ANALYTIC TEACHING Vol. 28 No.

The Persistence of Gender Stereotypes in the

21st century and what we can do about it

Wendy C. Turgeon

Introduction

Q uery any group of undergraduates and you will discover that most of them do not consider themselves to
be feminists and will quickly repudiate the title. They see feminism as either reflective of a man-hating atti-
tude or as an outmoded social cause of the 1970s—the distant past. While the opportunities for girls and women
have multiplied in many arenas of life, from sports to academic careers to such professions as engineering, the
law and medicine, we still witness rigid gender roles subversively at work in schools, workplaces and society at
large. What has changed is the way we speak about it. Now the language emphasizes choice and women declaim
that they are choosing to adopt certain pattern of being women, often without realizing the iron fist of cultural
expectations on these choices. In this paper we will first examine the gender roles and expectations set upon
girls and women in contemporary society. A major force today is the media as we shall explore in its influence
through toys, television, movies and the creation and sustaining of a celebrity culture. Secondly we will examine
the extent to which the educational system has risen to the challenge of educating beyond gender stereotypes,
if indeed it has. We will trace the inherent difficulties in introducing these ideas to elementary and secondary
students in an atmosphere of cultural and ethical relativism. The main thesis of this paper will be the claim that
we need to construct ways to engage young people in careful and nuanced reflection on gender and that philo-
sophical inquiry offers us just such a methodology. In addition to taking a look at materials already accessible,
we will sketch out some ideas for the development of materials that will further the enterprise of freeing young
men and women to examine with a critical eye the gender roles assigned to them by their culture. However,
in doing this, we acknowledge a need to be sensitive to a multitude of perspectives based on our nationalities,
religious beliefs and practice, and cultural “homes.” What directions can and should we explore to work against
the juggernaut of media and society’s pressures on girls and boys to adopt a particular view of gender and how
can we remain open to plural modalities of gender without succumbing to unreflective acceptance of tradition
for tradition’s sake?

Hannah Montana, Bratz dolls and Toys for Boys

Scene: Disney Store in a mall, USA

Players: mother and four year old son.
Boy: Mommy, can I get these cool statues?
Mom: No dear, those are girl toys. See, they are pink and purple!
Boy: But mom, they are really neat. I really really want them!!
Mom: (handing robot toy) Don’t you want this great robot instead? You don’t want those silly dolls, do you?1

This scene is played out in variations across the country. Toys are rigidly gendered as any casual visit to Toys
R Us will reveal. The toys for boys are in deep primary colors or black/army green and inevitably involve some
mechanical, robotical or tool-of-terror function. The aisles aimed at girls are replete with purple and pink and
offer an array of cuddly toys (ponies, cute wild animals, cats and dogs as well as baby dolls), housekeeping toys
(ovens, irons (!), doll houses) and toys for training girls to focus on sex appeal and celebrity culture (Bratz dolls,
Barbie, Hannah Montana paraphernalia as well as proto-makeup.) Even potentially gender-neutral toys such
18
 ANALYTIC TEACHING Vol. 28 No.1

