Slugs and snails and ponytails : a qualitative research on (re)producing and challenging negative masculine norms in Dutch kindergartens

(1)

Slugs and Snails and Ponytails

A Qualitative Research on (Re)Producing and

Challenging Negative Masculine Norms in Dutch

Kindergartens

Judith van der Stouw (10558756) judithvanderstouw@hotmail.com Master Thesis Sociology: Gender, Sexuality and Society Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences University of Amsterdam July 9, 2018 First supervisor: M. D. Cottingham PhD Second supervisor: Dr. M. P. C. Janssen Word count: 22960

(2)

___________________________________________________________________________

2 Judith van der Stouw Slugs and Snails and Ponytails

(3)

___________________________________________________________________________

What are little boys made of? What are little boys made of? Slugs and snails and puppy-dogs' tails

That's what little boys are made of

What are little girls made of? What are little girls made of?

Sugar and spice And all things nice

That's what little girls are made of

(4)

___________________________________________________________________________

Table of contents Foreword 6 Summary 7 1. Introduction 9 2. Theoretical framework 11 1. Masculinities 11

2. Gender socialization processes in the context of education 13

3. The Gendering of Boys’ Emotions in Kindergarten 15

4. The Gendering of Boys’ Bodies in Kindergarten 18

3. Methodology 19

1. Methods 20

2. Data collection 21

3. Data analysis 22

4. Difficulties and ethical problems 25

4. Class A 25

1. A boys’ hierarchy 25

2. The gendering of play 29

3. Boys’ expression of sadness and fear 31

4. Boys’ bodies 34

5. Classroom environment 35

6. Interview with teacher 36

5. Class B 41

1. A boys’ hierarchy 41

3. Boys’ expressions of sadness 44

(5)

___________________________________________________________________________

6. Class C 47

1. Absence of a boys’ hierarchy 47

3. Boys’ expression of sadness 49

4. Boys’ bodies 49

7. Conclusion and discussion 51

8. Bibliography 55

9. Appendix 57

A. Interview guide 57

(6)

___________________________________________________________________________

Foreword

I am proud to present the Master thesis Slugs and Snails and Ponytails: A Qualitative Research on (Re)Producing and Challenging Negative Masculine Norms in Dutch Kindergartens, the rewarding product of much hard work. This is a qualitative study based on observations of four to six year old boys and their teachers in Kindergartens, and interviews with these same teachers, in a Dutch village in the province of Gelderland. By using these tools, I have examined the extent to and the ways in which negative masculine norms were (re)produced and challenged in Dutch Kindergartens by peer pupils, teachers, and the classroom environment. The thesis has been written as a part of the graduation process for the Master’s degree in Sociology (track Gender, Sexuality & Society) in the Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Amsterdam. The preparation phase, data collection and the writing has taken place in the period from February until July 2018. At the beginning of this six month period, the final due date seemed very far away, but time really has flown by. First of all, I would like to thank all the children and the teachers who were so willing and open to have me sit in their circle during circle time, sit at their tables or in the play corners, and talk to me every now and then, and take part in the interviews (the teachers). This thesis would not be possible without your participation. Second of all I would like to thank my supervisors, Marie-Louise Janssen and mainly Marci Cottingham, who have been very important factors in the process. Your constructive criticism and suggestions for useful literature, methodological approaches, and theoretical insights have helped me greatly with creating my thesis. Lastly, I want to thank my boyfriend, my family, and my friends for the at times needed support and happy distractions.

I hope you enjoy reading it!

Judith van der Stouw

(7)

___________________________________________________________________________

Summary

This Master thesis explores the (re)production of negative masculine norms by peer pupils, the teachers, and the classroom environment, in the context of Dutch Kindergartens. To this date, research on negative masculine norms in Kindergarten has mostly been done in the United States; not yet in the Netherlands. Furthermore, research in the field of education and gender has not focused a lot on the effect that negative masculine norms can have on the ability of boys to form healthy relationships with peer pupils. The theory on a boys’ hierarchy (in the context of Kindergarten) by Judy Chu (2014) and the theory on gender embodiment (in the context of Kindergarten) by Karen Martin (1998) are used to theoretically frame the research and its subsequent findings. Methods: (participant) observations of boys in three different Kindergarten classes at two different schools were conducted to gain insight into how boys relate to each other, how and with what they play, how they deal with their emotions, how they position their bodies in relation to others and their surroundings, and how the teachers behaved towards them and how they behaved towards the teachers. I used the initial findings of the observations to help me develop further the questions for the semi-structured interviews. These interviews were held with each of the class’ teacher to identify their perceptions of negative masculine norms, to what extent they thought such norms were present in their classroom, and their explanations of their and/or children’s behavior from my observations. Results and

conclusions: in the context of the Netherlands, in all the Kindergartens in which I observed, I

found the existence of negative masculine norms, and I found that peer pupils and teachers play a role in the (re)production of those negative masculine norms. The effects of these negative masculine norms for boys is that it limits their relationships with each other as they are caught in a hierarchy of power. This is because disrupting those negative masculine norms puts you lower in this hierarchy, which means you are seen as more deviant, which means you are ignored more or even ridiculed or hurt by the rest of the boys (the lower the status, the more this happens), as the hierarchy teaches the boys to police and enforce negative masculine gender norms. Negative masculine norms furthermore limit with what and whom and how boys play (namely with boys, in stereotypical boys’ corners, in a rowdy way), it inhibits their emotional expression (for example, suppressing their tears), and it limits the use of their body (for example, not showing physical affection), generally echoing the findings of Chu and Martin. Thus, children are not pure; the boys from my observations were heavily socialized with regard to negative gender norms, and the older boys often already more than the younger boys.

(8)

___________________________________________________________________________

However, I have also found that children do not blindly internalize norms; the boys from my observations also challenged them. This also echoed the findings of Chu and Martin.

In two of the three classes, namely Class A and B, I found a boys’ hierarchy that can be linked to Chu’s hierarchy, although they were different in form. However, in Class C I could not find a boys’ hierarchy. And even though negative masculine norms were still present (although to a lesser extent than in Class A and B), there was no real friction when some boys rebelled against this; boys were merely surprised when some other boys did something that did

not align with negative masculine norms. While some boys consistently rebelled against

negative masculine norms, most boys rebelled only sometimes, under certain circumstances. What I also saw is that even though on the one hand this rebellion could be dangerous for one’s status and how one was treated (in the case of Class A and B), on the other hand it could also open up space for other boys to rebel as well. What I also found were discrepancies between observed teaching and what the teachers told me in the interviews, and that they sometimes contradicted themselves within the interview itself as well; it thus seems that they were not fully aware of the negative masculine ideals that they hold and of the extent to which negative masculine norms were present in their classrooms. The teachers thus on the one hand sometimes disrupted negative masculine norms, but on the other hand also (re)produced them. Only in Class A did I find that the teacher herself very often, and in a lot of different ways, disrupted these negative masculine norms, by talking about them during circle time, disrupting gendered play, talking with boys about emotions during circle time, reaching out to boys on an emotional level, et cetera, of which I saw and have shown the positive effects on the children. However, the teacher from Class C did put a lot of effort into creating a nonhierarchical environment in general, of which I also saw and have shown the positive effects on the children; it also disrupted negative masculine norms a lot.

