Annotated Bibliography

Below are secondary sources I used to contextualize my findings.

Spain, Daphne. “Gendered Spaces and Women’s Status.” Sociological Theory, vol. 11 no. 2, July 1993, pp. 137-151.

Spain’s article articulates the influence space, particularly gendered spaces where men and women are spatially separated “in homes, schools, and workplaces reinforce...prevailing status distinctions” (Spain 137). Facets of society that tend to be oppressive can be reproduced in these distinguished spaces. The patriarchy for example “is played out in the dwelling, while capitalism...is played out in the workplace” (Spain 139). Spain argues that schools are the middle ground between the home and the workplace, which is a crucial assertion for my research which focuses on the collegial institution of Santa Clara University. Spain’s argument also explicates the benefit of educating, or more broadly placing, women and men spatially together to create positive changes in all facets of society, most notably the workplace.  

Miller-Bernal, Leslie. “Introduction, Coeducation: An Uneven Progression.” Going Coed: Women’s Experiences in Formerly Men’s Colleges and Universities, 1950-2000, edited by Leslie Miller-Bernal and Susal L. Poulson, Vanderbilt University Press, 2004, pp. 3-21.

Leslie Miller-Bernal’s chapter provides an overview of of coeducational colleges in the United States beginning in the nineteenth century. For my research, her description of these institutions in the mid to late twentieth century is most helpful as I will be focusing on Santa Clara University, which became coeducational in 1961. Miller-Bernal notes that by 1955, about 75 percent of “all institutions were coeducational,” which “remained virtually stable until 1965” (Miller-Bernal 7), illustrating that SCU was rather late to become a coeducational institution based on national trends at the time. Miller-Bernal also notes that once women were admitted, their colleges acted “in loco parentis…[insisting] on regulating women students’ social lives through such practices as chaperonage, parietal hours, and dress codes” (Miller-Bernal 8) while male students were given much more freedom, illustrating the double standard apparent in many of these institutions. However, these same institutions have also accommodated women on campus by “establishing women’s studies programs, women’s resource centers, and sexual harassment policies, and by appointing more women faculty and administrators” (Miller-Bernal 15).

Miller-Bernal, Leslie and Susan L. Poulson. “Two Unique Histories of Coeducation: Catholic and Historically Black Institutions.” Going Coed: Women’s Experiences in Formerly Men’s Colleges and Universities, 1950-2000, edited by Leslie Miller-Bernal and Susal L. Poulson, Vanderbilt University Press, 2004, pp. 22-51.

This chapter explores the history of Catholic institutions in the U.S. in relation to the transition to coeducation. Catholic colleges began to shift towards becoming coed when women who could not attend all-male Catholic schools “left the Catholic system” to attend non-Catholic institutions, creating a concern within the system “about the piety and morals of Catholic women” creating the “incentive for the establishment of Catholic women’s colleges” (Miller-Bernal 26). Yet there still remained backlash against creating coed colleges, including Wlodimir Ledochowski, S.J., who in the mid 1900s “stated that coeducation at undergraduate schools was undesirable and should be a temporary measure until Catholic women’s education could be provided” (Miller-Bernal 29). Nonetheless, the creation of coeducational Catholic universities exponentially grew “in the late 1960s and early 1970s” as “awareness of racial and gender inequity in society” grew (Miller-Bernal 33), making Santa Clara University a relatively early Catholic college to admit women as undergraduates compared to other schools around the nation.

Degler, Carl N. “What the Women’s Movement Has Done to American History.” A Feminist Perspective in the Academy: The Difference It Makes, edited by Elizabeth langland and Walter Gove, The University of Chicago Press, 1981, pp. 67-85.

This book articulates that the integration of women’s studies programs in academic settings has transformed the academy by emphasizing the feminist perspective in literary criticism as well as a host of other areas of study. Degler’s essay analyzes the effect of the feminist movement on the study of History, which has created a “new consciousness among women” (Degler 67) that has permeated this academic field with the “reopening” (Degler 69) and reinterpreting of the past. The women’s movement has legitimized “those aspects of life that are peculiarly female, like childbearing and child-rearing” (Degler 76-77) as subjects of history. This source also provided a concrete example of how the feminist movement has influenced history with the establishment of the Feminist Studies major at Stanford. This program “is not feminist in the sense that it advocates feminism, but in the sense that it moves beyond merely women’s studies” (Degler 81) and examines the world in which we live in a feminist way.

Stoudt, Brett G. “Masculine Privilege: The Culture of Bullying at an Elite Private School.” Geographies of Privilege, edited by Twine, France Winddance and Bradley Gardener, Routledge, 2013, pp. 301-322.

Stoudt’s research analyzes how the physical space of an elite private school “can produce and communicate power and help define the meaning of social relationships” (Stoudt 307) resulting in the subtle reproduction of privilege in society. Using this framework, the same sort of analysis can be applied to “feminist” spaces that create a curriculum that facilitates feminist discourse and discussion of equality. Rather than reinforce privileges, feminist spaces are able to break down systems and beliefs of oppression. This source explicates how influential physical space and what is being discussed, taught, etc. there has for “social, cultural, and political implications” (Stoudt 320).