GENDER INEQUALITY
1
Hi All:
You can only read this to understand how P1 should be written using F’s concepts and
arguments. You cannot draw information from it as it would be plagiarism even if you cite it. Pl
look at how this student has applied F’s themes, cited sources in the text, not quoted any
passages in the text, grouped ideas under themes and listed references in proper style. Such a
paper will deserve the highest grade.
Also, see the criteria for grading P 1, posted on course web.
The Docility of Females in Natural/Physical Sciences and Graduate Studies: A Foucauldian
Analysis of Gender Inequality in Higher Education
Literature Review
Introduction
GENDER INEQUALITY
2
Equity and inclusivity are familiar mantras for educational institutions. With these
mantras comes the recognition that female enrollment in postsecondary institutions is rising
(Cho, 2006, p. 450; Blackhurst & Auger, 2008, p. 149; Bradley, 2000, p. 1; Hart, 2006, p. 40).
This does not mean, however, that gender barriers for women in higher education have been
eradicated. In this essay I will argue that although women are increasingly enrolling in
natural/physical sciences and graduate programs, they are still treated as outsiders and are
subjected to normalization, which results in gender inequality.
Throughout this paper I will employ a Foucauldian framework of creating the gendered
body as a docile body through individuation, surveillance, objectification, control, and
disciplining (Rajagopal, Lecture 5, October 27th 2009). I will first discuss how women are
constructed as outsiders in natural/physical sciences and graduate studies using the concepts of
individuation and normalization. I will then outline how females are evaluated based upon their
gendered bodies by noting the ways in which women in these fields are subjected to surveillance
techniques that objectifies their bodies. Next, I will detail the ways in which control over women
in natural/physical sciences and graduate studies has led to their disciplining and docility. In this
section, I will note how female students have been made to comply with gender inequalities and
power relations, thus becoming docile bodies. I will conclude with surmising about potentials for
challenging gender inequality in higher education.
The Process of Female Docility in Natural/Physical Sciences and Graduate Studies
The Construction of Women as Outsiders in Natural/Physical Sciences and Graduate Studies
Popular media disseminates qualities of stereotypical ‘normal’ gender behaviour
(Eschholz et al., 2002, p. 299). Many scholars note that the ways in which individuals perceive
themselves and others is conditioned by popular media messages (Eschholz et al., 2002, p. 299;
GENDER INEQUALITY
3
Lauzen & Dozier, 2005, p. 437; Long et al., 2001, p. 256). It follows, therefore, that if popular
media perpetuates gendered stereotypes about intelligence and ability, individuals may
internalize these stereotypes as true (Eschholz et al., 2002, p. 301; Lauzen & Dozier, 2005, p.
444). Often times popular media presents a binary between the intellectual, career-oriented male
and the sensitive, home-oriented female. Eschholz et al. (2002) argue that many films do not
portray female characters as having careers. Furthermore, if women are shown as a having a
career, it is typically less prestigious than their male counterparts (Eschholz et al., 2002, pp. 306307). Long et al. (2001) extend on this revelation by discussing more specifically the career
fields in which female representation is lacking. This being, scientists on television are more
often portrayed as male (Long et al., 2001, p. 255). Scholars note that these gendered stereotypes
have led to the assumption that women are less competent than men in natural/physical sciences
(Herring & Marken, 2008, p. 234; Steele et al., 2002, p. 46) and that they are less able to succeed
at higher and more intensive levels of education (Herzig, 2004, p. 392).
These stereotypes, as well as instances of gender inequality, also exist in higher education
(Bradley, 2000, p. 2; Wall, 2008, p. 220). More specifically, women who enter higher education
are treated as outsiders in certain fields (Hart, 2006, p. 56; Herzig, 2004, p. 392; Wall, 2008, p.
220). Foucault’s concept of individuation is useful to highlight the exclusion of women in
natural/physical sciences and graduate studies, and the ways in which they are subjected to
processes of normalization. Foucault (1984) argues that individuation is tool that helps to control
‘abnormal’ behaviour (p. 218). Normalization, meanwhile, entails the process of internalizing
and complying with social norms (Bernauer & Mahon, 1994, p. 151). Individuation can be seen
as occurring alongside normalization as individuals are first distinguished from the masses as
unique and then classified based on their actions (Foucault, 1984, p. 195).
