Archive | Issues

Film and learning how to be a girl

By Dr. Kristina Gottschall, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst NSW Australia

Governments, policy-makers, teachers, education researchers – we all think we know what teaching and learning or ‘pedagogy’ is all about. Indeed, we set our expectations, base our actions, and stake our reputations on knowing all the ins and outs of pedagogy and how we make it work most effectively. Sometimes it’s even taken as a given in regard to how it’s done, what are its aims and how it is achieved. In recent times, pedagogy seems to be increasingly talked about as if it is quantifiable, deliverable and a largely predictable process.

In my research inspired by feminist and post-structural thinking, what I’ve come to realise is that pedagogy cannot be quantified and is far from predictable. Knowledge cannot simply be transferred. In many respects, teaching and learning – how it works – or how it doesn’t work, is a mystery and we are still finding new ways to articulate the challenges it poses.

As a fluid, multi-directional and multi-dimensional process, pedagogy is best understood as a complex meaning-making process between the ‘teacher’ and the ‘learner’. The teacher doesn’t cause learning, rather, they are only one part of the context in which learning may occur. Teaching and learning is complex! It’s profoundly relational and contextual, ideally a consciousness-changing experience that ‘…takes place in the interaction of three agencies —teacher, the learner and the knowledge they together produce’ (Lusted 1986, 3; Ellsworth 1997, 2005). It’s all about producing knowledge in interactive, meaningful and productive ways, as opposed to ‘merely a transmissive act’ (Lather 1991, 15). What works in one place, may not work in another. What works for some students, might spectacularly fail others. This is the nature of teaching and learning – with all its frustrations, difficulties, questionings, silences, diversities and demands.

Primarily, I am interested in how popular culture and popular films might work as pedagogy. All too often film critics and scholars are quick to dismiss films as ‘sexist’ or ‘racist’ or ‘too violent’. The moral panics around the effects on spectators, and particularly children, seen as being more ‘vulnerable’ or susceptible, are par for the course. For me, though, such critiques and concerns are only the beginning of the analysis not the end. What makes a film sexist or racist and to who, and under what cultural and social conditions? How is the film, as a text, designed in such a way so that spectators come to understand key things about gender and race, etc?

In my recent article ‘From the frozen wilderness to the moody sea: Rural space, girlhood and popular pedagogy’ published in Gender & Education (Volume 26, Issue 5), I focus on how a small body of films might potentially work as vehicles for teaching and learning about youth, gender and space. The films include four key Australian ‘coming of age’ films about girls growing up in rural or rural coastal locales: Peaches set in a sleepy town on the banks of the Murray River, Somersault set in the frozen wilderness of Jindabyne in the Snowy Mountains, Caterpillar Wish set in a South Australian coastal town full of secrets and lies, and in Indigenous film maker Ivan Sen’s Beneath Clouds, the story of two Indigenous youths on a road trip through rural New South Wales.

In the article, I argue that representations of the ‘rural’ shape what is possible in the making of ‘girlhood’. Ideas of the rural are both enabling and constraining for the girl subject of these films, and potentially more broadly. I explore how popular film might use representations of the rural to educate spectators about girls as ‘successful’, ‘in crisis’ and/or as girls asserting ‘girlpower’. I highlight various filmic, narrative and affective techniques that encourage learning in these terms. For instance, I think about how spectators are invited to know the protagonists of these films as psycho-sexual, moral, relational and spatial subjects, where various techniques such as the sound and music score and familiar tropes like staring off into space, high drama and confessional scenes and ripples of madness, work together to engage us in key ways around girlhood. Not every spectator will respond in the same way to these images because pedagogy is not a simple act of transmission, and people and contexts are diverse. Likewise, key design features do not determine what can be learned in a predictable way, but they do constrain what can be known. The girl in a rural place is made intelligible through common significations that we see repeated time and again.

So in engagement with these films, I explore how we might potentially learn how ideal youthful feminine subjectivity ‘should’ potentially be done, how it is done in the rural space, and what is at stake in forming or not forming oneself as a specific subject in specific ways.

It is this in-between space between the text and the spectator (or the ‘teacher’ and the ‘learner’), and the knowledge they together produce that will continue to frame my research and my own teaching as I question just what is pedagogy, can we ever fully know how it works and what might this mean for our practice?

Dr. Kristina Gottschall is a lecturer in Indigenous Studies for the Centre for Indigenous Studies at Charles Sturt University, joining the centre in 2014. Graduating from her Doctor of Philosophy in Education 2011, she is an early-career scholar researching across the areas of popular and public pedagogies, popular film culture, post-structural theories, social semiotics, subjectivities, gender, sexuality, Indigeneity and discourses about youth-hood. She is also mad for HBO TV series, playing the ukulele, fancy dress parties, salsa with her special gentleman friend, walking her hyper Jack Russell and Terrier-X dogs, and reading a good book in bed with a glass of red.

