On Not Silencing

Ashely at Small Strokes asked me to write a guest post for her series on teaching feminism in schools. I decided to expand off of my previous post about silencing feminists in a school setting. Make sure you check out Ashely's series, there is some great stuff going on over there! Here is what I wrote for the series:

One thing that I have been thinking a lot about lately is silencing. So when Ashley asked me to write a guest post for her teaching feminism in schools series, I thought I would write about the effect silencing has in a school setting.

Just one thing to remember: this is coming from the perspective of a student, not a teacher.

Feminism and women's studies were not taught in my high school. We'd have a unit on women's history, a unit on books written by women, etc. But those were usually some of the shortest units of the class and nothing was incorporated into the rest of the class. It just seemed like something the teachers wanted to get through because they had to, not something they were actually interested in.

The high school that I went to was overwhelmingly white, upper middle class, conservative, and Christian. I fit the mold in kin of two of these demographics. I'm white and middle class -- but by the standards of my fellow classmates, I was on the lower middle class end of the spectrum, though not by society's standards. I am not, however, conservative or that religious.

When I was in high school I definitely had feminist values, because that was the way that I was raised, but I don't remember ever calling myself a feminist during that time. I think a lot of this had to do with my high school atmosphere and the people that I associate with. While the teachers claimed that the classroom was a "safe environment," it wasn't really true. Having an opinion that was different (and sometimes radically different) than most of the other people in the class was not an easy thing and the teachers didn't really do a whole lot to encourage any type of discussion about it.

I really shouldn't blame the teachers entirely. In high school, I wasn't really the kind of person that raised their hand a lot. It wasn't cool to be smart and it definitely wasn't cool to have differing opinions. I didn't really fit in anyway, but I was too shy to actually say anything in class. But I often wonder if my voice was encouraged to be heard more often, if I would have been more willing to share it. But there's really no way of knowing.

Teaching feminism and women's studies in high school comes with a lot of responsibility. I think it is a great idea and necessary to the development of well-rounded students that feminism and women's studies be taught in middle school and high school. But where the responsibility comes in is making sure that you are discussing these topics in a truly safe environment for the students. It shouldn't be about "preaching" your values as a teacher but about fostering discussion about these important issues.

Students who voice differing opinions are often silenced in a classroom setting, not only by fellow students out of peer pressure, but also sometimes from teachers. While teaching feminism and women's studies, it is also important to teach about respect and practice respect yourself. It's important to encourage all opinions, even anti-feminist ones if they are made in a respectful manner. Silencing opinions of students, whether you agree with them or not, is not what is going to build confident students who are ready for the "real world." High schooler can be cruel, but when the silencing comes from teachers, I think it might be even more damaging.

The incorporation of feminism and women's studies into the curriculum has to be done in a way that avoids silencing. I don't really have any concrete ways of going about doing this because I am not familiar with teaching techniques. All I can say is try to be respectful and encourage respect in your students. Teaching feminism and women's studies should be about fostering discussion and bringing awareness to feminist issues, not only in the lives of students but in society as well. Silencing students who are respectful in their opinions is not the way to go about doing this.

Are Clothes More Important Than Intellect?

Have you heard the news? Michelle Obama wore shorts! The world is coming to an end!

Apparently Michelle Obama wore shorts (of a modest length) while on vacation at the Grand Canyon. Why am I talking about this, you ask? Well, I'm talking about it because it seems to have been deemed newsworthy.

Is it really that big of a deal that Michelle Obama was wearing shorts? Especially considering they were on vacation...at the Grand Canyon...in 106 degree heat.

I'd like to say the reporting on this is a result of a slow news day. But even then, it's not really worth talking about. So why does the media think it is their responsibility to comment on Michelle Obama's inconsequential fashion decisions? I can kind of understand a commentary on a decision to wear shorts if it was to a political function or something, but on vacation...really?

The Huffington Post had a poll asking if Michelle Obama has "the right to bare legs" (via Jezebel). Most people in the poll said yes, but does this question even warrant a poll? And even the phrasing of the question: the right to bare legs. I'm pretty sure she has the right to wear whatever she wants.

