“A rose by any other name…”

According to Jarratt, feminist pedagogy arose out of the “women’s movement, the civil right’s movement and before that the anti-war movement” (113). It shares pedagogical ideas with several other composition pedagogies such as process, rhetoric, cultural, and critical. Now, I realize that several of the composition theories that we’ve studied have had common elements, but this seems to go beyond the norm. So much so, that I wonder how it really defines itself as a separate pedagogy. I mean, remove the label, and what do you have…a bit of this, a little of that. Even those who buy into this pedagogy seem to have more questions than answers. “Feminist pedagogy…is better represented as a set of questions than a list of practices” (124, 125).

Jarratt talks about the feminization of composition instructors. In other words females teach writing but it’s the males who get to wax poetic with literary criticism. “ A crucial aspect of this feminization is the association of composition teacher with a mythologized mother, endowed with qualities of ‘self-sacrifice, dedication, caring, and enormous capacities for untheorized attention to detail’ but also symbolizing ‘authority, precision, and …taste,’ prompting expectations of censure and disapproval (118). In other words, the female comp teacher is the nurturing and caring educator of writing. Some women feel this does nothing but reinforce gender stereotypes while others embrace it as “building a feminist pedagogy on those maternal qualities”(118). My personal solution to this is to be the nurturing and caring teacher of writing who is equally capable of literary criticism and critical thinking.

Of course, whenever anyone talks about female inequalities we see the troops polarize into the radical, embittered, power-hungry and the ones who…aren’t. Rush Limbaugh calls them “feminazis”. The question becomes one of language. Proponents of feminist pedagogy feel that “asking students to examine closely the language they use in discussing social issues makes them more attentive to language in general and gives them practice in analyzing cultural stereotypes and clichés” (125). But is this a separate pedagogy and aren’t we buying into stereotype we want to dismiss by calling it “feminist?”

Shakespeare said that “a rose by any other name, would smell as sweet” but is calling this hodge-podge of characteristics ripped from other established composition pedagogies sprinkled liberally with a dose of gender stereotypes a sweet smelling flower? I’m just not sure.

Don’t get me wrong, I believe in the power of women. I’ve had a lot of experience being one. I spent a lot of years being that “super mom”-- the one who did it ALL. I stayed home with my kids, and then started a cleaning business where the schedule bothered no one but me and I could take the youngest along. I went on every field trip, served in every school organization, was the show choir mom, directed the plays when no one else would, sewed the costumes, baked the cookies, not to mention the duties of my own home. And when I decided to go back to school it was MY friends—my girl friends—who couldn’t fathom why I would want to do such a thing. They thought I was nuts and were perpetually pissed at me for not being available for their gardening tours, shopping trips, and endless gossip sessions. They have yet to forgive me for entering into the world of academia.

But my kids no longer needed me 24/7, and I was tired of being the cleaning lady (although I would love to have my own cleaning lady these days). While I have always been strong willed and opinionated (I know that comes as a surprise to all of you), I didn’t really find my voice until I found my way back to college. Is it a feminist voice? Maybe...at times..but mainly it is the voice of one who has experienced life through my own lens not only as a woman, but as a mom, wife, sister, daughter, granddaughter, grandmother, writer, reader, artist, student, and teacher.