as balls, bikes and Leggos are often color-coded or embossed with images that send clear messages as to which
gender “owns” this toy.
In Preschools around the country there are stations which mimic home and work. While preschoolers can
often be found crossing the boundaries of mommy/daddy roles in these corners, parents and teachers are often
nervous if a child spends too much time in an area that transgresses society’s paradigm for their gender. Again,
we find it harder on boys to cross over without stern redirection. “Boys don’t iron! They race cars!” And they
certainly do not dress up in glitter and high heels. Of course, the children themselves often police their peers
in their choices of roles.
When children enter kindergarten and first grade they are exposed to literature and disciplines which are de-
signed to invite girls to compete with boys in math and science, auto mechanics and doctoring. And sometimes
you will see opportunities for the children to witness boys and men performing care-giving roles or involved in
such quintessential girl activities as ballet, albeit less so than the emphasis on women as crossing gender bounda-
ries in the workplace. But by now, children have firm notions of what is appropriate for each gender and we
see the lines drawn in increasingly limiting ways as the children move up into the middle school years (sixth
through eight grades.) These years can be the most difficult for boys and girls who wish to explore alternative
models of gender roles. Girls who excelled in science and math become less interested and perform under their
boy counterparts. Boys who might have been willing to dance, write poetry, interact with younger children are
deeply discouraged through ridicule and behavior shaping. The dreaded labels of being “gay” or a “dyke” keep
children within the gender lines established by the larger society around them, even while they can see men and
women functioning productively across those lines.
If the adults in their lives (parents and teachers) are open to multiple opportunities for all children, how do
these rigid lines get drawn? Well, society establishes these boundaries through the media: the television shows,
movies, magazines, locker room cultures which reflect media images. Mom can reassure her daughter that looks
are not that important and no one should be anorexic thin but every image and message around her says other-
wise. Even mom laments every pound she puts on and most adult women have been on a diet at some point in
their lives, but very often are always looking to lose weight2. As our girls and boys grown into men and women
they are confronted with a society that gives lip service to equality3 and open opportunity but which subtly and
not so subtly shapes them to conform. We are still struggling with such social issues as sexual harassment4, job
opportunities for women and men, a continuing suspicion of men working with children and young people, and
the iron-fist legislation by the media of appearance guidelines for women (dieting, cosmetic surgery, lookism.)
Why have the schools not risen to the challenge of feminist charges for genuine equality and why does that very
call sound almost quaint? After 30 years, why are we still so far behind?

Education and the problem with feminism

Given the arguments for equal opportunities for boys and girls, women and men, and the seemingly obvi-
ousness of the need for encouraging both genders to explore individual ways of being, why is pre-college educa-
tion seemingly so silent on this topic? There may be several explanations for this absence of a systematic and
education approach to gender equity. Educators are often concerned by trespassing on family values. They may
see women’s choices as paramount and legitimizing any choice. Finally, they may be suspicious themselves of
a ‘feminist agenda” which is perceived as promulgating a particular form of radical feminism characterized by
lesbianism and “man-hating” attitudes. Let’s take a closer look at each of these responses before we attempt to
counter argue.
First, educators may be reluctant to wade into the dangers of nurturing feminism among their charges as bor-
dering on private concerns. As an endeavor to explore gender concepts may engage their class in values reflec-
tions, educators are concerned that such discussions or general lessons may impinge on the sacredness of family
traditions, religious beliefs, cultural practices. Even feminists have criticized their own for casting the debates
in language that spoke only to a certain narrow subset of women in this country: white, middle to upper middle
class, educated women. “Third Wave” feminists have taken their previous generation to task for presuming to
speak for all women, everywhere. In an American culture suffused with multiculturalism and ethical relativism,
teachers are hesitant to take stands on controversial issues where they may be challenging the beliefs and practic-
19
 ANALYTIC TEACHING Vol. 28 No.1

