Women’s Studies 18. Forum, Vol. 5. No. 5, pp. 463473, 1982. Printed in Great Britain.

0277-5395/82/050463-11so3.00/0 Pcrgamon Press Ltd.

‘SILENCE IS A WOMAN’S GLORY’: THE SEXIST CONTENT OF EDUCATION

PAT MAHONY

Goldsmith’s College, London University, U.K.

Synopsis--The purpose of this paper is to pull together some of our understandings concerning the sexist content of education (which is only half the story), in order to demonstrate what is involved in change and in the light of this to show just how little has changed since men first formulated their prescriptions for women’s education.

INTRODUCTION

There is a fast growing body of research concerning the ways in which sexist practices are responsible for the under-achievement of girls in schools (Byrne, 1978; Deem, 1978). There are still stronger claims concerning the role schools play in reproducing the inferior position of women relative to men in society (Spender and Sarah, 1980). The research is fragmented, necessarily so given the pervasiveness of the subject under scrutiny and the conditions under which most of the researchers (women) are conducting their investigations: unlike men who have tried to produce comprehensive accounts of social life, we don’t have wives.

However, it is not until all the findings are brought together that we can begin to grasp the depth and extent of the problem. Only then does it become obvious that solutions will involve a massive reshaping of education (and even social life). This is not to underestimate the value of initiatives being taken in some schools but merely to point out that they are only a beginning.

MEN’S PRESCRIPTIONS FOR WOMEN

Feminists have not been slow in pointing out that the entire history of women’s education represents the power of one group (men) to define another (women) in relation to itself. It is not difficult to canter through the ages finding messages similar to Aristotle’s as to how women should be trained: ‘ . . . the courage of a man is shown in commanding, of a woman in obeying . . . . All classes must be deemed to have their special attributes, as the poet says of women “Silence is a woman’s glory” . . . but this is not equally the glory of man’ (McKean, 1941).

Rousseau (1966) is often quoted probably because it would be difficult to Iind a more explicit example of the dominant educational view (or the principles of patriarchy) in the last 2000 years.

‘The whole education of women ought to be relative to men. To please them, to be useful to them, to make themselves loved and honoured by them, to educate them when young, to care for them when grown, to counsel them, to console them and to make life sweet and

463

464 PAT MAHONY

agreeable to them-these are the duties of women at all times and what should be taught them from their infancy.’

The prescriptions have not been consistent. A glance at Herbert Spencer’s work (1966) for example reveals a rather different model of the ideal woman from that which was generally accepted by his peers:

‘We have a vague suspicion that to produce a robust physique is thought undesirable that rude health and abundant vigour are considered somewhat plebeian; that a certain delicacy, a strength not competent to a mile or so’s walk, an appetite fastidious and easily satisfied, joined with that timidity which commonly accompanies feebleness are held more lady-like. . . . But to suppose that such is the ideal of the opposite sex is a profound mistake. That men are not commonly drawn towards -masculine women, is doubtless true. That such relative weakness as asks protection of superior strength, is an element of attraction, we quite admit. But the difference thus responded to by the feelings of men, is the natural pre-established difference, which will assert itself without natural appliances. And when, by artifical appliances, the degree of this difference is increased, it becomes an element of repulsion ratherthan of attraction.’

What emerges from historical investigation is three-fold. First one can scrutinize any historical period, whether it be Aristotle’s, Rousseau’s, Spencer’s or any other and find in the writings of those~times assertions by men, about women concerning what they ought to be and do.

Secondly we can see that however particular men view the matter women are to be moulded accordingly. The argument is between men about women. This-renders women’s position as little more than the object of any particular man’s interest. Thirdly, seen in its entirety, what is revealed is that we have been subjected over a long period of time to massive bombardment designed to render women powerless. Many of us, grateful beneficiaries of ‘higher’ education, spent the greater part of our first degrees in a state of high intellectual involvement with these ‘men of ideas’, a state which was also one of total ignorance as to the campaign being waged. As Sheila Ruth so aptly points out with reference to Rousseau:

‘It is a measure of the extent and pervasiveness of sexism in our culture and in the history of ideas that Rousseau’s happy acceptance of the enslavement of half the human race does not interfere with his reputation as a champion of liberty’ (Ruth, 1980).

