Ce texte aborde les mécanismes employés par les garçons du secondaire qui leur permettent de construire leur masculinité à travers un discours basé sur une binarité de genre. Trois tendances majeures sont relevées par l’étude. Premièrement, ces jeunes adhèrent fortement à la conception biologique du genre, c’est-à-dire l’idée selon laquelle il existe uniquement deux genres qui possèderaient certaines dispositions naturelles. Deuxièmement, ces garçons démontrent une fragilité cisgenre dans la mesure où ils sont particulièrement défensifs face aux questionnements et aux critiques des normes cisgenres. Troisièmement, ils utilisent la transphobie et l’homophobie (ainsi que la performance de ceux-ci) pour rejeter les identités diverses et hors normes de façon à souligner et accentuer leur propre masculinité hégémonique. Cela est fait notamment en faisant exprès de mégenrer et dévaloriser les identités queers. De plus, l’auteur soutient que ces notions néfastes dans les écoles pourraient être améliorées à l’aide de pédagogie queer. Une approche favorisant la pensée critique pourrait réduire la présence de masculinité toxique.

            Cette recherche est considérée comme féministe puisqu’elle utilise une analyse du genre en déployant notamment une figure de la théorie du genre, Judith Butler. Cette dernière, et beaucoup d’autres d’ailleurs, a développé la réflexion selon laquelle le genre serait une construction sociale et ainsi une performance. Cette compréhension et ce concept féministe clé permettent une analyse qui déconstruit le discours et les comportements de ces jeunes garçons puisque les féministes savent qu’ils ne sont en rien naturels. Puis, cet article est féministe étant donné qu’il propose des solutions venant des pédagogies queers, une approche fortement utilisée par les professeurs féministes telles que bell hooks. Ce sont des façons de faire et de réfléchir qui déconstruisent les notions et les normes préconçues afin de laisser place à l’ouverture, à l’esprit critique et à l’acceptation de la différence.

            Je crois que cette recherche est très pertinente pour le système d’éducation puisque, non seulement, elle problématise un enjeu majeur, mais elle offre aussi des moyens concrets de faire autrement. Il faut uniquement que les résultats de recherche retournent dans les mains de ces écoles et de ces étudiants afin qu’ils puissent devenir davantage conscients des dynamiques négatives qui forment leur quotidien et leurs identités. C’est ainsi qu’ils vont réellement prendre en considération les changements à effectuer. Cependant, je crois que la valeur de cette recherche pourrait être encore plus grande si elle considérait les questions de races, de classe, de handicaps, etc. L’intersectionnalité est devenu une des théories les plus importantes en féminisme ainsi ne pas la retrouver du tout dans ce texte est quelque peu décevant. Je suis convaincu qu’une analyse qui considère le genre ainsi que la race pourrait nous informer davantage de façons à pouvoir proposer des solutions plus précises qui adressent les comportements masculins hémogéniques qui se basent sur un certain racisme.

There are multiple connections to the themes and topics discussed in this course, notably, deconstructing representation, intersectionality and disrupting binary discourses of identity. First, the author deconstructs the meaning behind the collected images mentioned above. Second, the framework of intersectionality is highlighted since the article focuses on race, gender and an inferior socio-economic class. Lastly, the topic of disrupting binary discourses and identity is underlines when boys who don’t conform to gender norms are labelled as gay. On a different topic, the feminist lens in this research allows the girls, who are marginalized, illustrate the gender norms via their drawings. Moreover, it focuses on various power structures such as patriarchy (men shown to be dominant) and heteronormativity (what is ‘normal’ for specific genders). In addition, like mentioned above, it also highlights intersectionality. Furthermore, it allows the readers to reflect on the biases they might have because of established gender norms. In another order of ideas, the conclusions of this article display that the education system needs to address these unconscious biases established by societal norms. These norms can influence many ecosystems such as students (e.g., shame, anxiety), educators (e.g., the way they interact with students), teaching/learning (e.g., the dynamics and engagement of students), the curriculum (e.g., the selection of materials) and on school culture and policy (designated restrooms, dress codes, etc.). There is value in this research, however, like Lee (2019) mentions in her video; gender behavior is local. Therefore, the gender norms differ from one region or country to another. They exist everywhere, however aren’t as alarming in developed countries. I found the conclusion of the drawings useful. Many of the marginalized students are often silenced and collecting drawings is a great way to deconstruct the meaning behind the environment (Hall, 1997). If I would have been conducting the study, I would have adopted an emotional connection approach with the students. Many students need to feel safe before confiding in someone and showing empathy is a great way instill trust in them.

