Gender, Power and Play in Early Childhood Education
Suci Ramdaeni, Vina Adriany and Hani Yulindrasari
Department of Early Childhood Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia,Jl. Dr. Setiabudhi Bandung, Indonesia
Keywords: Gender, Power, Play, Early Childhood Education.
Abstract: The aim of this paper is to explore the relationship between gender, power, and play. It attempts to see how
gender and power are interwoven and interfere with children’s construction of gender during their play. This
paper is predicated on the basis that play is considered one of the most important aspects in early childhood
education. The discourse of play is so pervasive that many educators take it for granted and never question
it. Using poststructuralism, this paper tries to deconstruct the discourse of play by illuminating the gender-
power relations embodied in it. This paper will be adopting a meta-analysis to demonstrate how gender,
power, and play interact in early childhood education. The analysis yields that play is often gendered as
some children are very often excluded from certain types of play due to their gender. Findings from this
paper call for educators and ECE teachers to include gender perspective when trying to understand
children’s play.
1 INTRODUCTION
Play is an activity that children do in their daily life.
Many studies reveal that play can develop children’s
cognitive (Bruner, 1964), mental (Vygotsky, 1967),
knowledge and skills (Fromberg and Bergen, 2006),
as well as social and physical activity (Barnett et al.,
2017; Chase, 2009). Hence, related studies in
Indonesia often show the positive impact of play on
children development. Research by Khasanah et al.
(2011), for instance, demonstrates that traditional
games provide meaningfulness in improving a
child's mental development. Istiarini (2014) also
explains that playing with blocks can help improve
children's speech ability, and research conducted by
Siska (2007) shows the benefit of role playing, that
is to improve social and speech skills.
The large amount of research focusing on the
positive impact of play makes teachers and adults
believe that playing is neutral. In fact, as expressed
by feminist poststructuralist groups, gender and
power are interwoven when children engage in play
activities and this creates inequalities between boys
and girls in early childhood education (Blaise, 2013;
Burman, 2008; Walkerdine, 1998; Yelland, 1998).
During playing, there is often unequal access
between boys and girls (Smith K. et al., 2017; Aina
and Cameron, 2011). As Bhana (2003) notes, when
teachers are aware of the unequal access between
boys and girls but they do not take any action, often
girls are the ones at disadvantage. The lack of
concern with gender issues in play frequently occurs
because gender issues are often considered trivial
(Smith K. et al., 2017).
Research conducted in Indonesia also still shows
the lack of awareness of the negative impact of play,
as can be seen in the very limited amount of research
focusing on play from a gender perspective. So far,
there has been only one study by Adriany (2013)
using a gender perspective in Indonesia that shows
gender-power relations in play activities in young
children, although play was not the focus of her
study.
The scarce research on the relations between
gender and power in Indonesia proves that play is
often taken for granted. Teachers or adults often do
not realize that games are often gendered.
Meanwhile, research that shows awareness of
gender, power, and play is more frequently carried
out in the Global South countries.
Herein, this paper attempts to fill in the gap in
the literature and previous research on gender and
play in Early Childhood Education in Indonesia. The
results of this research are expected to help teachers
understand play from a gender perspective to avoid
the negative side of play. Thus, it is also expected
that teachers and adults can be the facilitators to
Ramdaeni, S., Adriany, V. and Yulindrasari, H.
Gender, Power and Play in Early Childhood Education.
In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Educational Sciences (ICES 2017) - Volume 2, pages 109-114
ISBN: 978-989-758-314-8
Copyright © 2018 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
109

make children more flexible in play activities
regardless of gender.
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
This paper uses the feminist poststructuralist
perspective in analysing gender, power, and play.
Feminist poststructuralism is the theoretical basis for
analysing the subjectivity of boys and girls related to
language and socially constructed cultural practices
(Gavey, 1989), where this theory has been used in
research on young children with a focus on how they
construct gender (Adriany, 2013).
