Women are judged as women no matter where they are or what they do. When we walk into a job interview, not only are we judged on our qualifications, but on our appearance, voice, and dress. In some cases, like those of airline stewardesses, those latter variables may be the deciding factor on whether or not she gets the job at all. When on the phone, women are accused of sounding “bitchy” or “hormonal.”At no time is a woman judged solely on her abilities – she is always judged on her abilities as a woman.
With the lack of women in game development, and a seeming lack of women in online games, it would appear that even in technology, women are the suppressed minority. Feminists clamor that anything and everything leads to oppression of women: politics, appearance, penis envy, or the all-consuming “importance of cultural influences in the shaping of gender,” stresses Prof. Karen Horney (Gleman, Newsweek. 84). However, it is the newest of cultural influences that has opened new doors to women, erasing an oppressive environment typically seen elsewhere.
The internet, and all its opportunities, has opened up a new, completely gender-neutral world to women, one where people, regardless of race, gender, or ethnicity, are judged on the weight of their abilities, not on their appearance. We see this with elements of the internet like email – anything from JCHahn7766 to DownRiver1 – is completely gender-neutral. Those emails or game names could belong to anyone, the President or the 13 year old down the street.
This anonymity of the internet, while it does have its downsides, offers women the ability to be themselves and more without bias. Short tempered in an email – you can’t be called bitchy solely based on your sex!In a bad mood in an online forum? Nothing “hormonal” here, just a bad mood. These new technologies offer women a starting point that is at the exact same position as men. The internet has done the one thing that feminism and affirmative action have been unable to do: leveled the playing field.
For the first time ever, a woman is not judged as a woman, but as another person in far horizon, discoursing over the internet. She may have a name that is not hers, nor is it remotely female. Her avatar may be the same. As a result, those online may not know the true gender of the person at the other end of that internet cable. Intuitive guessing may occur, but overall, a woman only has to expose her gender when it is in her best interest. The online revolution offers true gender-neutrality.
Karen Lehrman in her essay The Feminist Mystic makes this very point: “Government cannot cleanse society of sexism; culture and time can” (The New Republic, 34, 1992). We see this effect of culture most inherently with the advent of online games. Women play everything from Spades online to World of Warcraft, and whether they present themselves to the online world as a man or a woman largely depends on the woman’s whim. She may play under a man’s name in Texas Hold’em or use a male avatar in EverQuest II. Or she may elect to present herself in a feminine form, but that superficial form holds little sway, as great numbers of men “gender-bend” in game and play a female character for a thrill.
Since there is no actual visual of women in an online environment, only the one that a woman chooses for herself, the stereotypes and assumptions based on appearance and gender are lessened. Games like Sims or Second Life, where body image is malleable, or even an animal, or Horizons, where one can play a dragon, gender becomes moot. A woman’s ability to acquire skills and earn levels in game are on par with men.
Women are even discovering fresh inroads into gaming through said games by creating their own reality through the game. Women can acquire rare items and drops and sell them for real money through a variety of websites. In some games, like Second Life, women can form their own businesses. MMORPGs have a decent female following as well; “Women took to fantasy landscapes of sword and sorcery like World of Warcraft, sometimes wielding weapons, but also inhabiting characters who seemed nurturing or bewitching,” writes Dickey and Summers in Newsweek (E20, 2005).
The idea of knowing that a woman is playing a game by her ability level (or lack thereof) is also becoming a logical fallacy. Women hold their own in online card, arcade, and MMO games, reaching higher levels of game accomplishments alongside their male counterparts. In an online forum at GamerGod.com, Grimwell posted some interesting insight on women gamers. Using gamespeak “pwn” to mean “own” or “kick your butt,” he commented that in ten years, his daughter will “pwn you” in a game, and that a female gaming friend, Rhyssa, “will pwn you now” (gamergod.com 2005). Don’t be surprised to learn that the husky Paladin, slaughtering the creature next to you, is a young woman just trying to level.
As more young girls begin to play more online and PC games, the line between men as better players blurs. The average 5 year old, regardless of gender, knows how to play, and beat, a number of videogames. In fact, several developers now create games specifically for kids, especially little girls. While the boxes may be pink and purple, with Hello Kitty and Barbie on the cover, the content is game nonetheless. These girls are growing up gaming and quickly becoming a gaming force to be recokoned with.
