The following is a definition of paternalism, taken from WordReference.com: “…the attitude (of a person or a government) that subordinates should be controlled in a fatherly way for their own good.”
This, however, is one of the definitions of maternalism, taken from the same source: “the quality of having or showing the tenderness and warmth and affection of or befitting a mother; “the girl’s motherliness made her invaluable in caring for the children.”
A quick Google search of the above terms soon reveals that the former definition is almost uniformly negative, and the latter positive. Paternalism—a word linked to masculinity—is often associated with dominance and control of a subordinate group; an authoritarian style of administration that does not adequately heed the wishes, desires, or cultural values of that subordinate group. Maternalism—a term linked to femininity—is on the other hand often associated with warmth, tenderness, caring — “motherly” qualities. Peace. Disarment. The termination of conflict.
Why should the differences between these definitions interest us?
For one thing they draw our attention to an overall and historic imbalance of political power between men and women in the United States. Says Haig A. Bosmajian, author of The Language of Oppression (who was in turn quoting Aileen Hernandez, former president of the National Organization for Women):
But just in case we as women manage to escape the brainwashing that assigns us to ‘our place’ in the order of things, the language continues to get the message across.
There is a ‘housewife’ but no ‘househusband’; there’s a ‘housemother’ but no ‘housefather’; there’s a ‘kitchenmaid’ but no ‘kitchenman’; unmarried women cross the threshold from ‘bachelor girl’ to ‘spinster’ but unmarried men remain ‘bachelors’ forever (pp. 91-92).
Furthermore, Bosmajian went on to state that:
One of the many anachronisms of the law is the legal placement of the woman on a pedestal by prohibiting her to foul herself with a “man’s work” and by protecting her from the obscene language of the “man’s world.” Through the language of the law sexism has been institutionalized by legally portraying the woman as on the one hand the powerful evil temptress and on the other hand as the pure, weak, untarnished mother up on a pedestal. But the pedestal, upon closer examination, is a kind of prison… (p. 103).
Thus it should come as no real surprise that definitions for “maternal” are generally pure and untarnished… they merely reflect historic male dominance in American society.
However, it has been argued by several scholars (such as Harlan Lane, for example) that paternalism has long been a destructive influence on Deaf Culture and Deaf Education. And while this is most likely true—the definitions of the terms we’ve just analyzed above lead us to a question with uncomfortable implications:
Are there currently more female educators working in the field of Deaf Education than male educators?
Other questions will soon arise, but let’s take a moment to examine this one. It is difficult to make an informed statement concerning the entire field of Deaf Education without current statistics. However, we can make educated guesses about specific institutions. Gallaudet University, for example, probably employs more female faculty than it currently does male faculty. This is not an accusation of discrimination in any sense of the term—it is entirely possible that the imbalance in the numbers represents a comparatively smaller number of men who entered Deaf Education in ensuing years.
Even so, if more women than men begin working in a given educational institution for deaf people, yet paternalism remains an active influence within that institution, problems begin to arise with the terminology being used to label and describe the problem. Suppose for the sake of the argument that over the past sixty years, the male to female ratio among teachers for the deaf underwent a dramatic change, from 2:1 to 1:4. Further suppose that the trend reflected the increasing numbers of women entering the workforce after the 1950s.
If the language of sexism did not change along with these trends, what would eventually happen if paternalism did indeed remain an active influence? One possible answer: the oppression of deaf people and ASL (which was—according to the hypothetical example above—becoming increasingly female-driven) would have nonetheless continued to have been attributed to male influence (via the term “paternalism”). This is because sexist language by its very nature cuts both ways—it continues to define men as a dominant power and women as submissive, even when increasing numbers of women in a given field inevitably change the power dynamics of that field. In fact, if one subscribes to Bosmjian’s claims, the counter-argument that this could never become the case is in and of itself sexist, because it continues to place women on pedestals, effectively rendering them unaccountable (or in other words pure and untarnished) in a field they now dominate.
Of course, the weakness of this argument is that what may be true within a given field may not be true of American society as a whole. Thus men overall may continue to hold more political and socio-economic power than women even as specific professional fields become increasingly female-dominated. However, this does not negate the impact that sexist language has upon female accountability. According to present sexist definitions, women are incapable of being held accountable for audist oppression. Unless such accountability is placed upon them using masculine terminology, it can’t be done. It is not linguistically possible, for example, to ascribe audist oppression in an institution where the ratio of female to male educators is 4:1 to “maternalism” instead of “paternalism.” As shown by the definitions above, simply replacing the latter term with the former destroys the intended definition by effectively replacing its negative connotations with positive ones. To accuse a woman of oppression by saying she subscribes to maternal practices is to accuse her of oppressing a subordinate populace through an excess of warmth, affection, and tolerance. Such an accusation is so contradictory, it borders on the ridiculous.