Posted in Issues0 Comments

Call for Abstracts for a Special Issue of Gender and Education

Special Issue Guest Editors: Sharon Todd, Rachel Jones and Aislinn O’Donnell

Shifting Education’s Philosophical Imaginaries: Relations, Affects, Bodies, Materialities

As Michèle Le Doeuff pointed out in her classic feminist work, The Philosophical Imaginary, images function in philosophical writing to enact certain political possibilities and limitations. Drawing on the importance of the imaginary, this special issue of Gender and Education examines the ways in which it operates to undergird recent feminist perspectives in both philosophy and education. As the pages in Gender and Education reveal, feminist educational concerns have generally focused on images of relationality, sex/gender differences and queer subjectivities and have discussed how such images reframe our attention to educational theory and practice. On the philosophical side, we are witnessing feminism’s recent turns to materialism, embodiment and affect, along with a renewed engagement with phenomenology and a pronounced shift away from the images of social construction that had informed much feminist work since the 1970s.

In this special issue, we are interested in how these philosophical developments might inform a re-imagining of the usual feminist educational concerns, and how educational imaginaries might open up a different set of questions for contemporary feminist philosophies. We are not concerned with how to ‘import’ new philosophical ideas into educational theory and practice, nor with simply reading such ideas as something ‘external’ to the work we do in education. Rather, our aim is to open up a conversation between educational theory and this new body of feminist philosophical scholarship in a manner that reveals their co-implication, particularly when it comes to conceiving of how to theorise what is done in the name of education, and what limits and transformative possibilities lie within the educational project.

Our focus on ‘relations, affects, bodies, materialities’ reflects a number of recent turns in feminist thought, which are not self-contained but spill over into each other, creating a matrix of interlinking ideas, concepts, and positions. These include:

  • the ‘new materialisms’ (aligned with thinkers such as Alaimo, Barad, Braidotti, Coole, Colebrook, Grosz, and Kirby), which re-inflect long-standing feminist concerns with bodies and materiality via a critique of social constructionism and a re-appraisal of matter, nature, agency and the (post)human
  • the turn to affect theory (see especially Ahmed, Gregg and Seidworth), which foregrounds the social, cultural and political efficacy of emotions, feelings and other affective states
  • the new thoughts on relationality and embodiment arising from feminist and queer phenomenologies (Ahmed, Heinemaa, Weiss) and engagements with neuroscience (Pitts-Taylor, Wilson)
  • the re-implication of feminist and queer theory by thinkers such as Ahmed, Colebrook and Huffer; and the deployment of feminist/queer theories of bodies, sexuality and desire by transnational feminists to generate critical perspectives on capitalism, neoliberalism, and feminism itself (Alexander, Grewal, Puar).

We are seeking work that draws on any of the above approaches or thinkers (or any combination thereof) to re-interrogate the role of relations, affects, bodies and/or materialities in a specifically educational context (broadly understood). In keeping with our focus on shifting education’s philosophical imaginaries, we are particularly interested in papers that: contest or transform dominant educational imaginaries; show how pedagogical contexts pose generative questions to new feminist approaches; and explore how the pedagogical and philosophical concerns outlined above are encountered outside the Anglo/American/European world.

We invite substantial, 1000 word abstracts that engage with the above concerns. Authors may wish to address one or more of the following specific questions: 

  • How do new directions in feminist and queer thought transform the images of both education and philosophy implicit in philosophy of education?
  • How do recent philosophical emphases on bodies, affect, materialities and relationality displace the philosophical imaginary inherited from western modernity and open up new pedagogical and philosophical imaginaries?
  • What is involved in re-imagining educational practices through a relational, bodily, materialist, and/or affective lens? How might we rethink and re-theorise the role of bodies and materialities (human and non-human) in education?
  • How do feminist concerns with relationality, bodies, sexual/gender difference and queer/sexed subjectivities transform both images of education and understandings of what is involved in a philosophical approach to pedagogy, curriculum and educational policy?
  • How might feminist pedagogies pose new questions to feminist materialist approaches?
  • How does the use of feminist/queer theories of bodies, affect, sexuality and desire by transnational feminists contest, de-centre or provide alternatives to the theoretical biases of the global North? What are the implications of this for the re-imag(in)ing of education, philosophy, and philosophy of education?
  • What difference does it make to imagine what we are doing when we philosophise about education as ‘critical’, ‘engaged’, ‘ecological’, ‘reparative’, ‘diffractive’, etc.?

This special issue of Gender and Education is edited by Sharon Todd (National University of Ireland, Maynooth) Rachel Jones (George Mason University, US) and Aislinn O’Donnell (University of Limerick).

Deadline dates

If you would like to contribute, please email a 500 word abstract for the attention of the journal’s Editorial Manager, Helen Rowlands to genderandeducation@outlook.com by 1 December 2014.

Invitations to submit full papers will be sent to authors in mid December 2014; papers are to be submitted by 9 February 2015. Peer-reviewing will be completed and final editorial decisions reached by August 2015 . It is anticipated that this Special Issue will be published as Gender and Education Vol. 27. 6, which will be in print in October 2015.