Gender is commonly understood in the context
of sex between girls and boys, whereas gender in
poststructuralism is defined as a social construct that
shapes the masculinity and femininity of an
individual in a social environment (MacNaughton,
2000; Anggard, 2011). Hence, gender is the result of
social construction (Warin and Adriany, 2015).
In constructing gender, feminist
poststructuralism also explains the existence of
social discourse of different historical and cultural
powers (MacNaughton, 2000), historical, social, and
political configurations (Messner, 2000). Education
practices are also influenced by social and political
discourses (Warin and Adriany, 2015), in which
pedagogy also contributes to unequal power
relations (Bhana, 2003). This fact shows how one’s
gender identity is not merely a biological
construction, but also social and cultural
construction.
The poststructuralist perspective also looks into
how gender is constructed in schools (Bhana 2003).
MacNaughton (1997) explained that children learn
what it means to be male and female in a culture
where masculinity is constructed superior to
femininity, thereby creating unbalanced relationship
between boys and girls (Adriany, 2013).
The discourses that occur in early childhood
education practices affect how children construct
their gender. First, Bhana (2003) explained that
teaching discourse is involved in the regulation of
gender identity. Second, child-centred discourse is
considered the only way to understand child
development despite the fact that it perpetuates the
stereotype (Adriany and Warin, 2014). Third,
biological discourse can construct a child’s gender
identity (Bhana, 2003). Fourth, there is religious
discourse, in which gender construction is the result
of interaction through this discourse. In Indonesia,
the concept of "divine nature" is practiced in early
childhood education. This concept is interdependent
with biological essentialism (Warin and Adriany,
2015). Fifth, there is the discourse of superhero,
which explains that the identity of a child is
constructed through the masculine nature of the
superhero discourse manipulated by media and toys
that carry the popular culture such as Superman,
Power Ranger, Batman, X-man (Bhana, 2003).
Sixth, there is cultural discourse, in which gender is
traditionally constructed through culture. Play is thus
determined by whether or not girls or boys in a
certain culture can be accepted by the society
(Chase, 2009).
This paper also attempts to explain the meaning
of power through a poststructuralist perspective. In
poststructuralism, power is not something
centralized; rather, it flows through the existing
discourses in the society (Foucault, 1980). One
discourse will be considered more correct when
other discourses are marginalized. Discourses that
are considered more correct do not always literally
mean so, but often they are regarded as correct
because they have more power than other
discourses.
3 METHODOLOGY
This paper employs the meta-analysis methodology,
referencing the research results to integrate findings
(Glass, 1976). The researchers used eight papers to
be analysed. In conducting the analysis, the
researchers identified the themes arising from the
eight papers. The papers were derived from two
studies conducted in Indonesia and Sweden (Warin
and Adriany 2015; Adriany and Warin 2014) and six
overseas studies (Bhana, 2003; Marsh, 2000;
Messner, 2000; Lappalainen, 2004; Chase, 2009;
MacNaughton, 1997). The present research is part of
the broader research that attempts to develop a
gender-sensitive curriculum at the level of Early
Childhood Education.
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The analysis shows two major themes from the eight
papers analysed, namely: 1) Gender relations in
play, and 2) power relations in play.
4.1 Gender Relations in Play
When playing, children often position gender
identity through their social environment. As
ICES 2017 - 1st International Conference on Educational Sciences
110

explained by several studies, children gain their
gender identity through teachers (Warin and
Adriany, 2015; Bhana, 2003; Adriany and Warin,
2014), friends (Chase, 2009), parents (Messner,
2000; Chase, 2009), popular culture (Marsh, 2011),
and cultural significance (Messner, 2000;
Lappalainen, 2004; Chase 2009). Hence, teachers
and adults indirectly contribute to gender
construction in play.
Parents play an important role in constructing a
child's gender, in which they sometimes give
labelling to boys and girls in relation to how to
choose games and with whom they play according to
the implicit rules that are prevalent in their social
environment. Chase’s research (2009) proves that
girls often play with fellow girls because their
parents do not want them to play with boys. The
finding corresponds to Messner’s argument (2000)
that conservative parents are happy to provide
Barbie dolls to girls and divert boys from being
interested in Barbie doll games. Messner's argument
is also proved by Formberg (2006) who revealed
that boys often avoid Barbie dolls because of the
labelling they get. Aina and Cameron (2011)
concurred that when parents show labelling to
children, the children will subsequently show their
reactions when playing. This labelling is not realized
by parents because since birth they often distinguish
between boys and girls through different play
variations (Paechter, 2006b).