es of their students and their families. If Susan’s dad and mom think women should stay at home and take care
of the babies and that they don’t need a college education, can Susan’s teacher dare challenge that? Even when
educators wish to take a stand on feminism as opening up opportunities for their young men and women, which
feminist stance should they promote? Which cultural practices must be condemned or simply questioned? How
can we judge when we are taught not to judge but to accept—to live and let live? --To see relativism as a given in
morality? Isn’t it all personal opinion in the end? Many teachers demur at the thought that they should take
a public moral stance on any issue, much less on gender concerns. This stems from a genuine concern for and
dedication to tolerance and open-mindedness but can also result in simple neglect of deep inequities.
Secondly, the current focus among young women and men is that women have all choices open to them but
that they are choosing the traditional roles. They are not forced to become mothers and put aside a career. That
is their choice. They are not pressured to wear makeup or high heels but they enjoy it and choose to do so. This
is a problematic at best or an insidious at worst interpretation of feminism which claims that as long as you are
choosing your path (to get plastic surgery, to star in porn films, to diet, etc.) then feminists must support that
choice or risk becoming hypocrites. This calls into question a need to explore what we mean by choice here. But
on the surface, most undergraduates will confidently claim that they simply like and enjoy the gender roles that
society offers them and that they are not interested in exploring alternatives. After all, it is up to them, right?
This reflects deeply engrained beliefs which have been acquired and nurtured throughout their elementary and
secondary years.
Thirdly, many teachers are themselves a product of this culture and really think that women are naturally
better nurturers or less capable at abstract reasoning (science and math are boring anyway) or that boys really
shouldn’t be at home with babies but out in the world making their mark. For example, teachers quite com-
monly will blame working mothers for the problems that their children are experiencing but seldom hold simi-
larly accountable the working father.. In fact, who even uses that phrase—“the working father?” More girls are
encouraged to enter the teaching profession at the elementary level while boys are steered towards other careers
or teaching the upper grades. Assuming that gender is “natural” can result in the view that it would be unnatural
to try to change it or simply impossible. While we certainly see schools promoting their high achieving girls, those
same girls can find their peers less open to their intellectual pursuits.
So, given these three factors: an unreflective acceptance of relativism which denies judgment or challenging
someone’s beliefs or practices, a conviction that all choices are free choices and as such must be accepted and re-
spected, and finally the hidden prejudices towards maintaining gender roles of the adults who work with young
people, this make it extremely challenging to devise acceptable and effective ways to encourage teachers to help
children and young people critically examine gender in their experiences. When we see attempts to attend to
gender stereotypes, they are all too frequently:
•Superficial—an offhand comment that girls can be anything they want to be or that it is ok for boys to
baby-sit; in early grades there are story books which offer cross-gender models but these appear too weak
and infrequent to really be able to address meaningfully the power of the media in the lives of these young
children.
•Sporadic—in elementary and middle school grades girls do receive more encouragement to engage in sports
and academic subjects wherein boys and men traditionally have excelled and dominated but even here, the
push is not sustained and young women too often self-select themselves out of these options. Diverse op-
portunities for young men are still more absent than present and in some ways they suffer even more from
a lack of perceived alternatives. Funding for sports for girls has increased dramatically but the cache of such
sports cannot rival those for boys within the community.
•Contradictory—the message says that gender can be open and constructed while the teachers themselves
demonstrate very clear gender boundaries and the larger culture confirms those boundaries Even the exist-
ence of real role models (Hilary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice, women CEOs) are a pale echo in the face of a
celebrity culture which shouts gender role stereotypes loud and clear or even recasts them so that being fa-
mous and physically beautiful is itself perceived to offer inherent value for women. Paris Hilton and Nicole
Ricci come to mind. And those women of power are mercilessly subjected to scrutiny regarding their age,
hair, make-up, clothes in ways that are completely absent for powerful men.
•Simply non-existent—finally, too often the topic is never even presented for examination or reflection.
20
 ANALYTIC TEACHING Vol. 28 No.1

Philosophy for Children and The Community of Inquiry: Tackling the challenge

Where we might find some potent sources for educational models for gender awareness is in the philosophy
for children movement. Rather than introducing discussion about gender happenstance (through an occasional
story such as the Paper Bag Princess) or as a unit in a health class (along with sexuality) we can think of construct-
ing a systematic curriculum which encourages children and young adults to examine critically the notions of
gender and gender roles that surround them in their culture. Young people need opportunities in a safe and
caring environment to explore the problematic messages with which they have been bombarded since infancy.
This does not mean lecturing them against cultural icons nor does this represent the indoctrination of some par-
ticular feminist agenda, but an rather open and free inquiry with a readiness to put norms, theories, experiences
on the table for careful review and consideration. The model that exists for precisely this approach is that of
the Philosophy for Children (P4C) program as designed by the IAPC5 and as continually developed world-wide.
This methodological approach offers a potent way to engage children and young people in serious and genuine
reflection because:
-it happens contextually
-it is open to plurality but not uncritically so
-it respects all persons but holds one accountable for beliefs:

Philosophical dialogue occurs within a Community of Inquiry which itself supports cross-gender dialogue and
honest examination of given ideas and models of thinking and acting. The topics of dialogue emerge naturally
from the interests of the participants as they are provoked or simply offered through some material designed
to bring an array of questions and issues to the forefront for the community to consider. “P4C” offers a venue
which skillfully suggests topics that can benefit from examination even as if leaves the choice of which topics
will be explored in the hands of the community. It calls to mind, brings to attention, problematic aspects of
human experience—such as the nature of gender—but these aspects emerge naturally from within the context of
a story, film, artwork, musical example, local or world event. The facilitator within the community of inquiry
can highlight a particular topic but the ownership of the discussion and the setting of the agenda remains in the
hands of the participants. Therefore, philosophical inquiry can build upon the chosen interests of the group
without seemingly forcing a topic on them. This empowers the children or young people to own the discussion
and that guarantees a level of personal engagement that is too often lacking when the topics are introduced from
“on high” and the agenda is set and controlled by the adults in the classroom. This last point is important to
avoid charges from the adult community that the school is pushing a “feminist” or “liberal” agenda or is unduly
critical of cherished models of gender.
Since the dialogue grows as the community nurtures it, it is open to a plurality of directions and viewpoints.
In a functioning “Community of Inquiry” participants can trust that their views will be heard and neither
mocked nor slavishly accepted due to the source. Views cannot be dismissed or foreclosed upon simply be-
cause they are unpopular or deemed “wrong” by the teachers or facilitator or “alpha-students.” But at the same
time, a viewpoint must be placed on the dialogic table for review and consideration . No viewpoint is sacred,
no belief is untouchable. For example, a view which claims that only girls can really be good caregivers must
be seriously examined and explored for support and meaning. Students learn that anecdotal exceptions are
precisely that—anecdotes. They must be rigorously subjected to the criteria for a good explanation or theoretical
generalization. Likewise, claims that “girls can do anything that boys and can and better” must be analyzed for
its theoretic import and evidence. Discussions acknowledge the role of logic in constructing generalizations and
testing theses. But in a community of inquiry, participants find the courage to voice these beliefs and submit
them to communal examination, rather than simply parroting platitudes or hostilely ignoring viewpoints differ-
ent than their own. We can construct a place in which plurality is both welcome and yet each view is carefully
deconstructed for meaning, support and implication. A rigorous philosophical dialogue may not result in any
final conclusion or universal viewpoint but a plurality of beliefs can surface and receive a critical and caring look
by the individual members of that community. Some viewpoints will be found wanting or lacking in a sufficient
degree of rigor so as to render them inoperable.