Posted in Issues0 Comments

Policy Report for GEA, June 2014

FEMINISM, GENDER & UNIVERSITIES: POLITICS, PASSION & PEDAGOGIES (London: Ashgate 2014)

Miriam E. David

www.ashgate.com/sociology/9781472437112

Feminist scholarship, feminist knowledge and feminist pedagogies are all celebrated in this book and I hope to tempt you to read the book and engage with the arguments by offering you some of the examples of how these have developed in higher education over the last 50 years. I make a plea for more careful attention to education and how the processes of knowledge-making influence (and are influenced by) gender and sexual relations and how we need to maintain our vigilance in these times of neo-liberal austerity and campaign for transformations against gender and sexual violence in education and the wider society.

My main aim has been to demonstrate how feminism has become an educational as well as political project and, in particular, the robust and positive impacts that feminism has had on higher education. I also look at the ways in which issues around gender equality in education have come onto the agendas of higher education and wider socio-economic and political systems, and what both the opportunities and obstacles to further gender equality in higher education are. How can we create a feminist-friendly future? How do we transform current business and managerial approaches to higher education and neo-liberal tendencies to ensure that feminist knowledge and feminist pedagogies are a continuing source of transformative potential? What kinds of policy changes do we want to advocate?

Using feminist methods of biography, life stories and narratives, I set out to develop a life history and collective biography of feminist activism in academe. Being totally passionate and committed to feminism, I sought out many social networks in higher education across the generations. So this is a partial study in every sense: partial to feminism and partial in that it is about a small group of pioneering pedagogues in academe. I drew on many networks such as the Bristol Women’s Studies Group (BWSG) in which I was involved in the 1970s, the Feminist and Women’s Studies Association (FWSA), the Society for Research in Higher Education (SRHE), sociology of education, linked through the American Educational Research Association (AERA) and especially the Gender and Education Association (GEA) in which I had been involved since its beginnings. I also reached out to international feminist educators and talked to over 100 activist academics in humanities and social sciences, illustrative of the changing forms of global academe in changing socio-economic contexts.

I identified three generations or cohorts of feminists to reveal what a life-changing experience feminism has been and how important education, especially higher education, has been to this. While the three generations have different biographies, in that increasing numbers are ‘first-in-the-family’ (and not only from the working classes) to go to university, all talk with passion about how feminism transformed their lives in both in the family and through university. Through careful attention to the ways feminism has transformed academic feminists’ lives, across three generations of women entering higher education, the importance of creating feminist scholarship and developing feminist knowledge is illustrated. Not all agree that they are ‘second-wave feminists’, nevertheless all feel that they are part of a ‘new wave’, whether wave refers to air, hair, or sea. I discuss critiques of the wave analogy.

Most of the oldest cohort, women born before or in the shadows of the Second World War tended to sign up more to being second wave when ‘the second wave broke on the shores of academe’, to use Lorna Marsden’s lovely phrase; whilst the second cohort (those born in the 1950s and early 60s) were part of ‘the ripple effects of second wave moving into academe’ and saw themselves as ‘riding the waves’; the third cohort (those born from 1965 up to 1980) were ‘on the crest of the wave of academic feminism’ with all the contradictions of being in the neo-liberal global academy today.

Examples of how feminism is central to these feminist activists’ identity include:

  • ‘It changed my life’
  • ‘Feminism has been my life project’
  • ‘My entire life has been shaped by feminism…at university…it was the beginning of the women’s movement…we women were a small minority’…
  • As a scholar I write from a feminist perspective…
  • I began to self-identify as a feminist when I was a graduate student in 1970…Feminism is woven through every fibre of my being…My family were not impressed…

There are differences across the generations in the personal and political influences on becoming feminists. An example from the first cohort is that feminism came after being a student and was initially about political action rather than university influences:

‘I went to university in London …in the late 1960s…I became a feminist when I went to do an MA at Louisiana State University from 1969 to 1971. I read Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique and immediately joined the National Organisation of Women (NOW) and consciousness-raising and campaign groups…I still am a feminist but think that things have got more rather than less difficult in academe…’

Women in the second cohort tended to struggle with feminism as part of their intellectual identity and through being in the academy:

‘Feminism has been absolutely central to my life. It allowed me to gradually gain a perspective on Catholicism that eventually allowed me to leave the established church. For a long time I felt that the intellectual, theological knowledge was battling with my intellectual feminism. I would say that through the twists and turns of my life the one intellectual endeavour that I have never doubted is my feminism. I passionately believe in a person’s right to equality and especially to have freedom over their bodies. I would say that I still teach from a feminist perspective…and it informs my personal life profoundly…’

Women in the third cohort tended to learn their feminism as undergraduates and developed this through good inclusive pedagogical experiences. This is the case for both mature students and for those women attending elite universities at the traditional age for undergraduates:

‘I became a feminist during university (as a mature student at Middlesex after an Access to HE course) mainly through my own reading…good experiences taught me about inclusive pedagogies. Feminism has been crucial to my learning – indirectly and explicitly-eg when I was in a women’s aid refuge I first explicitly encountered feminism and this was a life saver in terms of understanding and making sense of my traumatic experiences of domestic violence-and also learning about my rights and my position as a woman- this was strengthened at university when I started to read feminist theories for my coursework-theory has been more directly influential to me than activism…’