These results contribute to existing gaps in education and gender literature by showing that, with regard to the state of negative masculine norms in Dutch Kindergartens, the Dutch are not so open-minded and progressive as they think. Generally, boys in the context of Kindergarten are hampered in their freedom to do what and engage who they desire because of the presence of negative masculine norms. My findings have several policy implications for

Kindergarten education and educators specifically. Suggestions for educational policy makers

would be to create policies for schools (Kindergartens specifically) in which they outline the negative effects for boys of negative masculine norms and provide explicit guidelines that go into how, in the area of friendship, play, emotions, the body, and the classroom environment,

(9)

___________________________________________________________________________

negative masculine norms should be disrupted.Examples ofspecific practical suggestions for

teachers could then be to take sociograms to see if a form of a boys’ hierarchy is present and to try to combat these unhealthy power relations if they are, to try to initiate mixed-gendered play, to make sure to tell boys that it is OK to cry when you notice that they are suppressing or hiding their tears, to talk about emotions during circle time once in a while, to make sure to show as much physical affection to the boys as to the girls, and to read the children books in which

gender norms are disrupted and to talk with them about this afterwards. Furthermore, as it

seemed from my observations like the boys also brought ideas and scripts regarding gender to school from for example parents, an example of a suggestion for future research is to look more at the interplay between the home (parental upbringing) and Kindergartens in the Netherlands when it comes to negative masculine norms.

1. Introduction

The Dutch generally like to think of themselves (mostly of white Dutch people) as progressive and open-minded when it comes to gender norms; men, women, boys, and girls ostensibly have the freedom to do what they desire (Roggeband & Verloo, 2007; Wekker, 2004). But is this

really the case? The recent (2017) Dutch SIRE1 campaign ‘Do you let your boy be enough

boy?’ is an example that contradicts this. It states that, in the context of primary school, we should let boys be boys again; girls and boys are equal, but different, and they therefore need different nurturing in order to have an adequate development. This entails that boys need to take more risks, experiment, and get more space to explore (SIRE, 2017). I was therefore interested in studying to what extent masculine norms are present in the everyday interactions of boys with adults and peer pupils and the classroom environment, and how boys and teachers experience and respond to those norms, in the context of Dutch Kindergartens, as no research on this has yet been done in the Netherlands.

When it comes to the gender socialization of children, the elementary school is one of the most important contexts in which this happens (Martin, 1998). Kindergarten teachers play an important role given the significant amount of time children spend at Kindergarten (Gansen, 2017). The role of education entails more than transferring knowledge onto students; it also transfers norms and values. This includes norms and values on gender. Within primary schools, children often experience pressures from peer pupils and teachers to behave in a way that is

1_{SIRE (Stichting Ideële Reclame) is a Dutch foundation that creates advertising campaigns about topics that are}

(10)

___________________________________________________________________________

appropriate to their gender (Maccoby, 2002). Gender is constructed through interaction and play (Martin, 1998). But what are masculine gender norms? Broadly speaking, masculine norms are connected to aspects such as aggression, autonomy, denial of vulnerability, protectiveness, and emotional control (Addis & Mahalik 2003; Chu 2014; Connell 1995; Courtenay 2000; Jordan 2010). However, not all masculine norms are negative. Aspects such as autonomy and protectiveness can be seen as positive masculine norms, while aspects such as aggression, denial of vulnerability, and emotional control can be seen as problematic (Jordan, 2010). But those positive masculine norms should also be made meaningful to girls: “activities are to be evaluated by whether they are good or bad in human terms, not by their gender appropriateness” (Jordan, 2010, p. 82). Research has been done to show that negative masculine norms affect boys in primary school and high school, and how this happens (for example, Connell 1996a; Gansen 2017; Pascoe 2007; Renold 2007; Stoudt 2006; Thorne 1993). Research that focuses on this question has also been done specifically in the context of Kindergartens (for example, Chu 2014; Jordan 2010; Martin 1998). All this research has primarily been done in countries such as the United States and Great Britain, but again, no research regarding this topic has yet been done in Dutch Kindergartens.

In this Master thesis, I will address this significant gap in the literature by researching if there are negative masculine norms present in the context of Dutch Kindergartens, and if so, how they affect boys, and to what extent boys and teachers challenge these norms. This is an important question because Kindergarten should be an environment in which boys can develop themselves without being hampered by negative masculine norms. This is because with the presence of negative masculine norms in the classroom, there is a risk of boys getting locked into enacting stereotypical and thus unidimensional roles that leave little room for the full range of their capabilities, feelings, qualities, and in specific, abilities to form meaningful relationships with others, which are all factors that are very important to their health and happiness (Chu, 2014). However, an objection to this could be to state that we should not erase these norms from Kindergarten, but toughen boys up, as they will encounter those norms during the rest of their lives as well; also during adolescence and adulthood (Murphy & Gipps, 1996). However, I am aware that the presence of gender norms in Kindergarten is only facet of a larger issue. Deconstructing gender norms should also happen during adolescence and adulthood, and in a variety of social institutions, from the family to the work floor. But I focused specifically on the time that boys are in Kindergarten because the earlier such interventions would start, the more effective they would be. This is because Kindergarten is a moment in boys’ development

(11)

___________________________________________________________________________

when they are suddenly increasingly exposed to societal pressures and cultural messages pertaining to gender, which is why Kindergarten sets an important stage for subsequent gender socialization (Chu, 2014, p. 5).

This leads us to the main research question of my Master thesis: To what extent are negative masculine norms (re)produced and challenged in Dutch Kindergartens? The main question is divided up into three sub questions:

- What role do peer pupils play when it comes to how negative masculine norms affect boys? - What role do teachers play when it comes to how negative masculine norms affect boys? - What role does the classroom environment play when it comes to how negative masculine norms affect boys?

