Researching Young Boys’ Masculinity in School Context
Sarah Nandya Mutiara, Hani Yulindrasari and Vina Adriany
Graduate School of Early childhood education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung, Indonesia
Keywords: Masculine, Boy’s, Social Learning.
Abstract: The term ‘boys will be boys’ is widely accepted in society as if masculine identity is innate and natural. This
paper adopts a social-constructivist approach to gender which view gender identity as a product of culture and
nurture. This article assumes that boys construct their masculinity through various modalities including social
learning with both adults or peer groups and non-human interactions. This article examines existing literature
published between 1980s-2010s about boys and masculinity to develop an understanding of how young boys
construct their masculinities, what factors contribute to their masculine identity, and how the research about
boys’ masculinities was prepared and conducted. The conceptual framework and methodology of each
literature are the important parts of the investigation. Most of the literature was developed in non-Indonesian
context. This paper will also examine the applicability of the literature in Indonesian context to produce a
recommendation of necessary modification for research about boys and masculinity in Indonesia.
1 INTRODUCTION
Masculinity is commonly related to maleness. In
Indonesia, the common belief of masculinity is
strongly influence by the notion of Kodrat or innate,
predestined, and God-given characteristics of gender
(Adriany, 2013). Differences of gender constructions
across time and culture, however, show that gender is
more a social construction than innate characteristic
(Connell, 1996). Gender identity, therefore, is also
socially constructed. Children learn about gender
from home, school, playground, media, books, songs,
and any other medium that interact with them. School
is one of important spaces where gender is
constructed (Parker, 1997; Adriany, 2013; Connell,
1996).
At school gender stereotypes can be challenged or
preserved. Indonesian schools, where kodrat-based
gender construction is strongly held, tend to organise
students’ activities based on gender category. For
example, the school would teach boys to play soccer
and girls to play volleyball; electronic class for boys
and cooking class for girls. In early childhood
settings, teachers would tend to give blue, brown,
black, or green origami paper to boys and pink to
girls. The uniform would be skirt for girls and pants
for boys. Schools become the vehicle to internalised
gendered social expectations.
This paper focuses on boys’ masculinity in early
childhood education settings. Research about gender
in ECE in Indonesian context is very limited, let alone
research about boys’ masculinity. This paper aims at
reviewing existing literature about young boys’
masculinity in school context to provide a reference
for research on the topic in Indonesia context. This
paper explores how research about boys’ masculinity
in other countries’ school context is conducted? What
to consider in researching this topic in Indonesian
context?
This paper is organised as follow: first, the paper
will clarify the definition of masculinity; second, the
link between social construction and masculine
identity will be explained; and third, the paper will
illuminate two different political focuses of research
on masculinity. Based on literature review, this paper
argues that contributing to gender equality should be
the goal of research of boys’ masculinity in school
context. The researchers should pay attention to the
political impact of the research whether or not it
challenges the binary and fixed construction of
gender or preserves it.
2 DEFINING MASCULINITY
Masculinity is commonly defined as characteristics
associated with being a man (Reeser, 2010). The
Mutiara, S., Yulindrasari, H. and Adriany, V.
Researching Young Boys’ Masculinity in School Context.
In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Educational Sciences (ICES 2017) - Volume 1, pages 253-255
ISBN: 978-989-758-314-8
Copyright © 2018 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
253

society will expect boys and men to have masculine
characteristics. Masculine characteristics are usually
defined as the opposite of feminine characteristics,
which are associated with femaleness. Essentialists
argue that the characteristics are innate and natural.
On the contrary, anthropologist and sociologist argue
that gender characteristics, including masculinities,
are socially constructed (Connell, 1996). Masculinity
and femininity are configurations of stereotypes
about men and women. Common stereotypes of
men’s characteristics are aggressive, tough, strong,
rational, active, and rough (Darwin, 1999). Connell
(1996) argues that the stereotypes widely known as
masculine traits are not monolithic. Masculinity has
various patterns across different societies. Indonesian
version of masculine characteristics may be different
from American characteristics of the masculine.
Traditional Indonesian masculine might be inspired
by the story of pewayangan (traditional puppet
show), while in the West might be inspired by stories
about cowboys.
2.1 Constructing Boys’ Masculine
Identity
Gender socialisation starts since a child is in its
mother’s womb. Modern technology enables parents
to know their babies’ sex before birth. Consequently,
parents tend to prepare name, colour, clothes, and
toys according to the baby’s sex. Once the baby is
born, gender socialisation gets intensified. Before a
child reach preschool, the child will have learned a lot
about gender through social interactions (Meece,
2002; Connell, 1996). There are three factors
contribute to boy’s masculine identity formation:
socio-biological, parenting, and socio-cultural
factors.
Sociobiological experts argue that masculine
characteristics are derived from genetic and hormonal
composition (Zaduqisti, 2009). Testosterone, the
male hormone, is believed to be responsible in the
manifestation of masculine characteristic in men. A
high level of testosterone hypothetically will increase
aggressiveness and strength of a man. However,
Connell (1996) argues that this is a flaw theory since
there is no standard pattern of masculinity resulted
from biological factors, such as hormone.