A rather more glaring example of Sheila Ruth’s point concerns the appointment of John Newsom to chair the Newsom Report on education in England and Wales, published in 1963. Those who appointed John Newsom to that position-either hadn’t read his book The Education ofGirls (1948) published 15 years earlier or they condoned its contents. Either way] the fact of his appointment is deplorable. Carol Dyhouse (1977) in her discussion paper describes Newsom’s book as ‘offensive’ but just one reading of it reveals that she is too kind.

Newsom argued that the idea of giving girls the same education as boys was a modern perversion generated by late nineteenth century feminists who had forgotten he said, ‘not only that education is only partially an affair of the intellect but that it must be related to biological and social function’. Women’s mission, he said, was home-making---of far greater importance than the successes which feminists in the past had ‘imitatively adopted from men as a criterion for social usefulness’. Anyone who did not agree with him was apparently not a real women (he assumes that all men will agree):

The Sexist Content of Education 465

‘Indeed my own limited experience has taught me that almost all intelligent women agree with this assumption and those who donot, however able and intelligent they might be, are normally deficient in the quality of womanliness and the particular physical and mental attributes -of their sex’.

The book drips with sarcastic contempt:

‘ . . . the Grammar-School girl, if she has ever attempted domestic science is too busy doing her homework and trying to discover the difference between common and amorphous phosphorous to-.get down to such a sordid subject as Boeuf Bourguignon or a Creme Caramel’.

The curriculum for girls should consist, according to John Newsom in 1948 of four strands: English, P.E., Social Studies and creative/domestic arts. Of English he said:

‘an attractive voice is a positive help in the business of acquiring a husband and will endure much longer than more -obvious and more temporary charms’.

It comes as no surprise that the Newsom report (1963) aptly entitled ‘Half Our Future’ should contain comments like this:

‘We try to educate girls into becoming imitation men .and as a result we are wasting and frustrating their qualities of womanhood at a great expense to the community . . . . In addition to their needs as individuals our girls should be educated in terms of their main social function-which is to make for themselves, their children and their husbands a secure and suitable-home and to be mothers.’

The arguments and justifications, such as they are, which have been given over the years for the various statements have also differed. For example, Aristotle’s original appeal to what is ‘natural and expedient’ gave way at the turn of the century to a more ‘scientific’ approach. Intellectual studies would cause pelvic distortion thereby complicating the birth process (Ehrenreich and English, 1979), hockey playing would deprive girls of the ability to breast feed in later life and ‘intellectual pursuits increased the chances of psychiatric disorder amongst women’ (Spender, forthcoming 1982). (This latter contention is very likely true in view of the kinds of messages women generally receive about themselves!)

When it has become unfashionable to talk of the ‘natures’ of men and women, psychologists have often resorted to discussions of male and female brains. Feminists have responded throughout the ages with detailed counterargument, with anthropological evidence and by pointing out .the ideological role of science in legitimizing notions which attempt to justify the oppression of half the human race. Yet these responses do not become part of the body of knowledge known as the ‘History of Education’. What gets taught, in my experience, is what Aristotle, Rousseau, Newson, etc. said, not what women replied. What we are then left with is a view of ourselves in the past as feeble victims of men’s prescriptions. The angry resistance of women to the views of men over the last 2000 years is something feminists are only just beginning to discover. Not only have women been under siege since the ‘dawn’ of patriarchy, but the written history of that siege has been grossly-distorted presenting a view of women which is consistent with men’s original claims about us.

It may seem that of late, the issue of sex discrimination is being taken more seriously by more people. This is, I suggest, because relying on our own knowledge and means of access to what many women are trying to do in school, we have a more realistic picture of our own age

466 PAT MAHONY

than we have in the past. Assuming that what (if anything) will survive us-given that little has survived of earlier feminist activity-is a collection of official documents, women of the future may be forgiven for thinking that women of our age were indifferent about sexual oppression. As Elizabeth Sarah points out, the Green Paper ‘Education in Schools, A Consultative Document 1977’, the Report ‘Progress in Education DES 1978’ and the paper ‘In Educating our Children’ barely mention the issue. ‘Four Subjects for Debate’ DES 1977 not only fails to include sex inequality but refers to the teacher as ‘he’ throughout. And all this is after the inclusion of Education in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. At this point one cannot but recall Aristotle’s reminder ‘Silence is a women’s glory. . . but it is not equally the glory of man’.

But, for the moment, let us consider the very opposite of the situation in which women have been rendered invisible-consider, that is, the ‘new’ conventional wisdom which claims that women in general now have equality, that women teachers are in the majority and that girls can follow the same courses (if they wish) as boys. I shall argue that when it suits, women are described as more powerful, more visible than we actually are.