GENDER INEQUALITY
4
Women in natural/physical sciences and graduate studies are individuated from the
masses through various methods of isolation. For example, Wall (2008) argues that female
contributions in graduate education are not as acknowledged as male contributions (p. 220). She
furthermore notes that women have more difficulty making contacts in university (Wall, 2008, p.
220). While intriguing, Wall (2008) does not provide examples of what these contacts entail.
Herzig (2004) on the other hand, explicitly articulates how women are excluded in education.
Herzig (2004) reveals that professors of natural/physical sciences assist male students more than
female students (p. 380). Scholars, meanwhile, recognize that encouragement is necessary for
inclusion in education (Herzig, 2004, p. 392; Mottarella et al., 2009, p. 230; Wall, 2008, p. 223).
Lack of support for women in graduate studies and natural/physical sciences, can thus lead to
exclusion from the academic environment.
Once individuals are isolated from the masses, Foucault (1984) notes that people will be
placed into areas of normalcy or deviance (p. 195). Various studies reference the primacy of
male knowledge and ability in higher education, thus implying that males in higher education
represent the norm. For example, Hart (2006) reveals that female contributions in higher
education are seen as outside the mainstream (p. 56). Likewise, Herzig (2004) notes that women
are viewed as less worthy of being assisted by professors in masculine graduate fields (p. 392).
McKinley (2005) echoes this argument most succinctly when discussing the fact that females in
sciences are less respected than males (p. 488). Although McKinley (2005) is speaking about
Maori female scientists in particular, she nonetheless confirms the perceived division between
being a scientist and being a female (p. 489). In these respects, men are seen as the norm in
natural/physical sciences and graduate programs and women are ranked as marginal to men.
Consequently, individuation and normalization operates on a twofold process for women in
GENDER INEQUALITY
5
natural/physical sciences and graduate studies. They are first isolated through exclusionary
measures (Herzig, 2004, p. 380; Wall, 2008, p. 220). Their capabilities are then assessed and
ranked below those of men (Hart, 2006, p. 56, Herzig, 2004, p. 392; McKinley, 2005, p. 488).
Gender inequality is thus evident in the exclusionary and marginal treatment women receive.
The Evaluation of Women Based Upon Their Gendered Bodies
Women in natural/physical sciences and graduate studies are not only subjected to
individuation alongside normalization, but are also subjected to surveillance. Surveillance, in
turn, can objectify bodies (Rajagopal, Lecture 5, October 27th 2009). Surveillance refers to
continually being watched (Foucault, 1984, p. 192). When one feels watched power relations
infiltrate the body allowing it to be controlled (Foucault, 1984, p. 180). Objectification entails
women being treated as bodies controlled by power, instead of active agents (Foucault, 1984, p.
188). It thus follows that if women in higher education are constantly viewed in terms of their
body, their personhood will be subdued and they will be easier to control and normalize.
This logic holds true as evidenced in various studies that examine the treatment of
women in natural/physical sciences and graduate studies. Steele et al. (2002) show how the
surveillance of female bodies operates. They argue that women are more likely than men to
report gender discrimination in natural/physical sciences (Steele et al., 2002, p. 49). In this
respect women are being watched and judged, which represents surveillance (Rajagopal, Lecture
5, October 27th, 2009). Morrison et al. (2005) also note that women experience gender
discrimination in higher education. These scholars, however, build on the findings of Steele et al.
(2002) to discuss a specific type of discrimination in the form of gendered teasing that devalues
female capabilities (Morrison et al., 2005, p. 158). These jokes can be seen as another form of
surveillance as women are aware that they are being judged (Morrison et al., 2005, p. 158).
GENDER INEQUALITY
6
Furthermore, these jokes serve to objectify females, as their abilities are being linked to their
gendered bodies.
Social beliefs about mothering are another form of surveillance that serves to objectify
women’s bodies. Mottarella et al. (2009) reference a “good mother stereotype” that evaluates
women’s actions based upon their gendered bodies (p. 223). They note the prevalent assumption
that women who return to their studies after having children are viewed as cruel (Mottarella et
al., 2009, p. 230). Women continuing their education thus have the sense that they are being
watched by others (Mottarella et al., 2009, p. 230). Furthermore, these women are being judged
based upon gender stereotypes and are thus objectified. Mottarella et al. (2009), however, only
studied this stereotype in the general context of higher education. It would have been more
illuminating to study this stereotype’s effects on women in natural/physical sciences and
graduate studies specifically. An investigation into whether the “good mother stereotype”
(Mottarella, 2009) would be even more salient for women in natural/physical sciences and
graduate studies would be beneficial, as scholars confirm male dominance in these fields
(Herzig, 2004, p. 380; Steele et al., 2002, p. 46; Wall, 2008, p. 220).