This is what is meant by “the Pedestal Effect.” Language that was once used to turn women into untouchable, holy “mothers” can now potentially (and unjustly) protect the overall gender from accountability—especially within the field of Deaf Education—for a unique type of oppression that has historically, and through sexist linguistic default, been assigned only to males. Bear in mind that the other extreme of sexist classification for females, that in which women are characterized as evil temptresses, is not being suggested here as a stand-in for accountability. Accountability is not about demonization. But accountability demands through its very definition that we specify which gender is truly and currently driving oppression. If both genders are responsible, we should select a gender-neutral term that reflects this shared responsibility, and cease our miscategorization of blame under the heading of “paternalism.” If this option turns out to be unfeasible, then perhaps we should alter our definition of “maternalism” to reflect current, and changed, political realities within the field of Deaf Education.
© Copyrighted material. This article cannot be copied, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of the author. As with every blog on this website, this blog does not reflect the opinion of DeafDC.com.
43 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Great article… some thoughts which came up…
-Similar linguistic anachronisms exist in ASL; the placement of “male” signs as higher than “female” signs being one example, “boy” vs. “girl…” and it’s certainly true that more women go into education than in other professions - you can check out this article from the Education Wonk to show that this is a big problem in other minorities. Here’s another. Perhaps it has to do with the system more than the individuals in the system: You talk about the duality of care and control in the division of maternal and paternal feelings… in the normal course of life these evolve to guide and guard, educate and emancipate…
-I wonder if the big problem in Deaf education (especially mainstreamed programs which grow to deal with the problems and gaps Deaf people face in mainstreaming) is that the first duality never evolves. Deaf people are rarely really given guidance, freedom, encouragement and independence - we are just cared for and controlled. And this kind of oppression extends to all walks of life, even to stupid airlines where they refuse to listen to all rational attempts to communicate and force Deaf people to follow ridiculous rules they invented for “safety purposes”… We get placed in boxes too.
-I’m not entirely sure I like the unspoken notes in your essay. You’re making out the women who’ve dedicated their lives to Deaf education as responsible for a stupid whirligig of a situation… Are you saying that the simple disparity in numbers results in a situation of oppression? That having more female teachers than male teachers creates ‘certain effects’ - I mean, I’m just not clear where you’re ending up. But I don’t think you can hold one gender accountable for a situation set up by another. Women were *classified* as teachers by American society, and British society before that, and they were often limited to being governesses or… prostitutes? Whatever. Blame the system, fine, but… seems weird to think about blaming one gender over another.
-My mother when I was born was told she was crazy for thinking I was Deaf. She went from doctor to doctor trying to figure out what was “wrong” with me. She was told she was crazy. After two years she found out her instinct was right. Two years of suffering for both of us before we knew something was different and could figure out what to do - Do I blame all men, just because those doctors were men? No. A great number of social factors contributed to that terrible situation my mother went through. The ego of any doctor, being told his or her diagnosis is wrong - the concern of a mother being culturally interpreted as hysteria - the fact that technology was not available to diagnose deafness at the time - the fact that Deaf people as a whole before DPN were not so visible… You know what I mean?
-I also feel you assume that the words maternal and paternal can only apply to their respective root genders. Men can be maternal, and women can be paternal (though this is rare, and yes, not in common usage.)
-The quote you took from NOW - almost all of those terms have been phased out. Who says kitchenmaid? Who says housewife? The people who do are people who’ve chosen those terms, not people who’ve been forced into them.
Well, thank you for a stimulating read.
Hi Joseph:
To be very clear, I absolutely DO NOT think that women should be blamed “over” men or MORE than men. I simply believe they should be held equally accountable, and sexist language (which I completely agree originally favored men over women) DOES NOT ALLOW FOR THAT. That’s what the Pedestal Effect IS: it likens women to holy mothers and thus renders them blameless (and therefore as having no accountability whatsoever), which is in and of itself sexist.