21
 ANALYTIC TEACHING Vol. 28 No.1

The last point is critical here if the community is to function as a community and if we hope to achieve some
sense of conceptual progress in whatever concepts we examine. This dialogue must be suffused with a genuine
sense of care, acceptance and trust. --No easy task in any classroom but certainly a challenge in the middle school
years. The key lies in the constructed recognition that respect for persons entails acceptance of those persons
for who they are and a willingness to critically challenge their beliefs. Leaving people alone with their ideas is
not respect but neglect, disinterest and potentially a failure of community. Our current climate in education is
to equate respect with acceptance to the point of isolation or refusal to engage. “Live and let live” or “celebrate
differences” too often morphs into an uncritical indoctrination of a relativism which esquews all critical exami-
nation of ideas in the name of tolerance or “open-mindedness.” Here we have failed to educate in the sense of
“leading out” from ignorance into some movement towards truth. We abandon the person in the “cave,”6 saying
that we are sure they are right in staying there since that is their opinion and all opinions are equal. Can we
respect persons even as we challenge their cherished beliefs, their life projects? Philosophy for children claims
that we indeed do both. In fact, true respect means that we take one another seriously enough to listen, reflect,
respond. If the community is functioning as a community, participants will be courageous enough to voice what
they are thinking or what they have been taught to believe and both they and the other participants will respect-
fully listen but also challenge beliefs that seem to lack cogent argumentative support or are simply anecdotal.
Finally, the community of philosophical inquiry models a new vision of gender equity which respects dif-
ferences but gauges them in a context of relevancy. As co-inquirers the boys and girls, young men and women,
interact in productive and meaningful way which intrinsically challenge “folk wisdom” stipulations of what boys
and girls are like or of what each gender is capable.
“The classroom community of inquiry provides the conditions for the formation of childhood relationships
of tolerance, care and even friendship—relationships which are not based primarily on gender. One cannot par-
ticipate in such a community without learning to take seriously all of its participants and their ideas.”7
Therefore the very act of participating in a community of inquiry in which any discussion occurs offers an al-
ternative model for what boys and girls can accomplish, apart from the normative models and definitions foisted
upon them by their society through media and the adults in their world. Gender roles are subversively chal-
lenged through the very act of philosophical dialogue in which participants are viewed as reflective persons who
happen to be male or female as opposed to seeing gender first as definitive and exclusionary of selves. Indeed
Ann Margaret Sharp has argued extensively that P4C instantiates a feminist methodology through its emphasis
on cooperative reflection rather than confrontation and its stress on care and concern for the other coupled
with critical thinking.8 In summary, a community of philosophical inquiry models a form of dialogic living that
can be taken outside the classroom to be used in the larger cultural environment, where most influence towards
rigid gender roles subversively occurs.
Given the potency of the methods used in the P4C model of philosophical inquiry for crossing gender
boundaries, what remains to be considered are the topics that might be introduced to nurture genuine and
productive reflection on gender concerns within a community of inquiry. Recognizing that no homogenous
gender experience exists, we must approach the problematizing of gender from a fluid perspective that takes into
account religious beliefs, acceptance and prevalence of media images, beloved and familiar cultural traditions,
and the phenomenological experience of the individual as an existential reality within a social reality. Can we
even begin to isolate gender experience from the holistic experience of a being in the world, social and natu-
ral?9 Yet, despite all these fractal notions of the social self, we can affirm that there is to some degree a shared
world of being a woman and a shared world of being a man and ultimately the shared world of being human.
While these levels of abstraction may be difficult to reach, attempts to move towards them can help us better
understand the experience of the whole self. To the extend that I am a woman, that colors my experiences of
being white, middle class, American, academic. Of course, those characteristics likewise color my experience of
being a woman. These aspects of self inform one another in a multi-layered way that will defy any neat or tidy
schematization. However, to abandon hope of any attempt to reflect on gender (or any other category of social
being) on the grounds that they are too layered and intertwined leaves one bankrupt of any understanding at
all. As long as we remain sensitive to context, open to nuances, we can remain mindful of the partial nature of
any abstractions. The abstractions can still remain powerful tools of connection for discourse across differences.
Therefore, I would argue that if we can begin to sketch out the parameters of those shared experiences, we can
22
 ANALYTIC TEACHING Vol. 28 No.1

then overlay our cultural specificities on this common model, even as we begin the process of re-envisioning an
enriched meaning of being a man or a woman in the world today.

Topics, Materials, Directions for Philosophical Inquiry

If you peruse the Lipman/IAPC novels for gender issues directly confronted they are not in great evidence.
The one major exception is the ball game in Lisa10 where Mikey refuses to let Lisa bat because she isn’t good even
though she was next in the rotation. Would he have ever done that to a boy? Lisa stands by and doesn’t say any-
thing and it is only after the fact that she confronts her friends to ask why they didn’t stick up for her. Everyone
seems to believe that this was done only because Lisa was a girl. In Mark, there is some discussion about Mark’s
parents where the mother appears to hold a position of more importance and financial status than the father.
Despite the lack of systematically overt references to gender roles, throughout many of the novels are embedded
opportunities to examine the notions that clearly impact a consideration of gender: the nature of personhood,
prejudice and discrimination. But what else might we construct as philosophical prompts for dialogue directly
on gender concerns? I would like to offer some seed ideas as possible discussion plans for consideration.

