Is Femininity Here to Stay?

On Friday evening I drove to NLWC in hope of scheduling an interview with Jordan before the youth service began. I entered the church and spotted Jordan conversing with another young male in the lobby. He acknowledged me with a nod and stated in a friendly tone “hey man, what’s up”. I presented him with an interview consent sheet, while simultaneously explaining that I need to conduct three interviews for my field study. He was excited that I was asking to interview him and without hesitation he agreed to the interview. After we resolved on Tuesday night for the interview, he told me “I know a few other people who would be great to interview”. I told him that I would greatly appreciate suggestions for youth to interview, as I am unacquainted with the majority of youth who attend this church. Jordan began rambling off a multitude of names and to be honest the only name I remember is Pastor Marco (the youth minister). I may not remember the name of every individual Jordan recommended; however, I did hear a pattern in these recommendations. Every individual that Jordan recommended was a male! I thanked Jordan for his recommendations, but inquired if there were any girls that I could interview. Jordan gave me a quizzical look and I followed up my inquiry with, “It helps my field study if I can hear from both male and female interviewees.” Jordan’s quizzical look had vanished and he now looked at me suspiciously, “Hm. Well, I’ll see who I can find and I’ll get back to you on Tuesday.” Jordan’s response was both unsettling and revealing about the gender roles within the subculture I’m studying.

I began my post with this anecdote because it displays the patriarchy that exists within the subculture I’m studying. What I have witnessed thus far in my subculture are girls performing servile tasks like pouring drinks and heating nachos, while the males provide technical support and read scripture into a microphone. I constantly hear young men testify on Friday nights of how God is working miracles in their lives, but I have not yet heard a young woman testify. On Sunday mornings I see women lead the congregation in praise and worship and then stand obediently in the Pastor’s shadow while he delivers the sermon, which is being recorded by the men operating the tripods. In both the Sunday morning service and Friday night youth service, females neither handle electronics nor read scripture. It is likely believed that they are incapable of handling complex electronics and the idea of a woman reading biblical scripture is preposterous. A Christian woman cannot speak the word of God or testify of his greatness, because the Pope is still a male, right? Even in the 21st century women still don’t have the authority that a man holds within this patriarchal religion and that is frightening.

Jordan was shocked that I wanted to hear from a girl within the subculture probably because he believed a girl’s words are valueless. A female could provide me with information regarding the snacks served at the snack bar and/or possibly sing me a song of praise, but she surely couldn’t pontificate on the works of God. The women in this subculture differ from women in the punk subculture in every way imaginable. The women in the subculture I’m studying follow femininity to a tee; they dress female, look female, talk (or don’t talk) female, and act with female propriety. Females in the punk subculture spit on femininity and tear apart “the female”. The tension in the subculture I’m studying rises or doesn’t rise out of female servility and silencing, whereas tension arises within the punk subculture out of challenging masculinity. The subcultures are polar opposites when considering the power that females hold within them, but both, through their own tension, illuminate that femininity continues to steadily throb in our society.

Marching Towards Education

Leif Gustavson’s “Youth Learning on Their Own Terms” has also found a spot on my summer reading list after reading Lawrence Baine’s informative review. It appears as though Gustavson’s text wants us to envision an educational system that is permeated with compassionate teachers and student voices. Gustavson’s educational paradigm is indeed a hopeful one for many educators. It is hopeful for the teacher cognizant of the external factors that invariably erode students’ spirits; who are mindful of the fact that academics becomes of tertiary importance when a high school student must financially support his siblings and mother. It brings hope to the teacher who wants students invested in their education and to take ownership of their learning. It’s inspirational for the teacher who doesn’t only proclaim that education should have relevance to a student’s life, but who believes that relevance is everything. His paradigm gives hope not to the merciless imparters of knowledge, but rather inspires educators who realize our students give us a generous amount of knowledge. Gustavson’s text certainly carries hope to these teachers and it undeniably serves as a means for all educators to re-evaluate the educational system. Why do we willingly distance ourselves from our students and believe an education solely means covering an academic curriculum? Why do we constantly select texts that don’t bare the slightest resemblance to our students’ lives? Most importantly, why do we persist in believing that we are educating students when we have not even connected with them?

As ambitious educators, we must first become tuned in to the likes, dislikes, struggles, and joys of our students before meaningful learning occurs. Once we gain insight into our students’ lives and chose to use this newly acquired knowledge, we begin to reach them both supportively and academically. I’m not suggesting that we directly incorporate material into the classroom that our society deems problematic such as graffiti and edgy Hip-Hop tracks. In fact, Gustavson warns against bringing this type of material into the classroom, “The marginal status of these creative practices—the fact that they are not appreciated in the mainstream—is what, in part, gives the practices power. The subversive nature of these art forms contributes to the interest youth have in them. A pedagogical stance where these practices are viewed as units of study, objects to be examined, takes this power away and can render the practices lifeless in the classroom. (p. 23)” This genius notion reminded me of Pretty in Punk and how the punk subculture doesn’t want their hair and tethered garb accepted by mainstream culture. Mainstream acceptance of their aberrant image contradicts their ethos and renders them powerless. Therefore, educators should both acknowledge and welcome the talents of powerful lyricists, spray can artists, and zany hairstylists through constructing lessons that don’t scrutinize these talents, but rather require them. Baine’s review makes this text sound beneficial for any educator who wants to educate. I cannot wait to read this one!

We all acquiesce, don't we?

"Is the choice of returning to the sect made in an entirely free manner?" This is the overarching question to muse on when considering what makes these youth resolve on remaining Amish. Why would a youth want to continue living a life of suppression after they have reveled in their basest desires? It is indeed perplexing to think of why a sixteen year old chooses a rigid, stifling life after a liberating rumspringa experience. But an experience is exactly what rumspringa is. These youth are ensconced in a hegemonic culture of “moral imperatives, biblical precepts, and complex sets of rules that the sect has imparted to them in their homes, at church, and in school.” They spend sixteen years of captivity within their conservative communes before they are turned loose for a few days. How does rumspringa allow Amish youth to make a choice of freewill? Is it possible to reconcile sin with purity? I would argue that it doesn’t allow for choice but rather ensures docility.
A taste of American mainstream culture is as much exhilarating as it is harrowing. The youth have taken in our mainstream culture’s propaganda and they are disenchanted when they experience this culture. There is freedom attached to mainstream culture, but there is also individualism, loneliness, confusion, coldness, and despondency. These characteristics of our mainstream culture are stirred together and youth are left sedated with fear. Illuminating this fear is the unfathomable suicide rate among American youth. Life is to daunting and messy for a youth to navigate and understand on their own. They need guidance from someone who has turned the bends and trekked the winding path. Americans dump youth onto this shrouded and ominous road, whereas the Amish keep a hand, albeit forceful, on their youths’ backs. The Amish live childhoods that “are far more sheltered (and structured) than those of our own children” and isn’t this what all children want? Don’t educators foster warmth and order, not coldness and chaos in their classrooms? Even that youth don’t explicitly ask for help don’t we instinctively know they are always in need? Why would the Amish youth want to leave this refuge? They trade freedom for security, like we trade love for financial security (open marriages). I would certainly contend the “free choice” a sixteen year old has in regard to returning to the Amish church, but I do see their logic. After all, acquiescence is not a foreign concept to any American.