17 Ocak 2016 Pazar

Helena Wladimirna Antipoff (1982 - 1974) The Feminist Psychologist, newsletter of the Society for the Psychology of Women, Division 35 of the APA. Appearing with permission of the author.


http://www.apadivisions.org/division-35/about/heritage/helena-antipoff-biography.aspx

Helena Wladimirna Antipoff (1982 - 1974)

by Pelin Gul
Helena Wladimirna Antipoff was born to a wealthy aristocratic Russian family on March 25, 1892, in Grodno, Belarus, which was then a province of the Russian Empire. Due to the social unrest and the revolution that was about to occur in Russia, her family moved to Paris. There, Antipoff attended the University of Sorbonne, and in 1911 obtained a bachelor’s degree in science. During her studies in Sorbonne, she attended Pierre Janet’s and Henri Bergson’s lectures on psychology, igniting her interest in the subject. Upon her graduation, she interned at the Alfred-Binet Laboratory under the supervision of Theodore Simon, assisting in the ongoing research measuring the intellectual ability of school-aged children (Campos, 2012).
Enthusiastic about the field of psychology, she went to Geneva, Switzerland, to study with the psychologist Edouard Claparède who was a pioneer in the area of children’s learning.  She received her training at the Institute of Jean Jacques Rousseau (IJJR) from 1912 to 1916 where she obtained a diploma in educational psychology. At Claparède’s invitation, Antipoff then joined the team at the IJJR and devoted herself to research on intelligence testing and children’s learning. She acquired extensive knowledge of the “Active School” methods — an approach which emphasized the autonomy and creativity of children in their process of learning basic skills (Campos, 2001).
In 1916, she left Geneva and moved back to Russia to take care of her father who was seriously injured in the world war. Despite the social and political instability that followed, she decided to stay in Russia until 1924 (Campos, 2001).  During her stay in Petrograd (formerly St. Petersburg), she became acquainted with the directions taken by Soviet Psychology under the influence of the historical-cultural approach. In 1918, she married the journalist and writer Victor Iretzky and in 1919 she had a son, Daniel Iretzky Antipoff, who later became a famous agronomist and an educator (Campos, 2001)
Antipoff published articles on the results of her investigation of children’s cognitive capacities in 1924.However, the articles were severely criticized by the Soviet regime, claiming that they demonstrated the superiority of upper-class children over working-class ones in standardized tests (Campos, 2001). Although Antipoff interpreted the results as indicating that the scope of the tests were bounded by the cultural constructs of the upper-class.
Because of the restricted freedom of expression in Soviet Russia and her husband’s exile to Berlin, Antipoff fled to Germany in 1925. A year later, Antipoff and her husband separated, and she went back to the IJJR in Geneva as Claparède’s assistant, and a Professor of Child Psychology. There, she published articles on children’s process of learning about and interacting with their environment (Campos, 2011).
In 1929, Antipoff accepted an invitation to prepare Brazilian teachers at the newly established Teachers College in Belo Horizonte. Once there, she also started a research program studying the interests, ideals and cognitive development of school children at the Teachers College Laboratory of Psychology — one of the first laboratories of psychology established in the country (Campos, 2001). For her first published report in 1930, Antipoff designed a questionnaire for fourth graders, dealing with their preferred tasks at home and at school, preferred toys and books, adult models, and plans for the future. She compared these results with those obtained in Germany, Switzerland, United States and Moscow, and revealed the impact of social and cultural environment in shaping children’s inner trends (Campos, 2001).
After several successful renewals of her initial contract at the Teachers College, Antipoff decided to permanently stay in Brazil. She conducted other studies concerning the mental development of children in Belo Horizonte public schools at the Teachers College Laboratory of Psychology during the 1930s (Campos, 2001). She criticized Binet’s definition of intelligence as a “capacity to solve new problems through thought” (Claparède, 1933; as cited in Campos, 2001, p. 145) as well as intelligence tests for imperfectly measuring the intellectual ability. For her, intelligence was “a more complex product shaped by the actions of several agents, besides innate intellectual dispositions and biological growth, the combination of character and social environment in which a child grows up, as well as the pedagogical action, education and instruction to which a child is submitted both at home and at school” (Antipoff, 1931; as cited in Campos, 2001, p. 145).
In 1932, Antipoff founded the Pestalozzi Society in collaboration with a group of educators, doctors, intellectuals and philanthropists to guide and treat children with mental disabilities. Antipoff encouraged the use of non-derogatory words such as exceptional to describe this population, instead of using the words such as abnormal, subnormal or subhuman. When questioned about this, she replied that: “We are devoted to de-emphasizing the labels that were used in our first publications, such as abnormal children, imbeciles, and idiots. They are so very pejorative. Don’t you think?” (Antipoff, 1975; as cited in Block, 2007, p.187)
In 1937, Antipoff left the Teachers College. However, she decided to stay in Brazil for the rest of her life.  In the years following, she worked to expand educational opportunities in rural Brazil. After receiving her Brazilian citizenship in 1952, Antipoff found a position as a professor of Educational Psychology in the School of Philosophy, Humanities and Sciences at the Federal University of Minas Gerais (Campos, 2012). She contributed to the education of the first generations of Brazilian psychologists, and helped initiate the legal regulation of the profession (Campos, 2012).
As a researcher and an educator of children with mental disabilities for a period of over 45 years, Antipoff significantly contributed to the development of a national model for special education and support services for disabled people in Brazil (Campos, 2012). She advocated social and educational inclusion at a time when individuals with disabilities were being sterilized, persecuted, imprisoned and even killed in other countries. Today, her work is achieved and carried out in the Helena Antipoff Foundation in Brazil.  In recognition of her accomplishments, the former governor of Minas Gerais, Milton Campos said: “She planted ten thousand seeds in our wilderness. All teachers and students whose lives she touched will now continue her work” (Pestalozzi Association of Niteroi, n.d., para. 19).