Besides parents, teachers contribute to the
labelling received by children. The results of
research by Warin and Adriany (2015) prove that
teachers apply religious discourse to construct
traditional gender in children. In addition, Adriany
and Warin’s research (2014) demonstrates how
teachers maintain traditional gender to children
based on the child-centred discourse, where teachers
ignore the unequal access to play between boys and
girls on the grounds that it is the children's wish.
Bhana (2003) also explained that teachers often
apply biological discourse, in that girls are often
associated with femininity, so they are often
excluded from games that are considered masculine.
Meanwhile, research findings of Messner (2000)
show that children construct gender through the
evolving culture, where cultural symbols often
create biological differences between boys and girls.
Chase’s research (2009) also shows that such culture
is created from one generation to another, thus
perpetuating the stereotypes. Lappalainen (2004)
even cautioned about the stereotypes developing in
culture, where his research proves that physical
activities make girls excluded.
Popular culture can also contribute to a child's
gender construction. Marsh’s research (2011) proves
that children construct gender identity and sexist
characters from superhero figures. Hence, they often
imitate the gender identity shown by the superhero
figures.
In addition to the superheroes in popular culture,
Chase’s research (2009) found that gender is
constructed by children in their daily lives through
friends. Chase's argument is justified by Clark and
Paechter (2007) who evinced that gender
compliance is monitored through a friendship group.
Paechter added that when a child maintains playing
with their sexual counterpart, the child will face
pressure from peers (Paechter, 2006b)
Based on the findings of the above research,
parents, teachers, friends, popular culture figures,
and cultural significance contribute to children's
traditional gender construction that is made possible
through labelling. Labelling itself is associated to the
different games chosen by boys and girls. Chase’s
research (2009) shows that labelling can contribute
to how a boy chooses soccer, car race in play or how
a girl chooses to play with dolls. Maccoby and
Jacklin (1987) agreed that the gender classification
described by Chase serves as a powerful magnet to
draw the “traits” from the labelling received by
children. Formberg (2006) added that children’s
self-labelling is obtained after they integrate
cognitive and social information.
In addition to the selection of different games by
boys and girls, labelling contributes to the difference
in play space between boys and girls. This is
explained in the findings of Messner’s research
(2000) that when boys physically enter the playroom
of girls, some girls expel boys. MacNaughton (1997)
also agreed that the use of space is controlled by
boys and girls differently, where boys use physical
activity and girls with language. MacNaughton also
explained that boys often harass and use physical
actions to take up girls’ space Borve and Borve
(2017) corresponded that the use of children's play
space is different. Boys choose to play with a room
containing boys’ toys, while girls often occupy
space with games associated with girls. Thorne
(1993) argued that there is a difference in the space
of boys and girls, so that when adults want to prove
the difference in space, they can go to a playground
and see how boys dominate.
Labelling does not only make a difference in the
use of space in play. Unconsciously, labelling also
plays a role in the selection of with whom to play
according to gender. This is as shown by Chase
(2009) that when children play there is also gender
Gender, Power and Play in Early Childhood Education
111

segregation. Bhana (2003) also found that very
rarely do boys and girls play together. Chase's
discovery was also revealed in Messner’s research
(2000), where children tend to avoid playing with
those of the opposite sex. Maccoby and Jacklin
(1987) agreed that when children play there is
gender segregation that is generated through the
labelling received by the children. Maccoby and
Jacklin added that the level of occurrence of gender
segregation depends on the interaction regulated by
adults and culture. This happens because the
labelling received by children is often displayed
again by the child in even more marked ways
(Anggard, 2005).
