Male Hegemony through Education: Construction of Gendered Identities
Keywords:
Downloads
Abstract
The fundamental presupposition of this paper is that ‘gender’ is a social category, hence a social construction, which can be negotiated and left fluid instead of something fixed and eternal. To examine the gendered social order, this study focuses on how hegemonic masculinity and feminine subordination are naturalized by positioning men as physically strong and women as weak on the ground of biological differences between the sexes. The study is informed by social constructionist understandings of gender. The main focus of the paper is to highlight how gendered discourses in Pakistan inform textbooks as objective and true knowledge. The data for the study comes from 28 educationists (11 females and 17 males). The study’s findings revealed that, despite prevailing claims to establishing gender equality and equity education, educationists are active in the production of gender/sexual identities and hierarchies in a ways that reinforces hegemonic ‘masculinity’ and a fixed notion of ‘femininity’. The paper concludes that what ends up as school knowledge arises from gendered power/knowledge relations.
Downloads
References
Butler, J. (1990) Gender Trouble: Feminism and Subversion of Identity. New York and London: Routledge.
Google Scholar Crossrefde Beauvoir, S. (1972) The Second Sex. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Google Scholar CrossrefConnell, RW. (1987) Gender and power. Cambridge: polity press.
Google Scholar CrossrefConnell, RW. (2006) ‘Understanding men: Gender Sociology and the New International Research on Masculinities’. In Skelton. C, Francis. B and Smulyan. L. Gender and Education. London: Sage Publication.
Google Scholar CrossrefDavies, B. (1989) Frogs and Snails and Feminist Tales. London: Allen and Unwin.
Google Scholar CrossrefDavies, B. and Harre, R. (1990) Positioning: The discursive production of selves’, Journal of Theory of Social Behaviour, 20, 1, 43-63.
Google Scholar CrossrefFausto-Sterling (2000 b) Sexing the Body. New York: Basic Books.
Google Scholar CrossrefFoucault, Michel (1980) Power/Knowledge: selected interviews and other writing, 1972-1977. Gordon, C (ed), Gordon, C et al. (trans). New York: Pantheon.
Google Scholar CrossrefFrancis, B. (2000) Boys, girls and achievement. London: Routledge.
Google Scholar CrossrefFrancis, Becky (2006) The nature of gender. In Skelton. C, Francis. B and Smulyan. L. Gender and Education. London: Sage Publication.
Google Scholar CrossrefGorman, C. (1992) ‘Sizing up the Sexes’. Time, January 20: 42–51.
Google Scholar CrossrefGlaser, B.G., and Stress, A. L (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: strategy for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.
Google Scholar CrossrefHaslanger, S. (1995) ‘Ontology and Social Construction’, Philosophical Topics, 23: 95–125.
Google Scholar CrossrefLevine, E. and Hole, J. (1973) Rebirth of Feminism. New York: TBS The Book Service Ltd.
Google Scholar CrossrefLumpkin, A. (1984). Historical perspectives of female participation in youth sport. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, Anaheim, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 243 878).
Google Scholar CrossrefMacInnes, J. (1998) The end of Masculinity. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Google Scholar CrossrefMikkola, Mari (2011) ‘Feminist Perspectives on Sex and Gender’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.) retrieved on June 5, 2012 from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/feminism-gender/.
Google Scholar CrossrefMillett, K. (1971) Sexual Politics. London: Granada Publishing Ltd.
Google Scholar CrossrefPaechter, C. (2001). Power, Gender and Curriculum. In Paechter, C., Preedy, M., Scott, D. and Soler, J. (Edited) Knowledge, Power and Learning. London: Open University Press.
Google Scholar CrossrefPaechter, C. (2007) Discourse of Masculinity and Femininity: implication for equality and difference. In Reiss, M., DePalam, R., and Ttkinson, E. (ed) Marginality and Difference in Education and Beyond, Sterling: Trentham Book.
Google Scholar CrossrefRose, S. (2001) ‘Escaping evolutionary psychology’. In Rose H and Rose S (eds) Alas Poor Darwin: argument against evolutionary psychology. London: Vintage.
Google Scholar CrossrefSkelton, C. (1997) ‘Revisiting gender issue in reading schemes’. Education, 3-13, 25: 1, 37-43.
Google Scholar CrossrefSharpe, Sue (1976) Just Like A Girl, How girls learn to be women, London: Penguin.
Google Scholar CrossrefSkelton. C, Francis. B and Smulyan. L. (2006) Gender and Education. London: Sage Publication.
Google Scholar CrossrefSkeggs, Beverley (2002) Formations of Class and Gender, London: Sage Publication.
Google Scholar CrossrefStanworth, M. (1981) Gender and Schooling. London: Hutchinson.
Google Scholar CrossrefUllah, H. 2006. Engendering Human Bodies through Different Forms of Knowledge in Contemporary NWFP. M. Phil. Diss, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.
Google Scholar CrossrefUllah, H. and Skelton, C. (2012) Gender representation in the public sector schools textbooks of Pakistan, Educational Studies, 4 (3) 1-12
Google Scholar CrossrefWalkerdine, V. (1990) School Girls Fictions. London: Verso.
Google Scholar CrossrefWalkerdine, V. and Ringrose, J. (2006) ‘Femininities: Reclassifying Upward Mobility and the Neo-liberal Subject’. In Skelton. C, Francis. B and Smulyan. L. Gender and Education. London: Sage Publication.
Google Scholar CrossrefWhitehead, V, Lucy, H. and Melody. J (2001) Growing up girls: psychological explorations of gender and class. London: Palgrave
Google Scholar CrossrefDownloads
Published
Almetric
Dimensions
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
All articles are published under Creative Commons copyright (CC BY). Authors hold the copyright and retain publishing rights without restrictions, but authors allow anyone to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute, and/or copy articles as the original source is cited.
