Welcome to our fourth issue of 2022. We begin with a set of articles that focus on issues in education. In the first of these, Srijana Karki and Tamara L. Mix consider the impact of the women’s secondary schools that have been established in Nepal over the last decade. These make it possible for women to return to school and complete their formal education. Based on interviews with married students aged 25–60, the article describes the challenges – which women from under-represented caste and ethnic groups are most likely to face – of life without literacy; low self esteem, difficulties in employment, and problems in interacting with hospitals and banks, mobile phones and the internet. Education is extremely important in combating these challenges, but the women who return to secondary schools face a further set of difficulties; often suffering ridicule (told they are too old for school or accused of neglecting their domestic responsibilities) and the double burden of school attendance and caring for their homes and families.
Next we have three articles that examine gendered aspects of student experience and perception. Natalia Ermasova, Evgenia Ermasova and Natalia Rekhter focus on triggers for stress and the coping mechanisms of Russian students. They find that while all students share similar kinds of stressors, female students and single students are more likely to experience stress than their male and married counterparts. Shanel Quenneville, Victoria Talwar and Sandra Bosacki examine teachers’ ratings of their students, finding that teachers’ perceptions are consistent with the way that students see their own behaviours, and that both teachers and students associate femininity with good behaviour and masculinity with misbehaviour and aggression. Ioanna Kitta and María-Cristina Cardona-Moltó consider gender mainstreaming – the incorporation of a gender equality perspective – in university teaching in Greece, focusing on the education for gender equality that students receive. They find that while students acknowledge the need for a gender perspective in their curricula, they tend not to recognize existing gender inequalities. As these three articles suggest, there is a real need for a climate that is more supportive, inclusive and gender-sensitive, and for active measures to combat gender inequalities.
In many regions of the world, as Yariv Feniger, Oded Mcdossi and Hanna Ayalon note, advances in women’s educational opportunities mean that women now make up the majority of undergraduate students, but gender segregation continues to be a feature of higher education. Our next article focuses on Israeli academic colleges, using administrative data to compare students who completed their degrees within the allotted timeframe with those who did not. The authors find that studying in an institution with a higher percentage of men means reduced chances of graduating on time. It appears that, as in other educational settings, higher proportions of female students make for a better learning climate, with better interactions between students, better interactions between students and teachers, and less disruptive behaviour. In the male-dominated technology-focused institutions discussed by the authors, equalizing gender ratios would allow women to enter into fields of study where they are under-represented and benefit men, who otherwise face lower chances of on-time graduation.
Our final two papers on this topic also focus on areas of education that have traditionally been male-dominated. Ennea Fairchild, Harmony Newman, Julie Sexton, Kevin Pugh and Eric Riggs explore the role of fieldwork in relation to women’s under-representation in geology. They examine how faculty and students in universities in the US talk about women doing fieldwork, revealing a common discourse that excludes women. One form of talk emphasizes natural differences between men and women and the belief that women are less capable than men of performing well in fieldwork. Another attributes women’s under-representation in geology to women’s individual preferences – to a belief that most women simply prefer not to do ‘dirty’ work, with only a minority being ‘outdoorsy’. A third focuses on socialization, noting the ways that field work is perceived as macho. In contrast, inclusive discourse refutes the idea of natural differences, emphasizes women’s interest in the outdoors without marking this as unusual, or focuses on changes in the way gender is perceived in relation to geology. As the authors note, for women’s inclusion to be developed further, the visibility of female geologists and the encouragement of girls to participate in outdoor activities is particularly important.
Eliane Davila Dos Santos, Alberto Albahari, Soledad Díaz and Ernani Cesar De Freitas also address the under-representation of women in STEM careers, focusing on the Spanish ‘Science and Technology as Feminine’ project aimed at students aged 11–14 years and intended to promote girls’ participation in science and technology fields. The authors show how attendance at project workshops resulted in some boys and girls changing their minds about STEM careers. As they conclude, projects like this can play an important role in encouraging a greater appreciation of STEM and of increasing girls’ access to STEM careers. They could increase their impact further with the support and engagement of a larger community, including education institutions, central administration and industry.
Our issue also includes two contributions that address gender and theatre. Soumya Mohan Ghosh interviews Padma Venkataraman, also known as A. Mangai, the Indian academic, activist, actor, playwright, and director. They discuss Mangai’s own productions and writings and the relation of women, feminism and theatre in India. Finally, Yi-cheng Weng considers what the careers of eighteenth century actresses, Sarah Siddons and Mary Robinson, can tell us about the rise of celebrity culture. Siddons became famous for her portrayal of Shakespeare’s tragic heroines and of agonized mothers, and managed to be both highly acclaimed and respectable. Robinson, in contrast, became a scandalous figure as the mistress of the prince of Wales and because of her affairs. Both were widely portrayed – Siddons’ many portraits showed her as a grand and regal figure, while Robinson was the subject of gossip in paintings, caricatures, newspapers and periodicals. While both women were subjected to intense scrutiny, they were also active in crafting their public images and in making use of the visibility these afforded them. Their experiences show that the intersections between celebrity and femininity were as complex in the past as they have continued to be today.