And contrast with:

‘I became a feminist at university. I went to an all girls’ school and moved to a mixed environment at Cambridge. In my college I was the only girl of the 14 doing Maths in my year. Some other students and tutors had sexist attitudes. I guess this is what provoked the move…the influence has been huge-most obviously in my work but also in how I dress, what I eat, my friendships…I do not do much feminist activism…more urgent is peace but feminism in daily life eg teaching…women’s studies came gradually…’

Altogether, feminism has enabled them to become the passionate teachers in global academe, and continues to help them to struggle against the changing and constraining conditions of the neoliberal academy. Feminism helps to resist the more overt misogyny that now pervades global academe, despite changes toward gender equality in numbers of undergraduate students. I discuss how feminists’ struggles achieved gender equality in education on the international public policy agenda but how the notion of gender equity has now been incorporated into neo-liberalism and managerialism and lost its critical and radical edge.

Gender equality in higher education amongst undergraduate students has become a numbers game and ‘metrics mask misogyny’. Gender equality amongst academics globally as well as nationally remains a chimera, as the EU’s nicely named She Figures illustrate. We need to transform ‘the rules of the game’ in higher education to move beyond continuing masculine domination of leadership and management in global higher education. We also need to transform education more generally to raise more respectful and inclusive men and women and combat increasing sexual and gender violence: the so-called lad culture of higher education today. Raising questions about what the implications for a feminist-friendly future the changes in the socio-political and economic contexts have been, I argue for policy and practice changes in universities and wider systems of schooling today.

Posted in Issues0 Comments

ESRC Seminar Series: “Researching Girls and Sexuality: Affect, the digital and the body”

affectdigitalbody
affectdigitalbody

Posted in Issues0 Comments

The Naturalisation of Everyday Sexism and Violence

By Nancy Lombard, Glasgow Caledonian University

 

The FRA study from the EU agency for Fundamental Rights released last Thursday did the usual rounds with the same old figures: 1 in three women have experienced abuse in their lifetime, 1 in 10 within the last 12 months.  We know this; we can recite these figures off by heart. The report is simply more evidence of the pervasive extent of women’s experiences of violence that is so engrained in our societies.

Liz Kelly once said that the continued recognition of the magnitude of violence against women results in further normalisation rather than leading to resistance.  We know globally, nationally and locally men’s violence against women is an endemic social problem and an enduring human rights issue within all societies and cultures (Amnesty International, 2004; Bond and Philips, 2000). The prolific extent of male violence against women is confirmed by official data, reproduced worldwide, year after year.

I have been a volunteer, activist and researcher in the field of violence against women since I was 18. My most recent research looked at what primary school children think about men’s violence against women. When I was writing up the research I reflected upon what sociologist Ann Oakley calls my autobiographical path, thinking about why I became interested in this field.

Often women become involved in the area of working against men’s violence because of direct experience but I had always assumed that I was not one of them, as I didn’t have any personal history. However when I sat down and reflected I was shocked, not only by the list of abuses I had experienced, but by my normalisation and minimisation of them – and how I still remained affected by them. Kelly (1988: 23) claims the experience and /or naming of violence is not always an immediate or present one, rather it can be ‘experienced by the woman or girl at the time or later, as a threat, invasion or assault’. My own recalled experiences of abuse included: physical abuse, experiences of coerced sex, flashing and indecent exposure, sexual assaults, physical assaults, verbal sexual abuse. Being aware of my own normalisation of personal experiences of violence made me acutely sensitive to the young people’s narratives of their own experiences and conceptualisations of men’s violence against women.

When I spoke to boys and girls aged 11 and 12 I asked them about what they understood violence was, about why it happened and why. I also spoke to the young people about their own lives, their friendships, their experiences. For the majority of young people violence was something that happened in a public place, between adult men who were physically fighting. Crucially there were visible injuries and official intervention and consequence. That is the men’s behaviour was stopped, they were told they were wrong and suffered consequence (such as jail). This same sequence was replicated at school. Boys would physically fight in public and be told by the teachers or playground assistants that their behaviour was wrong and they were chastised for it.

But that didn’t happen for the girls. Girls told me about of a multitude of experiences; of being pushed, shoved, kicked, followed, called sexualised names from their male peers. These examples did not fit the standardised constellation structure of ‘real’ violence: age (adult); gender (man) space (public) action (physical) and crucially, are generally without official reaction or consequence. Time and time again the girls – when they approached teachers or those in authority were dismissed for telling tales, ignored because of the ‘trivial’ nature of their complaint or relayed that old adage, ‘he’s only doing it because he likes you’. Thus their experiences were minimised and the behaviours, normalised.

