See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/320519944

‘They won't take you as a man, as a real man’ why men can't teach young
children in foundation phase

Article  in  International Journal of Inclusive Education · October 2017

DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2017.1390002

CITATIONS READS

3 136

2 authors, including:

Shaaista Moosa
University of KwaZulu-Natal
7 PUBLICATIONS   28 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Shaaista Moosa on 21 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Inclusive Education

ISSN: 1360-3116 (Print) 1464-5173 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tied20

‘They won't take you as a man, as a real man’ why

men can't teach young children in foundation
phase

Shaaista Moosa & Deevia Bhana

To cite this article: Shaaista Moosa & Deevia Bhana (2017): ‘They won't take you as a man,
as a real man’ why men can't teach young children in foundation phase, International Journal of
Inclusive Education

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1390002

Published online: 19 Oct 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tied20

Download by: [Shaaista Moosa] Date: 19 October 2017, At: 21:53

 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1390002

‘They won’t take you as a man, as a real man’ why men can’t
teach young children in foundation phase
Shaaista Moosa and Deevia Bhana
School of Education, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Ashwood, South Africa

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This article focuses on how male and female primary school Received 16 October 2016
teachers’ account of the suitability of male teachers in early years Accepted 5 October 2017
or Foundation Phase (FP) of schooling. We draw from an in-depth
KEYWORDS
qualitative interview-based study to examine how ideals around
Downloaded by [Shaaista Moosa] at 21:53 19 October 2017

Male teachers; power;

hegemonic masculinity have effects for the characterization of FP masculinities; Foundation
within traditional feminine qualities such as nurturing and caring Phase teaching; gender
for children. These qualities contrasted with hegemonic inequalities; South Africa
masculinity and fuelled the disassociation between men and
teaching young children. We found that whilst men had the
responsibility to provide financially for children, their involvement
in childcare duties was linked to low-status work gendering the
construction of carework as women’s work. The shame and
embarrassment associated with teaching young children were an
important mechanism to police and regulate hegemonic
masculinity. Analysing how male and female primary school
teachers construct hegemonic forms of masculinity provides
insights into the reproduction of FP as a feminised profession as
well as the construction and maintenance of counter feminist
masculine ideals. Addressing forms of masculinity that are
premised on male domination is vital in South Africa, especially as
the need to alter masculinities and deepen gender equality has
barely touched this phase of schooling.

Introduction
When women cross gender boundaries and enter traditionally male occupations they are
seen to move upwards in status, without the heavy regulation of gender identities that men
experience when they enter into traditional female occupations (Wernersson, Warin, and
Brownhill 2016). This is especially true of teaching in the early years of primary schooling,
which is often labelled as women’s work and where male teachers are thus under-rep-
resented (Martino and Rezai-Rashti 2010; Skelton 2012). Why do men not teach young
children? In order to address this question it is important to see how teachers themselves
reinforce the early years of primary schooling as gender-specific work (Johnson et al.
2010). In this article we focus on the ways in which both male and female primary
school teachers in South Africa construct male teachers as unsuitable for teaching
young children in the foundation phase (FP) of schooling-children aged between five

CONTACT Shaaista Moosa shaaistamoosa@yahoo.com School of Education, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Private

Bag X03, Ashwood 3605, South Africa
© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 2 S. MOOSA AND D. BHANA

and nine. Whilst the majority of research in this area has focused on the views of pre-
service teachers in South Africa (Mashiya 2014; Petersen 2014), our study shifts the
focus to qualified in-service primary school teachers. We consider the perceptions and
attitudes of primary teachers to be important as they are key in any challenge to gender
stereotyping, particularly as the early and primary years of schooling are when learners
are beginning to develop their gendered selves (Johnson et al. 2010). In this article we
explore the ways in which primary school teachers accommodate hegemonic masculinities
by disassociating men from FP teaching, and perpetuate gender inequalities and tra-
ditional gendered roles.

Theory and context: working against toxic forms of masculinities in South

Africa
Hegemonic masculinity, a concept developed by Connell (1995), has been adopted and
Downloaded by [Shaaista Moosa] at 21:53 19 October 2017

applied to explain hetero-patriarchal privilege and unequal gender relations in South

Africa (Morrell, Jewkes, and Lindegger 2012; Msibi 2012; Ratele 2015). The concept has
been particularly useful to explain male culpability in sexual and gender violence that
often renders women vulnerable to disease such as HIV and gender inequalities (Gibbs,
Sikweyiya, and Jewkes 2014). Whilst hegemonic masculinity is not solely associated
with violence and varies according to social settings, in South Africa its intimate connec-
tions with race, class and violence has been highlighted. In South Africa, gender scholars
have sharpened the focus of hegemonic masculinity by addressing historical contingencies
in the particular political, social and economic contexts through which masculinity is con-
structed (Morrell, Jewkes, and Lindegger 2012). The legacies of apartheid and colonialism,
and ever-deepening poverty, have contributed to the construction of toxic patterns of mas-
culinity which are associated with tough, heterosexual exaggerations, brute force and vio-
lence. Gender scholars in South Africa have attested to the ways in which race, class,
history and sexuality have all contributed to varying versions of masculinity where vio-
lence simultaneously explains men’s power and male weakness in the crucible of social
forces (Morrell, Jewkes, and Lindegger 2012; Msibi 2012; Ratele 2015). In South Africa,
masculinity is not a coherent, fixed entity. It is multiple and varied and different kinds
of masculinity are forged by changing race, social, political and cultural conditions.
Although concerns about violent men are increasing, violent masculinity is not the only
version of being a man in South Africa, and scholars have started to highlight softer,
gentler, more caring forms (Morrell and Jewkes 2011). Dominant masculinities are the
norm, however. For example, isoka masculinity refers to a hypersexualised (Hunter
2010), traditional masculinity where cultural forms are embedded within and supportive
of patriarchal privilege and heterosexual domination (Msibi 2012). Ruling class masculi-
nity has been identified, too, to describe both white ruling masculinities and changing
forms of power related to race and class. An example of the latter is former president
Nelson Mandela, who was regarded as having a gallant kind of masculinity (Ratele 2015).
Connell’s (1995) concept of hegemonic masculinity has shed light on how gender
power and inequalities are produced and validated and the role that boys, men and mas-
culinities play in perpetuating gender inequality. Men continue to align themselves with
normative masculinity behaviour patterns which put both men and women at risk as
they constantly battle to assert their positions as ‘real men’. The subjugation of weaker
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 3

men and women is also an expression of male weakness in the economic sphere in a
country where unemployment is escalating (Morrell, Jewkes, and Lindegger 2012).
Connell argues that a collective understanding of male practices, values and norms lays
bare the ideals of a successful masculinity, one which revolves around being tough,
being a breadwinner and being heterosexual. Whilst these norms are ideals and difficult
to achieve and sustain, men aspire to them and this shapes their conduct. Connell
(1995) points out, too, that social settings provide the context within which particular
masculinities are hegemonic and others are subordinate. Following this line of thought,
a growing body of South African scholarship has been highlighting how economic margin-
alisation, racial inequalities and the legacies of apartheid, and continued unemployment
and suffering has contributed to the creation of masculinities based on exaggerated
forms of heterosexual prowess, violence against women and the repudiation of gay mas-
culinities (Morrell, Jewkes, and Lindegger 2012; Msibi 2012).
The social problems stemming from such toxic forms of masculinities have led numer-
Downloaded by [Shaaista Moosa] at 21:53 19 October 2017

ous South African scholars to advance alternative, more gender equitable notions of mas-
culinities (Msibi 2012; Gibbs, Sikweyiya, and Jewkes 2014; Shefer 2014; Ratele 2015), and
this is a central aim of our study, through focusing on concepts of masculinities in FP
teaching. Men working with and caring for young children in the FP of teaching can
do much to change current negative perceptions of men as aggressive, violent and uncar-
ing. By describing how primary school teachers protect and uphold hegemonic masculine
ideals through disassociating men with FP teaching we show how systems of gender
inequality are perpetuated, not only by disempowering women but also by disadvantaging
men who cannot, or may not, want to adhere to hegemonic masculine ideals. It is impor-
tant to highlight such issues in order to inform suitable interventions to support alterna-
tive and more gender equitable forms of masculinities within our school systems. Men
often resist gender equitable relations of power by reproducing cultural constructs
which legitimate traditions and gender norms, resist caregiving roles and are often critical
of gender equality discourses (Msibi 2012; Ratele 2015). We show how both male and
female primary school teachers resist changes to dominant forms of masculinity in a
variety of ways. A greater understanding of why so many men and women choose to
oppose gender transformation, even in situations where hegemonic masculinity is
clearly to their disadvantage, can contribute to more effective ways of encouraging boys
and men to adopt healthier, more caring, pro-feminist masculinities (Ratele 2015).

Masculinities and fatherhood

One of the expectations associated with men within a patriarchal system of power is that
they should be able to provide economically for themselves and their families (Silbersch-
midt 2011). This male breadwinner model is largely one of paid employment but not the
sort of employment which calls for close contact with children whilst attending to their
physical and emotional needs (Puppa and Miele 2015). Ramphele and Richter have
argued that in South Africa ‘the disruptions of families and of parenting under coloniza-
tion and apartheid, by both men and women, has left its mark on children’ (2006, 80).
Dominant constructions of masculinity in part generated by South Africa’s turbulent
past have contributed to the country’s alarming percentage of absent fathers: 42, 5% of
all children under the age of 5 live without their biological fathers (Statistics South
 4 S. MOOSA AND D. BHANA

Africa 2015). The apartheid regime’s migrant labour system kept African fathers away
from their households for extended periods of time (Morrell and Richter 2004) and ulti-
mately created a very thin definition of fathers as financial providers rather than sources of
emotional support (Hunter 2010). Morrell (2006) argues that masculinities which encom-
pass a responsibility to provide with caring aspects of fatherhood need to be encouraged:
Fatherhood should also be a channel through which men open themselves up to unex-
plored avenues of emotional engagement (Morrell 2006).
Creating a society where men share equal responsibility for caring for children could
do much to change situations where women are overburdened with childcare responsi-
bilities. It would allow women more time to explore their own aspirations and also
provide men with the opportunity to emotionally bond with their children. However,
such initiatives would require greater interventions within current governmental pol-
icies, especially regarding the law in South Africa where, under the Basic Conditions
of Employment Act, No 11 of 2002, female employees are allowed four consecutive
Downloaded by [Shaaista Moosa] at 21:53 19 October 2017

months of maternity leave but fathers are given a mere three days of leave when
their child is born.

Significant literature: hegemonic masculinities and teaching young

children
The underrepresentation of men as teachers of young children is a worldwide phenom-
enon and both international (King 1998; Sargent 2005; Martino 2008; Moreau 2014; Wer-
nersson, Warin, and Brownhill 2016) and South African (Mashiya 2014; Petersen 2014)
research demonstrate how dominant forms of hegemonic masculinities work towards
keeping men away from teaching young children.
Hegemonic masculinity is not a self-reproducing structure: upholding a model of hege-
mony necessitates the regulation of males who do not conform to it and the exclusion or
discrediting of females (Connell and Messerschmidt 2005). Subordinate masculinities are
provided by men whose performance threatens the authenticity of hegemonic masculi-
nities, for example homosexual men. Some heterosexual men and boys are also barred
from the faction of legitimacy and this is manifested by rich expressions of abuse
(Connell 1995). Mills (2004) similarly indicates that males who fail to adhere to hegemo-
nic constructions of masculinities by enacting behaviours deemed to be feminine often
become marginalised within the societal order of masculinities and are sometimes
depicted as abnormal or gay. An example of behaviour considered as feminine and
within the context of this study includes the teaching of young children, and studies
have shown how male teachers of young children are disparaged and ridiculed, often por-
trayed as being gay (Mills 2004; Skelton 2012; Brownhill 2016). The portrayal of male tea-
chers as gay, or not ‘real men’ has been explored and proven to be an accurate reflection of
society within the South African context (Msibi 2012). Additionally research into the lack
of men as FP teachers in South Africa similarly found there to be perceptions that male FP
teachers will face ridicule particularly from other men and be labelled as gay (Petersen
2014). Petersen (2014) also found there to be a perception that South African society in
general would question the heterosexuality of men opting to enter a feminised profession
like the FP of teaching (Petersen 2014). Whilst South Africa’s rights-based policy supports
equality on the basis of sexual orientation, evidence suggests that a homophobic climate
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 5

perpetuates gender norms, male power and heterosexuality as the dominant way to be a
man (Ratele 2015). Rejecting dominant norms can create vulnerability not only to
verbal abuse but homophobic violence and death.
Teaching young children has been feminised and characterised as a low-status pro-
fession (Drudy 2008). As such, it rarely appeals to men as a professional career path.
As Warin and Gannerud say: ‘The linkage between caring responsibilities and women’s
work also means that care elements of professional teaching practices are often unrecog-
nized and under-valued’ (2014, 19). Male needs are seen as being unfulfilled within this
feminised area of childcare, and consequently men opt not to work in early childhood edu-
cation because of a sense of shame at the perceived loss of their hegemonic masculinity
identity (Wernersson, Warin, and Brownhill 2016).
For example perceptions that teaching young children is a low-level work that is
not intellectually challenging has rendered teaching young children as incompatible
with the high levels of intellectual capacity associated with men within normative
Downloaded by [Shaaista Moosa] at 21:53 19 October 2017

constructions of masculinity (Weaver-Hightower 2011). In her South African study

on male FP pre-service teachers Mashiya (2014, 29) similarly reported on ideologies
that centred on the incompatibility of men’s elevated levels of intelligence and teach-
ing young children. She found that the male FP pre-service teachers encountered dis-
paraging comments from their peers at university who would tell them that their
decision as men to specialise in the teaching of young children was not a ‘clever
choice’. In accounting for the association of men as the dominant sex with higher
levels of intelligence Connell (1995) denotes that the male sex role as a dominant
part of masculinity can be traced back to debates in the latter years of nineteenth
century concerning differences between men and women. Resistance against the lib-
eration of women was supported by scientific beliefs of inherent differences between
the sexes. For example, the exclusion of women from universities was supported by
arguments that the female psyche was too delicate to handle harsh academic work
(Connell 1995).
Hegemonic constructions of masculinity are not only used to distance men from FP
teaching and research presents a counter view of how hegemonic constructions of mas-
culinities are used to validate and promote men’s involvement as teachers of young chil-
dren. For example the construction of male teachers as valuable male role models is
often established upon hegemonic masculine ideals (Faulstich-Wieland 2013). Here
the need for male teachers is sometimes founded upon the need for disciplinarians
(Carrington and McPhee 2008; Cleaver 2010; Barış 2013) and to do sport within the
early years of schooling (Carrington and Mcphee 2008; Jones 2007; Cushman 2008).
Such positioning relates to the positioning of men within traditional masculine ideals
where sporting prowess and the ability to act as a disciplinarian are both facets of hege-
monic masculinity (Connell 2000). In South Africa too Petersen (2014) and Mashiya
(2014) have also found that the desire to express masculinity as sporty and as discipli-
narians are associated with gender binaries and the maintenance of male power. The
assumption that men will enact masculinity within these set gender roles can impact
negatively on male teachers who are reluctant and in some instances incapable of
demonstrating the normalised masculine performances imposed upon them (Mills,
Haase, and Charlton 2008).
 6 S. MOOSA AND D. BHANA

The research context

The study was conducted at five public primary schools in Kwa Dukuza, a town located in
the KwaZulu-Natal province of South Africa. All five schools accommodated learners
from grade 1–7. Each school had a separate FP department (grade 1–3, children aged
between 5 and 9) and senior primary (SP) department (grade 4–7, children aged
between 10 and 13) and each of the two departments were managed by two departmental
heads. The overall school was then managed by the schools deputy principal and principal.
In South Africa public schools are grouped into categories known as quintiles on a scale
ranging from quintile one up to quintile five. Here quintile one is used to reflect the
‘poorest’ schools and quintile five is used to reflect those schools that are ‘least poor’. In
our study all three out of our public schools were quintile four schools and two were quin-
tile five schools. All five schools had adequate classroom space for learners and access to
the following amenities: a staffroom, toilets for teachers and learners, a playground for
learners, a school library, a science laboratory and a school tuck-shop. The two quintile
Downloaded by [Shaaista Moosa] at 21:53 19 October 2017

five schools also had a computer lab on the school premises and a swimming pool.
According to Gray (2017) quintile four and five schools operate in stark contrast to
many quintile 1 and 2 schools in South Africa that do not have libraries, computer labs
and, in extreme cases, functioning toilets. Schools in South Africa are largely racialised
and learners and teachers in quintile one and two are almost entirely African, whereas
the more well off quintile four and five are more racially demographic but generally
characteristic of the lower-middle class (Gray 2017). The more affluent private schools
in South Africa are also more racially diverse but are exclusively for rich and upper-
class people (Gray 2017). The working context of the teachers is this study therefore
falls somewhere in between the extremities of a very poor quintile one school and the
more privileged and affluent private schools in the country.

Considering the identities of our research participants

A total of 41 primary school teachers were interviewed: 30 women and 11 men. Research
has found that 73% of all primary school teachers in South Africa are women (SNAP
2015), and for this reason we did not seek even numbers of male and female respondents.
Because the South African population is racially diverse, a concerted effort was made to
achieve a racially diverse sample of participants. However teachers were predominantly
Indian in most schools as the district selected was historically constructed as Indian
under apartheid, and this is reflected in our sample. Of our 30 (8 men and 22 women)
were Indian, 8 (3 men and 5 women) were African, 2 (women) were white and 1
(woman) was coloured. It must be noted here that race, class, culture are dynamic and
changing although particular versions of gender do reach back to how they are given
meaning power and are contextually driven. The teachers by virtue of their profession
are middle class although their historical backgrounds are shaped by and the effects of reli-
gion, culture, race and gender. All the participants were between the ages of 23 and 57 and
their years in service ranged between 1 and 34 years. Out of the 41 research participants 20
(19 female and 1 male) were FP teachers and the remaining 21 (11 female and 10 male)
were SP teachers. Despite definitions of social class in South Africa being controversial,
teachers in the country and within our study are considered to be representative of the
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 7

middle-class population. This arises from consensus that middle class refers to white-
collar, non-manual, professional workers (Ndletyana 2014).

Research design
We situated this study within an interpretivist research paradigm in order to develop an
understanding of social life and how individuals construct meaning within their daily lives.
It is important for the researcher to share the feelings and interpretations of the partici-
pants being studied (Neuman 2006). This interpretivist paradigm allowed us to explore
how primary school teachers construct male teachers as incapable of teaching young chil-
dren in the FP of schooling. A semi-structured interview calling for open-ended responses
was used to probe the primary school teachers’ thoughts, feelings and opinions regarding
men as FP teachers. The following research questions were used to guide the construction
of our semi-structured interviews:
Downloaded by [Shaaista Moosa] at 21:53 19 October 2017

(1) What reasons do primary school teachers offer for the lack of males in FP teaching?
(2) How do constructions of masculinity shape primary school teachers’ explanations for
a lack of male teachers in FP teaching?

Interviews at four of the schools were conducted in quiet spaces, such as the library, on
the school premises, and letters of consent from obtained from each school principal. Par-
ticipants from the fifth school, however, were interviewed outside the school premises after
school hours in private research spaces. All interviews were conducted after school hours
over a period of two months. Each interview lasted between 45 and 60 minutes. Permission
from the KwaZulu-Natal Department of Education was obtained to conduct the
interviews. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of
KwaZulu-Natal. Written consent to participate in the study was attained from each of
the 41 participants. Written consent to record the interviews was obtained from each par-
ticipant. Pseudonyms have been used throughout.
Validity within qualitative research studies such as this can be gauged by both the
research process and its findings. In trying to ascertain validity it is important to consider
the extent to which the study credibly captures and portrays the significance and meaning
of participants’ perspectives in relation to the participants lived experiences (Mears 2009).
To help ensure the credibility of our data we planned to return all interview transcripts to
the research participants in order for them to check and comment on whether the
responses were a correct reflection of what they had said. Due to time constraints and tea-
chers being unavailable we were only able to return the transcripts to 18 of our partici-
pants. These teachers all verified that the transcripts provided a true and accurate
reflection of what they had said.
That fact that participants were selected from only five schools in South Africa may
be considered to limit the generalisability of the study’s findings. However, Mears
(2012) argues that semi-structured or open-ended interviews can create a platform
where participants can share experiences and understandings, hence revealing the pos-
sibilities and indicating the limits of what people might do in similar situations. Simi-
larly, we hope that highlighting primary school teacher’s experiences and
understandings in relation to how they construct men as unsuitable FP teachers can
 8 S. MOOSA AND D. BHANA

create a platform for other researchers to compare and contrast how others in different
settings or contexts react when presented with a similar situation. We used thematic
content analysis to interpret the data (Kvale 2007).We began by reading through our
interview transcripts several times in order to identify common themes. Repeated pat-
terns of meaning were considered and coding was used to highlight these patterns after
which a thematic map was generated. We then organised the responses within our the-
matic map into two different categories:

. Responses that were detailed and/or add great value to the study
. Responses that were vague and/or add less value to study

Only the responses that were detailed and/or added great value to our study were
selected as excerpts to analyse. Finally we employed Neuman (2006) first-order interpret-
ation and second-order interpretation in an attempt to give our data meaning. We used
Downloaded by [Shaaista Moosa] at 21:53 19 October 2017

first-order interpretation to present interpretations from respondents’ points of view.

Thereafter we used second-order interpretation and reconstructed respondents’ first-
order interpretations by using our viewpoints to interpret their viewpoints (Neuman
2006). In so doing we were able to draw our own conclusions from their responses and
give the data meaning. The subsequent section presents a discussion and analysis of our
main findings.

Men are providers not caregivers

During the interviews we found that one argument disassociating men as FP teachers
was the portrayal of men as financial providers rather than caregivers. Mrs Govender
[Indian, SP teacher], for instance, positioned men within a provider masculinity dis-
course. She regarded female teachers as both nurturing financial providers: ‘Women
also provide financially for children … Men, they … limit their care for a child by
just providing financially but women you find them to be more nurturing …
[Women] care more in ways that see to the child’s basic needs’. Mrs Govender
begins her argument by rupturing the male provider and female caregiver binary by
stating that women in South Africa also provide for financially for children. Her pos-
ition as a working mother facilitates her accommodation of women as financial provi-
ders. Whilst she considers the role women play in children’s lives to be more fluid and
as being able to mediate between the role of caregiver and financial provider to children,
she is of the opinion that men have a fixed provider role and do not engage in childcare
work. Mrs Govender’s ideologies are reflective of the progression of Indian women’s
work in South Africa where although South African Indian women have gained inde-
pendence in the wage economy, their lives are still very much part of a nuclearised
family with male dominance still embedded (Freund 1991). Furthermore, the kind of
masculinity within the male provider model, according to Puppa and Miele (2015), is
largely articulated via paid employment and this is fundamentally incompatible with
those performances which call for attending to the physical and emotional needs of chil-
dren. We see evidence of this in Mrs Govender’s opinion outlined above. Mr Mbheki
[African, SP teacher] shared similar sentiments:
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 9

In our culture … it’s [FP teaching] just something that should be done by women … also the
man is the provider – that’s what we also believe is the plan of God, that man must go out and
work just as a provider and a woman must stay at home and raise the children.

Mr Mbheki deploys race and culture to rationalise FP within gender norms. Culture
becomes a trope through which essentialised notions of gender are seen to be the norm
of African men. Culture is not a fixed concept but here Mr Mbheki uses it to justify the
power of African men. Race, gender and culture intertwine to produce dominant con-
structions of masculinity where men’s appropriate work rests outside of the domain of
child care (Mashiya et al. 2015).
Mr Mbheki deliberated, too, on how the past has contributed to establishing men as
providers:
In [the] early days a man used to go and to work, maybe in Gauteng … and the women were
left behind to take care of the children. So that developed [in]to a culture so now it’s like a
woman must stay at home look after the children.
Downloaded by [Shaaista Moosa] at 21:53 19 October 2017

It is clear from this that he relates masculinity, especially under apartheid, to migrant
labour where African men in rural areas of South Africa sought work, for example in
the mines of Johannesburg, Gauteng. Under such conditions family life of African men
were disrupted, and economic necessity impacted upon fathers’ involvement with their
children, resulting in the dominance of provider masculinity- a father who provides
material goods rather than care which was reproduced as women’s work (Hunter
2010). Race, class, culture and gender coalesce in ways that have effects for how Mr
Mbheki shapes men’s involvement in FP.

FP teaching: ‘a job for, lower people, females’

The low status of FP teaching as a profession arose repeatedly as one of the main reasons
why men avoid FP teaching. Miss Joseph [Indian, FP teacher] described her own
experiences:
I feel they kind of view us as unintelligent … like we are stupid, like anybody can do our job.
So males probably feel ashamed to teach in FP even though teaching is not such a high status
occupation … But as soon as you say you [are] a primary school teacher you still get some
recognition. If you say you in senior primary they still think you intelligent … but as soon
as you say junior primary they look at you like any man on the street can do this job so
we [are] not looked upon as intelligent …

Teaching junior primary or FP is thus regarded as unintelligent, women’s work. According

to Miss Joseph, high school teaching and, to a lesser extent, senior primary, are the only
teaching areas regarded as having any status. She says that male teachers opt to enter these
teaching areas only and are ashamed to take up low-status teaching in the FP. Connell’s
(1995) argument outlined above about how resistance to the liberation of women was sup-
ported by scientific beliefs of inherent differences between the sexes can be seen here. In
spite of there being a high demand for quality teachers, Weaver-Hightower (2011) found
that the talented and highly educated men in his study were often persuaded against teach-
ing. They had been exposed to a regulatory discourse that instructs an intelligent, capable
man to maximise his prospects with regards to his earning and status (Weaver-Hightower
2011). Consequently, the designation of FP teachers as unintelligent meant that men were
 10 S. MOOSA AND D. BHANA

ashamed to enter this area of teaching. Miss Joseph maintains that associating men with
high-level thinking (Wernersson, Warin, and Brownhill 2016) steers them away from FP
teaching because they fear they will be mocked or looked down upon. Their hegemonic
masculinity may be threatened (Connell 1995). Ratele (2015), in trying to understand
South African men’s reluctance to adopt gender equitable principles, suggests that resist-
ance is key to power and resistance to giving up on male patriarchal power is an important
reason why men cling to relations of domination and subordination where the latter is
women and FP teaching work is women’s work.
Several other teachers also maintained that men’s disassociation with FP teaching had a
lot to do with the low status and gendering of the profession. Miss Zungu [African, SP
teacher] noted how men perceive the FP as ‘a job for, lower people, females’. Miss
Shezi [African, FP teacher] also suggested that ‘they [men] won’t respect any other
ideas or any ideas that come from the FP teachers. They tend to look at you as the 6
year old child that you are teaching’. The association of women with the status of children
Downloaded by [Shaaista Moosa] at 21:53 19 October 2017

serves to reproduce gendered hierarchies and casts the child as a lesser being. The strong
critique against the conceptualisation of women as ‘6 year olds’ serves to illustrate the
counter feminist ideals upon which hegemonic masculinity depends (Ratele 2014). It
has been argued that the feminisation of primary schools is one of the reasons why the
profession has been unsuccessful in attracting (Skelton 2012). Indeed, despite the defi-
nition of the term ‘profession’ being somewhat problematic, there is some support in
favour of the argument that high levels of feminisation within a profession can lead to
its characterisation as a low-status profession, and the teaching profession is a prime
example of how this plays out (Drudy 2008). Warin and Gannerud (2014), too, have
argued that the value attributed to caring practices within the early years of schooling
in comparison with the later years has resulted in the early years becoming feminised,
and this feminisation has dismissive and derogatory undertones.
Mr Singh [Indian, SP teacher]maintained the following whilst describing men’s reluc-
tance to teach in the FP:
The age of the kids … I think men can relate better to older kids when it comes to control,
discipline and understanding. I think children at that intellectual level respond to males
better as well as females but I think that they will respond to older children better … I
think there’s a lot of work in the FP. [It can be] very monotonous and I think male teachers
would get bored easily. They need to have something more intellectual to stimulate them.

As an SP teacher Mr Singh relies upon the hegemonic masculine expectation that male
teachers are proficient in controlling and disciplining children (Carrington and McPhee
2008; Cleaver 2010; Barış 2013) to rationalise his belief that men make better teachers
of older children. In relation to Mr Singh’s ideology, Petersen (2014) found that FP teach-
ing was considered to be a ‘soft’ option for men and it was believed that men were
instead needed as teachers to assume a strong disciplinary hand in high school where
more discipline problems were believed to occur. Mr Singh also draws on the per-
ceived link between masculinity and high levels of intelligence as his reasoning behind
men opting out of teaching in the FP. Studies have similarly found that men were often
persuaded against teaching young children in the early years of schooling because it
was not considered to be an intellectually challenging or demanding profession (Johnston,
McKeown, and McEwen 1999; Skelton 2003; Cushman 2005). As an Indian middle-class
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 11

male teacher, Mr Singh’s account of power reflects not only the patriarchal context in
South Africa and elsewhere, but they also resonate with male power amongst Indian
South African men who historically have wielded power in families through provider mas-
culinity. This power is not monolithic. The economic position of Indian South African
women are changing due to economic prospects and increased access to education result-
ing in different gender dynamics. Additionally in the above excerpt whilst highlighting the
need for men to demonstrate their intellectual strength by teaching older children, Mr
Singh does not recognise the need for female teachers to do the same. In doing so he
thus establishes his male dominance and invests in a belief that devalues the status of
women.

It is embarrassing for men to teach in the FP

Some of our respondents spoke about how a man’s decision to teach in the FP would be
Downloaded by [Shaaista Moosa] at 21:53 19 October 2017

regarded negatively – and that this contributed to their avoidance of this area of teaching.
When asked why there were so few male FP teachers Mr Mbheki said:
It becomes so embarrassing to see a man in our culture staying at home looking after chil-
dren. That is not in our culture … Let me just quote one thing. Let’s take, for instance, if
they want to go to the loo and so on. Sometime a female teacher is able to help that child
to, you know, to clean the mess and everything but a male [emphasis on the word male]
ayyyy! not in our culture. One [it] is very embarrassing and two we are not used to it. It’s
very awkward. I think that is also another reason why we don’t like to teach the young
ones, especially the FP children.

Skelton argues
that it is not simply about whether or not men go into primary schooling; it is about cultural
expectations of masculinities, the intersectionality of gender with social class (and ethnicity,
sexuality and so forth); and the implications of theories of gender for understanding the ten-
sions around masculinity. (2012, 6)

Mr Mbheki expresses ideals and practices of masculinity which are deeply connected to
race, class, culture and gender. In South Africa, race and class are intimately connected
where black people, albeit with changes, were relegated to low-level jobs and marginalised.
Even under these circumstances, African men were regarded as the head of the household
and cultural values were connected to the maintenance of gender norms and male power
(Hunter 2010). Whilst Mr Mbheki occupies white collar profession, he attempts to main-
tain male privilege and power through essentialising culture as something to do which
African people through which male power is produced. These gendered and cultural
values are located within and are the effects of history and continued patriarchal
context of South African society. All men, including white, Indian and coloured, are posi-
tioned and bear the dividends of patriarchy but how they give meaning to power has a
contextual basis, Here Mr, Mbheki is using culture, race and gender as a trope to exercise
power over women and children whilst reinforcing male hegemony. Morrell, Jewkes, and
Lindegger (2012) suggest that cultural practices are entangled within dominant hegemonic
patterns. Masculinity is policed according to dominant cultural norms and Mr Mbheki’s
emphasis on cultural embarrassment is part of this policing through which appropriate
forms of masculinity are produced and adhered to. In this way Connell’s (1995) notion
 12 S. MOOSA AND D. BHANA

of complicit masculinity becomes evident. Not teaching FP is a key signifier of power and
one to which Mr Mbheki ascribes. The cultural expectation of masculinity thus comes into
tension with the feminised area of FP teaching, rendering it awkward for men to teach
children in the FP. Furthermore, as Warin and Gannerud say, ‘the linkage between
caring responsibilities and women’s work also means that care elements of professional
teaching practices are often unrecognized and under-valued’ (2014, 19). Mr Mbheki simi-
larly links childcare responsibilities with women’s work, and by doing so he not only deva-
lues teaching in the FP, he also devalues the status of women. This is because he maintains
that teaching in the FP necessitates involvement in childcare activities – which are suitable
for women to involve themselves with but which would be embarrassing for a man.
When asked if it was acceptable for a man to teach in the FP, Mr Mbheki, laughing,
replied:
No … you can become a laughing stock in our culture … they can associate you with gay
people … the way you talk to the young ones must also change: you must act like a child.
Downloaded by [Shaaista Moosa] at 21:53 19 October 2017

Once you act like a child it will look like you are a woman … . so it forces you to act that
way you see and especially to use your gestures, your hands … . you’ll be taken as associated
with the women … they won’t take you as a man as a real man …

Subordinate masculinities are demonstrated by men whose performance threatens the

authenticity of hegemonic masculinities, for example homosexual men (Connell 1995).
Mr Mbheki’s opinion that a man would become a laughing stock for choosing to teach
in the FP are indicative of a subordinated kind of masculinity, one which Msibi (2012)
says is produced in South Africa by culturally sanctioned heterosexual norms. Hegemonic
masculinity is not a self-reproducing structure. Instead, upholding a model of hegemony
necessitates the regulation of males who do not conform to hegemonic masculinity and the
exclusion or discrediting of females (Connell and Messerschmidt 2005). Policing of appro-
priate heterosexual masculinities is invoked through the risk of ridicule. It must be noted
here that gay sexuality is often assumed to be ‘un-African’ (Msibi 2012) with the historical
role of men as heterosexual and head of households under pressure in the context of non-
normative performance of masculinity. Mr Mbheki illustrates the policing mechanisms
through which heterosexuality is produced for ‘real men’ through ridicule and surveillance
of self and others.
Mr Mbheki also asserts that when engaging with young children one needs to
modify the way one speaks. This calls for one to assume a position of speaking that
is in line with the way a child acts or speaks. He maintains that this performance is
consistent with the behaviour of women when they modify their way of speaking
when interacting with children. Furthermore, by maintaining that behaving like a
child makes you appear womanly if you are a man, Mr Mbheki further devalues the
status of women in society. Not only does he associate such performances as being
womanly, he also maintains that should a man enact such womanly performances
he may also be labelled as gay (Msibi 2012).
Connell (1995) argues that a blurring of the boundaries between being straight and gay
and being masculine and feminine is common. Thus, gay men are portrayed as feminised
men and lesbians are considered to be masculinised women. He argues that such notions
remain, even if they have been disproven. For example, gay men are also aware of the
occurrence of homosexual tendencies amongst powerfully masculine men (Connell
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 13

1995). Mr Mbheki’s argument about a man being labelled as gay because of a desire to
teach in the FP is full of contradictions and misconceptions.
According to Ratele (2014) a ‘real’ African man must be heterosexual and a ‘real’
African woman must be sexually available to men. Such discourses that use race,
culture and gender compel and police African men and women’s sexuality and it is in
this context that homosexuality is regarded as unnatural and un-African. However, this
compulsion to be heterosexual entails an element of unnaturalness because of the need
to live up to what is considered to be the correct forms of manhood and womanhood
(Ratele 2015). Furthermore, homosexuality and non-heteronormative desires, perform-
ances and relations are often hidden in certain parts of Africa, not because such human
desires are unAfrican but because such desires are prohibited by these societies and are
often criminalised (Ratele 2014). Mr Mbheki believes that portrayals of a man as
womanly or gay will result in a situation where other men choose to exclude you from
their social gatherings on the basis that you are not a real man. Mills (2004) similarly indi-
Downloaded by [Shaaista Moosa] at 21:53 19 October 2017

cates that males who fail to adhere to hegemonic constructions of masculinities, by enact-
ing behaviours deemed to be feminine, for example, often become marginalised within the
societal order of masculinities and are sometimes depicted as ‘abnormal’ or gay.
Mrs Maraj [Indian, FP teacher] highlighted how men showing their feminine side as FP
teachers could be open to ridicule:
I don’t think they like to show the feminine side off. I think men also have a feminine side to
them if they really open [up] and they also have a nurturing side to them. They can show it,
but they don’t; maybe they fear other men putting them down or making a funny comment,
or maybe women as well–women can also say they not real men. It depends on society. I
think it depends on what the response will be from society, whether society will respond
to them positively or negatively for showing their feminine side.

Miss Shezi [African, FP teacher] believes that men teaching in FP might get negative reac-
tions from society as well as from other men. She said:
From society, they can get negative reactions … Especially men, they can ask such a question
to other men: Why did you do this FP? ooh I can’t sit with a child crying, it’s a woman’s job.
Why are you doing a woman’s job?

Mrs Maraj maintains that men do have a nurturing and feminine side but that they are
afraid to show it in the presence of other men and women out of fear that they will be
seen as not real men.
Studies have shown how men who experience insecurities regarding their masculinity
tend to consider primary caregiving as especially emasculating (Simpson 2005; Weaver-
Hightower 2011; Skelton 2012). The shame arising from this might result in these men
diminishing or concealing their caring capabilities from public scrutiny, hiding them
from the judgment of fellow men. Furthermore, emasculation is equated to vulnerability,
and the unpaid emotional work of caring denotes this vulnerability, too. As a result, many
men fear being seen undertaking caring work as it diminishes them as men (Ratele 2015).
Miss Shezi and Mrs Maraj also asserted that men teaching in the FP faced ridicule from
other men because of such stereotypical views positioning FP teaching as a woman’s
job. Interpersonal expectations that are based on stereotypes are justified and perpetuated
through the belief that those who conform to stereotypical expectations will be rewarded
and those who do not will be punished (Connell 1995). Furthermore, within essentialist
 14 S. MOOSA AND D. BHANA

theorising, a male teacher who displays empathy, caring, nurturance and so on will be
regarded as overly feminine and will thus be categorised as a ‘wimp’ (Skelton 2012).
Brownhill (2016) also found that men expressed concerns over being mocked for
having chosen to teach in the early years as it was considered as a weird and improper
occupation for a man. Men ridiculing other men for teaching in the FP can thus be
seen as a form of punishment for those who choose to depart from stereotyped expec-
tations of them. It is not surprising that the call for more men to enter the early years
of teaching, although seen as a worthwhile endeavour, is full of tension (Brownhill 2016).

Conclusion
This article has focussed on primary school teachers’ disassociation from and resistance to
male FP teaching. We have shown how a discursive strategy coheres around FP which
serves to protect and uphold versions of hegemonic masculinity. Male and female teachers
Downloaded by [Shaaista Moosa] at 21:53 19 October 2017

are thus complicit in the maintenance of a counter feminist ideal (Talbot and Quayle
2010). Teachers argued that men would be ridiculed for choosing to teach in the FP,
labelled as gay, for example. Men were positioned as financial providers instead of care-
givers, and as desiring more status within a work environment than could be attained
by assuming the role of an FP teacher. A heterosexual provider masculinity based on
assumptions of male intellectual power and women’ subordinate caregiving role are pro-
duced through the deployment of race, class, culture and gender. Culture we have found is
used as a trope as if it is fixed in order to present as ‘real men’. The result is the reproduc-
tion of gender binaries based on essentialised logic and women’s subservience. We have
identified the discursive strategy through which hegemonic masculinity is produced
within essentialised notions of female subordination. Given that the study is based on tea-
chers with many years of service and who are expected to present alternate models for
South African children, there is a critical need for intervention to disrupt their unexa-
mined and uncritical adoption of gender norms and roles. Hegemonic masculinity is
expressed in everyday teaching actions, ideals and practices and the kind of masculinity
produced is objectionable to South Africa’s quest for gender equality and gender equitable
FP. Indeed, it is vital that interventions address in-service primary school teachers to
prevent the reproduction of hegemonic masculinity through the overt and hidden peda-
gogical action of teachers.
The challenge is to work with teachers to work against ideological positions based on
arrogation of male power. The ideas held by the primary school teachers in this study
work against calls for alternative, more gender equitable forms of masculinities (Shefer
2014; Ratele 2015). There is clear evidence of resistance to changing dominant forms of
hegemonic masculinities, masculinities which fuel the scourge of gender and sexual vio-
lence and are, for example, embedded within the feminisation of HIV (Gibbs, Sikweyiya,
and Jewkes 2014). In order to stimulate change within a context such as FP schooling there
needs to be serious re-thinking about male hegemony. It is vital that policy-makers
acknowledge that both male and female teachers need to contest stereotypical notions
and offer alternative viewpoints, in an effort to release boys and girls from the restrictions
of leading constructions of femininity and masculinity (Hutchings et al. 2008).
It is important for teachers to see how they position themselves within gendering dis-
courses, and to be aware of their gendered positions and the impact these have on the
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 15

power relations which affect not only themselves but also the learners they teach (Mac-
Naughton 2000). Initiatives to address FP should involve all school stakeholders, including
teacher training institutions, departments of education, parents, learners and the teachers
themselves, in order to successfully address change within the gendered contours of
teaching.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by The South African Research Chairs Initiative of the Department of
Science and Technology and National Research Foundation of South Africa [98407].
Downloaded by [Shaaista Moosa] at 21:53 19 October 2017

Notes on contributors
Shaaista Moosa is a PhD student in the School of Education, University of KwaZulu-Natal. Her key
area of research focuses on exploring the need to increase men’s involvement as teachers of young
children in South Africa.
Deevia Bhana, PhD, is Professor and the DST/NRF South African Research Chair in Gender and
Childhood Sexuality. Her most recent books are Love, Sex and Teenage Sexuality Cultures in South
Africa: 16 Turning 17 (Routledge, 2018) and Childhood Sexuality and AIDS Education: The Price of
Innocence (Routledge, 2016).

References
Barış, S. 2013. “Female Preschool Teachers’ Attitude toward Male Preschool Teachers While Hiring
Job.” Middle Eastern & African Journal of Educational Research 3: 107–112.
Brownhill, S. 2016. “Male Role Models in Education-Based Settings (0–8) An English Perspective.”
In Men, Masculinities and Teaching in Early Childhood Education: International Perspectives on
Gender and Care, edited by S. Brownhill, J. Warin, and I. Wenersson, 26–35. New York:
Routledge.
Carrington, B., and A. McPhee. 2008. “Boys ‘Underachievement’ and the Feminization of
Teaching.” Journal of Education for Teaching 34 (2): 109–120.
Cleaver, S. 2010. “Mr. Teacher.” Instructor 116 (6): 48–50.
Connell, R. W. 1995. Masculinities. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Connell, R. W. 2000. The Men and the Boys. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Connell, R. W., and J. W. Messerschmidt. 2005. “Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept.”
Gender & Society 19 (6): 829–859.
Cushman, P. 2005. “Let’s Hear It from the Males: Issues Facing Male Primary School Teachers.”
Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (3): 227–240.
Cushman, P. 2008. “So What Exactly Do You Want? What Principals Mean When They Say ‘Male
Role Model’.” Gender and Education 20 (2): 123–136.
Drudy, S. 2008. “Gender Balance/Gender Bias: The Teaching Profession and the Impact of
Feminization.” Gender and Education 20 (4): 309–323.
Faulstich-Wieland, H. 2013. “Should Male Primary School Teachers Be There Principally as Role
Models for Boys?” Universal Journal of Educational Research 1 (2): 65–73.
Freund, B. 1991. “Indian Women and the Changing Character of the Working Class Indian
Household in Natal 1860–1990.” Journal of Southern African Studies 17 (3): 414–429.
 16 S. MOOSA AND D. BHANA

Gibbs, A., Y. Sikweyiya, and R. Jewkes. 2014. “‘Men Value Their Dignity’: Securing Respect and
Identity Construction in Urban Informal Settlements in South Africa.” Global Health Action 7
(2): 115–124. doi:10.3402/gha.v7.23676.
Gray, B. 2017. Public-Only Schools Force Equality. https://mg.co.za/article/2017-07-14-00-public-
only-schools-force-equality.
Hunter, M. 2010. Love in the Time of AIDS: Inequality, Gender and Rights in South Africa.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Hutchings, M., B. Carrington, B. Francis, C. Skelton, B. Read, and I. Hall. 2008. “Nice and Kind,
Smart and Funny: What Children Like and Want to Emulate in Their Teachers.” Oxford
Review of Education 34 (2): 135–157.
Johnson, S. P., R. Middleton, N. Nocholson, and D. Sandrick. 2010. “Still So Few Male Teachers:
Now What?” Young Children 65 (3): 18–23.
Johnston, J., E. McKeown, and A. McEwen. 1999. “Choosing Primary Teaching as a Career: The
Perspectives of Males and Females in Training.” Journal of Education for Teaching 25 (1): 55–64.
Jones, D. 2007. “Millennium Man: Constructing Identities of Male Teachers in Early Years
Contexts.” Educational Review 59 (2): 179–194.
King, J. 1998. Uncommon Caring: Learning from Men Who Teach Young Children. New York:
Downloaded by [Shaaista Moosa] at 21:53 19 October 2017

Teachers College Press.

Kvale, S. 2007. Doing Interviews. London: Sage.
MacNaughton, G. 2000. Rethinking Gender in Early Childhood Education. London: Allen & Unwin.
Martino, W. J. 2008. “Male Teachers as Role Models: Addressing Issues of Masculinity, Pedagogy
and the Re-masculinization of Schooling.” Curriculum Inquiry 38 (2): 189–223.
Martino, W., and G. M. Rezai-Rashti. 2010. “Male Teacher Shortage: Black Teachers’ Perspectives.”
Gender and Education 22 (3): 247–262.
Mashiya, N. 2014. “Becoming a (Male) Foundation Phase Teacher: A Need in South African
Schools?” South African Journal of Childhood Education 4 (3): 24–36.
Mashiya, N., L. Kok, N. Luthuli, S. Xulu, and Z. Mtshali. 2015. “Foregrounding the Gender Divides
in Early Childhood Teacher Education: A Case of South Africa.” Journal of Social Sciences 42 (3):
259–265.
Mears, C. L. 2009. Interviewing for Education and Social Science Research: The Gateway Approach.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mears, C. L. 2012. “In-depth Interviews.” In Research Methods and Methodologies in Education,
edited by J. Arthur, M. Waring, R. Coe, and L. Hedges, 170–176. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Mills, M. 2004. “Male Teachers, Homophobia, Misogyny and Teacher Education.” Teaching
Education 15 (1): 27–39.
Mills, M., M. Haase, and E. Charlton. 2008. “Being the ‘Right’ Kind of Male Teacher: The
Disciplining of John.” Pedagogy, Culture & Society 16 (1): 71–84.
Moreau, M., ed. 2014. (In)equalities in the Teaching Profession: A Global Perspective. Basingstoke:
Palgrave.
Morrell, R. 2006. “Fathers, Fatherhood and Masculinity in South Africa.” In Baba: Men and
Fatherhood in South Africa, edited by R. Morrell and L. Richter, 13–25. Cape Town: HSRC.
Morrell, R., and R. Jewkes. 2011. “Carework and Caring: A Path to Gender Equitable Practices
among Men in South Africa?” International Journal for Equity in Health 10 (17): 1–10.
Morrell, R., R. Jewkes, and G. Lindegger. 2012. “Hegemonic Masculinity/Masculinities in South
Africa: Culture, Power, and Gender Politics.” Men and Masculinities 15 (1): 11–30.
Morrell, R., and L. Richter. 2004. “The Fatherhood Project: Confronting Issues of Masculinity and
Sexuality.” Agenda 18 (62): 36–44.
Msibi, T. 2012. “‘I’m Used to It Now’: Experiences of Homophobia among Queer Youth in South
African Township Schools.” Gender and Education 24 (5): 515–533.
Ndletyana, M. 2014. “Middle-Class in South Africa: Significance, Role and Impact.” BRICS
Academic Forum/Institute for Applied Economic Research 10: 1–17.
Neuman, W. L. 2006. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Boston,
MA: Pearson/A and B.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 17

Petersen, N. 2014. “The ‘Good’, the ‘Bad’ and the ‘Ugly’? Views on Male Teachers in FP Education.”
South African Journal of Education 34 (1): 1–13.
Puppa, F. D., and F. Miele. 2015. “Beyond (But Not Too Much) the Male Breadwinner Model: A
Qualitative Study on Child Care and Masculinities in Contemporary Italy.” Modern Italy 20
(2): 167–184. doi:10.1080/13532944.2015.1025729.
Ramphele, M., and L. Richter. 2006. “Migrancy, Family Dissolution and Fatherhood.” In Baba: Men
and Fatherhood in South Africa, edited by R. Morrell and L. Richter, 73–81. Cape Town: HSRC.
Ratele, K. 2014. “Hegemonic African Masculinities and Men’s Heterosexual Lives: Some Uses for
Homophobia.” African Studies Review 57 (2): 115–130. doi:10.1017/asr.2014.50.
Ratele, K. 2015. “Working Through Resistance in Engaging Boys and Men Towards Gender
Equality and Progressive Masculinities.” Culture, Health & Sexuality: An International Journal
for Research, Intervention and Care 17 (2): 144–158. doi:10.1080/13691058.2015.1048527.
Sargent, P. 2005. “The Gendering of Men in Early Childhood Education.” Sex Roles 52 (3–4): 251–
259.
Shefer, T. 2014. “Document Pathways to Gender Equitable Men: Reflections on Findings from the
International Men and Gender Equality Survey in the Light of Twenty Years of Gender Change
in South Africa.” Men and Masculinities 17 (5): 502–509.
Downloaded by [Shaaista Moosa] at 21:53 19 October 2017

Silberschmidt, M. 2011. “What Would Make Men Interested in Gender Equality? Reflections from
East Africa.” In Men and Development Politicizing Masculinities, edited by A. Cornwall, J.
Edstrom, and A. Greig, 98–110. London: Zed Books.
Simpson, R. 2005. “Men in Non-traditional Occupations: Career Entry, Career Orientation and
Experience of Role Strain.” Gender, Work and Organization 12 (4): 363–380.
Skelton, C. 2003. “Male Primary Teachers and Perceptions of Masculinity.” Educational Review 55
(2): 195–209.
Skelton, C. 2012. “Men Teachers and the ‘Feminised’ Primary School: A Review of the Literature.”
Educational Review 64 (1): 1–19.
SNAP. 2015. “Primary Schools Educators by Gender, in 2015.” Stats obtained as at the 8 July 2015
via email correspondence. South Africa: Department of Basic Education.
Statistics South Africa. 2015. Mid-Year Population Estimates 2015. Pretoria: Statistics South Africa.
Talbot, K., and M. Quayle. 2010. “The Perils of Being a Nice Guy: Contextual Variation in Five
Young Women’s Constructions of Acceptable Hegemonic and Alternative Masculinities.” Men
and Masculinities 13 (2): 255–278.
Warin, J., and E. Gannerud. 2014. “Gender, Teaching and Care: A Comparative Global
Conversation.” Gender and Education 26 (3): 193–199.
Weaver-Hightower, M. B. 2011. “Male Preservice Teachers and Discouragement from Teaching.”
The Journal of Men’s Studies 19 (2): 97–115.
Wernersson, I., J. Warin, and S. Brownhill. 2016. “Conclusions.” In Men, Masculinities and
Teaching in Early Childhood Education: International Perspectives on Gender and Care, edited
by S. Brownhill, J. Warin, and I. Wenersson, 130–137. New York: Routledge.

View publication stats