I’d also like to add, yes, the terms taken from NOW have been gradually phased out of usage. But doesn’t that in and of itself imply that language should reflect changing, and CURRENT, political realities? Simply having more women than men in a given field by itself does not create oppression, no. But if the oppression was already there, and remains there as more women join the field, then that oppression logically almost HAS to-in part at least-be female driven. Shouldn’t language reflect that reality? “Paternalism” certainly does not.
Chris,
While you clearly put a lot of thought and effort in your article, I’m having trouble following what point (or points) you want to make.
Sexism is alive and none of it is good. Most of us remember the classic story where the son and the father is rushed into the hospital because both were in a car accident. In the operating room, the surgeon takes a look at the child and cries out, “I can’t operate on him. He’s my son!” The question then posed was, “How is the doctor related to the son?” When I first heard it in college in my freshman year, I got the answer wrong and one of my confident answers was, “The doctor must be the stepfather”. The answer is, of course, that the doctor is the mother and when I found out, that message left a deep imprint on me. Yet, on a related note, there was an article in the Wall Street Journal two days ago (sorry, I can’t provide a link – I’m not an online subscriber) about how law firms are promoting female networking where the female attorneys get together in groups and then go shopping for shoes instead of participating in traditionally male orientated environments (e.g. cigars, scotch and golf). I found that article really interesting because that sort of either undermined or strengthened the concept of equality (you pick – there’s no real right answer to that).
In your article, you seem to be focused on sexism, accountability and you appear to feel that we should select a “gender-neutral” term in order to reflect the shared responsibility within the field of deaf education? That sounds like a pretty neat paper that some people might be interested in but my point is this: it’s all good and neat to look for clever explanations or wax discussion about whether the “oppression of deaf people and ASL would have nonetheless continued to have been attributed to male influence..” or toss terms like “socio-economic” with cited sources.
But I don’t see a clear correlation between this and the education issues that are facing people in the deaf education.
Hi Scott:
The correlation is simply this: if the number of women working in the field of deaf education has increased over the past 60 years, and the impact of paternalism on deaf education has remained constant, then men have continued to be blamed (through sexist language) for oppression in what has over time become an increasingly female-dominated field. I’m not saying women should be “blamed.” Again, I’m simply saying that current sexist language is incapable of holding women as equally accountable as men (though ironically you can probably–and accurately–blame that linguistic discrepency ON men…)
Chris:
I think what you’re suggesting in your article is a far reach. How many administrators of deaf schools are women or men? It would be very interesting to know the answer to that question. One thing that struck me while watching the “Through Deaf Eyes” documentary was how the first presidential candidate (can’t recall her name but she was hearing) for the position of Gallaudet was a woman, and the same went for the second presidential candidate chosen to succeed (Jane K. Fernandes). Both women ended up replaced by male candidates chosen by the Deaf community. Sometimes I wonder if sexism played a role in the rejection of those women by the Gallaudet student community and the preference for the male candidates to succeed them.
Noelle,
These candidates, Zinser and Fernandes, definitely were not phased out because of their gender. They just happened to be women. One was hearing and the other had a bad track record. The outcome would have been the same had men applied for these positions.
Not sure how many administrators at schools of the deaf there are, but I know currently deaf females oversee:
-Texas School for the Deaf (Austin)
-Model & Kendall (DC)
That might be all. As for administrators given the boot, it’s been across the board except for hearing males:
-Oregon (hearing female, no doctorate)
-California-Riverside (deaf white female with doctorate)
-Idaho (Hispanic deaf male with doctorate)
-New Jersey (black deaf male with doctorate)
-Connecticut (white deaf male with doctorate)
Scott, perhaps you do not realize that despite the fact that women graduate from law school at the same rate as men, they are seriously underrepresented at law firms. They also face discrimination if they are on the “mommy track” and are often shunted to the side when it comes to deal making simply because they aren’t on the golf links with the boys.
I can see how it might seem that it would underdetermine gender equality, but on the other hand, gender equality at law firms are not representative of women at the current time, so women need leverage of their own.
Hi WSS:
That’s a good point, and I would have liked to have represented this more in my article. I fully admit, yes, the female-male ratio in a given field may not–and most likely doesn’t– reflect the overall power dynamics of other fields or society as a whole.
WSS is correct. The number of women who make partner are far, far outnumbered by men who do. And in the four years that I have worked at law firms, I have witnessed numerous women reluctantly abandoning their careers to tend to their children at home (at least, from what I read of their mass firm-wide announcements which always cite their reasons), but never men - not even once. I know that’s a bit off point, but you get the picture.
