Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Gender & Education Group 1's Awesome Prezi

No description

on 29 October 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Gender & Education Group 1's Awesome Prezi

Many women feel pressured to either make a choice between work and family OR take on the responsibility of the "double shift".

-Andrea N.

Gender & Education Group 1's Awesome Prezi
In Afua Coppers article, it states, “Historians have been content to permit the men of the race to represent the woman in almost every significant category. “ Pg 62. Hence, in the writing of history, it is the man that assumes centre stage.
The Global Gender Gap Report 2012 emphasizes persisting gender gap divides across and within regions. Based on the seven years of data available for the 111 countries that have been part of the report since its inception, it finds that the majority of countries covered have made slow progress on closing gender gaps.
What lessons do the history texts we read offer to our study of gender and education? What issues, questions, and interesting ideas do they raise for you?
What are your Big Ideas?

In regards to your comment, I think our one-to-one connections with each other are the foundation for change. As educators I think it is important to become aware of the cultures and ethnicity's that make up the classroom community. -Rachel Paolella-
Who defines what dominant ideology we perpetuate?. How is the hidden curriculum understood and used?
Gender & Education in: "The Promise of Schooling"
A particular lesson that the history text allows us to understand is how specific attitudes towards women determine the role they have both as teachers and students within the school system.
For example: Axelrod addresses the issue of wage gap and how it was significant to the expansion of the school system.
White males earned between $250-$400. While women earned $150-$300(49). For the Same JOB!!
This speaks to the gender inequality that women faced as educators, and how it was shaped under the attitudes present in society that valued the work men did, and viewed women as subordinate to man.
significance: As noted in the Gender Gap stat slide, this is still an issue that many institutions are still facing, and the world as a whole is too.
Gender & Wage
When the notion of schools were made, it was not only to make children literate but also seen as a tool to reinforce gender roles. “Schooling [provided] for a handful of colony girls [stressed] biblical studies, domestic skills, needlework and etiquette” (Axelrod, 4). Hence this notion has emerged throughout history, and we can still see it within our society today. Certain subjects are seen as more male oriented (computers, tech class) whereas courses such as food and nutrition or parenting are seen as female oriented. This raises the question of whether we have really moved away from thinking according to our gender roles. How can we promote more boys to take parenting or food and nutrition and vice versa?
-Ruthusa Tharmabalan
Axelrod notes, that males had the opportunity to pursue secondary schooling (18). This creates a gap between the opportunities for females and males. It’s interesting to relate this to many third world countries, in which females are not given the opportunity to pursue higher education due to domestic requirements such as cooking, cleaning, getting married, taking care of children etc.
-Ruthusa Tharmabalan

The history texts acknowledge and highlight the fact that education was a gendered institution. A prevailing theme I noted was the subordination of women throughout history. Understanding women’s positions during the nineteenth century allows us to question and analyze our position in society today. The texts, specifically Jean Barman ‘Separate and Unequal: Indian and White Girls at All Hallows School, 1884-1920’ looks at women as oppressed not only to their male counterparts but also by other women. Her article exemplifies that a hierarchy existed among genders and race. Her article speaks to the fact that Indian girls were often oppressed and segregated from the whites. The opportunities for Indian girls was vastly limited and while the white girls engaged and continued with their education the Indians were responsible for the domestic chores. What spoke to me in this article was the fact that Indian girls were noted as possessing a comparable intellectual capacity to their fellow white classmates.
Does this suggest that women were accepting of their inferior role to men and rather in turn were they concentrated on their struggles and oppression between women of other racial backgrounds? Was gender even an issue, or did they see men and women as incomparable?
- Kristina Menna

The Comparison:
Indigenous and White Women

David Gilmour only teaches what he loves. And what he loves are books written exclusively by straight, white guys.

There’s also one lady that’s pretty okay, but more on that in a moment.

Gilmour, aside from being a prize-winning Canadian author, teaches in the English department at the University of Toronto. He also seems like he’d be a bit of a buzzkill at your weekly book club meeting.

