feminist theory and education

Feminist Theory

Jo Ann Arinder

Feminist theory falls under the umbrella of critical theory, which in general have the purpose of destabilizing systems of power and oppression. Feminist theory will be discussed here as a theory with a lower case ‘t’, however this is not meant to imply that it is not a Theory or cannot be used as one, only to acknowledge that for some it may be a sub-genre of Critical Theory, while for others it stands alone. According to Egbert and Sanden (2020), some scholars see critical paradigms as extensions of the interpretivist, but there is also an emphasis on oppression and lived experience grounded in subjectivist epistemology.

The purpose of using a feminist lens is to enable the discovery of how people interact within systems and possibly offer solutions to confront and eradicate oppressive systems and structures. Feminist theory considers the lived experience of any person/people, not just women, with an emphasis on oppression.  While there may not be a consensus on where feminist theory fits as a theory or paradigm, disruption of oppression is a core tenant of feminist work. As hooks (2000) states, “Simply put, feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation and oppression. I liked this definition because it does not imply that men were the enemy” (p. viii).

Previous Studies

Marxism and socialism are key components in the heritage.of feminist theory. The origins of feminist theory can be found in the 18th century with growth in the 1970s’ and 1980s’ equality movements. According to Burton (2014), feminist theory has its roots in Marxism but specifically looks to Engles’ (1884) work as one possible starting point. Burton (2014) notes that, “Origin of the Family and commentaries on it were central texts to the feminist movement in its early years because of the felt need to understand the origins and subsequent development of the subordination of the female sex” (p. 2). Work in feminist theory, including research regarding gender equality, is ongoing.

Gender equality continues to be an issue today, and research into gender equality in education is still moving feminist theory forward. For example, Pincock’s (2017) study discusses the impact of repressive norms on the education of girls in Tanzania. The author states that, “…considerations of what empowerment looks like in relation to one’s sexuality are particularly important in relation to schooling for teenage girls as a route to expanding their agency” (p. 909). This consideration can be extended to any oppressed group within an educational setting and is not an area of inquiry relegated to the oppression of only female students. For example, non-binary students face oppression within educational systems and even male students can face barriers, and students are often still led towards what are considered “gender appropriate” studies. This creates a system of oppression that requires active work to disrupt.

Looking at representation in the literature used in education is another area of inquiry in feminist research. For example, Earles (2017) focused on physical educational settings to explore relationships “between gendered literary characters and stories and the normative and marginal responses produced by children” (p. 369). In this research, Earles found evidence to support that a contradiction between the literature and children’s lived experiences exists. The author suggests that educators can help to continue the reduction of oppressive gender norms through careful selection of literature and spaces to allow learners opportunities for appropriate discussions about these inconsistencies.

In another study, Mackie (1999) explored incorporating feminist theory into evaluation research. Mackie was evaluating curriculum created for English language learners that recognized the dual realities of some students, also known as the intersectionality of identity, and concluded that this recognition empowered students. Mackie noted that valuing experience and identity created a potential for change on an individual and community level and “Feminist and other types of critical teaching and research provide needed balance to TESL and applied linguistics” (p. 571).Further, Bierema and Cseh (2003) used a feminist research framework to examine previously ignored structural inequalities that affect the lives of women working in the field of human resources.

Model of Feminist Theory

Figure 1 presents a model of feminist theory that begins with the belief that systems exist that oppress and work against individuals. The model then shows that oppression is based on intersecting identities that can create discrimination and exclusion. The model indicates the idea that, through knowledge and action, oppressive systems can be disrupted to support change and understanding.

The core concepts in feminist theory are sex, gender, race, discrimination, equality, difference, and choice. There are systems and structures in place that work against individuals based on these qualities and against equality and equity. Research in critical paradigms requires the belief that, through the exploration of these existing conditions in the current social order, truths can be revealed. More important, however, this exploration can simultaneously build awareness of oppressive systems and create spaces for diverse voices to speak for themselves (Egbert & Sanden, 2019).

Constructs 

Feminism is concerned with the constructs of intersectionality, dimensions of social life, social inequality, and social transformation. Through feminist research, lasting contributions have been made to understanding the complexities and changes in the gendered division of labor. Men and women should be politically, economically, and socially equal and this theory does not subscribe to differences or similarities between men, nor does it refer to excluding men or only furthering women’s causes. Feminist theory works to support change and understanding through acknowledging and disrupting power and oppression.

Proposition 

Feminist theory proposes that when power and oppression are acknowledged and disrupted, understanding, advocacy, and change can occur.

Using the Model

There are many potential ways to utilize this model in research and practice. First, teachers and students can consider what systems of power exist in their classroom, school, or district. They can question how these systems are working to create discrimination and exclusion. By considering existing social structures, they can acknowledge barriers and issues inherit to the system. Once these issues are acknowledged, they can be disrupted so that change and understanding can begin. This may manifest, for example, as considering how past colonialism has oppressed learners of English as a second or foreign language.

The use of feminist theory in the classroom can ensure that the classroom is created, in advance, to consider barriers to learning faced by learners due to sex, gender, difference, race, or ability. This can help to reduce oppression created by systemic issues. In the case of the English language classroom, learners may be facing oppression based on their native language or country of origin. Facing these barriers in and out of the classroom can affect learners’ access to education. Considering these barriers in planning and including efforts to mitigate the issues and barriers faced by learners is a use of feminist theory.

Feminist research is interested in disrupting systems of oppression or barriers created from these systems with a goal of creating change. All research can include feminist theory when the research adds to efforts to work against and advocate to eliminate the power and oppression that exists within systems or structures that, in particular, oppress women. An examination of education in general could be useful since education is a field typically dominated by women; however, women are not often in leadership roles in the field. In the same way, using feminist theory for an examination into the lack of people of color and male teachers represented in education might also be useful. Action research is another area that can use feminist theory. Action research is often conducted in the pursuit of establishing changes that are discovered during a project. Feminism and action research are both concerned with creating change, which makes them a natural pairing.

Pre-existing beliefs about what feminism means can make including it in classroom practice or research challenging. Understanding that feminism is about reducing oppression for everyone and sharing that definition can reduce this challenge. hooks (2000) said that, “A male who has divested of male privilege, who has embraced feminist politics, is a worthy comrade in struggle, in no way a threat to feminism, whereas a female who remains wedded to sexist thinking and behavior infiltrating feminist movement is a dangerous threat”(p. 12). As Angela Davis noted during a speech at Western Washington University in 2017, “Everything is a feminist issue.” Feminist theory is about questioning existing structures and whether they are creating barriers for anyone. An interest in the reduction of barriers is feminist. Anyone can believe in the need to eliminate oppression and work as teachers or researchers to actively to disrupt systems of oppression.

Bierema, L. L., & Cseh, M. (2003). Evaluating AHRD research using a feminist research framework.  Human Resource Development Quarterly ,  14 (1), 5–26.

Burton, C. (2014).   Subordination: Feminism and social theory . Routledge.

Earles, J. (2017). Reading gender: A feminist, queer approach to children’s literature and children’s discursive agency.  Gender and Education, 29 (3), 369–388.

Egbert, J., & Sanden, S. (2019).  Foundations of education research: Understanding theoretical components . Taylor & Francis.

Hooks, B. (2000). Feminism is for everybody: Passionate politics . South End Press.

Mackie, A. (1999). Possibilities for feminism in ESL education and research.  TESOL  Quarterly, 33 (3), 566-573.

Pincock, K. (2018). School, sexuality and problematic girlhoods: Reframing ‘empowerment’ discourse.  Third World Quarterly, 39 (5), 906-919.

Share This Book

• Increase Font Size

Live revision! Join us for our free exam revision livestreams Watch now →

Reference Library

Collections

• See what's new
• All Resources
• Student Resources
• Assessment Resources
• Teaching Resources
• CPD Courses
• Livestreams

Study notes, videos, interactive activities and more!

Sociology news, insights and enrichment

Currated collections of free resources

Browse resources by topic

• All Sociology Resources

Resource Selections

Currated lists of resources

• Study Notes

Feminist Views on the Role of Education

Last updated 26 Nov 2019

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share by Email

Feminist sociologists have large areas of agreement with functionalists and Marxists in so far as they see the education system as transmitting a particular set of norms and values into the pupils. However, instead of seeing these as either a neutral value consensus or the values of the ruling class and capitalism, feminists see the education system as transmitting patriarchal values.

For example, Heaton and Lawson (1996) argued that the hidden curriculum taught patriarchal values in schools. They noted traditional family structures in textbooks (along with many other gender stereotypes, subjects aimed towards specific genders, gender divisions in PE and sport and the gender division of labour in schools (predominantly female teachers and male managers).

Liberal feminists would point out these remaining issues of patriarchy in education while also acknowledging significant strides towards equality in the education system. In the 1940s and 50s, under the tripartite system, boys had a lower pass rate for the 11+ than girls (essentially institutionally failing girls in order to ensure more boys can succeed) and some subjects being specifically for one gender or the other used to be institutional rather than based on apparent preference. Today, once subjects become optional, there are quite clear gender preferences for one subject or another, but all subjects are open to all pupils. Perhaps the biggest change, since the 1980s, is that girls now outperform boys in education so if the system is a patriarchal one, designed to favour boys, it is singularly failing. However, Michelle Stanworth (1983), for instance, noted that there will still higher expectations of boys and teachers would be more likely to recommend boys apply for higher education than girls at the same academic level.

Radical feminists argue that the education system is still fundamentally patriarchal and continues to marginalise and oppress women. It does this through some of the processes already noted (reinforcing patriarchal ideology through the formal and hidden curriculum and normalising the marginalisation and oppression of women so that by the time girls leave school they see it as normal and natural rather than as patriarchal oppression). Radical feminist research has also looked at sexual harassment in education and how it is not treated as seriously as other forms of bullying (e.g. Kat Banyard, 2011).

Black and difference feminists point out how not all girls have the same experience in education and that minority-ethnic girls are often victims of specific stereotyping and assumptions. For example, teachers might assume that Muslim girls have different aspirations in relation to career and family from their peers. There have been studies of the specific school experiences of black girls, which we will consider in more detail in future sections.

Where feminists acknowledge that there has been a great deal of improvement for girls in education, they would point to feminism itself as being one of the main reasons for this. Sue Sharpe (1996) found that London schoolgirls in the 1970s had completely different priorities and aspirations from similar girls in 1996. She found that while in the 1970s girls’ priorities were marriage and family, in the 1990s this had switched dramatically to career. While there are a number of potential reasons for this, legislative changes such as the 1970 Equal Pay Act and the 1976 Sex Discrimination Act are likely to have played their part, hence supporting a liberal feminist perspective).

What all feminists agree on is that the education system does work as an agent of secondary socialisation which teaches girls and boys what are seen as universal norms and values and gender scripts that are actually those of contemporary patriarchy and that girls and boys learning these values prevents social change and challenges to patriarchy.

