What is the underside of the attention to female success in education and employment?
I will begin this essay by contextualizing the subject from a sociological point of view, as well in the context of the essay question which presumes fundamental difference(s) in personhood. Taking this as a fact, therefore, is to aver that it is impossible to dissociate oneself from a process that constructs one’s understanding of the world, and the subsequent acceptance of hermeneutic conceptualization of personhood which springs from the fabric of our society.
In the dominant model of thought, the male/female gender dichotomy is already perceived as natural, and the female articulated as oppressed, as it is culturally constructed in our mental process of perception and reasoning. In Fargani’s assumption, the male/female dichotomy is a socially constructed category: he posits “that sexuality is a social category and that gender is a social category that has been put together by agents of socialization, that is, institutions like the state, the family, the political party, the mass media which use particular means to administer policies for a particular end.” (1994, p.4). Therefore, “gender is a constitutive element of social relationships based on perceived differences in accordance with one’s sex and on identity and power derived from the unequal value attributed to that perception of differences.” (Chow, 2003, p.446). Therefore, from this perspective, the codification of women as ‘weak’ springs from the societal conceptualization, which certainly lies not in the true nature of the ‘sexes’ themselves but in the relationship that was constructed. There is, further, a dichotomy in terms of the public/private gender relationships with the female role in both realms being conceived as different from the male role. Therefore, examining the underside or implication of the attention to female success (perhaps at a low ebb) is to compliment ways that ensure the ‘woman’ is completely free from the ‘perceived’ oppressed societal position. From these points of views, and the umbrella ideas of both feminist and its critics, I will proceed to analyze the underside of attention to female success in education and employment, which certainly was itself triggered by the thriving feminist scholarship and its call for a cultural and social equalization in a patriarchy society.
In this essay, I examine the underside of the attention to female success in education and employment, while being mindful that it is part of the discourses on feminism which seeks to overcome the oppressed conditions of women and established their human authenticity (Farganis, 1994, p.3). “Feminism argues that women are oppressed or dominated by men and that the structural arrangements that initiate, support, and legitimate that systemic oppression constitute patriarchy.” (ibid, p.15). In this sense, and firstly, the continual success of women in education and employment could undermine and weaken the existing social construction of gender. The traditional and, in fact, contemporary sociological conception of gender is on perceived differences which emphasize the dominance of the male over the female as ‘oppression’. Therefore, the ability of women to re-claim themselves from the perceived ‘oppressor’ is to change the equation, thereby the (re)conceptualization of gender. This would change the status of women in society and hence, the old culture could be transformed and thus evolve into a new culture. As argued by Raymond Williams, “when words take on new meanings, we are tapping into historical changes that are reflected in the formation of new traditions.” (1976, p.9-24 cited in Farganis, 1994, p.14).
In the context of gender taking on new meaning, therefore, feminist theorists would evolve sociological, empirical and theoretical views that describe the societal transformation to gender equality and gender mainstreaming, which thus reinforce the arguments of critics of feminism to deconstruct the binary system of sex and gender. Therefore, the perceived oppression of woman that underlines the feminist scholarship would have been defeated. The implication of this is that there would hardly be any need for feminism or the continued development of sociological feminist theory: this would be the result of the re-ordering of the ways we think about the world, particularly the only two ways of gender stratification with the male perceived as oppressing the female. There is a growing body of academic literature on what is often known now as ‘post-feminism’. Hall and Rodriguez capture it succinctly thus: “Some articles declare that feminism is already dead, (Ebeling 1990) or is suffering an ‘identity crises’ (Kaminer, 1993) that indicates its impending demise; others frame the issue as the ‘fear of feminism’ (Hogeland 1994) or a ‘new feminist mystique’ (Frieman, 1990). According to the public discourse, something known as ‘postfeminism’ now exists.” (cited in Hall and Rodriguez, 2003, p.878).
Secondly, the social (re) conceptualization of gender and the (new) role of women – i.e. a matriarchal society – would perhaps undermine the ‘traditional’ functions of women. The main traditional role of women – among others and according to the peculiarity of communities – is seen as child bearing and taking care of the home. Although these functions are relative, they are as diverse as their communities and way of lives, a continuous and successful education of women to excel in their field of expertise means that the pattern of interpersonal behaviour as regards wife and husband, man and woman can change, although differences based on biological fact, of course, cannot. Also, beyond the private realms of the social conceptualization of the relationship between man and woman, the public realm offers a space where decisions are made by consensus and/or by an authority in a particular field. Women’s success in education and employment, therefore, positions them to be of significance in their field of expertise.