Expanding Stories and beyond

Where do Lipman novels take us in the direct examination of gender? Many of the stories written for
young children open with ambiguously named characters and the children are invited to determine the gender of
such characters as Elfie, Kio, Gus, Pixie. With the cleverly constructed openness, participants must rely on clues
to determine who is a girl, who is a boy. Often stereotypes emerge for examination. Do only girls “twist them-
selves like a pretzel” or talk so much? Are some names reserved for girls or boys? Could a boy be best friends
with a girl? Could a girl be called “Gus?” If the characters hug one another, does that prove that they must be
girls? Lively discussions can ensue as the first through fourth graders sketch out and examine the stereotypes that
they use to determine gender.11
Secondly, as Laurance Splitter has developed, there are many explicit opportunities to consider the
nature of discrimination. Is it always the wrong thing to do? When is discrimination necessary and right? In
Teaching for Better Thinking, he offers the following discussion plan to provoke nuanced thinking about these is-
sues:12
Discussion Plan: Discrimination
•Are all forms of discrimination wrong?
•Can you think of a situation in which discrimination on the basis of skin colour, nationality or religion is
permissible?
•Can you think of a situation in which discrimination on the basis of gender or sexuality is permissible?
•What is the difference between prejudice and discrimination?
•Does all form of discrimination involve the formation of stereotypes?, etc.

One project might be to categorize all the points in Lipman novels which introduce concepts involving gen-
der so as to systematically highlight opportunities for a conscious attention to these issues. I am not aware that
this has yet been done.13
But what other resources might be used to engage dialogue about gender roles? For many young people in
Western society today, television, video games, movies and the internet experience dominate and shape their
world view. Each of these medium offers a wealth of material for examination. Such TV shows as Sex and the
City, Bones, 30 Rock, Hannah Montana, The Simpsons, and of course the ubiquitous “reality” shows could be
the basis for an ongoing dialogue on how we depict girls and women in our society. In some of these the women
are cast as leaders and independent persons who excel in traditionally male areas. And yet, the women are still
portrayed as devoting themselves to finding men who can complete them in fundamental ways. This emphasis
on the search for a man is rarely paralleled with male characters as defining themselves by their relationships
with women. How are these shows generative of social models for girls, boys, men and women? Video Games
in particular tend to be aimed at boys and men and often depict women as subservient and dominated by men.
Some feminist philosophers14 define pornography on the criteria of images of domination and subjection of
23
 ANALYTIC TEACHING Vol. 28 No.1

women, even when the women appear to be eager and free participants. If we accept this definition of pornog-
raphy, how many video games aimed at young men would fall into this category?
Movies still feature men in action roles and girls as “eye candy,” even as they karate their way into positions of
power15. Men in movies can be any size and any age and still attract the beautiful [read young and thin] women.
The women in films are depressingly similar: thin, blond and under 35, preferably under 30. Rumor has it that
most of the young women in the movie industry have a short shelf life and invariably engage in some form of
plastic surgery to enhance or “youth-en” their appearance. There is a depressing sameness to the faces of celebri-
ties and models that can only serve to frustrate young women who strive to emulate them.
The world of the internet as owned by young people is mostly foreign territory to the adults in their lives.
MySpace and FaceBook are social networking sites which allow people, many of them children and young adults,
to display themselves in provocative and sexualized ways, mimicking the media images with which they are bom-
barded throughout their young lives. Sites such as YouTube offer opportunities to post and view videos which
reflect the values of society at large. Many parents are unfamiliar with these types of sites or at best believe that
their children are safe on the internet because they are monitoring computer use. In some cases, the value of
the computer and internet has been so touted as indicated of intellectual engagement that the mere presence of
a computer and the child or young person’s use thereof is viewed benignly and even proudly as a sign of educa-
tional advancement.16
Another form of media that could be introduced for ex-
amination is the print media. Magazines abound for girls
and women which present the self as completely an exterior
creation. Even when magazines include articles that refer-
ence career options or important health and safety issues
that affect girls and women and life outside the cosmetics
counter at Macys, these articles are counterpointed by the
dramatic array of ads for clothes, makeup and diet strategies.
These advertising images offer a disturbing model for young
women as they depict women in prone positions, with va-
cant stares and dressed in fantastical and sexualized clothes.
Young girls read one text but absorb a quite different text of
the image, a text which defines them by their appearances in
the gaze of the other, a man.17 The print media thrives on
and promulgates a celebrity culture that delves into the lives of celebrities, focusing on possessions and looks as
definitive of who the person is. Here the media holds up these celebrities, some of whose claim to fame is simply
that they are celebrities (example redux: Paris Hilton) as the ultimate role models for young people. The sheer
dominance of the visual media with these images establishes an atmosphere of unavoidable longing to emulate
these images.
No attempt to engage children and young people in reflecting on gender and society can ignore these types of
influences. Their power is absolute and trumps any feeble lecturing from teachers or parents and indeed in most
cases these media are equally dominating of the adults themselves. Any curriculum in gender inquiry must put
these forces on the table for deconstruction and critical examination. It is not a matter of wholesale condemning
but rather problematizing them. We might wish to explore such questions as:
Why do images entrance us?
How do images serve as text?
How are images constructed?18
What constitutes celebrity and what about it is important for us today?
What is the relationship between appearances and fame and happiness?19
How do movies depict men and women in the workplace? In their personal lives?
Are cartoons more real than reality shows?
Examine the language that men and women use respectively in movies and on television.
How do they refer to themselves and to others?
What constitutes entertainment and how does it function within our lives as individual
24
 ANALYTIC TEACHING Vol. 28 No.1