While chatting with Hazlitt Magazine about his illustrious self (do read the whole thing for extra chuckles, fuming), this happened:

I’m not interested in teaching books by women… Usually at the beginning of the semester a hand shoots up and someone asks why there aren’t any women writers in the course. I say I don’t love women writers enough to teach them, if you want women writers go down the hall.
If this U of T prof is teaching this brand of hegemony, how can we react to his hidden curriculum. Or playing devils advocate, what are his rights for having and disseminating these views?
Less fortunate are the undergraduate students being taught this year by Gilmour. The woman who taught the class I took was named Sarah Wilson. She is an exceptional professor, and I was fortunate enough to take three or four classes with her over the years. She is a white woman, yet somehow she found a way to read beyond her own ethnocultural background. And, happily for my young mind, she reported back, demanding that I read unfamiliar things, too. I was made better by that.

Because of her, I now believe that professors have an ethical responsibility to show their students the world, as best they can. I’m not calling for quotas, and I’m not saying bad books should be taught through affirmative action. I am calling for those in positions to influence the understanding and discussion of literature to think bigger and better, to see farther and wider. To, quite simply, do better. We’ll all benefit.
Great Response by Former U of T student
As you can imagine, there’s a general response of displeasure, anger and mockery that Gilmour and his preferences are molding the great Canadian writers of tomorrow. Many of of whom are women, judging by this photo:
Quotes from Cooper's Article
“…the invisibility in the literature of someone who is supposed to have been conspicuous is a telling comment on the manner in which historians ignore persons who are seen to be handicapped by sex, race or both.”
I felt this was a very strong quote in the article, especially with the use of the word “handicapped”. Since, when we hear this word, one is automatically inclined to see it as having some kind of disability. Has this view of being disabled by your gender changed over the years, is it still intact in some places, if so than how can we bring change to this idea of being handicapped by gender, as future teachers?
Cooper’s has written this article in a wonderful way, reading it really shifted a lot of my perspectives on the history behind gender in general. Another quote that had interested me was “Although Mary Bibb was an independent and historically important person in her own right, because she was married to a man with a dynamic personality who was favored by the writers of history, a great deal of what Mary did was subsumed under her husband’s history.”
Does this still exist do successful women get overshadowed by their successful husbands? Some people believe mean did not like being in a relationship with women, who have gained more success in life either in careers or academics, since they feel inferior, is this still existent? If so than how much has society really changed from the past?
Jaswinder Shergill
When a man tells you that he got rich through hard work, ask him: "Whose?"
Don Marquis
Humourist and Journalist

It is interesting to me that Indigenous women were taught "traditional" gender roles which emphasizes the females' role in the home and place as care givers but yet they were not trusted to raise their own children. One of the justifications of residential schooling was that Indigenous families were not fit to take care of their children.
This demonstrates an issue with schooling (such as the All Hallows Girls School) because the operators did not even believe that their education was adequate since they did not trust these women in something they were supposedly educated in.

-Amanda O.
Axelrod discussion "Dame schools" further related to this point. Dame schools were most commonly ran by widows. The roles of the dame schools were to provide females with the opportunity to obtaining literacy skills, domestic skills and learn about "appropriate cultural breeding" (16). The issue of "appropriate cultural breeding" is very interesting to me because it demonstrates another way that schooling promoted the interests of those in power because females were taught what makes/who is an appropriate partner.
This also emphasizes that school teaches more than just content. Schools are responsible for teaching the values and norms of society.

Do we as teachers today still subconsciously/consciously teach "appropriate cultural breeding" by only including certain images of family/gender in our course material?

- Amanda O.
Was "appropriate cultural breading" also taught to Indigenous women? If so, what does "appropriate cultural breeding" entail if the goal for Indigenous peoples was assimilation?
-Amanda O.

To further add to this point, women were accused of distracting men in the classroom and thus, even when it came to participating in extracurricular activities, women were turned away. It was argued that the stress of advanced studies and pressure of exams would affect a women’s mental and physical state consequently, negatively affecting their reproductive capacity (Axelrod, 96). Women were only seen as a "tool" to reproduce and thus, they were shaped and categorized by society to fit into the role of only being capable enough for domestic work. However, does domestic work not have pressures and cause stress? Why was further education only seen as a factor affecting a only a women’s health?