This not only results in girls being unable to access a framework by which to make sense of their own experiences, but it also serves to invalidate and minimise many of their own experiences of violence and violent behaviour which is then replicated in their adult lives where much behaviour is seen as what Dobash and Dobash (1992) termed the ‘everyday interactions’ between men and women; the everyday sexism documented here.

The feminist project of ‘naming’, ‘involves making visible what was invisible, defining as unacceptable what was acceptable and insisting what was naturalized is problematic’ (Kelly, 1988: 139). It enables women to name, understand and challenge what had happened to them, by moving the private into the public domain and shifting the boundaries of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.

For me this also explains why countries such as Denmark and Sweden had higher figures for men’s violence against women in the recent study. Those countries with greater levels of gender equality are more likely to provide ‘official’ recognition for women which enables them to not only name but also define their experiences as violence.

We need to start acting upon these figures, rather than finding different ways of presenting the same old story. Preventive education and public awareness campaigns to encourage resistance to violence are essential. But we also need to challenge the normalisation of violence. We must contest the dynamics in heterosexual relationships where men’s power over women is naturalised, normalised and used as a justification both of and for the violence.

 

 

Posted in Issues0 Comments

The Naturalisation of Everyday Sexism and Violence

The Naturalisation of Everyday Sexism and Violence

By Nancy Lombard, Glasgow Caledonian University

 

The FRA study from the EU agency for Fundamental Rights released last Thursday did the usual rounds with the same old figures: 1 in three women have experienced abuse in their lifetime, 1 in 10 within the last 12 months.  We know this; we can recite these figures off by heart. The report is simply more evidence of the pervasive extent of women’s experiences of violence that is so engrained in our societies.

Liz Kelly once said that the continued recognition of the magnitude of violence against women results in further normalisation rather than leading to resistance.  We know globally, nationally and locally men’s violence against women is an endemic social problem and an enduring human rights issue within all societies and cultures (Amnesty International, 2004; Bond and Philips, 2000). The prolific extent of male violence against women is confirmed by official data, reproduced worldwide, year after year.

I have been a volunteer, activist and researcher in the field of violence against women since I was 18. My most recent research looked at what primary school children think about men’s violence against women. When I was writing up the research I reflected upon what sociologist Ann Oakley calls my autobiographical path, thinking about why I became interested in this field.

Often women become involved in the area of working against men’s violence because of direct experience but I had always assumed that I was not one of them, as I didn’t have any personal history. However when I sat down and reflected I was shocked, not only by the list of abuses I had experienced, but by my normalisation and minimisation of them – and how I still remained affected by them. Kelly (1988: 23) claims the experience and /or naming of violence is not always an immediate or present one, rather it can be ‘experienced by the woman or girl at the time or later, as a threat, invasion or assault’. My own recalled experiences of abuse included: physical abuse, experiences of coerced sex, flashing and indecent exposure, sexual assaults, physical assaults, verbal sexual abuse. Being aware of my own normalisation of personal experiences of violence made me acutely sensitive to the young people’s narratives of their own experiences and conceptualisations of men’s violence against women.

When I spoke to boys and girls aged 11 and 12 I asked them about what they understood violence was, about why it happened and why. I also spoke to the young people about their own lives, their friendships, their experiences. For the majority of young people violence was something that happened in a public place, between adult men who were physically fighting. Crucially there were visible injuries and official intervention and consequence. That is the men’s behaviour was stopped, they were told they were wrong and suffered consequence (such as jail). This same sequence was replicated at school. Boys would physically fight in public and be told by the teachers or playground assistants that their behaviour was wrong and they were chastised for it.

But that didn’t happen for the girls. Girls told me about of a multitude of experiences; of being pushed, shoved, kicked, followed, called sexualised names from their male peers. These examples did not fit the standardised constellation structure of ‘real’ violence: age (adult); gender (man) space (public) action (physical) and crucially, are generally without official reaction or consequence. Time and time again the girls – when they approached teachers or those in authority were dismissed for telling tales, ignored because of the ‘trivial’ nature of their complaint or relayed that old adage, ‘he’s only doing it because he likes you’. Thus their experiences were minimised and the behaviours, normalised.

This not only results in girls being unable to access a framework by which to make sense of their own experiences, but it also serves to invalidate and minimise many of their own experiences of violence and violent behaviour which is then replicated in their adult lives where much behaviour is seen as what Dobash and Dobash (1992) termed the ‘everyday interactions’ between men and women; the everyday sexism documented here.

The feminist project of ‘naming’, ‘involves making visible what was invisible, defining as unacceptable what was acceptable and insisting what was naturalized is problematic’ (Kelly, 1988: 139). It enables women to name, understand and challenge what had happened to them, by moving the private into the public domain and shifting the boundaries of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.

For me this also explains why countries such as Denmark and Sweden had higher figures for men’s violence against women in the recent study. Those countries with greater levels of gender equality are more likely to provide ‘official’ recognition for women which enables them to not only name but also define their experiences as violence.

We need to start acting upon these figures, rather than finding different ways of presenting the same old story. Preventive education and public awareness campaigns to encourage resistance to violence are essential. But we also need to challenge the normalisation of violence. We must contest the dynamics in heterosexual relationships where men’s power over women is naturalised, normalised and used as a justification both of and for the violence.

 

 

Posted in Featured Stories, Issues0 Comments

Are you interested in becoming a book reviewer for the Gender and Education Journal?

Are you interested in becoming a book reviewer for the Gender and Education Journal?

The Gender and Education journal are currently inviting scholars to review the texts outlined on this list. If you would like to review one of these texts then please do contact the reviews editor: Dr Alexandra Allan (A.J.Allan@exeter.ac.uk).

We usually ask for reviews to be completed within two months of the text having been received, but we can negotiate deadlines where needed. Please see our additional guidelines for further advice on length and types of review and expected style.

In addition, please do get in touch with the reviews editor if:

  • You are an author of a text which you would like to have reviewed in the Gender and Education journal
  • You are aware of/have recently read a text which you think should be reviewed in the Gender and Education journal

Books for review:

1) Kosmala, K. (2013) Imagining Masculinities: Spatial and Temporal Representation and Visual Culture. London: Routledge.

2) Swartz, C. and Arnot, M. (2013) Youth Citizenship and the Politics of Belonging. London: Routledge.

3) Bradley, H. (2013) Gender. Cambridge: Polity Press.

4) Fuller, K. (2013) Gender, Identity and Educational Leadership. London: Bloomsbury Press.

5) Hearn, J., Blagojevic, M. and Harrison, K. (2013) Rethinking Transnational Men: Beyond, Between and Within Nations. London: Routledge.

6) Cooper Stoll, L. (2013) Gender in the Classroom: Teachers, Privilege and Social Inequalities. Plymouth: Lexington Books.

7) Sharma, S. (2013) Reclaiming Education in Transformative Spaces. London: Bloomsbury Press.

8) Jones, D and Evans, R. (2013) Men in the Lives of Young Children: An International Perspective. London: Routledge.

9) Evans, M. and Williams, C.H. (2013) Gender: The Key Concepts. London: Routledge.

10) Malabou, C. (2011) Changing Difference. Cambridge: Polity Press.

11) Hampton, E. (2013) Anay’s Will To Learn: A Woman’s Education in the Shadow of Maquiladoras. Texas.

12) Pierre-Moreau, M. (2011) Les Enseignants et le genre: Les inegalites homes-femmes dans l’enseignement du second degre en France et en Angleterre. Paris: Press Universitaires De France.

13) Egan, R. D. (2013) Becoming Sexual: A Critical Appraisal of the Sexualisation of Girls. Cambridge: Polity Press.

14) Spade, J.Z. and Valentine, C.G. (2014) The Kaledioscope of Gender: Prisms, Patterns and Possibilities. London: Routledge.

15) Tice, K. (2012) Queens of Academe: Beauty Pageantry, Student Bodies and College Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

16) Bae, M.S. and Ivashkevich, O. (2013) Girls, Cultural Productions and Resistance.

17) Nairn, K., Higgins, J. and Sligo, J. (2012) Children of Rogernomics: A Neoliberal Generation Leaves School. Dunedin: Otago University Press.

18) Taylor, Y. and Addison, M. (2013) Queer Presences and Absences. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

19) Brown, R.N. and Kwayke, C.J. (2012) Wish to Live: The Hip Hop Feminism Pedagogy Reader. New York: Peter Lang.

20) Livholts, M. (2012) Emergent Writing Methodologies in Feminist Studies. London: Routledge.

21) Bleich, D. (2013) The Materiality of Language: Gender, Politics and the University.

22) Maxwell, C. and Aggleton, P. (2013) Privilege, Agency and Affect: Understanding the Production and Effects of Action. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

23) Duckworth, V. (2014) Learning Trajectories, Violence and Empowerment amongst Adult Basic Skills Learners. London: Routledge.

24) Coleman, R. and Ringrose, J. (2013) Deleuze and Research Methodologies. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

25) Thayer-Bacon, B.J., Stone, L. and Sprecher, K.M. (2014) Education Feminism: Classic and Contemporary Readings. New York: SUNY.

26) Spatig, L. and Amerikaner, L. (2014) Thinking Outside the Girl Box: Teaming Up With Resilient Youth in Appalachia. Ohio: Ohio University Press.

Posted in Issues0 Comments

Call for Papers: ‘Critical Diversities: Policies, Practices and Perspectives’, 10th -11th July 2014, Weeks Centre, LSBU

The ESRC Seminar Series ‘Critical Diversities @the Intersection’ (2012-
2014) has reflected a current wave of work within the social sciences,
humanities and arts, which offer new ways of conceptualising and
empirically researching ‘diversity’. Our 2-day conference hopes to build
on thoughts, presentations and debates, with keynotes including:

Prof. Kimberlé W. Crenshaw (UCLA) ‘Intersectionality, Research and
Activism’

Prof. Davina Cooper (University of Kent) ‘Imagining the state otherwise:
Between utopia and critique”

Prof. Tracey Reynolds (Weeks Centre for Social and Policy Research,
LSBU) ‘Borders, ‘diversity’ and intersections: A black feminist reflections
on the everyday lives of black women in Britain’

We welcome papers from across the career stage and from outside
academia. There will be prizes, book launches & panels. Please send
abstract to: CriticalDiversities2014@lsbu.ac.uk

Registration details to be posted soon.  Conference cost will be £25 for two days, places limited!

Posted in Issues0 Comments

Relaunch of the Paulo Freire Institute-UK

Relaunch of the Paulo Freire Institute-UK

By Penny Jane Burke, University of Roehampton.  

The Paulo Freire Institute-UK (PFI-UK) has now been relaunched at the University of Roehampton as an interdisciplinary research centre, with particular interest in feminist engagements with Freirean perspectives, methodologies and pedagogies.

The PFI-UK is part of a large, international network of Paulo Freire Institutes worldwide, with its closest affiliation to the PFI-University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), headed by Professor Carlos Alberto Torres. This has led to fruitful collaborations, including the Biannual Forum Paulo Freire, with a core strand on gender and education, which was co-hosted by the PFI-UK and held at UCLA in September 2012. Additionally, the PFI-UK contributes to intensive sessions on feminist theories and methodologies and on gender and education as part of the PFI summer programmes held at University of Trento and UCLA. The PFI-UK aims to make a unique and significant contribution to the international PFI network, by engaging feminist reconceptualizations of Freirean approaches, as well as other critical perspectives, to explore the structural, cultural, symbolic and discursive dimensions of pedagogical relations and inequalities across intersecting differences and identities (such as formations of gender, class, ethnicity and ‘race’). The PFI’s research and pedagogies are deeply informed by Freirean and feminist praxis and methodologies.

As part of this, the PFI-UK has set up a Doctoral/Postdoctoral Network on Gender, Social Justice and Praxis, directed by Dr Lauren Ila Misiaszek. As a starting point, a small group of Founding Members will each work closely with and mentor an early career researcher to develop a small-scale project that makes a concrete contribution to the development of feminist approaches to education and pedagogy (for example, in the form of an online resource).  

The PFI-UK will have a relaunch event on the 6th June 2014 with keynote speaker Professor Carlos Alberto Torres, who will also launch his new book at the event: First Freire: Early Writings in Social Justice Education (soon to be published Teachers College Press). Discussants will include Professor Roger Dale, University of Bristol and Professor Penny Jane Burke, University of Roehampton.

PFI-UK aims to create dialogic and participatory spaces of praxis across national and local networks of teachers, educational practitioners and leaders, activists, artists, students, community groups and researchers dedicated to social justice in education. We hope that you will join us in developing this work!

For further information, please see http://www.roehampton.ac.uk/Research-Centres/Paulo-Freire-Institute/ and/or contact Professor Penny Jane Burke, Director of the PFI-UK, University of Roehampton.

Posted in Featured Stories, Issues0 Comments

Review of Melissa Benn’s ‘What should we tell our daughters? The pleasures and pressures of growing up female’

By Professor Miriam E. David

Benn, Melissa (2013) What should we tell our daughters? The pleasures and pressures of growing up female (London: John Murray) ISBN 978-1-84854-827-1 pp 343 £20

Three cheers for Melissa Benn! Members of the Gender and Education Association (GEA) should be delighted to have such an excellent advocate of feminist work on women and education in today’s complex and contradictory society. Whilst this is a journalistic account, it is an engagingly written and pleasurable read about the dilemmas of being a woman in today’s increasingly pressurized, pornified or sexualised and hyper-capitalist society. What Melissa sets out to do is to provide a map of where we, as women are today, and what we can do for the future. She specifically wants inter-generational conversations about how feminists have dealt with the past and how that can frame arguments about how to work for a feminist-friendly future. She is not starry-eyed about the gains that feminists have made over the last century or so and sets those against the increasing gulf between rich and poor women, and the rise of the austerity culture. She decides to interrogate second-wave feminists mainly about what they have done, and what evidence they can muster about the changing culture, politics and society, together with some choice male writers and academics, to set an agenda for ‘our daughters’.  She organizes her arguments into three parts, each of which has an aphorism for its concerns: the first she calls ‘uneasy beginnings’, the second ‘promises, promises’ and the third ‘rebellions and resources’ and she has an epilogue which is her manifesto for the future.

From the perspective of educators and parents, mothers especially, the first part of the book is where she presents what we know today about schooling and higher education linked together with the increasingly important feminist work on sexuality, sexual abuse and the pornification of our culture for young women. She provides a quick romp through recent work on how girls are doing better than boys in educational achievements at school and university but how this poses a huge problem given the pressures to be a particular kind of sexually attractive woman almost to the point of becoming invisible. Girls have to be  good but thin in a tick box culture. She contrasts this evidence with the important work on how the culture of laddism – male, macho, popular and raunchy – is increasingly pervading higher education. She questions what advice mothers can offer their daughters about sex in this kind of culture of objectification and the myth of perfection. Here she revisits the debates about puberty and adolescence in the context of single-sex versus co-educational schooling and the changing role of fathers in relation to their daughters. And she relies on a couple of key male writers here for her evidence, ignoring younger feminist academics such as Emma Renold and Jessica Ringrose, who have done such sterling work on children’s gender and sexual cultures based on interviews. She also doesn’t think to question the young people themselves for their views about growing up and living in a sexualized and pornified culture. This might have been the start of an interesting new conversation about relations between the generations and the futures of feminist studies.

The second part of the book considers what we know about women’s adult lives today in terms of work or employment, sex and love, and balancing work and life: this last is what she calls breakpoint. Again she romps through some interesting work on graduate employment and looks at highly achieving women as professionals and corporate feminists. She uses as part of her title of the first chapter in this part of the book the title of Sheryl Sandberg’s liberal feminist manifesto Lean In. Sheryl Sandberg is the chief operating officer of Facebook and has written about, as the sub-title puts it, women, work and the will to lead. Melissa takes this as the starting point of her critique and yet also uses it seriously as others have also done, about female professional achievements in the business world such as Alison Woolf in The XX Factor . Melissa does also look at the downsides and raises important questions, for example, about sexual harassment at work. And she goes on to provide a sober reappraisal of feminism as not being about the corporate world but women entering an unequal world of work. This is followed by a chapter about changing forms of sexual relations in an increasingly neo-liberal society. Here she also discusses changing feminist critiques of women’s understandings of sexuality and their bodies. And she moves swiftly into changing forms of work and motherhood, so that work-life balances are no longer the same as they were for older generations of feminists, so-called vintage feminists. Indeed, her Melissa argues that we have reached ‘breakpoint’.

The final part of the book considers what we now know about how to campaign for change and how to effect that change. She reviews feminist evidence about the uses of political campaigning and argues that there is a need for anger, but that it can easily be subverted particularly in an internet age. She provides a long discussion of how women’s anger is, and has been socially unacceptable, using the phrase that ‘anger means social and romantic isolation, imprisonment in the attic of social unacceptability’. (p.244) So she recognizes how difficult it is for women to learn how to be confident and powerful feminists. However, this part of the book, it seems to me, is the weakest section, as Melissa seems to have lost the will for collective and political campaigning and is more concerned with addressing the question of how individual women need to learn resilience and confidence in an increasingly individualized and competitive society. And yet she tries in her final chapter to think through the new politics of campaigning in an age of austerity and one where more women now have entered traditional democratic politics. She does not consider here more local or community-based activism but focuses more on singling out some key feminists in trade unions and the dilemmas of being a woman Labour politician. But she does conclude that ‘…our daughters may need help and support in order to learn to speak up and speak out for themselves; collectively, we need to move away from the traditional rhetorical, quasi-Oxford-Union/parliamentary form of public discussion and explore other ways of holding conversations’.

This is one of the final boxed statements (see below) and it does seem to me to indicate a weakness at the heart of the project. This book is not for an academic and certainly not for an academic feminist audience. This is also clear in the manifesto in the epilogue. This is a short and poetic piece of writing, using feminist polemicists such as Mary Wollstonecraft and Toni Morrison, as well as addressing the question of ‘the exceptional woman who refuses exceptionality’, taking the term from Carol Gilligan. Here the book ends as an advice rather than campaigning manual to be read in a cosy armchair, perhaps with one eye on the ipad, internet, twitter or whatever.

Whilst this is a most important book, there are several problems with it. First and perhaps most importantly, whilst Melissa discusses anger as important to this feminist political project (in part 3) she tells us she shies away from anger and recognizes that this means that a broader feminist politics based on a thorough-going critique of a misogynistic or patriarchal culture is not what she intends. Hers is a liberal politics of cosy conversations. Second, and equally important is the selective use of evidence, without much explicit theory to explain it. Post-structural feminists might be surprised to note absolutely no references to Judith Butler! There is also no questioning of the younger generations of women, whether feminists or academics or both or none. Melissa is an excellent journalist and superb at summarizing a mass of evidence. I was totally in awe of her knowledge of a huge range of feminist books and texts, especially those that have come out in the 21st century, and mainly of the genre of market feminism, like the Fifty Shades of Feminism which was produced without any critical edge at all. But in the end this needs to be located in more critical theory not just represented as if it were now the truth. Third, and perhaps this is the key point – this book is for a large and wide market and it shows in presentation and style. The shocking pink cover print together with a naked girl covered with a towel is a most odd marketing device, as is the use of highlighted boxes of comment dotted across the text one of which I mentioned above. These are not in service to the bigger project of transforming the world for a feminist-friendly future.

Posted in Issues0 Comments

Gender and Education Association

  • Promoting feminist scholarship and practice in gender and education internationally, nationally and locally
  • Providing an influential feminist voice
  • Promoting and problematising knowledge on gender and education
  • Encouraging teaching, learning, research and publication on gender and education
  • Providing a source of expertise and knowledge for policy makers
  • Creating networks to facilitate the exchange of information between our members.

Upcoming Events

November 2014
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930