Based on the explanations of the research results,
there are three themes that arise. First, labelling
during play separates between boys’ and girls’
games. Secondly, labelling during play separates the
play space between boys and girls. Third, labelling
generates gender segregation of boys and girls
during play.
4.2 Power Relations in Play
Labelling often has power relations to some of the
discourses received by children such as the teaching
discourse (Bhana, 2003) child-centred discourse
(Adriany and Warin, 2014), biological discourse
(Bhana 2003), religious discourse (Warin and
Adriany, 2015), Superhero discourse (Bhana, 2003),
cultural discourse (Chase, 2009). Such discourses
are often linked to children's unequal play activities.
Adriany and Warin’s research findings (2014)
show that power relations are often seen in children's
play activities. This can be seen in the case when
during a role play a boy shows his interest in playing
the role of the princess and playing with the Barbie
doll; however, the teacher becomes alerted because
the boy’s interests are not in line with the implicit
school rules, in which biological discourse
distinguishes between boys and girls. Warin and
Adriany (2015) echoed that children are often
excluded because one of the discourses developed in
schools is child-centred discourse. The finding is
also proved by Bhana (2003) who disclosed that
teaching discourse and biological discourse often
make non-traditionally gendered children passive.
This discrimination against boys causes gender
inequalities, in which children are powerless because
of the non-traditional gender construction.
Meanwhile, Bhana (2003) added that equality can be
achieved if teachers are able to understand how
discourse limits justice in the social environment.
Discourse also has power relations in the case
where child labelling is often associated with
masculine and feminine issues; more specifically,
where boys show masculine issues in play activities.
Marsh’s research (2000) shows the issue of
masculinity that is maintained by boys in a
superhero role play, where he gave an opportunity to
girls to take the first role of a superhero character.
However, the boys refused to take the second role in
the superhero role playing. Paechter (2003a) agreed
with Marsh that masculine and feminine behaviours
are constructed by children through the cultural and
social settings, in which Marsh’s research is related
to the discourse of superheroes in popular culture
that reinforces the issue of masculinity. In addition,
Paechter (2006b) confirmed that there is power
relation in the labelling of masculine and feminine
knowledge to children. Herein, masculinity and
femininity are frequently used differently in power
relations (Paechter, 2003b). Adriany and Warin’s
research (2015) clearly shows how masculine values
like superheroes are more appreciated in early
childhood education settings.
The power of masculinity is also explained by
MacNaughton (1997), where block games are
considered a masculine space. MacNaughton's
opinion is evidenced by Thorne (1993) who showed
that block games are considered boys’ games. Bhana
(2003) also agreed that block games often become
the power of masculinity, in which boys limit the
space for girls to play an active role in the games.
Bhana added that the power of masculinity is related
to the biological discourse children receive.
Besides block games, masculinity also often
occurs in children’s games that rely on physical
activity, such as playing with balls. Lappalainen
(2004) explained that boys' bodies are constantly
stimulated physically, while girls often do not get
adequate stimulation in physical activity. As a result,
girls lack the enthusiasm and athletic vigour of the
game types using physical activity. Furthermore, the
enthusiasm and athleticism of girls becomes
unappreciated regardless of whether or not the girls
desire to join such games using physical activity.
Lappalainen's opinion is in line with that of Paechter
(2003a) who argued that masculinity is formed with
verbal support to play with the physical activities,
while femininity tends to be constructed as part of
the parenting game. This is often shown by boys
playing attack, chase, and games involving physical
activity (Maccoby and Jackin, 1987).
In the formation of masculinity, as described by
Bhana (2003), domination and aggression become
the forces. This is consistent with the opinion of
ICES 2017 - 1st International Conference on Educational Sciences
112

Paechter (2006a) who stated that femininity is not
constructed in the same way as how masculinity is
constructed in a patriarchal culture, in which men
are considered to have a higher position than
women. In his research, Paechter (2006a) also
mentioned that girls are often excluded because boys
defend the masculine issues that develop in their
social environment while doing play activities.
There are two important points that arise in the
power relations that children receive through the
discourses developing in their social environment.