This Master thesis will be structured in the following way. Firstly, I will give a general overview of what the concept of masculinity entails. Then I will give an overview of the literature (primarily in the field of sociology) about (primarily the current state of) gender socialization processes specific to education. Then I will elaborate on Chu’s (2014) theory on a boys’ hierarchy and the negative masculine norms that are linked to it, in the context of Kindergarten, which she specifically links to boys’ relationality and psychology, focusing on for example relationships among boys and emotional suppression, respectively. Then I’ll expand on Martin’s (1998) theory on the gendering of bodies of children in the context of Kindergarten. She found that where and with what the children played, how they played, and their bodily comportment in general, was very much gendered. I use the theories of Martin and Chu as the theoretical basis for my research, as those two studies combined offer me a broad variety of aspects on which negative masculine norms can have an effect. Namely; play, emotions, the body, hierarchical structures, and the classroom environment. Secondly, I will discuss the approaches used for the methods, data collection, and analysis, which also includes a short overview of the schools at which I observed. The fourth, fifth, and sixth chapter contain the results and are divided on basis of the three different classes. The seventh chapter entails the conclusion and discussion, the eighth chapter is the bibliography, and the data collection instruments (namely the interview and observation guide) are attached in the appendix.

2. Theoretical framework

(12)

___________________________________________________________________________

Before I dive deeper into more detailed definitions of the concept of masculinity, I will first elaborate on the concept of ‘gender norms’ more generally. ‘Gender’ is a social construction and refers to the appropriate versions of masculinity and femininity that vary over time and space, both individually and collectively (Murphy & Gipps, 1996, p. 151). They can be challenged, negotiated, endorsed, reconstructed, and resisted (Allard, Cooper, Hildebrand & Wealands, 1995, p. 21). Society is constructed in a way that forces gender into a dichotomy via societal organizations that continually invent and reproduce cultural images of gender. Joan Acker (1990) presents four different main interacting social processes through which gendering occurs. Firstly, there are divisions along the lines of gender that are produced by societal institutions such as the state, family, labor, and power. Secondly, there is the construction of images and symbols such as dress, language, ideology, and the media. These images and symbols legitimize, reinforce, and express (or sometimes oppose) those divisions. Thirdly, there is the process of interactions between women and men, men and men, and women and women that involve any form of submission and dominance. For example, interruptions, the setting of topics, and turn-taking reproduce gender inequality in the flow of ordinary talk. Lastly, the preceding three processes help to produce gendered components of the individual identity; they influence the way individuals create and maintain an image of a gendered self.

Concepts that dive deeper into the hierarchy among men are hegemonic masculinity, complicit masculinity, subordinated masculinity, and marginalized masculinity (Connell, 1996; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). Raewyn Connell & James Messerschmidt (2005) describe hegemonic masculinity as entailing a position by men of “ascendancy achieved through culture, institutions, and persuasion” (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005, p. 832). Complicit masculinity entails men who receive the benefits of patriarchy, but who do not enact a strong version of masculine dominance (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005, p. 832). Connell (1996b, p. 79) defines subordinated masculinity as being excluded from the “circle of legitimacy” (Connell, 1996, p. 79). And finally, marginalized masculinity entails men who may be in a position of power when it comes to masculinity, but in terms of class or race they are not (Connell, 1996, p. 80).

Connected to the concepts of masculinities is the concept of ‘negative masculine norms’. While people have some agency to resist and choose gendered practices, particular constructions of femininity and masculinity are accorded higher status (Murphy & Gipps, 1996). ‘Hegemonic masculinity’ is publicly rewarded, admired and aligned with hierarchical power (Connell, 1995). It is furthermore connected to attributes such as excessive risk-taking, dominance, violence, power over women, and disdain for homosexuals (Addis & Mahalik,

(13)

___________________________________________________________________________

2003). More specifically connected to psychology, hegemonic masculinity is connected to the emotional control of others, the denial of vulnerability or weakness, the appearance of being strong and robust, and the dismissal of any need for help when it comes to health (Courtenay, 2000, pp. 1387-1388). The concept of emphasized femininity is aligned with aspects such as compliance with the subordination of women to men, a narrow range of life options centered on the private realm, emotional expression, and cooperation (Murhpy & Gipps, 1996, p. 151). Just as with masculinity, certain aspects of femininity can be seen as positive, and other ones as negative. For example, cooperation and emotional expression can be seen as positive aspects. Femininity is furthermore connected to specifically wearing skirts, jewelry, make-up, having longish hair, walking with a wiggle, and being sweet-smelling (Lucal, 1999, p. 784).

2.2 Gender socialization processes in the context of education

When it comes to literature about gender socialization processes specific to education in sociology, Barrie Thorne’s book Gender Play is a classic text. Through observations in schools’ classrooms and playgrounds, Thorne studied how children in kindergarten, second-grade, fourth-grade and fifth-grade, construct and experience gender in school. She specifically looks at children’s play, and suggests that their play involves dramatic performance of, and active engagement with, gendered identities. She states that kids frequently, and adult sometimes, engage in ritualized activities that enact and affirm gendered boundaries. Through acts like “boys chase girls” and “girls chase boys”, gendered divisions are stressed, and thereby reproduce the dominant cultural idea of gendered opposition. However, she also found that gendered boundaries are sometimes questioned by children. Sometimes they ignore gender divisions, and sometimes they cross the gender divide and engage in activities that are typically associated with the other gender (for example boys jumping rope or girls playing soccer).

Someone else who has done a lot of research on masculinity, also specifically in the context of education, is Raewyn Connell. For example, in her article Teaching the Boys: New Research on Masculinity, and Gender Strategies for Schools, Connell (1996a) proposes that there are four components of a school's gender regime. These are four types of relationships, which she calls the following: Patterns of Emotion, Power Relationships, Division of Labor, and Symbolization. Patterns of Emotions entails the "feeling rules" that are present; how one is supposed to feel about certain things. One of the most important feeling rules in schools are the ones that are connected to sexuality; for example, one should feel derision and abhorrence towards homosexuality. Power Relations entails the association of masculinity with authority;

(14)

___________________________________________________________________________

currently there is a predominance of men in supervisor positions in schools. Division of Labor entails the informal specialization among pupils. For example, when a teacher asks the class for a "big strong boy" to help her move a piece of furniture. Lastly, Symbolization entails that much of the symbolization with regard to gender is imported in schools from the wider culture. But schools have their own symbol systems too: formal and informal language codes, dress and uniform codes, et cetera. Connell states that a particularly important symbolic structure in education is the gendering of knowledge, which entails the defining of certain parts of the curriculum as feminine (for example arts and crafts) and others as masculine (for example industrial arts) (Connell, 1996).

More recent authors who build upon this with their research are Brett Stoudt (2006), Emma Renold (2007), C.J. Pascoe (2007), Ellen Jordan (2010), and Heidi Gansen (2017). In Stoudt’s (2006) research he examines hegemonic masculinity and how it relates to violence through peer disciplining (teasing, bullying, and hazing) which occurs among students from an elite suburban boys’ high school. Stoudt concludes that violence is implicated in power relations between both peer pupils and the institution of the school; it is embedded in the social fabric of the school. Fear, hurt, and shame are produced by emotionally ambiguous distinctions such as “you’re either in or you’re out” made by peer disciplining.