Parenting is also believed to be an important
factor of gender learning. The presence of a father is
hypothetically important in shaping masculine
identity of a boy (Mussen and Distler, 2016). A boy
learns how to be a man from his father. A boy will
develop a strong masculine identity when he has
intense interactions with his father. However, it is
important to take into account what pattern of
masculinity modelled by the father. Intense
interactions with a father who is abusive may result
in toxic masculine identity rather than a strong one.
We also have to clearly define what it means by
strong masculine identity. To create a more equal
society, fathers need to model an egalitarian, caring,
and respectful masculinity instead of aggressive,
violent, and dominant masculinity.
Every human interacts with other human being
and the society he/she lives in. In term of masculine
identity development, a boy will catch what the
society expects of him. It is common that a child
would react and behave as expected since every
human being needs to feel accepted. Culture
constructs social expectations of gender (Adriany,
2013; Bhana, 2009). There are expectations for a man
to behave in certain way and possess certain
characteristics. For example, a man is expected to be
emotionally strong, that is why people teach boys to
hide their true emotion and not to cry.
3 RESEARCHING BOYS’
MASCULINITY
We identify two political focus of research on boys’
masculinities. First, research that preserves gender
stereotype and strengthen hegemonic construction of
masculinity. This kind of research does not challenge
gender stereotype, it strengthened stereotype by
proving differences between boys and girls without
explaining reasons behind the differences. For
example, a research by Pahlevanian and
Ahmadizadeh (2014) investigate the relationship
between gender and motoric skills. Using statistical
analysis, the study concludes that boys have better
gross motoric ability, such as jumping, climbing,
throwing, and catching than girls. Pahlevanian and
Ahmadizadeh (2014) do not unpack the structure that
may perpetuate the differences. This kind of research
will not contribute to gender equality.
Second, research that deconstructs hegemonic
masculinity (Connell, 1996). Connell (1996) argues
that masculinity is not fixed. It changes overtime and
context. According to her, masculinity has multiple
patterns and there is hierarchy of power operates
between types of masculinity. Connell (1996)
unpacks underlying factors of inequality between
masculinities and investigates means through which
hegemonic masculinity operates at schools. She
provides a framework to challenge hegemonic
masculinity at schools, since schools plays an
ICES 2017 - 1st International Conference on Educational Sciences
254

important role in constructing boys’ masculinities.
Connell also takes into account boys’ agency in
constructing their masculine identity. Connell gives
reference of what to analyse in research about
masculinity in school context. She suggests looking
into the curriculum, school activities, peer cultures,
teachers and parents’ attitude toward gender. To
create change, drawing from Kindler, Connell
suggest focusing on teaching boys about good human
relationship, justice, and knowledge. Institutional
change is also needed for gender equality, teachers
and parents should also involve in challenging the
hegemonic gender order.
4 CONCLUSIONS
In gender research, it is important for the researcher
to determine their political standpoint before starting
the research. Gender research that aims at
understanding gender phenomenon to create gender
equality should unpack social and power structure
that create differences and power imbalance between
genders. A research on masculinity should understand
how the structure provides more power to certain
masculinity but not to others. In the school context, a
research on masculinity can be conducted to
understand how hegemonic masculinity operates in
the school with the purpose of creating a way to
challenge hegemonic masculinity for gender equality.
Connell’s framework is useful in initiating research
about boys’ masculinity at school in Indonesian
context.
REFERENCES
Adriany, V., 2013. Gendered Power Relations Within
Child-Centred Discourse: An Ethnographic Study in A
Kindergarten in Bandung, Indonesia, Lancaster
University. England, (Phd Thesis).
Bhana, D., 2009. “Boys will be boys”: what do early
childhood teachers have to do with it?. Educational
Review. 61(3), 327-339.
Connell, R. W., 1996. Teaching The Boys: New Research
on Masculinity, and Gender Strategies for Schools.
Teacher College Record. 98(2), 206-235.
Darwin, M., 1999. Maskulinitas, Center for population and
policy studies Universitas Gajah Mada. Yogyakarta.
Meece, Judith l. (2002). Child and adolescent Development
for Educators, MC Graw Hill. New York.
Mussen, P., Distler, L., 2016. Child-Rearing antecedents of
masculine identification in kindergarten boys. Child
Development. 31(1), 89-100.
Pahlevanian, A. A., Ahmadizadeh, Z., 2014. Relationship
Between Gender and Motor Skills in Preschoolers.
Middle East Journal of Rehabillitation and Health 1(1).
doi: 10.17795/mejrh-20843.
Parker, L., 1997. Engendering School Children in Bali.
Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (N.S.)
[Incorporating Man]. 3, 497-516.
Reeser, T. W., 2010. Masculinity in Theory: An
Introduction, Wiley-Blackwell. West Sussex.
Zaduqisti, E., 2009. Stereotipe peran gender bagi
pendidikan anak. Muwazah. Vol 1, No 1.
Researching Young Boys’ Masculinity in School Context
255