To level the playing field, all a woman needs is her internet connection. There is no longer any learning curve between men and women in gaming, and the nature of the internet had allowed women their full voice in gender neutrality. A woman no longer has to shed her femininity, dress like men, or act unfeminine to play with the big boys. Online gaming empowers women because it breaks the gender bias. In online games, the only thing that could hold a woman back or thrust her forward is her own ability, her computer hardware, and her broadband.
Works Cited:
Dickey, Christopher and Summers, Nick. “A Female Sensibility.” Newsweek. October 17, 2005. v CXLVIn16.E20.
Gelman, David. “A Fresh Take on Freud.” Newsweek.October 29, 1990. v116 n18. 84-86.
Lehrman, Karen. “The Feminist Mystique.” The New Republic. March 16, 1992. v206 n11. 30-34.
At the end of every semester, my freshman composition students must write a final paper, an argument paper. This paper is a culmination of all the styles and practice they have learned during the course. As an added bonus for the final paper of the class, the students have a choice of topics on which to write their paper. Over the semesters, the topics have included censorship, religions, and money. A few semesters ago, however, I put up education up as a possible topic choice.
Within these topics, students can select any aspect of that topic they choose. Under the umbrella of education, students have written about school funding, banned books in libraries, and special education classes. Inevitably, one student will want to approach the topic of homeschooling. Honestly, I welcome this, regardless of the approach (pro or con), with open arms. I can often offer some resources to help them in their research. Plus, students have come up with sources I am not familiar with or present information in a unique way.
Usually, students will take a pro-homeschooling approach. One student who did so was a quiet girl who had been homeschooled herself, so the topic was within her purview. She was able to add some more personal information that worked well in her paper. However, most students who decide to write on homeschooling are not familiar with the subject at all. This makes for some interesting research and conclusions on behalf of the student writer.
Of course, there are the students who decide to write the contrary. One student in particular did a more than fair job looking at homeschooling as it lacks in “experiences” that schools can provide. I gave her full credit, not only for writing a decent paper, but she also knew that I homeschooled my children; she was not afraid to face the beast.
This past semester took the homeschool debate in our class to a whole new level. A student was intrigued by the homeschool conversations she had heard, and she wanted to write about it for her final paper. However, she wanted to look at homeschooling from the other side and write about how homeschooling is not as good as conventional schooling and does not produce “good” results.
I told her to have at it. I had researched some information, typical arguments, about the “downside” to homeschooling. I had no doubt she would utilize at least some of these sources as the basis of her paper. I also knew that some students in the class had personal experiences with homeschooling, so I wanted to see where this was going to lead.
The students had a week to come back with their formulated theses and some examples or sources for the final paper. When we met that next week to discuss the final papers, she raised her hand to volunteer her thesis and information.
“No offense to anyone in this class who homeschools,” was how she began and I laughed and gave the class a warning “uh-oh!” Then she continued.
“I can’t write on the drawbacks to homeschooling,” she told the class. “Everything I have looked at and researched tells me that there are none. That home schooling is so much better than public schools! I can’t find anything!” She seemed happily surprised at her conclusion, and the class gave a surprised laugh as well.
I then pointed out that maybe she didn’t need to apologize to the homeschoolers in the class; maybe the “no offense” should have been directed at those in the public schools. After more lighthearted laughter, I did let her know that there are sources out there to the contrary, and if she wanted, I would help her research her topic.
She brushed it off with a wave of her hand and let me know that would be way too much work (ha ha, the teacher in me thought). She had already thought of a different education topic and was ready to present that. As it turns out, she wrote her paper on the benefits of homeschooling over public school.
As we continued, I couldn’t help but think of what an impact that was. One would think that public schools, organizations like the teachers’ unions, and the media would make that information readily available. On such a controversial topic as homeschooling, while there are some significant theoretical debates, there were no concrete facts or resources to support anything “negative” about homeschooling. In fact, there was only the opposite. There was so much of the opposite, that when looking for the bad, this student could only find good.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Ode to those who came before:
By Michelle Dalrymple
Sometimes, no matter how much we read or do for ourselves, we have to come to terms with an undeniable truth – sometimes experience is the best teacher.
It is easy to pay lip service to this in the context of homeschooling. We try to offer our children a wealth of experience, from soccer to piano to art, in a blatant attempt to provide that oh-so-valuable experience. However, just as often, parents need to be students and learn from those who have gone before.
I live in Michigan and have for two years. Before that we lived in Illinois. As such, I have no concept of what it would be like to have to “do” anything with regards to our homeschool. Neither Illinois nor Michigan (any more) require reporting, testing, or even filing an “Intent to Homeschool” form as I have heard others lament. To our family, homeschooling means nothing more than buying some books and hitting the library.
