Network 27 Special Call Submission

Problem Statement

Women across educational school systems are positioned in a post-feminist era in which many assert gender equality has been achieved; an idea that does not resonate with rampant experiences of sexism (Klonoff & Landrine, 1995, Sewpaul, 2012, & Gill, 2007), in the classrooms of their education and workplace (Pomerantz, Raby, and Stefanik, 2013, Valerija & Znanosti, 2012).  For example, in her book Bates (2014) discusses the “Success of Everyday Sexism Project”, a forum where women can email descriptions of their daily lived experiences of prejudice and discrimination, quickly compiled over 25,000 responses from around the globe illustrating a contemporary account of sexism among females aged  7 to 74. These stories lend support to Sewpaul’s (2012) assertion that “androcentric and patriarchal thinking is so entrenched in major social institutions that gender and racial discrimination seem to be inscribed in our blood” (p. 28).  It is in our thinking, illuminated in the subtlety of sexist language, the maintenance of traditional gender roles, and an imposed identity of the “other” that the ongoing oppression of women is perpetuated (Anzaldua, 1999 & Berry & Mizelle, 2006). 

In fact, studies confirm an environment of sexism embedded at every level of education for both students and teachers alike (Hooks, 1994, Calder-Dawye & Gavey, 2016, Patton, 2010, Pittman 2010, Franklin, 2014). A 2012 interview study of 22 high school students depicts sexism as choreography, an interaction of communication with prescriptive responses, and reveals how participants re-scripted their responses to challenge sexism in their everyday environments. Likewise, Pittman’s (2010) interviews of 17 women, faculty of color describes “gendered racism in their classroom interactions with students” (p. 183) predominantly prompted by white male students who questioned their teaching competency, disrespected their scholarly expertise, and behaved in a threatening and intimidating manner. These studies suggest “language plays a powerful role in maintaining ideological hegemony” throughout a woman’s educational experience and prompt us to “analyze and deconstruct language” regularly to re-articulate an alternate female consciousness (Hall, 1985, Giroux, 1997, & Clarke, 2015). 

Complicating an ability to develop resistance within our communication, Patton warns that “the mask of civility has prohibited a critical evaluation of and dialogue about individual, institutional, and societal, forms of sexism and racism”  (Patton, 2004, p. 65, Klonoff & Landrine, 1995).  A recent study affirms Patton’s suggestion, finding women in six regions across the U.S., who more closely align to a traditional feminine identity, are more likely to self-silence when confronted with sexism contributing to varying levels of psychosocial distress (Watson & Grotewiel, 2016). 

This study is grounded in Feminist Discourse Theory to emphasize the importance of women voices as “the object of theoretical and critical analysis” (Sewpaul, p. 116, Lazar, 2007) toward an emancipatory process through education (Hooks, 1994, Freire,1970, & Giroux,1997). Frameworks of Complicity and Articulation Theory guide the analysis. Complicity Theory serves to examine the process by which discourses of sexism are maintained (Patton, 2010) and Articulation Theory focuses specifically on the re-articulation of hegemonic discourse, or how women resist sexism through language and discourse (Deluca, 1999). Complicity Theory emphasizes how people “examine and reflect upon how they tacitly maintain privileged spaces and discourses, and how their behavior affects or maintains a situation” (Patton, 2010, p. 69).  A major tenet of Articulation Theory uses the concept of antagonisms as the “differences in a hegemonic discourse that must be articulated” in order to re-articulate an alternative discourse in which marginalized voices are moved to the center. (Deluca, 1999, p. 337). 

Research Question

What discourses of sexism do doctoral students acknowledge and how do they choose to respond?

References Anzaldúa, G. (1999). Borderlands/ La frontera: The new mestiza (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Aunt Lutebooks. Bates, L. (2014). Everyday sexism. Simon & Schuster. Bullen, P. (2012). The continued relevance of teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 9(1), 21-26. Calder-Dawye, O. & Gavey N. (2016). Making sense of everyday sexism: Young people and the gendered contours of sexism. Women’s Studies International Forum, 55, 1-9. Clarke, J. (2015). Stuart hall and the theory and practice of articulation. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 36(2), 275-286. DeLuca, K. (1999). Articulation theory: A discursive grounding for rhetorical practice. Philosophy & Rhetoric 32, (4), 334-348. Flick, U. (2014). Discourses and discourse analysis. In Flick, U. The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 341-353). London: SAGE Publications. Giroux, H. A. (1997).Pedagogy and the politics of hope: Theory, culture and schooling. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Hall, S. (1985). Signification, representation, ideology: Althusser and the post-structuralist debates. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 2(2), 91-114. Hooks, B. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York: Routledge. Landrine, H., Klonoff, E.A., Gibbs, J., Manning, V., & Lund, M. (1995). Physical and psychiatric correlates of gender discrimination. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19(4), 473-492. Lazar, M. M. (2007;). Feminist critical discourse analysis: Gender, power, and ideology in discourse. New York; Houndmills. Patton, T. (2004). In the guise of civility: The complicitous maintenance of inferential racism and sexism. Women's Studies in Communication, 27, (1), 60-87. Pittman, C. (2010). Race and gender oppression in the classroom: The experiences of women faculty of color with white male students experiences of women faculty of color with white male students. Teaching Sociology, 38(3), 183-196. Pomerantz, S., Raby, R., & Stefanik, A. (2013). Girls run the world? Caught between sexism and postfeminism in school. Gender & Society, 27(2), 105. Sewpaul, V. (2013). Inscribed in our blood: Challenging the ideology of sexism and racism, Journal of Women and Social Work, 28, (2), 116-125. Vendramin, V. (2014). In exchange for feminism: “Successful” girls and “Gendered” neo-liberalism. Časopis Za Kritiko Znanosti, 42(256), 42-50. Watson, L. B., & Grotewiel, M. (2016). The protective role of commitment to social change in the relationship between women's sexist experiences and self-silencing. Sex Roles, 75(3), 139-150.