and as communities?
Can we learn something without intending to do so?
How are women defined by appearances? How are men defined by appearances?
Similarities/differences?
What does fashion mean for men? For women?
What role does ethnicity, religion, personal belief systems play in the presentation of men
and women in the media?
How do music videos portray women and do the videos featuring male artists differ from
those of female artists?20 What constitutes the world of the music video as fairy
tale, fantasy, aggrandizement of the mundane?

Another source for philosophical prompts could be art. While there are many women artists and musicians,
most young people have a difficult time thinking of women in the arts prior to the mid-twentieth century, even in
literature. Galleries, museums, concert halls can serve as venues through which to engage students in encounter-
ing art and discussing how art constructs gender and how men and women construct art. Contemporary artists
like Judy Chicago21 or Kiki Smith22 can serve as provocative catalysts for discussions on the silence of historians
on women’s role in societies in the past as well as the natural world as seen through a feminized lens—a potent
contrast with the mechanical, technological world defined and controlled by men. Chicago’s work is self-styled
‘feminist” and she directly confronts and corrects the absence of women in history, developing a visual medita-
tion which could be perceived as complementing the much earlier but still powerful essay by Virginia Woolf, A
Room of One’s Own. In viewing her Dinner Party, one takes in the scope of the presence of women in history
even as they are all but ignored in the traditional sources. Mythical mingle with the real and each character,
symbolized visually with a place setting on the table, represents an aspect of human experience that too often is
denied or denigrated. We find women in traditionally male roles—priests, philosophers, politicians, artists—but
associated with the womanly tasks of food and eating, presence in the home around the table.

For another example, consider this image from Kiki Smith23

What does this image say about women, nature? Our relationship with the wild? Could we imagine a man
in the same situation?
25
 ANALYTIC TEACHING Vol. 28 No.1

All of the above suggestions are rooted in American, Western culture. One of the challenges for meaningful
philosophical dialogue is the charge to avoid foreclosing alternative models of being a man or a woman. Other
cultures and religions cast gender in quite different ways from the secular social model assumed above. To what
extent can we submit beliefs from other cultures to philosophical scrutiny without running the risk of misun-
derstanding and misrepresentation? If men and women embrace their cultural heritage, can we dare to critique
those heritages or are we simply repeating the mistakes of the West in its colonization of the other? Jennifer
Mather Saul argues persuasively that the task of philosophical inquiry is to avoid the Scylla and Charybdis of
imposing values on one side and blinding accepting all values on the other. In her text Feminism: Issues and Argu-
ments24 she makes the case for dialogue which includes a careful and nuanced listening to others and an openness
for shared, as opposed to unilateral, critique. In many ways she echoes the methodology of the Community
of Inquiry as she weaves notions of cooperative questioning, plurality, the development and implementation
of fluid standards into her model of dialogue. The conclusion is that we can and should subject the practices
and beliefs of other cultures, both within and without our own, to careful scrutiny. In doing so we demonstrate
genuine respect for the other as well as open up a possibility for a more objective reflection on one’s own ac-
cepted standards and practices.
There is much potential in adapting the methodology of the P4C movement in education to focus on gender
questions which can help children, young people and adults begin to move beyond simple socialization into their
roles towards a more reflective instantiation of our being human beings.