By 1978 over 40 per cent of the paid labour force was female (EOC, 1981) yet we were grossly under-represented in most of the professions: only 27 per cent doctors, 13 per cent of dentists, 6.5 per cent of solicitors and 1.6 per cent of accountants were women. Representation at the top of these professions is even worse: 12 per cent of consultants, 23 per cent of circuit judges and 2 out of 72 High Court judges were women (The Times, 1978).

Women have a relatively high representation in the teaching force: 59 per cent in 1978. Yet once more we are grossly under-represented at the top of the profession: 4.4 per cent of women are headteachers as against 10.3 per cent of men. On scale 1 however the situation is dramatically reversed: 39.2 per cent of women as compared with 19.2 per cent of men (EOC, 1981). The same picture emerges at a local level. For example, within the Inner London Education Authority’s science establishment no women and four men comprise the inspectorate, seven women to nine men are advisory teachers and 44 women to 117 men are Heads of Department (ILEA, 1981).

According to the new conventional wisdom, the explanation for this phenomenon is that women are not interested in promotion. However, a recent report (EOC/NUT, 1980) suggests that:

‘there is absolutely no evidence for the myth of the “strikingly low promotion orientation” of women teachers. The majority of our respondents considered themselves to be career orientated and would welcome the challenge and wider responsibilities that promotion would bring. There was no evidence whatsoever that marriage and/or the acquisition of a family alter this attitude. Those supporting a family single-handed were, naturally particularly concerned about the financial rewards of promotion. Nonetheless, despite their overall career orientation, women teachers do have difficulties in gaining promotion. Our analysis of the experiences of our respondents in applying for promotion led us to the inescapable conclusion that a fair measure of discrimination does indeed exist.’

What the report is politely pointing out is that if you are a man you are unlikely to be asked at interview whether your wife minds you taking on extra responsibilities, what your child bearing prospects are, whether you are about to get married or whether you have made proper provision for your children. If you are a woman one recourse is to point out that these questions are illegal. This strategy is not one however which is likely to enhance women’s

The Sexist Content of Education 467

prospects. So much for the alleged equality of women and men in the teaching profession, but what of pupils?

The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 made it illegal for any school to prevent on the basis of sex, any pupil from pursuing a subject of her/his choice. Yet when we look at the distribution of options taken up, pupils still appear to be ‘choosing’ along sex stereotyped lines, i.e. boys are still over-represented in science, maths and design and technology subjects whereas girls cluster in languages, commerce, domestic subjects (EOC, 1980).

The reasons for this are not straightforward. Firs&the fact that there is a law does not prevent schools from engaging in unlawful practice. In one junior school in London the boys played football. The team had extra coaching after school, played in local competitions and the results were read out in assembly. A group of first year girls went to the Head and asked him if they could play too. He offered them the possibility of a girls’ football team-next year (which is what he’d said the year before when the same situation occurred). They said they really wanted to join with the boys-now. This was met with irritation on the Head’s part. He told them they were rude and silly (the latter referring to the fact that they weren’t good enough). One of the girls became extremely frustrated and pointed out that they wouldn’t ever be good enough if they weren’t allowed to play. What followed from the Head was an angry speech concerning the loss of femininity in general and the girls’ contribution to this state of affairs in particular (Teachers’ Testimony, 1981).

In this situation, the onus is on the parent to take a complaint to the Equal Opportunities Commission but since such a move is not likely to improve the child’s position within the school most parents would not consider this option as practically viable.

Secondly, as Diana Leonard (1977) points out, although sex-stereotyped choices are made in single sex schools ‘. . . pupils make more sex-stereotyped subject choices in mixed sex schools’. Anne-Marie Wolpe’s (1977) research suggests that one factor in this is the ridicule which pupils fear from each other if they make unconventional choices. Left to ‘choose’ they will play safe in line with traditional sex-role expectations. This may suggest that the pressures on girls and boys are equal and similar, which is highly questionable. In terms of my own experience in classrooms, I would expect the majority of the pressure on boys and girls to come from boys. Furthermore a girl wanting to do carpentry rather than cookery is operating out of gender role whereas a boy choosing cookery may do so in terms of realistic career ambitions, i.e. he may want to become a chef.