Hi JT:
Yes, I concede that point.
Hi Noelle:
Excellent questions. I don’t know the answers. I don’t have the statistics. From my own personal experience, I’ve worked in eight different schools in my career. All but two had female administrators in top positions, and the other two had female administrators NEAR the top position (if we assume the top position is ‘principal’ or ‘president’).
However even that does not negate the very real power each and every individual teacher has in his or her own classroom, and everywhere I’ve ever worked, women teachers have outnumbered male teachers by a ratio of 3:1 and in one case 5:1. Of course my own personal experience cannot be and should not become a generalization. We should rely on statistics for that. That’s why I took great pains to keep the argument as hypothetical as possible… at the very least, if what I’m saying is currently as not as true as it sounds, there’s no reason why it can’t BECOME true.
Just a side note, Chris - were you aware that March is Women’s History Month when you wrote this article?
Just curious.
(I’ll have to think a bit more before I can respond to your comments, haven’t had my coffee this morning yet!)
By the way, I just sent an email to a friend regarding this article, and put the word “maternalism” in the email. My spellcheck immediately jumped on that word and suggested “materialism” as the proper word…or paternalism.
Hmmmm…I don’t know what to make of this, but I find it interesting that Outlook’s spellcheck recognizes the word paternalism, but not maternalism. Could I accuse my email program of being sexist?
Hi Virginia,
Ha, yeah, I knew it was Women’s History Month. (-:
Could you accuse your email spell-checker of being sexist? No, but you could accuse the language it’s programmed in of being sexist, I would guess.
Hi Chris ~
I really wanted to get in on this discussion because I do agree with IC Voices below that it is a stimulating topic of which I do have considerable interest. Being that I practice a Goddess-based matriarchal religion, I’m sure you can guess that I would have plenty to say on the subject!
Unfortunately, Mother Nature must be playing a cruel joke on me, or I’m getting some kind of karmic lesson of one type or the other - seems that I have gotten hit with some kind of bug and have been feeling like crap for the past 24 hours.
Hopefully I’ll get my brain functioning somewhat better before too long, but at least let me compliment you for a thought-provoking post. Mind you, that doesn’t mean I totally agree with you, but you have made some interesting comments that certainly make for good discussion!
Chris,
Interesting read with a lot to consider. Glad you’re now blogging for DeafDC. As someone who’s always studied linguistics (in more than just a couple languages), I’ve learned that linguistic evolution comes naturally and one person standing up and saying this is wrong will not change the language. Witness the recent Carl Schroeder EAR-CLOSE debacle - people who used it before that whole melee are still using it. I’m also sensing disagreement with your basic premise from the commenters thus far. I place myself in that category as well. Yes, many educators are women - I’m one of them. Yes, paternalism is derived from the Latin “pater,” which denotes maleness. However, paternalism is generally understood to apply to specific types of actions and attitudes, which can apply to both men and women. I have seen so many paternalistic WOMEN in my field. So until a gender-neutral term appears in the language and gains somewhat wide acceptance, I’m staying with paternalism *and* applying it to men AND women.
I agree with this.
Hi Jenny:
The difficulty involved with taking a masculine- related term, especially if it holds negative connotations, and applying it “equally” to both men and women is that, in a manner of speaking, you end up contradicting yourself before you step out the door. If a term is truly meant to apply equally to BOTH men and women, why link it to the masculine in the first place? The sexism of ages past comes back with an ironic twist–a language that formerly favored men by excluding women now renders us incapable of talking about the possible failings of women (such as willingly participating in oppression) without blaming men. Which again isn’t meant to imply that men are blameless… far from it. But women are equally accountable. Especially when one considers the following… if a male administrator did not sit in on an IEP meeting held between a female instructor and a student’s mother, how much male influence was THERE? Perhaps quite a bit… we do internalize the values of our society… negative/sexist or no (case in point: deaf people who believe hearing people are “normal,” a value with much broader applications than the label “hearing”), and it is entirely possible that the IEP itself is based on the values of a traditionally male-dominated society. But again here we face the question… are women powerless to counteract that influence? If we answer “yes,” how is that NOT a sexist conclusion? In essence we’d then be arguing that women are psychologically helpless in the face of male influence. How many feminists would agree that this is true?
