Summary
Our country is carrying out transformations in the educational sphere, of which higher education does not escape, which has begun a process of universalization throughout our geography, which implies that changes must necessarily take place, in the way of analyzing the problems that occur in the university environment, in correspondence with this new mission that corresponds to us to carry out the educators of this level of education, in the integral formation of the professionals that the country needs, with high scientific level and that they fulfill their social charge efficiently.
In the work, an analysis is made of the way in which the problem of sexism has been approached in the Textbook of Philosophy and Society II, which is used in university careers, as one of the aspects of the explicit curriculum that exert an influence important in the formation of the student body, and in the vision that is had around the genres, in addition to verifying the written language that is present in the text, where it was possible to verify the sexist contents that are transmitted in it and how it is not gives fair treatment for both genders.
For the realization of this work, a document analysis was also made, as well as the consultation of other oriented bibliographies that have been within our reach.
The effectiveness of this work could be verified when it was implemented in the second semester of the last school year 2004-2005, its implementation resulted in the students' knowledge about gender problems, since there was some lack of knowledge on their part.
Introduction
With this work we try to carry out in a simple way, some reflections about how the problem of sexism has been addressed in the Textbook of Philosophy and Society II, which is used for university careers, as one of the aspects of the explicit curriculum that they exercise an important influence in the formation of the student body, and in the vision that is had around the genres.
The work is aimed at verifying the written language present in the text, to check in this way whether or not sexist content is transmitted, as well as, if they are treated equally for both genders, through the analysis of documents, as well as consultation from other targeted bibliographies that have been available to us.
When we refer to Gender we are not necessarily talking about women, since this category has a multidimensional character and analyzes the relationship between the biological, the social, the economic, the legal, the political, the psychological and the cultural. "Gender is the set of attributes, attributes and characteristics that imply sex, but that does not exhaust its explanations there." 1 This is a category with a relational, social and culturally constructed content.
The process in which gender is formed and developed is dependent on sociocultural processes of the environment in which people operate, from the moment of their birth and throughout their lives.
Gender is the category used to designate men and women.
When speaking of gender, it is necessary to state that studies related to the problem of sexism in school began to develop from the 80s of the last century, a question that is referred to in the development of this work.
Development:
The earliest conceptualizations of gender date back to the 1950s, when Jhon Money and Robert Stoller argue that there is a difference between sex and gender. The first refers to the anatomophysiological characteristics of being male or female, while the second refers to the sociocultural construction of sexual differences (feminine and masculine).
The valuable contributions of these researchers have contributed to the elaboration of concepts that would account for their multidimensionality. Thus sex is inherited, while gender is acquired through cultural learning.
Gender is the set of specific cultural characteristics that identify the social behavior of women and men and the relationships between them; that is to say, it is a cultural construction learned from socialization, for which certain functions or roles are assigned to women and men in a differentiated way. However, gender is a relational term; It is not synonymous with the word women or men, but refers to the relationship that exists between them and the way in which both are socially constructed.
In the 1960s there was a boom in the feminist movement, however legal equality did not change the situation that characterized them; the roles traditionally assigned to women are recognized as the greatest source of female oppression, hence they intend to produce the changes that would make it possible to eliminate inequality. Within feminist demands was the elaboration of a theory that would make it possible to explain the situation of oppression in which women found themselves.
In this way, it is worth highlighting the constructed and not “natural” character of the differences between men and women, and which are still evident today in all areas of people's lives.
“The recognition that the differences do not obey natural causes is what then leads to the demand for equality between women and men within women's groups and movements. Within the academy, with the emergence of the gender approach to analyze the causes of inequality between women and men, a more focused vision of power relations is favored, as founders of hierarchical relations between genders, the basis of inequality and discrimination against women. ”2
At the end of the 70s, the Social Sciences paused in the analysis of social inequalities without going into particular about gender inequalities, which is done later, with the investigations of feminists that seek to make visible the behavior of these inequalities in the field academic, placing at the center of his political complaint one of the problems that have been marginalized in academic knowledge.