Evaluating feminist views on the role of education

Two features of contemporary education, at least in the UK, which critics of feminist views on education often point out are: 1) education is an increasingly female-dominated sector (most teachers are women, an increasing number of managers are women because they are drawn from the available teachers) and 2) the education system is increasingly resulting in female success and male underperformance. If this is a system designed to ensure men are in the top positions in society and women are marginalised into a domestic role, then it would appear to be failing. The education system is sending more and more girls into higher education (Michelle Stanworth’s research on this is now out of date).

However, while there is clearly some truth in these criticisms, it is still clear that there is a glass ceiling and a gender pay gap so the education system might be creating lots of highly-qualified girls, they are still losing out to their male peers when it comes to top jobs and higher incomes. They are also still more likely to take time off for child-rearing, work part time and to carry out the majority of housework tasks. Feminists point out that the education system largely normalises this (alongside other agents of socialisation such as the family and the media) and so even highly-qualified women often accept this as inevitable or normal. At the same time men are socialised to also consider this normal.

• Hidden curriculum
• Radical Feminism

You might also like

​example answer for question 1 paper 1: a level sociology, june 2017 (aqa).

Exam Support

New research about child poverty

8th December 2017

A Home Education

16th April 2018

'Plastic brains'

16th January 2019

Bowles and Gintis on Education

Topic Videos

Early years education

3rd March 2020

After Covid, will digital learning be the new normal?

2nd February 2021

Anti-racism training in Wales to boost ethnically diverse teachers

18th October 2022

Our subjects

• › Criminology
• › Economics
• › Geography
• › Health & Social Care
• › Psychology
• › Sociology
• › Teaching & learning resources
• › Student revision workshops
• › Online student courses
• › CPD for teachers
• › Livestreams
• › Teaching jobs

Boston House, 214 High Street, Boston Spa, West Yorkshire, LS23 6AD Tel: 01937 848885

• › Contact us
• › Terms of use
• › Privacy & cookies

© 2002-2024 Tutor2u Limited. Company Reg no: 04489574. VAT reg no 816865400.

12.14: Reading: Feminist Theory on Education

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 83901

Feminist Theory

Feminist theory aims to understand the mechanisms and roots of gender inequality in education, as well as their societal repercussions. Like many other institutions of society, educational systems are characterized by unequal treatment and opportunity for women. Almost two-thirds of the world’s 862 million illiterate people are women, and the illiteracy rate among women is expected to increase in many regions, especially in several African and Asian countries (UNESCO 2005; World Bank 2007).

Women in the United States have been relatively late, historically speaking, to be granted entry to the public university system. In fact, it wasn’t until the establishment of Title IX of the Education Amendments in 1972 that discriminating on the basis of sex in U.S. education programs became illegal. In the United States, there is also a post-education gender disparity between what male and female college graduates earn. A study released in May 2011 showed that, among men and women who graduated from college between 2006 and 2010, men out-earned women by an average of more than $5,000 each year. First-year job earnings for men averaged $33,150; for women the average was $28,000 (Godofsky, Zukin, and van Horn 2011). Similar trends are seen among salaries of professionals in virtually all industries.

When women face limited opportunities for education, their capacity to achieve equal rights, including financial independence, are limited. Feminist theory seeks to promote women’s rights to equal education (and its resultant benefits) across the world.

• Introduction to Sociology 2e. Authored by : OpenStax CNX. Located at : http://cnx.org/contents/02040312-72c8-441e-a685-20e9333f3e1d/Introduction_to_Sociology_2e . License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Download for free at http://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]
• female graduates in 1903. Authored by : Snyder, Frank R.u00a0. Provided by : Wikipedia. Located at : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Group_of_women_in_cap_and_gown_at_Western_College_on_Tree_Day_1903_(3191801017).jpg . License : Public Domain: No Known Copyright

A Guide to Feminist Pedagogy

• [framework for this guide]
• Rooted in Epistemology
• Construction of Knowledge
• The Role of Experience & Emotions
• Critical View of Power & Authority
• The Complexity of Identity
• The Importance of Community
• Course Design
• Learning Environment
• A Few Examples
• Works Cited
• How We Wrote It

Introduction to This Guide

Feminist pedagogy is not a toolbox, a collection of strategies, a list of practices, or a specific classroom arrangement.  It is an overarching philosophy—a theory of teaching and learning that integrates feminist values with related theories and research on teaching and learning.

It begins with our beliefs and motivations:   why do we teach? why do students learn? what are the goals of learning? We know that the consequences of our motives for teaching and learning are significant: Keith Trigwell and Mike Prosser have shown that the instructor’s intentions in teaching (“why the person adopts a particular strategy”) have a greater impact on student learning than the instructor’s actual strategies for teaching (“what the person does”) (78). Their research has shown that approaches to teaching that are purposefully focused on the students and aimed at changing conceptual frameworks lead to deeper learning practices than teacher-centered, information-driven approaches (Trigwell 98). The implications are that the instructor’s fundamental beliefs and values about teaching, learning, and knowledge-making matter .

In this guide, we explain some of the fundamental beliefs, values, and intentions behind feminist pedagogy to inform a deliberate application in specific classrooms –any and all classrooms, as feminist pedagogy can inform any disciplinary context. (For a more focused exploration of feminist pedagogy specifically within the women’s studies classroom, see Holly Hassel and Nerissa Nelson’s “A Signature Feminist Pedagogy: Connection and Transformation in Women’s Studies.”)

This guide is not a primer on feminism, though, so we begin having assumed the following:

We live within a patriarchy, a term which we define—following the work of Allan Johnson—as a society that’s structure is “male-dominated, male-centered, and male-identified” (5). For more, read Allan Johnson’s Gender Knot , particularly chapter one, “Where are we?” and   chapter two, “Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us.” Differences exist “between and among groups” of people based on lived experiences that are informed by the complex interactions between “history, culture, power, and ideology” (McLaren 43). For more, read Peter McLaren’s taxonomy of approaches to difference . The concept of “woman” does not exist in isolation from other identities. Rather, identity is “intersectional,” a term that recognizes the interlocking and inextricable relationship between different aspects of identity and systems of oppression. For more, read Kimberlé Crenshaw’s “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color.”  

How This Guide Was Written

-- See how composition process matched our subject matter.

-- Learn about the eight authors of this guide.

Guide Co-authors:

March , 2015

Raquelle Bostow Sherry Brewer Nancy Chick Ben Galina

Allison McGrath Kirsten Mendoza Kristen Navarro Lis Valle-Ruiz

<-- About the authors <-- How we wrote this guide on behalf of the Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

27 Feminist Philosophy and Education

Nel Noddings is Lee Jacks Professor of Education Emerita, Stanford University. Her latest books are Critical Lessons: What Our Schools Should Teach (2006) and When School Reform Goes Wrong (2007).

• Published: 02 January 2010
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This article examines feminist approaches to the philosophy of education. It suggests that the philosophy of education should be an ideal domain for the analysis and application of feminist philosophy. It discusses John Dewey's opinion that there is a sense in which philosophy is the philosophy of education and that our schools should be mini-societies that reflect our best conception of what our larger society should be. It highlights the efforts of feminists to upgrade first generation ideas on liberal feminism.

Over the last thirty years, feminist philosophy has grown in quantity, if not in influence. Its growth has followed (roughly) the three generations of feminist thought described by Julia Kristeva ( 1982 ). In the first, emphasis is placed on women's oppression, and equality with men is the main goal. In the second, concentration is on women's agency, and questions are raised about uncritical assimilation into the male world. In the third, feminist philosophers critique previous generations of thought, and suggest new (or defend old) patterns of thought. These categories are better interpreted as centers of concentration than as “generations” because we find them scattered across the decades of activity in feminism. In what follows, I use this structure to organize the chapter. I use the last section to concentrate on feminist critiques in philosophy of education.

1. Women's Oppression

Feminist scholars treat a great variety of topics, but the issue of women's oppression and long struggle for equality is of central importance. It may, indeed, be regarded as the defining feature of feminism. The history of feminist philosophy confirms this interest, but it also reveals conflicts that have arisen from feminist commitments. A pessimist might describe the pursuit of feminist philosophy as a no‐win project. In fact, Margaret Urban Walker ( 2005 ) has recently made comments to that effect. A woman who chooses to do feminist philosophy may find herself rejected as a philosopher.

There have always been women philosophers. (See the four‐volume history of women philosophers edited by Mary Ellen Waithe, 1987 , 1989, 1991, 1995; see also a special issue on American women philosophers in Hypatia , Spring 2004 .) But for the most part, they have been ignored in their own period, co‐opted by male writers, and discarded entirely over time. Walker comments on the fate of Diotima, reputedly the teacher of Socrates: “she did not just disappear from the history of philosophy. She was reduced to a figment of that great man's imagination” (2005, p. 155). We will probably never know whether Diotima was a real person.

For today's women philosophers, a conflict arises in the choice to do feminist philosophy. Walker says of it, “It is a kind of philosophy, not a female or feminine activity,” and it “is a method, not a topic” (2005, p. 157). But there is little agreement on this. Some women philosophers are analytic philosophers, and for them feminist philosophy is more a set of topics than a method. (See the special issue of Hypatia devoted to analytic feminism, Fall 2005 .) Clearly, there are also feminist existentialists and pragmatists as well. Insofar as it is a method in itself—like, say, existentialism or pragmatism—it runs the same risk as other methods, that of relative isolation as a specialty, but the risk is enormously increased by the fact that most of its practitioners are women.

There are, however, excellent examples of feminist philosophy as method. One of the best known is “standpoint epistemology” (Harding 1996 ; Hartsock 1983 ; Hekman 1997 ). As method, standpoint epistemology holds that we get nearer to a true objectivity if we look at phenomena and situations through a variety of perspectives. We should give up the faulty, largely fictitious notion of a neutral or universal perspective. As one perspective in the category of standpoint epistemology, feminist epistemology looks at the world through the eyes of women. This does not in itself imply a loss of “objectivity” because it admits at the outset that, to achieve objectivity (if that is possible), we need the perspectives of all stake holders.

Still, there are problems. In educational philosophy, Barbara Thayer‐Bacon ( 2000 ) has given a useful and persuasive account of standpoint theory and the difficulties it faces. In particular, it risks re‐inscribing some of the features found so objectionable in traditional philosophy, such as privileging certain voices within the feminist community. How can anyone speak from the standpoint of all women? It is an open question whether these difficulties can be avoided. For present purposes, feminist standpoint epistemology offers an example of feminist philosophy as method . It is not a set of topics.

There is some risk, too, in rejecting the notion that feminist philosophy is a female activity. Thirty years ago, as feminist theory got a new start, feminist scholars often talked about solidarity with other women; they pledged themselves to interdisciplinary work within academe and to social efforts in the larger community. However, this is not the way to get ahead in universities, and women scholars had to blend their feminist work with approved specialties in other fields. They were challenged with the question: Are you a scholar or an activist? Answering that question changed the tone of feminist studies.