References:

Hall, S. (1997). The work of representation. In Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. London: Sage.

Lee Airton (Apr 25^th, 2019). How We All Participate In Gender Policing, And How We Can Stop. HuffPost Canada. YouTube (4:49). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m278SKo-NbI&t=90s

Mayeza, Emmanuel (2017). “‘Girls Don’t Play Soccer’: Children Policing Gender on the Playground in a Township Primary School in South Africa.” Gender and Education, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 476–94, https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2016.1187262

Cette étude examine comment les récits et produits dérivés de la marque Disney Princess influencent les jeux symboliques des jeunes enfants dans deux garderies montréalaises. La chercheuse analyse la façon dont les enfants intègrent ou remettent en question les discours genrés et hétérosexuels véhiculés par les princesses Disney. Malgré le fait que les princesses modernes soient présentées comme plus courageuses et indépendantes, les enfants reproduisent souvent dans le jeu des normes de beauté, de passivité et de romance hétérosexuelle. Les filles adoptent parfois des rôles plus assertifs et prennent du plaisir à occuper l’espace en jouant aux princesses, mais ces rôles restent grandement liés à des idéaux de féminité normatifs. L’étude met en lumière les tensions entre l’apparente agentivité offerte par les princesses contemporaines et la persistance de discours postféministes qui renforcent des hiérarchies de genre, même dans des environnements éducatifs où l’on valorise l’équité. Valade explore aussi comment les personnages comme Elsa ou Anna possèdent une forte star power et les objets étincelants associés à ces figures incarnent une féminité postféministe valorisée comme la beauté, le pouvoir ou le succès. Les filles utilisent parfois ces codes pour affirmer une forme d’agencyen se donnant des pouvoirs magiques qui perturbent temporairement les normes de genre dans le jeu. Mais, ces jeux restent pris dans des logiques hétéronormatives et excluantes, car les garçons sont souvent moqués ou exclus s’ils adoptent des jouets féminisés et les éducateurs renforcent parfois les normes genrées, consciemment ou non. Le texte met de l’avant une misogyne persistante dans les milieux de la petite enfance où le féminin est dévalorisé. L’auteure plaide pour des approches pédagogiques critiques et inclusives qui permettent d’élargir les possibilités d’expression de genre chez les jeunes enfants.

Cette recherche s’inscrit clairement dans une perspective féministe en mobilisant des cadres théoriques importants tels que le féminisme poststructuraliste et la théorie queer. Le féminisme poststructuraliste permet de déconstruire les discours dominants sur le genre et de montrer que les identités de genre sont produites socialement et culturellement plutôt que d’être biologiquement fixes. La théorie queer, quant à elle, interroge la binarité de genre et les normes hétérosexuelles en proposant une lecture plus fluide des identités. L’approche est également intersectionnelle dans la mesure où elle souligne que les représentations normatives du genre sont souvent blanches, hétéronormatives, eurocentriques et excluent les enfants racisés ou queers, rendant plus difficile pour eux de s’identifier ou de se faire accepter dans ces jeux. Le texte mentionne que la féminité promue par la marque Disney invisibilise ces identités, ce qui montre une réflexion sur les multiples formes d’oppression imbriquées comme le genre, la race et la sexualité.

L’approche féministe utilisée dans cette étude permet de rendre visibles des enjeux qui autrement, auraient pu rester invisibles. Plutôt que de voir le jeu symbolique des enfants comme un simple développement naturel, cette lentille dévoile la façon dont les enfants intègrent et reproduisent des normes de genre stéréotypées, notamment des idéaux de beauté, de passivité et de romance hétérosexuelle. Elle révèle aussi les contradictions du postféminisme, car les princesses modernes sont plus actives et indépendantes, mais elles demeurent enfermées dans des normes genrées très normatives valorisant la féminité hypersexualisée et l’hétéronormativité. Sans cette perspective, ces dynamiques risqueraient d’être interprétées comme des signes d’émancipation, alors qu’elles participent à la perpétuation de rapports de pouvoir genrés.