What is at issue in this area is not that we are obsessed with trying to make girls and boys the same (an accusation which is often made) but rather that what is ‘chosen’ by boys gives them access to a wider range of higher paid jobs. For example, girls tend to cluster in Biology, boys in Physical sciences but as Diana Leonard (1977) points out:

‘Unfortunately biology as a single science at Ordinary level (examination taken at 16 years) is not very useful, either as a qualification for further education or for general use outside school. And you certainly can’t go on to higher level science or medicine or whatever without physical sciences’.

Some schools have taken steps to overcome the sex-stereotyped patterning of pupils’ choices by making some subjects compulsory for all. But as Anne Marie Wolpe (1977) reports, this does not overcome the fact that boys’ and girls’ relationships to subjects differ: boys consider woodwork an emergency subject for girls, and girls regard cookery similarly for boys.

Thirdly, the Department of Education and Science (1975) warns of the danger of pre-

468 PAT MAHONY

emptive patterns of choice: for example it may not be possible for a pupil to choose to do technical drawing unless s/he has done metalwork. Careful counselling on the implications of early choices is cl-early a necessity if what we want is for girls to have opportunities equal to boys. In my view a more radical appraisal of education is needed-a point I shall return-to later. Access to the curriculum I have argued, is not a simple matter of ‘anyone can do anything’. Straightforward (illegal) discrimination, existing stereotypes of pupils and subjects and lack of adequate careers advice all play a part in what children ‘choose’.

Having selected what subjects to pursue, what messages do girls and boys receive about themselves through those subjects? I shall argue that girls are marginalized from the content of education by a process in which the world is largely depicted as male with the exception of the domestic sphere, and that this conclusion can be endorsed-by scrutinizing any of the school subjects.

As a way of introducing this claim to a group of 200 student teachers I asked them to raise their hands if they had heard of Daniel Defoe. As far as I could tell, all put up their hands. Then I asked them to signalif they had heard of Aphra Rehn. Only three students put up their hands. Why so few? I asked this question because as Angeline Goreau (1980) points out:

‘The life she led would have been extraordinary in any age, but for a woman of the seventeenth century not born to fortune or position it was nearly unheard of. Aphra Behn was an adventuress who undertook the long and dangerous voyage to the West Indies, became involved in a slave rebellion there, and visited a tribe of Indians who had never before seen Europeans. She was a spy for Charles II against the Dutch. She was a debtor imprisoned for expenses incurred in the service of the King. She was a feminist who vociferously defended the right of women to an education, and the right to marry whom they pleased or not at all. She was a sexual pioneer who contended that men and women should love freely and as equals. She was a political activist who argued the Royalist point of view at Will’s Coffee House and from the stage of Drury Lane Theatre. She was an early abolitionist whose novel, “Oroonoko”, contained the first popular portrayal of the horrors of slavery. Finally she was a writer who not only insisted on being heard, but successfully forced the men who dominated the jealous literary world of Restoration England to recognize her as an equal. In a London that boasted only two theatres, she had 17 plays produced in 17 years. She wrote 13 “novels” (30 years before Daniel Defoe wrote “Robinson Crusoe”, generally termed the first novel) and published several collections of poems and translations.

-* Along with her friend and colleague, John Dryden, she is buried in. Westminster Abbey-Dryden in Poets’ Comer; Aphra outside, at the entrance to the cloisters, where her stone has almost been worn smooth by 3 centuries of indifferent feet’.

In the seminar afterwards a male student said ‘You seem to be suggesting that there’s a conspiracy, well I suppose, urn, I think that, urn I think men do keep womendown. I think there is a conspiracy, but what I can’t stand is the language you use, and you won’t get anywhere by being so aggressive’. Having just delivered the most ‘objective’ and mild lecture of my entire career I asked him with surprise what language had been offensive, to which he replied ‘Oh it’s not you, it’s the others, they put men off, I’d go along with threequarters of it, it’s the rest I can’t stand’. It was impossible to centre the discussion around the ‘acceptable threequarters’ and then draw out the implications for their practice in the classroom. Unlike the story of the emperor’s clothes we do not seem to achieve the same just ending.

Of course it is not just in English Literature and History syllabuses that women are

The Sexist Content of Education 469

marginalized or rendered invisible. In a recent review of the existing studies which have now been carried out on a whole range of children’s literature the following picture emerged. In the text and pictures 75 per cent of characters are male, 25 per cent are female: men are depicted in four times as many occupations as women and men express achievement and ingenuity as compared with women’s dependence and nurturance (Butler and Paisley, 1979).