It is pretty disrespectful to comment on Michelle Obama's fashion decisions (especially such inconsequential ones) instead of the intellectual weight that she adds to the White House and politics. By commenting on her fashion, the media is saying that she doesn't really have anything to add to the equation other than just looking pretty while standing next to her powerful husband. And do we hear anything about what Barack Obama was wearing? He was probably wearing shorts too, but apparently his legs aren't as important as his wife's.

A very similar thing happened during the 2008 presidential campaign. Many media outlets devoted a lot of attention to Hillary Clinton's pant suits and cleavage. Did these media outlets analyze the fashion decisions of Obama, McCain, or any of the other male candidates? Not really. So why is it so important to consider what Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama wears? It's just a way to draw attention away from the actual issues at hand and discredit the intellectual assets of the person at hand.

By focusing on the wardrobe of Michelle Obama (and this is not the first time that her outfits have been the subject of news), the media is saying that she has very little else to offer besides her looks and great fashion choices. Aren't we pass the point where First Ladies (and wives/girlfriends/partners in general) are only there to look pretty? First Ladies have always contributed to the politics of their presidential husbands and they have evolved into a political entity in and of themselves. It's about time that we stop look at how attractive they are, what they wear, etc. and spend more time focusing on the intellectual and politics of that person.

The focus on clothing instead of intellect is just another silencing technique used against women, particularly smart, powerful women. Like I said, focusing on clothing places the value of a person on their looks instead of their intellectual possibilities. The media is scared that women might actually have something worthy to say that they instead focus on inconsequential things about their appearance to take the attention away from what they might say.


Further Reading:
First lady's shorts draing long, hard, looks [Today Show]

Silencing in Schools from 10 Things

I've been thinking a lot about silencing techniques recently. This post is about a specific instance of silencing a feminist on TV. It happens a lot, but there is a specific recent occurrence that I want to discuss.

I started watching 10 Things I Hate About You on ABC Family because the movie was such an integral part of my early teen years, so I wanted to see how ABC Family handled turning it into a television show. While there are many things about the show that I don't like (which I'm not going to go into now), there is one thing that I really like: Kat. She was my favorite character in the movie and is very easily my favorite in the TV show too.

Kat's discussions on the show often revolve around feminism and environmentalism and she isn't afraid to call people out on their privilege (but doesn't usually reflect on her own, which is a shame) and their hateful language. This is why she's my favorite character. But I feel like her main purpose in being a feminist on the show is to provide a couterpoint for her shallow sister, not just for the purpose of promoting feminism in a the ABC Family viewing population.

I was shocked (ok, maybe not shocked, but it really stuck out to me) while watching this weeks episode. For an assignment that involved writing a paper on a moment that changed your life, Kat wrote about the day that she first started reading Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex and became a feminist. I think that's a great paper topic. But her teacher told her it was unoriginal and that people in the space station could see she was a feminist so Kat should write about something else. Wow. Yes, people can see that she's a feminist, but being a feminist is a large part of her life, so it would make sense that she wrote about becoming a feminist as a moment that changed her life. To call that unoriginal is insulting, especially considering that a lot of the other people in the class did not write about such insightful things and are not feminists. Kat rewrote the paper about the first day that her dad bought her tampons. Her teacher was pleased and said it was good as long as it didn't end with "and then I became a feminist."

While silencing feminists is not a big surprise in television, this scene made me think about silencing in schools. In college, I can't think of any instances when I felt silenced. But I thinkt hat mainly had to do with the school that I went to and the classes that I took. I went to a very liberal, small school and I took classes mainly in Women's and Gender Studies and Sociology. People there had open minds and were open to other's opinions. So I started to think about my experiences in high school, which were very different that those of college.

I went to high school in a conservative, Christian, white, upper middle class suburb. I definitely fit in in some ways. I'm white, heterosexual, fall into the middle class spectrum (although compared to my high school class mates, I was very very low middle class, even though that's not true in wider society). But I am very liberal and not that religious, so it was hard for me to fit in in that way. So I was usually the one with the differing opinion in classes during high school. But I didn't usually voice that differing opinion because I knew that it would not be respected by some teachers and fellow students.

Silencing people's opinions (not just those of feminists) in a school setting, especially high school, can be very damaging. Schools should be a safe setting for people to express and form their opinions, but that is often not the case for a lot of people. High schoolers can be cruel, but when the silencing comes from the teachers, I think it can be even worse. Like in 10 Things I Hate About You, if teachers make you change papers or shut down voicing opinions in class because "everyone already knows you're a feminist," students might have an even harder time learning how to express their opinions.