Les résultats de cette recherche ont un impact important pour les milieux éducatifs. Ils invitent les enseignants et les éducateurs à porter un regard plus critique sur les objets culturels qui circulent dans leurs classes comme les jouets, déguisements et récits et à réfléchir à leur rôle dans la socialisation genrée des enfants. Cette prise de conscience pourrait encourager des choix pédagogiques plus inclusifs visant à proposer aux enfants des modèles de genre diversifiés et non stéréotypés. De plus, cette recherche pourrait nourrir des formations en éducation inclusive et la révision des programmes scolaires pour mieux intégrer une approche antisexiste dès la petite enfance.

Sur le plan de la pertinence pour le domaine de l’éducation, cette étude est très utile. Elle apporte une analyse des mécanismes par lesquels les normes sociales se reproduisent dès le plus jeune âge à travers le jeu et la culture populaire. J’ai particulièrement apprécié la méthode d’observation dans deux contextes différents à la garderie et au préscolaire, ainsi que l’introduction contrôlée de jouets genrés pour observer la réaction des enfants, ce qui ancre les résultats dans une réalité concrète. Cependant, si je menais cette étude, j’aimerais intégrer davantage la parole des enfants eux-mêmes, par exemple via des entretiens, pour mieux comprendre leur perception des rôles genrés. De plus, un accent plus marqué sur les enjeux de diversité raciale dans les jouets et les représentations m’apparaîtrait important, puisque certaines princesses racisées étaient absentes, ce qui soulève des questions de représentativité et d’exclusion.

Enfin, sur un plan personnel, cette étude m’a rappelé combien les objets de jeu et les récits culturels influencent profondément notre rapport au genre dès l’enfance souvent de manière inconsciente. Elle souligne l’importance de garder un regard critique sur les normes de genre qui traversent l’éducation dès le plus jeune âge, afin de favoriser un environnement plus inclusif et égalitaire.

Sandager and Ravn (2023) explore how girls in a Danish school develop affective relationships with STEM subjects. Employing qualitative methods such as interviews and observations, they use Ahmed’s concept of affective stickiness to analyze how affective experiences shape girls’ engagement with STEM and their imagined futures.

This article exhibits features of feminist research. It centers on girls’ affective experiences and examines how these emotions are constructed by social discourses surrounding identity construction and expectations of success in STEM. This reflects feminism’s emphasis on subjectivity and embodiment, and how these lived experiences reveal cultural structures and discursive power that are subject to change.

A feminist perspective enables researchers to capture girls’ nuanced affective experiences—often overlooked by research paradigms that prioritize objectivity and rationality. As a result, this study reveals that the discourses circulating in STEM education—whether traditional or emerging—may not produce a straightforward, linear outcome in students’ affective responses, sense of disciplinary belonging, or future aspirations. Rather, they are complex and sometimes contradictory. For example, some students may not enjoy STEM as a discipline but take pleasure in particular activities; current interest does not always translate into future career choices; and girls who plan to enter STEM may do so not because of joy in learning but because of perceived career advantages. Even well-intentioned discourses aimed at encouraging girls in STEM may produce anxiety or pressure. These findings call on educators and policymakers to critically reflect on the possible consequences of such discourses, and to adopt more supportive approaches that help students overcome the invisible barriers linked to identity and future choices.

As a piece of qualitative research, this article draws on a small sample—11 girls from the same grade and similar socio-economic backgrounds in one school. While this “small but deep” design has strengths, it limits representativeness. The lack of comparison with boys or other gender groups also makes it hard to assess to what extent the affective experiences described are unique to girls or more universally shared. Moreover, the academic language of the paper could benefit from greater precision. For example, the word subject appears frequently throughout the article, but its meaning and referent shift across contexts, even within the same sentence. Without sufficient clarification, it sometimes causes confusion for readers.

If I were to conduct this study, I would include perspectives from other gender groups to compare their experiences within the same school context. I would also consult teachers for their interpretations and examine school documents such as STEM evaluation systems to explore their role in shaping girls’ affect. To support emotional expression, I might use creative methods such as art or storytelling. I may also diversify the sample by including students from different grade levels and racial or socio-economic backgrounds. Of course, no single study can address everything; the design must always be guided by the research aim and contextual limitations.

