Return-Path: <nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov>
Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.9.3/8.9.0.Beta5/980425bjb) with SMTP id KAA00293; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 10:18:39 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 10:18:39 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <8a.23e12af.261df5e8@aol.com>
Errors-To: alcrsb@langate.gsu.edu
Reply-To: nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov
Originator: nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov
Sender: nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov
Precedence: bulk
From: Ansongreen@aol.com
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-WOMENLIT:638] Re: Men's involvement
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Status: OR
Wow,
I really feel like I need to jump in (a little late) and join this wonderful discussion. Several people have asked "where I've been" in this discussion...Well I've simply been busy.
As a man who works daily in class with women learners on issues of violence and inequity, I'd like to share some of my observations.
I'm glad to see people are raising the topic of looking at the role men have in working with women on the topic of violence. I've been doing this work for several years and this year have had the ability to really examine it close through my NIFL fellowship on women, violence and learning. The work this year has had me concentrating, not only on the "what" and "how" of working with learners on violence but also the "who" and "whether" (men have a role in this discourse). Issues of power (inherent in being male) are extremely important, but I think, there is a lot of energy spent on this area at the cost of other aspects which are rarely mentioned. I feel, possibly more important than gender, and often missing from the discussion, is the incredibly crucial component of altruism, care, "being there" and sharing on the part of practitioners, particularly male, on the issue of violence, whether it be domestic abuse or systemic violence. Follow me here...
Creating "women only" topics seems really detrimental to the construction of a sense of "normalcy" for learners, especially learners who feel silenced or disenfranchised by violence (Be it physical abuse or abusive systems.) Polarizing "us and them" "mixed classroom/ women's classroom" seems to make sense at first, but is this really creating a normal environment for learners to work with the issues? I'm a man who has worked with learners for several years on the topic of violence. I've done this often with men in the class (Men on welfare who have custody of their children or are "two-parent" recipients.) I have also done this within a class where learners had access to free counseling. Consistently women comment on the comfort they get in finding out that "not all men are bad." Many say that they have never really seen that side of men and doubted if it really existed….they say it seems like something that you only see on TV. In addition, several have said that they resented the subtle and not so subtle "male-bashing" by workers and residents in shelters (or by counselors) and cited that the isolation that surrounded "a women's issue" often made them less comfortable and more aware that there was a "problem"
Now I know this is contentious ground and I am not here to criticize DV shelters/counselors...not at all...but there is a side to this that learners voice. The point I want to make is that the isolation of an all "female" environment might sometimes mitigate against women's needs at the moment...the need to experience male interaction that is non-threatening/safe/ caring/ responsible.
I think there is a lot to be said about the need to create and share examples of healthy behavior and healthy relationships. Women in my class respond positively when they see that men can have fights with their wives and their wives are not abused in the process, and they are positive and responsive when a man discusses breast cancer or sexual harassment with them. Instead of a "this is our (women's) issue" atmosphere, which may reinforce cultural taboos ("Men where I come from never talk about that.") and instead creates a classroom "culture of caring" not tied to gender but rather fostering altruism.
A quick note on the "utopia" of having counselors available to learners. Very often, in my class, women who are in extreme crisis complain that their counselors simply push pills on them that produce a spacey, out-of -body feeling that really bothers them at a time when they feel an urgency to stay "in reality" so they can be there for their kids and sanely consider their choices. This has been a problem with the three different counselors my class has been associated with. (In fact, it came up yesterday as one student shared with the class the feeling she had of the computer monitor drifting off the table…and the feeling that she was drifting off her chair.)
I could go on and I'm not sure I'm getting anywhere (It's late and I'm on a crowded flight to Tulsa...)
To conclude I really think we should consider shifting away from "us/them", "people of color/white"," male/female" ,"rich/poor" dichotomies in this field. Considering your position within a group is crucial, and more should be done to articulate "positionality" issues in the field through professional development, but polarizing these areas may do more harm than good. It may simply recreate a subtle bigotry cloaked in intellectual sensitivity toward "the other."
The abuse that no one talks about is the abuse of those who are "in" with "a certain population" (women, people of color, teachers who have "come out of poverty" etc) who abuse this connection through a lack of altruism for the learners. I'm thinking specifically of stories that trickle into my class consistently of caseworkers, teachers, counselors who marginalize or have maginalized women in my classes though they may have "profiled" as a person suited to address women's/ class/race issues (where, on the surface, I may not have been).
Now I'm not advocating for an " all you need is a degree in caring" type thing, but I am saying that, from my experience over the past several years on the topic of women and violence this seems to be an enormous component that is often missing in the discourse. I guess it does not make for as interesting a conversation because the idea that you need to be altruistic and caring is such a "no brainer." Thanks for reading this far in the post!
As ever,
Anson
San Antonio
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 16 2001 - 14:46:35 EST