However, there are those who have gone before and fought the good fight to enable us to have this great homeschooling environment. It is strange for me to sit and listen to what homeschooling parents, just a few years older than I, have had to do in order to educate their kids at home. Their stories became my learning experience, so I know what I need to do and know that I am fortunate to have the privileges of homeschooling ease as a result.
These homeschooling stories, these “lessons” do more than just let me know how lucky I am; they offer knowledge and advice that I really couldn’t find anywhere else. Who else can I turn to but a veteran homeschooler with a teenage daughter to learn if my daughter’s undividable attention to dance and art is a blessing or a curse? And if my late elementary son doesn’t like to write stories like other kids (even other boys) his age, who else can I ask but my homeschool friend with two sons, one a teen-ager and one just a year older than my own? These parents, these homeschool mothers provide me with a sense of relief and confidence – greater than I could receive from any book or seminar. If I have a concern, these great ladies are waiting in the wings for my phone call, a wealth of information in hand.
Most importantly, those who have gone before offer more than just support or advice; I think they help us to stay on track, to see the truth of what we are trying to accomplish as homeschoolers. Here is the best example of I have encountered of losing that focus. This year had been a bad year to start. In July I did the math and figured that, since the very first of this year, we have only done "school" consistently for one month - April. The remainder of the year to that point was interrupted by illness (Jan, Feb, March), vacation (May), and a death of a close relative - Papa (June). We could even go back into 2004 and look at November and December as half-months of any merit as well.
While these were all valid reasons for not accomplishing what we (I) wanted, it is heart-wrenching. It made this year feel like a complete bust, and I felt discouraged at best. We were so far behind that we continued “school,” a little bit each day, for the remainder for the summer to be ready for our new year.
I was despondent about this, and one afternoon I spoke to a good friend who also homeschools. Her youngest is now 15, so she has some great experience that I lack. I gave her our horrible timeline and explained that all we had really done consistently this year was read. In the most sage of tones, she said, "It sounds like your kids learned two very important things this year: to care for others, especially those we love, and to love reading. It sounds like your kids learned a lot this year."
I have look on in awe at the great experiences of my friend that allowed her to give me my own little bit of education. This went far deeper than advice or recommendation. This was insight. As someone who has traveled this journey before me, she had a range of comprehension that I would not have for years to come. As a result, on the phone that day, she presented me with a very special gift. She gave me that gift of knowledge sooner than I would have learned it on my own. In doing so, she set my mind at ease, and I was able to rethink our summer and all that our children had learned over the past year.
My kids did learn a lot this year. And I think I learned a little something this year, too.
Originally published 12/05 on a now defunct site, so here it is in its entirety!
Throughout history, the image of women has had significant presence in the world at large; however, much to the chagrin of many women, those images have been dictated by men. With the advent of modern media – movies, TV, and now the internet – those images are more prevalent than ever before, and the dictates still remain. But, why is this image so important, and what does it have to do with videogames?
Camille Paglia, in her book Sexual Personae, maintains that at the core, women represent nature, and man strives to control nature, thus he strives to control woman. “The primary image [of women in media] is the femme fatal, the woman fatal to man,” she explains. “Woman’s beauty is a compromise with her dangerous archetypal nature. It gives the eye the comforting illusion of the intellectual control over nature” (13-17). With this assertion, it is apparent that men’s domination of female body image is intertwined with his need to control the feminine.
Naomi Wolf is much more blunt. In her book The Beauty Myth, she argues that this very standard of beauty set forth by the media is the primary mechanism of women’s oppression by men. She discusses the “suffering caused by trying to meet the demands of the thin ideal” (1). Concerns arising from this thesis include body image, discrimination based on beauty, over-consumption of beauty products, and eating disorders.
Many readers may think this is a stretch, but let’s look at visual media and see how far off we are. The advent of modern cinema dates back to the early 1900’s with the silent films. Greta Garbo, Mary Pickford, and Joan Crawford fit the bill as almost carbon copies images of the day dictated by a Hollywood controlled exclusively by men. Delicately coiffed, high breasts, and a boyish shape, the lack of variation in appearance lends credence to the supposition of men’s influence in the realm of women’s aesthetics.
Prior to silent films, wider hips and larger breasts were the preferred norm, a measure of a woman’s ability to bear and nurse children. However, this all changed with the introduction of film. Joan Jacobs Brumberg, in her book Fasting Girls, asserts that it is this image that launched our current culture of women’s thinness and the subsequent issues with anorexia and bulimia.In Unbearable Weight, Susan Bordo explains that this thin vision comes from man’s fear of being tied down as a result of pregnancy, that “the fear of pregnancy may have more to do with fear of domestic entrapment than with suppressed Electra fantasies . . .”(46). The heavier body represents a body ready for reproduction, while a slim figure denies this possibility.