To me, I hold the person responsible for his or her behavior. Gender doesn’t matter to me. I don’t see the relevance of gender in deaf education, or in general education.
There is no other word that is really satisfactory that can replace paternalism. Like Jenny said above, I’ve encountered many women who were paternalistic.
We could crudely describe the women as domineering bitches, but that’s not very professional, is it? ;)
I view the paternalistic attitude itself, to be the problem, regardless of the gender of the person expressing the paternalistic attitude.
Also, the question arises - I understand that we want to reduce sexism in our language usage, but then how do we draw the distinction between male and female characteristics? The sign for male and female isn’t to imply that the female is subordinate to the male. The female sign arose because they used to wear bonnets, which are hats with ribbons tied around their chin. And males wore caps, which’s on the top of the head. So that’s how that sign developed, historically.
“how do we draw the distinction between male and female characteristics?”
Who decided what was male and female characteristics in the first place? Why must there be such a dichotomy? I’ve always believed people with a balance of both were the best adjusted.
I’d like to see society put more of a value on so-called “feminine” characteristics and recognize that those characteristics exist in men, as as “male” characteristics exist in women.
What do you mean by “characteristic”? What is a “male characteristic” versus a “female characteristic”? Can you give us some examples? I am a supervisor in a professional field and I am trying to figure out - am I paternalistic or maternalistic?
Exactly. If men can be nurturing and women can be controlling, then why should one trait or the other *still* be assigned to a specific gender?
The underlying issue is still one of a power imbalance. You can still describe the effects of audism on the deaf through paternalism, even if women are given a position of authority over the deaf. Why?
Recall the hierarchy present: Men, Women, Children… now where do the deaf fall? All too often, somewhere with children.
So look again at how the power structures are at deaf schools once you go up the heirarchical ladder. For example Gallaudet’s BoT is mostly male.
In any case, paternalism, despite its male roots, doesn’t necessarily refer to the gender of the person expressing it. A woman who is supporting the overall paternalistic structure is engaging in paternalism.
Hello BEG:
I’m sorry, but I respectfully disagree. A woman in a field where women greatly outnumber men, in a time period when past feminist movements have had a substantial impact upon how women are viewed and treated… if she decides to support a paternalistic structure that isn’t quite so paternalistic anymore (if only because times and politics have changed)… is more accurately “making the decision to engage in oppression”–period. To take that responsibility away from her by assigning it to males is a sexist act in and of itself, and has a negative impact upon BOTH genders.
Just my honest opinion.
With all respect, Chris, particularly as an feminist, I must insist that you recognize that women are just as vlulnerable to the trap of power as men are.
The usage of the words “paternalistic” and “maternalistic” is, in by themselves, sexist. Who created those definitions? Men. It was men that assumed any hierachial system (the only one they were familiar with, by the way) that priorized men would have those very qualities of being authoritative and dominant. They then took those qualities they viewed as the “opposite”, qualities, which were and still are socialized in women, and assumed that an hierachy of women would be more peaceful, colloborative and “motherly”.
What if women ran things? They might be different, but would the heirachy be any less authoritative and dominant? I wouldn’t be so sure. Women have and do run households and companies with an iron hand.
I have always been an advocate of gender-neutral language and placing responsiblity where it lies upon the individual person within the CONTEXT of the system which it is dominated by.
Hi again WSS:
But here, I’d respectfully like to make a counter-argument. First there is no need to insist that I recognize that women are just as vulnerable to the trap of power as men are. I indeed do. And I hope that I am making it clear that women should not be held MORE accountable then men–I merely feel that they should be held EQUALLY accountable as men.
Because if they are not, what other way is there to change a sexist system of language? If the Holy Mother/Evil Temptress duality is in and of itself sexist because it allows women to have no other role, then ought we not reject the untouchable, holy Mother construct with the same vehemence that we reject the Evil Temptress construct? If so, then should we not begin by saying, “Okay, women are not only as capable as men are, but they are also as culpable–or accountable–as men are.” Or should we wait until there are precisely equal numbers of women in power positions right alonside of men… until women are earning precisely the same salaries men are? If we do this, what does that mean for Deaf Education, where women (in numbers, at least) ALREADY dominate?
If an educational system in which a mother (as opposed to a father) makes more of the medical and educational systems for a deaf child (now I am not saying this is true, and I cannot prove it, but I ask this hypothetically), and who in turn meets with a female Deaf Ed teacher, who in turn was employed by a female administrator, who in turn works under the supervision of a State Board that is half–or more–female…
…then where does the influence of men, especially when based upon actions from long ago, begin to have less of an impact? If we say never, then we in effect argue that women lack the power to change things, or to determine their own destinies, their own meanings… to call their own shots, so to speak. And that’s simply not true.
““Okay, women are not only as capable as men are, but they are also as culpable–or accountable–as men are.”
THAT was the point I was making. While women do work within a larger system that is patriachial, they can be and have been guilty from benefitting it as well in their own way.
The other point I was making that any kind of negative influence upon deaf education is not necessarily patrichial or matriachial or nature.
The impulse to manipulate outcomes (in this case, trends in deaf education) to your own liking is a very human trait.
It bugs me when people insist on the dichotomy that men are this way and women are this way. Yes, there are gender differences. However, they are both alike in many ways, and they both benefit from the systems which they work in. Yes, women do benefit from a patriachial system, but as we all know it’s a double edged sword that cuts just as deep the other way. Men aren’t immune to the ill effects. Ask any flaming queen, and he’ll tell you some horror tales about confronting the patriachy. Even the manliest of guys suffer in their own way.
We are quite in agreement, but I think our focus is different. While you are discussing the influence of the patriachial system on deaf education (which is a very good question) upon the women in the field, I am discussing how women have their own power, their agency to change things, and instead of asking “how have women been victimized by the system”, we should be saying, “What is wrong with deaf education, and how can we fix it?”
Also, as woman, I get so tired of reading articles that are all about how women are victims and how the system has suffered because of it. It puts the focus on the victim instead of being proactive.
DISCLAIMER: I’m the LAST person to deny the existence of a patriachial system and all its’ effects upon women. But that’s not where I feel the focus should be here.
Hi WSS:
I see where you’re coming from. It’s extraordinarily difficult to have this conversation, not because we’re unwilling but because language doesn’t easily allow us to. In fact, we’ve just confronted the issue AGAIN… you said:
“The impulse to manipulate outcomes (in this case, trends in deaf education) to your own liking is a very *human* trait.”
Now I understand perfectly well what you mean, and I would bet that most readers would. Nonetheless, in a language where the feminine is routinely subjugated to the masculine, “hu-MAN” includes women as well. Unfair to women? Yes. But now comes the reverse-effect… what you say is a ‘human’ trait, in this case the impulse to manipulate outcomes to one’s own personal benefit, in truth really does apply to all people.
But precisely BECAUSE ‘human,’ the term that you used to denote all people, links more to the masculine than the feminine, once again, in a very real sense, men are blamed for what women do as well. And women themselves are not held as accountable men.
Heh. We need a new language.
:)
Yes, the “human” thing. Sigh. There is the language usage, but I do consider it a gender-neutral word.
Would you rather me say “person” trait?
What would could we possibly use?
How about “homo sapiens” trait?
Jeez.
I know. EXACTLY. It’s so embedded we can scarcely avoid it.
I do know what you mean though. The intent behind the language selection is still to be gender-neutral, even if the language itself is not. It’s just that… well, I already made my argument…
Chris, etc… Great discussion, and a very stimulating topic. In reading the various comments, I am struck by an intriguing question: If JKF were a MALE, would the level of protest have been the same? Think about it.
As I recall, the main objection to JKF was that she weilded power improperly at KDES/Precollege programs and also as Provost.. If a man who was born deaf, with weak ASL skills had the same employment history, would there have been a protest at all???
I’m not suggesting one way or the other — its just a curiosity that hit me while reading the comments here…
Hmmmmm…..
I don’t think it had anything to do with her being female. Really. I’ll be the first person to tell ya that Martha Stewart was screwed over because she was a female, but I really don’t see it in this case.
Perhaps a different question might shed some light on this. If the next president of Gallaudet (after Dr. Davila) turns out to be a woman, and no protest occurs (or, to counter those who say no protest will occur because of fears of what the MSA would do–if no widespread negative commentary regarding the new president’s gender turns up in the blogs/vlogs), would that erase the perception that the UFG protest was sexist in nature? If not, why not?
But by the same token Chris…
There were some well-qualified women candidates who applied for the position and did not make it to the finalist selection, and we can assume, as the protestors consistently argued, that JKF did so because of her connections with Jordan.
Not only that, we have to take into consideration the fact that all three finalists for the interim position were men.
In that regard, can we argue that the whole selection process (and the BOT) was/is sexist?
Not only that, we have to take into consideration the fact that all three finalists for the interim position were men.
I wasn’t aware that any women applied for the position?
Okay, here’s my thoughts on this subject…
I am reminded of a few things that my friend Byron said in a post she wrote for my own blog site, in celebration of Women’s History Month.
To quote:
“Women didn’t have the right to choose the profession in which they might excel for many more years here, unless they chose to be teachers, nurses, secretaries, or homemakers.”
The harsh reality is that for many years, teaching was one of the few acceptable professions for a woman. So it is hardly surprising that the field of education, and this includes Deaf Education, would be dominated by women. And yet, despite the fact that it’s a demanding job in its own way, teaching remains a sadly underpaid position. Let’s face it - one doesn’t get rich as a teacher…certainly not on the elementary or secondary level. Salaries of course improve when you’re talking about college professors. I’m wondering if that ratio still holds true when you are talking about collegiate instructors - I highly doubt it.
Truthfully, while most women I know have been content to remain in a teaching capacity, many men saw teaching as a “temporary” thing - a stepping stone towards gaining the experience necessary (as well as paying the bills) until they could move they could move into something more ideal, such as administration. How many men do you know who have actually remained in the classroom ten years later? A large percentage of them have moved on. Undoubtedly this has been fueled to a certain extent by a sexist attitude that men should be the main breadwinner of the family, and as I said…teaching doesn’t exactly bring home a hefty paycheck.
And while the times may be a’changing, a lot of administration positions in education are still filled by men. I can still remember when it was unusual to have a female principal. While it may be much more common nowadays, those old stereotypes still remain. The woman stays in the classroom, while the man runs the the show (or the school, as the case might be.)
In addition, let’s talk a bit about where we tend to see men and women in the field of education. Traditionally, women have tended to focus on subjects that are language based, such as reading, writing, grammar, etc. (what we could lump into that subject known as “English”) Men on the other hand have tended to focus more on subjects such as Math, Science, and History.
A major focus for many Deaf Education programs is in the development of language, particularly English. In my experience, it hasn’t be that surprising to find programs that had three English teachers for every single Math teacher, simply because of the greater challenges present in the teaching of language. While I don’t have any data at the moment to back me up, I am sure research would show that there are far more women teaching English than there are men, and this would be just as true in the field of Deaf Education. Besides, I suspect there are more women graduating from Deaf Education Teacher Preparation Programs to begin with.
Soooooo…..
Now to go on to another excerpt from Byron’s post:
“I want to take this opportunity to bless all the children of women, wherever they are and whatever they do. I honor them and I honor their mothers and their grandmothers, and the way in which women work to heal and make connections and weave the strong web of change. May they be blessed with abundance in all things - in love and grace and power and wisdom. And may they bless us by passing those things on.
It’s what women do.”
Okay, now this may sound extremely maternalistic when you first read it. But let’s go back and read it again - women have the power to heal, to make connections, and to instigate change.
That might not sound like much, but I think that is very significant, and very powerful in it’s own right. I think it’s what the world needs more of today - to heal, to connect, to change. And not only do women have the power to make that happen…but they are teaching others how to do it too. I don’t find anything oppressive about that.
And what we have to recognize is what women have recognize for years - that if we want to initiate that change, if we want to encourage those connections, if we want to promote that healing…we have to start at the source. And the source is our children. We have to plant the seeds of change in the fertile soil of their minds, and encourage them to take root that they might sprout into wondrous ideas that reach out to make connections with others, and concepts that solve and thus heal the problems of our society.
That’s what women do.
Don’t get me wrong…I’m not saying that men can’t and don’t get involved in this process. Hopefully they do, and they should.
But to imply that maternalism is simply about mothering, and mothering is simply about nurturing and caring and tenderness, is to deny the inherent wisdom and power that comes along with such a role.
And to suggest that paternalism is solely about dominance and control is to deny men the opportunity to seek out and implement those fatherly qualities that are positive - sensitive, protecting, concerned, etc.
Certainly, our language is woefully inadequate and limiting in its definition of these words, and how they are applied to our society. Maternalism in and of itself does not necessarily mean that the power can’t be abused, or the wisdom misdirected. It does not mean that there are no women out there capable of being cold, unloving, selfish bitches. There have been a number of matriarchal societies in history where the women were just as capable of kicking ass as any man (remember the Amazons?)