The structure of natural/physical sciences and graduate studies therefore strengthens
gendered stereotypes. The surveillance of women in these fields results in their objectification.
Steele et al. (2002) assert that women are seen and judged in terms of their gender (p. 49), which
implies surveillance. Women are further objectified as assumptions about their abilities are
derived from their gendered bodies. This is evident in the gendered teasing that diminishes
women’s achievements (Morrison et al., 2005, p. 158) and in prevalent assumptions about
students’ mothering behaviours (Mottarella et al., 2009, p. 230).
Turning Controlled Bodies into Disciplined Bodies: Women’s Docility
GENDER INEQUALITY
7
After individuation, surveillance, and objectification, people subjected to disciplinary
powers become controlled bodies (Rajagopal, Lecture 5, October 27th 2009). Controlled bodies
then become disciplined (Rajagopal, Lecture 5, October 27th 2009). Foucault maintains that those
in positions of power will use their influence to reinforce their dominance (Brown, 2000, p. 51).
Meanwhile, Wall (2008) reveals that the academic climate of higher education is a male climate
(p. 219). Although she remains vague on why this is the case, it can be assumed that males have
an investment in maintaining their power by controlling and disciplining females.
Morrison et al. (2005) notes that control over females is accomplished through the use of
punishments that attempt to discourage women from entering and succeeding in higher education
(p. 154). Scholars elaborate on this notion of punishment, when discussing extra challenges faced
by women in higher education. These challenges have been referenced throughout this paper,
including aforementioned ones such as gendered teasing (Morrison et al., 2005, p. 158),
judgment about mothering behaviours (Mottarella et al., 2009, p. 230) and a lack of support from
professors (Herzig, 2004, p. 380). Morrison et al. (2005) meanwhile argues that challenges can
be viewed as punishments that attempt to regulate female behaviour (p. 154). It follows that once
people are controlled through punishments they become disciplined by regulating their own
behaviours (Rajagopal, Lecture 5, October 27th, 2009). Disciplined bodies are then docile as they
fail to challenge normalization and instead police their own behaviours according to established
social norms (Rajagopal, Lecture 5, October 27th, 2009).
The experience of women in natural/physical sciences and graduate studies, as well as the
persistence of gender inequalities, can be further illuminated through this lens of disciplined
bodies (Morrison et al., 2005, p. 154). Examples of disciplined female bodies in education are
referenced in various studies. Scholars find that women are hesitant to report gender
GENDER INEQUALITY
8
discrimination (Herring & Marken, 2008, p. 230; Middleton, 2005, p. 522; Morrison et al., 2005,
p. 150). It is believed that women fail to acknowledge this discrimination because they do not
want to be seen as overly sensitive (Morrison et al., 2005, p. 161; Herring & Marken, 2008, p.
230). Herzig (2004) also notes that as educational levels increase in the natural/physical science
field of mathematics, female enrollment in this field declines (p. 379). Barata et al. (2005)
support and extend this finding by revealing a correlation between female advancement in
education and a simultaneous lowering of aspirations (p. 239). These are examples of how
normalization and disciplining in education has infiltrated female bodies. Women regulate their
behaviour in according to how they are seen. More specifically, they become socialized to accept
that their gender impedes their success (Morrison et al., 2005, p. 158) and avoid continuing their
studies in ‘masculine’ fields (Barata et al., 2005, p. 239; Herzig, 2004, p. 379).
Some scholars, however, present findings that appear to challenge the argument that
women are subjected to normalization in higher education. For instance, Blackhurst & Auger
(2008) reveal that women are attaining more post-secondary degrees than men (p. 149). Cho
(2006), meanwhile, argues that increasing enrollments of female students in post secondary
natural/physical sciences correlates with higher achievements of females in high school (p. 450).
These findings may lead one to believe that women are challenging gendered stereotypes and
male dominance in education. Increasing female participation, however, should not been
conflated with gender equality. In fact, Wall (2008) notes that the structure of higher education
continues to be one that values and favours men over women (p. 219). Meanwhile, Bradley
(2000) shows how increasing participation of women in higher education fails to challenge
gender inequalities in the job market (p. 1). Moreover, despite increasing enrollments of females
in postsecondary institutions, gender inequalities in society persist.