This image changed a bit in the 40’s and 50’s, with actresses like Marilyn Monroe appearing on the scene. The “blonde bombshell” was the new look for Hollywood – big blonde hair, big breasts, and narrow waists – and Monroe fit those dictates. However, even with several films under her belt and the word “star” attached to her name, she still suffered the whims of men in Hollywood. Fox wouldn’t grant her script approval, and when she failed to show, Fox suspended her (www.ellensplace.net).
Like other bombshells of her time, Jean Harlow and Jayne Mansfield, Monroe was not taken seriously as an actress. “Marilyn's media-drenched image as a tragic dumb blond has become an American archetype,” explains Paul Rudnick in Time (online). It was this image that allowed the more sexual, less boyish figure to reappear, but only under a guise. The figure couldn’t have a brain. Paglia’s femme fatal made a comeback, but only if she was a ditz. No wonder women of today are stuck with “dumb blonde” jokes and stereotypes; there is an “anger women feel about not having power in the world,” writes Lyn Mikel Brown and Carol Gilligan in their book, Meeting at the Crossroads (11). Could anyone blame Monroe for being angry with Fox for denying her power? But the power of her T and A sure made millions for Fox.
Monroe was a prisoner of her own image, and women flocked to be prisoners just like her – complete with peroxide-blonde hair, flowing skirts, and accentuated breasts. But the image oppression didn’t stop there. In the ‘70’s, it was Farrah Fawcett hair and skimpy bikinis, and women tripped over themselves to copy that likeness. A result of this rail-thin, wind-swept look, anorexia, then only referred to as the “starving disease,” was slowly becoming a common problem among American women (Brumberg. Fasting Girls. 12). Once again, male vision of beauty takes its toll on women.
Even in the modern age, the 90’s and beyond, are rife with visual images, created and perpetuated by a masculine media, and mimicked by everyday women. The TV show “Friends” led to the popularity of the “Jennifer” haircut, styled after one of the primary characters. On newsstands daily, the size and shape of J.Lo’s derriere is discussed at length. One of the greatest controversies surrounding the SuperBowl “wardrobe malfunction” with Janet Jackson was whether or not her nipple was pierced.
Paglia asserts, “cult -objects are prisoners of their own symbolic inflation” (9). Like Monroe, who was not take seriously, and Aniston, Fawcett, who are little more than hair-styles now, and female media icons like them, their appearance limits them – dictating what they can do within the realm of visual media. These women are only hair, breasts, or butt. Further, women viewers strive to mimic what they see in the media, duplicating what they think men want to see. Thus, they are prisoners of the image-cult as well.
So how does this bring us to the gaming industry? Unlike television and film, the game industry is the new dog on the block and realizes its limitations with the female market. Women aren’t playing games as much as men? Why not? And since men are the larger market share of video games, let’s give them what they want --- T and A, and lots of it.
Given the abilities of computer technology, women’s images and avatars can look like the most grotesque version of a wet dream ever conceived. What is the logic in this? There isn’t any, and more gamers, even the men, are realizing it.Men are not fooled by these visual abominations. M. Junaid Alam, in his article “What is a Galaxy Without Stars? Drop the Sexism, Bring the Women,” acknowledges that those images are eyesores at best. “It was impossible to take the game seriously; the woman's every movement revealed a risible mockery of the female form and insulted our intelligence. Exit game, uninstall and abandon ship” (online).
He also highlights several games that, instead of focusing on the female form in its big-breasted glory, showcase women who are intelligent, strong, and powerful. He insists, “The protagonists highlighted above illustrate that plenty of excitement can be provided by female leads who will, in turn, bring in female gamers - not to speak of richer gameplay options. Additionally, as McIntosh says, most women gamers are "confident enough not to feel threatened" by sexist imagery, merely finding it annoying and disappointing” (online).
This, I think, is at the core of the female form, gamers, and the games themselves. Paglia refocused the feminist issue by stating a blatant truth: Women are different than men, and a primary difference is in appearance – sexuality. She claims, “Sex is power. Identity is power” (2), and from this we can draw the conclusion that the distortion of the female body in game is a means of man’s control over that power.
