Response to Just Girls

While reading Just Girls by Margaret J. Finders, I am situated as a person who for most purposes, shares a mainstream Discourse, and who has experienced female adolescence; two prominent aspects of this study. My own middle school years in Connecticut were reminiscent of the researcher’s observations: dominated by social divides, and flooded with the artifacts of a literate underlife, hidden from and unsanctioned by adults. According to Finders, “We can hardly cast blame on the social queens, who were doing exactly what we have been training girls to do: to find their place in society largely through romance and commodities”(p.125). Does the institution of junior high school perpetuate gender stereotypes? Based on my personal experiences, in conjunction with those of Angie, Tiffany, and Lauren; I support Finders’ argument that it does. The majority of our media conveys the message to young girls that their value is determined by how physically attractive they are to men. Northern Hills Junior High School, along with my junior high alma mater, seemed to foster what Freire and Macedo refer to as, “a culture of silence,” in which female adolescents were allowed to remain defined by the standards that mainstream media set upon them (p. 159). Furthermore, many of the hidden literate practices (which magnified a sense of self based on sexuality) were forced upon these girls by the context of junior high school. According to Finders, although the adolescents were repeatedly lectured about responsibility and independence, their school days were composed of, “constricted time, movement, and talk” (p.129). It is no wonder that the social queens revolted against these constrictions, studying ‘teen zines which, based on my own critical reading, intend to collectively glorify a limited definition of beauty and appeal as a means of self-worth.

The girls placed themselves into specific social groups, dependent upon their economic resources and the normalized beliefs they were given. Membership within these groups encouraged gender inequities. Many well-known ‘teen’ movies had been released within the relative time period of this study, normalizing high school as a place where attractive teenage girls (as determined by media) belonging to higher socioeconomic groups separated themselves from those with little money, and therefore less opportunity to purchase the commodities that society demanded. Did the teachers at Northern Hills adopt this prevalent concept dictated by pop culture, and therefore inadvertently reinforce those expectations through the language used in the classroom? This question remains unanswered.

Finders also argues that through their own modeling, female teachers only offered the role of nurturer to adolescent girls (p. 123). This rings true. While most of the students, parents and administrators that I have encountered highly value a nurturing teacher, isn’t it more beneficial to drive our students to be passionate about their world? I would hope that my own future children receive instruction from teachers who give them the tools to recognize hidden social injustices and react appropriately, rather than teachers who lead them to believe that ‘everything is O.K.’ As educators, we cannot continue to teach our students to passively accept the limited, and often degrading roles that mainstream society offers them. I believe that simply facilitating classroom discussion around a text is a means by which we establish ourselves more as referees, rather than teachers of literacy. There is no instruction here, and left to fend for themselves, students will at best circulate and regurgitate the biased viewpoints of the author. The solution is to ask guiding questions that help students find the tools needed for higher order thinking, within which girls are given the opportunity to ask themselves where they are positioned as a result of the texts they encounter. Female teachers, based on their gender, magnify the role of nurturer through limited instruction; however, aren’t male teachers just as likely to make the same mistake? After reading Just Girls, I was left wondering whether the dynamics of the of the classroom setting changed for girls who received language arts instruction from males. If a man demonstrates to students that he is ‘nurturing,’ how do boys receive this message, and how does this affect the shifting selves of adolescent girls in terms of classroom interactions?

I’m not certain it’s fair for Finders to make the generalization that boys were taught, “the role of girls is to serve them,” therefore making them the more powerful of the sexes (p.125). The perspectives privileged within Just Girls are those of the tough cookies, the social queens, and a relatively small number of teachers and parents. In class recently, after the group presentation based on the work by Taylor, Lori remarked, “the researcher can’t be everywhere.” Among the voices marginalized within Finders’ text are those belonging to adolescent boys. A focus on their perspectives may have revealed alternative truths regarding the manner in which stereotypes within the classroom are cultivated, or which social groups are victimized by them. For example, rather than assuming a role of power over girls, the boys within this study (many of whom demonstrated a competitive nature within their yearbook signings) may have been subordinated based on their failure to ‘win,’ academically, athletically, or romantically; but this avenue was not explored.

Regardless of this, I am well aware of the obstacles that women alone must face, and am deeply disturbed by the concept that these social injustices actually gain momentum within the classroom as a result of the instruction by teachers who may only have the best of intentions. Reflecting upon my past five years of teaching, it saddens me to realize that I have not always effectively guided my upper elementary-aged students to challenge gender biases presented within their texts. How many other educators have disregarded the teaching of critical literacy in the moments that children need it the most?

Along the lines of Macedo and Freire’s movement for an emancipatory pedagogy (p.159), Finders advocates for classroom discussion that breaks the silence regarding topics of difficulty and dissent (p.126). Keeping in mind that Just Girls was published over ten years ago, I wonder how modern technology might motivate this kind of dialogue. I personally have felt much more comfortable sharing my thoughts and ideas in small groups and on our course blog throughout this semester, rather than within a whole group forum. Considering the insecurities that adolescent girls must grapple with as a result of the roles cast upon them, I think a web-based discussion group maintained by the classroom teacher might drive our students to ‘speak.’ This also leads me to presume that the dynamics of girls’ hidden literacies have changed drastically, in the era of MySpace, Facebook, and text messaging. Now girls have access to creating and receiving instant digital ‘notes’ and ‘graffiti.’ Has this heightened the problem? Or has it provided a space for all students to express themselves, therefore erasing social divides?

This sort of discussion, enabling students to cross standardized boundaries, is a stark contrast to the teacher preparatory instruction that I received six years ago from a Masters’ program. This celebrated the ‘positive learning environment,’ within which the teacher facilitates discussions to promote the impression of comfort and safety for all students. In my own practice, I am learning that sometimes, discussion should be uncomfortable. It should move our children forward in the realization that while we live in a place that claims equal opportunity for all, we regularly encounter a variety of texts, which incessantly push some of us down while raising others up. This critical literacy needs to be taught beginning at even the earliest stages of education, therefore providing adolescents an innate sense of perspective, which will serve to protect them against the dangers of controlled self-perception.




References

Finders, M. J. (1997). Just Girls: Hidden Literacies and Life in Junior High. New York, NY . Teachers College Press.

Freire, P. & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the Word and the World. Westport, CT. Greenwood Publishing Group.