GENDER INEQUALITY
9
Blackhurst & Auger (2008) and Cho (2006) thus fail to look beyond the surface of
numerical enrollment and achievement. These scholars do not consider the female experience in
masculine disciplines. While advances towards equality in higher education have no doubt been
made, gender inequalities have not been eradicated. The reluctance of women to admit that they
are experiencing inequalities (Herring & Marken, 2008, p. 230; Middleton, 2005, p. 522;
Morrison et al., 2005, p. 150) as well as the discontinuation of their studies in ‘masculine’ fields
(Barata et al., 2005, p. 239; Herzig, 2004, p. 379) proves that women are not challenging the
male dominant status quo. In fact, women have become disciplined as they continue to police
their own behaviour in accordance with social norms. In this regard, women can be seen as
participating in their own surveillance and objectification and thus have become docile
(Morrison et. al, 2005, p. 154).
Potentials for Challenging Gender Inequalities
It has been argued that gender inequalities exist in natural/physical sciences and graduate
studies. Females are treated as outsiders and are subjected to normalization to correct their
behaviour. One must be cautious, however, of assuming that because females experience gender
inequalities they are powerless in higher education. In fact, Foucault believes everyone has some
amount of power (Brown, 2000, p. 55). For instance, when discussing how prisons might be
restructured, Foucault maintains that the prisoners are the ones that need to instigate any changes
(Brown, 2000, p. 2). Likewise, when discussing marketing reforms using a Foucauldian
perspective, Humphreys (2006) argues that consumers need to change the power relations that
maintain their control (p. 306). A theme thus emerges, that change can come from those who are
in subordinate positions within power relations. Education reform can moreover be viewed
GENDER INEQUALITY
10
through the same lens of Foucault’s prison (Brown, 2000, p. 2) and Humphreys’ (2006) market.
Those who are marginalized must participate in challenging gender inequalities in education.
Various studies surmise about potentials for combating gender inequalities in education.
The literature in this area, however, is somewhat limited and inconsistent. For instance, some
scholars advocate for eradicating stereotypes that undermine female abilities, with new notions
that women are more than capable of succeeding in typically masculine fields (Long et al., 2001,
p. 264; Oswald, 2008, p. 201). While somewhat logical, this is likely a flawed method as
combating stereotypes by introducing new ways of thinking will simply institute another way in
which female bodies will be controlled. Alternatively, Barata et al. (2005) assert that a space in
which people can voice their concerns publicly will help people to recognize and combat gender
barriers in education (p. 243). The structure of education, however, may not allow for this space
as Middleton (2005) notes that there is increasingly little room for critical subject matter in fields
of education, such as teaching programs (p. 524). It would be beneficial to examine whether this
phenomenon exists in other fields as well. Moreover, due to the inconsistency of the literature in
this regard, strategies for combating gender inequalities require further investigation.
Concluding Thoughts: Exploring The Creation of Disciplined Bodies
In conclusion, despite increasing enrollments of females in higher education inequalities
for women continue to exist in natural/physical sciences and graduate fields. Existing literature
has explored stereotypes about female abilities (Eschholz et al., 2002; Long et al., 2001), the
achievements of females in natural/physical sciences (Cho, 2007), the statistics of female
enrollments in higher education (Blackhurst & Auger, 2008), and the experience of women in
stereotypically masculine areas of study (Barata et al., 2005; Herring & Marken, 2008; Herzig,
2004; McKinley, 2005; Morrison et al., 2005; Mottarella et al., 2009; Oswald, 2008; Steele et al.,
GENDER INEQUALITY
11
2002; Wall, 2008). A deeper understanding of the reason why gender inequalities persist in
higher education, as well as a focus on the power relations implicit in higher education, is
necessary. Studies that trace the process of females becoming controlled and disciplined through
popular media and the social power of the male in higher education are therefore important.
These studies will help one to truly understand gender barriers, to then combat them.