We can also look more closely at the quote by McIntosh above and realize a greater truth. Women find these bodily distortions “annoying and disappointing” at best. Male gamers too are finding this over-sexualization tiresome as well. With this, however, we need to look at the games themselves and appreciate them for what they are –entertainment – and measure the presence of the female form from that juncture.
Much like in the films mentioned above, the female body is over-proportioned and underdressed – a fact we can not get away from. But aside from the tiresome aspect, why would gamers continue to support a medium that continues to glorify this grotesque imagery? Because it is entertainment. Like film, in game there is a “suspension of disbelief,” one that is more biddable than even in film.
In the movies, unless animated, the women on the screen are real; any comparisons made to oneself or one’s significant other cannot mitigate that fact. The pressure to have a bust like Pam Anderson, a butt like J. Lo, or legs like Charlize Theron is great, but accentuated because these are live women with real (or surgically enhanced) figures. As women, we cannot help but look and think, “I can’t live up to that!”
With games, we don’t have to. That suspension of disbelief is heightened; it would have to be. A gamer knows that those dragons and orcs aren’t real; those breasts sure aren’t either!We know when we look at the avatars that better armor would not be skimpier – it would provide better coverage. To have this woman on the monitor with the equivalence of a 42 inch bust and a 21 inch waist is pure fabrication, and we know it. There is no pressure, only sighs of annoyance at the developers who try to cater to over-sexualized, under-stimulated “geeks.”
Since we know that those images are fabrications, we can enjoy them in game – we can suspend our disbelief with the safety net of cognizance that no one, especially our significant others, will ask us why we can’t have a bust like Lara Croft’s. This won’t happen because we know that bust is a digital one; it truly exists only in the game coder’s mind, not reality.
As such, while female body image may be a gross distortion to what exists in reality, in game it is an untruth, much like the dragon or the orc. Additionally, when we do see a variation of this image in film, via a video game made into a movie (such as Lara Croft, Mortal Kombat, or the new Doom) we can still accept that image, since we know that while the actress is real, the image she represents is not.Plus, to be fair, men in this instance also suffer from a similar distortion of the body. If a man expects his woman to look like Lara Croft, then he better hope Santa will leave him a 52 inch chest, muscular arms, and a codpiece the size of a melon for Christmas.
With all the great advances we’ve seen in the past few years, we would expect new and greater game elements from designers. What, then, do the developers focus on first? Jiggle technology. In the never ending quest for T and A, the technology exists to make breasts look even more real and, in a word, jiggle. This ridiculous jump in technology helps us dispel our disbelief more easily –they certainly look more real, don’t they? However, as more women become involved in both sides of gaming – playing and developing – we will hopefully see the use of technology in this function decrease and the T and A show taper off.
However, some women cannot accept this analysis and prognosis. Why should they have to suffer through the indignities of big-breasted Valkries in chain-mail bikinis? If the game companies want our business – they should have to change those images to better suit us, right?
Well, that is not too far off. While many games have only granted the player one or two options in appearance, newer games are reaching greater heights in the images available to the player. Players in games like “Asheron’s Call,”“The Sims,” and “WoW” offer a selection of body types and colors, and clothing options to boot. It is this idea of truly creating one’s own image in a game that Wolf advocates in The Beauty Myth: “a woman’s right to choose what she wants to look like and what she wants to be, rather than obeying what man forces and a multibillion dollar advertising industry dictate” (2).
Pushing this idea even further are games like the online virtual world “Second Life,” where avatars wander the city and interact. In “How Much for a Jetpack,” Brad Stone observes, “All the occupants look like characters from ‘Shrek’” (Newsweek 12). The ability to modify the character hits record highs with in-game avatar choices that include humans and animals. Additionally, several members of the game develop “decorative cyberclothes and skins,” allowing players to select the exact image they want for the game (Newsweek 12). A player can have blue skin, the head of a cat, or the body of a rodent. A squirrel body with a woman’s head? That definitely calls for a suspension of disbelief.
What does this mean for body image in gaming? No longer are players, men and women alike, forced into grossly misrepresented visual images of the female (and let’s face it, male) form. Gamers are not forced to passively accept a standard of beauty dictated by society, Hollywood, or men. If a gamer does not like the image on the screen, she can change it. Moreover, with advancements in technology and game communities, if the gamer does not like the options provided, she can create her own in some cases. Female gamers can now select what they want to accept as their “ideal” body image.
Since man cannot dictate how women in the game can appear, a woman can be as sexual or not as she wants to be. This, I think, is a great show of woman’s sexual prowess and her ability to dictate as she sees fit. Women can dictate their own sexuality, and in games that can mean a lot less T and A.
