Alexis Cantanzarite
Annotated Bibliography: Feminist Pedagogies
The St. Martin's Guide to Teaching Writing rightly identifies diversity in the classroom as having lead to "exciting scholarship" in the field of composition studies, which directly relates to my topic of exploring the benefits and drawbacks of using a feminist lens to frame a composition classroom. According to SMGTW, even in what appears to be a "homogenous" classroom, students will always show marked differences in their personal understandings and responses to social issues like race, class, and gender in their writing. I think it's important to highlight issues in student diversity and non-traditional approaches (such as a feminist one) in the teaching of writing in order to understand that a) certain demographics are left out or alienated by traditional approaches and are therefore not reaching their fullest potential in composition, b) demographics that are catered to by traditional approaches would likely feel the same effects if a strictly non-traditional approach is implemented, and c) we need to strive to find a balance between the traditional and the non-traditional in order for all students to become both comfortable as writers in the classroom and more culturally aware of issues that surround them whether or not they are directly effected by them. The reason scholarship in diversity is so exciting is because it helps us as teachers to gain a better understanding of our students and how we can help them evolve as writers.
Ashton-Jones, Evelyn. "Collaboration, Conversation, and the Politics of Gender." Feminine Principles and Women’s Experience in American Rhetoric and Composition. Ed. Janet Emig and Louise Weatherbee Phelps. Pittsburgh: Pittsburg UP, 1995. 5-26. Print.
In this article, Ashton-Jones explores the relationship between the construction of genders in conversation and collaborative learning groups (such as writing groups in a composition class) and the influence that it has “on the writing processes and written texts of women” (7). Feminism and collaborative learning have always been viewed as closely intertwined in that they “subvert gender hierarchy and reinstitute women and men on equal terms by removing the teacher-authority from the process of composing…allowing students to develop ideas in a way that is not mediated by a dominant “male” culture” (9). Ashton-Jones’ argument, however, is that collaborative learning “unwittingly colludes in the reproduction of gender structures that feminists seek to disrupt” (7) because group participants are “conditioned to interact according to gender-based roles” (11). Ashton-Jones’ findings in regards to gender and conversation in collaborative learning groups prove very interesting and supportive of her thesis (for example, it was determined that women ask more questions in writing groups and attempt to initiate new topics of discussion than men, but men are ultimately more successful at initiating new points of discussion with very limited attempts), ultimately persuading me to agree with her that, despite appearances and intentions, “we ought not to assume that in writing-group conversations men and women interact in identical or equal ways” (21).
Crabtree, Robbin D. and David Alan Sapp. “Theoretical, Political, and Pedagogical Challenges in the Feminist Classroom: Our Struggles to Walk to Walk.” College Teaching. 51.4 (Fall 2003): 131-140. Print.
This article opens by defining what feminist pedagogy is and the goals that it aims to achieve in the classroom as a whole (promote social change) and with students on an individual level (make them aware of and allow them to analyze differences among social groups) before delving into the challenges that feminist pedagogy is faced with in a university classroom. Crabtree and Sapp touch on “three of the most significant barriers to feminist pedagogy: the conservative opposition…; the fear of teaching outside institutional norms…; and the reservations among feminists that feminist pedagogy can empower professionally marginalized (female and nonwhite) faculty and students from exploited populations” (133). Crabtree and Sapp make these barriers seem like a very realistic issue that one might consider if they were going to implement feminist pedagogy in their own classroom. For my part, I plan on going in to detail on these problems in my presentation as possible drawbacks to feminist pedagogy. I found this article to be very helpful and relevant to my research.
Hunter, Susan. “A Woman’s Place Is in the Composition Classroom: Pedagogy, Gender, Difference.” Rhetoric Review 9.2 (Spring 1991): 230-45. Print.
