Sex Roles

, Volume 52, Issue 3–4, pp 251–259 | Cite as

The Gendering of Men in Early Childhood Education

  • Paul Sargent

In-depth interviews with men who work with young children as well as other key personnel in early childhood education (ECE) were analyzed using Acker’s (1990) theory of gendered organizations along with Connell’s (1987) typology of masculinities. The conclusion reached is that ECE is indeed gendered in terms of the symbols in frequent use, the differential structural location of women and men, the internal mental work of individuals, and the interactions among individuals. In addition, instead of performing a complicit masculinity and enjoying some of the perquisites and privileges of hegemonic men, as other researchers have suggested, this project demonstrates that the men are attempting to live subordinate masculinities that could challenge traditional gender relations. Their attempts are, however, thwarted by the gender regime embedded in the occupational structure.


men teachers subordinate masculinities gendered organizations 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4, 139–158.Google Scholar
  2. Acker J. (1992). Gendering organizational theory. In A. J. Mills & P. Tancred (Eds.), Gendering organizational analysis (pp. 248–260). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Allan, J. (1993). Male elementary school teachers: Experiences and perspectives. In C. Williams (Ed.), Doing women’s work: Men in nontraditional occupations (pp. 113–127). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Allan, J. (1994). Anomaly as exemplar: The meanings of role-modeling for men elementary teachers. Dubuque, IA: Tri-College Department of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 378 190)Google Scholar
  5. Becker, H. S., & Geer, B. (1960). Participant observation: The analysis of qualitative field data. In R. N. Adams & J. J. Preiss (Eds.), Human organization research (pp. 267–288). Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bradley, H. (1989). Men’s work, women’s work. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bradley, H. (1993). Across the great divide: The entry of men into women’s jobs. In C. L. Williams (Ed.), Doing women’s work: Men in nontraditional occupations (pp. 10–27). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Briggs, C. (1986). Learning to ask: A sociolinguistic appraisal of the role of the interview in social science research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Brod, H. (Ed.). (1987). The making of masculinities: The new men’s studies. Boston: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  10. Buchbinder, D. (1994). Masculinities and identities. Carlton, Australia: Melbourne University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cohen, T. (1991). Speaking with men: Application of a feminist methodology to the study of men’s lives. Men’s Studies Review, 8, 9–13.Google Scholar
  12. Coltrane, S. (1989). Household labor and the routine production of gender. Social Problems, 36, 473–490.Google Scholar
  13. Coltrane, S. (1994). Theorizing masculinities in contemporary social science. In H. Brod & M. Kaufman (Eds.), Theorizing masculinities (pp. 38–60). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Connell, R. (1987). Gender and power. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Connell, R. (1995). Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  16. Engle, M. (2002). Amazing women: Amazing firefighters. San Diego, CA: Jodere Group.Google Scholar
  17. Epstein, D. (1997). Boyz’ own stories: Masculinities and sexualities in schools. Gender & Education, 9, 105–115.Google Scholar
  18. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  19. Goode, W. J. (1992). Why men resist. In B. Thorne & M. Yalom (Eds.), Rethinking the family: Some feminist questions (pp. 287–310). Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Halberstam, J. (1998). Female masculinity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hansot, E., & Tyack, D. (1988). Gender in American public schools: Thinking institutionally. Signs, 13, 741–760.Google Scholar
  22. Harper, D. (1994). What problems do you confront? Qualitative Sociology, 17, 89–95.Google Scholar
  23. Harrington, M. (1995). Women lawyers: Rewriting the rules. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  24. Hochschild, A. (1989). The second shift. New York: Avon Books.Google Scholar
  25. Jurik, N. (1985). An officer and a lady: Organizational barriers to women working as correctional officers in men’s prisons. Social Problems, 32, 373–388.Google Scholar
  26. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  27. Kaufman, M. (1993). Cracking the armor: Power and pain in the lives of men. Toronto: Viking Canada.Google Scholar
  28. Kaufman, M. (1994). Men, feminism, and men’s contradictory experience of power. In H. Brod & M. Kaufman (Eds.), Theorizing masculinities (pp. 142–164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Kessler, S., & Mckenna, W. (1978). Gender: An ethnomethodological approach. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  30. King, J. (1995). Uncommon caring: Male primary teachers as constructed and constrained. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  31. Laqueur, T. (1992). The facts of fatherhood. In B. Thorne & M. Yalom (Eds.), Rethinking the family (pp. 155–175). Boston: Northeastern University.Google Scholar
  32. Leidner, R. (1991). Serving hamburgers and selling insurance: Gender, work, and identity in interactive service jobs. Gender and Society, 2, 154–177.Google Scholar
  33. Martin, S. E. (1980). Breaking and entering: Policewomen on patrol. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  34. Messner, M. (1987). The meaning of success. In H. Brod (Ed.), The making of masculinities (pp. 193–210). Boston: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  35. Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Morrison, A., White, R., & Van Velsor, E. (1987). Breaking the glass ceiling: Can women reach the top of America’s largest corporations? Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  37. NCES (National Center for Educational Statistics). (2003). Schools and staffing in the U.S.: A statistical profile, 2001–02 (NCES 2003-060). Washington, DC: National Education Data Resource Center.Google Scholar
  38. Nias, J. (1989). Primary teachers talking. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  40. Oakley, A. (1981). Interviewing women. In H. Roberts (Ed.), Doing feminist research (pp. 30–61). Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  41. Reskin, B. (1991). Bring the men back in: Sex differentiation and the devaluation of women’s work. In J. Lorber & S. Farrell (Eds.), The social construction of gender (pp. 141–161). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. Rich, A. (1980). Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. Signs, 5, 631–660.Google Scholar
  43. Rotundo, A. (1993). American manhood. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  44. Sargent, P. (2001). Real men or real teachers?: Contradictions in the lives of men elementary school teachers. Harriman, TN: Men’s Studies Press.Google Scholar
  45. Spradley, J. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  46. Sugg, R. S. Jr. (1978). Mother-teacher. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia.Google Scholar
  47. Thorne, B. (1993). Gender play. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Vetter, B. M. (1981). Women scientists and engineers: Trends in participation. Science, 214, 1313–1321.Google Scholar
  49. Weiss, R. (1995). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  50. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1, 125–151.Google Scholar
  51. Williams, C. L. (1992). The glass escalator: Hidden advantages for men in the female professions. Social Problems, 39, 253- 267.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologySan Diego State UniversitySan Diego

Personalised recommendations