Admittedly, T and A is still the standard for female images and skins in game. However, the image-selection process, and the greater assimilation of women into the gaming industry, enables women to take a more aggressive role in the images they see in the media. It is hopeful that, in the near future, we will not be forced to accept only man’s ideal of beauty.
Works Cited: Alam,M. Junaid. “What is a Galaxy Without Stars? Drop the Sexism, Bring the Women.” The Escapist, Issue #17 November 1st, 2005. 11/20/2005.
Bordo, Susan.Unbearable Weight, University of California Press. 1995.11/18/2005
Brown ,Lyn Mikel and Gilligan, Carol.Meeting at the Crossroads. Harvard Univ Press. Cambridge:1992.
Brumberg, Joan Jacobs. Fasting Girls.Vintage Books. HarvardCollege:1998. 11/18/2005
Ellen. The Marilyn Pages11/18/2005
Paglia, Camille. Sexual Personae. Vintage Books. New York:1990.
Rudnick, Paul. The Time 100. “Marilyn Monroe.” Time Magazine Online. Monday, June 14, 1999 .11/20/2005.
Stone, Brad.“How Much for a Jetpack.” Newsweek.Oct. 17, 2005. 12.
Vanderlip, Danielle “Sachant.” “Then and Now.” The Escapist,Issue #17 November 1st, 2005. 11/20/2005.
Wolf, Naomi. The Beauty Myth. Harper Perennial. New York: 2002.
My hubby is one of those lucky fellows who seems to have everyone's dream job, working for with the video game industry. Here is a website to his GREAT website that provides news, reviews, and insights into what hot and now in games. The site also discusses higher-end game elements, such as the use of myth in games and comparative game theory. Just go to ogx.com -- enjoy your visit and many happy returns!
Monday, August 14, 2006
Education and the World of Games.
By Michelle Dalrymple
Grimwell and I home school our kids. As home educators, we have a huge shelf of games in the house (two shelves and some in our son’s room as well). Many of these are old favorites, like Monopoly or Scrabble; some are newer games, like Apples to Apples and Blink. No matter what games may lurk in your closet at home, they occupy that space for a reason. Homeschoolers, and parents who are active in their children’s education, often try to make learning as fun as we can, and games are a primary way to do that.
One way to learn about new games is to read magazines about games – educational magazines offer great reviews about some of the newer educational games available. However, I first heard of gamemakers like Out of the Box games (the company that makes "Apples to Apples" and "Fish Eat Fish" and more) before many others did. It was five years ago in Milwaukee, WI, at a place called Gen Con.
Gen Con stands for “General Convention,” a convention for gamers of all ages and types to check out what is up and coming. Often a vehicle for computer, console, or roll-playing games, newer companies with only one or two games will show up, trying to create awareness of their product to both consumers and the gaming community at large. This is where our family encountered this crazy game, Apples to Apples, and the company that made it.
Their booth was small, only three little tables and a couple of game developers to play the game with you (compared to this year, where they were triple the size and had quadrupled their game offerings). At the time, they offered Apples to Apples, ATA Jr. Blink, My Word, and Squint. The directions were simple, and a small group was already playing, so they let me jump in for a few rounds. The green adjective card read “Crusty,” and I swept my first hand with a card that read “My Underwear.” Hilarity ensued and I was hooked.
We also got to see the Mayfair Games booth, another large booth with the catchy slogan “University of Catan.” Settlers of Catan has acquired such a niche following over its ten years that Mayfair now offers expansion packs and other variations, all of which could be played that the convention. Last year we played a new game called Amazonas, which fits Mayfair Games’ theme of exploration, this time in the Amazon Jungle. This year we doled out the $49.00 to actually take it home and play. We can’t wait! In addition to these large, thus pricey (but well worth it) games, Mayfair Games offers smaller card games as well, including the one we picked up last year, Farfalia, a trick-taking game about collecting nature specimens.
However, for each huge booth at the Con, there are always several smaller booths of the up and coming new game companies. One such company is Morning Star Games which showcased some current favorites: You’re Pulling My Leg and JabberWacky, which are games that involve making up sentences or stories, and Pet Detectives, modeled after Go-Fish. An added bonus to these games – they come in the standard box, or for a buck or two more, in a sturdy metal “lunchbox.”
This year we also got to play two games by companies that are new to the game world for kids. The first is Mimic, a card matching game using beautiful, kaleidoscopic animal art on the cards to match by color and animal. With some bonus cards in the mix to move or replace cards on the boards, trying to win can be more difficult than one thinks! They are also looking at bringing out more themed versions over the next year.
