Hi
As a male I have followed this discussion with interest. As an individual I
experience gender issues outdoors both in the way others try to define my
experience or I try to define the experience of others.
I had a second look at Pete's original statement. In it I suspect that both
the ideas of intended outcome and constructed meaning are masculine ideas in
the way Barbara defines gender. Would the reverse of these ideas be
absorption and interpretation. Does the idea of reverse or opposite to have
gendered implication anyway!! Help!
Likewise Pete implies that the facilitator does the construction and this
could be discussed as a masculine heirarchical behaviour whereas I have
encountered it as strongly within a feminine context (and I mean this
differently from women exercising a masculine trait).
As facilitators we might try several strategies. Pete proposes one of the
experience as a level playing field from which new interpretations arise.
Kaye suggests another of a facilitation culture that is prepared to confront
gendered issues that the group or ourselves bring. I have also found myself
in sympathy with Steve's view that when the relationship is brought down to
the individual in context and without construction the issues have a way of
vanishing - but we live in a politicised and gendered world even in the
outdoors where this is a rare moment perhaps especially with facilitation
and most likely to occur on one's own or with a good friend - spontaneous,
mixed skinny dipping has this feel about it for me. Rare - and treasured and
beyond facilitation or even intention perhaps. I hesitate to attempt a
construction!
Something that is missed here is that maybe some constructed experiences of
a gendered nature are positive and healthy ways of experiencing in mixed or
single sex groups. Kaye shows how identity is an issue for both young women
and young men and that a great deal of this issue revolves around their
sense of gender.I have by nature and culture a masculine identity that I
wish to explore and express. Is there a conversation to be had about the
nature of positive gendered experiences to add to this one about the
negative. And I acknowledge that the construct in the outdoors has largely
been defined by a masculine frame that has become dominant so these
conversations may be different between the sexes.
I feel that holding this debate with participants through our behaviour as
facilitators would benefit from a working from strengths approach - what is
good about a masculine or a feminine outdoors for men, women and mixed
groups. Otherwise men may feel on the back foot rather a lot and we know
that men are not very good on the back foot!
What would work for women?
Chris
----------
>From: Peter Bunyan <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Is it really an Adventure problem.
>Date: Mon, Jun 26, 2000, 8:27 am
>
> It might be possible to argue that the intended outcomes that can be
> targetted through Adventure are so diverse in nature that there are no
> gender issues within the domain of Adventure experience. Where there may be
> a problem is the reporting and representing of the Adventure experience by
> agencies such as the media. I would argue from my own experience that for
> many individuals the Adventure environment represents a 'level' playing
> field where all past stereotypes are deminished as individuals are
> confronted by new experiences which have no mile stones. I would also argue
> that if such things as gender and race are issues then the facilitator has
> not constructed the Adventure experience in a way that creates an atmosphere
> of empathy, or one where individuals judge themselves in view of their own
> targets and not through some expected or peer driven targets.
>
> I think we should be cautious of forcing agenda's!
>
> Pete.
>
> Peter Bunyan 01243 816317
> Adventure Education Component Leader
> School of Physical Education
> University College Chichester
> Chichester PO19 4PE
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