In her attempt to answer the question “How many of those of us who are feminist and composition teachers interact only with students eager to be transformed by the political agendas of feminist, or for that matter, even composition pedagogy?” (230), Hunter justifies the role of feminist pedagogy in the composition classroom by detailing its similarities with The English Coalition Conference’s definition of composition pedagogy, which they define as one that should promote “inquiry, collaboration, and reflection” (231); it is extremely easy to see how Hunter made the intuitive leap between that definition of composition pedagogy and what is commonly known of feminist pedagogy. Hunter states that composition and feminist teachers have both similar methods and goals, including telling “stories of transformation, subversion, resistance, and conflict…challenging economic, political, and psychological imperatives based on gender” (234). In regards to the question that she posits at the beginning of the article, she in turn details “the value of difference” (242) among students in the classroom, stating that we should place a higher value on those students whose interests lie in areas beyond feminist and composition agendas, because “the feminist composition classroom is a place where people from different worlds can have a reciprocal effect on one another” (242). I found Hunter’s alignment of composition and feminist pedagogies fascinating considering how much contention surrounds feminist pedagogy’s place (and consequential effectiveness) in a composition classroom.
Jarratt, Susan. "Feminist Pedagogy." A Guide to Composition Pedagogies. Ed. Amy Rupiper, Kurt Schick, and Gary Tate. New York: Oxford UP, 2001. 113-31. Print.
This informative chapter in A Guide to Composition Pedagogies gives a basic overview of the origins, definitions, characteristics, methods, politics, and topics of feminist pedagogy. Jarratt, an author that I encountered multiple times in my research (and used multiple times in this bibliography), does an admirable job at using a decidedly limited amount of space to provide the reader with a deeper-than-surface-level understanding of feminist pedagogy by including her personal perspectives on what feminist pedagogy is constituted of in addition to exploring the views of other scholars. Jarratt’s compilation of information gave me a solid spring board to start from on this project, operating as an invaluable piece to my research and presentation since I’ve been able to use it to frame my discussion of feminist pedagogy and the implementation of feminist topics in the classroom.
---. “Feminism and Composition: The Case for Conflict.” Feminism and Composition: A Critical Sourcebook. Kirsch, Gail E., ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2003. 263–280. Print.
Jarratt’s article addresses both the patriarchal oppression of women in composition courses and women’s seeming lack of desire subvert patriarchy in favor of creating a more supportive and inclusive environment for women in composition. I italicized “for women” because Jarratt accurately points out that “creating a supportive environment in the classroom and validating student experience leads them (the instructors) to avoid conflict” (263-64 parentheses added), which is ultimately to the disadvantage of the students. In order to frame what can only be described as a call to action, Jarratt explores the basis for women’s avoidance of conflict, prominently citing Gearhart’s argument that arguments, or in this case conflict, is “an act of violence” in her article “The Womanization of Rhetoric,” which Jarratt quickly points out the irony of; Jarratt goes on to point out numerous flaws in Gearhart’s argument. Jarratt also addresses goes into detail about the dangers of suppressing conflict, raising questions as to what the consequences would be if a female was told to ignore a “conventional male reaction to a woman’s experience” or asked to share a “deep and serious self-examination of a personal experience” with a male teacher (268). The article also explores the benefits and drawbacks to modeling a composition course solely around women’s texts; while Jarratt asserts that it could stimulate “women’s growth” in a composition class, she acknowledges that it would be difficult for males to fit in without having knowledge of the “psychological complexities” at hand. Ultimately, Jarratt arrives at a discussion of “productive conflict in feminist composition pedagogy” (274), citing multiple examples of teachers more or less pushing students out of their comfort zones in regards to major social issues (gender, race, class, etc.) in order “create a consciousness in students…through which the inequalities generating those conflicts can be acknowledged and transformed” (276).
Lamb, Catherine E. “Beyond Argument in Feminist Composition.” Feminism and Composition: A Critical Sourcebook. Kirsch, Gail E., ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2003. 281–293. Print.
