RES 5535: Race, Class, and Gender in Literacy Research (summer 2010)

Laurie Post

I choose to focus this post, as per the syllabus, on the overarching issues presented through the readings, which I will do through chapter four as Laurie’s story strangely spoke to me.
Margret Atwood, the author of the opening quote used to define the often static definition of “woman” within our society, is a phenomenal writer of women’s issues and is a paramount figure within women’s studies; I particularly loved the Eatable Woman, which recaptures the essence of a woman’s choice to be independent, to not feel eaten by a male dominated society. If you have not read it, do so soon because it will change your opinions of feminism through the simplistic nature of the symbolism presented, allowing ones mind an easy focus on the truth behind the words.

I have been a feminist since the day my mother gave up on her own future, dropped out of college, and started working in a predominantly male ambulance factory so that she could ensure, her now fatherless son, would have a real chance to fulfill whatever destiny that life had in store for me; in short, she gave up her future for mine.

In a home that was filled by hard work, exhaustion, and a longing for the father figure whom had just died on an impassionate highway from a heart attack that he saw coming and yet did nothing to stop it because “he was only 40,” it was difficult to find the attached “love” that all young teens need. Much like Laurie, I too became violent at school and sometimes incontrollable in class, but more over I started acting the role of father and caretaker, finding it hard to live the two lives of adolescents and man just as Laurie found it hard to live the “roles of mom and child seemed both to empower her and complicate her life.”

I enjoyed reading of how Laurie manipulated and concealed her struggles of reading and also the social dichotomies that developed as she matured and started making hard choices as a young child, between good girl and bad girl, as I too was faced, much later in life than her, with the same options as a male in a predominantly female world as my mother and teachers were all women as well as 75% of my class. I have actually seen this take place with one of my students as well, we will call her Yesinia. She takes care of her brothers and sisters as her parents work long hours and do not even get home until after everyone in the house is asleep. This role of mother came into stark contrast with her teenage self as she found love in a boy named Manuel. She slowly, so slow in fact that I could actually see the stages of it, became a bad girl and rebelled against her family because he wanted a girl friend not a mom friend. Her development down the wrong path still continues.

The story Laurie tells about the pet being killed and her sister being in the house and Nicholas standing guard next to her really made me question a lot of assumptions I had made of young kids. Why do girls feel so repressed at such a young age? Why do they see themselves as caretakers? And more over, why do they see themselves as caretakers instead of those being cared for? Is this common in all children or just those from working class families? Then the questions furthered as I continued to read as I asked myself if it was the influence of the boyfriend in her mother’s life that made her take on the traditional role of wife or did this kid really just typify what it means to be a little girl? I clearly remember my niece, who comes from a broken home also, acting out the role of wife with my cousin as they played together, which, at the time, I associated with adult role-play as they matured into early childhood, but now I question the influence of her surroundings. I really find it difficult, even though it makes perfect sense, to believe that young girls are doing any more than fulfilling the traditional roles they see acted out on television and within their homes, which are prescribed by a society based on puritanatical values of what a woman should be.

Then my mind raced further over the next ten or so pages with how this could influence a child’s development. Is my wife, a hater of all sports, really just a result of too much I Love Lucy, or does she, a devout feminist in her own right, just hate sports? Is it possible that she too, as a house wife, tried many roles of womanhood and chose the one that suited her best? Was she influenced not to participate in PE because it was just too boyish?

Taking a step back from the questions, I would like to reflect back on the fact that Laurie was also screwed by the evil system of education that forces children to progress as readers and writers even if they are not ready. I can’t believe that we just look at children and say catch up or fail. That is the most illogical thing in the world, especially since we know for a fact that learning takes place at its own pace and that there is no real pace that works for all kids. Then she was even further mislead by yet another candy store diagnosis of ADD…they hand these things out like they are on sale!

This was a very interesting read.

William Byland