An important element of solidarity has remained among feminist philosophers within the academy. Black feminists have contributed to both liberal and radical feminist philosophy. (See, for example, Patricia Hill Collins 1990 , 1995 ; also the essays by Kimberle Williams Crenshaw and bell hooks in Meyers 1997 .) Their work has influenced the direction of discussions not only on race and equality but also on family, community, and schooling (Walker 1996 ).

The struggle with the question—scholar or activist?—helps to explain why so much feminist philosophy falls into the category of social or political philosophy. Much of this work has helped to keep the original feminist commitment alive. Alison Jaggar, for example, has described feminism as political philosophy. She notes that “feminist political philosophers…use both traditional and nontraditional categories in attempting to describe and evaluate women's experience” (1983, p. 7). Issues concerning childbirth, love, maternal work, childcare, and sexuality are brought into philosophical discourse. “By seeking to extend the traditional domain of political philosophy, contemporary feminism challenges both existing political theories and our conception of political philosophy itself” (Jaggar 1983 , p. 7). This line of thinking remains strong today. Feminist philosophers may, for example, identify themselves as Marxist, liberal, radical, or socialist (Tuana and Tong 1995 ).

The effects of this work have been felt across disciplinary lines. Feminist theologians, nursing theorists, historians, psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists, and legal theorists have all contributed to the analysis of human life as embodied in women (Noddings 1990 ). However, the real social effects seem to emerge primarily from the social sciences. In a recent comprehensive work on women's well‐being, there is no sign of influence from feminist philosophy (Bianchi, Casper, and King 2005 ), and a check of the indexes of books in political philosophy often reveals mention of “children's rights” or “families” but rarely anything on women, feminism, or bodies of any sort.

That said, there does appear to be a revival of interest in creatural existence within philosophy, and philosophers of education have contributed to this literature (O'Loughlin 2006 ). One feature of this revival is increased attention to emotions and everyday life in education (Boler 1999 ; Noddings 2003b ). Questions have been raised about the traditional curriculum and why it is virtually devoid of topics that have been central to women's lives (Martin 1984 , 1985 , 1992 ; Noddings 1992/2005 , 2006a ).

Feminist philosophy has also exerted considerable influence through critiques of traditional philosophy. Susan Moller Okin ( 1979 ) has given us accounts of male philosophers who supported women's equality and of others who spoke powerfully against it. Her critique of Rousseau is especially important for educators. For years, it was not unusual for philosophers of education to extol Rousseau as the philosopher of freedom and his Emile as the book that describes an appropriate education for free citizens. However, one could hardly hold this view unreservedly after reading Book 5 of Emile . In that book, Rousseau advocates an education for Sophie that should keep her subservient to Emile. She is not to think for herself, and she is to be both sexually alluring and chaste—“both virgin and prostitute” (Okin 1979 , p. 101).

Critiques of science have also been prominent in feminist philosophy. The most convincing acknowledge the enormous success of science while noting its domination by males and male thinking. Evelyn Fox Keller puts it well in describing two different discourses on science: “One an increasingly radical critique that fails to account for the effectiveness of science, and the other a justification that draws confidence from that effectiveness to maintain a traditional, and essentially unchanged, philosophy of science” (1985, p. 6).

From this perspective, several goals for feminist philosophy of science might be established: (1) to open scientific fields to women; (2) to show how science might be improved by expanding its methods; (3) to transform the scientific description of women and women's experience; and (4) to encourage interdisciplinary work within the sciences and between science and the humanities.

Jane Roland Martin ( 1985 ), concentrating specifically on education in her critiques, also gives us a devastating evaluation of Rousseau's recommendations for women's education. In addition to critiques of Rousseau, Plato, Wollstonecraft, Beecher, and Gilman, Martin is particularly interested in the connection between feminist theory and philosophy of education. If we are serious about education for human life, why in our curriculum planning do we persist in ignoring topics and activities central to female lives?

I, too, have discussed this question (Noddings 1992/2005 , 2006a ). For example, I have offered an analysis of evil from the perspective of women (Noddings 1989 ). It is clear, however, that this is a woman's view and not that of all women. Women have suffered for centuries under a succession of myths fabricated by men, myths blaming the origin of evil on women—on Pandora, Eve, witches, and lamias. Ridding religion of these pernicious myths is crucially important (Daly 1974 ), and philosophers and educators should give more attention to the sort of religious education that might accomplish this (Noddings 1993 ). Moreover, without the distraction and mystification of theological views of evil, we might look more clearly at the human condition and work toward the reduction of moral evil.

Feminist commitment to the alleviation of suffering and the elimination of oppression has led quite naturally to a concern for the welfare of other oppressed groups. Feminist philosophers are actively engaged in the identification and analysis of the oppression experienced by racial minorities, the disabled, and homosexuals. See, for example, special issues of Hypatia devoted to race: 22, no. 2 (Spring 2007 ); to maternal bodies 21, no. 1 (Winter 2006 ).

This is commendable, but it triggers another conflict for feminists. If we work for the elimination of such a wide range of oppression, will we thereby dilute efforts to improve the condition of women as a specific group? This was the dilemma faced by feminists during and after the Civil War. Having worked hard for the abolition of slavery, feminists were then betrayed when politicians decided to push for the voting rights of black men and postpone consideration of women's suffrage (Ward and Burns 1999 ). Neither Elizabeth Cady Stanton nor Susan B. Anthony lived to see the justice they had worked for so many years to achieve.

Most feminists today defend decisions to work against all forms of oppression. They do this in full knowledge that even today women earn only 75 percent of what equally qualified men earn for roughly the same work, and we still do most of the housework and childcare. Women are still discriminated against in religious institutions that would collapse without their support. Of all groups, perhaps, women are the most complicit in our own oppression. The reason for this docility is probably that there are rewards as well as penalties in women's subservience, and many white women in the Western world—certainly most of those writing about oppression—are reasonably well‐off economically. When others are suffering so much more obviously, it is hard to push one's own case, but this is a continuing dilemma for feminists.

Still another dilemma for feminists trying to overcome women's oppression is the question of how to fit into the world created by men. Much of feminist philosophy has its roots in liberal philosophy, and one of its main aims is to achieve equality for women. In education, there has been a steady and largely successful campaign to increase the participation of women at all levels of education but, again, the outcomes are not all rosy. Insisting on the inclusion of women in social studies texts, for example, has resulted in an “add women and stir” approach. The test for inclusion seems to be whether any woman, however obscure, has contributed anything to the activities dominated by men. This is very different from changing the curriculum to include tasks and interests traditionally associated with women. The male‐structured curriculum remains, and women are fitted into paragraphs here and there.

This observation reminds us of a deeper, more lasting conflict. The problem was posed in the 1930s by Virginia Woolf. On the one hand, Woolf wanted to increase opportunities for women in the public world. She prescribed a “room of one's own” for women writers, and confessed to killing that obsequious creature, the Angel in the House. But she worried about the sort of world women would perpetuate if they joined the procession of educated men:

Do we wish to join that procession, or don't we? On what terms shall we join the procession? Above all, where is it leading us, the procession of educated men?…What is this “civilization”? What are these ceremonies and why should we take part in them? What are these professions and why should we make money out of them? Where in short is it leading us, the procession of the sons of educated men? (1938/1966, pp. 62–63)

Her questions still trouble us.

2. Women's Agency

Although women have suffered (and still suffer) oppression, they have also exercised agency, and historians have led the way in bringing attention to women's agency (Beard 1946/1962 ; Kerber 1997 ). In philosophy, women's agency often appears in views that develop a distinctive way of approaching social problems. Taking Woolf's questions seriously, these views seek a transformation of the society in which women will be equal partners and citizens (Offen 1988 ).

The ethic of care (Held 1995 ; Noddings 1984/2003 ) is an example of feminist philosophy that recognizes the dignity and moral importance of women's traditional work and uses it to articulate an alternative approach to moral life and thought. Relation, response to needs, familial care, and social responsibility were all elements of eighteenth‐and nineteenth‐century women's movements. Wollstonecraft ( 1792/1975 ) argued for the rights of women (particularly with respect to education), partly on the grounds that women would be better wives and mothers if they had better education. Similarly, Ellen Key (see Offen 1988 ) argued for state support for all mothers, and the great suffragists of Britain and the United States often emphasized women's sensitivity to human need as a reason to accord voting rights to women. Besides the standard suffragist arguments for extending the vote (equality, representation), advocates argued strongly that the moral orientation of women would bring a more humane and sensitive approach to public life. Most of us today reject the idea that women are morally superior to men, just as we reject the centuries‐old claim that preceded it: that women are morally inferior because of some lack in reasoning power. But, that caveat aside, it is a fact that there is a measurable gap between men and women on social issues; women, in general, do vote more liberally on social issues than men. Still, neither the utopian improvement predicted by feminists nor the rational disaster predicted by misogynists has come to pass.

Formal articulation of an ethic of care began in the 1980s—in psychology (Gilligan 1982 ), philosophy (Noddings 1984 / 2003 ), nursing (Watson 1979 ), and sociology (Waerness 1984 ). Interestingly, none of these writers seemed aware of each other's work at the time of initial writing. An intellectual history of caring and care ethics cannot be undertaken here, but it is important to note that the work was interdisciplinary from the start. By the late 1980s, scholars writing on the ethic of care recognized and drew on one another's work.

My own work was strongly influenced by the relational philosophy of Martin Buber ( 1958 / 1970 , 1965 ), and it was some time after the publication of Caring ( 1984 / 2003 ) that I became aware of feminist connections. In contrast, Sara Ruddick ( 1989 ) acknowledges the influence of many feminists, among them Jean Baker Miller ( 1976 ), Nancy Chodorow ( 1978 ), Adrienne Rich ( 1976 ), Dorothy Dinnerstein ( 1976 ), Iris Murdoch ( 1970 ), and Simone Weil ( 1977 ).

The publication of Gilligan's In a Different Voice ( 1982 ) triggered a wide range of debate. Questions were asked about the gender differences suggested by the study, and a lively debate arose over the perceived conflict between justice and caring. Both Ruddick and I explicitly stated that men are capable of caring and of maternal thinking, and Gilligan was careful to point out that, although the care‐response was discovered in interviews with women, this did not imply that it is the exclusive property of women. Some of us now think that we were too quick to downplay gender differences and that much more should be done in this area.

Current thinking acknowledges the need for both justice and caring (Katz, Noddings, and Strike 1999 ; Tronto 1993 ), but interesting questions remain. Which is primary? Must they be applied in different domains? Are they reasonably applied in phases? I have argued that caring provides the foundation for a sense of justice (Noddings 2002b ), and Okin's critique of Rawls implies a similar claim (Okin 1989 ). We can ask also whether decisions made using principles of justice leave important human concerns unfinished. For example, if the firing of a teacher is justified on principle, is there no further moral obligation to that teacher? I have argued that, in many such cases, caring picks up where justice leaves off.

