Teachers are often unaware of the gender distribution of talk in their classrooms. They usually consider that they give equal amounts of attention to girls and boys, and it is only when they make a tape recording that they realize that boys are dominating the interactions.
Dale Spender, an Australian feminist who has been a strong advocate of female rights in this area, noted that teachers who tried to restore the balance by deliberately ‘favouring’ the girls were astounded to find that despite their efforts they continued to devote more time to the boys in their classrooms. Another study reported that a male science teacher who managed to create an atmosphere in which girls and boys contributed more equally to discussion felt that he was devoting 90 per cent of his attention to the girls. And so did his male pupils. They complained vociferously that the girls were getting too much talking time.
In other public contexts, too, such as seminars and debates, when women and men are deliberately given an equal amount of the highly valued talking time, there is often a perception that they are getting more than their fair share. Dale Spender explains this as follows:
The talkativeness of women has been gauged in comparison not with men but with silence. Women have not been judged on the grounds of whether they talk more than men, but of whether they talk more than silent women.
In other words, if women talk at all, this may be perceived as ‘too much’ by men who expect them to provide a silent, decorative background in many social contexts. This may sound outrageous, but think about how you react when precocious children dominate the talk at an adult party. As women begin to make inroads into formerly ‘male’ domains such as business and professional contexts, we should not be surprised to find that their contributions are not always perceived positively or even accurately.
As a teacher, I give girls what I hope is a lot of attention. I don’t know if I give girls their fair share, but I aspire to, especially after noticing that boys are willing to use their greater share of teachers’ attention to get girls who they feel aren’t being quiet and docile enough punished. I have therefore acquired a reputation for “caring more about the girls.” This has had two marked results: Some straight boys have gotten more hostile toward me, and most girls have gotten more confident around me. This makes me think I’m doing something right.
Longer thoughts on how this phenomenon relates to sexual harassment in classrooms, if you’re interested: The girls figured out I won’t report them if they hit boys who are sexually harassing them, I’ll only report the boys. This led to an increase in how often girls got the last word and boys got smacked in my classes, and, also, to a DECREASE IN HOW OFTEN GIRLS GOT SEXUALLY HARASSED. The sexual harassers seem to have been depending on the sort of “equal blame” and “retaliation is never warranted” and “don’t hurt others’ feelings” perspectives so many schools try to instill in kids; the sexual harassers were usually the ones bringing me into the situation by saying, “Miss, she hit me! You should write her up!” Once they figured out I was only ever going to respond, “If you don’t treat girls like that, they won’t hit you,” the girls got more confident and the sexual harassers largely shut the fuck up.
In schools, fighting against sexual harassment is often punished exactly the same as, or more severely than, sexual harassment — a lot of discipline codes make no distinction between violence and violence in self-defence, and violence is ALWAYS the highest level of disciplinary infraction, whereas verbal sexual harassment rarely is. Sexual harassers, at least in the schools I’ve been in, rely heavily on GETTING GIRLS IN TROUBLE WITH HIGHER AUTHORITIES as a strategy of harassment — creating an external punishment that penalises girls for and therefore discourages girls from fighting back. Sexual harassers are willing to use their greater share of floorspace to ask to get girls who won’t date them punished. By and large, teachers do punish those girls when they swear or hit. Schools condition girls to ignore sexual harassment by punishing them when they speak up or fight back instead.
Once the sexual harassers in my classes understood that girls wouldn’t be punished for rejecting them, they backed off around me. And there started to be a flip in what conversations I get called into — girls are telling me when boys are being nasty (too loud and dominant), instead of boys telling me when girls are being uncooperative (louder and more dominant than boys think they should be).
reblogging again for the wonderful commentary.
Holy crud, so glad I read this. Reblogging for other educators.
As a girl who would not be shut up and would not tolerate teasing or abuse from boys in my class and was several times sent to such higher authorities for it, reading this is extremely, extremely vindicating. I was lucky, though, because being a particularly bright, advanced student for those grades, they generally took my side and I never got into any severe or lasting trouble. Again ,this was luck, and shouldn’t be the rule.
I was going to write that exact last paragraph; WOW.
I’m pretty sure my school’s attitude on violence (including sexual harassment cases) was even if you’re defending yourself you’re still in trouble because you probably did something to provoke the attack in the first place. And I know for a fact that my sister got in trouble for hitting a boy who harassed her and he got off free.
in the end of chapter 2 we touka with hide? what do you think about the way saseki froze up when Mitsuki said Bon Appetite?
I think that’s Kaneki ahaha.
As for that, I think Sasaki was just looking for a response from Mutsuki if ever his cooking tasted good or bad. Mutsuki didn’t actually say ‘bon appetite’. Here’s a cap from the JP raws.
He just said ‘itadakimasu’. Either that, or he could be remembering what he mentioned earlier about Mutsuki having a really low RC count while he was in the Medical Office. I hope this clears things up. ;u;a
Freakin’ translators, don’t translate shit in ways it could be misinterpreted =_=
It’s not really the translator’s fault. ;u;a I don’t think they made it in a way that it would get misinterpreted on purpose. Translating stuff from Japanese to English is challenging but what makes it harder is transliterating it, thinking which words would fit best. Just interpret it as ‘thanks for the food’. ;u;a
Everyone, you realize what this means, right?
Caliborn, as Lord English, is just cosplaying his OC.
The OC that he stole, from fanart someone drew.
Fanart that is wearing that coat, because it was seen in the Felt Intermission.
Let that sink in for a moment. Homestuck has actually established a closed paradox loop OUTSIDE OF THE COMIC PROPER.
"It’s death by a thousand cuts. Every day you’re faced with some comment, some snide remark, some inability to get a name on a research paper. And with an accumulation of those experiences, women tend to walk with their feet."
This is what we’re talking about.
but this makes me really happy.
Sasaki Haise has a banana poster in his room.
He’s a bigger dork than I originally thought he was.
Those posters are probably in reference to celebrated Japanese author Banana Yoshimoto. Ishida shows a bit of the same intimacy in his storytelling that she does, and I think if he likes Japanese literature half as much as Kaneki does, he’s probably read one or more of her books.