Should feminist teachers talk about feminism? And should we show emotion about it?

[JeanneTheRabidFeminist]

I'm really interested in this topic of how feminism and teaching should interact.

Recently, there's been a thread where we've ended up talking about how feminists who teach English Lit (which is my subject) ought to teach. It's tricky to work out, because there's personal ideology, and also (obviously) there's a feminist theory of lit crit. I imagine the same is true of other subjects - so you could be teaching feminist theory without teaching about your own beliefs.

We also got onto the subject of whether or not teachers should show personal emotions - eg., being upset when discussing rape. I'm really conflicted about this, as I know emotion has gendered connotations, but I also think seeing someone who's teaching you getting upset is not great.

Related to this, off MN I've been talking to a friend about trigger warnings, and she's really concerned that these have a bad effect on free debate, and that you shouldn't have them in a lecture context. I disagree quite strongly, but it's the same issue of how on earth we cope with the fact that some teaching is going to raise emotional issues.

What do you think? How would you feel about someone getting emotional while teaching?

The thread kept making me think about a friend of mine, who's been having very lively discussions with her class about Of Mice And Men. I'm saying 'lively' - none of her students accused her of criminalising them, but they certainly did have some of their gendered assumptions challenged!

Curley's wife has no name. Steinbeck said this is because she was a plot device, not a 'real' character. She is, however, pivotal, and we learn quite a bit about her character; I accuse him of fudging that bit

The class assumed she was bitter, narcissistic and resentful toward men because she'd been robbed of unrealistic dreams of a movie career. A quick look at the crib notes confirm that this is the 'correct' opinion.

Yet we're looking at a woman who, at a very young age, was conned by some bloke who promised her a glamorous escape from her downtrodden surroundings. He seduced or raped her and plunged her into prostitution. I'm not surprised she was disappointed and cross. Looking at contemporary stories of, say, Thai girls who are lured into slavery by similar promises, we wouldn't feel good about labelling them stupid, deluded & twisted.

Her accidental murder was also seen as her own fault. She foolishly thought her beauty could comfort Lennie - who was already guilty of accidental sexual assault - and shouldn't have tempted him that way. Basically, she was 'asking for it' Having tempted the clumsy oaf, she shouldn't have been surprised when he mauled her.

Drawing parallels with rape proved a little too much for the class to take in at first, so a long discussion was needed on why Curley's Wife was so dumb as to think she could help Lennie (her physical beauty is the only thing she's ever been valued for, thus all she had to offer) and whether Lennie was truly at fault.

I say, yes, he was at fault. The novel makes the woman responsible for the man's behaviour. He'd already been guilty of a similar crime; surely it's his responsibility to know this about himself, and tone it down?

Sorry, Jeanne, long post. The discussion above strikes me as a typical example, where both the source material and the study notes imply sexist values that are harmful for women. In offering an alternative analysis, I'd think it's fairly normal to be 'emotional' about it, if emotional means passionately keen to alter the students' received perceptions.

Difficult. I suppose it depends on the age of the students. And perhaps whether the emotion comes from unresolved personal issues or from the material being discussed. I think a teacher needs to be in control- students need to feel safe. If anyone's going to explore their feelings in a classroom situation it should be the students, not the teacher.

I never show personal emotions when teaching (and I'm an Eng. Lit. teacher) if they are linked to distress or sadness. It's not the students' place to have to deal with that.

As far as feminism goes, we have to teach 'different readings' as part of our A Level assessment objectives. Thus I will present a feminist reading where appropriate but also look at a Marxist reading or a psychological reading. I don't bring my own beliefs into it, but my students are aware that I believe that everyone regardless of gender, race or sexual orientation should be treated equally. I don't tolerate lazy, casual -isms of any sort in discussion but - when teaching Streetcar, for example - students have explored what Tennessee Williams means when he has Stanley say "We've had this date from the beginning" just before he rapes Blanche, and sometimes that has involved exploring uncomfortable ideas of how Williams might present Blanche as inviting her attack. However, we always approach such discussions from the point of view of analysing the text objectively. We may then develop that into a discussion of contextual issues surrounding such topics (also part of the assessment objectives). In the scope of this, we discuss quite candidly the concept of the patriarchy and the male gaze.

My aim is, as much as I can, to create a space where such topics can be explored without (and I read the thread you are referring to) students being turned off. And girls as well as boys can reject overtly feminist teaching.

My dd had a hard time from some of the boys in her 6th from for interpreting Of Mice and Men like that- she came home from school incandescent with rage several days running, and it made her a much more radical feminist than she had been before!

Oh, that's interesting, gallic. I totally agree that being emotional in that sense (passionately keen) would be appropriate.

I think Mice and Men is really interesting, in that we've moved on enough as a society that it can be uncomfortable to think of 'correct' interpretations being the interpretations the author would have wanted. But I do find it fascinating that Lenny is a sympathetic character, despite it all. I remember my class doing it, and being horrified that he killed the puppy. But not so much that he killed her.

hak - yes, that's what I feel about emotion too. I realize that when I'm teaching (mine are adults), I will tell them that I am emotional about such-and-such, but I won't show it, if that makes sense. I think that's ok, but I know some people who say it's too personal.

we always approach such discussions from the point of view of analysing the text objectively.

Do you think that's possible? I'm increasingly doubtful. I think it can be done to the extent that students feel they're being objective, but I find it hard when I can see how they're not being, and know there's a limit to how much I can push back against that (because you want them to be better critics, but you also want them not to give up in despair!).

