Sexism Tinges Criticism of Teachers' Job Action

I am highly supportive of the current teacher actions, but I must say that I cringe whenever a teacher strike, or teacher limited actions, are called.

Why do I cringe? Because I know that my social life will become unbearable for a few weeks or even a few months. It's about to be "let's talk about how I feel toward those striking teachers" time. When the neighbours get together for dinner or drinks, everyone (everyone!) has an opinion about those striking teachers.

I can't think of another single profession that resides so clearly under the magnifying glass of public opinion. Even when it comes to general elections, people are reserved about talking politics. You know, keep religion and politics off the table if you want to have a thoroughly enjoyable evening. Yet everybody has something to say about teachers, and especially in times like these. People say things like, "These teacher actions are not good for children," or, "The extra daycare costs are not fair to parents."

Why do we all have something to say? First, because we have all been to school. The majority of us have spent thirteen years with teachers. We know how they operate, and what they stand for. Second, many of us now have, or have had in the past, school-age children. Or we have friends or family with school-age children. So we know not only what it means to sit in a teacher's classroom, but also what the consequences are when teachers take action. We know how much scrambling for daycare there will be.

But there is another reason -- a more historical one -- why so many people feel empowered to talk about the role of the teacher in times like these. It's called sexism. The work of the teacher has historically been considered to be "women's work." Since women have been considered more "nurturing," those who have been hired to teach children have mostly been women. For example, 72 per cent of B.C.'s teachers are women. Even in the upper grades where more teachers are male, the role of the teacher gets associated by proxy with "women's work."

'A woman's place...'

So what am I trying to say about sexism? Am I trying to say that everyone who thinks teachers should complete all their chores is sexist? Not at all. What I am trying to say is that in days gone by, people used to say, "A woman's place is in the home." They would say so at dinner or over drinks. Although most of us wouldn't say such a sexist thing anymore, we now have a more sly way of saying something identical. We now say, "A teacher's place is in the classroom, taking care of our children."

It's time to get over these old habits and realize that teachers have a right to negotiate for the conditions of the work they do -- conditions like smaller class sizes.

They have a right to "leave home" -- that is leave the ordinary classroom requirements -- in order to demand better conditions. Bill 22 imposes what it calls a "cooling off" period so that the nurturers will stay in their places until September.

Reverting to the stereotype that nurturers need to stay at home as they are told, Premier Christy Clark has said, "It really is up to the teachers' union to do the right thing now -- just accept it [Bill 22] and decide not to disrupt students' lives."

Education Minister George Abbott also has played the "care card," saying, "It is clear that this strike is hurting students and any escalation in strike action will only increase the harm to students and the impact on parents."

The point is this: Both government and people at dinner parties should stick to the facts. This dispute is about class size, extra help for students designated with special needs, teacher compensation, and other professional concerns. It should never be about telling nurturers to just grin and bear things.