Selected Works By 

Antipoff, H. (1928). L'evolution et la variabilite des fonctions motrices [Evolution and variability of motor functions]. Archives de Psychologie, 21, 1-54. 
Antipoff, H. (1930). Ideais e interesses das criancas de Belo Horizonte e algumas sugestoes pedagogicas [Ideals and interests of Belo Horizonte schoolchildren and some pedagogical suggestions] (Boletim 6). Belo Horizonte, Minas Geraus, Brazil: Secretaria do Interior do Estado de Minas Gerais.
Antipoff, H. (1931). O desenvolvimento mental das criancas de Belo Horizonte [The mental development of Belo Horizonte schoolchildren] (Boletim 7). Belo Horizonte, Minas Geraus, Brazil: Secretaria de Educacao e Saiide Publica.
Antipoff, H. (1944). Como pode a escola contribuir para a formacao de atitudes democraticas? [How can schools promote the development of democratic attitudes?]. Revista Brasileira de Estudos Pedagogicos, 7(1), 26-45.
Antipoff, H. (1966). Educacao dos excepcionais e sua integracao na comunidade rural [The education of exceptionals and their integration to the rural community]. Boletim da Sociedade Pestalozzi do Brasil, 31, 7-18.

Selected Works About

Antipoff, D. (1975). Helena Antipoff: Sua vida/sua obra [Helena Antipoff: Her life/her work]. Livraria José Olympio Editora, Rio de Janeiro.
Block, J. (2007). Institutional utopias, eugenics, and intellectual disability in Brazil. History and Anthropology, 18(2), 177-196.
Campos, R. H. F. (2001). Helena Antipoff (1892-1974): A Synthesis of Swiss and Soviet psychology in the context of Brazilian educational system. History of Psychology, 4(2), 133-157.
Campos, R. H. F. (2012). Helena Antipoff: A quest for democracy and human rights with the help of psychological science. In W. E. Pickren, D. A. Dewsbury, & M. Wertheimer (Eds.), Portraits of pioneers in developmental psychology (pp. 51-65). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Pestalozzi Association of Niteroi (n.d.). Helena Antipoff. Retrieved from http://www.pestalozzi.org.br/aspx/historia_helena.aspx
This was originally published in The Feminist Psychologist, newsletter of the Society for the Psychology of Women, Division 35 of the APA. Appearing with permission of the author.

Equality Week, University of Kent, November 2015

https://jacyyoung.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/curriculum-vitae_web.pdf




Uneven Change in Gender Equality

The following article was written by Pelin Gul, Associate Lecturer and Postgraduate Researcher in the School of Psychology.
Despite the widespread gender discrimination that still exists in various forms all around the globe today, there is no doubt that sweeping changes have taken place in the last half century which have helped to raise women’s position and status in society. Many forms of sexism in institutions have become illegal, women’s employment, educational attainment and political involvement have dramatically increased, and women have entered traditionally male domains as well as top-level managerial and leadership positions.

