#flatfreire

[flatfreire]

This is actually my bulletin board for the month of November. Our theme was “terms of oppression” and I decided to make a board about rape culture and the oppression and objectification of women. My main motivation was the alarming statistics of sexual violence experienced by women on college campuses and the United States as a whole. Statistics like “ nearly one in three women (31.5 percent) experiences physical violence by an intimate partner at some point in her lifetime” or “19.3 percent of women are raped at some time in their lives, and 43.9 percent experience sexual violence other than rape“ both found on page 14 of “IWPR Status of U.S. Women 2015 Executive Summary”. These are absolutely unacceptable statistics. That is why RA bulletin boards are such an important thing in residence halls, it helps make students aware of topics like this that they otherwise may not be exposed to. 

-Maslin

[flatfreire]

This is an example of gendered products. I have always wondered what makes a particular body wash “for men” or “for women” other than the scent. It all goes back to the idea that society has certain gender roles that men and women are supposed to fill. Men are supposed to act (and I guess smell) more masculine and women feminine. Gendered products go way beyond soap. From the time we are born, we are assigned certain things based solely on gender. Boys like blue and play with trucks; girls like pink and play with dolls. It is tough to break gender roles when from such an early age we are assigned to who we “need” to be. We are conditioned to look, act, and talk a certain way. In Rosenberg’s American Girl article she says, “Until recently in the United States there were only a few sure paths to high school acceptance for girls; the most obvious was being a beautiful, slick haired cheerleader.” Pg 122. And while as a country we have gotten better in those regards; it is ideas like that which are detrimental to adolescents. That goes along with the idea of adding gender to products that really do not need it. It strips people of individuality.

-Chet

[flatfreire]

For my post I decided to take a picture of a Starbucks drive thru, I picked the Starbucks drive thru because of their accessibility for people that may be deaf or hard of hearing. Starbucks has recently built a camera into their drive thru screen that resembles something like Skype, which allows people to sign their order instead of speaking it. Due to this new accommodation, Starbucks has begun to hire at least one employee on their waitstaff that can sign American Sign Language to communicate with these individuals. This is a major breakthrough for the people in the Deaf Community to gain the support of an international corporation like Starbucks. 

In The Social Construction of Difference, Johnson explains that able-bodied individuals “...can also assume that most buildings and other structures will not be designed in ways that limit their access.” (Pg. 19)  By creating this window, Starbucks has demonstrated their compassion and understanding towards people with disabilities. Although there are more people that are hearing than Deaf, Starbucks still finds it important to make their business accessible for everyone. This action that Starbucks has taken to ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity to access their business helps give off a message to society. Starbucks is showing that they support people despite their differences, and they want everyone to have the same opportunities as one another. Many people do not think about the inconvenience certain structures have on others ability to communicate, but Starbucks is helping bring awareness to the topic by creating this new way of communicating in a drive thru. Able-bodied people take for granted the endless opportunities we have that someone that isn’t able-bodied doesn’t get. It is important to spread awareness that there is more beyond ourselves, and it is our responsibility to ensure that our society is functional for all individuals as a whole.

Posted by: Madison S

[flatfreire]

Who doesn’t love Legos? This is an image of a few Lego products taken in Walmart. These particular Legos are themed with Elves, Friends, Disney’s Frozen (not pictured), and Disney’s Moana (not pictured). The section was not as big as it could have been and there was not a lot of variety other than the themes listed before. If you haven’t realized it yet, these Lego toys are located in the girls’ toys section. Two aisles down, there is almost an entire row of Legos that are “for boys.” There are Lego toys themed with Star Wars, Batman, cars, Ninjago, and Marvel Super Heroes. Lorber mentions that everyone “does gender,” meaning people conform to what society has deemed appropriate for the male and female categories. She also mentions “gender is such a familiar part of daily life” that it goes unnoticed until there is a disruption in expectations.

I thought about this article (I had read it for a previous class) when I noticed how the Legos were separated. Lorber argues that gender is constructed by society. People like to place others into categories where they can pick and choose the appropriate characteristics and behaviors the others are expected to show. Are we not telling children that there are specific aisles of toys they are expected to choose from? Are we not telling little girls that they should be playing with the dolls and fairies in pretty castles and houses instead of the Death Star or Batman? Shouldn’t little boys want to be able to play with popular Disney characters such as Anna and Elsa and not be expected to play with fast cars and superheroes? Toys are gateways for children to explore their imaginations and interests. They do not define who they are. Society holds expectations of how girls and boys should behave instead of letting them simply enjoy being young and playing with toys that excite them.

Posted by Jenny 

[flatfreire]

Pictured above, Flat Freire is bookmarking a page in a teaching magazine called “Teaching Tolerance”. This issue of the magazine focuses on the 2016 tips, tricks, and activities ideas for teaching about and discussing controversial topics in the classroom. In the second picture, Freire is pointing to a specific passage in which a student exhibits racism in the classroom. That particular chapter discusses how and why teachers should handle these tense situations by describing the real example of what Tracey Iglehart, a first grade teacher, did to combat racism in her school. To combat xenophobia in her school, Inglehart mobilized all of the teachers in her school to stage a “Teach In” the day Donald Trump came to their town. They hung up “Black Lives Matter” posters, created positive art abroad immigrants, and created a continually used shared google doc with a list of K-12 lesson plans that focused on teaching tolerance. 

