I hate to think what empirical evidence would emerge from a statistical comparison of the time I spent studying in college versus the time I've spent consumed by relationships. Talking about them, investing in them, recovering from them, hypothetically creating them in my mind through the lens of other women's experiences and opinions. The most frightening part of this experiment would be a comparable analysis of one of my male counterparts. I hate to imagine the gross disparaties between how men and women spend their post-secondary education, and perhaps even more discouraging is how these same men occupy their time once they're out of college.
I was reminded of this by a conversation I had with one of my intelligent, talented, beautiful, recently graduated friends. She was telling me about her abysmal experiences meeting men since she's been out of college. It's been a mixture of immaturity, dishonesty, indecision and my personal favorite: a grown man in his late twenties who is incapable of communicating on the phone or in person and instead pursues my friend through a variety of disrespectful text messages. Really? Is this what we spend our youth obsessing over? Men who can't or don't want to commit, who are preoccupied, unwilling or incapable of growing up and/or, as I imagine is the source of most of this, who have no semblance of respect for women. It makes me think about all the movies and tv I grew up with that define women's happiness in terms of their attachment to, or relationship with, men. I attempted to brainstorm examples or images of men who are completely consumed/defined by their pursuit of the utlimate relationship. I'm sure if you try the same exercise, you would reach the same conclusion: there just aren't any. So as I reflect on owning and watching the entire series of sex and the city (more times than I'd like to admit), I think about how real/sureal/unreal it is. How just like most media, it reflects and creates reality all at once. How it is both representative and constructive of the way that women think about and experience relationships. Even if we are educated, insightful, creative and capable, for some reason there is some societal or personal vacancy that exists in the absence of a relationship. Not only are these ideas conservative, hetero-normative and dangerously invisible for most women, they are woven into the fabric of how we see, understand and value ourselves.
I remember first hearing about Sex and the City, and since then Desperate Housewives and others, being praised as a source for female empowerment. All female leads, liberal sexual values and women so-called taking control over their lives on-screen for everyone to see and learn from. After hours and hours of immersion in the upper middle-class white world of carrie bradshaw, it's become incredibly apparent to me that Sex and the City (and other manifestations of the same concept) continues to reinforce the idea that women are somehow incomplete, empty or unfulfilled without at least the pursuit of a relationship with a man. So while women are learning important lessons about the relative significance of defining a self and finding a relationship, men operate under the assumption that women will just come along, take care of them, and ultimately marry them, becoming an accessory in their otherwise complete lives.
The other day my rooommate and I found ourselves trapped in the obligatory, "what are you up to right now slash in the near future" conversation with a female acquintance of ours, and as we both tried desperately to feign interest in an entire monologue of information that was neither significant nor relevant to either of us, we were both struck by something: This woman, who is graduating from UCLA in the spring, and has secured a job with one of the most competitive consulting firms in the country, expressed a deep concern about not having enough time to spend with her boyfriend over the summer. Among her explanation of Europe travel plans and job training obligations, she made it clear that her primary investment was in her relationship. Man, even when women manage to escape marginalization and discrimination, we are still preoccupied with finding, keeping or analyzing the men in our lives. That is de-pressing.
I guess the real question is, how do women overcome this phenomenon? Or is it even something that women consider worth overcoming? Or perhaps more realistically, is this something other women have even considered at all? It is especially hard to imagine a change in relationship equity between men and women when there is so much information naturalizing and normalizing the behaviors and attitudes I have addressed. If you turn on the tv, glance through a "women's" magazine or check out most of mainstream American cinema, advertising and education, you will undoubtedly be inundated with constructed ideals of romance, instructions on how to become more desirable (for men), and list after list of things women can alter or enhance in order to be more equipped for a long-term relationship. The consequences of this inundation range from psychological and emotional to societal and incorporate just about everything in between. It affects the way women are educated, how they experience employment and pursue their careers. It affects self-perception, self-esteem and identity and can be potentially damaging and destructive in many ways I haven't even thought about.
