserves an opportunity to learn, and the
university classroom is a unique space where such opportunities can safely intersect
with a multitude of, at times, disparate viewpoints. Using student resistance as a
pedagogical tool gets students to reﬂect on themselves and the world around them
in ways they might not be willingly to do if approached in other ways. In our social
media era where comments to news articles and You Tube clips about gender are
They Don’t Get It: The Promise and Problem of Using Student Resistance…
frequently brutal, ruthless, angry, hostile, and at times, frightening, students must
learn how to disagree civilly and listen to and understand opposing voices and experiences. In our view, we must model that for them.
Adams, T. (2010). Paradoxes of sexuality, gay identity, and the closet. Symbolic Interaction, 33(2),
Bellas, M. (1999). Emotional labor in academia: The case of professors. Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 561, 96–110.
Carillo, E. (2007). ‘Feminist’ teaching/teaching ‘feminism’. Feminist Teacher, 18(1), 28–40.
Connell, C. (2015). School’s out: Gay and lesbian teachers in the classroom. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Copp, M., & Kleinman, S. (2008). Practicing what we teach: Feminist strategies for teaching about
sexism. Feminist Teacher, 18(2), 101–124.
Davis, N. J. (1992). Teaching about inequality: Student resistance, paralysis, and rage. Teaching
Sociology, 20, 232–238.
Ergun, E. (2013). Negotiating the geopolitics of student resistance in global feminisms classrooms.
Feminist Teacher, 23(2), 83–104.
Giffort, D. M. (2011). Show and tell? Feminist dilemmas and implicit feminism at girls’ rock
camp. Gender & Society, 25(5), 569–588.
Grauerholz, L., & Baker-Sperry, L. (2007). Feminist research in the public domain: Risks and
recommendations. Gender & Society, 21(2), 272–294.
Kleinman, S., & Copp, M. (2009). Denying social harm: Resistance to lessons about inequality.
Teaching Sociology, 37, 283–293.
Messner, M. (2000). White guy habitus in the classroom: Challenging the reproduction of privilege. Men and Masculinities, 2(4), 457–469.
Moore, M. (1997). Student reactions to course content: Reactions to the gender of the messenger.
Teaching Sociology, 25, 128–133.
Rich, A. (1980). Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. Signs, 5, 631–660.
Waring, C. D. L., & Bordoloi, S. D. (2012). ‘Hopping on the tips of a trident’: Two graduate students of color reﬂect on teaching critical content at predominantly white institutions. Feminist
Teacher, 22(2), 108–124.
Webber, M. (2005). ‘Don’t be so feminist’: Exploring student resistance to feminist approaches in
a Canadian university. Women’s Studies International Forum, 28(2–3), 181–189.
Weitz, R. (2010). Teaching dangerously: When feminisms collide. Feminist Teacher, 20(3),
Wentling, T., Windsor, E., Schilt, K., & Lucal, B. (2008). Teaching transgender. Teaching
Sociology, 36, 49–57.
Learning for a Change: Rage and the Promise
of the Feminist Classroom
Deborah J. Cohan
…We’re not making this ﬁght to be ﬁghting but because we want to get to someplace else,
where tenderness is possible. (June Jordan, in A Place of Rage, 1991)
Sociology and gender studies devote considerable attention to the study of social
inequalities and offer something special for thinking through rage. These classes
give voice to conditions, arrangements, and rituals that can otherwise go unspoken
and unnamed. The knowledge explosion generated by feminism, and the activism
that sustains it, is largely fueled by rage. According to Dr. Christine Northrup,
author of Women’s Bodies, Women’s Wisdom: Creating Physical and Emotional
Health and Healing, anger can be a large part of one’s inner sense of voice in a positive way. She writes:
…anger can be a powerful ally. When we feel angry, the anger is always related to something we need to acknowledge for ourselves…Anger is energy - our personal jet fuel. It is
telling us that something needs adjustment in our lives. It is telling us that there is something we want that we don’t know we want. Next time you get angry, say to yourself, ‘Ah!
My inner guidance is working. What is it I want here? What do I want to have happen here?