A division of application by domain—public or private sphere—is not convincing. Feminist philosophers have shown both that caring is useful in the public domain and that justice is applicable in the private domain (Held 1993 ; Tronto 1993 ). The key point for application of caring‐for is direct contact between the carer and the cared‐for. This requirement limits both opportunity and obligation. If we are not in a position to receive the response of the cared‐for, there can be no caring relation. However, we can care‐about others when there is no direct contact, and this caring‐about may be guided by principles of justice. But it must be guided also by the intention to establish or maintain conditions under which caring‐for can take place.

For the past few years, a lively discussion has been conducted over the connection between care ethics and virtue ethics (Noddings 2000 , 2006b ; Sander‐Staudt 2006 ; Slote 2000 ). The two are similar in several respects. Both put little emphasis on rules and principles as guides to moral action. Virtue ethics looks to the character of moral agents; care ethics depends on an ethical ideal of caring that is constructed over years of acting as one‐caring. But a difference emerges even here. Care ethics puts emphasis on natural caring that requires no moral effort on the part of carers. In natural caring, we respond as carers because we are genuinely moved by the needs of the cared‐for and want to respond to them. Effort—sometimes great effort—may be required in meeting the needs, but no moral effort is required as motivation.

When the motivation of natural caring fails, ethical caring must be summoned, and how effectively this can be done depends on the strength of the ideal of caring present in the carer. On this, care ethics and virtue ethics agree; only the terminology differs. However, another difference appears. An agent acting on ethical caring may act as though she would act in natural caring, but she has an additional task and that is to exercise whatever virtues are needed to restore conditions that will support natural caring. Virtually all of us prefer to be cared‐for, or treated well, out of love or concern. We are made uneasy by generous acts done out of duty or righteousness. Ethical caring is admirable, even necessary, but it poses a risk to caring relations. The carer's attention is too concentrated on herself.

Both care ethics and virtue ethics recognize caring as a virtue, but care ethics anchors the virtue in the caring relation. Someone who regularly establishes caring relations may be said to exhibit the virtue of caring. He or she may rightly be said to be a caring person. In a caring relation, both carer and cared‐for contribute. The cared‐for must recognize the efforts of the carer as caring in order to complete the relation. No matter how great the carer's efforts, if the cared‐for does not recognize those efforts, there is no caring relation. This does not mean that the would‐be carer deserves no moral credit for her efforts. It means that something has gone wrong; it may be the fault of the carer, of the cared‐for, or of the situation in which they find themselves. In teaching, the situation is often at fault. Teachers try to care, and students claim that they want care, but there are no caring relations (Noddings 2006b ). I'll return to this problem in the last section, when we look at the contributions of philosophy of education to feminist philosophy.

Care ethics and virtue ethics also agree that it is impossible for any moral agent to care for everyone. An early criticism of my version of caring claimed that it was provincial, too tightly tied to the inner or family circle. This arose mainly through a misunderstanding. I said—and still insist—that we cannot care‐for everyone; caring‐for requires direct contact, some means of receiving a response of recognition from the cared‐for. But this does not mean that we cannot care‐about strangers and people at a distance, and I believe that we often have an obligation to care‐about others. Slote ( 1998 ) approaches this difficult problem by prescribing “balanced caring”—caring‐for (and caring‐about) those close to us and also for distant others whose needs have come to our attention. Care ethics speaks of caring‐for in direct encounters and caring‐about in cases where no direct encounter is possible. But once again, care ethicists are guided by the perceived need to work toward conditions under which caring‐for can flourish. It is not enough, for example, to pay for food that may or may not reach the hungry. We must somehow evaluate the effects of our efforts, and even getting food to the hungry is not enough; we have to ask what might be done to establish conditions under which fewer such emergencies will occur. Probably, virtue and care ethicists are largely in agreement on this.

Some critics argue that care theory needs to say more about the obligation to care (Engster 2005 ). This is true, but it must be done with caution. Slote ( 1998 ) handles this problem carefully in his discussion of balanced caring. Attempts to define the distribution of our caring duties more closely may actually warp the underlying conception of care. Caring as a moral orientation, described phenomenologically, contains an embedded concept of obligation—to respond to those who address us. It is—like every thoughtful conception of obligation—loaded with conflicts, and these should be discussed, but there can be no formula (within care theory) to eliminate them.

Recently, some writers have argued that caring should be redefined as a practice. As such, it can be said to have particular aims (Engster 2005 ). This strikes some of us as dangerous, because what is actually done by carers differs not only across cultures but, more basically, across situations and individuals (Okin 2003 ). In the attempt to redefine caring as a practice instead of a moral orientation, the deepest contributions of care theory may inadvertently be lost. Caring may be reduced to caregiving or caretaking.

This move—to describe caring as a practice—may indeed aggravate fears expressed earlier by feminist critics who worried that an emphasis on caring valorizes a genderized virtue and may thus lead to the continued exploitation of women. This objection to care ethics was raised early on at an APA symposium on Caring. Thoughtful comments along these lines were made by Claudia Card, Barbara Houston, and Sarah Hoagland (see the account in Hypatia 5, no.1 [Spring 1990 ]). It seemed to be answered by clarifying caring as a moral orientation, not simply a series of caregiving acts. But another answer is to teach boys as well as girls to engage in the practices associated with caring so that the orientation may develop in both. Feminist philosophers rightly want to avoid an Aristotelian position on virtue—one that separates male and female virtues, elevating the male over the female. This concern illustrates again a persistent difference between liberal feminism and the more radical feminism of care theory. With Virginia Woolf, we are ambivalent about joining the procession of educated men without changing the destination of the procession.

Part of the debate between virtue ethics and care ethics appears in discussions of Confucianism. Again, there are striking similarities. Both put great emphasis on relationships (Herr 2003 ; Star 2002 ). But the requirements of caring in Confucianism are governed more by formal relationships than by the encounter, address, and response of care ethics. Daniel Star notes “that Confucian ethics is better thought of as a virtue ethics than a care ethics” ( 2002 , p. 98). He argues strongly for the distinctiveness of care ethics. In contrast, Chenyang Li ( 1994 ) supports some virtue ethicists in analyzing care ethics as a type of virtue ethics. Henry Rosemont ( 1997 ), too, declares that Confucian ethics is compatible with feminist ethics, primarily because of their common interest in social relationships. Probably most care theorists agree with Star that the difference in approaches to relationships makes the two ethics distinct.

One important similarity between Confucian and care ethics is their emphasis on the motivational importance of emotion or feeling. The work of Mencius underscores the basic role of commiseration in moral life. His famous example of the response of observers to the plight of a child about to fall into a well is meant to illustrate how “good” human beings react directly to perceived need. They do not consult principles, nor do they refer to formal relationships; they leap to save the child.

3. Critiques and Applications in Philosophy of Education

Philosophy of education should be an ideal domain for the analysis and application of feminist philosophy. As Dewey pointed out years ago, there is a sense in which philosophy is philosophy of education, and he also suggested that our schools should be mini‐societies that reflect our best conception of what our larger society should be. For an introduction to feminist philosophy of education, readers might consult the volume edited by Lynda Stone ( 1994 ). This collection of classic pieces includes work on self and identity, education and schooling, knowledge and curriculum, teaching and pedagogy, and diversity and multiculturalism.

Woolf's concern about joining the procession of educated men is especially pertinent in education itself. It seems clear that educators and policymakers have addressed the concern with an enthusiastic endorsement of women's inclusion in the affairs of men. Most of our colleges and universities are now co‐educational, and in high school girls now outnumber boys in advanced mathematics classes. These seem to be positive steps, and liberal feminists see much to celebrate. Radical feminists and care theorists, however, express some reservations.

Liberal feminists are concerned, of course, by the continuing wage gap between women and men, and they deplore the paucity of women at the highest levels of business and government. They are also troubled by the sexism and violence suffered by women in the military. Their basic mission is to achieve equality in the man‐made world.

Feminist philosophers of education have raised questions about the single‐minded drive for equality. When the curriculum is constructed entirely around the knowledge arising from male experience, women are excluded even if they are allowed to participate (Martin 1982 ). The traditional activities and concerns of women do not appear in the curriculum. Where, for example, do we find parenting, making a home, love, marriage, and caregiving? Educators have long regarded such topics as nonintellectual—things to be learned with ease at home—but feminist philosophers of education have pointed out that these topics can be as intellectually challenging as any others and have the added merit of addressing the problems of real life (Noddings 1984 / 2003 , 2003 , 2006a ). We are not even close to achieving a gender‐inclusive curriculum.

How should gender be treated in educational theory and practice? (On this question, see the probing analyses in Diller, Houston, Morgan, and Ayim, 1996 .) A gender‐blind approach would, by default to the status quo, be an approach constructed by and for males—technically open to both males and females without discrimination. Thinking of this sort led to questions about why women lagged behind men in mathematics and science. The accepted answer was discrimination , and the remedy was to encourage—even push—young women to take more math and science courses in high school and college. Policymakers and educators, eager to escape the charge of discrimination, did not think to ask what young women are interested in, what they want to do. At the secondary‐school level, the goal has been accomplished; more girls than boys are taking advanced math classes. However, girls still score significantly lower on the math SAT, and they now score somewhat lower on the verbal SAT as well.

A worry arises that girls are being pushed into subjects that may not hold great interest for them and discouraged from following occupational lines at which they might excel. This is not a simple matter. Thoughtful people welcome expanding opportunities for girls, but “opportunity” sometimes becomes “coercion.” It is one thing to encourage girls who are interested and talented in mathematics; it is quite another to suggest that intelligent girls are “too good” for literature, early childhood education, or social work.

A fundamental problem, as Morwenna Griffiths ( 2006 ) has pointed out, is a hegemonic masculinity. That hegemony continues to dominate educational thought and practice, as it dominates all of public life. Consider, for example, the everyday matter of dress. It is entirely acceptable today for a woman to wear pants suits in professional settings. It is close to unthinkable for a man to appear at the office in skirt, blouse, pearls, and high heels. It is more acceptable for a woman to act like a man than for a man to act like a woman. The goal should not be to reverse this hegemony, nor should it be to forge a gender‐neutral society. The philosophical problem is to analyze attributes of both traditions, identify what is humanly excellent in each, and suggest ways in which we can learn from one another. Some work along these lines has been discussed by Rhoads and Calderone ( 2007 ) with respect to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered students, but not with respect to women as a dominated group.

Seeking a healthy convergence, we might return to concerns about the career opportunities proffered to high school students. Policymakers worried that girls were “lagging behind” boys in mathematics, but they expressed no concern that boys rarely choose careers in the so‐called caring professions. Nor is there great concern that salaries in those professions continue to lag behind those in the traditionally male professions. The issues here are complicated, but the initial impetus for feminist studies in academe—solidarity with our sisters—seems to have been lost or, at least, weakened. Now it is to the advantage of successful women to have poorly paid women clean their houses and care for their children.