-Harmun Singh
How can education be a tool that elevates all? How can we as teachers avoid perpetuating the dominant ideology? Can the dominant ideology be used to help all, and not be dependent on categorization of differences? Is it natural to categorize? Are we more similar than different? Is being Aware of ones own class, race, gender, ability, ethnicity enough to create change? (Given the analogy that we as teachers should raise all ships with the tide, can we also be aware that not all ships look the same, or many ships may not even resemble what our definition of a ship is, can we still reflect and be aware of what our goal is as teachers?)
It's interesting that David only teaches material that he "loves". It is unfortunate that this material does not include books by women, gay writers, or chinese writers. As teachers, I believe we all have subjects we prefer teaching and other subjects or areas in the curriculum that we may dislike. However, I do not think subjects or areas of curriculum should be avoided due to a teacher's dislikes. What is this teaching students? I think students should be provided and exposed to an array of materials in order to further and deepen their understanding. In a sense David's teaching approach seems biased and discriminatory to other writers who he may "dislike".

How is this style of teaching shaping the way individuals view and think about literature?
-Rachel Paolella-
To extend on this, I really like the quote the same student said " Thankfully, I had a professor who knew these things, and who scheduled for us a robust and diverse reading list. These books taught me something about what it would be to live as different people, of different ethnic backgrounds, in different economic circumstances, in different places. They taught me something of how other people look at the world, what they cherish, what they regret. They taught me, plain and simple, to be a better person. They taught me, to borrow from David Foster Wallace, how to be less alone.

How can we as educators provide students with a diverse learning experience and be open to the diverse cultures and ethnicity's though literature and curriculum?