Anger is often an expression of the energy required to make that adjustment. This emotion
is dangerous only if we deny it and stuff it in our bodies. Anger and all other ‘negative’
emotions can serve us well when we don’t turn them in on ourselves as depression or lash
out with them against others. (1998, 603–604)
Rage begins the process of educating for critical consciousness and serves as a catalyst for thinking about personal and social change. Talking about rage with students
can be used as an analytic tool to synthesize “personal troubles” and “public issues”
(Mills 1959) and to foster a sociological and feminist imagination to “talk back”
(hooks 1989) to structures of domination. In learning about rage, it is crucial for
students to see the connection between emotion and social structure.
D.J. Cohan (*)
University of South Carolina Beaufort, Beaufort, SC, USA
© 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_19
This chapter offers a new concept, pedagogical rage, for considering the positive
and transformative dimensions of rage in classrooms. The following overarching
questions help to frame my thinking and guide my teaching philosophy and
1. What is the value in thinking about the emotional life of the classroom?
2. Is the classroom an appropriate site for struggling with intense emotion such as
3. In teaching and learning about inequalities, how is rage a helpful and necessary
tool for shifting consciousness?
4. How do students come to consciousness around rage and how are discussions
productively and safely negotiated and managed?
Rage is a predictable, desirable, and courageous response to unpredictable,
undesirable, and outrageous social conditions and structural inequalities. Rage is a
dynamic emotional experience that has the potential to move a person out of complacency and comfort, and can be a wellspring of connection, transformation and
love. In class, I try to foster a fundamental paradigmatic shift in the way in which
rage is internalized, used and perceived. Offering students the possibility to work
with rage provides them the opportunity to work with what might move them. To
understand my students’ rage, I make a commitment to be with them as they touch
places of anguish, some for the very ﬁrst time.
What Lives in the Room
Some years ago I was at a faculty meeting. Zooming in and out of vision on
PowerPoint slides were dismal projections for enrollment and mind-numbing
assessment criteria. In spite of all the numbers whipping around me, I found myself
distracted and compulsively reciting different math in my head. I was teaching multiple sections of Family Violence. I did a head count.
I was consumed with this: three women students were raped by their grandfathers. Papa. Grampy. Sweet old man. Child molester. One student’s husband played
Russian roulette and put a gun in her mouth. One had a penis shoved in her mouth
while another man raped her. One woman swallowed bleach and tried to hang herself after multiple assaults.
The math in my head told me we need to get angry about the voices mufﬂed by
hands, pillows, penises and fear, about the trauma my students endure that make
their spirits tumble; the voices that make my own heart break over and over but that
compel me to teach. It is like I am doing tattoo removal with colonized people.
Softening the searing marks on their skin, I try, with whatever grace I can muster,
to know, as one former student calls it, “the topography of their scars.” Changing
the message left by the abuser of “I was here” to a new message emblazoned with
righteous rage on the part of the student to reveal, “Hey, you don’t live here anymore. But, I do. And now I really will.”
Learning for a Change: Rage and the Promise of the Feminist Classroom
It is years later and I ﬁnd myself teaching in another state, in a different region
of the country, still consumed with all that lives in the room. Recently, a student
said, “Every time I leave class, I think maybe I am in an abusive relationship. It
makes me so angry.” In addition to listening and providing resources, I responded:
“As Gloria Steinem once said: ‘The truth will set you free but ﬁrst it will piss you
off.’ I am glad I could start by pissing you off.”
Now, I mentor the student who lost her brother in the attacks on the Pentagon on
9/11, and when she tried to end an abusive relationship with her girlfriend, girlfriend
shot her in the abdomen. There’s the student whose mother was beaten in the belly
when she was pregnant with her and her twin sister, the sister died from this, and she
misses the sibling she never got to know. There’s the student whose stepfather anally
raped her so her mother wouldn’t believe she was molested, and when she eventually tried to tell her mother she was told, “But there’s never been bloody underwear.
You’re still a virgin.” There’s the student who was sexually abused when he was
stationed in Afghanistan but had no idea how to tell his wife. There’s the man who
saw his father hold a gun to his mother’s head when he was only 5, and then in his
teens, he was raped by his drug dealer; later when he was 16, he raped a 14 year-old
girl, and due to extreme self-loathing about this, proceeded to cut himself on his arm
147 times later that very same night. There’s the student whose father, a pastor, beat
him with electrical cords. There are the female students stalked by ex-boyfriends
and the students whose mothers were so badly abused that they turned to drugs and
alcohol and have rendered themselves non-functioning parents. There’s the woman
last semester who, when we had a guest speaker come to talk about surviving violence, impatiently asked about victim provocation and how mothers could put their
children through this. And, then on the last day of the semester, she said that despite
how defensive she had gotten previously, she related to all the talk of abuse. She told
the class that as a young girl, she’d retreat to her bedroom to escape her father’s
wrath, and as a way to soothe herself, she sang Ella Fitzgerald’s “Summertime.”
