Wayne Martino really knows how to start out an article. You remember how your English teacher used to talk about having a attention-getting first sentence?
"Boys who enjoy reading or like English have been referred to as 'faggots', 'squids', 'spocks', 'try-hards or simply just as rejects by their peers."
Well. Ok then.
Incidentally, Martino also wrote a chapter entitled "Dickheads, Wuses, and Faggots: Addressing Issues of Masculinity and Homophobia in the Critical Literacy Classroom for a book. While I appreciate Martino's daring word choice and agree to the inclusion of this issue for research's sake, I contest his spelling of "wusses." Dictionary.com backs me up.
Not surprisingly, Martino finds that boys disengage with passive, "feminized" activities, into which they (a bunch of Australian boys) group reading--clearly these boys have not read any transactional theory a la Rosenblatt. Less surprisingly, Martino claims boys like...porn. Here Martino draws upon his gender argument, that concepts of masculinity and male literary practices blah blah blah--look, his "study" interviewed boys on their thoughts on reading, and they either said they didn't like it and it was boring, they like some types of texts (sci-fi or adventure or sports) or they liked it a lot and saw it as an escape from reality. I don't think Martino's telling us anything new or significant. All students at times express these thoughts (that reading is boring, that only certain books are any good), and during adolescents, they are constantly trying on new identities and attitudes to assert their independence and show they are tough--it was around this age that I first savored the full power of a well-delivered F Bomb. I applaud Martino for using the word "tits" in an academic article (in quoting a participant), but I'm not impressed by his "study."
Mollie Blackburn, on the other hand, study the out-of-school literacies and power held and experienced by LBGTQ youth while working for and researching literacy performances at The Loft in NY for a number of years. She knows that kids are only in school part of the time, and that away from school, they are both aware of the power dynamics at play in ident
ity formatice and literacy, and work to change them. In this study, this is done by collaborating on a glossary of terms used to describe LBGTQ people, thereby taking the power of labeling out of the hands of outsiders and re-situating their own identities and definitions. She draws on queer theory, critical race theory, and critical feminism (all of which slightly contradict each other--queer theory seeks to suspend classifications of identity while critical feminism makes gender the center of issues studied, same with CRT with the concept of race) to approach the multiple identities working within this group and these performances. Moreover, she stresses the power of literacy performances for social justice and change. The Speaker's Bureau, a noted group within the Loft) works to disrupt power dynamics by educating others about homophobia and heterosexism (which assumes that everyone is straight). To be gay, a female, and a minority...Gloria Alzadua's writing continues to poke me in the back as I try to read other things (when I get home, I'll get out Borderlands to find the quote I'm thinking of).Finally, Barbara Kamler looks at gender in early childhood writing, finding that despite being given freedom to choose their topics, children in Australia (what's with all the Aussies?!) typically wrote in the observation genre, reporting on what they've seen and done in their own lives. Boys in this study overwhelming wrote themselves into their stories as active do-ers while girls positioned themselves as passive experiencers (can't say I'd have fallen into that myself--the stories I used to write in elementary school were usually made up, and I typically made myself the superhero of the tale, so what does that say? Furthermore, I once pitched a fit at McDonald's because I wanted a Transformer in my Happy Meal and not a damn doll--I was the inheritor of a great collector of Matchbox cars from my older brother and a single Barbie with crappy clothes and a Ken doll whose head consistently came off from my sister). Anyway, Kamler's study (which includes only 2 children although she studied them for almost 3 years) argues that "children, as they learn to write are gaining control not only of the written mode of language, but also of the gendered meanings of their culture." I don't contest that point at all, but as with the Martino study, there are so many complex and variable influences on one's identity that work together and in juxtaposition with each other; gender and the context in which it's presented throughout childhood is only one factor.
Kamler argues that gender is often overlooked, but I pose a different question--if we are lending credence to the shaping concepts of gender on identity, what impact does the overwhelmingly female teaching population have on education? How do male and female roles play out in the minds of the young when they typically see female teachers and male administrators? What do they think of power dynamics when Mom does the cleaning and Dad has the job? When the plumber and the mechanic and the electrician are all men, and the waitress and the flight attendant and the maid are all women? All of these decisions are fine, do whatever you want to do with your life, but we should be providing narratives of "non-standard" or non-traditional gender roles as well.
Kamler's weakness (besides using a single pair for study) lies in attributing to particular writing behaviors and choices to gender, when little Peter and little Zoe were many things besides a little boy and a little girl--they were white (I'm assuming), Australian, members of a family and community and town, possibly little brother or little sister--all these things went into their choices, not just gender. Everything we know about how to act is a product of our socialization, and is socially reproduced when we reduce some behavior as a trait of gender. Hence the title of this post--I (Jen) am who I am, talk like I talk, write and read like I write and read because of who I am, not just because of my gender or race, etc.
Just in case gender confuses you, however, here's Zachary to clear things up:
Also, here is a sheik describe the difference between men and women:
We can laugh about it, and it's something we'll fight each other on til the end of time, and it provides much of the fodder used in sitcoms, but when it comes to discrimination and oppression, I will second Kiri's directive from Blackburn's article in saying, "suck my cock."