First, the existing discourses in schools make the
non-traditionally gendered children helpless and
excluded from play because of the implicit norms
prevailing in their social environment. Secondly, the
developing discourses make boys defend the issues
of masculinity, where the power of masculinity
makes girls excluded. This is so because femininity
is constructed differently from how masculinity
develops in their social environment.
5 CONCLUSIONS
Games in children are often gendered, where
children construct gender in their play activities.
Children often reinforce the issues of masculinity
and femininity of the labelling they receive through
the existing discourses in their social environment.
Hence, power relation frequently occurs, which
bears a negative impact on children’s play activities.
Teachers and adults often find children who
strengthen the feminine and masculine issues in
play, but they do not see this phenomenon through a
gender perspective, thereby unconsciously creating
gender inequalities in children's play activities. As a
result, there is often unequal access and relations
between boys and girls in play activities.
Gender is important, in which traditional power
relations and gender construction have a negative
impact on inequality in children's play activities. The
question is: How can we as teachers and adults
change that power relation? MacNaughton (1997)
explained that if we want to change power relations,
we must change children's understanding of what it
means to be a boy and a girl in a social environment
and change the discourse in which they understand
themselves as masculine and feminine. Before we
change the children’s understanding of what it
means to be a boy and a girl, we as adults must first
change the traditional gender that often arises
because of the existing discourses within our
community, school, or culture.
Some research that can help us in the
development of gender in play activities in early
childhood education includes: First, Warin and
Adriany’s research (2015) that implements the
concept of gender-sensitive education, where
teachers do not only accept differences in children in
terms of academic and skill levels, but they must
also accept those differences regardless of gender.
Second, there is Adriany and Warin’s research
(2014) using the concept of nursing, where teachers
can be a space when there are children who show
non-traditional gender behaviours.
When we find a boy who is interested in a Barbie
doll, let’s take a look at girls who develop their
speech skills through a Barbie doll. Girls often talk
and interact with the doll. If we find girls' speaking
ability superior to boys’, let us analyse whether the
stimuli and opportunities given to boys and girls
have been the same. The reverse is true, when we
find boys’ rough physical and motor skills superior
to girls’, let us see if the opportunities and stimuli
given to boys and girls have been the same. We must
be aware of gender and power impacting on gender
inequalities between girls and boys in play. It is
important for teachers and adults to understand that
all types of games can improve child development,
so they should let children explore the games
without being restricted by gender.
Thus, the results of this research indicate that
teachers and adults should see children's play
activities using a gender perspective. It is important
in order to make children more flexible in providing
opportunities and space to all their friends without
being restricted by gender. The results of this
research also implicitly show that children are often
excluded from certain types of games because of
their gender.
REFERENCES
Adriany, V., 2013. Gendered power relations within child-
centred discourse: An ethnographic study in a
kindergarten in Bandung, Indonesia, Lancaster
University, Lancaster. PhD thesis.
Adriany, V., Warin, J. 2014. Preschool teacher’s
approaches to care and gender differences within a
child centred pedagogy: Findings from an Indonesian
kindergarten. International Journal of Early Years
Education: Routledge.
Aina, O. E., Cameron, P. A., 2011. Why does gender
matter? Counteracting stereotypes with young
children. Dimensions of Early Childhood. 39(3).
Gender, Power and Play in Early Childhood Education
113

Anggard, E., 2011. Children's gendered and non-gendered
play in natural spaces. Children Youth and
Environments. 21(2), 5-33.
Anggard, E., 2005. Barbie princesses and dinosaur
dragons: narration as a way of doing gender. Gender
and Education. 17(5), 539-553.
Barnett, L. M., Ridgers, N. D., Hesketh, K., Salmon, J.,
2017. Setting them up for lifetime activity: Play
competence perceptions and physical activity in young
children. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport.
Bhana, D., 2003. Children are children: gender doesn't
matter. Agenda. 17(56), 37-45.
Blaise, M., 2013. Gender discourse and play, SAGE.
London.
Borve, H. E., Borve, E., 2017. Rooms with gender:
physical environment and play culture in kindergarten.
Early Child Development and Care. 187(5-6), 1069-
1081.