But if we're thinking about literature, then the recieved male focussed interpretations have been standard for so long that I think the boys need a bit of a shake up! My year 9 ds was "doing" The Tempest before Christmas and we watched the Judy Dench version- fascinating to watch him thinking about it in an entirely different way........

Yes, although I guess to each individual, the old interpretations feel new, because they've not known them before. Which is why I'd try not to feel frustrated by a student buying into Steinbeck treating Curley's wife as disposable, because I can see why they might.

I do love it when someone's never come to the 'traditional' interpretation at all, though, and belatedly they find out it exists. I've had that before and it's really funny.

jeanne, I teach physics so don't tend to come across subjects which make me emotional very often, but I think it's important to remain as neutral as possible when discussing things with students. It is hard though.

A couple of years ago, for example, I was in a phse lesson with 6th formers discussing Hillsborough. It was really, really hard to not get annoyed / upset at some of their ideas (particularly as I had relatives who were actually at Hillsborough). But (for me) teaching difficult topics has to be about allowing the students to explore their own ideas and feelings about them, not about putting across my ideas.

More recently, a student wanted to talk about politics and asked me who I would be voting for. I answered honestly because he'd asked me outright, I wasn't trying to persuade him of anything.

The only time I've really voiced strong disapproval is about homophobia. The students in my school are going through a phase of calling everything bad 'gay'. I told them very clearly that I wouldn't tolerate that sort of language, and any student heard using it would be asked to leave my classroom.

With regards to feminism, I haven't come across much. Did have one year 11 use the phrase 'don't be such a girl' to his mate. Shut up sharpish when I asked him to explain to the class why being a girl would be a bad thing.

Is feminism so controversial that a teacher would need to be neutral about it? I can't imagine anyone accepting that about racism.

Yes, but sadly, people do think that way, apocalypse. I've often heard it said - not just on MN - that a teacher should never display his or her 'beliefs' or 'ideology' when it comes to feminism.

I think the implication is, calling out obvious sexism would be ok, but anything like, say, choosing feminist texts to read might be a bit much.

jessica - yes, that must have been very hard. I'm sorry you had that experience.

I am wondering, I guess, whether my own knee-jerk assumption that showing personal emotion is bad, is itself a biased one?

I have just taught a lesson with the key question are men and women equal in the western world?. We looked at stats on pay childcare ect, ched Evans and consent, women in media, especially pop music and pornography. It was a psche lesson.

As a psche/re teacher I regularly teach emotive subjects and the students know I often play devil advocate and ask them probing questions to make them reconsider their views to think deeply about why they hold their views and to help them view them from an opposing view. I think feminise is a major issue which they need to be aware off, not the only one but is something I will continue to raise when appropriate.

Feminism is logical though, as is equality. So it's possible to discuss and debate in a rational and calm manner, and insist that opinions are backed up by facts and that prejudices are challenged.
In the instances given of English literature, that's why a more rounded approach is essential, and seeing more than one interpretation is a part of critical understanding, and reading different critical analyses of the same text. However that doen't fit well with the 'See the hoop Spot? Jump Spot, jump' teaching required to pass GCSEs.

How would you feel if an ardent Christian teacher talked about faith issues in Eng lit and got very emotional about it? Good thing or not?

apocalypse, I'm quite new to feminism, so I'm probs using the terminology wrong, but I thought sexism was equivalent to racism, and that feminism was something a little different, more like a political opinion.

Discussing to what extent women remain disadvantaged is a bit controversial, as would be discussing to what extent ethnic minorities remain disadvantaged. In both of these examples I really would try to avoid getting in to my own opinions.

Saying "women are crap at XXX" is clearly sexist, and something I would not remain neutral on. I still wouldn't show much emotion about it, but I would probably impose sanctions.

Well, this is what I'm wondering about, solitary. Is that the same, or not?

With the 'should be able to remain calm' bit - does this maybe relate to trigger warnings? Some people think they indicate that students aren't being expected to be able to remain calm.

"Discussing to what extent women remain disadvantaged is a bit controversial,"
Is it?

I teach English lit but also an unit on language and gender at a level English language, which I love. Students know my own feminist opinions but A lot of the time I play devil's advocate and explore other views in an objective way, and my role is to encourage them to question what they read. I think my classroom is one of the few places they will ever encounter an attitude which questions the status quo about gender roles.

Interesting. I teach Science, so there are perhaps fewer topics where students have a personal response. Evolution, certainly, and I am well prepared for that. Cannabis use ... One of my students asked about miscarriage the other day, in a lesson on reproduction, and it did throw me slightly, as I do have a personal response to that, but obviously not an ideological one.

I think teachers need to be the moderators in discussion, and therefore need to be prepared for and manage their emotions.

Hakyult, it does seem that way IME. My mum identifies as a feminist, as do I, but my sister declared "I don't like feminism, I already have equal rights and opportunities".

As I said, I'm pretty new to it myself - I regarded it as unnecessary for a long time, so I'm probs a bit biased.

Yes ... see, I am feeling more and more that it'd be dishonest for me to pretend I was capable of being objective. Which is perhaps related to what you're saying, buffy (though I like the idea of 'strong objectivity').

susannah - yes, I do devil's advocate, but not with ideological points usually. I don't know why actually. I think partly because all the time I've been teaching, I've also been on here, and I got to have a slight allergic reaction to the 'but, ladies, if I may play devil's advocate ...' tone of some of our hairier-handed visitors. It works well with non-ideological stuff, but I don't know how good I'd be at doing it with ideology.

And, FWIW, mine aren't children. Perhaps that makes a difference? I don't know.

Yes, I know, kim. I don't usually call them 'girls' though.