Am I Overreacting?

This post will be short, sweet, and to the point.

I love when people tell me I'm overreacting; that I'm reading too much into a situation. They tell me if I'm looking for sexism (or insert form of oppression here), then I'll find it in anything. And I wonder why that is? Maybe because sexism is so entrenched in our society that it IS in everything. In some things more than others, but because sexism has been taught to us by society for so long, sexism is in everything.

Telling feminists that they are overreacting is just another silencing technique used against us. If someone tells us that we are overreacting, they are trying to get us to back down from our views -- to deny that there is sexism.

When someone tells me that I'm overreacting, it just alerts me to the fact that there really is some form of sexism there. It's like a big red flag: "Sexism Here"! People don't want to accept that they are complicit in sexism (or any ism) so they claim that us evil feminists are just overreacting and trying to ruin their fun. So the next time someone tells you that you are overreacting, don't give in to the point (but I don't think a lot of people would back down). Stand your ground and point out that there really is sexism there.

Feminist Anger Scares Men - Really? Never Would Have Guessed

I have been thinking a lot lately about how female feminists react to men's feelings about feminism, whether it is supportive of feminism or anti-feminist. Do women try to make men understand their viewpoints? Do women sometimes concede to men's opinions? So I was really excited when my friend sent me this old post from the blog Hugo Schwyzer - "Words are not fists: some thoughts on how men work to defuse feminist anger."

This blog is written by a history and gender studies professor, and in this post he reflects on how men in women's studies courses preface statements (when they make them) with phrases along the lines of "I know I'm going to get killed for saying this, but..." The author sees this as a way for men to control women's feminist anger (which women have every right to have).

By equating feminist anger with physical violence ("I'm going to get killed"), women might have the tendency to make the man feel safe and tone down their anger as a response.

Joking about getting beaten up (or putting on the football helmet) sends a message to young women in the classroom: "Tone it down. Take care of the men and their feelings. Don’t scare them off, because too much impassioned feminism is scary for guys."

Many of these men might not be conscious of the fact that they do this and women might not be conscious that they are diffusing their feminist anger as a response.

Even men who are pro-feminist do this. And it's a classic anti-feminist technique to silence women...

it forces women students to become conscious caretakers of their male peers by subduing their own frustration and anger. It reminds young women that they should strive to avoid being one of those "angry feminists" who (literally) scares men off and drives them away.

I have seen this technique used both in classrooms and in daily conversations. And I have to admit that they usually work. I want to make sure that everyone's opinion is heard, that no one's feelings get too hurt in the process, and that everyone feels "safe" in the conversation. And this usually results in me toning down my actual opinions. And it seems like I'm not the only one who does this.

But why do men do this? I understand anti-feminist men's desire to silence feminist anger - strong, confident, feminist women are who they are fighting against. But why would pro-feminist men want to do this? The author of this post claims that it is because of men's fear of be challenged and confronted, especially by a woman. But do all men have this intrinsic fear? I know many men who can hold a conversation about feminism and listen to the thoughts of women in this context. But when I was having those conversations, I wasn't necessarily aware of this technique, so maybe they were doing it as well.

So as a feminist woman, I have to be aware of this silencing technique and try to not let it affect me. I have to stand by my opinions while still promoting a "safe" environment for conversation. And...

The first task of the pro-feminist male in this situation is to accept the reality and the legitimacy of the frustration and disappointment and anger that so many women have with men, and to accept it without making light of it or trying to defuse it or trying to soothe it. Pro-feminist men must work to confront their own fears about being the target of those feelings.

A conversation is a two-way street. It's not entirely men's fault, women have to not back down. But men have to listen to the real anger and frustration of women. It is important to look out for this technique, as both women and men.

As long as women's voices are silenced, whether those voices are feminist or not, society will never have a chance of being equal. Everyone has to have a say. Equating verbal feminist anger with physical violence is just not an acceptable way of silencing women. Feminist anger and frustration has the right to be heard...especially in Women's Studies classrooms, where this type of silencing technique has a tendancy to appear.

What are your experiences (both of men and women) of someone trying to diffuse your feminist anger? Do these techniques really work? How can we "fight back" against associating verbal disagreement with physical violence?