This story, and the magazine overall, is a phenomenal example of progress when it comes to combating racism in schools. While this passage focused on race rather than religion, this article seemed to directly relate to the fifth myth that Ballinger pointed out in her journal “So, You're a Muslim? (Not That There's Anything Wrong With That)”. Ballinger points out that is a myth that teachers cannot discuss religion in the classroom; in reality, it is very beneficial to facilitate these discussion, thus teaching the values of compassion, empathy, and understanding.

Ruby

[flatfreire]

These photos were taken outside of Schoonover Center on campus. This particular handicap button stood out to me the most because there are two indications of the building being accessible- the sticker on the door and the button itself. Many of us walk past these kinds of signs everyday and never notice them but for others it is a deciding factor in whether or not they can enter into a building. I am choosing to incorporate a quote from, “Social Construction of Disability” by Susan Wendell. The quote reads, “poor architectural planning creates physical obstacles for people who use wheelchairs, but also for people who can walk but cannot walk far or cannot climb stairs, for people who cannot open doors, and for people who can do all of these things but only at the cost of pain or an expenditure of energy they can ill afford,” (50). I like this quote because it includes multiple scenarios of a disability and does not single one out in particular. Many building nowadays are built with accessibility included but there are still a variety of building that are not accessible. For instance, my freshman dorm on campus did not have an elevator and there were 4 floors with steps leading to each one including the first. It is important to recognize these types of limitations in everyday life. I know I will keep in mind that as an educator I may have to provide certain accommodations for a student with a disability.

Posted by Kendra 

[flatfreire]

We’ve talked a lot in this class about the obvious need for equity in classrooms. During our LGBTQ discussions, the topic of “space spaces” was brought up. As a class, I understand that we decided that the general meaning of a safe space was a place, such as a classroom, where people (students) should be able to discuss their feelings and opinions and ask questions without fear of judgment or retaliation from teachers or their peers. As soon as we started talking about race and religion, however, that idea faded into the background. 

Race and religion are two incredibly important and personal topics, just like gender and sexuality. Children who don't have a space to learn about and ask questions about race and religion (as well as gender and sexuality) may very well enter their adult life without a clear understanding of themselves or their peers. 

It’s unbelievably stressful for students to deal with racism in the classroom. I think the most obvious example form our readings would be from the Anderson article, which states that students face ““psychological trauma” [from] constant racial harassment” (Anderson p.5). This article also points out that students who have to deal with racism in schools suffer from “lower grades, less academic motivation, and less persistence when encountering an academic challenge” (Anderson p.3).  

Religious oppression in a classroom environment is just as damaging to students as racism. We have almost all experienced a situation where we have witnessed a student or a peer or a stranger fall victim to a snide remark or cruel joke on the expense of their religious affiliation, i.e. clothing (like a hijab, kippah, turban, or traditional dress, etc.). From a recent reading, we reviewed that turbans (dastaars) “symbolize a devotion to the divine and values like honesty, compassion, generosity, and humility” (Green p.1). If more people understood that, then hopefully there would be a greater toleration and acceptance of people who look and worship differently than we do. 

Long story short, both of these topics revolve around stereotypes that hurt and hinder our students the second they leave their homes each morning. As teachers, it’s our job to make sure ALL of our students get the same maximum benefit from our classrooms, regardless of race, religion, gender, sexuality, etc. 

The picture that I chose was taken in McCracken Hall on the second floor. Obviously, my topic for this post is not related to lactation or meditation rooms. However, this room is multi-purpose and is in a central location in McCracken to all who need access to it. I am using this picture to highlight the need for multi-purpose rooms (a “safe space” if you will) in modern schools where students can feel free to question and discuss harsh topics, such as religion and race, that is smaller and separate from the general classroom. This way, students can speak to teachers, counselors, and other students in a more intimate setting where genuine discussions and learning can take place. 

If students had a place in their schools where they could go to discuss these topics, they would undoubtedly be better prepared to interact in society. Hopefully, they would also have a better understanding of and more compassion for those who are different than themselves. 

-Grace 

[flatfreire]

One day, Flat Freire decided to visit a good friend in the Cleveland Clinic. While there, he passed by 3 separate places of worship, each for a different religion. “What a splendid idea!” Freire cried, not even being the religious type himself. “Now, people of many religions can come and pray for their loved ones well-being and health!” Most of the hospitals he had visited before only had a Christian chapel, never before had he seen one for Jews and Muslims. Not only were these rooms available, there were priests, pastors, rabbis, and Imams on hand to help with any person in distress. These rooms were all stocked with religions literature and necessary items for worship. He thought it would be an incredible revolution to see this set-up become the standard for all hospitals. What do you think? Do you think hospitals should tend to the needs of all religions and beliefs or should they focus mainly on one? Do you think that hospitals should emphasize this point at all? Do you think it would be possible to see more hospitals become more “religious friendly” or does it seem like a far-off idea that can not be reached?

Posted by Adam