-Rachel Paolella-
To extend on this idea, I think this is still relevant today. Certain subjects and career choices seem to be oriented or directed in terms of gender. Toys are also geared to girls and boys. Thought this was relevant and something to think about ! How can we break these stereotypes that certain toys/courses are for boys and vice versa. -Rachel Paolella-
VIDEO:Debbie Sterling Ted Talk
Engineering: a male oriented career-but Debbie was inspired by her teacher!
-Rachel Paolella-
This picture highlights the idea that in history (and in the present) when men do something out of the ordinary or new, they are looked at more positively than if women did the exact same. For instance in the text by Axelrod he talked about the various opportunities that were available for boys in terms of schooling, such as; helpful subjects (using skills towards a future job), chances to pursue a higher education, hired for harder work, expectations were higher, and etc...Whereas girls who wanted to go to grammar school, and learn other subjects than writing, sewing, dance, and religion were banned from those schools. The expectations for girls were low, this worked as a self-fulfilling prophecy. If not much is expected from an individual, then they don't have the desire to work hard or strive to reach any goals because they do not feel worthy. Whereas, if we set high expectations for an individual they will try and reach those expectations and in this stride they will reach more goals than they ever imagined, because that initial expectation encouraged them (made them feel important/skilled). If women or men go against their gender expectations, they are isolated and considered despicable (most of the times). Although, I believe women are more often viewed negatively than men, especially if they try to speak their mind and go against the traditional view of gender.
Dee Main
When I came across this picture I instantly thought about how unfairly women were treated in the workforce. Although they may have had the same type of careers men had, women got paid less than their male counterparts in the same careers. “Authorized school trustees paid women teachers no more than twenty pounds per year-half the salary received by their male counterparts” (Axelrod, 1997;p20). Girls were limited to education, some didn’t even attend school. If they did attend school they did not receive the same education boys received they were instead “taught academic and cultural subjects designed to equip them with knowledge and skills considered appropriate to their gender and class” (Axelrod,1997;p. 10). It was believed that girls were to be educated for household responsibility, while boys were trained to become the breadwinners.
Rachel Paolella
This image (to the left) I came across made me think about how our world shapes an individual from the very first day of their lives. Just by looking at this picture can we point out the girls from the boys? …No .. we can’t because we are born with no preset notion of being a certain way (simply by looking at our face/hair)… What we turn out to do in our lives is completely dependent on what type of a person we are. However, our gender starts to be molded from our sex at birth…parents go out and get paint for their baby’s room, clothes, toys, books, shoes, pick a name, and all these aspects are related to gender in one way or another. I believe this speaks to what Cooper stated within his article about Mary Bibb, the fact that individuals are handicapped by race, sex and both. This isn’t a problem of the past but exists today, even though we are born free of gender, it is bestowed upon us and we are somewhat confined to traditional guidelines. Unless we work against these traditional views, by which individuals are marginalized and attacked. Why are our views so narrow that people cannot practice the gender they most rightfully should be able to follow? Why are there only two categories (masculine/feminine)? They are just attributes that have been assigned to men and women by the society…Does the society need to change its views, so that children can build accurate self-images?
Dee Main
One of the lessons we've learned from our history texts are the distinctions between gender roles and how they were constructed and perpetuated through the growth of the education system. "Girls, in the meantime, were taught to knit, sew, and weave, activities that were later formally incorporated into domestic-science courses.(Axelrod p.56) My questions are.. are we still influencing our children based on traditional gender roles? Are girls treated differently than boys in the classroom? Are we still socializing our children to represent certain gender specific ideals? Are teachers conscious of their own gender bias? It is important that as teachers we become conscious of the social stereotypes of gender so we don't make assumptions and impose our biases on the students. This can be very problematic in that it will perpetuate the inequalities between genders.
Our history texts offer a starting point from which we can begin to study and understand why certain issues are present in society today.
While reading through the texts, I was particularly interested in the chapter on higher education. From a young age, many girls who attended school were limited to what subjects they were taught. Subjects were often categorized based on gender. Girls who attended female academies, for example, were taught the “ornamental” subjects such as drawing, painting, dancing and modern languages (Axelrod, 16). In 1900, women only constituted 11 percent of student enrollment in universities and were confined to a limited academic program (Axelrod, 95). By encouraging males to take subjects like math and science and encouraging feales to take subjects like art, there was a predetermined career path or life path that each gender was expected to pursue. We are still experiencing the effects of this in post-secondary institutions and in the work force today.

-Andrea N.
Higher Education
Challenging Stereotypes...
Intersecting Oppressions
Work vs. Family
“Gender” is a socially constructed concept that has been used as a means to categorize individuals throughout history. This categorization relies on a set of values that are enforced by those in power during a given time period. As time progresses, what people consider valuable also changes and adapts to meet “a social moment in time”. Historical periods such as the enlightenment, industrialization, and world wars have all contributed to the constructed beliefs of individuals. *Perri
Axelrod provides an historical lens on the ideologies around gender, race and class within the education system and how it has unfolded to what we experience in the classroom today. It is important to question the way gender is experienced and how this may intersect with other forms of oppressions such as race and class.
This is highly evident in Barman’s article of Indian and White girls at All Hallows School. The education that the native girls received differed from that of European girls due to multiple factors. Uncovering the underlying meaning behind such differences can reveal an historical process of exclusion faced by many Indigenous, black, and ‘othered’ individuals in Canada’s history.
Fears and anxieties of a nation that was not ‘white’ or ‘catholic’, contributed to the modes of education and the instructional practices of the educators in charge. Studying the history of education requires an understanding that gender oppression was not experienced the same way. A starting point may be to look at academics who discuss the topic of intersecting oppressions, such as Patricia Hill Collins in her book of black feminist thought.
How have ideologies of masculinity and femininity changed over the years?
And why does ‘being male or female’ matter in the education system?
As illustrated in the readings, GENDER becomes a teaching force of its own...
How and why did the teaching of gender become an integral part of Canada’s educational system ?
Females continued to be marginalized as instructors and students. Female teachers were paid less than men and female students were were restricted in the subjects that they could study.