Bruner, J. S., 1964. The course of cognitive growth.
American psychologist. 19(1), 1.
Burman, E. (2008). Deconstructing developmental
psychology. East Sussex: Routledge.
Clark, S., Paechter, C., 2007. Why can't girls play
football? Gender dynamics and the playground. Sport.
Education and Society. 12(3), 261-276.
Chase, C. M., 2009. Children’s play: The construction of
gender roles. Young Children. 1(21), 83-86.
Fromberg, D. P., Bergen, D., 2006. Play from birth to
twelve: Contexts, perspectives, and meanings. Taylor
& Francis.
Foucault, M., 1980. Truth and Power. In C. Gordon (Ed.),
Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other
writings 1972-1977. Pantheon Books. New York.
Gavey, N., 1989. Feminist poststructuralism and discourse
analysis: Contributions to feminist psychology.
Psychology of women quarterly. 13(4), 459-475.
Glass, G. V., 1976. Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis
of research. Educational Researcher. 5(10), 3-8.
Istiarini, R., 2014. Peningkatan kemampuan berbicara
melalui bermain balok (Improving speech skills
through block games). Jurnal Pendidikan Usia Dini.
8(1), 145-154.
Khasanah, I., Prasetyo, A., Rakhmawati, E., 2011.
Permainan tradisional sebagai media stimulasi aspek
perkembangan anak usia dini (Traditional games as
media to stimulate young children’s development).
PAUDIA. 1(1).
Lappalainen, P. A., 2004. They say it's a cultural matter:
gender and ethnicity at preschool. European
Educational Research Journal. 3(3), 642-656.
MacNaughton, G., 1997. Who's got the power? Rethinking
gender equity strategies in early childhood.
International Journal of Early Years Education. 5(1),
57-66.
MacNaughton, G., 2000. Rethinking gender in early
childhood education. Sage.
Maccoby, E. E., Jacklin, C. N., 1987. Gender segregation
in childhood. Advances in Child Development and
Behavior. 20, 239-287.
Marsh, J., 2000. But I want to fly too!: Girls and superhero
play in the infant classroom. Gender and Education.
12(2), 209-220.
Messner, M. A., 2000. Barbie girls versus sea monsters:
Children constructing gender. Gender & Society 14(6),
765-784.
Paechter, C., 2003a. Learning masculinities and
femininities: Power/knowledge and legitimate
peripheral participation. In Women's Studies
International Forum. 26(6), pp. 541-552). Pergamon.
Paechter, C., 2003b. Masculinities and femininities as
communities of practice. In Women's Studies
International Forum. 26(1), pp. 69-77). Pergamon.
Paechter, C., 2006a. Masculine femininities/feminine
masculinities: Power, identities and gender. Gender
and Education. 18(3), 253-263.
Paechter, C., 2006. Power, knowledge and embodiment in
communities of sex/gender practice. In Women's
Studies International Forum. 29(1), pp. 13-26).
Pergamon.
Siska, Y., 2011. Penerapan metode bermain peran (role
playing) dalam meningkatkan keterampilan sosial dan
keterampilan berbicara anak usia dini (Implementing
role playing method in improving young children’s
social and speech skills). Jurnal Universitas
Pendidikan Indonesia, special edition. (2).
Smith, K., Alexander, K., Campbell, S., 2017.
Feminism(s) in early childhood: Using feminist
theories in research and practice. Springer. (Vol. 4).
Thorne, B., 1993. Gender play: Girls and boys in school,
Rutgers University Press. New Jersey.
Vygotsky, L. S., 1967. Play and its role in the mental
development of the child. Soviet psychology. 5(3), 6-
18.
Warin, J., Adriany, V., 2015. Gender flexible pedagogy in
early childhood education. Journal of Gender Studies.
1-12.
Walkerdine, V., 1998. Developmental psychology and the
child-centered pedagogy: the insertion of piaget into
early education, Routledge. London.
Yelland, N., 1998. Gender in early childhood, Routledge.
London.
ICES 2017 - 1st International Conference on Educational Sciences
114