INDRANI SINGH
Joan R. Martin’s philosophical argument “Excluding Women from the Educational Realm’ reflects the ugly truth about feminism not only in the USA but also the country I hail from, i.e., India.
She justifies and supports through examples by making a normative statement claiming, “women’s exclusion from philosophy of education both as subjects and objects”. It is evident that women have been oppressed which is a universal truth, and not subject to boundaries.
Having said that I feel that Martin’s argument is syntactically sound though not strong. She has connected her arguments by examining the reasons of exclusion of women from academia through illustrations, important characters like Sophie, Gertrude from the works of great philosophical thinkers like Rousseau, Plato and Pestalozzi, and building a comprehensive critique of the concept of education, drawing a clear distinction between liberal and vocational education, teachings of analytical philosophers and thinkers and then recommending how education should be redefined so as to make it more inclusive and free from all prejudices and gender bias.
Thus, it would be more appropriate to say that her article portrays categorical and inferential soundness too. Semantically, and logically Martin’s argument is sound without doubts when she talks about women non-inclusiveness in educational realm. Sadly, she has examined avenues related to only writings in educational philosophy in this article, ignoring that women have been oppressed in all avenues related to education.
Exclusion of women from educational realm has been dealt through illustrations like Rousseau’s Sophie, Pestalozzi’s Gertrude in detail which makes it clear to her readers about how the boundaries of women are restricted to the reproductive process, child rearing, and all kinds of domestic activities and they are incapable of evaluating philosophical works.
Moreover, Martin has repeatedly mentioned throughout her article “exclusion of women from educational philosophy”.
Martin’s argument to a great extent can be categorically evaluated as pragmatically sound. The illustrations of Rousseau’s Sophie in child rearing and other women related activities, Gertrude’s participation in the reproductive process, Beecher’s domestic economy, Ruddick’s maternal thinking are great ways of illustrating women exclusion from the educational realm. It gives her women readers an urge to illustrate this truth through a series of gripping and revealing essays and through greater participation.
Her work is an illustration awakening her readers that when we accept these systems of oppression, effects of unnecessary evils of patriarchal policy, we are complicit in perpetuating those systems. When we, as a society, allow such repressive systems to exist unchallenged we are partially responsible for women writers being overshadowed by men, cornering us to the fact that reproductive processes are beyond the educational realm not realizing anatomically we are God’s creation, and evaluating women incapable of reflecting educational
works is irrational. Hence, her argument does not lack operative soundness.
Melinda Gates states : ‘A woman with a voice is, a strong woman’ but educating a woman is educating a nation. Martin’s argument awakens women of substance. It is a call for women, her readers to rise, and get into action, be more active not passive about the fact that women have been excluded from educational realm.
I have seen in my native village that more education women receive, the more aware they become, the conversation on feminism changes.
The problems of underprivileged women become nothing more than just facts and figures on a paper.
The feminist discourse become more nuanced, and we move on to talking about issues such as socialization, subtle messages of discrimination, girl education, women astronauts, women political leaders, etc.
I too have felt, lived, and contributed to this focus of feminism—especially during my time as a principal in India. This does not mean as an accusation, but rather a call to action.
Martin’s article is a call, inviting more women writers, increasing scope for research on gender identity and role of women in multitasking, understanding of the power dynamics in the society, discourses on not fight as a feminist and patriarchy, but against all systems of oppression and even our own privileges in the field of education in the broadest sense.
The key to our liberation is ensuring everyone has an equal chance at success and happiness without any gender bias and bringing reproductive processes into the picture unnecessarily.
It is consciously choosing to be openminded and inclusive. It is about starting conversations that make us uncomfortable. It is about minimizing our role as oppressors, about recusing apathy, as that inevitably hurts us too.
My belief in ‘work well begun is half done’ is a testimony to more action and less speech.
(Indrani Singh is a doctoral candidate at University of Tennessee, Knoxville, United States of America and former principal of ADLS Sunshine, an ICSE school in Jamshedpur)
