(i don't know if this will help, but here's an introduction to this
posting.
i do not intend to argue with the above statement which i can see makes a
kind of sense. just want to put out that there are other readings for the
observation that so few women take advanced computer/electronic courses.
this is mostly based on my own experience, but i include other names, not
to impress anyone, but because my understanding of academic discourse is
that it's more likely to be accepted if the author cites others. as
someone who values feminist theory, i want to write from my own
experience, but as someone who wants to write a dissertation, i want to be
heard. so, gentle comments and compassionate criticism would be
appreciated.)
it seems to me that their are different kinds of logic and/or different
ways of using it.
i've read _hackers_ (ancient history of computer programmers) and turkle
and papert's books and articles on how different kinds of people interact
with computers (and other stuff, but that's what comes to mind) and i also
teach in an elementary computer lab and
i think those people (mostly, but not always female) who write programs
like poetry or music and those people (mostly, but not always male) who
write programs like linear bits of logic blocks that can be added
together; they can and have created successful programs. the ones
identified as male who can program intuitively (and i am using their word,
as reported in turkle's work) are often the most highly valued in the
computer industry. the women who do so aren't often recognized, or don't
want anything to do with being one of those type of people (and again, i
am using what they are reported to say). i don't think teaching women to
"do" logical programming will help if the women don't like the way those
courses are taught and don't believe they want to compete with the men in
the settings of most college courses.
it's way more complex than "teaching" them to think logically.
what i see in my classrooms is that it's (not all) boys who take the
mouse, boys make fun of those who seem slow or inexpert, boys shout out
orders, boys collude to prevent girls or occasionally other boys, from
using the computer.
i did not like karen gallas naming those boys in her class "the bad boys"
because i did not see them as "bad."
in her book and in my classrooms (from kindergarten to college level
master's degree courses) i see a pattern of particular boys who act out
the role of "Boy" with amazing focus. they don't think they are shutting
out other kids, they think everyone is playing the same game by the same
rules. (this is my understanding of this behavior.)
when i was an elementary student, i resented the boys in my class who took
up so much of the teacher's time, when i tried to do that, it never worked
out like it did for them. when i was an undergraduate, i envied them and
again attempted to appropriate their tactics. i was more successful than
in elementary school, but felt more alienated. as an elementary school
teacher, i confess to liking boys who act like "Boy" (and i am embarrassed
to admit this, but i do because i think it's important for me to attempt
to be clear on this issue of role and identity). i have taken computer
programming courses and, even when i imitated the "male" style, it was met
with surprise rather than with praise. it's hard to feel confident in your
own ability when the teacher doesn't believe your doing it is "natural."
at this point in my life, i no longer want to keep imitating the behavior
of success (and not just because it is rarely recognized, but because i am
learning the value of doing things differently, and the value of
code-switching between different styles).
i feel like bill b. about all of this, i don't know what to say, or how to
solve The Problem.
i don't think it can be solved, actually.
but i do passionately believe that all perspectives, all voices,
especially the silent ones, must be actively sought out and listened to.
if this means breaking some rules, i think it's worth it. i am not
suggesting that whatever new idea gets enacted should then become the new
rule. maybe what we need is the willingness to change more often.
i don't know.
i also want to clarify that the words i have indicated with parentheses
are problematic for me and i am willing to discuss them, but not to be
attacked for my use of them. i see them as abbreviations for chapters or
books, even.
kathie
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
start all over.
start all over.
we need to make new symbols,
make new signs,
make a new language,
with these we'll redefine the world
and start all over.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^tracy chapman:new beginning
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Katherine_Goff who-is-at ceo.cudenver.edu
http://ceo.cudenver.edu/~katherine_goff/index.html