Ironically, there's an episode of Sex and the City in which Miranda (the high-powered attorney, single-mother, and chronic relationship misfit) dramatically leaves a table of her three other friends in protest of how "intelligent and interesting women" can find nothing else to talk about but men and relationships. I hope that women everywhere take a similar stand in their own lives, not just in conversation with their intimate female friends, but in the depths of their own mind as well. Here's hoping that someday there's a popular tv character who makes her mark on history by being an incredible mother, powerful human being and/or meaningful contributor to society....now that would be something to talk about.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Friday, February 9, 2007
Black History Month, Fortune Cookies and essentialized education
Yesterday I helped out in a kindergarten class that was "learning" about Chinese New Year. The class was making fortunes (as in the kind you might find in a cookie from panda express), decorating fireworks, and reading some story about a dragon. On top of that, they were copying words on a handout about "chinese counting," and although all the numbers were written out in Chinese, the teacher couldn't pronounce the words and the pictures that went with the numbers included things like chopsticks, lanterns and of course....fortune cookies. Man, I thought: Here is this class of all white kids, attending this school filled exclusively with other white kids, in a neighborhood where only white people live, and they are learning about "Chinese" culture and traditions from a white teacher, using a work sheet designed by (no doubt) a company dominated by, you guessed it, more white people. And I can only imagine that this is the only lesson they get about anything Chinese for the rest of the year.
It all made me wonder about the danger of so-called multi-cultural education. What are the repercussions of creating and facilitating essentialized lessons about non-white (as in non-western non european, not anglo/North American, other, them, etc.) people places and traditions through a narrow lens of appropriated whiteness. In my entire elementary and secondary education I probably had this same lesson about "Chinese New Year" in a variety of different forms each year, and in the absence of having a personal relationship or any exposure to actual Chinese people, how could I help but understand them in any way other than in terms of chow mein, fortune cookies and red envelopes. Not only that, what about the one or two chinese kids in my school and the thousands of chinese kids in other schools who every year listen attentively while their culture is reduced to a one day lesson about food and fireworks.
Can anyone realistically argue that this doesn't have some sort of greater social consequence? As far as I can tell, one of the problems with "multi-cultural" education is that even the name itself is a misrepresentation. This type of education is derived from the cultural perspective, bias and understanding of one culture and one culture only: European-descended white Americans. The education kids receive in public school is about as authentically chinese as I am. It does nothing to challenge the infectious white normalcy that characterizes not only education but just about every other aspect of American social space and public life. So while Chinese kids learn that the significance of their ethnic identity ranks with groundhog day and St. Valentine, white kids are reinforced over and over again with the idea that the way they look, feel, act, behave, eat, dance, write, talk and breathe is normal, significant and correct, they are also learning that everything else is just a token leftover from immigration and the American melting pot. It appears that there's even more to educational equity than resources and standardized tests.
As I sat and contemplated this idea of co-opted, pre-packaged, whitened-out culture as the only source for multi-culturalism in the public school system, I thought about my all time favorite aspect of public schooling: Black History Month. Oh black history month, the time when: prime time television airs thirty second clips of well-dressed African-Americans achieving greatness, daytime and evening talk shows interview prominent black entertainers and celebrities and we all take a moment to praise the cultural, athletic and historic accomplishments of African-Americans. If it can even be imagined, the study of black history in the public school classroom is even more ridiculous and contrived. Students learn about "I Have A Dream" and Martin Luther King Jr. when they celebrate his birthday in January so teachers have to get really creative when February rolls around and its black history month again.
Oh you know, there's the Rosa Parks anecdote (which is always a watered-down version of an incredible struggle for freedom that doesn't even validate the intricate tactical organization and community mobilization that surrounded the bus incident-much of which was done by women); not to mention a brief overview of significant black athletes and entertainers: arthur ashe, magic johnson, jackie robinson, maybe even flo jo if you're lucky; in particularly progressive cases you might hear about the Harlem Rennaissance, freedom marches or the first black person to (insert significant political office and/or leadership position here); and in some classes students even learn about things like the underground railroad (which in reality is no more than a valorization of the benevolent white folk that guided the black people from slavery) or maybe read uncle tom's cabin or a speech by Frederick Douglas. Man, that's a whole lot more than fortune cookies and fireworks isn't it?
As it turns out, it isn't. The truth of the matter is that while the expression is different, the message is the same: Black people and black culture are represented as static fixtures, historical, political and social entities that exist in isolation (and clear distinction) from the white American norm.
When kids sit in classrooms year after year, and read the same speech by Martin Luther King, Jr, what are they really learning about African-Americans? Are they learning about the complexity of diasporic culture and the diversity of African-American identities? Are they learning about historical, institutional and systemic racism and discrimination? Of course not. They are learning a token or two about a couple of important events or individuals, the significance of which, even if they are exposed to, they will unlikely ever learn to situate in the greater context of African-American identity and experience.