In her study on white working and middle-class boys in their final year of primary school, Renold (2007) explores the conditions within and the extent to which they construct their gender relations and identities in non-hegemonic ways while being under the male (heteronormative) gaze of the school, its teachers, and its pupils. She firstly found that hegemonic masculinities are maintained and constructed by the majority of boys through the shaming and policing of Other non-hegemonic masculinities. She secondly found that ‘hegemonic boys’ could flirt with masculinities that were Other, without penalty, meaning without being derogatively positioned as Other. Thirdly, she found that a minority of boys consistently and actively invested in Other non-hegemonic masculinities, and that they were positioned as such.

In Pascoe’s (2007) research on masculinity and sexuality in high school, she finds that high school is an important site where masculinity is constantly asserted, defined, and defended. She concludes that male students routinely attack boys that lack aspects of hegemonic masculinity by calling them “fags”, asserting their own masculinity as hegemonic in this way. This shows how heterosexuality is tied to current conceptions of hegemonic masculinity.

(15)

___________________________________________________________________________

Pascoe uncovers how the construction and upholding of hegemonic masculinity in high school fosters an atmosphere that is permissive of homophobia, sexual harassment, and gay bashing.

Jordan (2010), by using a post-structural framework, analyzes the dynamics of the process that entails little boys adopting a definition of masculinity that means avoiding whatever is done by girls. She argues that this is a response to the fact that in little boys’ fantasy games, the “fighting boys” who resist the school’s demands have appropriated the role of hero; they cast the “good boys”, who conform to the requirements of the school, as despised “sissies” and “wimps”. Because of this, an alternative definition of masculinity as ‘not female’ is adopted by the “good boys”, which also often leads to the rejection and scorn being redirected to girls as a group. Jordan suggests that teachers should intervene in this cycle by discussing the character of the hero in these warrior narratives in an explicit way and showing that the hero character should not be equated with the playground and classroom behavior of the “fighting boys”.

Lastly, Gansen (2007) studied nine preschool classrooms in which she examined gendered sexual socialization that children receive from the practices of teachers, and that they reproduce through peer interactions. She found that heteronormativity is pervasive in preschool classrooms; teachers construct, and sometimes disrupt, gendered sexuality in a variety of ways, and children reproduce, and sometimes resist, these norms and identities in their daily play. Gansen calls the teachers’ approaches to sexual socialization (for example their response to bodily displays, heterosexual romantic play, and consent) restrictive, facilitative, passive, and disruptive. Gansen concludes that children are beginning to make sense of rules associated with sexuality and heteronormativity, through interactions with their peer pupils and teachers in preschool, before they have salient sexual identities of their own.

In the following two subsections I will dive deeper into gender socialization processes specifically in the context of Kindergarten by elaborating on the research of Chu (2014) and Martin (1998).

2.3 The Gendering of Boys’ Relations and Emotions in Kindergarten

Chu (2014) studied children in a pre-Kindergarten2 class in the United States, and she finds

(through observations and interviews with the children and with their parents) that the

2_{A pre-Kindergarten in the United States is a classroom-based preschool program for four to five year old children,}

which is therefore comparable to Kindergartens in the Netherlands, only in the Netherlands children often are in Kindergarten from the age of 4 to the age of 6, so one year longer.

(16)

___________________________________________________________________________

Kindergarten period is a critical moment of transition in the lives of boys when it comes to their gender socialization. Throughout their years in pre-Kindergarten, qualities such as listening carefully and responding thoughtfully when they were interacting with others, and recognizing and acknowledging others’ and their own feelings, become less and less apparent at the moment boys start to prove more and more that they are boys.

She specifically finds what she calls a boys’ hierarchy:

“A hierarchy among the boys was apparent as early as the third week of the new school year. This hierarchy seemed to reflect each boy’s relative popularity and power, or ability to influence his peer pupils, and could be regarded as a precursor to the competitive framework that often characterizes the social and cultural contexts of older boys and adult men” (Chu, 2014, p. 12).

This boys’ hierarchy is specifically comparable to Connell’s hierarchy of masculinity. Within Chu’s hierarchy there is a higher status (comparable to hegemonic masculinity), a middle status (comparable to complicit masculinity), and a lower status (comparable to subordinate masculinity). However, Connell’s hierarchy also takes into account other factors such as class and ethnicity (see marginalized masculinity). Also, with complicit masculinity, there are no repercussions for not enacting a strong version of dominant masculinity, but there is loss in power for boys who have the middle status in Chu's hierarchy. A boy called Mike was at the top of Chu’s boys’ hierarchy. He was the tallest, the oldest, and the most domineering. He normally projected an image of superiority and strength and adopted a tough guy persona when interacting with his peer pupils; this allowed him to appear both impressive and intimidating. Mike tended to be controlling, assertive and at times forceful in order to gain his peer pupils’ admiration and respect, and also because he felt vulnerable to their rejection (Chu, 2014, p. 12). However, he was not only domineering; his ability to be charming and charismatic made him, besides influential among the boys, also appealing to them (Chu, 2014, p. 139). Furthermore, his social skills, namely his ability to anticipate and read other people’s responses and to then adjust his behaviors with this information in mind, made him an influential leader as well (Chu, 2014, p. 121). Min-Haeng was a close friend of Mike, and he also had the higher status, but he had a little less power than Mike. Rob and Jake were in the middle of the boys’ hierarchy, and they tended to be less likely to urge and expect others to comply with their wishes compared with Mike and Min-Haeng. They had less power than Mike and Min-Haeng, and often wanted

(17)

___________________________________________________________________________

approval of them and were intimidated by them (especially by Mike) (Chu, 2014, p. 12). Tony and Dan were at the lower end of the boys’ hierarchy. They both challenged negative masculine norms, Dan especially. They seemed less concerned about deviating from gendered norms and about displaying gender-appropriate behavior, and could for example be found playing with “girls’ toys” and with the girls, and they were sometimes ridiculed for such behavior and excluded from play because of such behavior by the boys from the higher statuses (Chu, 2014, p. 13). For example, Tony had learned that playing with dolls could jeopardize his relationships with the other boys, and therefore started to play less and less with them, even though Chu found that he was still interested in playing with dolls (Chu, 2014, p. 103).

Chu found that an important aspect of the boys’ hierarchy was the “Mean Team”, which entailed that the boys bothered other people and disturbed other people’s activities. Chu found that the targets could be boys as well as girls, but that the intended targets of the Mean Team were primarily the girls (Chu, 2014, p. 111).