A problem that can be identified in much of the preceding discussion is the conundrum of difference. Physical differences exist. But gender , in contrast to sex, is a social construct, and difference in the context of gender has always been defined as difference from the masculine norm. Difference, as Catherine MacKinnon ( 1987 ) has so forcefully argued, is a sign of and a product of dominance. However, there are gender differences that are products of centuries of cultural evolution, and some of these—extended maternal love, for example—are rooted in biology. Thus, it might be wiser to work toward the elimination of unfounded hierarchy in discussions of difference than to ignore difference entirely. When a difference is identified, it is beneficial to ask whether each element has its place or whether one is likely to contribute more to human well‐being. MacKinnon is right that, historically, gender differences have been decided a priori in favor of males. Not nearly enough work is being done by philosophers of education on the conceptual problems associated with gender differences.

Feminist philosophy of education has had some influence through care ethics on moral education. It might be expected that because of the similarities between care ethics and virtue ethics, moral education from the care perspective would have much in common with character education (Noddings and Slote 2003 ). The potential is there (see Slote, this volume). What stands in the way is character education's longstanding practice of trying to teach the virtues directly. First, since the time of Socrates, doubts have been raised about the possibility of doing this. But, second, care theory probes beneath the surface of the named virtues to find what supports them. For example, I have asked the question: Are the virtues always virtuous? (Noddings 2002a ). Slote ( 1992 ) is also interested in what lies behind the various virtues, but his purpose is primarily to develop a stronger foundation for virtue ethics. We agree (I think) that the underlying test for a virtuous act is its intention, coupled with its effect in bringing harm or good to other people.

One model of moral education based on care ethics involves modeling, dialogue, practice, and confirmation (Noddings 1984 / 2003 , 2002a ). The first element, modeling, is common in most schemes of moral education. Teachers must show , in their own conduct, the ways in which they want students to behave. Dialogue has several purposes. It is through dialogue that teachers come to know their students, and it is in dialogue that teachers raise questions, suggest possibilities, and guide students toward moral thinking. Practice gives students opportunities to employ the moral knowledge and skills discussed. Dialogue and practice working together may be considered acts of induction as Martin Hoffman ( 2000 ) has described it. The purpose is to develop a capacity for empathy (see Slote, this volume) or, as expressed by care theorists, for engrossment or receptive attention. Finally, the care model posits confirmation , a teacher's continuing efforts to help students realize their own best selves.

The first three elements have been widely accepted in moral education (Charney 1992 ; Stengel and Tom 2006 ; Watson 2003 ), but confirmation is rarely mentioned. I have described confirmation as “one of the loveliest ideas in moral life” (Noddings 2006a , p. 113). To recognize in another a better self struggling to realize itself is indeed a lovely act. But confirmation cannot be done by formula; it is not a strategy. To confirm another, we need to know that other reasonably well. It requires the establishment of caring relations. Philosophers of education are now giving considerable attention to the importance of relations in teaching (Bingham and Sidorkin 2004 ; Johnston 2006 ; Sidorkin 2002 ; Thayer‐Bacon 2000 ).

Summing up what we have reviewed in feminist philosophy and philosophy of education—and with the understanding that reasonable people may differ on what they see in looking at the field—it seems that feminists are concentrating now on upgrading “first generation” ideas on liberal feminism and equality. Radical feminism and agency are still discussed, but much attention seems to be directed at equality in professional life, multicultural problems, and problems of sexual minorities. This is much needed work, but the trend is reminiscent of what happened to mid‐nineteenth‐century feminists: a morally driven delay in the development of feminist ideas that might transform the whole social/political domain.

Beard, Mary R. ( 1946 /1962). Woman as a force in history . New York: Collier Books.

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Bianchi, Suzanne , Lynne M. Casper , and Rosalind Berkowitz King (Eds.). ( 2005 ). Work, family, health, and well‐being . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bingham, Charles , and Alexander Sidorkin (Eds.). ( 2004 ). No education without relation . New York: Peter Lang.

Boler, Megan . ( 1999 ). Feeling and reason in the arts . New York: Routledge.

Buber, Martin . ( 1958 /1970). I and Thou , trans. by Walter Kaufmann . New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

—— ( 1965 ). Between man and man . New York: Macmillan.

Charney, Ruth . ( 1992 ). Teaching children to care. Greenfield, MA: Northeast Foundation for Children.

Chodorow, Nancy . ( 1978 ). The reproduction of mothering . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Collins, Patricia Hill . ( 1990 ). Black feminist thought . Boston: Unwin Hyman.

—— ( 1995 ). Black women and motherhood. In Justice and care , ed. Virginia Held (pp. 117–38). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Daly, Mary . ( 1974 ). Beyond God the father . Boston: Beacon Press.

Diller, Ann , Barbara Houston , Kathryn Pauly Morgan , and Maryann Ayim . ( 1996 ). The gender question in education . Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Dinnerstein, Dorothy . ( 1976 ). The mermaid and minotaur: Sexual arrangements and human malaise . New York: Harper.

Engster, Daniel . ( 2005 ). Rethinking care theory: The practice of caring and the obligation to care.   Hypatia 20(3): 50–74.

Gilligan, Carol J. ( 1982 ). In a different voice . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Griffiths, Morwenna . ( 2006 ). The feminization of teaching and the practice of teaching.   Educational Theory 56(4): 387–405.

Harding, Sandra . ( 1996 ). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is “strong objectivity”? In Feminist epistemologies , ed. Linda Alcoff and E. Potter (pp. 49–82). New York: Routledge.

Hartsock, Nancy . ( 1983 ). The feminist standpoint: Developing the grounds for a specifically feminist historical materialism. In Discovering reality , ed. S. Harding and M. B. Hintikka (pp. 283–310). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

Hekman, Susan J. ( 1997 ). Truth and method: Feminist standpoint theory revisited.   Signs 22(2): 341–65. 10.1086/495159

Held, Virginia . ( 1993 ). Feminist morality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

—— (Ed.). ( 1995 ). Justice and care . Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Herr, Ranjoo Seodu . ( 2003 ). Is Confucianism compatible with care ethics?   Philosophy East and West 53(4): 471–89. 10.1353/pew.2003.0039

Hoffman, Martin . ( 2000 ). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hypatia . ( 1990 , Spring). Symposium on carin g . Hypatia 5(1): 101–26.

—— ( 2004 , Spring). Special issue: Women in the American philosophical tradition 1800–1930. Hypatia 19(2).

—— (2005, Fall). Special issue: Analytic feminism. Hypatia 20(4).

—— ( 2006 , Winter). Special issue: Maternal bodies.   Hypatia 21(1).

—— (2007, Spring). Special issue: The reproduction of whiteness: Race and the regulation of the gendered body. Hypatia 22(2).

Jaggar, Alison, M. ( 1983 ). Feminist politics and human nature . Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.

Johnston, D. Kay ( 2006 ). Education for a caring society . New York: Teachers College Press.

Katz, Michael , Nel Noddings , and Kenneth Strike (Eds.). ( 1999 ). Justice and caring: The search for common ground in education . New York: Teachers College Press.

Keller, Evelyn Fox . ( 1985 ). Reflections on gender and science . New Haven: Yale University Press.

Kerber, Linda . ( 1997 ). Toward an intellectual history of women . Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Kristeva, Julia . ( 1982 ). Women's time. In Feminist theory: A critique of ideology , ed. N. O. Keohane , M. Z. Rosaldo , and B. C. Gelpi (pp. 31–54). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Li, Chenyang . ( 1994 ). The Confucian concept of jen and the feminist ethics of care: A comparative study.   Hypatia 9(1): 70–89.

MacKinnon, Catherine A. ( 1987 ). Feminism unmodified . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Martin, Jane Roland . ( 1982 ). Excluding women from the educational realm.   Harvard Educational Review 52(2): 133–48.

—— ( 1984 ). Bringing women into educational thought . Educational Theory 34(4): 341–54.

—— ( 1985 ). Reclaiming a conversation . New Haven: Yale University Press.

—— ( 1992 ). The schoolhome: Rethinking schools for changing families . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Meyers, Diana Tietjens . (Ed.). ( 1997 ). Feminist social thought: A reader . New York: Routledge.

Miller, Jean Baker . ( 1976 ). Toward a new psychology of women . Boston: Beacon Press.

Murdoch, Iris . ( 1970 ). The sovereignty of good. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Noddings, Nel . ( 1984 /2003). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education , 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press.

—— ( 1989 ). Women and evil . Berkeley: University of California Press.

—— ( 1990 ). Feminist critiques in the professions. In Review of research in education 16 , ed. Courtney B. Cazden (pp. 393–424). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

—— ( 1993 ). Educating for intelligent belief or unbelief . New York: Teachers College Press.

—— ( 2000 ). Two concepts of caring. In Philosophy of Education 1999 , ed. Randall Curren (pp. 36–39). Urbana‐Champaign: University of Illinois.

—— ( 2002 a). Educating moral people . New York: Teachers College Press.

—— ( 2002 b). Starting at home: Caring and social policy . Berkeley: University of California Press.

—— ( 2003 ). Happiness and education . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

—— ( 1992 /2005). The challenge to care in schools , 2nd ed. New York: Teachers College Press.

—— ( 2006 a). Critical lessons: What our schools should teach . New York: Cambridge University Press.

—— ( 2006 b). Caring as relation and virtue in teaching. In Working virtue: Virtue ethics and contemporary moral problems , ed. Rebecca Walker and Philip J. Ivanhoe (pp. 41–60). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Noddings, Nel, and Michael Slote. ( 2003 ). Changing notions of the moral and of moral education. In The Blackwell guide to philosophy of education , ed. Nigel Blake , Paul Smeyers , Richard Smith , and Paul Standish (pp. 341–55). Oxford: Blackwell.

Offen, Karen . ( 1988 ). Defining feminism: A comparative historical approach.   Signs 14(1): 119–57. 10.1086/494494

Okin, Susan Moller . ( 1979 ). Women in Western political thought . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

—— ( 1989 ). Reason and feeling in thinking about justice.   Ethics 99(2): 229–49. 10.1086/293064

—— ( 2003 ). Poverty, well‐being, and gender: What counts, who's heard?   Philosophy and Public Affairs 31(3): 280–316. 10.1111/j.1088-4963.2003.00280.x

O'Loughlin, Marjorie . ( 2006 ). Embodiment and education: Exploring creatural existence. Dordrecht: Springer.

Rich, Adrienne . ( 1976 ). Of woman born. New York: W. W. Norton.