By the same token, paternalism - while it has come to take on a rather negative view - does not necessarily have to mean walking around carrying a big stick (or a semi-automatic, as the case might be), ready to squash your opponents like a bug. I know many a man who can be the kindest, most loving individual I know, but who at the same time can be fiercely protective when the situation demands - as my friend Harold has said…”screw around with my kids, and you can expect to receive NO mercy.” Oppressive? Or is this paternalism at its best?
But until our language can focus on behavior rather than gender, we’re stuck. We can make up all the spellings we want to differentiate ourselves - wimmin, womyn, etc. We can argue for gender equality til the cows come home.
But in the end, the only thing we can really do is let our behavior speak for itself, and hopefully that behavior will reflect our minds and our hearts…
not our nether parts.
Lovely response, Virginia. But my biggest beef is that those qualities are not necessarily masculine and feminine in nature. I will admit that there are gender differences, but I believe that a lot of that is socialization. Even then, we should resist viewing those characteristics as a dichotomy or a binary nature because us a society should be nuturing the whole person, not following some predetermined sex-defined role.
I do understand where you are coming from, WSS. I totally agree with you, these qualities are not necessarily strictly masculine or strictly feminine…nor should they be.
But these words are not going to go away…nor do I believe that they should. I’m not even sure that I believe that those gender differences should go away.
But I do believe that those differences, and thus these words, need to be redefined. We need to see “maternal” as meaning power and strength and wisdom, just as “paternal” can mean loving and caring and nurturing.
And yes, nurturing should be viewing the whole person and helping that individual to become the best person possible, regardless of whether or not there is an S before the “he.”
They MIGHT go away, though, Virginia. “Housewife” is still around but “kitchen-maid” isn’t used as much, I don’t think. And “Stay-at-home-dad” (translation: “househusband” is on the rise). Language can and does change to reflect changing political conditions. And it should here, too.
Hi Chris:
I had to read this post a couple times just to get over my excitement about the themes you were bringing up (thanks for that, ha). But I confess I’m troubled by the implicit contradictions within.
You seem to be attaching the words “maternalism” and “paternalism” (and their respective traditional meanings) to the signified genders. While I agree with your point that the language (or the signifiers) is no longer — if it ever was — appropriately used in terms of gender, especially when applied to Deaf education, I worry that your post implies you buy into that connection.
As I understanding it, you’re acknowledging that women are capable of paternalism (and men are capable of maternalism), thus deconstructing the gendered connotations of each “ism.” Therefore you lobby for more accurate language to reflect the problems within the field.
But then you say that the language, because of the word “paternalism” holds men responsible in a female-dominated field. I have trouble seeing that connection, even if I agree with you on a linguistic level. Hmm. Now that I’ve put it into writing, I’m wondering… Perhaps that IS your issue?
I would also argue, with all due respect to Lane, whose made a wonderful case for paternalism, that maternalism and its traditional meaning is also a problem in the Deaf education field, despite its positive connotation.
I suggest that whatever language we choose, we should coin or use language that would vilify (re/op)pressive attitudes instead of the people who carry them, because when we do that, as we historically have done with “[p/m]aternalism,” we risk constructing a straw(wo)man of specified characteristics, as you’ve so artfully pointed out.
Hi Allison:
“Hmm. Now that I’ve put it into writing, I’m wondering… Perhaps that IS your issue?”
Yes. Purely on a linguistic level. I’d also like to add, Joseph above made an excellent point… “we’re just cared for and controlled.” Both extremes can be abused.
I mentioned above that I am a supervisor in a professional field. It is an area which is dominated by men. And I wondered about being paternalistic or maternalistic. One thing not mentioned in this thread - when a person is deaf how does that play into the picture- when one is in a field not related to deafness? Personally, I think that all of a sudden whether you are male or female is totally pushed to the background and you are labeled DEAF and that is a third perspective - that becomes the over whelming/dominant one. You become the DEAF person regardless of gender. Fortunately, for the people under me (all hearing) - it is not an issue. I have people who actually INSIST that they be under my supervision and no one else’s, although I pretty much go by the book. But I am the first to say that in order to get that kind of respect, you have to be an expert in your area and cannot be one of those “average” employees, discrimination be damned. Thus, I work very hard to stay on top of things - because I don’t want to be remembered as “that DEAF person” but rather as one of the best supervisors.