"Feminist Pedagogy" Response

I was very resistant coming into this piece with regard to feminism in its academic orientations. This piece did little to assuage my arguments against the whole notion of feminism. I plan to write an amazing essay one day in which I criticize the entire notinos of feminism (along with a few other large issues). I do not do so in an anti-woman or men-above-women fashion. I do so in an anti-feminist fashion. However, acknowledging the complexity of the issue as a whole, I recognize that this short posting may do little or nothing to corroborate my arguments against feminism.

What is it to be a feminist? It seems to involve renouncing everything our "patriarchal society" proclaims as Truth. Renouncing all that is patriarchal implies assention to all that is matriarchal. From this essay, and from much of what I read on feminine discourse, matriarchal is seen as opposite of patriarchal. That is, it embraces soft over hard, gentility over violence, irrationality and divergence over rationality and linearity. This is where I come to my most argumentative point with feminism, and it is the fact that men are not the opposite of women. The sexes share biological differences (that sometimes oppose one another); yes, but they are not diachronically opposed. For example, having a vagina is not the opposite of having a penis. Not having a sexual organ at all would be the opposite of having a penis (or a vagina). With this assertion that opposition does not exist between sexes, I argue that a feminist who acts the complete opposite of the “patriarchal society” surrounding her in fact assents just as much that society’s expectations of femininity and masculinity.

Consider this: the text speaks of men implementing feminist pedagogy in their classrooms. What makes a man a feminist? Must he act feminine (e.g., fain powerlessness as teacher)? Do female feminists act masculine (e.g., embrace power as teacher)? In either case, both still subject themselves to social definitions regarding gender.

This chapter seems to argue that a feminist pedagogy is just making students aware of gender differences. How is that a pedagogy? That is a lesson plan that I believe is a necessary part of the learning experience. One need not spend an entire course making students aware of gender differences and the impacts on their students’ lives. The students are already aware of the differences and (subconsciously, at least) of the impact on their lives.

Regarding the whole “women’s writing” or “écriture feminine,” I think this is completely absurd. If a single human reads this and would like to hear my attempt at coherently arguing the stupidity of this notion because he/she disagrees with me, e-mail me, and I will post my argument against it.