Also, See the Criteria for Grading P 1, Posted on Course Web

1

GENDER INEQUALITY

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

Equity and inclusivity arefamiliar mantras for educational institutions. Withthese mantras comes the recognition that female enrollment in postsecondary institutions isrising(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 paperI 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 27th2009). I will first discuss how women areconstructed 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 notehow 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; 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, individualsmay internalize these stereotypes as true (Eschholz et al., 2002, p. 301; Lauzen & Dozier, 2005, p. 444). Often timespopular 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. 306-307). 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 asinstances 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 occurringalongside normalization as individuals are first distinguished from the masses as unique and then classified based on their actions (Foucault, 1984, p. 195).

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 intoareas 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 sciencesare 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 andwomen are ranked as marginal to men. Consequently, individuation and normalizationoperates on a twofold process for women in 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 isthus evident in the exclusionary and marginal treatment women receive.

The Evaluation of Women Based Upon Their Gendered Bodies

Women innatural/physical sciencesand 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 27th2009). 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 innatural/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).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 theireducationthus have the sense that they are beingwatched 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’seffects 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 ofnatural/physical sciences and graduate studies therefore strengthensgendered stereotypes. The surveillance of women in these fields results in their objectification. Steele et al. (2002) assert that womenare seen and judgedin 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 inthe gendered teasing that diminishes women’s achievements (Morrison et al., 2005, p. 158) andin prevalent assumptions about students’ mothering behaviours (Mottarella et al., 2009, p. 230).

Turning Controlled Bodies into Disciplined Bodies:Women’s Docility

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 27th2009). 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). Scholarselaborate 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 normalizationand 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. Scholarsfind that women are hesitant to reportgender 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 sciencefield 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 normalizationand 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 thattheir 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.

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 dominantstatus 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 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 advocatefor 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 ascombating stereotypes by introducing new ways of thinking willsimply 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 literaturein 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 educationinequalities for women continue to exist in natural/physical sciences and graduatefields. Existing literature has exploredstereotypes about female abilities (Eschholz et al., 2002; Long et al., 2001), theachievements 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., 2002; Wall, 2008). A deeper understanding of the reason why genderinequalities 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 femalesbecoming controlled and disciplined throughpopular media andthe social power of the male in higher education are therefore important. These studieswill help one to truly understand gender barriers, to then combat them.

I have explored why and how gender inequalitiespersistin natural/physical sciences and graduate studies through a critical review of theliterature. I have analyzed this literature using a Foucauldian perspectiveandI have asserted that gender inequalitiesare created through the construction of women as outsiders in these fields. They furthermore persist because women are subjected to normalizationthatcontrolsand 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.