Explanations and Strategies

What remains to be explained is why, in both countries, academic women remain disadvantaged and men remain in control. For answers here, we have to turn to feminist theory. Many writers list liberal, socialist and radical feminism as three major types of theory. There are numerous criticisms of this categorization, including some from black feminists and members of other marginalized groups who argue that none of the approaches has adequately addressed their situation. Nevertheless, the division can be useful in pointing us to types of explanations for the problems identified.

By far the majority of approaches to women and higher education rely on liberal feminist perspectives, generally accepting society as it is but aiming to alter women's share of its rewards. There are several strands. One is the argument that women have been socialized into behavior which impedes career progress, such as low levels of confidence, inadequate ambition, and over-sensitivity to the needs of others. A similar perspective adduces that women are held back by overload and time pressures caused by conflicting family and career roles. These perspectives, while containing some truth, tend to over-generalize and put the onus on the individual to make the best of a bad situation. Trying harder or clever manoeuvring might help one woman, but the same problems are there for the next.

Two more largely liberal feminist views of the problem shift the emphasis from the individual to the structure. One is the charge that society fails to invest sufficiently in woman power (for example by not sufficiently encouraging women to enter scientific careers). The other explains the position of academic women in terms of sex discrimination. Strategies which follow from woman power and discrimination arguments make use of legislation, persuasion, argument, publicity and litigation. I have suggested above that such strategies can meet with some success in favorable circumstances.

But while it makes sense to continue with such strategies, we need a more powerful explanation of why progress is so slow. Other varieties of feminist thought such as socialist and radical feminism may provide a framework which helps make sense of the situation.

Socialist feminists see the workings of capitalism as the foundation for class and gender inequality. The labor market exhibits systematic patterns which confirm female disadvantage. For example, many women hold jobs where low levels of skill, low security, low wages and poor career prospects are the norm; domestic responsibilities and educational channeling reinforce this disadvantageous division of labor.

Socialist feminists have written relatively little about higher education, but a number of questions arise from a socialist feminist analysis. For example, what part does higher education play in reinforcing gender divisions in the labour market and the family? Why does the same amount of education bring a lower rate of return for women and minorities than for white men? Why is higher education, especially in Britain, only available to a small proportion of the population? If education is about increasing social mobility, how is it that these patterns are so persistent?

And British universities have their own "academic proletariate-the temporary, contract research staff-who are disproportionately female and whose numbers are increasing in the name of economy and flexibility. The abolition of tenure in universities by the government's Education Reform Act of 1988 would seem to suggest "traditional" academics are vulnerable too.