I have explored why and how gender inequalities persist in natural/physical sciences and
graduate studies through a critical review of the literature. I have analyzed this literature using a
Foucauldian perspective and I have asserted that gender inequalities are created through the
construction of women as outsiders in these fields. They furthermore persist because women are
subjected to normalization that controls and disciplines their bodies to maintain the social power
of the male. While increasing enrollments of females in natural/physical sciences and graduate
studies is certainly a step in the right direction, gender equality in higher education remains an
ideal yet to be realized to its fullest extent. Nonetheless this ideal must continue to be pursued.
References
Barata, P., Hunjan, S., & Leggatt, J. (2005). Ivory Tower? Feminist women’s experiences of
graduate school. Women’s Studies International Forum, 28(2/3), 232-246.
GENDER INEQUALITY
12
Bernauer, J.W., & Mahon, M. (1994). The Ethics of Michel Foucault. In G. Gutting (Ed.), The
Cambridge Companion to Foucault (pp. 141-158). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Blackhurst, A.E., & Auger, R.W. (2008). Precursors to the gender gap in college enrollment:
children’s aspirations and expectations for their futures. Professional School Counseling,
11(3), 149-158.
Bradley, K. (2000). The incorporation of women into higher education: Paradoxical
outcomes? Sociology of Education, 73(1), 1-18.
Brown, A.L. (2000). On Foucault. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Cho, D. (2007). The role of high school performance in explaining women’s rising college
enrollment. Economics of Education Review, 26(4), 450-462.
Eschholz, S., Bufkin, J., & Long, J. (2002). Symbolic Reality Bites: Women and Racial/ethnic
Minorities in Modern Film. Sociological Spectrum, 22, 299-334.
Foucault, M. (1984). Complete and Austere Institutions. In P. Rabinow (Ed.), The Foucault
Reader (pp. 214-225). New York: Pantheon Books.
Foucault, M. (1984). Docile Bodies. In P. Rabinow (Ed.), The Foucault Reader (pp. 179-187).
New York: Pantheon Books.
Foucault, M. (1984). The Means of Correct Training. In P. Rabinow (Ed.), The Foucault Reader
(pp. 188-205). New York: Pantheon Books.
Hart, J. (2006). Women and Feminism in Higher Education Scholarship: An Analysis of Three
Core Journals. Journal of Higher Education, 77(1), 40-61.
Herring, S.C., & Marken, J.A. (2008). Implications of Gender Consciousness for Students in
Information Technology. Women’s Studies, 37(3), 229-256.
Herzig, A.H. (2004). ‘Slaughtering this beautiful math’: graduate women choosing and leaving
mathematics. Gender and Education, 16(3), 379-395.
Humphreys, A. (2006). The Consumer as Foucauldian “Object of Knowledge.” Social
Science Computer Review, 24(3), 296-309.
Lauzen, M.M., & Dozier, D.M. (2005). Maintaining the Double Standard: Portrayals of Age
and Gender in Popular Films, Sex Roles, 52(7/8), 437-446.
Long, M., Boiarsky, G., & Thayer, G. (2001). Gender and racial counter-stereotypes in science
education television: a content analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 255-269
GENDER INEQUALITY
13
McKinley, E. (2005). Brown Bodies, White Coats: Postcolonialism, Maori women, and
science. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 26(2), 481-496.
Middleton, S. (2005). Pedagogy and Post-coloniality: Teaching “Education” Online
Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 26(4), 511-525.
Morrison, Z., Bourke, M., & Kelly, C. (2005). ‘Stop making it such a big issue’: Perceptions and
experiences of gender inequality by undergraduates at a British University. Women’s
Studies International Forum, 28(2/3), 150-162.
Mottarella, K.E., Fritzsche, B.A., Whitten, S.N., & Bedsole, D. (2009). Exploration of “Good
Mother” Stereotypes in the College Environment. Sex Roles, 60(3/4), 223- 231.
Oswald, D.L. (2008). Gender Stereotypes and Women’s Reports of Liking and Ability in
Traditionally Masculine and Feminine Occupations. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
32(2), 196-203.
Rajagopal,
I.
(2009).
Lecture
5,
October
http://www.yorku.ca/rajagopa/sosc3930.htm/
27th:
Body.
Retrieved
from:
Steele, J., James, J.B., & Barnett, R.C. (2002). Learning in a Man’s World: Examining the
Perceptions of Undergraduate Women in Male-Dominated Academic Areas.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(1), 46-50.
Wall, S. (2008). Of heads and hearts: Women in graduate education at a Canadian University.
Women’s Studies International Forum, 31(3), 219-228.