Download Resistance to Relevance of Gender from Tutors

Mainstreaming a Gender Perspective in Medicine
Notes on Tutor Briefing
Week 9 Semester 3; Rural Week 2004
Ann Maree Nobelius,
Project Officer for the Gender Working Party,
Faculty of Medicine Nursing and Health Sciences,
Monash University, Australia
I arrived and sat in the corner and then moved to be in front of everybody as the Year 2 Administrator
left. I started by saying that many of them will have tutored it already and was interrupted by one of the
male tutors who has made a point of coming to tutor training in the past. On each occasion he has
attended he makes a point of creating an argumentative environment, and it appears that he is arguing
as if his masculinity depended on it.
He blurted out ‘Well hurry up then’, making the accompanying move along style gestures, as if he
realised that I was sanctioned to speak but that he didn’t like it and didn’t want to have to deal with it or
to even be civil.
The Year 2 Administrator had already handed around tutor guides that I have written to support their
teaching. Most were quite interested. I went through the basics of the case and pointed out that
sometimes the rural students felt a bit victimised by the case. Our resister interjected “Don’t you mean
stigmatised?” I let it pass and talked around it. He always tries to draw me into semantics arguments to
derail the topic and make me look stupid/irrelevant/less intelligent than he is. I suppose I could put it
back at him by asking what he feels the difference would mean, but it seems pointless as his is aim is not
the perfection he appears to be asking for, but for himself to have power over me.
Once again another of our most offended resisters said that he still had a problem understanding what
gender actually means.
He is never rude, but he anxiously offers the statements he makes, looks to alpha males in the group for
help and sheepishly but consistently tries to deny the relevance of the topic. His questions always end
with ‘I just think it’s sort of irrelevant’.
He raised the point he regularly raises about domestic labour distribution. His question is about how
gender can be defined when he knows men who do all the house work and is the home husband. I told
him that gender is about traits of characteristics that our society regards as belonging only to males or
females. He still said “but he is doing the woman’s role”. There was lots of discussion. I just listened. He
still insisted that the existence of men who do work that is traditionally considered women’s work is proof
that the definition of gender is meaningless; basically he doesn’t want to think about it. I asked him if his
friend wears women’s clothes and pretends to be a woman while he’s doing the housework. He said “no
but..” I asked him if he thinks this housework makes his friend any less of a man, or does he still
consider him to be a man.
One young male tutor who had left the room on a phone call reappeared and raise the beginner point of
view that gender is about how you identity (obviously I don’t recall seeing him at the training). I said no,
that what he was referring to was gender identity, not the socially constructed role of gender allocated to
men and women in a society.
I pointed out that the WHO definitions were in the guide and that they should look through it take it in
because I had the students for 3 hours before they did next Friday and that I was going to be running
my seminar for the students along the lines of what was in the guide. I then discussed the case and that
all went quite smoothly.
I suspect that the first dissenter is an insecure man. On a number of occasions on other issues he has
demonstrated that he feels disempowered and marginalised. He has also stated that his ethnicity has
made him feel unvalued and defensive (though he is white and Anglo Saxon looking). His arguments
about gender are usually along the lines that to even attempt to understand gender represents a sacrifice
of some of his hard won personal power and that he isn’t going to give that up to women who think they
can get ahead of him.
The second Dissenter is a not trying to be rude but he is trying to disallow the teaching. He decided
along time ago that it is irrelevant and has not listened since. Basically his mind is closed and he waits
for opportunities to raise disruptive topics in the form of questions that he does not want an answer to
and doesn’t listen when he gets one.
The lessons here are that there are always people who, no matter how much training you give them or
how many ways you articulate your point or try to include them and their opinions, will not listen. They
have their barrows to push, quite often they present as victims and they feel that anything to do with
gender is just another way that feminism and women generally are trying to take something from them.
Possibly they have fragile egos.
The trouble is that they can be quite disruptive. As of yet I don’t have a definitive answer as to how you
deal with it. Diplomacy and decorum have prevented me from asking them to leave if they are not
interested. I suspect that would just add fuel to the fire of their feelings of victimisation. I suspect there
is nothing you can do but reflect exactly what they do.
Don’t listen, don’t answer. The second resister makes gender issues all about household distribution of
labour. I find categorising and labelling what they are doing quite useful. There is an enormous
ignorance of the hugeness and importance of the social sciences in their statements. I wonder what they
think the questions on the national census are all about?!
Maybe I will tell him my thoughts on his behaviour one day but I suspect that it would just backfire and
all those who agree with me in the faculty would find that an unnecessarily harsh reaction, I find that if it
goes on for too long, other members of the group you are teaching get sick of the time wasting and do it
for you!
I’ll keep you posted.
amn