The reason that I ultimately decided to include this essay in my annotated bibliography is this line: “A feminist composition class could easily be a place where matriarchal forms are as oppressive as the patriarchal ones once were, even if it is in different ways” (Lamb 282). In considering the benefits of a feminist composition course, one would be remiss if they did not also acknowledge possible consequences. Lamb seems to tackle that exact issue as she explores Clara Junker’s “Writing (with) Cixous,” asserting that Junker’s essay less about establishing “women as gendered beings possessing certain characteristics” (282) than it is about critiquing phallogocentrism; Lamb goes on to say that Junker’s approach to feminist composition is “every bit as combative as the masculinist discourse we are seeking to supplant…If we are serious about the feminist project of transforming the curriculum…we need an approach to teaching composition that is more broadly based and accessible” (282-83). The broadly based and accessible approach that Lamb speaks of is a call for a movement away from teaching our students “monologic” arguments (which she aligns with the patriarchy) to forms of argument that are utilize negotiation and mediation (which she aligns with the maternal) to resolve conflicts, stating that this move will establish a cohesive way to introduce feminist theory in composition courses; personally, I’m not really convinced that this approach could be called entirely feminist, but I appreciate Lamb’s perspective all the same.
Osborn, Susan. ""Revision/Re-Vision": A Feminist Writing Class." Rhetoric Review 9.2 (Spring 1991): 258-73. Print.
I found this article to be one of the most helpful sources for the framing of my application. While most of this bibliography is focused on theory, this article focuses on both theory and practical applications of feminist studies in a composition classroom. Osborn uses Florence Howe’s model of feminist writing process in her article “Identity and Expression: A Writing Course for Women” to develop “ways in which a classroom situation and pedagogical strategies might be articulated through the study of the relationship between gender and language to foster and understanding of revision as writing,” saying that she wanted to find “ways of encouraging an understanding of revision as an ongoing, conceptual, recursive process” (261). Using Howe’s model and Adrienne Rich’s concept of re-vision, Osborn structured a feminist writing class in which revision was taught as “discovery,” a way for students to both better understand their texts and the construction of gender through language. The coursework Osborn goes on to describe in this article, and the explanations justifying each assignment, plainly demonstrates how feminist principles and revision can be closely aligned in a composition classroom setting because they can help students come to know themselves as readers and writers.
Powers-Stubbs, Karen. “Watching Ourselves: Feminist Teachers and Authority.” College Composition and Communication 43.3 (October 1992): 311-315. Print.
It is common knowledge among those that study feminist pedagogy that one of the characteristics of it is that of decentered authority, which favors collaborative classroom action over a teacher-dominated lecturing approach. What I found interesting about this article is Powers-Stubbs’ discussion of how that approach makes students question the authority and competency of their teacher, stating that it can make students assume that their teachers are not well-organized and that they have inadequate knowledge of the subject at hand. Powers-Stubbs discusses how her students made her question her authority in her own classroom by instantly dismissing her views on the feminist texts they were reading, but she ultimately attributed that dismissal to their “primarily white, upper middle class” status. The way that Powers-Stubbs explores a female/feminist teacher’s authority in this brief but insightful article informed the development of my practical application assignment---it incorporates collaborative classroom action, but hopefully does so in a way that doesn’t undermine my authority.
Schell, Eileen E. “The Costs of Caring: “Feminism” and Contingent Women Workers in Composition.” Feminism and Composition Studies: In Other Words. Ed. Susan C. Jarratt and Lynn Worsham. New York: Modern Language Assocation, 1998. 74-93. Print.