Most of the people I grew up going to school with now hold college degrees and are currently pursuing advanced education and/or have joined the capitalist work force. And as they all sit at the brink of the adult stage of their lives in which they will raise their own children (who will do the same projects and read the same books as they always did during February) I can almost guarantee that none of them know anything more about African-American history than they did in the first grade. The worst part is, these kids received some of the best public elementary and secondary education in the country AND made it through higher education. What does that suggest about what the rest of the nation's children are learning about black history, or anything else for that matter? How can we claim to live in a world of equality, or even envision one, when the very substance of what we are teaching focuses on, benefits and reproduces a single, dominant group. What's more, Black history month probably does more justice to black culture than any other study of history does to any other marginalized group in the entire scope of public education curriculum. What are the consequences for all the kids who belong to these groups who are educated by this system? One can only imagine. I know that I grew up in a world where (aside from the fact that I'm a woman), most everything I learned about validated my entire identity and existence. I also know that there are social, psychological and academic advantages that came with that type of education, and that in contrast, there are serious consequences for those who are not receiving it.
I hope to be an educator myself someday. I hope to conceive of and create a curriculum in which the story of history is told through the voices of the people I am teaching. I hope to create a space in which the cultural and ethnic history of each individual is validated, spread and understood for its unique complexity, and that no one group is valorized over another. I've often been told that, in terms of my professional dreams I'm incredibly unrealistic. And although this may be the truth, I can ensure my future students of one thing, there will be no fortune cookies on Chinese New Year, No latkes during Hannukah and no posters of famous black athletes hanging on the walls during black history month.
It all made me wonder about the danger of so-called multi-cultural education. What are the repercussions of creating and facilitating essentialized lessons about non-white (as in non-western non european, not anglo/North American, other, them, etc.) people places and traditions through a narrow lens of appropriated whiteness. In my entire elementary and secondary education I probably had this same lesson about "Chinese New Year" in a variety of different forms each year, and in the absence of having a personal relationship or any exposure to actual Chinese people, how could I help but understand them in any way other than in terms of chow mein, fortune cookies and red envelopes. Not only that, what about the one or two chinese kids in my school and the thousands of chinese kids in other schools who every year listen attentively while their culture is reduced to a one day lesson about food and fireworks.
Can anyone realistically argue that this doesn't have some sort of greater social consequence? As far as I can tell, one of the problems with "multi-cultural" education is that even the name itself is a misrepresentation. This type of education is derived from the cultural perspective, bias and understanding of one culture and one culture only: European-descended white Americans. The education kids receive in public school is about as authentically chinese as I am. It does nothing to challenge the infectious white normalcy that characterizes not only education but just about every other aspect of American social space and public life. So while Chinese kids learn that the significance of their ethnic identity ranks with groundhog day and St. Valentine, white kids are reinforced over and over again with the idea that the way they look, feel, act, behave, eat, dance, write, talk and breathe is normal, significant and correct, they are also learning that everything else is just a token leftover from immigration and the American melting pot. It appears that there's even more to educational equity than resources and standardized tests.
As I sat and contemplated this idea of co-opted, pre-packaged, whitened-out culture as the only source for multi-culturalism in the public school system, I thought about my all time favorite aspect of public schooling: Black History Month. Oh black history month, the time when: prime time television airs thirty second clips of well-dressed African-Americans achieving greatness, daytime and evening talk shows interview prominent black entertainers and celebrities and we all take a moment to praise the cultural, athletic and historic accomplishments of African-Americans. If it can even be imagined, the study of black history in the public school classroom is even more ridiculous and contrived. Students learn about "I Have A Dream" and Martin Luther King Jr. when they celebrate his birthday in January so teachers have to get really creative when February rolls around and its black history month again.
Oh you know, there's the Rosa Parks anecdote (which is always a watered-down version of an incredible struggle for freedom that doesn't even validate the intricate tactical organization and community mobilization that surrounded the bus incident-much of which was done by women); not to mention a brief overview of significant black athletes and entertainers: arthur ashe, magic johnson, jackie robinson, maybe even flo jo if you're lucky; in particularly progressive cases you might hear about the Harlem Rennaissance, freedom marches or the first black person to (insert significant political office and/or leadership position here); and in some classes students even learn about things like the underground railroad (which in reality is no more than a valorization of the benevolent white folk that guided the black people from slavery) or maybe read uncle tom's cabin or a speech by Frederick Douglas. Man, that's a whole lot more than fortune cookies and fireworks isn't it?
As it turns out, it isn't. The truth of the matter is that while the expression is different, the message is the same: Black people and black culture are represented as static fixtures, historical, political and social entities that exist in isolation (and clear distinction) from the white American norm.
