The Center for the Study of Adult Literacy

"What's in a Name? A Man's Perspective on the Women and Literacy Conference."

As a part-time instructor in a TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) Welfare to Work class, I am naturally drawn to women's issues in adult education. For me, all issues in class usually boil down to being "women-centered." My class is made up of mostly Latina women from the westside of San Antonio, Texas. For us, welfare reform, domestic violence, racism and women's health issues are themes we visit and revisit continually in class through discussion and student projects.

My attendance at the International Conference on Women and Literacy in Atlanta, Georgia (January 24-26) was a bit of a fortuitous accident. I had been invited to present at the Technology and Adult Basic Education Conference hosted by the Life Long Learning Network directly following the women's conference. I was contacted by the organizers who heard I would be in town and, in the eleventh hour of planning, was lucky to have a proposal accepted for the women's conference on a student-generated welfare-to-work curriculum I am writing with my students.

Because the sessions were so directed to the population I work with daily, the conference was surely the most thought provoking, dynamic and useful I have ever attended; surprising to me at the time, it was also one of the most gender-biased events I have ever been to. Out of over one-hundred participants, less than five were men. I say this not to deride the rich event, but to state a curious fact and give my perspectives, as a man, on the conference.

Call me naïve, but when I first heard the name of the conference, International Conference on Women and Literacy, I thought it would be simply that, a conference on issues that affect women in literacy programs. Though it was not the organizers' intent, the conference was viewed by many, both participants and non-participants who chose not to attend , as a conference for women who work with women learners. Though this may seem a subtle difference, it was very evident during the proceedings and it got me thinking in terms of the implications of this for the big picture of adult education.

Here we are in a field where the majority of participants in many programs are women and particularly women of low-income. Conference sessions that address the effects of welfare reform, domestic violence, women's health and learning disabilities on literacy acquisition should not be subjects of any one specific conference devoted to women and attended by mostly women, but rather should become part of the "normal" discourse in adult literacy literature, in conference sessions and certainly should be better, and more strongly articulated into the public policy that drives much of our field. These topics are huge, difficult issues, issues that sometimes we are neither prepared for nor funded to tackle. Yet, as practitioners, we do try to address them because these are the issues which occupy many learners' lives and often hinder their educational goals.

I was not the first to notice my minority status at the conference. Another female participant brought it to my attention, emphasizing that it was unique that men were in attendance. As we spoke, I began to share my excitement over some of the sessions and also my work on domestic violence with the women in my class. She began asking me if I felt that the women in my class would really talk to me truthfully about their experiences in violent relationships. I could tell she was very skeptical that a male could or should be working with women on these issues. I was struck by her implications and for the rest of the conference felt a similar "chilling effect" from several other participants. I would be misrepresenting the conference if I were to focus on this more. The majority of the participants welcomed the male contingent and I felt my input and opinions were respected. All the sessions I attended and the penetrating sessions conducted by keynote speaker Jenny Horsman were powerful, thought provoking and most definitely "inclusive." I was later informed by another participant that this almost combative partisanship is an issue that is endemic amongst sections of the feminist movement in general. Being cast as "the other" was a unique experience and got me thinking about how gravely this division affects a field that, if anything, needs more definition and unity.

My real concern lies in how something as simple as a conference title can make exclusive, and even marginalize, an event that deals with issues so crucial and so in need of greater awareness in adult literacy. Possibly broadening the focus to a "Gender and Literacy Conference" or devoting more energy to making greater inroads into broadening the scope of more general adult education conferences is the answer.

My real concern lies in how something as simple as a conference title can make exclusive, and even marginalize, an event that deals with issues so crucial and so in need of greater awareness in adult literacy. Possibly broadening the focus to a "Gender and Literacy Conference" or devoting more energy to making greater inroads into broadening the scope of more general adult education conferences is the answer. A more general gender and literacy conference would perhaps allow us to explore what many feel are the most unsung population of adults in need of our services: the low-literate men who are saddled with working several low-wage jobs to support their families and either choose not to or cannot consider returning to education. In a field where administrators and policy makers are, to a great extent, male, we must consider ways to make more collective inroads into generating greater awareness if we hope to better affect public policy and attract greater funding to address these issues.

So where does this leave us in the discussion?

Some would argue that the adult literacy field is broad and needs to have conferences that narrow the focus on particular subjects such as, technology, learning disabilities, women's issues. I feel that, while this may allow us to better focus on specific issues, care must be taken not to appear so exclusive that the issues become part of a closed club and allow many in the field to "opt-out" of the discussion.

Others are of the opinion that there are times, such as conferences focused on a particular population, where "others" are invited but that their role should be limited to acting as observers or listeners to issues that might not directly affect them. Though I see part of the point here, I feel that such exclusiveness is not a luxury we can afford if it drives away many in the field who are concerned, able and informed on the issues. At times the civil rights movement has been plagued by such exclusiveness but it, too, has found it's greatest strengths through collective, inclusive action.

One conference participant succinctly summarized the issues in a recent listserv post, "If we allow our energies to be dominated by this discussion (gender-bias), I feel we miss the larger point- that we can look at specific needs and support each other as we reach to both the broader and more focused issues."

I don't think it could be better said.

This article will also be published in the next issue of Literacy Across the Curriculumedia Focus, Volume 14, Number 3.

Anson M. Green
TANF Instructor
La COCINA de Vida
Coordinator Northside Independent School District
San Antonio, Texas