Schell makes a very compelling argument in regards to the pitfalls of feminist pedagogy, contending that “feminist pedagogy, although compelling, may reinforce rather than critique or transform patriarchal structures by rescribing…the “women as caretaker ideology,” or “the psychological investment women are required to make in the emotional well-being of men [and others]…” (74-75). Schell makes her case by going into detail on the traditional characteristics of feminist pedagogy, including the oft-cited teacher as a maternal figure that “encourages writing teachers to create a supportive, nonhierarchical environment responsive to students’ individual needs and cultural contexts” (77). Schell acknowledges the argument that this “ethic of care” lens can be seen as counteracting patriarchal pedagogy’s emphasis on dominance and control in the classroom, but uses socialist feminist analyses to demonstrate “the costs of nurturant labor” by showing that the “woman-teacher-caretaker ideology…has often limited and circumscribed women’s mobility and creativity” in composition classrooms (92). In my exploration of the benefits and drawbacks of implementing feminist pedagogy in a composition classroom, I found this article to be particularly revelatory as almost all of the research that I’ve come across seems to want to frame feminist pedagogy in a solely positive light.
Wolff, Janice M. “Writing Passionately: Student Resistance to Feminist Readings.” College Composition and Communication 42.4 (December 1991): 484-92. Print.
Wolff’s article explores her personal experience teaching a unit in feminist readings to her freshman composition class and the responses they gave that shocked her. Completely unprepared for her students to refer to the readings as “baloney,” “offensive,” “sarcastic,” and hard to “take seriously” (485), Wolff goes about exploring both the cause of their resistance to the feminist readings and how she can respect and resist their resistance in turn. Wolff posits that her students’ readings of feminist texts are “according to media portrayals of male and female” (490), citing pop culture as the context for which their constructions of gender are born. For example, Wolff finds that a male student’s evaluation of the readings suggests that he took issue with the readings’ promotion of gendered stereotypes---a legitimate point---but Wolff tries to point out in the marginal comments of his response that his sarcastic tone actually reinforces those gendered stereotypes; in Wolff’s marginal comments, she frames her own resistance to her students’ reading of the feminist texts as a way to help them reread their own responses. While I was drawn to this article because it dealt with a practical application of feminist studies in composition, it was hard for me to really gauge the extremeness of her students’ responses because Wolff didn’t really go into much detail about the content of the articles they were responding to.
Annotated Bibliography: Feminist Pedagogies
The St. Martin's Guide to Teaching Writing rightly identifies diversity in the classroom as having lead to "exciting scholarship" in the field of composition studies, which directly relates to my topic of exploring the benefits and drawbacks of using a feminist lens to frame a composition classroom. According to SMGTW, even in what appears to be a "homogenous" classroom, students will always show marked differences in their personal understandings and responses to social issues like race, class, and gender in their writing. I think it's important to highlight issues in student diversity and non-traditional approaches (such as a feminist one) in the teaching of writing in order to understand that a) certain demographics are left out or alienated by traditional approaches and are therefore not reaching their fullest potential in composition, b) demographics that are catered to by traditional approaches would likely feel the same effects if a strictly non-traditional approach is implemented, and c) we need to strive to find a balance between the traditional and the non-traditional in order for all students to become both comfortable as writers in the classroom and more culturally aware of issues that surround them whether or not they are directly effected by them. The reason scholarship in diversity is so exciting is because it helps us as teachers to gain a better understanding of our students and how we can help them evolve as writers.
Ashton-Jones, Evelyn. "Collaboration, Conversation, and the Politics of Gender." Feminine Principles and Women’s Experience in American Rhetoric and Composition. Ed. Janet Emig and Louise Weatherbee Phelps. Pittsburgh: Pittsburg UP, 1995. 5-26. Print.