Then, she treated the class with the gift of song:
One of these mornings you’re gonna rise up singing
And you’ll spread your wings and you’ll take to the sky
But ‘til that morning, there ain’t nothin’ can harm you
With Daddy and Mammy standin’ by.
These are classrooms saturated with heartache, fear, rage, and ultimately, hope.
Shifting Consciousness Around Rage
In the culture, rage is often equated with a fury of emotions so explosive and undesirable that one rarely differentiates between rage and violence. Typically, many of
my women students have trouble at ﬁrst imagining their role in assuming a stance
of rage that is not related to being violent. This is largely because rage has been used
against women at every turn. When men’s violence directed at them is incorrectly
framed as uncontrollable rage rather than understood as part of a patterned, structured system of domination, or when any of women’s emotional or gut-level
responses are minimized or dismissed as PMS raging hysteria, women’s access to
righteous rage related to inequality is extinguished. Students have also learned to
take their rage and channel it inward through debilitating forms of self-harm.
Innovative teaching about rage with women means re-appropriating emotion that is
deemed abhorrent and aberrant for women to express. Teaching about rage with
men means re-directing how they have been socialized, and how they may have
over-conformed, to use rage against other men and women in the form of violence;
thus, fresh energy is spent in my classes on how to become more courageous allies.
‘Coming of Rage’1
If we imagine that a class is a journey we travel with students, then rage is a compass. It shows us where we’ve been and the direction we’re headed and affords us
the opportunity to transgress, pushing us toward clarity and our eventual destination. In a sense, rage becomes a location, a site that provides a unique vantage point
for self-reﬂexivity and observing the world. Rage too, becomes a site that births
I am concerned with how students get to rage and what they do when they have
found it. There is often the sense that rage is not an entirely new-found emotional
state, but rather has remained dormant due to self-imposed restraint coupled with a
lack of support for constructive rage. Consequently, rage initiates a process of reinventing identity. When students come face to face with their rage, its disquieting
effects and life altering possibilities, they begin to recognize rage’s potential for
transforming fear and invisibility. Rage is the cornerstone from which a new selfconcept is carved and redesigned. As students become acquainted with rage, they
often begin to realize that others they are close to may be receiving and perceiving
them differently. Sometimes students are bewildered and pained by others’ reactions. At the same time that tapping into rage is tweaking with their own selfconcept, others’ responses are further tweaking their self-concepts. Particular
attention will be paid to how students make sense of rage through learning about
violence and embodiment. Written documents from former students are a signiﬁcant source of information that I draw upon here. Such documents include: paper
and journal assignments written especially for my classes, letters that students have
written to me over the years, and editorials that students submitted to campus newspapers. It is important to note that I have never set out to have students write on rage
per se, nor did I purposely orchestrate classroom discussions to suit this study.
Sometimes, the course materials I select have an undercurrent of rage, and at other
times, rage is front and center in the readings. Rage tends to be more explicit and
raw when I assign creative nonﬁction, memoir, and poetry. Students become
This subtitle is taken from a former student’s paper with the same title.
Learning for a Change: Rage and the Promise of the Feminist Classroom
grounded in writers’ rage and see how rage generates a sense of meaning and purpose, a way of knowing, a place of being in the world, and the construction of a
theoretical framework. Perhaps, most importantly, students come to trust their own
rage when they can see it as a moral, rational response to immoral, irrational social
conditions. In a world that teaches girls and women to minimize and deny their feelings about their bodies and traumatic experiences, and at a time when our national
campus climate reinforces this, it is no small feat for students to touch and trust their
own, and each other’s, rage.