Endnotes
1 Anecdote related to me by Heidi Eisenhardt, a student in my Philosophy and Woman class, spring 2008
2 Some studies claim that 83% of young college age women diet, whether they are overweight or not. See:
http://news.med.cornell.edu/nyp_health/nyp_health_2006/most-college-women-diet-o.shtml
3 Still about 77 cents to a man’s dollar.
4 My 24 year old daughter reports that she can not walk along a New York City street without a barrage of
comments from men about her appearance. This constant low hum of male aggression colors and shapes
young women in our urban societies.
5 This proposal is far from original since Ann Margaret Sharp of the IAPC has been championing this idea
for a while. See her autobiographical essay “Women, Children and the Evolution of Philosophy for Chil-
dren” in Studies in Philosophy for children: Harry Stottlemeiers’s Discovery, edited by Ann Margaret Sharp
and Ronald F. Reed, Temple University Press, 1992. Here I am simply attempting to trace out and develop
further her ideas.
6 An allusion to the allegory of the Cave in Plato’s Republic.
7 Ann Sharp, Laurance Splitter, Teaching for Better Thinking, ACER, 1995, p. 208.
8 This builds on the extensive writings of Nel Noddings on an ethics of care and its role in re-envisioning the
classroom environment.
9 This is a serious issue that I sidestep here but which has received thoughtful treatment in the hands of Eliza-
beth Spelman in her essay, “Woman: The One and the Many”, found in Philosophy of Woman, edited by
Mary Briody Mahowald, Hackett Publishing Company, 1994, pps. 369-398.
10 See Lisa, pps. 47.
11 These episodes occur in the novels, Elfie, Kio and Gus, Pixie, Nous.
12 See Sharp and Splitter, op. cit,, p. 211.
13 This represents a ‘talking point” for NAACI participants in case there are materials out there of which I am
unaware.
14 Catherine McKinnon, Andrea Dworkin, Rae Langton have all written against pornography as a form of si-
lencing and subjugating women in a systematic way, even when the women involved claim to be empowered
and choosing to display their bodies and selves.
15 Charlie’s Angels were all gorgeous young women, as are all lawyers, doctors and forensic anthropologists on
TV and in the movies.
16 The thoughtless championing of computers in education, even down to the preschool level, is a topic be-
yond this paper’s cope but bears need of attention. Why do we assume that using a computer is a sign of
26
 ANALYTIC TEACHING Vol. 28 No.1

educational advancement and intellectual engagement? “Computers in the classroom” have become a man-
tra for advocating educational improvements. This merits examination.
17 See Griselda Pollack’s “The Visual” in
18 For example, view the Dove commercial available online which reveals the amount of photoshoping that
goes into an advertisement image: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hibyAJOSW8U
19 Aristotle’s Book I of the Nichomachean Ethics comes to mind here.
20 For example, contrast videos produced by Luducris and Sean Paul, Black Eyed Peas with those of Madonna,
Gwen Stefani and Missy Eliot. How different are these styles? Is gender messaging evident here?
21 One of her most famous works, The Dinner Party, is on permanent display at the Brooklyn Museum of Art
in New York City: http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/exhibitions/dinner_party/
22 Kiki Smith is an incredible draughts-person whose prints echo mythic and fairy tale themes even as they
invite a studied reflection on women and the natural world: http://www.moma.org/exhibitions/2003/kiki-
smith/
23 found at www.pbs.org/.../artists/s/smith-draw-001.jpg
24 Saul, Jennifer Mather. Feminism: Issues and Arguments, Oxford University Press, 2003. See chapter nine
for an extensive analysis of the options of cross-cultural critique.

Address correspondence to:

Wendy C. Turgeon

Back to Table of Contents

27