In the 1980s, feminists referred to the political nature of the private and generated new categories of analysis that allowed old problems to become visible, among which we can mention: domestic violence, sexual harassment, the feminization of poverty, among others.
All this favored the emergence of new institutions from where problems were identified and analyzed and from where new demands were organized to reverse the situation presented by women.
Research on sexism in school took place mainly during the 1980s, before this decade the sociology of education did not take into account in its studies the issue of sexual inequality; Until the 1970s, school was considered the best way to guarantee equal opportunities, since it contributed to each individual being able to reach a certain level of study in accordance with their abilities and merits.
In most Latin American countries, women have been limited in accessing education, as well as in their participation in society, thus reinforcing the lack of equity and subordinate relationships between women and men. Without this possibility, their exit from the domestic kingdom is limited to enter the extra-domestic.
In the Cuban case, before '59 the situation of women was presented the same as in the rest of the countries of Latin America, however, there was a gradual transformation; from a position of exclusion, marked by centuries of domination of a patriarchal culture, where women were educated from the private, and they were prohibited from accessing the public, to a change in which their participation became more active, as well as their presence, because they did not remain passive before these precepts.
This look at the educational field, refers us to suggest that the gender perspective from education encompasses various aspects, which includes the design of textbooks and programs, among others, through which the school perpetuates sexism., where female figures appear invisible, in a situation of marginalization, or subordination to which we have been subjected in this field for a long time, even today, we find manifestations of this type, recognizing only the role of men, hence the need promote educational change in the field of gender, because, "… in the educational field it is crucial to eliminate the representations, images and discourses that reaffirm gender stereotypes." 3
The stereotype constitutes a social image that attributes to the sexes certain traits and qualities of how men and women should behave in each specific situation, rigid, inviolable patterns that are imposed by society, culture, class or social group.
In Social Sciences, gender issues have been done from a legitimizing perspective of the social order, where men have been placed at the center of reflection and debate, leaving women out of this problem.
The mixed school, which emerged and developed in the second half of the 20th century, contributed to the promotion of gender equality, as well as the recognition of women by advocating for equal opportunities for access to education and training professional of representatives of both sexes. In many old world countries today it is a chimera to achieve this.
“In principle, with this type of school the segregation of sociocultural models that the school reproduces as a socializing institution of male and female models was apparently overcome. However, this has been more a formal advance than a real one. ”4
From this perspective, this type of school can be accessed by anyone, regardless of gender; having the students and all the teachers the same rights and duties, since it maintains that education is the same for all.
However, in this school model, masculine values continue to prevail over feminine ones; Implicitly, covertly and subtly transmitted, where an androcentric, sexist and discriminatory culture is legitimized and perpetuated.
The school has always functioned as an institution for the reproduction of gender inequalities and has contributed to the formation of masculinity and femininity, placing the feminine in a subordinate relationship with respect to the masculine and masculine in a position of superiority.
The androcentrism present in this type of school involves considering men as the center of power, knowledge and doing, considering them as subjects of reference and women are placed in a position of subordination and dependence on them, undervaluing this forms the female figure.
On the other hand, Sexism, which also manifests itself in this school model, must be understood "… -as a practice that permanently emphasizes the differentiating stereotypes of genres based on a markedly macho culture - it is the distinctive feature of different socialization, whose effectiveness is indisputable because the internalization of values is fundamentally unconscious, emotional and sensitive. ”5 In this case, different roles are attributed to men and women, solely on the basis of their sex, thus devaluing the contributions of women, enhancing what men do as valid and most important.
In this way, sexism should be considered as a discriminatory practice, which becomes a generic practice carried out consciously or unconsciously, in textbooks, in programs, in vocational guidelines, in study guides, etc. Hence, many times, the teaching staff do not notice that a sexist education is transmitted.
In this way, androcentric ideology is reinforced in school culture, thinking that man is the center and the measure of all things, androcentrism as a worldview is biased by sex, as noted above, considering men as subjects of reference and women as dependents of these ideas that are transmitted to students through the hidden and explicit curriculum.