Rhoads, Robert A. , and Shannon M. Calderone . ( 2007 ). Reconstituting the democratic subject: Sexuality, schooling, and citizenship.   Educational Theory 57(1): 105–21. 10.1111/j.1741-5446.2006.00247.x

Rosemont, Henry Jr. ( 1997 ). Classical Confucian and contemporary feminist perspectives on the self: Some parallels and their implications. In Culture and self: Philosophical and religious perspectives East and West , ed. Douglas Allen (pp. 63–82). Boulder: Westview Press.

Ruddick, Sara . ( 1989 ). Maternal thinking: Toward a politics of peace . Boston: Beacon Press.

Sander‐Staudt, Maureen . ( 2006 ). The unhappy marriage of care ethics and virtue ethics.   Hypatia 21(4): 21–39.

Sidorkin, Alexander M. ( 2002 ). Learning relations . New York: Peter Lang.

Slote, Michael . ( 1992 ). From morality to virtue . New York: Oxford University Press.

—— ( 1998 ). Caring in the balance. In Norms and values , ed. Joram G. Haber and Mark S. Halfon (pp. 27–36). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

—— ( 2000 ). Caring versus the philosophers. In Philosophy of education 1999 , ed. Randall Curren (pp. 25–35). Urbana‐Champaign: University of Illinois.

Star, Daniel . ( 2002 ). Do Confucians really care? A defense of the distinctiveness of care.   Hypatia 17(1): 77–106.

Stengel, Barbara S. , and Alan R. Tom . ( 2006 ). Moral matters: Five ways to develop the moral life of schools . New York: Teachers College Press.

Stone, Lynda . ( 1994 ). The education feminist reader . New York: Routledge.

Thayer‐Bacon, Barbara . ( 2000 ). Transforming critical thinking . New York: Teachers College Press.

Tronto, Joan . ( 1993 ). Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care . New York: Routledge.

Tuana, Nancy , and Rosemarie Tong (Eds.). ( 1995 ). Feminism and philosophy . Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Waerness, Kari . ( 1984 ). The rationality of caring.   Economic and Industrial Democracy 5(2): 185–212. 10.1177/0143831X8452003

Waithe, Mary Ellen . (Ed.). ( 1987 –95). A history of women philosophers , 4 vols. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

Walker, Emilie V. Siddle . ( 1996 ). Interpersonal caring in the “good” segregated schooling of African‐American children. In Caring in an unjust world , ed. Deborah Eaker‐Rich and Jane A. Van Galen (pp. 129–46). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Walker, Margaret Urban . ( 2005 ). Diotima's ghost: The uncertain place of feminst philosophy in professional philosophy.   Hypatia 20(3): 153–64.

Ward, Geoffrey C. , and Ken Burns . ( 1999 ). Not for ourselves alone: The story of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony . New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Watson, Jean . ( 1979 ). Nursing: The philosophy and science of caring . Boulder, CO: Colorado Associated University Press.

Watson, Marilyn . ( 2003 ). Learning to trust. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass.

Weil, Simone. ( 1977 ). Simone Weil Reader , ed. George A. Panichas . Mt. Kisco, NY: Moyer Bell Limited.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Feminist Theory in Sociology: Deinition, Types & Principles

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

On This Page:

Feminist theory is a major branch of sociology. It is a set of structural conflict approaches which views society as a conflict between men and women. There is the belief that women are oppressed and/or disadvantaged by various social institutions.

Feminist theory aims to highlight the social problems and issues that are experienced by women. Some of the key areas of focus include discrimination on the basis of sex and gender, objectification, economic inequality, power, gender role, and stereotypes.

Feminists share a common goal in support of equality for men and women. Although all feminists strive for gender equality, there are various ways to approach this theory.

Some of the general features of feminism include:

An awareness that there are inequalities between men and women based on power and status.

These inequalities can create conflict between men and women.

Gender roles and inequalities are usually socially constructed.

An awareness of the importance of patriarchy: a system of social structures and practices in which men dominate, oppress, and exploit women.

Goals of Feminism

The perspectives and experiences of women and girls have historically been excluded from social theory and social science.

Thus, feminist theory aims to focus on the interactions and issues women face in society and culture, so half the population is not left out.

Feminism in general means the belief in the social, economic, and political equality of the sexes.

The different branches of feminism may disagree on several things and have varying values. Despite this, there are usually basic principles that all feminists support:

1. Increasing gender equality

Feminist theories recognize that women’s experiences are not only different from men’s but are unequal.

Feminists will oppose laws and cultural norms that mean women earn a lower income and have less educational and career opportunities than men.

2. Ending gender oppression

Gender oppression goes further than gender inequality. Oppression means that not only are women different from or unequal to men, but they are actively subordinated, exploited, and even abused by men.

2. Ending structural oppression

Feminist theories posit that gender inequality and oppression are the result of capitalism and patriarchy in which men dominate.

4. Expanding human choice

Feminists believe that both men and women should have the freedom to express themselves and develop their interests, even if this goes against cultural norms.

5. Ending sexual violence

Feminists recognize that many women suffer sexual violence and that actions should be taken to address this.

6. Promoting sexual freedom

Having sexual freedom means that women have control over their own sexuality and reproduction.

This can include ending the stigma of being promiscuous and ensuring that everyone has access to safe abortions.

The Waves of Feminism

The history of modern feminism can be divided into four parts which are termed ‘ waves .’ Each wave marks a specific cultural period in which specific feminist issues are brought to light.

First wave feminism

The first wave of feminism is believed to have started with the ‘Women’s Suffrage Movement’ in New York in 1848 under the leadership of Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton.

Those involved in this feminist movement were known as suffragettes. The main aim of this movement was to allow women to vote. During this time, members of the suffrage movement engaged in social campaigns that expressed dissatisfaction with women’s limited rights to work, education, property, and social agency, among others.

Emmeline Pankhurst was considered the leader of the suffragettes in Britain and was regarded as one of the most important figures in the movement. She founded the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU), a group known for employing militant tactics in their struggle for equality.

Despite the first wave of feminism being mostly active in the United States and Western Europe, it led to international law changes regarding the right for women to vote.

It is worth noting that even after this first wave, in some countries, mostly white women from privileged backgrounds were permitted to vote, with black and minority ethnic individuals being granted this right later on.

Second wave feminism

Second-wave feminism started somewhere in the 1960s after the chaos of the Second World War.

French feminist author Simone de Beauvoir published a book in 1949 entitled ‘The Second Sex’ which outlined the definitions of womanhood and how women have historically been treated as second to men.

She determined that ‘one is not born but becomes a woman’. This book is thought to have been foundational for setting the tone for the next wave of women’s rights activism.

Feminism during this period was focused on the social roles in women’s work and family environment. It broadened the debate to include a wider range of issues such as sexuality, family, reproductive rights, legal inequalities, and divorce law.

From this wave, the movement toward women’s rights included the signing of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which stipulated that women could no longer be paid less than men for comparable work.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 included a section which prevents employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex, race, religion, or national origin. Likewise, the famous Roe v. Wade decision protected a woman’s right to have an abortion from 1973.

Third wave feminism

The third wave of feminism is harder to pinpoint but it was thought to have taken off in the 1990s. Early activism in this wave involved fighting against workplace sexual harassment and working to increase the number of women in positions of power.

The work of Kimberlé Crenshaw in the 1980s is thought to have been the root. She coined the term ‘intersectionality’ to describe the ways in which different forms of oppression intersect, such as how a black woman is oppressed in two ways: for being a woman and for being black.

Since there was not a clear goal with third-wave feminism as there was with previous waves, there is no single piece of legislation or major social change that belongs to the wave.

Fourth wave feminism

Many believe that there is now a fourth wave of feminism, which began around 2012.

It is likely that the wave sparked after allegations of sexual abuse and harassment, specifically of celebrities, which gave birth to campaigns such as Everyday Sexism Project by Laura Bates and the #MeToo movement.

With the rise of the internet and social platforms, feminist issues such as discrimination, harassment, body shaming, and misogyny can be widely discussed with the emergence of new feminists.

Fourth-wave feminism is digitally driven and has become more inclusive to include those of any sexual orientation, ethnicity, and trans individuals.

Types of Feminism

Liberal feminism.

Liberal feminism is rooted in classic liberal thought and these feminists believe that equality should be brought about through education and policy changes. They see gender inequalities as rooted in the attitudes of social and cultural institutions, so they aim to change the system from within.

Liberal feminists argue that women have the same capacity for moral reasoning and agency as men, but that the patriarchy has denied them the opportunity to practice this. Due to the patriarchy, these feminists believe that women have been pushed to remain in the privacy of their household and thus have been excluded from participating in public life.

Liberal feminists focus mainly on protecting equal opportunities for women through legislation. The Equal Rights Amendment

in 1972 was impactful for liberal feminists which enforced equality on account of sex.

Marxist feminism

Marxist feminism evolved from the ideas of Karl Marx, who claimed capitalism was to blame for promoting patriarchy, meaning that power is held in the hands of a small number of men.

Marxist feminists believe that capitalism is the cause of women’s oppression and that this oppression in turn, helps to reinforce capitalism. These feminists believe that women are exploited for their unpaid labor (maintaining the household and childcare) and that capitalism reinforces that women are a reserve for the work force and they must create the next generation of workers.

According to Marxist feminists, the system and traditional family can only be replaced by a socialist revolution that creates a government to meet the needs of the family.

Radical feminism

Radical feminists posit that power is key to gender oppression. They argue that being a woman is a positive thing but that this is not acknowledged in patriarchal societies.

The main belief of radical feminists is that equality can only be achieved through gender separation and political lesbianism. They think the patriarchy can be defeated if women recognize their own value and strength, establish trust with other women, and form female-based separatist networks in the private and public spheres.

Intersectional feminism

Intersectional feminism believes that other feminist theories create an incorrect acceptance of women’s oppression based on the experiences of mostly Western, middle-class, white women.

For instance, while they may acknowledge that the work of the suffragette movement was influential, the voting rights of the working-class or minority ethnic groups were forgotten at this time.

Intersectionality considers that gender, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, and others, are not separate, but are interwoven and can bring about different levels of oppression.

This type of feminism offers insight that not all women experience oppression in the same way. For instance, the wage gap shows that women of color and men of color are penalized relative to the earnings of white men.

Feminist theory is important since it helps to address and better understand unequal and oppressive gender relations. It promotes the goal of equality and justice while providing more opportunities for women.

True feminism benefits men too and is not only applicable to women. It allows men to be who they want to be, without being tied down to their own gender roles and stereotypes.

Through feminism, men are encouraged to be free to express themselves in a way which may be considered ‘typically feminine’ such as crying when they are upset.

In this way, men’s mental health can benefit from feminism since the shame associated with talking about their emotions can be lifted without feeling the expectation to ‘man up’ and keep their feeling buried.

With the development of intersectionality, feminism does not just focus on gendered power and oppression, but on how this might intersect with race, sexuality, social class, disability, religion, and others.

Without feminism, women would have significantly less rights. More women have the right to vote, work, have equal pay, access to health care, reproductive rights, and protection from violence. While every country has its own laws and legislature, there would have been less progress in changing these without the feminist movement.