When kids sit in classrooms year after year, and read the same speech by Martin Luther King, Jr, what are they really learning about African-Americans? Are they learning about the complexity of diasporic culture and the diversity of African-American identities? Are they learning about historical, institutional and systemic racism and discrimination? Of course not. They are learning a token or two about a couple of important events or individuals, the significance of which, even if they are exposed to, they will unlikely ever learn to situate in the greater context of African-American identity and experience.
Most of the people I grew up going to school with now hold college degrees and are currently pursuing advanced education and/or have joined the capitalist work force. And as they all sit at the brink of the adult stage of their lives in which they will raise their own children (who will do the same projects and read the same books as they always did during February) I can almost guarantee that none of them know anything more about African-American history than they did in the first grade. The worst part is, these kids received some of the best public elementary and secondary education in the country AND made it through higher education. What does that suggest about what the rest of the nation's children are learning about black history, or anything else for that matter? How can we claim to live in a world of equality, or even envision one, when the very substance of what we are teaching focuses on, benefits and reproduces a single, dominant group. What's more, Black history month probably does more justice to black culture than any other study of history does to any other marginalized group in the entire scope of public education curriculum. What are the consequences for all the kids who belong to these groups who are educated by this system? One can only imagine. I know that I grew up in a world where (aside from the fact that I'm a woman), most everything I learned about validated my entire identity and existence. I also know that there are social, psychological and academic advantages that came with that type of education, and that in contrast, there are serious consequences for those who are not receiving it.
I hope to be an educator myself someday. I hope to conceive of and create a curriculum in which the story of history is told through the voices of the people I am teaching. I hope to create a space in which the cultural and ethnic history of each individual is validated, spread and understood for its unique complexity, and that no one group is valorized over another. I've often been told that, in terms of my professional dreams I'm incredibly unrealistic. And although this may be the truth, I can ensure my future students of one thing, there will be no fortune cookies on Chinese New Year, No latkes during Hannukah and no posters of famous black athletes hanging on the walls during black history month.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
No cell phone, no mentorship...hella time to think, obsess, talk to my roommates...et cetera
Today I spent three hours in a lecture on internet access, activism, social networking, surveillance, security and other elements of the evolving internet subculture that for the most part I've remained alien to. Aside from an obligatory facebook page, emailing the people I live with and the occassional google search, I pretty much avoid the realm altogether. When things like xanga and myspace first became popular I was more creeped out than anything else. Not to mention that these innovations led way too many people I went to high school with to become unneccessarily involved in eachother's lives without even speaking. It's a surreality more than anything else. Where people can exist in imaginary spaces with made up identities and create friendships that would never materialize in any full-contact social space.
But whatever, lord knows that my inner-stalker has thrived on many a facebook search since then, and I no longer judge those who use this bizarre internet universe to complicate and dramatize their otherwise mundane existence. It's all good for me.
One thing I certainly never thought to do was create an online journal. I'm pretty much the most righteous and self-important person I know in real life and still I don't think anything i think or say or write about means anything to anyone but my mom (who is genetically obligated to appreciate and validate everything I do) and my roommates (who are pretty much just multi-cultural expressions of me). So in any case, I don't expect anyone to ever read this, and if they do, I certainly don't expect anyone to understand it. But the truth is, in the absence of unicamp politics and drama and control over the best thing that has ever happened to UCLA student organizations (aka Mentorship), I have way too much time on my hands, and I can tell that some people in my apartment are sick of me sitting on the couch watching 90210 slash in their bedroom when they're trying to go to sleep... so we'll see, who knows, maybe through my brilliant ramblings I'll end up on Oprah afterall, condemning Wally Wirick and sending many a los angeles youth to Disneyland on the house. Cross your fingers.
But whatever, lord knows that my inner-stalker has thrived on many a facebook search since then, and I no longer judge those who use this bizarre internet universe to complicate and dramatize their otherwise mundane existence. It's all good for me.
One thing I certainly never thought to do was create an online journal. I'm pretty much the most righteous and self-important person I know in real life and still I don't think anything i think or say or write about means anything to anyone but my mom (who is genetically obligated to appreciate and validate everything I do) and my roommates (who are pretty much just multi-cultural expressions of me). So in any case, I don't expect anyone to ever read this, and if they do, I certainly don't expect anyone to understand it. But the truth is, in the absence of unicamp politics and drama and control over the best thing that has ever happened to UCLA student organizations (aka Mentorship), I have way too much time on my hands, and I can tell that some people in my apartment are sick of me sitting on the couch watching 90210 slash in their bedroom when they're trying to go to sleep... so we'll see, who knows, maybe through my brilliant ramblings I'll end up on Oprah afterall, condemning Wally Wirick and sending many a los angeles youth to Disneyland on the house. Cross your fingers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)