“In this pre-Kindergarten class, the process wherein boys became “boys” was probably best illustrated by the boys’ participation on the Mean Team ̶ a club created by the boys, for the boys, and for the stated purpose for acting against the girls. For these boys, the Mean Team appeared to play a central role in establishing a notion of masculinity that is defined both in opposition to and as the opposite of femininity. The Mean Team also emphasized and reinforced the hierarchy that had emerged among these boys” (Chu, 2014, p. 108).

Generally, because of these negative masculine norms that were in place (being strong and tough, not showing physical affection, not playing with girls or girls’ toys, not showing one’s vulnerable side, disrupting other people’s play (especially girls’)), they felt conflicted when their desire or need to be close to and comforted by others would surface, as this desire or need was associated with femininity (Chu, 2014, p. 73). However, still, Chu found that the boys sometimes engaged in displays of affection and tenderness with each other, although this happened less and less throughout the year. By engaging in displays of affection and tenderness with each other they challenged negative masculine norms, as Chu defines resistance as doing what you desire in spite of the norms that are in place (Chu, 2014, p. 35).

In conclusion, by focusing on early childhood, Chu’s study shows the shift from boys being honest and open in their relationships, towards boys becoming more selective and

(18)

___________________________________________________________________________

guarded about how they engage others and express themselves.Chu finds that boys’ adaptation

to negative masculine norms can result in or involve disconnection from others and from their selves; behaviors that are typically viewed as being “natural” for boys actually reflect an adaptation to a culture that require boys to be competitive, aggressive, emotionally stoic, and give up interests in things that are typified as being “girly”, in order to be accepted as “real boys”. But Chu also shows that compliance with rules of masculinity is neither inevitable nor automatic; there is also resistance among the boys (Chu, 2014).

2.4 The Gendering of Boys’ Bodies in Kindergarten

Martin focuses, through observations of children and teachers, primarily on the gendering of bodies of children in Kindergarten in the United States, and argues that the bodies of children are disciplined by a “hidden school curriculum” that is, among other things, gendered. It makes gendered bodies feel and appear natural; it contributes to the embodiment of gender in childhood (Martin, 1998, p. 495).

Martin first of all found a clear gender segregation when it came to play. The boys mostly played with for example the blocks (on the floor) and played superhero (running around and in the play house); all stereotypical boys’ corners. The girls mostly colored (sitting at tables), played dress-up (standing), et cetera; all stereotypical girls’ corners. The children did not only sort themselves into these activities, they were also sorted or unsorted by teachers. For example, teachers encouraged girls to sit at tables by suggesting table activities for them, and rarely told the specific three boys that always played with the blocks that they had to choose a different activity (Martin, 1998, p. 502). Martin second of all found that in general, boys’ physical contacts were “rough and tumble”. Often, especially in groups of three or more and especially among the five-year-old boys, boys’ physical engagement was rough and highly active (Martin, 1998, pp. 508). Boys’ play was also frequently much nosier than girls’ play (Martin, 1998, p. 504). Third of all, with regard to their general bodily comportment, Martin found that this was also gendered; boys took up more space than girls did, which is connected to the masculine norm of dominance. They crawled more on the floor, had more sloppy postures, et cetera (Martin, 1994, p. 501). Fourth of all, with regard to the classroom environment, on the wall of the playroom the following sign was posted:

“1. No wrestling.

(19)

___________________________________________________________________________

3. Bikes belong on the outside of the gym. 4. No crashing bikes.

5. Houses are for playing in not climbing on.

6. Older children are off bikes when toddlers arrive.

7. Balls should be used for catching, rolling, tossing-not slamming at people. 8. Adults and children will talk with each other about problems and not shout across the room.

9. Use equipment appropriately” (Martin, 1998, p. 469).

However, Martin also found boys resisting to the gendering of their bodies every now and then (Martin, 1998). All in all, Martin concludes that the gendered disciplining of bodies, besides sustaining gender segregation, maintains the idea that boys’ and girls’ bodily comportment and activity are opposites of each other: “this sense of physical differences may make all gender differences feel and appear natural” (Martin, 1998, p. 509).

With regard to the literature gap, we need further research on this topic because there is a lack of observational data specifically in the Netherlands. Furthermore, not a lot of research on this topic has focused specifically on the effect that negative masculine norms have on the ability of boys to form healthy relationships with peer pupils (Chu, 2014, p. 6). Research on infants has shown that boys (as well as girls) are born with a primary desire and a fundamental capacity for mutual, close, and responsive relationships with other people (Stern, 1985). Boys are thus not inherently less capable than girls of being responsive within their relationships and attuned to emotions (their own and others’). Furthermore, studies show that boys seek to cultivate and maintain close interpersonal relationships throughout their lives (Seidler, 1992). Yet adult men (Miller, 1992) and older boys (Way, 2011) report that they have fewer close relationships and that the level of intimacy within the relationships they do have is also lower. This discrepancy between infancy and adulthood suggests that the development of boys is somehow associated with a move away from or out of relationships. So by researching the effects of masculine norms on boys in Kindergarten specifically in the Netherlands, and by also specifically looking at how these norms affect boys relationally (this is also a reason that I specifically choose Chu’s theory as being part of my theoretical basis, as she does go into this a lot), I contribute to these literature gaps.

(20)

___________________________________________________________________________

3.1 Methods

I used two qualitative research methods. I chose to do qualitative research because negative masculine norms can only be disrupted (for example by certain policies) if the processes by which this happens are known in detail. First of all, I used field observations. I used the technique of observations because I think that it is important to study a phenomenon it its natural setting. Observation also fosters an especially rich understanding of a setting and the participants’ behavior in that setting. I specifically performed a form of participant observation, because sometimes I joined the children’s play, and sometimes I started a conversation with the children, or continued a conversation when they started to talk to me, or asked them questions. Performing a form of participant observation was critical for answering my research question as it provided me with explanations from the children themselves with regard to why they performed certain actions when this was unclear to me, or even what the actual action entailed, because this was sometimes also unclear to me. It also created the opportunity for me to introduce certain topics to the children that I was interested to see their views on. This helped me to understand the causal mechanism between the variable of boys’ behavior and the variable of the presence of negative masculine norms. With regard to the two qualitative research methods, I second of all used in-depth interviews because it especially helped me to obtain an insight into the reasoning of the teachers behind certain (observed) behavior and to get and insight into their views on gender and specifically masculinity. I also looked at possible discrepancies between what the teachers said and what I observed, and at possible contradictory statements within the interview.

I specifically took the approach of abductive analysis, which is “a qualitative data analysis approach aimed at generating creative and novel theoretical insights through a dialectic of cultivated theoretical sensitivity and methodological heuristics” (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012, p. 180). As there has not been done any research on the presence of negative masculine norms in Dutch Kindergartens, I was open to surprising findings, but because there is already existing research on how boys in Kindergarten are affected by negative masculine norms in the context of other countries, I used the theory and observations of Chu and Martin as a starting point and a general guideline for my observations.