In addition to Mimic, we also played a card game called “Infinity – the card game” developed by a substitute teacher and mom of two. This fun game is a mix of Crazy Eights and Rummy and uses great comical art on the cards. The bonus to this game is it gives the player the opportunity to do what everyone wants to do sometime while playing Rummy – and that is take cards from someone else’s played cards to make your run or set. Plus, with Wild cards thrown in to help, you never know who will win, no matter how many cards one holds in his or her hands!
All in all, if you are trying to find a new game or a hard-to-find recommendation, and want to play it first, you might want make a family vacation to a gaming convention. Gen Con Indy takes place every year in Indianapolis, IN, during August. Gen Con West takes place in Los Angeles, in November.
I like to chat with my students. Before, after, even during, I will try to converse with my students about almost anything – holidays, the weekend, family, schoolwork. I find this makes me seem more approachable, and students are more likely to ask me questions or for help. Plus, I am an avid talker. I have been known to stay after class for up to an hour or more just to chat with students.
Over the course of the semester, I will usually share that I homeschool my children, and this always is cause for more conversing. Some will want to know why; others share that they or someone they know homeschools. I’ve even had students write their final papers about some aspect of homeschooling. However, of all my students and all the questions they have asked me about homeschooling, there is one question that was only asked once, and it really, really made me stop and think.
Here is the set up: every year, I have students whose ages vary from the 16 year old high schooler to the 65 year old retiree who wants to write in his or her spare time. This particular student was very bright, and she had the benefit of life experience on her side as well. She was in her late thirties to early forties; her kids were out of the house, and she was looking to move forward in her career.
In class she asked great questions, made interesting comments, and ended up taking a second class with me the following semester. About a month or so into the class we mentioned something about education, and she raised her hand. Her question: “How do you balance the fact you homeschool against the fact that you teach at a public institution?” Hmm.
It’s not that this question has not been asked before, quite the contrary. I have read about teachers such as David Guterson – a high school English teacher who homeschools his children. I have seen statistics about public school teachers who either send their children to public or private school, or if that is not feasible, home educate. Public teachers homeschooling their children is nothing new; if anything it is often a sad statement about the effects of public education. It is like seeing a doctor in a hospital and having him say that his family does not go to that same hospital; they go to one across town. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for said institution.
However, the question had never been posed to me. And in the very place I teach – yikes! I had been asked a lot of questions. My grandmother’s and aunt’s barrage of questions every time they called or visited gave me plenty of practice answering whatever question might pass my way. Any question, that is, but this one.
There I stood at the front of the class, dry-erase marker in hand, and I was speechless. It took me a moment to gather my thoughts and ask myself, “Yeah. How do I balance that?” Just their year before I had applied for a full time position at the college – what did I think of the education system that was passing public school students on to me?
I admit that I was secretly pleased that this probing question came from a student. Even though it was an older “non-traditional” student, the question she posed did reaffirm my faith that not all publicly schooled students were sub-par; in this particular class it seemed almost the norm. Between students talking with each other louder than I could lecture and those playing “Knock out Osama Bin Laden” on the computer, my faith in the students coming into my classes was at an all-time low. However, her question was deep, probing, and well-spoken. I don’t get students like her very often, but when I do I realize that was the answer to her question.
I balance it with students like herself, public school students who taught themselves, or those who wanted more out of school but didn’t get it. I also balance it with the homeschooled students coming into my class, that a professor like me might be a welcome sight to a new college student – that I might be a bit more receptive to alternatively educated students, homeschool, alternative schools, Christian schools, or otherwise, than many other professors might be.
Finally, I balance it with the fact that college is a completely affective environment, and I want my children to be as prepared for it as possible. As a professor, I see what I do and don’t want my children to be. Homeschooling gives me much more leverage to permit that to happen.
I think that, with all of the feminist rhetoric about a woman’s right to choose in the modern age, Linda Hirshman’s criticism of many college-educated women who choose to stay home with their children is pathetic. For the past 40 years, feminists have repeatedly told women to be equal to men, that we can choose to be anything we want to be. It seems, though, that if that choice is to be a stay at home mom, it is a wrong choice.
If anything, Ms. Hirshman and her assessments about the obligation of educated women to remain in the workplace are injudicious at best. She seems to forget that, aside from the core idea of choice and opportunity, we should want more educated women at home, applying that knowledge to raising their children.