Feminist theory is also self-critical in that it recognizes that it may not have been applicable to everyone in the past. It is understood that it was not inclusive and so evolved and may still go on to evolve over time. Feminism is not a static movement, but fluid in the way it can change and adjust to suit modern times.

Some critics suggest that a main weakness of feminist theory is that it is from a woman-centered viewpoint. While the theories also mention issues which are not strictly related to women, it is argued that men and women view the world differently.

Some may call feminist theory redundant in modern day since women have the opportunity to work now, so the nature of family life has inevitably changed in response.

However, a counterpoint to this is that many women in certain cultures are still not given the right to work. Likewise, having access to work does not eradicate the other feminist issues that are still prevalent.

Some feminists may go too far into a stage where they are man-hating which causes more harm than good. It can make men feel unwelcome to feminism if they are being blamed for patriarchal oppression and inequalities that they are not directly responsible for.

Other women may not want to identify as a feminist either if they have the impression that feminists are man-haters but they themselves like men.

There are criticisms even between feminists, with some having values that can lead to others having a negative view of feminists as a whole.

For instance, radical feminists often receive criticism for ignoring race, social class, sexual orientation, and the presence of more than two genders. Thus, there are aspects of feminism which are not inclusive.

What is the main goal of feminism?

The goal of feminism is to reach social, political, and economic equality of the sexes. Feminists aim to challenge the systemic inequalities women face on a daily basis, change laws and legislature which oppress women, put an end to sexism and exploitation of women, and raise awareness of women’s issues.

However, the different types of feminists may have distinct goals within their movement and between each other.

How was feminist theory founded?

Although many early writings could be characterized as feminism or embodying the experiences of women, the history of Western feminist theory usually begins with the works of Mary Wollstonecraft.

Wollstonecraft was one of the first feminist writers, responsible for her publications such as ‘A Vindication of the Rights of Woman’, published in 1792.

How does feminist theory relate to education?

Feminist theory helps us understand gender differences in education, gender socialization, and how the education system may be easier for boys to navigate than girls.

Many feminists believe education is an agent of secondary socialization that helps enforce patriarchy.

Feminist theory aims to promote educational opportunities for girls. It assures that they should not limit their educational aspirations because they may go against what is traditionally expected of them.

What are feminist sociologists view on family roles and relationships?

Some feminists view the function of the  nuclear family  as a place where patriarchal values are learned by individuals, which in turn add to the patriarchal society.

Young girls may be socialized to believe that inequality and oppression are a normal part of being a woman. Boys are socialized to believe they are superior and have authority over women.

Feminists often believe that the nuclear family teaches children gender roles which translates to gender roles in wider society.

For instance, girls may learn to accept that being a housewife is the only possible or acceptable role for women. Some feminists also believe that the  division of labor  is unequal in nuclear families, with women and girls accepting subservient roles in the household.

How does feminist theory relate to crime?

Feminists recognize that there is a disproportionate amount of violence and crime against women and that the reason may be due to the inequalities and oppression that women face.

Suppose the patriarchy posits that men are more powerful. In that case, this can lead them to abuse this power over women, resulting in harassment, physical, emotional, and sexual abuse, and even murder of women.

Feminists point out that there is a lot of systemic sexism in the justice system which needs to be tackled. Female victims of sexual abuse from men may often feel as if they are the ones put on trial and even experience blame for what happened to them.

Thus, many women do not report their sexual abuse for fear of not being believed or taken seriously in a system that favors men.

Therefore, many feminists would aim to fix the system so that fewer men commit these crimes and that there is proper justice for women who experience violence from men.

How far would sociologists agree that feminism has changed marriage?

Feminists often believe that the meaning of marriage is deeply rooted in  patriarchy  and gender inequality. In modern times, it would, therefore, not make sense for a woman to get married unless she has a partner willing to overturn a lot of the traditional and sexist values of marriage.

Most feminists believe that women should have the choice over whether they want to get married or even be in a relationship. Marriage for feminists can be; however, they want it to be, including their vows and values that make them and their partners equal.

A study found that having a feminist partner was linked to healthier heterosexual relationships for women (Rudman & Phelan, 2007).

They also found that men with feminist partners reported more stable relationships and greater sexual satisfaction, suggesting that feminism may predict happier relationships.

There are  differences between radical and liberal feminism  regarding ideas about the private sphere. Liberal feminists are generally not against heterosexual marriage and having children, as long as this is what the woman wants.

If the woman is treated as an equal by their partner and chooses how to raise their family, this is a feminist choice.

Even in modern marriage, radical feminists argue that women married to men are under patriarchal rule and are still made to complete much of the unpaid labor in the household compared to their husbands.

What is meant by the term malestream?

Feminists use the term malestream to highlight the need for more inclusive research methodologies and theoretical perspectives that better represent and address the experiences and issues of women and other marginalized groups.

It’s a call to move beyond the male-centric biases in various academic disciplines, including sociology.

Armstrong, E. (2020). Marxist and Socialist Feminisms.  Companion to Feminist Studies , 35-52.

Bates, L. (2016).  Everyday sexism: The project that inspired a worldwide movement . Macmillan.

Crenshaw, K. W. (2006). Intersectionality, identity politics and violence against women of color.  Kvinder, kön & forskning , (2-3).

Malinowska, A. (2020). Waves of Feminism.  The International Encyclopedia of Gender, Media, and Communication,  1, 1-7.

Oxley, J. C. (2011). Liberal feminism.  Just the Arguments,  100, 258262.

Rudman, L. A., & Phelan, J. E. (2007). The interpersonal power of feminism: Is feminism good for romantic relationships?.  Sex Roles, 57 (11), 787-799.

Srivastava, K., Chaudhury, S., Bhat, P. S., & Sahu, S. (2017). Misogyny, feminism, and sexual harassment.  Industrial psychiatry journal, 26( 2), 111.

Thompson, D. (2001).  Radical feminism today . Sage.

Education as the Practice of Freedom: The Black Feminist Classroom

On Friday, March 22nd, the  Africana Studies Program  hosted their 4th bell hooks symposium on the Oakland campus. This symposium, “The Black Feminist Classroom: Education as the Practice of Freedom,” marked the first time that this event was held elsewhere within Northeastern University’s global network. The program featured a keynote conversation between  Angela Davis  and  Gina Dent , a roundtable of panelists from Oakland, and a workshop led by Northeastern Professor and author  Patricia Powell . Throughout the day, guests reflected on what it means to espouse Black feminist principles in education and learning, both inside of and outside traditional academic settings. These conversations were inspired by bell hooks’ groundbreaking book, Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom.

More Stories

Photos from the third annual bell hooks symposium “black feminist worldmaking”, both sides of the wall: empowering incarcerated families through healing & wellness .

Third annual bell hooks symposium, ‘Black Feminist Worldmaking,’ helps kick off Black History Month at Northeastern

Feminist theory and the study of gender and education

• Published: December 1987
• Volume 33 , pages 419–435, ( 1987 )

Cite this article

• Sandra Acker  

4533 Accesses

47 Citations

Explore all metrics

This paper considers the three main Western feminist theoretical frameworks — liberal, socialist and radical — and their educational applications. Examples of studies using each approach are discussed. Liberal feminists writing about education use concepts of equal opportunities, socialization, sex roles and discrimination. Their strategies involve altering socialization practices, changing attitudes and making use of relevant legislation. Critics of the liberal school point to conceptual limitations and the liberal reluctance to confront power and patriarchy. Socialist feminists analyze the role of the school in the perpetuation of gender divisions under capitalism. Major concepts are socio-cultural reproduction and to a lesser extent acceptance of and resistance to gender-based patterns of behaviour. So far socialist-feminist educational writing is mainly theoretical rather than practical and has therefore been criticized for its over-determinism and insufficient empiric foundation. Radical feminists in education have concentrated mainly on the male monopolization of knowledge and culture and on sexual politics in schools. Strategies involve putting women's and girls' concerns first, through separate-sex groups when necessary. Critics argue that radical feminism tends towards biological reductionism, description rather than explanation and also contains methodological weaknesses. Mutual criticism of perspectives seems less destructive in educational writing than in some other categories of feminist scholarship. All the theoretical frameworks are subject to the same pressures including the oppressive power of structures, the resilience of individuals, and the tension between universality (how women are the same) and diversity (how women differ on attributes like class and race).

Zusammenfassung

In diesem Artikel werden die hauptsächlich im Westen vertretenen feministischen Ansätze und deren Anwendungen im Erziehungssystem untersucht, d.h. der liberale, der sozialistische und der radikale Feminismus. Beispiele aus Studien, die jeweils einem dieser Ansätze folgen, werden angeführt. In liberalfeministischen Schriften zur Erziehung werden Konzepte wie Chancengleichheit, Sozialisation, Geschlechterrollen und Diskriminierung erörtert. Deren Strategien besagen, daß Sozialisationspraktiken zu ändern, Haltungen abzuwandeln und diesbezügliche Gesetze anzuwenden sind. Kritik an der liberalen Schule macht aufmerksam auf die begrifflichen Einengungen und auf den Widerwillen, Macht und Patriarchat zu konfrontieren. Sozialistische Feministinnen untersuchen die Rolle der Schule beim Reproduzieren geschlechtsspezifischer Aufteilungen im Kapitalismus. Kernbegriffe sind sozio-kulturelles Reproduzieren und in geringerem Maße Anpassung und Widerstand im Hinblick auf geschlechtsspezifische Verhaltensformen. Sozialistisch-feministisch begründete pädagogische Schriften blieben bis jetzt eher theoretisch als praktisch orientiert und deswegen werden sie wegen ihrer Überdetermination und ihrer unzureichenden empirischen Basis kritisiert. Radikale Feministinnen haben sich hauptsächlich auf das Männermonopol von Wissen und Kultur sowie sexualpolitische Einstellungen im Schulalltag konzentriert. Ihre Strategien zielen darauf ab, die Bedürfnisse der Mädchen und Frauen an erster Stelle zu sehen, und wenn nötig, dies durch Trennung der Geschlechter in Gruppen zu erreichen. Kritiker behaupten, daß der radikale Feminismus zu biologischem Reduktionismus sowie zur Beschreibung eher als Erklärung neigt und methodologische Schwächen aufweist. Wechselseitige Kritik an den Perspektiven scheint in den erziehungswissenschaftlichen Schriften weniger destruktiv als in einigen anderen kategorien der feministischen Forschung zu sein. Sämtlichen theoretischen Ansätzen sind Zwänge einschließlich der oppressiven Gewalt der Strukturen, der Widerstandskraft einzelner sowie der Spannung zwischen Universalität (inwieweit sich Frauen gleichen) und der Unterschiedlichkeit (inwieweit sich Frauen durch Merkmale wie Klasse und Rasse unterscheiden) gemeinsam.