I analyzed to what extent negative masculine norms were present, and if they were are, how boys were affected by and negotiated negative masculine norms through their interactions with their peer pupils, teachers, and their environment, during play time (inside and outside), “work” time, and circle time. I furthermore analyzed data from in-depth interviews with the

(21)

___________________________________________________________________________

teachers, during which I asked about their profession in general, how they define gender, their thoughts on their interactions with boys and girls, their specific experiences with gender in the classroom, and situations from my observations.

3.2 Data collection

I collected this data by performing about a total of forty hours of observations in three different Kindergarten classrooms in two different schools in the Dutch province of Gelderland. I chose to perform my research here for two reasons. First of all, my background knowledge of which schools exist in this particular village in Gelderland was helped me a lot with finding schools at which I could observe. Second of all, I found it interesting to research schools in the context of rural villages, as they are often linked to conservatism (Roof, 1978). Therefore, if negative masculine norms are present at all in Dutch Kindergartens, I predict they most likely will be present at least in Kindergartens in the rural villages. I wanted to observe multiple classes and interview multiple teachers at multiple schools, because I wanted to compare possible different teaching approaches from different teachers with each other, and I wanted to compare possible different classroom environments with each other. Originally I wanted to observe full days, from 08:30 until 15:30, for a month, but I found that I then did not have enough time to transcribe all my data on the same day and to write down memos on the same day or the day

after3. Because of that, I only observed in either the mornings or afternoons, which resulted in

the forty hours of observations. School A is a Catholic school (but only in origin, not in practice), with mostly white students, and their school philosophy contains the following main values: care for each other, respect for each other, independence, self-reliance, learning to make choices, being open to the world around you, and care for nature. The teachers did not receive trainings with regard to gender at school A, nor at School B and C. At School A I observed in

one Kindergarten, which I will call Class A (teacher: Karen4), every day for a month. School B

is a non-religious school with also mostly white students, and their school philosophy contains the following values: curiosity, open communication, integrity, trust, and responsibility. At this school observed in two Kindergartens, in Class B (teacher: Heidi) and Class C (teacher: Cara),

about two times5 a week for a month. During the observations I took field notes in a small

3_{I will elaborate on why I wanted to do this in the subsection “Data analysis”.}

4_{To safeguard the privacy of the children and the teachers, I used pseudonyms for all the names in this thesis.} 5_{This was the maximum days I was allowed to observe per week, and as I had not been able to find another school}

(22)

___________________________________________________________________________

notebook. I also performed in-depth, semi-structured interviews with the Kindergarten teachers,

which I recorded.

The level of analysis I have said something about are four to six year old boys in Kindergartens in a rural village in the province of Gelderland. The actual unit of analysis is a four to six year old boy in Kindergarten. I found the schools through my background knowledge of which schools exist in this particular village in Gelderland and which schools would be open for this kind of research. I have this background knowledge since I live in this same village, which I have done since the age of one.

3.3 Data analysis

With regard to the operationalization, I applied Chu’s theory to my research question in that, with regard to my data analysis, it provided a framework for the concept of a boys’ hierarchy and the negative masculine norms that hold it in place: is there a leader who is domineering, controlling, projecting an image of a tough guy, et cetera? I used Chu’s operationalization for these concepts as my empirical indicators:

- Domineering: telling other children what to do, or what not to do, or how to do it

- Controlling: making sure other children do this by tying consequences to it if they don’t, such as ignoring the person, becoming angry, or ridiculing them

- Projecting an image of a tough guy: adopting a menacing look on one’s face and using a menacing tone, getting in someone’s face, storming off, walking and talking in a confident way, (meaning walking with a swagger and talking in a loud voice, respectively)

Other questions that I used to gauge if a boys’ hierarchy is present are the following ones: Are there boys who are often excluded from the boys’ group and who play more with girls/”girls’” toys? Are there negative masculine norms present in this hierarchy that entail that as a boy you should be competitive, aggressive and emotionally stoic? Chu operationalizes these three concepts as follows, which I again used as my empirical indicators:

- Emotional stoicism: making cynical remarks, having a negative outlook, making dismissive remarks to others, being condescending, not showing physical affection to others, not recognizing and acknowledging others’ and their own feelings, not expressing their feelings

(23)

___________________________________________________________________________

and emotions honestly, not listening carefully and responding thoughtfully when they were interacting with others

- Aggressive: pushing other children, physically dominating them in general

- Competitive: wanting approval and attention from the boys’ hierarchy leader, wanting to move up higher in the boys’ hierarchy, having the ability to choose your toy when playing together, wanting desperately to win when playing a game

I furthermore asked the question “Do the boys as a group bother other people, especially girls?”, to gauge if there was the presence of a Mean Team as well. To help me to look specifically at the suppression of emotions among boys I asked “Do they talk about their emotions with others? How often do they cry? Are they ashamed to cry?”. Empirical indicators for what it means to be ashamed to cry that have been operationalized by Chu entail looking down, quickly wiping away their tears, and turning their whole body away from the rest of the class. I lastly asked the question “Do boys resist negative masculine norms?”. I ascertain this by looking at if, and to what extent, they behave in ways that go against the negative masculine norms that are in place in the specific classes.

Martin’s theory provided a theoretical framework that helped me to see how boys’ bodies were being gendered, how boys and girls moved around in gendered spaces, et cetera. For example: Do the boys play in stereotypical boys' corners and the girls in the stereotypical girls’ corners? And if they don’t, do boys and girls play with each other within the same corners? Martin operationalizes stereotypical boys’ corners and stereotypical girls’ corners by giving following empirical indicators: the boys generally played with the blocks (on the floor), painted at the easel (standing), played superhero (running around and in the play house), played at the water table (where they were standing and splashing), and played with the car garage (on the floor); all stereotypical boys’ corners. The girls generally colored (sitting at tables), read stories (sitting on the couch), played dress-up (standing), cut out pictures (sitting at tables), and played with dolls (sitting in chairs and walking around); all stereotypical girls’ corners. Another question is: Do they play in a rowdy and noisy way? Martin operationalizes this by giving empirical indicators that entail falling/laying on each other, playfully wrestling with each other, shouting, and running around in the classroom. Another question is: do the boys have a masculine bodily comportment? Martin operationalizes a masculine bodily comportment by giving the following empirical indicators: taking up space by crawling on the floor, having sloppy postures (especially during circle time), fidgeting on their chair (especially during circle

(24)

___________________________________________________________________________

time). Lastly, I asked “How are their bodies disciplined through written rules?”. In Martin’s observations she found written rules that were mainly focused on what boys should not do when it came to bodily behavior (no violent play, no killing games, no kicking, no shouting across the room, no wrestling, et cetera).