A student, Rochelle, remarks on her previous urge to make rage go away and her
newfound desire to embrace it. Drawing on a class reading, she underscores feminist theory’s signiﬁcance in her self-actualization:
Never before had I identiﬁed with rage. Not that I do not know rage. I have met rage on the
city sidewalk when a boy I knew, enraged with the world, threatened to kill me. Yet
throughout my life I have rationalized rage to be an immature, irrational response to the
world. Rage that envelops those politicians, those feminist bra burners, those homophobic
hypocrites – not me. Of course, I have ﬂeeting moments of unabashed rage. In Technical
Difficulties, June Jordan remembers ‘the rage that convulsed my body and my mind and my
imagination when I learned about the racist bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church
in Birmingham and the murder of the Black children.’ I was not alive to fully engage in that
experience, but I felt anger when my middle school teacher ﬁrst shocked me with this unexposed history; I clench my ﬁsts at racism…the world mocks my moments of rage. .... I ask
myself, how can I not identify with rage? I have a right, as Jordan voices, to ‘the incredibly
outgoing energy – of righteous rage’. (1992)
I invite students to construct projects that maximize on their talents and creativity in
documentary ﬁlm, poetry, art, and music; consequently, I see students’ work with
rage in a variety of innovative forms. I ﬁnd that through these alternative venues,
students process rage in ways that reveal strength and vulnerability in their expression and that assist them in discovering their voices. Rochelle wrote, “These things
that I once thought were ‘normal’ or ‘just the way the world was,’ I am now realizing are not the way things should be, and that I do have a right, and even a responsibility, to do something about them.” In the following excerpts from Rochelle’s
poem, she shows how rage challenges her to look at the world taken-for-granted,
especially related to intersectionality and violence:
…And so I realized that I feel rage.
Rage because I denied my heritage.
I always dreamed of the day that I could bleach my skin,
and dye my hair
so that I too
could be beautiful.
I denied the fact that I was Mexican,
‘What are you talking about, I’m not a beaner, I’m Italian.’
And when I went home to ask my mother what a beaner was,
she looked at me as if I had done something terribly, terribly wrong.
‘Don’t say that, that’s a bad word,’ she said to me.
we weren’t supposed to talk about those things.
Well today, I’m tired of the silence.
Today I’m ready to cause an uproar.
And so I realized that I feel rage.
Rage because I can’t walk home at night by myself.
I have to call a big strong man to help me.
And rage because when I look outside to see billboards, magazines,
newspapers, television, and advertisements,
I have to see my sex,
and my body being turned into a commodity.
Rage because hundreds of thousands of girls have to starve themselves,
(I was 15, weighed 105 at 5′4, and passed out daily from starvation),
in order to be beautiful and gain control over some aspect of their lives.
And I feel rage because I wake up every night in a cold sweat,
with looming images towering above
in my mind
because he wanted the ultimate male power trip.
But of course I thought it was me that ‘did something wrong.’
And rage because I grew up saying ‘I don’t want to be a dumb girl’
Where the hell did I learn to think like that?
I grew up thinking that it was bad and wrong to feel anything or to express any emotion –
that would be far, far too ‘girlie.’
And because I still can’t even recognize,
or admit all the ways that I am oppressed simply because
I was born without a dick,
simply because I was born a woman…
Teaching Rage: ‘A Choiceless Decision’
Not teaching about rage is unimaginable to me because rage has, in essence, become
a “choiceless decision” (Aretxaga 1997). Some students’ writing echoes this lifelong commitment to re-thinking rage and resistance. Here, Jill explains:
I remember my teenage marriage to a man who did not permit me to have friends, who did
not permit me to work and who once told me he wished he could put blinders on me when
we drove in the car so that he could make sure I wasn’t looking at other men…He yelled at
me for putting on lipstick and I turned to him and said, ‘I’m sorry but you have to leave.’
He was so stunned that I suddenly had a voice…I was ﬁred because I was rarely able to
show up; my ex-husband vandalized my car so that it was not able to function…I found
work as a nanny but it was barely paying my bills…I contemplated exotic dancing…I
ended up working as a manager at a men’s clothing store. I received letters from customers
with phone numbers. It was embarrassing, yet upper management was thrilled. Except,
there was a psycho who began putting ﬂowers and cards on my car. I had to be escorted by
security. They threw him out of the store. He would call my house. I was afraid…I left to
sell cars…The harassment there was more than I could take. Then…I was on my way home
from a career fair when I got lost due to construction on the streets. I got out of my car to
go into a store to ask for directions. As I went back to my car someone attacked me…The
police said there was nothing they could do as I could not give them a location of the attack
or a very good description…Now I am angry.... I understand rage....