In this article, Ashton-Jones explores the relationship between the construction of genders in conversation and collaborative learning groups (such as writing groups in a composition class) and the influence that it has “on the writing processes and written texts of women” (7). Feminism and collaborative learning have always been viewed as closely intertwined in that they “subvert gender hierarchy and reinstitute women and men on equal terms by removing the teacher-authority from the process of composing…allowing students to develop ideas in a way that is not mediated by a dominant “male” culture” (9). Ashton-Jones’ argument, however, is that collaborative learning “unwittingly colludes in the reproduction of gender structures that feminists seek to disrupt” (7) because group participants are “conditioned to interact according to gender-based roles” (11). Ashton-Jones’ findings in regards to gender and conversation in collaborative learning groups prove very interesting and supportive of her thesis (for example, it was determined that women ask more questions in writing groups and attempt to initiate new topics of discussion than men, but men are ultimately more successful at initiating new points of discussion with very limited attempts), ultimately persuading me to agree with her that, despite appearances and intentions, “we ought not to assume that in writing-group conversations men and women interact in identical or equal ways” (21).
Crabtree, Robbin D. and David Alan Sapp. “Theoretical, Political, and Pedagogical Challenges in the Feminist Classroom: Our Struggles to Walk to Walk.” College Teaching. 51.4 (Fall 2003): 131-140. Print.
This article opens by defining what feminist pedagogy is and the goals that it aims to achieve in the classroom as a whole (promote social change) and with students on an individual level (make them aware of and allow them to analyze differences among social groups) before delving into the challenges that feminist pedagogy is faced with in a university classroom. Crabtree and Sapp touch on “three of the most significant barriers to feminist pedagogy: the conservative opposition…; the fear of teaching outside institutional norms…; and the reservations among feminists that feminist pedagogy can empower professionally marginalized (female and nonwhite) faculty and students from exploited populations” (133). Crabtree and Sapp make these barriers seem like a very realistic issue that one might consider if they were going to implement feminist pedagogy in their own classroom. For my part, I plan on going in to detail on these problems in my presentation as possible drawbacks to feminist pedagogy. I found this article to be very helpful and relevant to my research.
Hunter, Susan. “A Woman’s Place Is in the Composition Classroom: Pedagogy, Gender, Difference.” Rhetoric Review 9.2 (Spring 1991): 230-45. Print.
In her attempt to answer the question “How many of those of us who are feminist and composition teachers interact only with students eager to be transformed by the political agendas of feminist, or for that matter, even composition pedagogy?” (230), Hunter justifies the role of feminist pedagogy in the composition classroom by detailing its similarities with The English Coalition Conference’s definition of composition pedagogy, which they define as one that should promote “inquiry, collaboration, and reflection” (231); it is extremely easy to see how Hunter made the intuitive leap between that definition of composition pedagogy and what is commonly known of feminist pedagogy. Hunter states that composition and feminist teachers have both similar methods and goals, including telling “stories of transformation, subversion, resistance, and conflict…challenging economic, political, and psychological imperatives based on gender” (234). In regards to the question that she posits at the beginning of the article, she in turn details “the value of difference” (242) among students in the classroom, stating that we should place a higher value on those students whose interests lie in areas beyond feminist and composition agendas, because “the feminist composition classroom is a place where people from different worlds can have a reciprocal effect on one another” (242). I found Hunter’s alignment of composition and feminist pedagogies fascinating considering how much contention surrounds feminist pedagogy’s place (and consequential effectiveness) in a composition classroom.
Jarratt, Susan. "Feminist Pedagogy." A Guide to Composition Pedagogies. Ed. Amy Rupiper, Kurt Schick, and Gary Tate. New York: Oxford UP, 2001. 113-31. Print.
This informative chapter in A Guide to Composition Pedagogies gives a basic overview of the origins, definitions, characteristics, methods, politics, and topics of feminist pedagogy. Jarratt, an author that I encountered multiple times in my research (and used multiple times in this bibliography), does an admirable job at using a decidedly limited amount of space to provide the reader with a deeper-than-surface-level understanding of feminist pedagogy by including her personal perspectives on what feminist pedagogy is constituted of in addition to exploring the views of other scholars. Jarratt’s compilation of information gave me a solid spring board to start from on this project, operating as an invaluable piece to my research and presentation since I’ve been able to use it to frame my discussion of feminist pedagogy and the implementation of feminist topics in the classroom.