To analyze my data, with regard to the field notes, I transcribed my field notes from the observations, which I did directly after the observing, so that my memory was freshest and I could add or clarify things since I most of the time did not have enough time to do that while observing. With regard to the interviews, I also transcribed the audio directly after the interview for the same reasons, and I used the web based application oTranscribe for transcribing the interviews. I listened to the records again after everything was transcribed so that I could double check the transcriptions in order to minimize mistakes. After the data from the observations and the interviews was transcribed, I also already started to write memos directly after the observing and the interviews so that these ideas that formed during the transcription would not be forgotten. Then, after the data collection period, I performed a content analysis. I coded and analyzed my data using well-organized Word documents. I did this by creating separate files for the three classes. These three files contained sub files for the observations and interviews. These two sub files then contained sub files for the original transcription, the initial coding, the focused coding, and the linking of the overarching themes to the literature. I performed the initial coding, the focused coding, and the linking of the overarching themes to the literature by using Word’s comments feature, in which I typed using the caps lock feature, so that when using the CTRL+F feature, the initial coding and the focused coding, and the linking of the overarching themes could be delineated from the original transcription and the literature, respectively. My initial coding was a process of open coding; I tried to stick as closely to the data as possible and not apply pre-existing categories to the data. Instead I invoked a language of action, meaning that I described their actions using active verbs in the present tense (for example “crying while looking down”) (Charmaz, 2014, p. 116). Then I carried out a focused coding in which I reviewed all the codes that were created during open coding, created overarching themes for the remaining codes, and synthesized similar themes (Charmaz, 2014, p. 138). These more concrete findings could then be compared to the literature in my theoretical framework, namely to the research of Chu and Martin.

I treated teachers’ the viewpoints on and descriptions of the happenings and dynamics in their classroom which I primarily got from the interviews (but also sometimes from chatting with the teachers during my observations every now and then) as different, namely less reliable

(25)

___________________________________________________________________________

(but not less interesting, relevant, and usable, because it says a lot about the teachers), from my observation data. This is because it is possible that they were not (fully) consciously aware of their own beliefs with regard to gender and that this skewed their viewpoints on and descriptions of the happenings and dynamics in their classroom, and/or that their viewpoints on and descriptions of the happenings and dynamics in their classroom were not (entirely) correct because they did and could not study the happenings and dynamics in their classroom as closely and methodologically as me. Quotes from the children and teachers from the observations and quotes from the interviewees used in this thesis were translated by me into English.

3.4 Difficulties and ethical problems

A difficulty that I experienced during the observations is that in all the classes, some children sometimes started tickling me and went on for too long; I could not get them to stop and the teacher had to say something about it to get them to stop. They also sometimes went on for too long asking me questions about my notes, which also distracted me. However, after one teacher told me to be more frank with the children a few days after I started my first observations, I indicated my limits more clearly and was able to stop this myself. An ethical problem is that of course children cannot themselves give consent to be observed and analyzed. The only thing that can be done to amend this is to inform the teachers and the parents about the research and the research methods, and to give assurance of anonymity, which I have both done.

4. Class A

4.1 A boys’ hierarchy

In Class A, at School A, I found a boys’ hierarchy that was quite similar to Chu’s description of a boys’ hierarchy, but that also had important differences. Within this hierarchy, a boy called Luuk (who was tall and old just like Mike) had the higher status, and Thommie (who was also tall and old) also was part of the higher status, and was close friends with Luuk, but had a little less power. Luuk could be mean and domineering; he sometimes told people what they should or shouldn’t do if they wanted to play with him. However, this seemed to happen far less often than it happened with Mike. Generally, he was kind and put his energy into creating fun plans, instead of adopting a tough guy persona when interacting with peer pupils, like Mike did (even though Mike could also be charming and charismatic). Surprisingly, Thommie was more like Mike in his behavior; he was bossy and ridiculed boys who had interests in “girly” things. Adam and Levi had the middle status; they had less power than Luuk and Thommie, showed less

(26)

___________________________________________________________________________

negative masculine behavior, looked less stereotypically masculine, and were younger. For example, Adam was very small for his age, always sat very neatly on his chair during circle time, and every now and then had friendly interactions with a boy from the lowest status. The last two examples could be seen as challenging negative masculine norms, as he did (even if perhaps only to a certain extent, because he probably desired to have more friendly interactions with Teun, but I will elaborate on this later on) what he desired, in spite of the norms that were in place. Levi was a four-year-old, also very small for his age, and he tended to be less likely to urge and expect others to comply with his wishes than Luuk and Thommie. Bennie, Felix and Mika had a lower status; they had even less power than Luuk, Thommie, Adam, and Levi, and also showed even less negative masculine behavior. For example, Bennie played with the girls every now and then; Mika loved very precise and "girly" crafting ideas, liked to draw in a very subtle way, et cetera; Felix happily played with girls sometimes. In this way, they challenged negative masculine norms. Then there were Bo and Renton, who seemed to shift between the upper status and the middle status. What is interesting is that Bo and Renton seemed to be more like Mike in his behavior than Luuk; they were assertive, controlling, and at times forceful in order to gain respect from peer pupils. This could be the case because they did not fully belong to the highest position (yet/anymore), but desperately wanted to. Two boys called Alfonso and Djano seemed to be between two statuses as well, namely the middle and the lower status. Djano looked a little feminine in that he wore nail polish, which can be seen as a challenge to negative masculine norms. He was also very quiet. Alfonso was a very calm boy with a very soft voice. Adam, Levi, Bennie, Felix, Mika, Alfonso, and Djano all had less power than Luuk and Thommie, and often wanted approval and were intimidated by them (especially by Luuk). And then there was Teun, who had the lowest status, and challenged negative masculine norms the most. Teun had half-long hair and liked a lot of stereotypical girly stuff. What is surprising is that I also found a lowest status, unlike Chu. A scene that involved almost all the boys (however, Luuk was ill that day and thus absent) and aptly shows how the status roles were divided within the boys’ hierarchy is the following one:

Bo was playing on the iPad at a table (I was sitting at their table as well and there were no other chairs left to sit on), and Thommie was sitting next to him, Levi on his other side, Adam next to Levi, and Bennie and Felix were standing behind Bo. They were all watching Bo play. After Bo was done, he gave the iPad to Thommie. Levi said he wanted to play but Thommie said “No, because I am playing with it,

(27)

___________________________________________________________________________

so there”. When Thommie had chosen a new game Bennie said “That one is stupid!”. “No”, said a couple of the other boys. After a little while I asked Felix and Bennie if one of them wanted to sit on my chair. Bennie shouted immediately “Yes, I want to!” and sat down. They were now all giving suggestions to Thommie about how to play the game. Bennie said “You can also go the other direction!”, but his comment was ignored. Teun sat at the same table but on the other end, and was drawing a Winx Club girl. He told me enthusiastically about how he got a baby unicorn from an egg that hatched that morning. Then Thommie said softly and in a derogatory way “Baby unicorn …?”.

