Gendered Curriculum

The evidence for and against this particular theoretical explanation of a gendered curriculum

On the one hand, anomie theory does seem to offer a general explanation about the process of the curriculum becoming gendered, especially in the higher levels of the education system where students are "free" to pick the subjects they want to follow.

In particular, one of the strengths of this theory is that it relates events in the wider world (work, general socialisation of males and females) to individual choices and shows how wider social structures influence such choices. In this respect, anomie theory can be used to explain why patterns of gendered subjects develop.

It is clear that the socialisation process in our society (as messy and contradictory as it undoubtedly must be) provides a compelling influence on the lives of many children (and, by extension, adults). In a world that is still, by-and-large, constructed along gender lines, the pressure to conform to traditional assumptions about males and females remains strong.

Furthermore, however much post-modernist writers might argue that gender identities (in simple terms, what people believe gender means to them) are becoming increasingly fragmented, it is arguable that such identities are still shaped, for the majority, by traditional (modernist?) assumptions about masculinity and femininity. This is, perhaps, particularly true of teenage men and women.

On the other hand, although this theory explains why some boys and girls take certain types of subject, the fact that not all boys and girls stick to gender appropriate subjects indicates that the theory cannot fully explain the gendered curriculum. 

Additionally, at GCSE level and below a National Curriculum has meant that blatant forms of gender association are no-longer as much in evidence, since all pupils are expected to follow the same basic curriculum. This may eliminate some of the more overt forms of gender association (especially in GCSE subjects such as Maths, which all children are now expected to take). This does, of course, beg the further question of how far this "imposed equality" will eventually translate into the wider world of work...

Finally, it is not clear why some subjects, such as Sociology and Psychology, should be female gendered. 

One explanation - that they are seen as "easier" (and therefore "feminine") - is plausible since it keys into traditional assumptions about the relative abilities of males and females. However, if this were the case, as evidence of female achievements become more widely known, we would expect this situation to change.

Alternatively, the association between "social science" and social work, teaching, nursing and so forth might explain the gendering of these subjects, since such careers are still highly gendered in our society.