Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

‘So, What Do Men and Women Want? Is It any Different from What Animals Want?’ Sex Education in an Upper Secondary School

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of the study is to discuss and problematise notions of femininity and masculinity constructed in teaching situations among 16-year-old upper-secondary students studying science. The empirical examples originate from a teaching session with the theme of ‘sex and relationships’. The analysis is focused on metaphors inherent in a lesson that has its origins in the animal world. The findings show that the lesson ‘sex in the animal world’ is full of anthropomorphism, metaphors that humanise animal behaviour. Teachers and students compare the animals’ sexual behaviour with human behaviour, with the result that the animal world can be perceived as representative of natural sexual behaviour. The survey illustrates problems with how the examples are permeated by cultural values in the presentation of the animal world and how these examples form constructions of femininity and masculinity in the classroom.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. e.g., when a termite leads another termite to source of food.

References

  • Ah-King, M. (2012). Genusperspektiv på biologi. [Gender perspectives on biology. Own trans.]. Stockholm: National Agency for Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ah-King, M. (2013). Queering animal sexual behaviour in biology textbooks. Confero, 1(2), 1–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ah-King, M., Barron, A. B., & Herberstein, M. E. (2014). Genital evolution: why are females still understudied? PLoS Biology, 12(5), e1001851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnersen, A.-L., Lahelma, E., & Öhrn, E. (2008). Travelling discourses on gender and education: the case of boys’ underachievement. Nordisk Pedagogik [Nordic Studies in Education], 28, 1–14.

  • Bailey, N., & Zuk, M. (2009). Review: same-sex sexual behavior and evolution. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24, 439–446. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barron, A. B., & Brown, M. J. F. (2012). Science journalism: let’s talk about sex. Nature, 488(7410), 151–152. doi:10.1038/488151a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barron, A. B., Ah-King, M., & Herberstein, M. E. (2011). Plenty of sex, but no sexuality in biology undergraduate curricula. Bioessays, 33(12), 899–902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazzul, J., & Sykes, H. (2010). The secret identity of a biology textbook: straight and naturally sexed. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6(2), 265–286. doi:10.1007/s11422-11010-19297-z.

  • Bengs, C. (2000). Looking good: a study of gendered body ideals among young people. Umeå, Sweden: Umeå universitet.

  • Biesta, G., & Burbules, N. C. (2003). Pragmatism and educational research. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brickhouse, N. W. (2001). Embodying science: a feminist perspective on learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 282–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: on the discursive limits of “sex”. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. (1999a). Gender trouble: feminism and the subversion of identity. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. (1999b). Undoing gender. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. (2004). Precarious life. New York: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connell, R. W. (2008). Maskuliniteter (2: a uppl.) [Masculinities]. Göteborg: Daidalos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Due, K. (2009). Fysik, lärande samtal och genus: en studie av gymnasieelevers gruppdiskussioner i fysik. [Physics, learning converstions and gender—a study of group discussions in physics in upper secondary school]. Umeå, Sweden: Umeå Universitet.

  • Ekborg, M., Ideland, M., & Malmberg, C. (2009). Science for all — a conceptual framework for construction and analysis of socio-scientific cases. Nordina, 5(1), 35–46.

  • Eliot, L. (2011). The trouble with sex differences. Neuron, 72(6), 895–898. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2011.12.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). Sexing the body: gender politics and the construction of sexuality. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1993). Diskursens ordning: installationsföreläsning vid Collège de France den 2 december 1970 [The Discourse on Language] (M. Rosengren, Trans.) Stockholm; Stehag: B. Östlings bokförl. Symposion.

  • Foucault, M. (2000). Essential works of Foucault, 1954–1984 (Vol. 3). New York: The New Press.

  • Foucault, M. (2002a). Sexualitetens historia. Bd 1, Viljan att veta [The History of Sexuality. Vol I: The Will to Knowledge]. Göteborg: Daidalos.

  • Foucault, M. (2002b). Vetandets arkeologi [Archaeology of Knowledge] (C. G. Bjurström, Trans.) Lund: Arkiv.