This account corresponds to the picture which has emerged from students analysing their own subjects.

A student about to teach German writes:

‘Just in case the children did not get the original message, the author spells it out even more explicitly in chapter 5. “Here are electrical shops. Naturally Wolfgang is looking at them. They have many televisions and radios. Men and boys stand there. And here is a fashion shop. It has many clothes, Here many women and girls are standing. A man cleans the windows”. In chapter 10 forebodingly ealled “The Midday Meal” we are told “Herr Gruber is already in the dining room. The food is ready, mother and daughter bring it from the kitchen, to the dining room”. “Where is the boy?” says Herr Gruber. It turns out that Wolfgang is in the garden doing what boys general do in German textbooks-playing football’.

A recent study of modern languages examinations reveals predictably a similar picture (Moys, 1980):

‘In the course of various papers from all boards, men and boys appear as doctor, teacher, headteacher, policeman, postman, soldier, concierge, airline_ pilot, jeweller, thief, traindriver, explorer. They climb mountains, attempt to break records, catch thieves, fish, row boats, almost get drowned or save others from drowning, visit Paris with father, run away from home or get kidnapped. Women and girls ask their husbands for money, make sure the man has a good job before marrying him, prepare food, lay tables, walk quietly because father is working, play the piano and receive orders from men for food and services’.

A science student writes:

‘Where photographs and pictures show human involvement there are very few women and girls involved in any scientific activity: the girls perform the servicing roles (like blowing up balloons to be used in the experiment), while boys tackle the real stuff.

And in Maths, (where itis now suggested that what has to be explained is not lack of female ability but rather discontinuity ofperformance (Eynard and Walkerdine, 1980) we find this in a recent text book (Smith; 1974):

‘Are you a boy? Yes. Turn to opposite page. No? Here is a flow diagram showing you how to mix concrete. Read on .

In a knitting pattern for a pullover , . .’

In a letter to the publishers a girl complained about this particular example and received a very defensive reply in which they claimed they were only trying to appeal to pupil interest!

RE students who have raised thequestion of male bias in the RE syllabus report comments ranging from ‘women are irrelevant’, ‘women don’t exist’ to ‘it’s never occurrec-to me’. And so

470 PAT MAHONY

on. It is not enough for subject departments involved in training teachers to acknowledge the problem and to be sympathetic to those who are raising it. (Though this is a good deal better than departments overtly hostile to the issue.) What is needed is a much more active programme to produce materials, bibliographies and suggestions for what might be taught in place of men’s studies.

But the content to be studied is not the only means by which girls are marginalized. The language in which that knowledge is expressed also tells us that the world is male unless proved otherwise: I am referring of course to the use of he and man to mean she and woman. Dale Spender has already documented the history of this piece of linguistic skullduggery (Spender, 1980). She explains that the rationalization that man includes woman is a relatively recent one in the history of the English language. In 1153 a Mr Wilson argued that it was more natural to place the man before the woman and in 1646 a Mr Poole went further by claiming that the male gender was worthier and therefore deserved priority. In 1746 a Mr Kirkby invented his ‘Eighty Eight Grammatical Rules’ with rule 21 stating that the male gender was more comprehensive than the female. Finally in 1889, so natural was the correct form that an Act of Parliament had to be passed in which ‘man’ was legally made to standfir ‘woman’.

In June 1981 a notice appeared in the Staff Bulletin of a London College entitled ‘Rules as to Gender’. It read thus:

‘Members of Academic Board and others who have raised the question of the use of “he” in College regulations and publications will know that the Dean of Admissions relies for guidance on the Interpretation Act 1889. For those who are unfamiliar with this piece of legislation the relevant section is given below:

In this Act . . . words imparting the masculine gender shall include females’ (Teacher’s Testimony, 1981).

It would be difficult not to understand this as a deliberate attempt to write females out of existence and in spite of the fact that they are apparently in the majority in the College it is unlikely that this situation would be represented on the body to which the Dean is answerable, (just as there were no women MPs in 1889). We may be told by men for the next 2000 years that ‘man’ means ‘woman’ but nothing will convince me that sentence like ‘man is an animal who suckles his young’ are sensible. For a group so renowned for its logical prowess this is a sad case of it, for if ‘man can suckle his young’ (because man includes woman) then man can give birth, become Pope or impregnate man. But this is nonsense, only women can do some of these things and only men others. It’s no accident that ‘man’ does not include ‘woman’ when men’s interests are at stake, i.e. a woman cannot become Pope. As the g-year-old daughter of a friend said ‘It’s a trick to pretend they’re not leaving us out’.