Education constitutes a phenomenon of social practice, a process that ensures the transmission, reproduction and development of the culture accumulated by humanity. To the extent that school and social practice contribute to the assimilation and objectification of socially valid content (knowledge, habits, skills, patterns, norms, values, paradigms), individuals will be prepared to insert themselves in life, to comply with their duties and enjoy the recognized rights.
Education must prepare human beings to live a full and happy life, eliminating sexist and discriminatory stereotypes, ways of life and behavior.
Our society, struggles to eliminate the differentiating stereotypes of genres, in a markedly macho culture, and contributes to the formation of values according to established norms and patterns, however, a critical look at the mass media, the The family and the school, with its entire educational system, refer us to suggest that these continue to transmit stereotypes that reinforce to some extent the inequalities between genders.
Research related to sexism in school was somewhat ignored by the sociology of education, since the issue of sexual inequality was not taken into account, and until the 1970s school was considered as the This is the best way to guarantee equal opportunities, because it allowed each individual to reach the level of study that corresponded to their abilities and merits, and it was not until the eighties that more attention was devoted to these studies.
With the formulation from the eighties of the last century, of the concept of Coeducation, a new didactic perspective is opened that is in favor of an equal education for both sexes, where it is criticized and breaks with the process of sexist assimilation of gender carried out at the school, the purpose of which is to present in the classrooms cultural models that are the same for everyone where integration takes place.
Coeducation must then be understood as “a special intervention that fosters values, attitudes, cultural models and capacities that contribute to the authentic integral development of women and men on the basis of the recognition of two non-confronted sexes: equity on the basis of differences. ”6
This intervention has to do with the coexistence of certain attitudes and values, which have been socioculturally constructed and legitimized as masculine-feminine models, so that they are accepted and assumed autonomously and responsibly.
From this perspective, this type of school can be accessed by anyone, regardless of gender.
In this way, work must be done to achieve a coeducational school, since it is projected by the elimination of androcentric, sexist and discriminatory practices, by criticism of the androcentrism of the curriculum, explicit and implicit, and towards positive action regarding the presence of women in the educational system, since the school has historically contributed to reproduce gender inequalities.
“For the school to stop being a transmitter of inequality, it is necessary to change the culture it transmits, both in its written and oral form and in the values and practices that circulate through the educational system and that are often only evident to through the analysis of the hidden curriculum. But inequality, in a unified educational system, is ignored, so at this stage it is necessary to put in place a series of measures that reveal this inequality and initiate its correction. ”7 This means that we must bear in mind that moving to a non-sexist education implies a change in mentality that is currently far from being achieved in all of society, which continues to transmit sexist stereotypes.
In the case of our country, the political will of the state is to change the situation of women, however, their subordinate position has long been legitimized; Despite the fact that equal opportunities have been legally established for both sexes, discriminatory practices, based on inequality by sex or gender, still exist in our educational system; it still exists in the social and individual consciousness of the sexist people, values, customs and attitudes inherited from patriarchal culture that last for a long time, the cultural construction has not been dismantled, so it is necessary to work more quickly to achieve a change cultural that is in the mentality, therefore it is more difficult to uproot.
Taking these theoretical assumptions into account, we have set out to analyze how sexism is revealed in the Philosophy and Society I textbook of university degrees, where the written language present in the content analysis was taken into account.
Methodology and guidelines for analysis:
To develop this work, the unit of analysis is made up of chapters I and II of Volume I of the textbook, object of this modest investigation, reviewing 163 pages that cover the content exposed in them.
Following the guidelines and the methodology for the analysis, as no characters or illustrations appear in this text, the number of people with their own names, the number of women and men with their own names, the frequency or regularity with which the word man and woman, number of women and men who are dedicated to intellectual activities, as well as the importance attributed to the presence of women in the production of philosophical knowledge, to verify how genres are used.
Language as the set of signs through which we can express what we see, feel and think, is acquired culturally, in the interaction we establish with the environment, through it we internalize values, we incorporate the generic models that we recognize as our own, is apprehended through human interaction in the socialization process, therefore, just as gender is also a sociocultural construction.
