What do you think?
Rate this book
Surviving Becky(s): Pedagogies for Deconstructing Whiteness and Gender
The infamous rise in characterizations of white women as Becky(s) is a modern phenomenon, different from past characterizations like the Miss Anne types. But just who embodies the Becky? Why is it important to understand, especially with regards to anti-racism and racial justice? Understanding that learning, moreover even discussing, dynamics of race and gender are oftentimes met with discomfort and emotional resistance, this creative, yet theoretical book merges social science analyses with literary short stories as a way to more effectively teach about the impact of whiteness and gender. Additionally, the book includes guiding questions so that readers can critically reflect on the behaviors of Becky(s) and how they impact the hope for racial harmony. Designed specifically for both educational spaces and the larger society, the author, an educational researcher and former classroom teacher, approaches the topic of race and gender, specifically whiteness and white women, in a nuanced manner. By borrowing from traditions found in critical race theory and teacher education, this book offers both counterstories and anecdotes that can help people better understand the dynamics behind race and gender.
- GenresNonfiction
326 pages, ebook
Published December 17, 2019
5 people are currently reading
159 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
read-portions-for-class-or-research
May 25, 2024The upshot is that for the white people who fall the fuck over themselves being obsessed with Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi, this would be a great read for them. The stories in this book are so painfully obvious on purpose that they would make really great book club discussions or company DEI talks. If you want a way to explain really basic things to white people who can't handle basic things about whiteness without flipping out, this is a good approach. It so happens that because this turned out to be largely fiction, it wasn't all that helpful for me for dissertation purposes, but I respect it as a concept.
Now for my critique, though. Where the fuck was the editor on this book? Not Matias, though I'll get to her, but I mean the human who is paid by Rowman & Littlefield to oversee, guide, and demand excellence of the volumes their company publishes? Why did they not rein in Matias' heart-on-my-sleeve saccharineness? Why did they not employ a copyeditor? Why did no one check the fucking references for errors? A popular bestselling book had its title butchered, not so much that you wouldn't know what it was, but that kind of makes it sadder because it means nobody bothered to take a look. This was so fucking sloppy it was embarrassing, and it was a stark reminder as I get closer to completing my own PhD that people who have doctorates are not required to be competent writers on a mechanical level. Not. At. All.
My bigger issue with this book has to do with the mis....packaging? of it. The book's subtitle is worthless, because it's not a book of pedagogical strategies, it's short stories by a bunch of people who have varying levels of competence (ranging from wildly unqualified to decent) at writing satires with dead-horse-beating obviousness (not necessarily a problem; that was kind of the prompt, but I'm still going to say that's what it is just to be clear) followed by book club discussion questions. The whole project probably would have been better if published by a trade publisher and aimed at a general readership.
My thing about Matias is she makes really good points, but she is so bad at writing on a mechanical and aesthetic level and she gets so in her feelings that she becomes really hard to stomach after awhile. Her introductions to each Becky archetype were good and kind of useful for me in a dissertation sense, but the longer entries felt too much like somebody writing a stream-of-consciousness Tumblr post instead of writing something with the intent of rereading it and revising it to refine the argument. Maybe I'm being a snob, and I am actually all here for academia to be better at incorporating generational shifts in communication style as well as cultural differences in communication style, but there's something about her writing style that to me reads as underdeveloped, unpracticed, and unfamiliar with "the rules," not "I know 'the rules' well enough to break them for specific reasons or purposes." She's a fantastic scholar, but she's not at all a gifted writer, and it's extremely frustrating because her ideas are so sound, and I bet she's a kickass teacher and speaker!
Academia has its own thing that's similar to the Peter Principle in business, and it's that somehow being an advanced student or a professor in a thing automatically qualifies you to teach that thing even though teaching is an actual discrete skill that you don't just gain by osmosis. After almost eight years in doctoral land and after reading countless articles, scholarly books, and some dissertations, I've realized the really sad thing is that our other Peter Principle is that you don't actually have to be good at writing to be an academic.
Now for my critique, though. Where the fuck was the editor on this book? Not Matias, though I'll get to her, but I mean the human who is paid by Rowman & Littlefield to oversee, guide, and demand excellence of the volumes their company publishes? Why did they not rein in Matias' heart-on-my-sleeve saccharineness? Why did they not employ a copyeditor? Why did no one check the fucking references for errors? A popular bestselling book had its title butchered, not so much that you wouldn't know what it was, but that kind of makes it sadder because it means nobody bothered to take a look. This was so fucking sloppy it was embarrassing, and it was a stark reminder as I get closer to completing my own PhD that people who have doctorates are not required to be competent writers on a mechanical level. Not. At. All.
My bigger issue with this book has to do with the mis....packaging? of it. The book's subtitle is worthless, because it's not a book of pedagogical strategies, it's short stories by a bunch of people who have varying levels of competence (ranging from wildly unqualified to decent) at writing satires with dead-horse-beating obviousness (not necessarily a problem; that was kind of the prompt, but I'm still going to say that's what it is just to be clear) followed by book club discussion questions. The whole project probably would have been better if published by a trade publisher and aimed at a general readership.
My thing about Matias is she makes really good points, but she is so bad at writing on a mechanical and aesthetic level and she gets so in her feelings that she becomes really hard to stomach after awhile. Her introductions to each Becky archetype were good and kind of useful for me in a dissertation sense, but the longer entries felt too much like somebody writing a stream-of-consciousness Tumblr post instead of writing something with the intent of rereading it and revising it to refine the argument. Maybe I'm being a snob, and I am actually all here for academia to be better at incorporating generational shifts in communication style as well as cultural differences in communication style, but there's something about her writing style that to me reads as underdeveloped, unpracticed, and unfamiliar with "the rules," not "I know 'the rules' well enough to break them for specific reasons or purposes." She's a fantastic scholar, but she's not at all a gifted writer, and it's extremely frustrating because her ideas are so sound, and I bet she's a kickass teacher and speaker!
Academia has its own thing that's similar to the Peter Principle in business, and it's that somehow being an advanced student or a professor in a thing automatically qualifies you to teach that thing even though teaching is an actual discrete skill that you don't just gain by osmosis. After almost eight years in doctoral land and after reading countless articles, scholarly books, and some dissertations, I've realized the really sad thing is that our other Peter Principle is that you don't actually have to be good at writing to be an academic.
Displaying 1 of 1 review