What this amounts to from the point of view of girls in school is that whatever subject they pursue, the language in which that subject is taught actively excludes them. In view of the sensitivity on the part of most teachers to the issues of language as a potential barrier to the learning of working-class children it is deplorable that when asked to consider the same issue from the point of view of girls the most common reaction (in my experience) is to nod and then ignore it or to accuse us of triviality.

I’ve dealt solely with the content of education. I have not touched on questions of teacher attitude, pupil/teacher interaction nor on boy/girl interaction in a mixed sex classroom.

The Sexist Content of Education 471

However I have argued elsewhere that as much attention should be given to these aspects as to the content. (Mahony, forthcoming 1983.) But this far considered, what would be the implications of attempting to adjust the content of what is taught in schools?

First, if children are to be encouraged to develop a genuine picture of the world then it must include the part women have and do play in society. This means making teachers aware that the knowledge they themselves have acquired through their education is partial and distorted. Ideally a start could be made by re-writing all university courses but this is utopian, for it presupposes we have won the battle we are still fighting-that is, it presupposes a change in attitudes about the value of women. The next best strategy would be to include in each of those courses a compulsory women’s studies course. There are two problems involved here. First, as anyone who has tried teaching men hostile to the matter will know, it can be a highly unpleasant and sometimes frightening experience-there are in short easier ways to earn a crust. In comparison with a male colleague teaching the same ‘sexism in education’ course the amount of rudeness and aggression which I experience from male students in phenomenal. For example, on introducing the subject of male/female conversation patterns we both ended the session by pointing out that the students’ discussion had exactly replicated what the research had concluded-that the men, though comprising one quarter of the group had spoken twice as much as the women. A male student in my group said ‘And who’s fault’s that’ whereas my colleagues reported a response of sheepish embarrassment on the part of all the men in his group and this comment from one of them ‘That proves what you’ve been saying about starting with ourselves’. Even if the answer to this is for male tutors to teach the men, and even if we could find enough anti-sexist men to do it, we still have to establish at management level the necessity of single-sex groupings.

In addition to the compulsory study of sexism throughout the curriculum, options in women’s studies would provide an opportunity for the sympathetic to have space to extend their understanding as well as lending visibility and legitimation to the knowledge which women are generating about their lives in a Patriarchal society.

Rather than concentrating on University to which only a few students will have access, perhaps a more realistic goal would be to concentrate on teacher training institutions. The same problems arise as before but in this case there is at least an already established principle operating in the training of teachers which can be invoked to at least achieve a hearing on the issue. This is the principle of equality of opportunity which most tutors and students would feel obliged to verbally endorse and in virtue of which some have already begun to review their courses for ethnocentric bias. Some departments have already become sensitive to their use of language, to the views of women expressed through the content taught and to their omission of women authors, and women’s experience: (often, sadly this sensitivity has been forced by female students’ continuous endeavours to argue the point). But they need to go further and as suggested before ‘adjust’ their knowledge in order to arrive at a set of understandings which include women. This means that they must stop confusing their own ignorance with the assumption that there is nothing to know.

Secondly, it may be that subject stereotypes could be broken down by the adoption of more progressive teaching methods in schools. Project work for example can involve pupils in different forms of knowledge such that the distinction between arts and sciences is not so rigid. Good primary schools already operate in this way. For example in one school the class built a pond which involved mathematical, scientific and language work. It involved girls and boys finding out how to make concrete and mixing it and the concern that the fish be kept healthy and happy (?) was the concern of all. In order to make science interesting to girls the

472 PAT MAHONY

answer is not to get them investigating the chemical composition of lipstick, for this merely reinforces an image of them as interested solely in their appearance.

Thirdly, what is at issue is not just that men have power over women but rather that anybody should have power over others at all. What would count as challenging Patriarchy could never amount to a programme which ensured that women held positions of power over men or that women held positions of power equally with men.