With the help of language we name reality, but at the same time we reflect and transform it, language offers many possibilities to describe that reality and to express our thoughts, women in this process of transformation of the world around us have played an important role and decisive in history as well as men, however when analyzes are made on the contents of the text, this is relegated to the background and places them in a position of subordination to men.
Analysis of the results:
In general, 69 people who were mentioned with their own names could be quantified; In the case of the analysis of the indicator that refers to the number of men and women mentioned with their own names, it was found that there are 2 women who are mentioned with their own names, for 0.028%, while there are 67 men who are mentioned with own names; which represents 33.5%, means that there is a sexist treatment of content where women are made invisible by exclusion.
In relation to the indicator referring to the frequency with which the words man and woman are mentioned, it was found that 183 times the word man is mentioned and no the word woman, that is, that in this case there is an invisibility of women by omission, recognizing in this way that only man is the enrichment of Marxist thought, therefore there is an androcentric vision in the analysis of the contents that are exposed.
On the other hand, with respect to the indicator that measures the number of men and women engaged in intellectual activity, it was found that 181 men engaged in intellectual activities representing 98.9% and only 2 women, are dedicated to this type of activity, for 0.01%. In this case, the text reproduces a world in which the majority of men are those who carry out intellectual activities, there being an inequality between the number of women and men in these tasks, from this perspective it is appreciated that in this sense, reinforces the myth that women are less intelligent than men, who are considered to be more capable, minimizing the contributions of women in this sphere.
There is talk of the activity that men carry out; how man is the bearer of extraordinary potentialities; of the relationship that man establishes with the world, among many other times that the word man is mentioned, without taking into account in our opinion, that women also carry out multiple activities that are important in society, which, like men It establishes an active and multifaceted relationship with the surrounding world, so that it, in the same way, has extraordinary potentialities that allow it to play a leading role in the production of philosophical knowledge. Here the contents are generally treated from the masculine, as absolute protagonists of scientific discoveries, of the production of scientific knowledge,as creator of the material and spiritual culture of the peoples, etc.
Behind the word man it is not known if women are being included. If so, they are invisible, on the contrary, they are excluded.
It happens that, upon reviewing the text, the sexism that emerges in the analysis of its contents is evident, which are marked by a strong androcentrism, there being a sexist use of language, as more dedication is given to the masculine gender, which allows us to determine the presence of discriminatory and sexist content.
In the analysis of the text, it was found that as we operate in an eminently sexist and androcentric environment and culture, there is no recognition in its fair measure of the social value of the capacities and potentialities that are inherent in women, and they are attributed a role of inferiorization, secondary and dependent. Through language, gender inequality is reflected, by not taking into account the transformations experienced by women, as well as the role they have been playing in society and the messages that are transmitted continue to place them in a subordinate position with respect to men.
There is a sexist and androcentric use of language as a way to legitimize masculine superiority over feminine and to reinforce what has historically been constructed by patriarchal culture: gender stereotypes, since in the text the contents refer mostly to sex masculine, while women are kept apart and invisible or are seen in the background regarding their role as the subject of scientific knowledge.
Despite this, many times the practices of sexist inequalities that women are the object of in the educational system are not visible.
Conclusions:
- Sexism is a discriminatory practice that becomes a generic practice and is carried out consciously or unconsciously, as a result of the patriarchal culture that we have inherited. It is necessary to introduce the gender approach in textbooks and programs, since these They do not mainstream gender. The differences that sexist education attributes to each sex are not natural, but have been built throughout history by the values, habits and customs of each society. It is necessary to recognize the leading role and Participation that women have achieved in all areas, which must be reflected in the texts that are published for higher education. Despite the transformations that have been taking place in Cuban society, there is still a patriarchal structure,The school through the explicit and hidden curricula continues to perpetuate gender stereotypes, although this has evolved, coexisting new values and models of behavior. It is necessary for all teaching staff to become aware of the transforming role that corresponds to them in school, to that can identify sexist and discriminatory biases in the education that is transmitted. Sexism is consolidated and reproduced in school through various means: school organization, language, textbooks, programs, etc. It shows that in classrooms androcentric curricular contents are still transmitted, establishing different values, attitudes and expectations for men and women in society, without taking into account the contributions of women or their experiences;These are educated in traditional norms and values. We have become transmitters of cultural models that have been imposed on us by the patriarchy, who has not been interested in women accessing knowledge, since this implies the possibilities of access to tools that allow us to get rid of that social order, because this access is related to the theme of power and knowledge is power.