What is interesting about this scene is that it visually represents the boys’ hierarchy; Bo and Thommie were in the center (they had the ability to decide who played the game, and did not have to give a reason for this decision), Adam and Levi (his request was ignored) were in the semi-periphery, and Bennie (his suggestion was ignored) and Felix were in the outer periphery. And then on the other side of the table there was Teun (who was subtly ridiculed by Thommie because of his interests in stereotypical girly things), who was still sitting at the same table but all the way on the other side, with a lot of space between them. In this scene there are several examples of boys of higher statuses who seemed to denigrate boys from lower statuses in order to maintain or gain a higher status.

Another example of boys of higher statuses seeming to denigrate boys from lower statuses in order to maintain or gain a higher status is when I saw Bo physically hurting Adam. At the end of indoor free time Adam and Bo were cleaning up the sand that fell on the floor from the sandbox that they had just been playing with. Adam was sweeping the floor but Bo was not really doing anything. After a little while Adam said “Bo, you have to help”. Then Bo took the broom and pushed the end of it against Adam, who laughed and said something like “I was the horse!”. I left the scene for a moment, and when a little later I returned, I saw Adam falling pretty hard to the ground because of Bo who was still pushing him with the broom. I asked Adam if he was OK and he quickly said “Yes”, while Bo did not say anything, but Adam was not laughing or smiling now; instead he was looking at Bo with a scared look on his face. With regard to boys ignoring each other, I have another example as well. In this scene, Mika made an active attempt to be liked by boys who had a higher status then him. I found Mika playing alone with the bead shelf; he was making a rainbow, and after that a ninja on a motor cycle. A little later Mika went to get Adam and Bo, who were sitting and reading on a

(28)

___________________________________________________________________________

beanbag chair, to show them his ninja on a motor cycle. They came to look at it, but did not really give a reaction, and instead turned their attention to a game that was being played at the same table by some other children and the teacher. Mika tried to regain the attention and said to Bo “I made one for you [the rainbow] and one for me [the ninja on the motor cycle]”. Bo quickly looked at it, then looked at the game again, but besides this Mika got no reaction from Bo.

Teun was the only one within the boys’ hierarchy who did not try to belong to the boys’ group at all. Teun actually never played with other boys; he often played with girls and he often played alone. During free time, Teun played with Barbie dolls, performed My Little Pony and Winx Club dances, sang songs from those same TV shows, et cetera. What is also interesting is that there was one boy who did actually talk to Teun: Adam. He did not talk to him a lot, but once in a while he did, which might partly be explained by the fact that they sat next to each other during circle time. However, Adam did really seem to take pleasure in talking to Teun, even though he also seemed ashamed of this fact. Once, while Teun and I were playing with Teun’s elastic band outside on the playground, Adam approached us and started watching us. After I told Teun I had to stop playing in order to observe and take notes again, he asked Adam if he could take my place to hold the elastic band straight so that Teun could continue jumping, and Adam obliged. After a while Teun asked Adam if he also wanted to jump. Adam said “No, I am better in running with the football”, and then he suddenly jumped away from the elastic band while Teun was still performing, so that the band sprang against Teun and he couldn’t go on anymore. Teun was looking downtrodden. Adam started laughing and said to me “I let go of the elastic band!”, and then ran to Bennie to tell him about this as well. It seems as if Adam became threatened when Teun asked him if he wanted to jump as well, seeing as Teun had the lowest status within the boys’ hierarchy, and seeing as this kind of game was typically played by girls in this class. Subsequently he stopped interacting with Teun at all and left, and in a mean way as well. Something similar happened when we were inside and Teun was showing me a My Little Pony dance. Adam was watching him as well, and then suddenly pulled him on his lap, but after a few seconds he already pushed him off his lap again. It seems as if Adam was struggling with his desire to connect and play with Teun, and his desire to have a high status within the boys’ hierarchy. Another example of Teun being ridiculed is when Teun was happily performing dances from Winx Club for me. Renton was standing behind him and was looking at him. Then he looked at me and grinned knowingly at me in a way that communicated

(29)

___________________________________________________________________________

something like “Yes, I know, weird, isn’t he?”. When I did not grin back at Renton, he left the scene.

But maintaining or boosting one’s status within the boys’ hierarchy seemed to also be done by simply bragging about one’s own stereotypical masculine behavior. For example, when the teacher asked how a tour that the upper classes gave to the Kindergarteners (in which they showed them things they made for a project) went, a girl said that she did not like the self-made catapults that were shown. Then Renton proudly said, without raising his hand, “I broke one!”, and grinned. He was bragging about being aggressive.

With regard to the aspect of a Mean Team, this aspect seemed to be totally absent in this class; the boys did not band together to bother other children (especially girls), even though there was a lot of gender segregation when it came to boys and girls playing together.

4.2 The gendering of play

I found that most boys generally played more in the stereotypical boys’ corners (playing in the blocks corner, playing with K’NEX, playing with LEGO, playing on the Gameboy, et cetera), which echoes Martin’s findings. However, unlike Martin’s findings, the teacher did not sort or unsort them into these activities. I also found that the boys generally played only with boys, and that they also played in a stereotypical masculine way, namely in a rough and active way, which also echoes Martin’s findings. For example, once Djano, Alfonso, and Levi were playing in the blocks corner (there was also a box present with cars and other small animals in it that they could play with) and I asked them what they were creating. They told me they were making a stunt track for cars, and that they put animals on the track so that the cars would hit them. Another time, again in the block corner, Levi and Djano were stacking blocks neatly into the cupboard. “Just because we like it!”, they explained to me, when I asked them about it. Then they made a house for a dinosaur. When they finished the house, they put the dinosaur in it. Then they deconstructed the house a little bit and put a “baby” (it was a horse) between two walls, which they subsequently smashed together. I asked them what they were doing, and they answered: “Then it will be nice and flat, haha!”. Eventually they put the baby inside the house to join the dinosaur. I left the scene for a moment and a little later when I returned Levi showed me a bigger horse he was holding and said to me “Horse is stupid! Bleh!”. What is interesting here is that there is a mix of stereotypical feminine behavior (neatly stacking blocks away, playing house with a baby involved) and stereotypical masculine behavior (aggressively hurting the baby, and saying horses, which girls typically play with, are stupid). Another example is