What is at issue is much more fundamental: the possession of power, its maintenance and its damaging effects (which women are in the best position to understand since they have suffered them). Feminists in the past and the present have documented some of the ways in which women are controlled by men-through institutions such as health, law, the church, the state, the police, the medirand Gtication. Built into this maintenance of power is hierarchy, coercion, the mystification of knowledge so that its possession can be controlled and so on. If the challenge to Patriarchy is seen as a challenge to the ways in which power is maintained as well as to who maintains it then the change required is a very far reaching one. A concrete example of what is at present wild speculation and (to me) an almost unimaginable world is given by Philip Aries (1973) where he shows that out of a desire to control children comes a socially constructed category of ‘childhood’. If that element of control were removed then presumably ‘childhood’ as we know it would disappear and the lives of individual children change dramatically. Since we are very far from even approaching this situation there is perhaps little point in dwelling on it: there is point though in making explicit the extent of what is implied.

In the meantime we may ask what is being done. The answer is a great deal and very little. Feminists continue to carry a triple load. They must pbssess male knowledge otherwise they are not regarded as competent. They must possess female knowledge otherwise nothing changes and thus they must spend hours reconstructing knowledge of themselves in the past which men have written out. And they must do all this in the context of resisting the offensive comments and abuse unleashed by such engagement. Thus a great deal is being done. Unhappily such efforts are not reciprocated on the part of those with power to make decisions (men) who may agree to some surface changes as long as these require no fundamental change in their work or behaviour. Things can be done as long as we do them without ‘rocking the boat’ and as long as we remain ‘sweet and agreeable’ in the process. But just as women experienced in the past, e.g. the militant suffragettes, patience and tolerance are beginning to wear thin. The questions we are left with are these-can feminists continue to guarantee such patience?-and can we afford not to?

REFERENCES

Aries, Philip. 1973. Centuries of Childhood. Penguin, Harmondsworth. Butler, Matilda and William Paisley. 1979. Women and the Mass Media: a Sourcebook for Research and Action.

Human Services Press, U.S. Byrne, Eileen. 1978. Women & Education. Tavistock, London. Deem, Rosemary. 1978. Women & Schooling. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London. Department of Education &-Science. 1975. Curriculum D@zrences for Boys & Girls. HMSO, London. Dyhouse, Carol. 1977. The education of girls in Britain since the Second World War. Paper presented at conference,

Teaching Girls to be Women, Essex, April. Ehrenreich, Barbara and English, Deidre. 1979. For her Own Good: 150 Years of Experts’ Aduice to Women. Pluto,

London. Equal Opportunities Commission/National Union of Teachers. 1980. Promotion and the Woman Teacher. Equal Opportunities Commission. 1981. Fifth Annual Report, 1980. Eynard, Rosie and Walkerdine, Valerie. 1980. The Practice of Reason, Vol. 2.

The Sexist Content of Education 413

Goreau, Angeline. 1980. Reconstructing Aphra Behn. OUP, London. Inner London Education Authority. Contact, 6.11.81. Leonard, Diana 1977. Opportunities and choice in the curriculum. Paper presented at conference, Teaching Girls to

be Women, Essex. Mahony, Pat. 1983 (forthcoming). How Alice’s chin really came to be pressed against her foot: sexist process of

interaction in mixed sex classrooms. Women’s Stud. Int. Forum, 6(2). McKean, Richard. ed. 1941. The Basic Works ofdristotle. Random House, New York. Moys, Alan. 1980. Modern Languages Examination at 16 + . CILTR. Newson, John, 1948. The Education of Girls. Faber, London. The Newsom Report. 1963. Half&r Future. Report of the Central Advisory Council for Education (England).

Department of Education and Science. Rousseau, Jean Jacques. 1966. Emile. J. M. Dent & Sons, Cambridge. Ruth, Sheila. 1980. Issuesin Feminism. Houghton MiRIin, Boston. Sarah, Elizabeth The-invisibility of the issue of sex discrimination in official documents concerned with teacher

Education.. Unpublished paper. Available for reference from the Equal Opportunities Commission, Manchester, Eng.

Smith, Elizabeth. ed__I974. The School Mathematics Project, Book F. OUP, London. Spencer, Herbert. l%a_ Essays on Education. J. M. Dent & Sons, London. Spender, Dale. 1980. Men Made Language. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London. Spender, Dale. 1982 (forthcoming). Invisible Women: The Schooling Scandal. Readers and Writers Co-operative,

London. Spender, Dale and.Sarah, Elizabeth. 1980. Learning to Lose: -Sexism and Education, Women’s Press, London. The Times, 2510.78. Wolpe, Anne-Marie. 1977. Some Processes in Sexist Education. WRCC Publications, London.