In 1870s males earned annually between $250 and $400. Women were paid $150 to $300
Cyrus MacMillan wrote, "higher education's role converged into one main idea - the making of a man" (Axelrod, 95). Indeed, historians have played a large role in defining the roles of men and women in society.

This video depicts the stereotypes in society of what constitutes the role of men and women. Many of these stereotypes stem from the history of gender and education. Today, one can argue that the roles of men and women are changing but to what extent? For example, today there are many men that are taking maternity leave to care for their new born child while the women may continue to work at her job. However, at the same time, women are still expected to do certain domestic chores after a long days of work. I wonder whether these stereotypes can ever really change? Can the role of a man ever really change to staying home to do domestic chores while the women goes out to work? How will society react to these changes? Can they be accepted or not?
-Harmun Singh
Higher Education and Stereotypes
Assembling the school system in Canada could not have been accomplished without the employment of thousands of female teachers.
By 1870 women comprised 60% of public school teachers
in Canada.
In 1881 four-fifths of Toronto public school teachers were women.
By 1900 women comprised 77% of public school
teachers in Canada.
Do Boys and Girls receive different educations?
Teachers socialize girls towards a feminine ideal while boys are socialized towards a masculine ideal. Girls are praised for being neat and quiet while boys are encouraged to be active and speak up. Boys are socialized to be more independent and competent while girls are socialized to be more passive. In fact, female assertive attitude is often viewed as negative and disruptive (Chapman, 1995-2012).
Although women were performing better academically than their male counterparts, women were still seen as primarily being homemakers. Many of these tasks involved taking care household chores, raising and looking after children and cooking. Although a women had many roles, society didn't view education as a top priority. As stated in the text, "full gender equality, in both curricular and extra curricular spheres, was a distant prospect" (Axelrod, 95). In 1880s, "girls were often outperforming their male classmates, excelling in matriculation examinations, earning scholarships, and thereby exhibiting their academic potential" (Axelrod, 96). However, at the same time women were being accused of causing men to perform lower academically. Even having mixed classes with both men and women did not lead to gender equality, As stated, "In the arts, women were discouraged from enrolling in male-dominated programs, such as philosophy and political economy, and were concentrated instead in literature, music, and modern languages" (Axelrod, 97). A surprising statistic is that as late as 1930, women merely comprised only 1 per cent of Canadian lawyers and 2 per cent of Canadian doctors (97). Do men have no responsibility and ownership towards their own failures and successes in their education? Why were pressures of exams and higher education only considered a factor affecting a women's health? Does domestic work not have mental and physical stress associated with it? Does the stress of examinations in higher education not negatively impact a man's health and responsibilities towards his family and friends? Why were women's options narrowed down to particular categories while men had countless options?

-Harmun Singh
"Socialization of gender is reinforced in school as classrooms often mirror the strengths and ills of society"
(Chapman, 1995-2012).
What can we as teachers do?
Equitable education for boys and girls
Teachers need to be aware of their gender bias tendencies.
Teachers need to be provided with strategies for altering the behavior.
Teachers need to be aware of gender biases embedded in educational materials and texts.

Teachers need to be made aware of the biases they are projecting onto their students and provided with methods and resources necessary to eliminate these biases
When I saw this image I thought it was a great representation of the gender differences we face in society and where it all stems from. From the wage gaps to the educational opportunities for women in history. Gender differences and inequality start right at birth when both men and women are stereotyped and labeled based on their genders and not their abilities. Women are stereotyped as the fragile ad sensitive gender and men as the strong and powerful gender. These stereotypes are seen through historical roles of men and women. Women as the domesticated who stayed at home and took care of the family and men as the breadwinners who brought the money home. In history the education of women was not seen as important, when people started to come around women were educated but in certain areas i.e. Bible study, needlework etc. different from what men were taught. Women were expected to behave and like certain things for example they were expected to calm, sensitive, passive and needing protection. These expectations and stereotypes didn’t just form randomly but stems from the way children were brought up. That is why this image is a powerful one as it begins as soon as a child is born. It is our responsibility to shape the future and it is important to note how we treat each gender and the kinds of things we say to them.

Salma Shaikh
Full transcript