College educated women, especially those with advanced degrees, understand the value of education and are providing an environment that can cater to that importance. They read books on parenting, know the importance of reading to their children, and can use the knowledge they do have to help with homework and school projects. They can even volunteer to apply those much needed abilities to often understaffed schools. Further, many of these well educated women elect to take one additional step and put the education of their children into their own hands – they are educating their children at home.
Of all the possible results that could come from such a situation, why is the loss of women in the work place the focus? Shouldn’t the focus be on the fact these mothers are showing their children that, even with a college education, their choices are still limitless? That their little girls can grow up to be doctors, nurses, writers, or moms? And if the mother has a part-time, work-from-home job, doesn’t that better illustrate to children what work is and why it is important? Doesn’t it show boys that women (like their moms) can be have any job or be a stay at home mom – that doesn’t lessen her mind or value?
When feminists lament the loss of women in the workplace, they are missing the bigger picture. They are missing the fact that brilliant women are raising children to accomplish as much as they did or more. Feminists don’t want to recognize that these mothers are giving their children a score of opportunities that working moms often can’t. These moms are raising children who value education for education’s sake, not for the job it can get them or how much money they can make. These children are learning that they can get an education and truly do anything with it they want – work, volunteer, or stay home with the kids.
The greatest possible result from this working mom exodus is that these moms get to spend their time with their children while they are children, to see all the wonder and joy that these children bring to their lives. They can take that expensive college degree in art, pile the kids in the minivan, and share in the wonder as those children see an impressionist piece for the first time at the art museum. The architect can experience the awe with a child as she shares the concepts of line and space while they admire a building. The writer can enjoy her daughter’s discovery of WutheringHeights as they read the book together and then write about the experience.
Ms. Hirshman’s greatest lament is the loss of women with advanced degrees trading the workplace for the home. However, as a woman who as done so, I am most concerned about Ms. Hirshman’s misplaced sense of responsibility and her misguided invasion of privacy. I took my master’s exams three months pregnant, and the day my first child was born, I told my husband that there was no way I could leave this baby and work full time. Only out of necessity for money did I work full time for a year and a half, and the minute the opportunity presented itself to quit and work elsewhere for a few hours a week, I took it.
To me, as it is to many women, once children are born, the responsibility is to them. Insinuating to a well-educated mother that her children come second to her job is an affront. It is like saying, “You are smart enough to work. Aren’t you smart enough to know you shouldn’t be home with the kids?” If these women are so smart, why are feminists second-guessing them? The right to choose when and where I work is my right as a woman, and no one, especially Ms. Hirshman, has the right to tell me, or any other mom, where she should work.
Moreover, it is none of her business. When feminists begin to dictate when and where women should work, where will it end? Will a woman be forced to become a doctor instead of a nurse since it is more revered and we need more women doctors? Will a woman be told to study business instead of French since it is more lucrative and does not perpetuate the stereotype of the female French teacher? The right to choose is the feminist mantra, but it would appear a limited mantra. The right to choose obviously does not extend on the quality of a woman’s life with regards to work, if we listen to Hirshman and women of her ilk.
It seems that Hirshman assumes that once a woman trades in her sensible pumps for comfy houseshoes, she will no longer be a “liberated” woman. Suddenly, this woman will become nothing more than a limp existence of herself, living only to cook, clean, and wipe the snotty noses of her young wards. It is disturbing that this is the vision of the modern feminist movement. She may cook and clean more, since she is home and the husband is not, but that is not the sole value of her existence. She can now teach her sons the value of housework to the benefit of any woman they may one day marry. Now it is no longer women’s work. It is just work. That liberated woman is still liberated, whether she works in the house or out; plus she has the opportunity to pass those liberated ideals down to her children who will then accept them as fact, not as a field of study in a university.
It is not as though once a woman leaves the workplace to be a mom that she leaves her brain at the office. She takes that knowledge with her into the home and shares that knowledge with her family, making them strong and more educated as a result. If anything, we should encourage mothers with degrees to get back into the homes, to use that mind to learn all they can about their children, show them the value of education, and pass that love of learning on, thus encouraging the future of this country to become better educated themselves.
While this exodus may result in fewer women in the workplace, the resulting generation that will be better prepared for that same workplace is a fine trade-off. Ultimately, it really doesn’t matter what feminists think of educated women leaving the workplace; what matters is that women have the choice and opportunity to do so, and isn’t that the idea behind feminism in the first place?
Here is my blog spot on the web. I plan on using this spot for serial chapters for my books and the like. If you are interested in my homeschool writings, check out familyd.50megs.com.
