I agree with Gee for the most part, that to have a Discourse, you need to activley seek out one and become a participant, and I feel the same way about rehtorical sitiuations. I also think one of the most interesting/debatable points in the 'Gee' article is when he says:
"But the big question: If one cannot acquire Discourses save through active social practice, and it is difficult to compete with the mastery of those admitted early to the game when one has entered it as late as high school or college, what can be done to see to it that the meta-knowledge and resistance are coupled with Discourse development? The problem is deepend by the fact that true acquisition of many mainstream Discourses involves, at least while being in them, active complicity with values that conflict with one's home and community-based Discourses, especially for many women and minorities."Gee makes an interesting assertion about needing 'active complicity with values that conflict with one's home and community-based Discourses'. I feel like by making that statment, he is trying to say that people (and he emphasises women and minorities) need to be almost complacent about the opposing views in a discourse, and that this is hard to accomplish, especially the later in life you develope discourse skills. I am not sure I completley agree with that logic, however I do agree that it must be harder to form a rational discussion over an emotional one, with out the proper mental preperation. Those skills are something that can be learned and practiced earlier on, but I don't think it makes it 'harder' for discourse skill develoment.
