I would support linda in her suggestion that the notion of the facilitator
deciding what is needed rests on a top down approach. I also note the use
of outcome based language. I also make us aware of the process of accessing
the question what does this person need is not as simple as it initially
appears. Simply changing the scenario of how can the this person can best
supply this for themselves may seem like an alternative .. but again this
risks neglecting attention to political situation.

  The top down approach and outcome idea suggests to me hierarchical
thinking which can make more inevitable power relationships and alerts us
again the gender debate . I also hear the word wrongly... an example
perhaps of the dichotomous thinking I referred to earlier... surely it is
just a different interpretation and should not be about wrong and right ..
as this encourages an either or scenario.

Whilst I was writing the above , a computer technician was trying to sort
out a disc problem for me... literally 3 secs ago I was told that to solve
the problem I should ask HIM to forward me another attachment as the
conference document I was trying to access via attachment was inaccessible.
I found this response very relevant to the text I was writing above as the
person who had forwarded me the conference paper was HER not HIM ! so the
gender issue as linda pointed is inherent and not an add on . I also wonder
how many people's response to this story I tell was I am being to sensitive
?

for now

kaye

Kaye Richards
Liverpool John Moores University.



>-----Original Message-----
>From: Linda Allin [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: 30 June 2000 08:54
>To: 'Peter Bunyan'
>Cc: 'outres'
>Subject: RE: gender cont.
>
>
>I'm a little uncomfortable with the notion of the facilitator
>deciding 'what
>does this person(s)need? and supplying needs - seems rather a top-down
>approach to me. Also in terms of gender, I would query the
>'imposing' of
>gender 'on top of' an otherwise neutral process and would
>argue that gender
>is inherent rather than an add on that can be separated out
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Peter Bunyan [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: 30 June 2000 08:43
>To: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: gender cont.
>
>
>Surely the answer to the problem can be from a facilitators
>perspective, if
>we ask the question 'what does this person(s) need, and how can we best
>supply these'. The only problem with this is that we have to
>be able to
>recognise the needs of the participant and be able to suply
>them. This is
>where the gender issue may arise, we may very well have both male and
>females who cannot recognise or will not recognise some
>spheres of intended
>outcomes, and therefore a gender issue is imposed.
>
>Pete.
>
>Peter Bunyan 01243 816317
>Adventure Education Component Leader
>School of Physical Education
>University College Chichester
>Chichester PO19 4PE
>
>
>Peter Bunyan 01243 816317
>Adventure Education Component Leader
>School of Physical Education
>University College Chichester
>Chichester PO19 4PE
>
>
>>>> ECSKRIC1 <[log in to unmask]> 29-Jun-00 10:53:57 PM >>>
>Just a quick thought as I think more about the further responses
>on gender equity ...
>
>Chris .. i think the issue of how we become positive in our approach
>when addressing the masculine and feminine issues is important .. so
>thanks for raising that point.
>
>I also identify how as you asked us to take into account mens'
>experience that I found myself asking whether in developing practice
>I risk avoiding being really true to a feminist approach if I choice
>to be always considering and be mindful of men's experience as we do
>this ... as this may serve to dilute women's voices and bring with
>that obvious risks .This raises the issues of a seperatist approach
>, which I do not necessarily say I agree with but it allows us to
>recognize the complex issues we face as we address gender issues and
>some of the dilemmas I personally face as I try and locate this
>perspective to my practice.
>
>Perhaps I am reflecting upon this in practice as I consider the
>issues a research team faced as we developed adventure therapy. For
>three years of the research process we had been an all female team ,
>this was part of our practice in ensuring we could remain true to
>women's voices.. we found ourselves in the final phase choosing a
>mixed group setting ... yet grappled with this decision .. and as a
>team are still in process on reflecting upon this in terms of the
>adventure therapy practice we are developing, alongside the
>development of theoretical models for adventure therapy.
>
>
>Chris : As you ask what would work for women I wonder if as a women
>on the outres list I can actually discuss this in the presence of
>men... This may again seem like a seperatist approach but what it
>does alert us to is how if we are going to address these issues then
>perhaps we need to create a safe place for these discussion to
>happen, echoing the question by james how we make this discussion
>inclusive of all .. I actually question how this lack of
>psycholgocial safety for me is actaully part of my socialisation as a
>woman?
>
> I also acknowledge the comment on not taking
>comments on the list personally that someone pointed out to me....
>and for me this raised a really important area in research and
>practice, in terms of the boundaries between the public and private
>and how this is a difficult process to negotiate. Perhaps this also
>raises the issue of reflexivity in our research processes ... and
>that the personal does enter into our work .... in fact any sharing
>of experiences of how one's addresses the personal in research and
>being reflexive throughout the research process i think could be
>frutiful discussion for this list ... it seems to be frequently
>suggested as good practice in the research process... yet how do we
>manage this process ... and again the gender issue lurks again here
>if we consider the value of emotionality in our society !!
>
>Not quite sure what this adds to the discussion .... but my risk
>taking continues !!!!
>
>kaye
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%