Certainly, from a postmodern perspective, the pattern of interpersonal behaviour is to be in continuous transformation, as discourses on sexuality mean a system of domination is also continuous. However, the emergence of matriarchal society (female dominated) or a gender egalitarian society, will facilitate the emergence of transformational scholarship that could lead to a complete change in the idea of feminism itself. There may be change in social theory related to gender which would mean our perception of the world and the way we understand it would have been simultaneously changed. In fact, there is a growing cultural redefinition of family, and the word ‘family’ itself has taking on various meanings as a result of factors that have caused discrepancies in the traditional meaning of family. Of importance here is single parenthood which, among other factors, women’s success in education and employment arguably contributes to. The traditional model of the ‘nuclear family’ could be said to have been altered – that is, if it ever really existed – and a new family model of single parenthood (although alongside the traditional model) now bases its ideology on individual responsibilities, against the social responsibility of the conventional family model. For instance, women that are highly educated and successful in their career may be wealthy enough to opt for having children later, and raising them on their own, so as to break from the entrapment of housewife and the conventional trapping of femininity. This may not necessarily pose difficulties as regards the child having a good parental upbringing, if the mother chooses the single parent family form or has it thrust upon here – (though many would argue that a male presence is more essential to good child development than many once assumed). Rather, a new culture could be said to be emerging, since ‘culture’ suggests that which is refined, domesticated and cultivated (Kluckhohn, C and Kelly, W H 1945). And if this is the case, therefore, the purpose of the women’s movement and indeed feminism may be said to have been outlived, as it has being able to achieve the goals on which it was founded. Moreover, perhaps focus is arguably now needed more on men’s rights and roles, as fathers for example, or the rights of single people, or the childless, or just ‘people’ generally, rather than there being any gender-specific focus at all. Perhaps the need for the feminist movement could also be questioned, if in actual fact we are living through a post modern era of cultural fragmentation in gender amongst other things.
Following on from this new perspective on knowledge, as a result of the success of feminism that seemingly has achieved most of its goals, I would argue that there could be a rise in counter feminist movements that aim at ‘resurrecting’ and re-establishing the ‘traditional’ roles of women, and re-asserting the ‘old’ gender discourses – that is, male domination of females in society. Such movements may go beyond academic critique and bring to reality a re-affirmation of culture that affirms male superiority and hegemony. This, of course, could be seen as an implicit dialectic of the social construction of gender and family that keeps continuously evolving. By this, I mean that a masculine re-assertion of superiority and control, and the feminine quest to break from such control, will perhaps always reshape the discourse on gender that is the dynamic of gender difference with intrinsic male domination and female resistance.
Furthermore, the attentive focus on the success of women in education and employment could also have as its underside a systemic but psychological perception of women themselves to still perceive themselves as insecure and weak in relation to their male counterparts. Ordinarily, women’s success in education and in their fields of expertise will raise the consciousness of women in society on their rights to be treated equally with men, and to liberate themselves from a perceived societal oppression by the masculine gender. However, this will not necessarily completely alter the nature of the gender relationships, especially as seen in the private roles of women within the family. This could arguably create a situation where women dismiss the more radical ideas behind feminism and not wish to be identified as feminists, although still redefining their role within the family. In particular, women could see their gender role in the family as more important, rather than shelving their traditional functions as a woman, despite there being relatively more equality among both sexes in both the private and public realms. Therefore, there may in future not be much devotion to feminist causes from women themselves. This shift to gender equalization could be deemed to give women a new identity, since identity encompasses an individual comprehension of oneself and the perceptions of others. Women’s new identity – i.e. equalization with its male counterpart – as accepted by both sexes, would arguably bring an emphasis on meritocracy as against gender determined quotas to securing positions, particularly government positions, and chances of securing education, as promoted by ‘positive action’. Therefore, the emergence of gender equity in all facets of all endeavours, such as gender equalization in mainstream politics, economic, law etc., and even within the institution of the family, would eliminate the power relationship that exists between the masculine and feminine gender which was socially constructed in favour of the male. It would not, however, change the innate biological differences between male and female aptitudes or the social class barriers that exist in society.
In conclusion, all the points raised above could be said to play a role in effecting change in the way gender is currently perceived. Essentially, this change being the underside of the success of women in education and employment, may lead to calls against any benefits and special treatment that women derive from society, especially the state, just for being a woman. Therefore, perhaps women’s privileges in society could be gradually eroded as counter-feminist movements continue to spring up. As was noted earlier, this could be a dialectical process in discourses on gender; therefore, how we conceive of the word ‘gender’ will provide a lens through which to continuously evaluate the issue of gender difference. It is certain that the continuing success of women in education and employment will continue to facilitate the re-evaluation of the alleged imbalances between the sexes, as argued by feminist scholars. However, it should be noted that gender difference may not provide the sole basis to the male oppression of females, but the way we understand the word ‘gender’ and the disparities of the traditional roles of women in different communities will provide a basis for ‘feminisms’ in future. Feminist theory is arguably in transformation as a result of the attention paid to female success in education and employment which is leading to refinements in school of thoughts within feminism itself.
References:
Farganis, S (1994) Situating Feminism: From Though To Action, Sage Publications, London and New Delhi.
Chow, E N (2003) ‘Gender Matters: Studying Globalization and Social Change in the 21st Century’ Journal of the International Sociological Association, Volume 18 Number 3 September 2003.
Kluckhohn, C and Kelly W H (1945) ‘The Concept of Culture’, in Liton, R (ed.) The Science of Man in the World Crisis, Columbia university Press, New York p.78-105
Hall, E J and Rodriguez, M S ‘The Myth of Postfeminsism’ Gender & Society, 2003; 17; 878-902, http://gas.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/17/6/878