I deeply relate to the girls’ affective responses. In Grade 7, my math teacher told us that girls’ brains weren’t suited to STEM. I believed it and gave up easily, thinking it was due to biology. Now I wonder: if I hadn’t heard that discourse, would things have turned out differently?

In conclusion, this feminist study has made a valuable contribution to our understanding of the complex relationships between schoolgirls’ affect and educational subjects. The limitations of the study also point to promising directions for future research.

Summary

Smith et al. (2023) address Gender Based Violence (GBV) and gender inequality through the evaluation of an Australian professional development (PD) resource. The PD supports early childhood educators with gender equity via self-audits and informative texts for assessment of their classroom library, practices, and available policy (Smith et al., 2023, p.201). Through pre- and post-use interviews, Smith et al. (2023) observed positive changes where educators had increased attitudes toward developing gender identities and strengthened understanding of their link to GBV (p.203). In post-use interviews, respondents were more likely to agree that gender norms are social constructions, and those who disagreed were likely to recognize gendered dispositions as problematic (Smith et al., 2023, pp. 204-205). Moreover, notable changes were being observed in discussions involving gender among children and colleagues, as well as in educators’ ability to critically evaluate the resources in their classroom (Smith et al., 2023, pp. 206-207), which play a critical role in informing children’s gender identities.

Feminist Theory and Lens

According to Sharma (2019), postmodern feminism “focuses on identity and how social discourse and language create our understanding of women” (p.571). This research investigates how the implementation of PD affects the social discourse and language used by educators to help children understand gender. Similarly, Bartholomaeus (2016) describes postmodern feminists as those who critique the very idea of “truths” (p.1). Here, the evaluated PD aims to deconstruct the perceived “truths” of girls and boys. A non-feminist approach to this research might view the deconstruction as “behaviourist theories of knowledge transmission” (Smith et al., 2023, p.204), which remove the child’s agency in this process. For this reason, educators should be cautious of the sponge discourse: children should be active agents in their understanding of gender identity, rather than “soaking up” environmental information (Smith et al., 2023, p.206). A step further in postmodernist theory with which I resonate, is Butler’s view that gender is performative, that “there is no “real”, “true,” or “original” gender identity… Gender is a discourse, linked with power and constituted by language” (Bartholomaeus, 2016, p.5). Finally, with increased visibility of gender in student-teacher discussions as a result of the PD (Smith et al., 2023, p.207), it is implied that there is a relationship between student and teacher. By building these relationships, feminist educators “create a space for possibility, where students feel supported to discuss intimate topics” (Elwell & Buchanan, 2021, p.165) - a key concept in feminist theory and pedagogy. 

Potential Impacts

Further implementation of the evaluated PD could expose children to texts, interactions, and spaces that engage them in an equitable approach to gender identity. While nurturing their interests and fostering inclusivity among peers, they will simultaneously deconstruct patriarchal norms of gender. This PD could also provide educators with increased confidence in discussions on gender (Smith et al., 2023, pp. 208-209) and opportunities for critical reflection on how we speak about gender with children (Smith et al., 2023, p.207). Furthermore, this engagement with students alters the typical child-centred model of early childhood education, where educators refrain from interfering with play (Smith et al., 2023, p. 200), into a feminist model where knowledge is co-constructed. Within the Australian context, “there is no current policy for gender equity in schools” (Elwell & Buchanan, 2021, p.156). However, due to increased engagement, confidence, and alteration of learning models, this research could lead to further changes to curriculum and policy that center gender equity. 

Personal Value and Connection

As a young educator, I appreciate the discourse on educators’ lack of confidence and authority in addressing gender with parents (Smith et al., 2023, p.208) The project is small-scale, and Darebin is a location that is considered socially progressive with a greater cultural diversity than the surrounding area (Smith et al., 2023, p.209). The community in which I educate is far less socially progressive, rural, and Catholic. My lack of confidence and authority addressing gender with parents feels increasingly similar to that of the participants; I feel seen in this research. Furthermore, if I were carrying out this study, I would advocate for direct access to the PD in the research to provide context and concrete examples of how to approach gender-focused teaching.