---. “Feminism and Composition: The Case for Conflict.” Feminism and Composition: A Critical Sourcebook. Kirsch, Gail E., ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2003. 263–280. Print.
Jarratt’s article addresses both the patriarchal oppression of women in composition courses and women’s seeming lack of desire subvert patriarchy in favor of creating a more supportive and inclusive environment for women in composition. I italicized “for women” because Jarratt accurately points out that “creating a supportive environment in the classroom and validating student experience leads them (the instructors) to avoid conflict” (263-64 parentheses added), which is ultimately to the disadvantage of the students. In order to frame what can only be described as a call to action, Jarratt explores the basis for women’s avoidance of conflict, prominently citing Gearhart’s argument that arguments, or in this case conflict, is “an act of violence” in her article “The Womanization of Rhetoric,” which Jarratt quickly points out the irony of; Jarratt goes on to point out numerous flaws in Gearhart’s argument. Jarratt also addresses goes into detail about the dangers of suppressing conflict, raising questions as to what the consequences would be if a female was told to ignore a “conventional male reaction to a woman’s experience” or asked to share a “deep and serious self-examination of a personal experience” with a male teacher (268). The article also explores the benefits and drawbacks to modeling a composition course solely around women’s texts; while Jarratt asserts that it could stimulate “women’s growth” in a composition class, she acknowledges that it would be difficult for males to fit in without having knowledge of the “psychological complexities” at hand. Ultimately, Jarratt arrives at a discussion of “productive conflict in feminist composition pedagogy” (274), citing multiple examples of teachers more or less pushing students out of their comfort zones in regards to major social issues (gender, race, class, etc.) in order “create a consciousness in students…through which the inequalities generating those conflicts can be acknowledged and transformed” (276).
Lamb, Catherine E. “Beyond Argument in Feminist Composition.” Feminism and Composition: A Critical Sourcebook. Kirsch, Gail E., ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2003. 281–293. Print.
The reason that I ultimately decided to include this essay in my annotated bibliography is this line: “A feminist composition class could easily be a place where matriarchal forms are as oppressive as the patriarchal ones once were, even if it is in different ways” (Lamb 282). In considering the benefits of a feminist composition course, one would be remiss if they did not also acknowledge possible consequences. Lamb seems to tackle that exact issue as she explores Clara Junker’s “Writing (with) Cixous,” asserting that Junker’s essay less about establishing “women as gendered beings possessing certain characteristics” (282) than it is about critiquing phallogocentrism; Lamb goes on to say that Junker’s approach to feminist composition is “every bit as combative as the masculinist discourse we are seeking to supplant…If we are serious about the feminist project of transforming the curriculum…we need an approach to teaching composition that is more broadly based and accessible” (282-83). The broadly based and accessible approach that Lamb speaks of is a call for a movement away from teaching our students “monologic” arguments (which she aligns with the patriarchy) to forms of argument that are utilize negotiation and mediation (which she aligns with the maternal) to resolve conflicts, stating that this move will establish a cohesive way to introduce feminist theory in composition courses; personally, I’m not really convinced that this approach could be called entirely feminist, but I appreciate Lamb’s perspective all the same.
Osborn, Susan. ""Revision/Re-Vision": A Feminist Writing Class." Rhetoric Review 9.2 (Spring 1991): 258-73. Print.
I found this article to be one of the most helpful sources for the framing of my application. While most of this bibliography is focused on theory, this article focuses on both theory and practical applications of feminist studies in a composition classroom. Osborn uses Florence Howe’s model of feminist writing process in her article “Identity and Expression: A Writing Course for Women” to develop “ways in which a classroom situation and pedagogical strategies might be articulated through the study of the relationship between gender and language to foster and understanding of revision as writing,” saying that she wanted to find “ways of encouraging an understanding of revision as an ongoing, conceptual, recursive process” (261). Using Howe’s model and Adrienne Rich’s concept of re-vision, Osborn structured a feminist writing class in which revision was taught as “discovery,” a way for students to both better understand their texts and the construction of gender through language. The coursework Osborn goes on to describe in this article, and the explanations justifying each assignment, plainly demonstrates how feminist principles and revision can be closely aligned in a composition classroom setting because they can help students come to know themselves as readers and writers.