Cet article examine les trois grandes théories féministes occidentales — le féminisme libéral, socialiste et radical — et leurs applications éducatives. On analyse quelques études se basant sur chacune de ces approches. Les textes des féministes libérales portant sur l'éducation emploient les concepts d'égalité des chances, de socialisation, de rôle et de discrimination des sexes. Leurs stratégies englobent une modification des pratiques de socialisation, un changement d'attitudes et l'usage d'une législation. Les critiques de ce courant libéral mettent en évidence les restrictions conceptuelles et les hésitations à affronter le pouvoir et le patriarchat. Les féministes socialistes analysent le rôle de l'école dans la reproduction de la distinction des sexes dans le système capitaliste. Les concepts majeurs concernent la reproduction socio-culturelle et, à un degré moindre, les codes et la résistance des sexes. Les textes des féministes socialistes relatifs à l'éducation restent encore de nos jours plutôt théoriques que pratiques. Ils ont été critiqués pour leur surdéterminisme et leur manque de connaissances fondamentales en matière de recherche pédagogique. Les féministes radicales se sont principalement concentrées, dans le domaine de l'éducation, sur la monopolisation par l'homme du savoir et de la culture, sur la politique sexuelle de la vie de tous les jours dans les écoles. Leurs stratégies consistent tout d'abord à faire valoir les intérêts des femmes et des filles grâce à l'établissement de groupes séparés de garçons et de filles s'il le faut. Selon les critiques, le féminisme radical tend vers un réductionisme biologique, une description plutôt qu'une explication et une faiblesse méthodologique. La critique mutuelle entre ces différentes perspectives semble moins destructive dans les textes relatifs à l'éducation que dans d'autres catégories de sciences féministes. Toutes ces théories partagent certains dilemmes, incluant l'accent relatif qui doit être placé sur le pouvoir oppressif des structures et la souplesse des individus, et sur la tension entre l'universalité (ce en quoi les femmes sont les mêmes) et la diversité (ce qui fait qu'elles diffèrent selon des caractéristiques telles leur classe sociale et leur race).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Gender Inequality and Education: Changing Local/Global Relations in a ‘Post-Colonial’ World and the Implications for Feminist Research

Reflections on the Emergence, History and Contemporary Trends in Nordic Research on Gender and Education

Expanding the Field of Comparative and International Education: The Inclusion of Gender

Acker, S. ‘No-Woman's-Land: British Sociology of Education 1960–1979’. Sociological Review . 29 (1981), No. 1, pp. 77–104.

Google Scholar  

Acker, S. ‘Women in Higher Education: What is the Problem?’ In Acker, S. and Warren Piper, D. (eds.) Is Higher Education Fair to Women? Guildford: Society for Research into Higher Education and Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1984, pp. 25–48.

Acker, S., Megarry, J., Hoyle, E. and Nisbet, S. (eds.) World Yearbook of Education 1984: Women and Education . London: Kogan Page, 1984.

Amos, V. and Parmar, P. ‘Resistances and Responses: The Experiences of Black Girls in Britain’. In McRobbie, A. and McCabe, T. (eds.) Feminism for Girls . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1981, pp. 129–143.

Amos, V. and Parmar, P. ‘Challenging Imperical Feminism’. Feminist Review . 17 (1984), pp. 3–19.

Anon. ‘Miss Is a Lesbian: The Experience of a White Lesbian Teacher in a Boys' School’. Teaching London Kids . 23 (1986), pp. 2–4.

Arnot, M. ‘Culture and Political Economy: Dual Perspectives in the Sociology of Women's Education’. Educational Analysis . 3 (1981), No. 1, pp. 97–116.

Arnot, M. ‘Male Hegemony, Social Class and Women's Education’. Journal of Education . 164 (1982), No. 1, pp. 64–89.

Arnot, M. and Weiner, G. Gender and Education Study Guide . Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1987.

Barrett, M. Women's Oppression Today: Problems in Marxist Feminist Analysis . London: Verso, 1980.

Brah, A. and Deem, R. ‘Towards Anti-Sexist and Anti-Racist Schooling’. Critical Social Policy . 6 (1986), No. 1, pp. 66–79.

Brah, A. and Minhas, R. ‘Structural Racism or Cultural Difference: Schooling for Asian Girls’. In Weiner, G. (ed.) Just a Bunch of Girls . Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1985, pp. 14–25.

Bryan, B., Dadzie, S., and Scafe, S. The Heart of the Race: Black Women's Lives in Britain . London: Virago, 1985.

Bunch, C. and Pollack, S. (eds.) Learning Our Way . Trumansburg, NY: The Crossing Press, 1983.

Byrne, E. Women and Education . London: Tavistock, 1978.

Carby, H. ‘White Women Listen! Black Feminism and the Boundaries of Sisterhood’. In Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies. (ed.) The Empire Strikes Back: Race and Racism in 70's Britain . London: Hutchinson, 1980, pp. 212–235.

Connell, R.W. ‘Theorizing Gender’. Sociology . 19 (1985), No. 2, pp. 250–272.

Connell, R.W., Ashenden, D.J., Kessler, S. and Dowsett, G.W. Making the Difference: Schools, Families and Social Division . Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 1982.

Cott, N. ‘Feminist Theory and Feminist Movements: The Past Before Us’. In Mitchell, J. and Oakley, A. (eds.) What Is Feminism? Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986, pp. 49–62.

Culley, L. and Demaine, J. ‘Social Theory, Social Relations and Education.’ In Walker, S. and Barton, L. (eds.) Gender, Class and Education . Lewes: Falmer, 1983.

David, M.E. ‘Women, Family and Education’. In Acker, S. et al. (eds.) World Year-book of Education 1984: Women in Education . London: Kegan Page, pp. 191–201.

Delmar, R. ‘What Is Feminism?’ In Mitchell, J. and Oakley, A. (eds.) What Is Feminism? Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986, pp. 8–33.

DuBois, E.C., Kelly, G.P., Kennedy, E.L., Korsmeyer, C.W. and Robinson, L.S. Feminist Scholarship: Kindling in the Groves of Academe . Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1985.

Eisenstein, H. Contemporary Feminist Thought . London: Unwin, 1984.

Fuller, M. ‘Qualified Criticism, Critical Qualifications’. In Barton, L. and Walker, S. (eds.) Race, Class and Education . London: Croom Helm, 1983, pp. 166–190.

Gaskell, J. ‘Conceptions of Skill and the Work of Women: Some Historical and Political Issues’. In Hamilton, R. and Barrett, M. (eds.) The Politics of Diversity . London: Verso, 1986, pp. 361–380.

Gearhart, S.M. ‘If the Mortarboard Fits ... Radical Feminism in Academia’. In Buch, C. and Pollack, S. (eds.) Learning Our Way . Trumansburg, NY: The Crossing Press, 1983, pp. 2–18.

Griffin, C. Typical Girls? London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1985.

Hargreaves, A. ‘Resistance and Relative Autonomy Theories: Problems of Distortion and Incoherence in Recent Marxist Analyses of Education’. British Journal of Sociology of Education . 3 (1982), No. 2, pp. 107–126.

Jayawardena, K. Feminism and Nationalism in the Third World . London: Zed Books, 1986.

Jeffcoate, R. ‘Ideologies and Multicultural Education’. In Craft, M. (ed.) Education and Cultural Pluralism . Lewes: Falmer, 1984, pp. 161–187.

Jones, C. ‘Sexual Tyranny: Male Violence in a Mixed Secondary School’. In Weiner, G. (ed.) Just a Bunch of Girls . Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1985, pp. 26–39.

MacDonald, M. ‘Socio-Cultural Reproduction and Women's Education’. In Deem, R. (ed.) Schooling for Women's Work . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1980, pp. 13–25.

MacKinnon, C. ‘Feminism, Marxism, Method and the State: An Agenda for Theory’. Signs. 3 (1982), pp. 515–544.

Mahony, P. Schools for the Boys? Co-Education Reassessed . London: Hutchinson, 1985.

Middleton, S. ‘The Sociology of Women's Education as a Field of Academic Study’. Discourse . 5 (1985), No. 1, pp. 42–62.

Mitchell, J. and Oakley, A. (eds.) What Is Feminism? Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986.

Murphy, L. and Livingstone, J. ‘Racism and the Limits of Radical Feminism’. Race and Class . 26 (1985), No. 4, pp. 61–70.

O'Brien, M. ‘Feminism and Education: A Critical Review Essay’. Resources for Feminist Research . 12 (1983), No. 3, pp. 3–16.

Rendel, M. ‘How Many Women Academics 1912–1976?’ In Deem, R. (ed.) Schooling for Women's Work . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1980, pp. 142–161.

Rendel, M. ‘Women Academics in the Seventies’. In Acker, S. and Warren Piper, D. (eds.) Is Higher Education Fair to Women? Guildford: Society for Research into Higher Education, and Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1984, pp. 163–179.

Russell, S. ‘The Hidden Curriculum of School: Reproducing Gender and Class Hierarchies’. In Hamilton, R. and Barrett, M. (eds.) The Politics of Diversity . London: Verso, 1986, pp. 343–360.

Segal, L. Is the Future Female? London: Virago, 1987.

Spender, D. Man Made Language . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1980.

Spender, D. (ed.) Men's Studies Modified: The Impact of Feminism on the Academic Disciplines . Oxford: Pergamon, 1981.

Spender, D. Invisible Women: The Schooling Scandal . London: Writers and Readers, 1982.

Spender, D. and Sarah, E. (eds.) Learning to Lose: Sexism and Education . London: The Women's Press, 1980.

Stanley, L. and Wise, S. Breaking Out: Feminist Consciousness and Feminist Research . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1983.

Suleiman, L. and Suleiman, S. ‘“Mixed Blood — That Explains a Lot of Things” — An Education in Racism and Sexism’. In Weiner, G. (ed.) Just a Bunch of Girls . Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1985, pp. 77–88.

Thompson, J. Learning Liberation: Women's Response to Men's Education . London: Croom Helm, 1983.

Weiner, G. ‘Feminist Education and Equal Opportunities: Unity or Discord?’ British Journal of Sociology of Education . 7 (1986), No. 3, pp. 265–274.

Weiner, G. (ed.) Just a Bunch of Girls . Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1985.

Whyte, J. Girls Into Science and Technology: The Story of a Project . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986.

Whyte, J., Deem, R., Kant, L. and Cruickshank, M. (eds.) Girl Friendly Schooling . London: Methuen, 1985.

Yates, L. ‘Theorising Inequality Today’. British Journal of Sociology of Education . 7 (1986), No. 2, pp. 119–134.

Download references

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Acker, S. Feminist theory and the study of gender and education. Int Rev Educ 33 , 419–435 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00615157

Download citation

Issue Date : December 1987

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00615157

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Feminist Theory
• Feminist Scholarship
• Radical Feminist
• Educational Application
• Relevant Legislation
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

WMNST 603 - Seminar: Topics in Advanced Feminist Theory