  • Ganetz, H. (2004). Skogens konung och djurens konung i TV. [King of the forest, and the king of beasts in TV. Own trans.]. Nordicom Information, 26(1–2), 3–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography principles in practice (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herschberger, R. (1948). Adam’s rib. New York: Pellegrin & Cudahy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irigaray, L. (1985a). Speculum of the other woman. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irigaray, L. (1985b). This sex which is not one. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irigaray, L. (1993). An ethics of sexual difference. London: Athlone.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irigaray, L. (1994). Thinking the difference: for a peaceful revolution. London: Athlone.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irigaray, L. (2000). To be two. London: Athlone.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irigaray, L. (2008). Conversations. London New York: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irigaray, L., & Green, M. (2008). Luce Irigaray: teaching. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Judson, O. (2002). Dr. Tatiana’s sex advice to all creation: the definitive guide to the evolutionary biology of sex Macmillan. Metropolitan Books. Printed in United States of America.

  • Keller, E. F. (1985). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

  • Keller, E. F. (2004). What impact, if any, has feminism had on science? Journal of Biosciences, 29(1), 7–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenz Taguchi, H. (2004). In på bara benet: en introduktion till feministisk poststrukturalism [Down into bare bone. An introduction to feminist poststructuralism]. Stockholm: HLS förlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCuaig, L., Ohman, M., & Wright, J. (2011). Shepherds in the gym: employing a pastoral power analytic on caring teaching in HPE. Sports, Education and Society, 18(6), 788–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National authority of education (2011). Syllabuse in Science studies in Upper secondary school in Sweden. [The English version of: Kursplan i Naturkunskap. Gymnasieskolan.]. Download http://www.skolverket.se/omskolverket/andra-sprak-och-lattlast/inenglish.

  • Nyström, E. (2009). Nordisk forskning om genus och jämställdhet i skola och utbildning: 2005–2009. [Nordic research on gender and gender equality in school and education: 2005-in 2009. Own trans.]. Report. In Nordisk institut för kunskap om kön (NIKK)[Nordic Information on Gender] Download http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:umu: diva-26400.

  • Orlander Arvola, A (2011) Med kroppen som insats. Diskursiva spänningsfält i biologiundervisning på högstadiet. [The body at stake: discursive tensions in secondary school biology teaching] Dissertation. Printed in Sweden by US-AB, Stockholm.

  • Popkewitz, T. S. (2008). Cosmopolitanism and the age of school reform: Science, education, and making society by making the child. New york. Routledge.

  • Rosser, S. V. (2012). Opening the discussion through challenging companion meanings and pedagogical approaches that de-center. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1–7. doi:10.1007/s11422-012-9422-2.

  • Swedish education act. (2010). [Svensk Författningssamling 2010:800] Skollag http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/Dokument-Lagar/Lagar/Svenskforfattningssamling/Skollag-2010800_sfs-2010-800/- K1.

  • Swedish Research Council. (2011). God forskningssed [Well-considered research manner. Own trans.] Vetenskapsrådets Rapportserie 2011: 1. Stockholm. CM-Gruppen AB, Bromma.

  • Todd, S. (2009). Toward an imperfect education: Facing humanity, rethinking, cosmopolitanism. Boulder. Paradigm Publishers.

  • Wickman, P.-O. (2006). Aesthetic experience in science education. Learning and meaning-making as situated talk and action. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Youdell, D. (2011). School trouble: identity, power and politics in education. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuk, M. (2002). Sexual selections: what we can and can’t learn about sex from animals. Berkeley, CA.: University of California.

  • Zuk, M. (2013). Paleofantasy: what evolution really tells us about sex, diet, and how we live: New York. London. WW Norton & Company.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The project that this study is part of was financed by the Swedish Research Council.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Stockholm University, SE-106 91, Stockholm, Sweden

    Auli Arvola Orlander

Authors
  1. Auli Arvola Orlander
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Auli Arvola Orlander.

Additional information

The aim of this study is to examine and discuss the notions of femininity and masculinity and how they are constructed in a sex education class as part of science studies in upper secondary school, where the teaching situation has its origins in animal behaviour. Inferring examples from animal behaviour, on the one hand, can broaden perspectives and highlight the diversity of sexual behaviour, but on the other, it can also reinforce and consolidate populist statements on the question of what is considered ‘natural’ in terms of femininity and masculinity.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Orlander, A.A. ‘So, What Do Men and Women Want? Is It any Different from What Animals Want?’ Sex Education in an Upper Secondary School. Res Sci Educ 46, 811–829 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9481-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9481-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation