Kennedy, J., & Russell, C. (2020). Hegemonic masculinity in outdoor education. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2020.1755706

Hegemonic Masculinity in Outdoor Education

Jay Kennedy & Constance Russell

Abstract: Increasing attention is being paid to gender in outdoor education, with

scholars and practitioners sharing experiences of sexism and heterosexism and
explicitly calling for an examination of hegemonic masculinity in the field. The
purpose of this paper is to respond to that call by: summarizing scholarship on
hegemonic and alternative masculinities; reviewing research on masculinities in
education that is particularly relevant to outdoor education; pointing to existing work
in outdoor education that lays a foundation for examining masculinity, including
promising recent research; and offering suggestions for disrupting hegemonic
masculinity and creating conditions for more diverse gender performances. Since
there has been so little research on masculinities in outdoor education thus far, there
remain significant unanswered questions. It is past time for focused examination of
hegemonic masculinity in the field as one strategy for addressing gender inequity.

Keywords: outdoor education, gender, masculinity, sexism, heterosexism

Introduction
The chorus of voices responding to concerns about masculinity, including by
the #metoo movement, has been growing louder lately (e.g., PettyJohn et al., 2019).
Such issues have long been discussed in women’s, gender, and masculinity studies
(e.g., Connell, 2005; hooks, 2004; Greig & Martino, 2012) and are increasingly being
raised in outdoor and environmental education (Blenkinsop, Piersol, & Sitka-Sage,
2018; Breunig & Russell, 2020; Davies, Potter, & Gray, 2019; Gray, Mitten, Potter, &
Kennedy, 2020; Humberstone, 2000; Oakley, Potter, & Socha, 2018; Warren, 2016).
Of specific concern is hegemonic masculinity, the most valued performance of
maleness (Connell, 1995). Typical hegemonic masculinity values enactments of
toughness, emotional stoicism, and aggression while femininity and alternative
masculine performances by, for example, gay men, environmentalists, and women are
devalued (Connell, 2005; Hultman, 2017). The theory of hegemonic masculinities is
continually being re-examined and refined, including making clear that multiple
hegemonic masculinities are possible (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005;
Messerschmidt, 2019). While these permutations may vary by context, hegemonic
masculinities nonetheless share the common objective of maintaining patriarchy and
thus gender inequity.
Adherence to hegemonic masculinity is problematic in a number of ways,
including being associated with negative health impacts for men (Hearn, 2015),
maintaining systems of gender inequity, which have deleterious social, psychological,
and economic impacts (Connell, 2005; hooks, 2004), and fostering hostility to
environmentalism (Hultman, 2017). The cultural impact of the #metoo movement and
increasing interest in masculinity may indicate a shift in what forms of masculinity
are valued, and perhaps even progress toward gender equity. Yet one cannot overlook
that essentialist notions of gender that seemingly justify and naturalize patriarchal
systems continue to be popularized by evolutionary psychologists such as Steven
Pinker and Jared Diamond, and world leaders who embody toxic masculinity like
Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Jair Balsonaro (Messerschmidt, 2019).
Educational systems have been critiqued for reproducing hegemonic
masculinity (Connell, 2005; Weiler, 2017). That includes outdoor education, which
 2

despite having long incorporated progressive pedagogies fostering reflection,

communication, and care, and a stream explicitly committed to social justice (Ewert
& Sibthorp, 2014; Martin, Breunig, Wagstaff, & Goldenburg, 2017), has been
criticized for its sexism and heterosexism (Davies, Potter, & Gray, 2019; Gray, 2016,
2018; Gray et al., 2020; Humberstone, 2000; Newbery, 2003, 2004; Oakley, Potter, &
Socha, 2018; Rogers & Rose, 2019; Warren, 2016; Wigglesworth, 2019). Several
scholars in the field have explicitly called for an examination of hegemonic
masculinities (Blenkinsop, Piersol, & Sitka-Sage, 2018; Breunig & Russell, 2020;
Gray, 2016; Gray et al., 2020; Humberstone, 2000; Warren, 2016). The purpose of
our paper thus is to respond to that call by: briefly summarizing scholarship on
hegemonic masculinity; reviewing research on masculinities in education that we find
particularly illuminating for outdoor education; and offering suggestions that might
help disrupt hegemonic masculinities and create conditions for more diverse gender
performances, thereby contributing to gender equity.
In this paper, we use an inclusive definition of outdoor education to
acknowledge the field’s complexity and shifting nature (Dyment & Potter, 2015;
Potter & Dyment, 2016) and also so that our scope is wide enough to enable us to
draw on relevant work already done on masculinity. Outdoor education has been
framed as both a discipline with unique content and a pedagogical approach (Potter &
Dyment, 2016). Adventure education, experiential education, and environmental
education that involve significant time outside can be understood as strands of
outdoor education or as ‘sister’ fields (Dyment & Potter, 2015). Understood broadly,
then, outdoor education occurs in formal and informal learning environments (e.g.,
schools, post-secondary education, camps, guided trips, facilitated outdoor
recreational activities) and in urban, rural, and wilderness settings. Like Warren,
Mitten, Amore, and Lotz (2019), we are concerned not only with the explicit
curriculum but also the hidden curriculum. Indeed, we posit that it is often in the
hidden curriculum that assumptions about gender, including masculinity, can be
particularly revealing.
We certainly are not the first to raise concerns about hegemonic masculinity in
outdoor education (see Humberstone, 2000). Yet we believe it warrants renewed
attention given the recent flurry of writing that describes sexism, heterosexism, and
the circumscribing of gender performance in outdoor education settings (Blenkinsop,
Piersol, & Sitka-Sage, 2018; Breunig & Russell, 2020; Davies, Potter, & Gray, 2019;
Gray, 2018; Gray et al., 2020; Mitten, Gray, Allen-Craig, Loeffler, & Carpenter,
2018; Oakley, Potter, & Socha, 2018; Rogers & Rose, 2019; Wigglesworth, 2019). To
lay a theoretical foundation, we first focus our attention on scholarship on hegemonic
masculinity in general before turning to how it plays out in education settings
specifically.

Hegemonic Masculinity
Connell (1995), applying Gramsci’s notion of hegemony to an analysis of
gender, insists that not only do men subordinate women, but masculinity itself exists
within a hierarchy. It remains mostly hidden, appearing natural rather than
deliberately constructed and maintained. Within such a hierarchy, Connell (1995)
asserted, people constantly work to increase their status relative to others, performing
as many of the valued traits as possible thereby remaining complicit in the valuation
of hegemonic behaviours. Connell (2005) notes, however, that hegemonic values can
change over time and context. Often, such changes to hegemonic norms occur at
times of ‘crisis’ such as early feminist demands for equality that resulted in a
 3

renegotiation of societal roles and relational dynamics, women’s entry into the
workforce that shifted power balances at home and in the workplace, and loosening
restrictions on demonstrations of love as evinced by the increasing acceptance of the
LGBTQ+ community (Connell, 2005). A contemporary example of a ‘crisis’ could be
navigating a post-#metoo culture.
Hegemonic masculinity theory is currently the most influential and pervasive
theory of masculinity (Beasley, 2019; Hearn & Howson, 2019). Indeed, since
Connell’s original exposition in Gender and Power (1987) and later elaboration in
Masculinities (1995, 2005), hegemonic masculinity theory has become the ‘central
pillar of the critical studies of men and masculinities’ (Hearn & Howson, 2019, p. 43).
That is not to say that the theory has been immune to criticism. Authors such as
Demetriou (2001), Hearn (2004), Haywood and Mac An Ghaill (2012), and
McCormack and Anderson (2014) raised questions that led to refinements of the
theory as well as productive offshoots.
For example, an early critique by Demetriou (2001) noted that the theory
initially ignored the effect that subordinated and marginalized masculinities have on
valued hegemonic traits or enactments, and suggested that, in accordance with
Gramsci’s theory, the hegemonic group often borrows aspects from other groups in
order to maintain its primacy. More recently, Haywood and Mac An Ghaill (2012)
and McCormack and Anderson (2014) wondered if the theory of hegemonic
masculinity will have a limited lifespan going forward given increasing acceptance of
homosexuality and gender fluidity. O’Neill (2015) and Bridges and Pascoe (2014)
disagree, arguing that is optimistic and suggesting that a more ‘inclusive’ masculinity
may be a hybrid masculine performance that conceals men’s adherence to hegemonic
values that still bolster gender hierarchy. Messerschmidt (2019) thus suggests
differentiating between dominant masculinities (i.e., popular masculine enactments
within a given context) and hegemonic masculinities that support patriarchal systems.
While the theory of hegemonic masculinity is not static, its central tenets and
explanatory ability remain compelling. It is widely used in critical masculinity
studies, and has been applied to the study of many contexts, including educational
ones.

Masculinities in Education
Numerous scholars have observed how hegemonic masculinity is passed onto
students either explicitly or tacitly (Greig, 2012; Martino, 2008; Martino & Rezai-
Rashti, 2012; Skelton, 2001, 2007; Smith, 2007; Weiler, 2017). Examples include
male teachers acting as disciplinarians (Pullen & Simpson, 2009), overlooking sexist
comments and gendered harassment as ‘natural’ behaviour for boys (McCaughtry &
Tischler, 2010; Smith, 2007), and female teachers adopting a more masculine
teaching style in order to garner respect from male students and avoid gendered
harassment (Smith, 2007). Mentors and supervisors of teachers can reinforce
hegemonic masculine codes of behaviour through informal feedback and professional
reviews, and peers also police teacher gender performances (Kirk, 2010; Martino,
2008; Smith, 2007). Student and parent expectations of appropriate teacher
comportment and pedagogical style can also be important influences (Martino &
Frank, 2006; Millington & Wilson, 2010; Pullen & Simpson, 2009).
Skelton (2001) found that male teachers in primary grades often enact a more
strict, authoritarian, and traditional masculinity. She suspected that being in a female-
dominated profession that can entail substantial care work required male teachers to
enact masculinity more in line with hegemonic values to compensate for their
 4

feminized role and work context. Performing masculinity in more traditional ways is
not the only response to operating in a feminized context, however. In a later study,
Skelton (2007) found that male primary teachers of the youngest grades enacted an
alternative masculinity that transgressed hegemonic norms. Skelton was unsure
whether those teachers were more secure in their masculinity before taking the job or
whether they were attracted to the job because they already enacted a divergent
masculinity that fit the position well.
While performing alternative masculinities come with risks, Pullen and
Simpson (2009) suggest that men can retain, and perhaps even gain, status through
divergent gender enactments if these are valued by the organization or field. Bridges
and Pascoe (2014) argue that hybrid masculinities that incorporate localized practices
can nonetheless reinforce a gendered system. Martino’s (2008) study of alternative
masculine performances in male primary teachers offers an example. One teacher, a
straight, white, middle class, cis-gendered man, consciously chose to role model
alternative masculinities for his students as an act of counterhegemony. Noting that he
did not share the social class of most students, his middle-class cultural capital
afforded him the privilege to enact an alternative masculinity although it also
reinforced his view of himself as superior to those adhering to a traditional working-
class hegemonic masculinity. The second teacher identified as a gay man who also
was very aware of his gender performance. Conscious of the expectations of parents
and students, he was careful in how he performed masculinity, adhering to some
gender norms. Martino (2008) thus demonstrated the complexity of performing
masculinity, illustrating how these teachers sought to limit their own risk and
maximize status thus transgressing certain norms but not others, supporting
hegemonic masculinity overall.
One site where hegemonic masculinity is often reproduced is physical
education due to a curricular focus on competitive sports and physicality (Kehler,
2010; Kirk, 2010; McCaughtry & Tischler, 2010). It has long been observed how
students perceived as athletic and who excel in physical education often hold high
status amongst peers and teachers alike, reinforcing hegemonic masculinity.
McCaughtry and Tischler (2010) suggest that one way to disrupt hegemonic
masculinity in physical education is to have students engage in less competitive
activities like team-building initiatives, ropes courses, hiking, and biking, noting how
‘success is determined not by elevating individual performance over others, but by
elevating collective performance and self-improvement’ (p. 184). It is interesting that
the activities they recommend are often part of outdoor education.

Masculinities in Outdoor Education

While historically the outdoors has been understood as a masculine space
(Kimmel, 1995; Newbery, 2003, 2004; Warren, 2016) and women were a minority in
the outdoor education professional community, recently there has been near parity of
women and men (Gray, 2016). (Alas, thus far little attention has been paid to gender
diversity beyond the binary (Mitten, 2012; Warren, 2016).) Has the historical
association of the outdoors and masculinity limited the need for compensatory
masculine behaviours and created space for performance of alternative masculinities?
Or perhaps because outdoor education typically encourages reflection and inquiry
(Ewert & Sibthorp, 2014) and emotional bonding and caring for others, including for
the natural environment (Dyment & Potter, 2015), there is more room for promoting
alternatives to the emotional stoicism and toughness valued in hegemonic
masculinity? The outdoor community tends to have its own subculture, including
 5

specific language, activities, styles of dress, and norms (Humberstone, 2000) that may
create opportunities for pushing against the grain.
That does not mean that there have not been significant impediments to doing
so, however. Feminist scholars have called outdoor education to task for its sexism
and heterosexism (Davies, Potter, & Gray, 2019; Gray, 2016, 2018; Gray et al., 2020;
Humberstone, 2000; Lugg, 2003; Oakley, Potter, & Socha, 2018; Newbery, 2003,
2004; Warren, 2016) and shared accounts of misogyny and sexual harassment that
continue to be experienced by women trip leaders (Davies, Potter, & Gray, 2019;
Clark, 2015; Gray et al., 2020; Warren, Risinger, & Loeffler, 2018). Some argue that
these problems have been baked into the very structure of the outdoor field itself since
action, risk, challenge, adventure, and leadership are all core foci of most established
outdoor organizations (Martin et al., 2017), and these all are typically associated with
masculinity (Connell, 2005; Newbery, 2004). Ideas such as ‘rugged individualism’
also have their roots in the masculine ideal of the ‘frontiersman’ (Kimmel, 1995).
The leadership style most valued in outdoor education has also been
questioned (Avery, 2015; Davies, Potter, & Gray, 2019; Gray, 2016; Gray et al.,
2020; Lugg, 2003; Newbery, 2003). While textbooks describe a range of leadership
and communication approaches, including democratic and distributed styles (Ewert &
Sibthorp, 2014; Martin et al., 2017), a directive leadership style and assertive tone are
often the most valued in practice (Gray, 2016; Newbery, 2004; Warren, 2016), with
other styles, especially when performed by women, devalued or ignored by
participants and co-leaders (Avery, 2015; Gray et al., 2020). This forces women in
outdoor education to perform in a more traditionally masculine fashion, often to a
greater degree than their male peers, in order to be judged as competent (Avery, 2015;
Oakley, Potter, & Socha, 2018), echoing Smith’s (2007) study of women teachers
enacting more authoritarian styles in a bid for legitimacy. While some women outdoor
educators may find this leadership style liberating, others find it inauthentic as well as
galling when they know that their experience more than qualifies them to be leaders
no matter the style employed (Newbery, 2004; Warren et al., 2018). Furthermore, if
women adopt what is perceived as a too aggressive or masculine leadership style, they
can be disliked or ridiculed (Davies, Potter, & Gray, 2019; Gray & Mitten, 2018a;
Gray et al., 2020; Newbery, 2004).
Physical strength is also lauded and those deemed ‘weak’ are devalued (Allen-
Craig & Carpenter, 2018; Davies, Potter, & Gray, 2019; Lugg, 2003; Mitten, 2018;
Oakley, Potter, & Socha, 2018; Newbery, 2003, 2004; Weaver-Hightower, 2010).
Outdoor education scholars building on insights from feminist, critical disability, and
fat studies have critiqued how certain bodies are perceived as inherently weak or
incapable regardless of actual strength or ability (Davies, Potter, & Gray, 2019;
Newbery, 2003, 2004; Oakley, Potter, & Socha, 2018; Russell, Cameron, Socha, &
McNinch, 2013; Warren & Loeffler, 2006).
Often associated with strength and bodily presentation are technical skills
(Davies, Potter, & Gray, 2019; Potter & Dyment, 2016), the ostentatious
demonstration of which can confer high status while other skills such as
communication and interpersonal skills may not (Hickman & Stokes, 2016; Lugg,
2003, Newbery, 2003; Warren, Roberts, Breunig, & Alvarez, 2014). Warren et al.
(2019) observe how men are assumed to be more technically skilled and women more
relationally skilled. Until very recently, technical skills were called ‘hard’ and
interpersonal skills ‘soft’ (Martin et al., 2017), terminology that persists in some
circles (Martin, Maney, & Mitten, 2018); the gendering here is unmistakable (Warren
et al., 2019). Research has found that facilitated group reflection sessions are often
 6

skipped due to other programmatic features being deemed higher priority or

instructors lacking confidence in their facilitation skills (Potter & Dyment, 2016).
Recently, then, there have been calls for increased attention to the development of
relational skills (Ewert & Sibthorp, 2014; Hickman & Stokes, 2016; Martin et al.,
2017). As Overholt and Ewert (2015) state, this may be particularly needed for male
leaders and participants since reflection and discussion sessions have been seen to be
challenging for males due to gendered expectations around communication and
emotional disclosure.
Also of note is how technical skills are tested and certified to ensure that each
outdoor leader meets industry standards (Martin et al., 2017). Credentialism can
increase competition and hierarchy, with greatest status being conferred on those with
the most certifications (Ewert & Sibthorp, 2014; Hickman & Stokes, 2016). Newbery
(2004) describes one female trip leader who was worried that she would not be able to
gain enough respect from her group so detailed her list of experiences and
certifications to assert dominance, illuminating the masculinization of certification
culture and well as the gendered expectations of participants and peers (see also
Davies, Potter, & Gray, 2019; Jordan, 2018). These expectations may be bolstered by
representations in outdoor-focused advertising (McNiel Harris, & Fondren, 2012) and
adventure sports films (Musa et al., 2015), and in a neoliberal context, it is not hard to
imagine outdoor providers hiring leaders who best meet client expectations. The
increasing consumerist influence in outdoor education (Brown & Beames, 2017) will
likely continue to gender the field.
There has been little research conducted on the impacts of hegemonic
masculinity on student learning, although the reproduction of a gendered outdoor
culture obviously implies that learning has occurred even if not what instructors
intended. Recently, three papers in outdoor environmental education have explicitly
discussed masculinity and student learning. Schindel and Tolbert (2017) describe a
male secondary school teacher’s use of a pedagogy grounded in a politicized ethic of
care towards self, other, and the natural world. Resonating with an alternative
masculinity, his approach was appreciated by his diverse group of students and had
positive impacts on student engagement. Blenkinsop, Piersol, and Sitka-Sage (2018),
studying an innovative nature-based school, share vignettes of boys struggling with
pressure to separate themselves from environmental care, with one boy holding firm
to his love of animals, another disassociating from his previous self-proclaimed
identity as Ecoboy, and another purposely squashing ants in an act of ‘splash
violence’ to hurt a peer and teacher, an act the authors note would typically be
dismissed as simply ‘boys being boys’ (p. 350). And Breunig and Russell (2020), in a
study of long-term impacts of two secondary school outdoor environmental studies
programs, document the gendered nature of alumni’s self-reported environmental
actions, including shockingly aggressive, sexist, and homophobic statements made by
three male alumni in response to questions about whether they currently engaged in
any pro-environmental behaviours. This distancing from environmentalism resonates
with recent work on a variation of hegemonic masculinity dubbed ‘industrial
masculinity’ (Hultman, 2017).
That these three papers came from environmental education points to a gap,
and we would like to see research on the impacts of hegemonic masculinity on student
learning in other streams of outdoor education. There are, of course, many other
research needs given the limited work on masculinity in outdoor education as well as
other opportunities to address the issues raised in this section.
 7

Opportunities for Disrupting Hegemonic Masculinity in Outdoor Education

How might change be fostered in our field? While undoubtedly challenging
given the structural nature of hegemonic masculinity, including that pressure to
conform to a limited range of gender performances is often unintentional, we
nonetheless see encouraging signs of openness to such disruption. In Davies, Potter,
and Gray’s (2019) recent study, participants were enthusiastic about diversifying
gender roles and some were very critical of hyper-masculine gender presentations and
the organizational cultures, particularly in adventure contexts, that promoted those.
Further, organizations are now more focused on equity in hiring and at least some
leaders promote gender-balanced leadership approaches, assigning tasks equally, and
calling out inappropriate behaviours (Davies, Potter, & Gray, 2019). That said, some
men in the field still hold to essentialist notions about gender and, while blatant
examples of sexism may be recognized, men often are blinkered to more subtle
instances (Gray et al., 2020; Davies, Potter, & Gray, 2019). How might we widen the
existing ‘cracks’ (Gray et al., 2020) in consent to hegemonic masculinity?
Explicitly addressing these issues in pre-service academic programs or in-
service professional development is key. Hearing directly from gender-diverse
practitioners or reading multiple firsthand accounts of the impacts of gendered
practices like those shared in The Palgrave International Handbook of Women and
Outdoor Learning (Gray & Mitten, 2018b) might help personalize the problems given
the power of story for learning. Unfortunately, there is as yet almost no writing that
shares firsthand accounts of hegemonic or alternative masculinities in the field (for
exceptions see Blenkinsop et al., 2018; Gray et al., 2020). Such accounts have the
potential to broaden horizons and inspire. So too might the development of real or
fictionalized case studies and trip reports, especially given many outdoor educators’
familiarity with that medium (North & Brookes, 2017).
We also would like to see more research reports on alternative performances
of masculinity. We personally know a number of men in the field who de-emphasize
competition and hierarchy, employ a democratic leadership style, travel for the
experience rather than the destination, and practice an ethic of care for self, other, and
the natural environment (Gray et al., 2020; Oakley, Potter, & Socha, 2018; Schindel
& Tolbert, 2017). We need to hear their stories so that we can better understand their
experiences. For example, did they only perform alternative masculinities once their
status was otherwise unassailable like the teachers in Martino’s (2008) study? Did
they feel compelled to use compensatory measures like the men described in Henson
and Rogers (2001) and Skelton (2001) to avoid slipping too far down the gender
hierarchy? Or are their experiences different from that described in the broader
educational literature because their work takes place outdoors which has traditionally
been perceived as a masculinized environment or if they possess technical skills that
are read as masculine?
Another way those who perform alternative masculinities have an important
role to play is as mentors. Whittington (2018) asserts that observers of alternative
gender performances tend to question their own gendered behaviours. But where
might that happen? Some have hailed the benefits of single-gender programs for
women in offering supportive, less anxiety-inducing atmospheres (e.g., Avery,
Norton, & Tucker, 2018; Mitten, 2018) free from the perceived need to perform
gender in a stereotypical manner (Martin et al., 2018). Although we are wary of how
single-gender programs can reinforce the gender binary, perhaps some men in the
field could benefit from similar support to address issues such as gender essentialism,
emotional disclosure, and alternatives to traditionally masculine leadership styles.
 8

Such experiences would require careful facilitation, however, lest they devolve into
celebrations of essentialist traits such as those revered in the mythopoetic men’s
movement (Connell, 2005) or exacerbate bravado or one-upmanship given
enculturation to valuing competition (Avery et al., 2018; Warren et al., 2018).
We must note that, to date, it has been largely women who have called for
attention to gender in outdoor education. Women in the field have shared their
feelings of ‘feminist fatigue’ from repeated attempts to raise awareness of gender
inequity (Gray, 2018; Gray, Allen-Craig, & Carpenter, 2017). With that in mind, then,
we will restate Mitten et al.’s (2018) question here: ‘Why are we not witnessing more
men stepping up and leaning in to redress the imbalance as part of their transformed
social conscience and shared quest for gender justice?’ (p. 320). We believe that now
is the time for men in particular to engage in critical self-reflection and to show
leadership – for their own benefit and for the benefit of the field as a whole.

Conclusion
We assert that it is time for focused examination of hegemonic masculinity in
outdoor education. While awareness seems to be growing in the field, gendered
structures remain intact. Thus we must ask whether some of the changes in gender
performance described in the previous section demonstrate alternative masculinities
that challenge the status quo or whether they are examples of a hybrid masculinity
that enacts some aspects differently while maintaining hegemony and gender inequity.
Only critical study of men and masculinities in outdoor education can answer this
question. As Messerschmidt (2019) asserts, the study of the variety of masculinities in
a given context is key to affecting social change.
We are not the first to raise concerns about hegemonic masculinity in outdoor
education. And we suspect we will not be the last, especially given the storm clouds
building from increasing accounts of sexism and heterosexism in the field. So far
there has been just a sprinkle of scholarship on hegemonic masculinity in outdoor
education, which we would like to see build to a steady, nourishing rain. Grounding
such inquiries in scholarship on hegemonic masculinity, particularly as applied to
educational contexts, provides fertile soil. Together we can cultivate conditions for
diverse gender expression and gender equity to flourish in a rich variety of outdoor
learning environments.

References

Allen-Craig, S., & Carpenter, C. (2018). Outdoor education: Threaded pathways to

belonging. In T. Gray & D. Mitten (Eds.), The Palgrave international handbook
of women and outdoor learning (pp. 55-73). Palgrave Macmillan.
Avery, M. (2015). The gendering of outdoor recreation: Women’s experiences on
their path to leadership. (Doctoral dissertation). Texas State University.
Avery, M., Norton, C., & Tucker, A. (2018). Blazing a trail... together: The need for
mentoring and collaboration amongst women in outdoor leadership. In T. Gray
& D. Mitten (Eds.), The Palgrave international handbook of women and
outdoor learning (pp. 801-813). Palgrave Macmillan.
Beasley, C. (2019) Feminism and men/masculinities scholarship: Connections,
disjunctions, and possibilities. In L. Gottzén, U. Mellström, & T. Shefer (Eds.),
Routledge international handbook of masculinity studies (pp. 30-40). Routledge.
 9

Blenkinsop, S., Piersol, L., & Sitka-Sage, M. (2018). Boys being boys: Eco-double
consciousness, splash violence, and environmental education. Journal of
Environmental Education, 49(4), 350-356.
Breunig, M., & Russell, C. (2020). Long-term impacts of two secondary school
environmental studies programs on environmental behaviour: The shadows of
patriarchy and neoliberalism. Environmental Education Research. Advance
online publication.
Bridges, T., & Pascoe, C. (2014). Hybrid masculinities: New directions in the
sociology of men and masculinities. Sociology Compass, 8(3), 246-258.
Brown, M., & Beames, S. (2017). Adventure education: Redux. Journal of Adventure
Education and Outdoor Learning, 17(4), 294-306.
Clark, S. (2015). Running into trouble: Constructions of danger and risk in girls'
access to outdoor space and physical activity. Sport, Education, and Society
20(8), 1012-1028.
Connell, R. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person, and sexual politics.
Stanford University Press.
Connell, R. (1995). Masculinities. University of California Press.
Connell, R. (2005). Masculinities (2nd Ed.). Polity Press.
Connell, R., & Messerschmidt, J. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the
concept. Gender and Society, 19(6), 829-859.
Davies, R., Potter, T., & Gray, T. (2019). Diverse perspectives: Gender and leadership
in the outdoor education workplace. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental
Education, 22(3), 217-235.
Demetriou, D. (2001). Connell's concept of hegemonic masculinity: A critique.
Theory and Society, 30(3), 337-361.
Dyment, J., & Potter, T. (2015). Is outdoor education a discipline? Provocations and
possibilities. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 15(3),
193-208.
Ewert, A., & Sibthorp, R. (2014). Outdoor adventure education: Foundations, theory
and research. Human Kinetics.
Gray, T. (2016). The ‘F’ word: Feminism in outdoor education. Journal of Outdoor
and Environmental Education, 19(2), 25-41.
Gray, T. (2018). Thirty years on, and has the gendered landscape changed in outdoor
learning? In T. Gray & D. Mitten (Eds.), The Palgrave international handbook
of women and outdoor learning (pp. 35-54). Palgrave Macmillan.
Gray, T., Allen-Craig, S., & Carpenter, C. (2017). Selective hearing: The
unrecognised contribution of women to the outdoor profession. Journal of
Outdoor and Environmental Education, 20(1), 25-34.
Gray, T., & Mitten, D. (2018a). Nourishing terrains: Women’s contributions to
outdoor learning. In T. Gray & D. Mitten, (Eds.), The Palgrave international
handbook of women and outdoor learning (pp. 3-17). Palgrave Macmillan.
Gray, T., & Mitten, D. (Eds.) (2018b). The Palgrave international handbook of
women and outdoor learning. Palgrave Macmillan.
Gray, T., Mitten, D., Potter, T., & Kennedy, J. (2020). Reflective insights toward
gender-inclusive outdoor leadership. Journal of Outdoor Recreation, Education,
and Leadership, 12(1), 102-121.
Greig, C. (2012). Boys’ underachievement in school in historical perspective:
Exploring masculinity and schooling in the postwar era, 1945-1960. In C. Greig,
& W. Martino (Eds.), Canadian men and masculinities: Historical and
contemporary perspectives (pp. 400-451). Canadian Scholars’ Press.
 10

Greig, C. & Martino, M. (2012). Canadian men and masculinities: Historical and
contemporary perspectives. Toronto, ON: Canadian Scholars’ Press.
Haywood, C., & Mac an Ghaill, M. (2012). ‘What's next for masculinity?’ Reflexive
directions for theory and research on masculinity and education. Gender and
Education, 24(6), 577-592.
Hearn, J. (2004). From hegemonic masculinity to the hegemony of men. Feminist
Theory, 5(1), 49-72.
Hearn, J. (2015). Men's health and well-being: The case against a separate field.
International Journal of Men's Health, 14(3), 301-314.
Hearn, J., & Howson, R. (2019). The institutionalization of (critical) studies on men
and masculinities: Geopolitical perspectives. In L. Gottzén, U. Mellström, & T.
Shefer (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of masculinity studies (pp. 17-
30). Routledge.
Henson, K., & Rogers, J. (2001). ‘Why Marcia you’ve changed!’ Male clerical
temporary workers doing masculinity in a feminized occupation. Gender and
Society, 15(2), 218-238.
Hickman, M., & Stokes, P. (2016). Beyond learning by doing: An exploration of
critical incidents in outdoor leadership education. Journal of Adventure
Education and Outdoor Learning, 16(1), 63-77.
hooks, b. (2004). The will to change: Men, masculinity, and love. Atria.
Humberstone, B. (2000). The ‘outdoor industry’ as social and educational
phenomena: Gender and outdoor adventure/education. Journal of Adventure
Education and Outdoor Learning, 1(1), 21-35.
Hultman, M. (2017). Exploring industrial, ecomodern and ecological masculinities. In
S. MacGregor (Ed.), Routledge handbook of gender and environment (pp. 239-
252). Routledge.
Jordan, D. (2018). Ongoing challenges for women as outdoor leaders. In T. Gray & D.
Mitten (Eds.), The Palgrave international handbook of women and outdoor
learning (pp. 217-233). Palgrave Macmillan.
Kehler, M. (2010). Negotiating masculinities in PE classrooms: Boys, body image
and ‘want[ing] to be in good shape’. In M. Kehler & M. Atkinson (Eds.), Boys'
bodies: Speaking the unspoken (pp. 153-175). Peter Lang.
Kimmel, M. (1995). Manhood in America. Free Press.
Kirk, D. (2010). The ‘masculinity vortex’ of school physical education: Beyond the
myth of hyper-masculinity. In M. Kehler & M. Atkinson (Eds.), Boys’ bodies:
Speaking the unspoken (pp. 51-72). Peter Lang.
Lugg, A. (2003). Women’s experiences in outdoor education: Still trying to be ‘one
of the boys’? In B. Humberstone, H. Brown, & K. Richards-Beale (Eds.),
Whose journeys? The outdoors and adventure as social and cultural
phenomena: Critical explorations of relations between individuals, 'others' and
the environment (pp. 33-47). Institute for Outdoor Learning.
Martin, B., Breunig, M., Wagstaff, M., & Goldenberg, M. (2017). Outdoor
leadership. Human Kinetics.
Martin, S., Maney, S., & Mitten, D. (2018). Messages about women through
representation in adventure education texts and journals. In T. Gray & D. Mitten
(Eds.), The Palgrave international handbook of women and outdoor learning
(pp. 293-306). Palgrave Macmillan.
Martino, W. (2008). The lure of hegemonic masculinity: Investigating the dynamics
of gender relations in two male elementary school teachers’ lives. International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 21(6), 575-603.
 11

Martino, W., & Frank, B. (2006). The tyranny of surveillance: Male teachers and the
policing of masculinities in a single sex school. Gender and Education, 18(1),
17-33.
Martino, W., & Rezai–Rashti, G. (2012). ‘Failing boys’ and the question of what
counts as evidence. In C. Greig & W. Martino (Eds.), Canadian men and
masculinities: Historical and contemporary perspectives (pp. 628-672).
Canadian Scholars’ Press.
McCaughtry, N., & Tischler, A. (2010). Marginalized boys speak out: Insights from
school physical education for the obesity crisis. In M. Kehler & M. Atkinson
(Eds.), Boys' bodies: Speaking the unspoken (pp. 177-200). Peter Lang.
McCormack, M., & Anderson, E. (2014). The influence of declining homophobia on
men’s gender in the United States: An argument for the study of
homohysteria. Sex Roles, 71(3/4), 109-120.
McNiel, J., Harris, D., & Fondren, K. (2012). Women and the wild: Gender
socialization in wilderness recreation advertising. Gender Issues, 29, 39-55.
Messerschmidt, J. (2019). The salience of ‘hegemonic masculinity’. Men and
Masculinities, 22(1), 85-91.
Millington, B., & Wilson, B. (2010). Consuming media, constructing masculinities: A
study of youth audiences and physical education in ‘reflexively modern’ times.
In M. Kehler & M. Atkinson (Eds.), Boys' bodies: Speaking the unspoken (pp.
91-111). Peter Lang.
Mitten, D. (2012). Transgender and gender-nonconforming participation in outdoor
adventure programming: Let’s go mainstream. In B. Martin & M. Wagstaff
(Eds.) Controversial issues in adventure programming (pp. 235-240). Human
Kinetics.
Mitten, D. (2018). Let’s meet at the picnic table at midnight. In T. Gray & D. Mitten
(Eds.), The Palgrave international handbook of women and outdoor learning.
(pp. 18-34). Palgrave Macmillan.
Mitten, D., Gray, T., Allen-Craig, S., Loeffler, T. A., & Carpenter, C. (2018). The
invisibility cloak: Women's contributions to outdoor and environmental
education. Journal of Environmental Education, 49(4), 318-327.
Musa, G., Higham, J., & Thompson-Carr, A. (2015). Mountaineering tourism.
Routledge.
Newbery, L. (2003). Will any/body carry that canoe? A geography of the body,
ability, and gender. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 8, 204-216.
Newbery, L. (2004). Hegemonic gender identity and Outward Bound: Resistance and
re-inscription? Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal, 13(1), 36-48.
North, C., & Brookes, A. (2017). Case-based teaching of fatal incidents in outdoor
education teacher preparation courses. Journal of Adventure Education and
Outdoor Learning, 17(3), 191-202.
Oakley, J., Potter, S., & Socha, T. (2018). Mirrored tensions: A mother-daughter
introspection on gendered experiences in outdoor recreation. In T. Gray & D.
Mitten (Eds.), The Palgrave international handbook of women and outdoor
learning (pp. 375-389). Palgrave Macmillan.
O’Neill, R. (2015). Whither critical masculinity studies? Notes on inclusive
masculinity theory, postfeminism, and sexual politics. Men and
Masculinities, 18(1), 100-120.
Overholt, J., & Ewert, A. (2015). Gender matters: Exploring the process of
developing resilience through outdoor adventure. Journal of Experiential
Education, 38(1), 41-55.
 12

PettyJohn, M., Muzzey, F., Maas, M., & McCauley, H. (2019). #HowIWillChange:
Engaging men and boys in the #MeToo movement. Psychology of Men &
Masculinity, 20(4), 612-622.
Potter, T., & Dyment, J. (2016). Is outdoor education a discipline? Insights, gaps and
future directions. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 16(2),
146-159.
Pullen, A., & Simpson, R. (2009). Managing difference in feminized work: Men,
otherness and social practice. Human Relations, 62(4), 561-587.
Rogers, E. B., & Rose, J. (2019). A critical exploration of women’s gendered
experiences in outdoor leadership. Journal of Experiential Education, 42(1), 37-
50.
Russell, C., Cameron, E., Socha, T., & McNinch, H. (2013). ‘Fatties cause global
warming’: Fat pedagogy and environmental education. Canadian Journal of
Environmental Education, 18, 27-45.
Schindel, A., & Tolbert, S. (2017). Critical caring for people and place. Journal of
Environmental Education, 48(1), 26-34.
Skelton, C. (2001). Schooling the boys: Masculinities and primary education:
Educating boys, learning gender. Open University Press.
Skelton, C. (2007). Gender, policy and initial teacher education. Gender and
Education, 19(6), 677-690.
Smith, J. (2007). ‘Ye've got to ‘ave balls to play this game sir!’ Boys, peers and fears:
The negative influence of school-based ‘cultural accomplices’ in constructing
hegemonic masculinities. Gender and Education, 19(2), 179-198.
Warren, K. (2016). Gender in outdoor studies. In B. Humberstone, H. Prince, & K.
Henderson (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of outdoor studies (pp.
360-368). Routledge.
Warren, K., & Loeffler, T. A. (2006). Factors that influence women's technical skills
development. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Leadership, 6(2),
107-120.
Warren, K., Mitten, D., D’Amore, C., & Lotz, E. (2019). The gendered hidden
curriculum of adventure education. Journal of Experiential Education, 42(2),
140-154.
Warren, K., Risinger, S., & Loeffler, T. A. (2018). Challenges faced by women
outdoor leaders. In T. Gray & D. Mitten (Eds.), The Palgrave international
handbook of women and outdoor learning (pp. 247-258). Palgrave Macmillan.
Warren, K., Roberts, N., Breunig, M., & Alvarez, M. (2014). Social justice in outdoor
experiential education: A state of knowledge review. Journal of Experiential
Education, 37(1), 89-103.
Weaver-Hightower, M. (2010). Oatmeal facials and sock wrestling: The perils and
promises of extra-curricular strategies for ‘fixing’ boys' education. Discourse:
Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 31(5), 683-697.
Weiler, K. (2017). Feminist analysis of gender and schooling. In A. Darder, R. Torres,
& M. Baltodano (Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader (pp. 196-215). Routledge.
Whittington, A. (2018). Changing girls’ lives one programme at a time. In T. Gray &
D. Mitten (Eds.), The Palgrave international handbook of women and outdoor
learning (pp. 661-671). Palgrave Macmillan.
Wigglesworth, J. (2019, January 7). What’s in a name? Sexism in rock climbing route
names. Engaging Sports. Retrieved from
https://thesocietypages.org/engagingsports/2019/01/07/whats-in-a-name-
sexism-in-rock-climbing-route-names/