Citation:

Jarratt, Susan. “Feminist Pedagogy.” A Guide to Composition Pedagogies (2014): 113-127. Web.

Summary:

In her essay, “Feminist Pedagogy,” Susan C. Jarratt details the necessity of feminist pedagogy and how the idea of “inclusion” can cause anxiety. For example, does feminist pedagogy just benefit female students? Or, does a teacher have to be female in order to claim pedagogies? For many individuals, especially in academia, the answer is a resounding no, but because of societal and cultural structures in place, Jarratt argues the answer is much more complex.

Jarratt defines feminist pedagogy as one that “does not necessarily entail an overt discussion of feminism as a politics or movement” (115), but rather one that examines and considers the patriarchy and sexism in academic institutions. Feminist pedagogy doesn’t just benefit female students who are subjected to sexist environments. Instead, the practice serves as a beneficial structure of teaching that closely examines gender roles, binaries, and societal expectations for both male and female students. However, for female teachers, there is a fine balance of introducing feminist pedagogy for all students regardless of gender, and having their pedagogy taken as a “self-interested choice” (116). In some cases, a male teacher who teaches feminist pedagogy is better received, since they can appear non-biased on the subject. There is also a power difference between male and female teachers, which can contribute to the reception of feminist pedagogy, mainly, the position of authority.

Quotations:

“In fact, the male teacher who adopts feminist pedagogical strategies can sometimes be more effective than a female teacher because his students won’t be as tempted to read her pedagogy as a self-interested choice based on membership in a ‘special interest’ group” (116).

“Most feminists see differences as productive signs of a dynamic movement, just as differences in composition pedagogies index a strong and open field of academic work (117).

“A crucial aspect of this ‘feminization’ is the association of the composition teacher with a mythologized mother, endowed with qualities of ‘self-sacrifice, dedication, caring, and enormous capacities for untheorized attention to detail’ but also symbolizing ‘authority, precision, and… taste,’ promoting expectations of censure and disapproval” (118).

“As women academics, our maternal power is feared, out paternal authority is mistrusted” (118).

“But when women step into this role [feminist pedagogy], we reinforce gendered stereotypes dividing intellect from emotion, authority from caring, the public from the personal” (119).

Reflection:

I truly enjoyed reading this article, and I discovered many connections between the way I approach teaching and the potential backlash Jarratt illustrates as a ramification for teaching with feminist ideology. Feminist pedagogy is the practice of teaching that takes into consideration operations of power in society, as well as ties to “rhetorical, cultural and critical pedagogies” (116).

For me, feminist pedagogy is a way to take stable, rigid identities rooted in patriarchy and dismantle them through teaching. Essentially, we need to recognize and acknowledge the complexity of gender and how gender affects aspects of reading, writing and teaching. One might argue feminist pedagogy has the potential to destabilize the patriarchy by moving away from fixed binaries.

As a young woman teaching college students, I think about gender and the way I present myself to the class. Unfortunately, there is a power difference between male and female teachers and the separate expectations of authority. When it comes to teaching English 101, I attempted to be an authority figure, only to be undermined and turned into a figure for gossip as the “mean and loud teacher”. For male teachers, at least for the individuals I’ve talked to, they seem to have the same problem. When I had a male substitute for my class, I received a report back that were very respectful and did their work without complaint. However, on a day I wasn’t feeling well, I did “team teaching” with a female first year student, and she received the same treatment as me. We have very different styles of teaching, and yet were treated similarly with disrespect.

Jarratt describes the phenomenon as students dividing “intellect from emotion, authority from caring, [and] the public from the personal” (119). In general, male teachers garner a more positive response from students when speaking in an authoritative way or being an authority figure in general. And obviously this phenomenon crosses into other disciplines and fields as well. For example, take the diverse media coverage from the 2016 presidential election. Trump as an “all American man” and Clinton as a “nasty woman”.

Although I knew the majority of information already, I will take away Jarratt’s example for dealing with students undermining authority. She details ways to attend to “gendering of power and authority” by telling students to simply examine their responses to male and female teachers and write about their expectations for different teachers based on past experiences.