While all these revolutionary changes have taken place regarding women’s status, what has been happening regarding men? One would think that gender disparities in society could be minimized if similar changes have occurred regarding men’s entry into traditionally female domains. In fact, the change regarding men’s involvement in typically female domains (e.g., housework, childcare, nursing, teaching, etc.) has been much slower compared to women’s (see Croft, Schmader, & Block, 2015 for a review). This uneven change in the gender system has been well-documented by sociologists and economists, and various explanations for the reasons behind this uneven change have been put forward (England, 2010). A plausible argument is the financial incentive standpoint. It is not financially beneficial for men to move into typically female occupations because female-typical jobs are associated with low status and low pay rate in comparison to typically male jobs. While this can partly explain the nature of the asymmetrical change in the gender system, it tells us little about the social psychological processes that are preventing men from taking on female-typical roles.

The precariousness of manhood hypothesis offers an important social psychological perspective on this issue (Bosson & Vandello, 2011). According to this hypothesis, manhood (relative to womanhood which is obtained through biological maturation and thus cannot be lost easily) is an unstable and tenuous social status which can be lost easily and thus needs constant validation and affirmation. The fear of losing manhood and failing to be a real man makes men more sensitive about potential threats to their masculinity. Because of this, men demonstrate their manhood to others through acts that signal masculinity such as aggressive displays, toughness and risk-taking. Affirming manhood can even take the form of derogating and socially distancing oneself from effeminate/gay men (Carnagi, Maass & Fasoli, 2011). Such internalized notions of manhood can clearly pose barriers to men’s move into occupations and activities that are stereotypically feminine.

Even though the precariousness of manhood is a universal phenomenon, certain cultures can bring masculine identity concerns into sharp relief (Brown & Osterman, 2012). In cultures where manhood is intimately linked to honour (honour cultures), people are socialized with the idea that attaining traditional notions of manhood (toughness, strength, courage, capacities to protect and provide) are required in order for men to earn status in society. Men who are socialized with honour ideals may be even more resistant to moving away from masculine domains and embracing feminine roles.


In my research, I have been examining the self-presentations and preferences of men and women who are socialized to have precarious and honourable manhood beliefs. I have found that men who strongly hold honour ideals present themselves in more masculine traits and make more gender-normative activity preferences, while disavowing feminine ones. Such a strong link between gender-normativity and honour beliefs did not appear among women.


Research into the structure of masculinity, such as its precariousness and associations with honour, can help explain men’s relatively higher resistance to internalizing typically feminine traits, values and roles into their self-concepts. It can also extend our understanding of why it is harder to crack gender inequalities in certain arenas of life, and why men and women react to gender-related changes in society (e.g., feminism) in different ways.



References

Bosson, J. K., & Vandello, J. A. (2011). Precarious manhood and its links to action and aggression. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(2), 82-86.

Brown, R. P., & Osterman, L. L. (2012). Culture of honor, violence and homicide. In T. K. Shackelford & V. A. Weekes-Shackelford (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of evolutionary perspectives on violence, homicide, and war. Oxford University Press.


Carnaghi, A., Maass, A., & Fasoli, F. (2011). Enhancing masculinity by slandering homosexuals: The role of homophobic epithets in heterosexual gender identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1655-1665. doi:10.1177/0146167211424167


Croft, A., Schmader, T., & Block, K. (2015). An underexamined inequality: Cultural and psychological barriers to men’s engagement with communal roles. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1-28. doi: 10.1177/1088868314564789


England, P. (2010). The gender revolution: Uneven and stalled. Gender & Society, 24(2), 149-166.

15 Ocak 2016 Cuma

NEW DEFINITION OF RAPE IN GERMANY

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21688418-ultimate-victim-sexual-assaults-migrants-could-be-angela-merkels-liberal-refugee

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/06/tensions-rise-in-germany-over-handling-of-mass-sexual-assaults-in-cologne

7 Ocak 2016 Perşembe

why do rapists rape? - sex or power?

https://emmatheemo.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/why-do-rapists-rape-for-power-or-sex-lets-ask-a-rapist/

6)2,8% used rape as punishment.

Revenge.
19)” She was wearing my clothes, and I was very angry with that. I took matters into my own hands and wanted to teach her a lesson.”
Hmm, power, perhaps?
20)” I wanted her to become my wife. I sent my friends to go and entice her (the woman) to come to my place. They brought her to my house.”

Sex with a touch of power.

17) “She let me in the house and let me kiss and caress her, but she was not for sex. This was a challenge to my manhood, and I forced her to have sex with me.”