Bibliography:
- Basto, OL: The formation of gender: the impact of socialization through education, in: History of human sexuality, Volume I, Editorial Group Miguel Ángel Porrúa, CONAPO, Mexico, 1994.Bernstein, Basil: The pedagogical codes and its practical modalities. In Sociology of Education. Some basic texts. Compilers: Clotilde Proveyer and Yisel Rivero Baxter.Bonal, Xavier: Globalization and educational policy: a critical analysis of the World Bank Agenda for Latin America. In Sociology of Education. Some basic texts. Compilers: Clotilde Proveyer and Yisel Rivero Baxter.Bombino, Yenisei: Sexism. Female and male models in the 9th grade Spanish-Literature textbook, in Selection of Gender Readings. Part Two Bourdieu, Pierre, (2000). Male domination. Anagram. Barcelona, Spain.Bourdieu, Pierre and JC Passeron: Foundations of a symbolic theory. In Sociology of Education. Some Basic Texts. Compilers: Clotilde Proveyer and Yisel Rivero Baxter. González, A and B. Castellanos: Sexuality and Genres: Alternatives for their education in the face of the challenges of the 21st century, Scientific-Technical Editorial, Havana, 2003. Marcela Lagarde: “The Multidimensionality of Gender. Article. Page 2Lamas, M, (comp.) 2000. Gender: The cultural construction of sexual difference. University Program of Gender Studies (PUEC), Editorial Porrúa. Mexico._______ The gender perspective, in Magazine of Education and Culture. Section 47.Murguialday, C., (1999). Women and Cooperation: from invisibility to gender equality. Cuadernos Bakeaz 35, Bilibao, España.Proveyer, C: Patriarchal culture and gender socialization.Keys to gender socialization, in Gender Selection Scott, JC, (2000). Gender is a useful category for historical analysis; In: The genre. The cultural construction of sexual difference. Marta Lamas (Compiler). Editorial Porrúa, University Program of Gender Studies, Mexico.Subirats, M.: Women's education: from marginality to coeducation, proposals for a methodology of educational change. In Sociology of Education. (Compilers): Clotilde Proveyer and Yisel Rivero Baxter.Vasallo Norma: “Gender: an analysis of the“ naturalization ”of inequalities. Article.University Program of Gender Studies, Mexico.Subirats, M.: Women's education: from marginality to coeducation, proposals for a methodology of educational change. In Sociology of Education. (Compilers): Clotilde Proveyer and Yisel Rivero Baxter.Vasallo Norma: “Gender: an analysis of the“ naturalization ”of inequalities. Article.University Program of Gender Studies, Mexico.Subirats, M.: Women's education: from marginality to coeducation, proposals for a methodology of educational change. In Sociology of Education. (Compilers): Clotilde Proveyer and Yisel Rivero Baxter.Vasallo Norma: “Gender: an analysis of the“ naturalization ”of inequalities. Article.
___________________
1Marcela Lagarde: “The Multidimensionality of Gender. Article. Page 2
2 Vasallo Norma: “Gender: an analysis of the“ naturalization ”of inequalities. Article, p. 10
3Lamas Marta: The gender perspective, in Magazine of Education and Culture. Section 47, p. 12
4Bombino Yenisei: Sexism. Female and male models in the Spanish-Literature textbook 9th grade, in Part Two of Selection of Gender Readings p. 192
5Proyer, C: Patriarchal culture and gender socialization. Keys to gender socialization, in Gender Selection. Page 57
6Bombino, Yenisei: Sexism. Female and male models in the 9th grade Spanish-Literature textbook, in Selection of Gender Readings. Part Two p. 193
7 Subirat, Marina: Women's education: from marginality to coeducation, proposals for a methodology of educational change, in Sociology of Education, p. 311
