The article reviews the trend toward “gender analysis” in recent feminist theorizing, focusing on recurring concepts in the work of three particular women, Dorothy Dinnerstein, Nancy Chodorow, and Gayle Rubin. Although theoretical differences are discussed, the article emphasizes the similar conclusions which the authors reach regarding the kind of social action which might effect a break-up of gender-linked rigidity. The essay concludes with a discussion of the implications of gender analysis for educators, including comments on textbooks, teacher training, epistemology, curriculum research, and administration.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlthusserL.Freud and Lacan.New Left Review, May-June 1969, 62.
Chasseguet-SmirgelJ.Female sexuality.Ann Arbor: University of Michigan,1970.
4.
ChodorowN.The reproduction of mothering.Berkeley: University of California Press,1978.
5.
CohenM. B.Personal identity and sexual identity.”Psychiatry, 27, 1–14.
6.
DinnersteinD.The mermaid and the minotaur.New York: Harper & Row,1977.
7.
JonesE.The early development of female sexuality.International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 1927, 8, 459–472.
8.
McNeilJohnCurriculum: a comprehensive introduction.Boston: Little, Brown & Company,1977.
9.
MitranoB.Feminism and curriculum theory: implications for teacher education.Rochester, N.Y.: The University of Rochester,1979.
10.
OrtnerB.Is female to male as nature is to culture? In RosaldoM. Z., & LamphereL. (Eds.), Woman, culture, and society.Stanford: Stanford University Press,1974.
11.
RossiA.The biosocial side of parenthood.Human Nature, 1978, 1, 72–80.
12.
RubinG.The traffic in women: notes on the political economy of sex.” In ReiterR. (Ed.), Toward an anthropology of women.New York: Monthly Review Press,1975.
13.
ShermanJ. A.On the psychology of women.Springfield: Charles C. Thomas,1971.
