Gender Studies Course - Reflections on March 16th

In reference to the Ontario proposed Gender Studies curriculum, I can definitely understand where both sides are coming from.

On the one side, times have changed and therefore education needs to change in order to address these differences. And with all of the media we have available now, students are having all kinds of images and ideas thrown at them. So maybe the schools do need to step in and organize these ideas for students in such a way that they can explore them in a safe environment. Upon looking through the proposed curriculum, I found that there was a lot of valuable information in there. Information that may directly help students in their lives (when they enter the work force, when they get married, when they have children, etc.).

On the flip side, I can also see why there is some resistance to implementing this document. While some of the objectives could be seen as "non-disputable" (basically seen by the majority of Canadians as "right" - ie. violence prevention), there are many objectives that are not accepted by many people. Topics like abortion, homosexuality, transgener/transsexuality, and just plain old sexuality are not agreed upon by everybody as being right, one way or the other. Even aspects of gender equity - the woman's "place" or roles versus the man's "place" or roles are not seen as the same across the board. Some religions and/or cultures believe they should be equal while some believe that each sex has specific roles.

So the condundrum is, of course, which side is right? Obviously there will never be a consensus. And I can see why this course is being resisted in the Catholic schools. I was curious about what kind of response it got from the non-Catholic schools.

In Lana, Brad and Chelsea's presentation last class on Social Studies, they mentioned that the Social Studies curriculum is meant to be taught without bias. Personally, I would hope that some aspects of this gender course would be as well. I do think that the majority of the material is important for our students to learn, and much of it should be taught with a bias (once again, violence!!), but I do think that there are some aspects that should be taught with an unbiased approach (such as abortion, homosexuality, etc.). This is only because there is still such a split on topics such as these, and what right does anybody have to say that one side is wrong?

If I were a parent, I would have no problem with this course being taught as long as some of these sensitive issues were presented with both "sides" in mind and the teachers didn't lean towards one way or the other in their presentation of material. If parents are concerned, then this would be a good opportunity to get involved in what their children are learning at school by bringing the material into discussions at home as well. However, sadly, in this day and age (there I go sounding like a ninety year old woman again!) many parents are not involved in their child's education. So I think a course like this is extremely important. Some believe schools should just stick to the basics (good old reading, writing and arithmatic), but if parents and communities/societies in general are failing to teach everything else at home (values, morals, etc.), then, in order to make an attempt at changing the downward spiral in which our communities have fallen into I think the schools do need to step in. I think it is sad. But true.

A View from My "Place" - Reflections from March 2

After Brad's presentation on Cynthia Chambers article, I was thinking about how we all view the world from our own "place" in society, and wondering about the question, "How do we construct a provincial curriculum to give voice to all of these different places?" I will get back to this in just a minute, but first...

As I read through Johnson's article that was handed out last class, "Burt Lancaster is Apache: Hollywood's shocking reel Indians", I couldn't help feeling defensive. The main reason is probably that I LOVED the movie Avatar. I thought it was brilliant. So, my arguments are probably completely biased but here I go anyway:

"The Vatican frets about its creed of nature worship." First of all, I'm not sure what is wrong with "worshiping" nature - don't we want to have a clean world in which to live? Don't we preoccupy ourselves these days with sustainability and living "green"? Second, (and as a Christian) I didn't find this offensive either. In my mind I spent most of the movie seeing this "nature worship" as a metaphor for God. Perhaps it wasn't meant that way by James Cameron, but does that matter? The point is that we all experience things differently due to our "places" in life.

"U.S. Conservatives condemn it as anti-military eco-liberalism." It's just a movie. It is one person's point of view. I'm sure if the movie had the opposite spin (the "Americans" taking over this fresh land and defeating the Na'vi) the "eco" people would be in an uproar. Again, it's just a movie. It's just art. It's up for your own interpretation.

"The Na'vi aliens on Pandora are clearly patterned on North American natives, or more specifically their Hollywood stereotype - noble savages in braids and riding bareback with bows and arrows. And as in Dances With Wolves, their messiah is a white man who goes native". Once again, I am probably biased because I am not of Aboriginal descent. When I was watching the movie I thought it was a brilliant way of showing what it must have been like for indiginous people (both in Canada and the U.S., as well as all round the world) to be "invaded" by a group of people who thought they were both stronger and superior. The article pointed out that North American natives were "misrepresented" by putting feathers in their hair and doing a "war whoop". I can understand the frustrations of being misrepresented. But then I was thinking that perhaps James Cameron wanted to get his point across, and thought that this was the best way in which to do it. Maybe the general public do need to be "hit over the head" with "obvious" similarities in order to get it. Had he been more discreet in his portrayal, maybe the story wouldn't have had as much resonance. Of course the "white man" coming in on his high horse and saving everyone is a little chiche. Actually, a LOT cliche. But I still think the point was made very nicely. And, again, it is art. It is one person's representation. It is up to us how we choose to interpret it.

I think the same can be said for curriculum. First, it is written by one group of people. I would hope that the people who make up the team would be from a variety of different cultures, backgrounds, experiences, etc. This would help to make it more authentic. But, it is still the point of view of one group of people. And these people cannot help where they come from and how they think about things. They are defined by their "place" just as much as the rest of us. Second, we all have the opportnity to interpret these curriculum documents based on our own "places". Some of us will see one document as lacking in certain areas based on our place, and others may see the same document as full and rich based on their place. I think that it is most important that curriculum be flexible enough to be adapted/shaped to fit where we are, while still providing a sense of unity among all "places".

Going back to the white man on the horse saving the day image again, we have to remember who this movie is coming from. It is produced in Hollywood, by Americans. Of course they are going to make themselves the hero of the story. Who wouldn't? If a movie was made by Canadians, they would probably be presented in a flattering light. If a movie was made by Pakistanis, they would probably be the heroes. If Native Americans had made the movie Avatar, the hero would most likely have been one of the Na'vi people. We have to remember that everything that is made by people is going to have a personal spin based on our own biases, beliefs, values and experiences. How can we say that someone else's expression is wrong? So I think when we are looking at curriculum in terms of how it fits with our own place in society, it is really up to us (the teachers) to make it fit. We cannot control who wrote it and how it was written. We can control how we choose to interpret and implement it.