A feminist classroom is distinguished by perspective, not course listing

Evidence

The traditional school was oligarchic because it was intended for the new generation of the ruling class, destined to rule in its turn: but it was not oligarchic in its mode of teaching. It is not the fact that the pupils learn how to rule there, nor the fact that it tends to produce gifted men, which gives a particular type of school its social character. This social character is determined by the fact that each social group has its own type of school, intended to perpetuate a specific traditional function, ruling or subordinate. If one wishes to break this pattern one needs, instead of multiplying and grading different types of vocational school, to create a single type of formative school (primary-secondary) which would take the child up to the threshold of his choice of job, forming him during this time as a person capable of thinking, studying, and ruling—or controlling those who rule. — Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 365 (#expands, via linked claim)

One of the central tenets of feminist critical pedagogy has been the insistence on not engaging the mind/body split. This is one of the underlying beliefs that has made Women’s Studies a subversive location in the academy. — bell hooks, Teaching to Transgress, 386 (#qualifies, via linked claim)

Categorization

  • XREF: connects to: Early feminist classrooms uniquely allowed students to interrogate pedagogy itself — bell hooks, Teaching to Transgress: Education as…, 22; Feminist classrooms allowed patriarchy critique but resisted confronting class — bell hooks, Teaching to Transgress: Education as…, 366; Feminist pedagogy’s refusal of the mind-body split makes Women’s Studies subversive — bell hooks, Teaching to Transgress: Education as…, 386 (+6 more)

Broader Connections