References

Bartholomaeus, C. (2016). Feminisms, Postmodern. In The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Gender and Sexuality Studies (eds A. Wong, M. Wickramasinghe, R. Hoogland and N.A. Naples). https://doi-org.proxy.bib.uottawa.ca/10.1002/9781118663219.wbegss411

Elwell, A., & Buchanan, R. (2021). Feminist pedagogies in a time of backlash. Gender and Education, 33 (2), 156–170. Fem ped backlash PDF

Sharma M. (2019). Applying feminist theory to medical education. The Lancet. 2019;393(10171):570–578. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32595-9. - DOI - PubMed

Smith, K., Hurst, B., & Linden-Perlis, D. (2023). Using professional development resources to support the inclusion of gender equity in early childhood teaching and curriculum planning. Gender and Education, 35(3), 199-214. PDFhttps://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2022.2142530

In her article, Unearthing gender violence with/in kindergarten play environments, Prioletta (2022) uses a feminist new materialist lens to explore how gendered power dynamics are reinforced not only through children's interactions, but also through the material and spatial structures of kindergarten play environments. Drawing on ethnographic data from two Canadian kindergartens, she focuses especially on block play to reveal how boys consistently used their bodies and materials to destroy girls’ building projects. These acts of aggression are often dismissed as typical behaviour, rather than recognized as early forms of gendered violence. As a result, this kind of behaviour goes unchecked, and educators unintentionally reinforce gender inequality from an early age (Prioletta, 2022).

Feminist new materialism emphasizes that gender, identity, and power are shaped not only by language and culture, but also by physical and material forces, such as classroom design, spatial arrangements, and objects like blocks (Barad, 2007; Prioletta, 2022). Prioletta challenges the idea that play is neutral, showing how environments actively participate in reinforcing gender hierarchies. A key theme from our course, embodiment, is central to her analysis: boys’ physical acts, like knocking down girls’ block structures, demonstrate how power is enacted through the body. When educators overlook these actions, they risk normalizing gendered domination and teaching children that using one’s body to assert control is acceptable. This sends a dangerous message to young children about what power looks like and who is allowed to have it.

Prioletta’s (2022) work has important implications for education. It shows how children's actions are shaped not only by social interactions, but also by the material environment, such as the layout of play areas or the use of blocks. For educators, this research calls for a critical rethinking of classroom design, disciplinary responses, and the assumption that “just play” is harmless. For example, rotating materials across play zones or encouraging collaborative building projects could disrupt dominant power patterns. I found this research valuable in challenging my own assumptions about early childhood play, especially the idea that it’s naturally fair or neutral. Like many educators, I’ve seen situations where boys’ physical dominance in play goes unaddressed, reinforcing harmful norms. I appreciated how Prioletta connects gender justice to classroom space and materials, offering a new way to think about power in early learning. If I were conducting the study, I would incorporate child-led reflections, like asking them to draw a picture or provide a story, to better understand how children themselves make sense of these interactions. This could help ensure their voices are part of reshaping more equitable classroom practices.

On a personal level, this research resonates with what I’ve observed in real-world play settings. Boys often dominate physical play spaces, and girls’ contributions are more likely to be interrupted or dismissed. As a parent of a young boy, this article made me reflect on how he might internalize these behaviours and whether he would see them as “just playing” or something more significant. It reminds me of how important it is to challenge these normalized practices early and to raise awareness about the subtle ways gender inequality takes root. In conclusion, Prioletta’s (2022) work shows how a feminist new materialist lens can bring to light the often unseen ways in which gendered power operates in early learning environments. By shifting how we think about play, bodies, space, and materials, we can begin to create more equitable and just classrooms for all children.

References

Barad, K. M. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Duke University Press.

Prioletta, J. (2022). Unearthing gender violence with/in kindergarten play environments. Gender and Education, 34(8), 973–990.https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2022.2118441

This study is rooted in Black feminist and intersectional theory, particularly drawing on the foundational work of Crenshaw (as cited in 1989, 1991, & 2017). George applies Crenshaw’s concept of intersectionality to shed light on how race and gender co-construct experiences of marginalization for Black girls in school systems. This is apparent when George highlights how “Black girls are more independent, knowledgeable about adult topics, and more equipped to take on adult roles and responsibilities and therefore, less in need of protection, support and nurturing” (as cited in Epstein et al., 2017, p. 43). 

