The Ringrose piece is not the easiest piece we’ve read, but it’s message is an interesting and important one. So let’s try to get a handle on it via this week’s review assignment.
Here is something like a written lecture to help you think about the piece and to put you in a better position to write this essay.
“Rectifying ‘Our’ Feminist Past”
I notice two prominent moments in Ringrose’s account: 1) past feminists have made a mistake and 2) current feminists must reflect on this mistake and act accordingly to reform feminism.
Katja’s presentation on the history of feminism is illuminating here. At some point in time, the “workplace” (the office building, for instance) comes into existence as does the “home.” The workplace is the domain of men and the home that of women. The workplace, however, offers certain advantages or superior benefits to its male “workers” such as money, power, and independence, but these advantages and benefits are not available for women at home. So, at least initially, the feminist strives to garner for women the same benefits men have (“equality as sameness”), and this translates to a call for the inclusion of women in the workplace.
In this scenario, the good female life, just like the male life, is one of access to the workplace and the benefits “working” has to offer, and this is, in sum, the neoliberal view of the good life—workplace success.
Let’s now turn to education. A neoliberal view of education, I take it, is one that sees all levels of schooling as a preparation for workplace success. In a significant sense, then, once we can show that girls/women are doing as well as or even better than boys/men in school and in particular on tests, we can be confident that women have achieved workplace equality with men.
In the UK and much of the rest of Europe, as Ringrose makes clear, this is precisely the kind of thing people were seeing in female test scores at the end of the twentieth century. Equality had been achieved, and many were happy to declare the beginning of a post-feminist era—a time when feminists have achieved their goals and, accordingly, a time when feminist efforts would no longer be needed.
The problem, in short, is that equality has not been achieved, and thus the contention that we’re dealing with a neoliberal “myth.” The flip-side of the neoliberal myth, I take it, is that the post-feminist era is also the era of the true meritocracy—i.e. an economic climate in which hard work is the sole factor, as it should be, in achieving success, and moreover “successful girls” are the strongest proof of this.
To reiterate, then, the (neo)liberal feminist is ultimately responsible for this myth because of the emphasis placed, at the outset, on equality between men and women with respect to the workplace.
2) Rectifying the Mistake. Because (neo)liberal feminism is the cause more or less of the neoliberal myth, feminists need to jettison (neo)liberal feminism and go back to the drawing board if they are going to achieve a worthwhile sort of equality for women (goal) via impact on educational policy (means).
Two options stand out, as Katja suggested.
First, there is “difference theory feminism.” This is the way Ringrose puts it, but I think Katja’s way of characterizing the matter is much clearer—there are feminists who see equality in terms of respect for difference (contrast “equality as sameness” above). Feminists want the female identity of “home-maker,” for instance, to be as respectable as the male identity of “worker” (keep Taylor in mind here, in particular, the notions of “equal recognition” and the “politics of difference”). In Ringrose’s assessment, however, this brand of feminism will not do to the extent that it is still wrapped up in that part of the neoliberal myth which suggests that the female struggle is between abstract women and men and abstract in the sense that women and men have no other real traits than their gender. Remember that part of what is needed for true equality is a realistic portrayal of women which means taking into consideration things like race, ethnicity, class, disability, and sexuality.
Second, then, there is (de)construction feminism, and this seems more amenable to the kinds of concerns Ringrose expresses. As Katja explained, (de)construction feminists are also interested in equality. The equality they promote, however, is one that emphasizes the freedom to decide one’s own commitments to gender and in a way that escapes the “gender binary,” though it was difficult to decide what this might mean for feminist influence on educational policy going forward.
The Assignment
The assignment, then, is as follows. Using Ringrose’s point of view, assess the suggestions of Jacob Blickenstaff. What kind of feminist is he? (Here you should ignore my contention in Monday’s class that Jacob Blickenstaff is not a feminist at all.)
A good answer to this question, of course, will not simply claim that Blickenstaff is one or another type of feminist. It will lay out 1) the kind of equality he is advocating for in STEM education and the field of science at large, 2) how we should go about attaining that equality, and 3) what potential challenges such a project will face when it comes to achieving “true” equality. This, I believe, incorporates all the interests expressed in class concerning the character of this week’s review essay.
Per usual, write around 300 words. You should use your own words as much as possible and offer a title and sections with clear section headings. Grading will mostly be a function of how well and how clearly you speak to the three items above.