Powers-Stubbs, Karen. “Watching Ourselves: Feminist Teachers and Authority.” College Composition and Communication 43.3 (October 1992): 311-315. Print.
It is common knowledge among those that study feminist pedagogy that one of the characteristics of it is that of decentered authority, which favors collaborative classroom action over a teacher-dominated lecturing approach. What I found interesting about this article is Powers-Stubbs’ discussion of how that approach makes students question the authority and competency of their teacher, stating that it can make students assume that their teachers are not well-organized and that they have inadequate knowledge of the subject at hand. Powers-Stubbs discusses how her students made her question her authority in her own classroom by instantly dismissing her views on the feminist texts they were reading, but she ultimately attributed that dismissal to their “primarily white, upper middle class” status. The way that Powers-Stubbs explores a female/feminist teacher’s authority in this brief but insightful article informed the development of my practical application assignment---it incorporates collaborative classroom action, but hopefully does so in a way that doesn’t undermine my authority.
Schell, Eileen E. “The Costs of Caring: “Feminism” and Contingent Women Workers in Composition.” Feminism and Composition Studies: In Other Words. Ed. Susan C. Jarratt and Lynn Worsham. New York: Modern Language Assocation, 1998. 74-93. Print.
Schell makes a very compelling argument in regards to the pitfalls of feminist pedagogy, contending that “feminist pedagogy, although compelling, may reinforce rather than critique or transform patriarchal structures by rescribing…the “women as caretaker ideology,” or “the psychological investment women are required to make in the emotional well-being of men [and others]…” (74-75). Schell makes her case by going into detail on the traditional characteristics of feminist pedagogy, including the oft-cited teacher as a maternal figure that “encourages writing teachers to create a supportive, nonhierarchical environment responsive to students’ individual needs and cultural contexts” (77). Schell acknowledges the argument that this “ethic of care” lens can be seen as counteracting patriarchal pedagogy’s emphasis on dominance and control in the classroom, but uses socialist feminist analyses to demonstrate “the costs of nurturant labor” by showing that the “woman-teacher-caretaker ideology…has often limited and circumscribed women’s mobility and creativity” in composition classrooms (92). In my exploration of the benefits and drawbacks of implementing feminist pedagogy in a composition classroom, I found this article to be particularly revelatory as almost all of the research that I’ve come across seems to want to frame feminist pedagogy in a solely positive light.
Wolff, Janice M. “Writing Passionately: Student Resistance to Feminist Readings.” College Composition and Communication 42.4 (December 1991): 484-92. Print.
Wolff’s article explores her personal experience teaching a unit in feminist readings to her freshman composition class and the responses they gave that shocked her. Completely unprepared for her students to refer to the readings as “baloney,” “offensive,” “sarcastic,” and hard to “take seriously” (485), Wolff goes about exploring both the cause of their resistance to the feminist readings and how she can respect and resist their resistance in turn. Wolff posits that her students’ readings of feminist texts are “according to media portrayals of male and female” (490), citing pop culture as the context for which their constructions of gender are born. For example, Wolff finds that a male student’s evaluation of the readings suggests that he took issue with the readings’ promotion of gendered stereotypes---a legitimate point---but Wolff tries to point out in the marginal comments of his response that his sarcastic tone actually reinforces those gendered stereotypes; in Wolff’s marginal comments, she frames her own resistance to her students’ reading of the feminist texts as a way to help them reread their own responses. While I was drawn to this article because it dealt with a practical application of feminist studies in composition, it was hard for me to really gauge the extremeness of her students’ responses because Wolff didn’t really go into much detail about the content of the articles they were responding to.