Perhaps my
first real cultural conundrum came this Friday, the students with
some free time on the computer decided to play several “gold-digger
prank” videos. I had never seen these videos before and I was
intrigued by them in very much the same manner that one is intrigued
by the arguments of trump supporters on Facebook: how can someone
live in the same world as me and see it so differently?
To save you
from googling this and to save these videos from getting any more
views I'll describe the premise of these videos. In these “prank”
videos a man goes up to a woman and attempts to get her number. The
woman, obviously, does not respond positively to street harassment
and rejects him. The man then finds a contrived way to show the woman
that he has a lot of money and she, for some reason, then decides to
give him her number. (There are many of these videos with minimal
variation, it seems odd to me that students who seem to find
everything boring could watch so many of these predictable, dull and
contrived videos.)
I like to
think that most of my readership can see what's bad about these
videos without much outside guidance, but to my students, it is
perhaps a different matter. Most of my students have very limit
experience with large cities. Most have been to Montreal once or
twice, but I don't believe that any of them have spent more than 2
weeks there. I think this makes understanding street harassment more
difficult for them. Inukjuak has 1600 permanent residence and about
300 temporaries (like me!) – it is not quite so small that
everybody knows everybody, but it is small enough that if you don't
know somebody it would not be weird to get to know somebody. There is
also a distinct shortage of outdoor public space that one uses to be
alone. My students do not understand the anonymity of city spaces, so
they do not recognise when its being violated. To my students the
woman is being quite rude when she refuses to speak with the man.
The other
difficulty when dealing with situations such as these is the
complexity of gender relations here. Inuit culture is distinctly
gendered. There are “Culture Classes” that are a large part of
the curriculum at all levels, which are separated into two genders.
The IPL classes are separated into two all boys classes and one all
girls class. This is not meant as a criticism of this practice. Their
culture is their right and has been proven to be an essential aspect
of their education for other aspects to flourish—and their culture,
like many cultures, create different roles for men and women (this is
further complicated by the fact that boys learn to use power tools in
their culture class, which is obviously not part of their traditional
cultural roles, but an import from the cultural rolls of the south).
Nor is this meant as a judgement on how sexist their society is—in
many ways they respect women's work more here than they do in the
south. I am simply outlining differences in gender roles that make
this more complicated.
While the
circumstances of the videos are not likely to be recreated in the
lives of these boys, what these videos imply about the character of
women can have very detrimental effects. The misogyny represented in
the context of the culture south can manifest itself differently in
the culture of the north.
How do I
explain the immorality of an act without coming off as judgemental?
How do I teach critical thought when they have so little context to
understand the situation? How do I start a discussion with a group
that's so reluctant to engage intellectually and so tied to the
opinions of the group?
No comments:
Post a Comment