I wasn’t aware that any women applied for the position?

“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.

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.”

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.

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.