Both Tasker and Lury contend that there is a difference in feminine oriented writings or TV shows as opposed to masculine. Feminine stuff is very emotional and thus left open with no real absolute resolution. On the other hand masculine oriented media is very resolute and has a genuine ending within a one hour TV show. So there are some binary opposites here for sure, that is the point of what we read, but is there more than just these opposites?
If there are more than 2 genders I feel like there must therefore be more than 2 explanations of TV shows and writing. Do we have a section of work called transgendered media? If we do it's not in the public eye to the point that both masculine and feminine are. I realize this is an obvious point and there might be no need for me to make it, but it is something I have never thought about before. For every gender and/or sexual orientation there must be an entire body of work and thought and probably opposing thought that we do not really get to notice unless we actively seek it out. And is it our responsibility to try to account for all of these different people? I think the Gaines article makes a good point when it says on pg. 201 that it is not our responsibility to try to account for all of these but rather we should simply try to learn about these "other" people for who they are.
The best example of this that I can think of is something I know I have talked about in class at least a few times: that is, teaching a subject in which you are not actively a "member". For instance, Priya teaching African-American Studies or a straight teacher trying to teach an LGBT related class. These teachers are often not trying to account for these different groups of people but they do have a genuine interest in them and are making a concerted effort to teach diversity in spite of the fact that they are not a member of these minority groups.
No comments:
Post a Comment