This research also highlights Crenshaw’s idea of “trickle-down equality,” where Black girls are often deprioritized in educational reform. George emphasizes, “We engage in what Crenshaw (2017) calls trickle-down equality… [leading to] the false assumption that they must be doing well… silence is not a measure of well-being” (George, 2020, p. 46). This lens challenges modern approaches that assume gender neutrality or apply a male-focused model of Black student experiences. This article critiques how methodologies contribute to erasure, as “we need to grapple with how to be more nuanced with our thinking and methodologies, being more mindful of the assumptions that allow for the ignoring of half of Black students” (George, 2020, p. 51).

Another important feminist theme is adultification, which is framing Black girls as older and less in need of care, which George identifies as a gendered racial bias shaping school discipline and policy decisions: “this form of bias… happens differently to Black girls because of race intersecting with gender, and it shapes how these students are perceived, constructed, and treated in their schooling” (George, 2020, p. 44). This ties into feminist concerns regarding care, surveillance, and vulnerability, especially in institutional environments like schools.

George’s study powerfully uses a feminist, intersectional lens to center the lived realities of Black female students, voices that tend to be ignored in research and policy. The impact of this research is wide-reaching. For both educators and administrators, it demands a re-evaluation of how discipline, curriculum, mentorship, and data collection are approached. For students, especially Black girls, the research creates an opportunity for recognition, validation, and targeted support. George’s work challenges curriculum developers, researchers, and policymakers to ask more intentional questions that consider the full complexity of student identities. In short, the feminist lens used here doesn’t just make visible what was intentionally neglected; it demands action. By exposing structural blind spots, George equips educators and systems with the tools to build more inclusive, just, and effective learning environments that serve all students and not just those who are visible. I find this research extremely valuable as it reveals critical gaps in equity work. I’d work to include marginalized students and client voices directly, but more so using an intersectional lens to make meaningful reform in any position I find myself in. 

References

George, R. C. (2020). Holding it down? The silencing of Black female students in the educational discourses of the Greater Toronto Area. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue Canadienne De l’éducation, 43(1), 32–58. Retrieved from https://journals.sfu.ca/cje/index.php/cje-rce/article/view/3801
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139–167.
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039

 Crenshaw, K. (2017, October 13). Kimberlé Crenshaw: Women, girls of color cannot wait fortrickle-down equality. The Repository. http://www.cantonrep.com/opinion/20171013/kimberle-crenshaw

In the article, the authors examine what entices versus pushes away the young girls from STEM courses (p. 456). For instance, Sandager and Ravn (2023) share how many girls tend to underestimate their skills (p. 455) or feel inferior to students that excel in STEM subjects (p. 462). They continue to explain that STEM courses still “requires a significant amount of identity work to still be perceived as ‘feminine’” (Sandager and Ravn, 2023., p. 455). Hence, through exploring Ahmed’s affect theory, Butler’s gender performativity concept, and the feminist choice theory, this helps gain a deeper understanding of how various factors, such as student interest, social expectations, and emotional experiences, can construct ideas of the relationship between gender and success in STEM courses.

Through a feminist lens, it is evident that many factors intersect that causes female students to disengage in STEM classes. For instance, some students pointed out that they were not “smart enough” (p. 461) or did not have a “certain kind of brain” (p. 464) for STEM. Even though some participants shared their interests and excitement to learn these subjects, they did not believe they could pursue this in the future due to its difficulty. This connects to the gender performativity and choice theory as the article confronts this notion that females simply choose not to pursue careers in STEM, however, in reality these choices are also shaped by emotional and social pressures.

After completing this reading, I was also reminded of a time that a friend of mine was undermined within the STEM field. Her male lab partner would constantly question her answers and would double check anything she contributed to the report. She explained how she never had someone question her skills or knowledge before which ultimately shocked her. One can argue that this connects to Ahmed’s affected theory discussed in the article as our emotions can impact the choices we make, especially around STEM, and whether one should pursue a career in this area in the future.

Reference

Big Think. “Judith Butler: Your Behaviour Creates Gender” YouTube          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo7o2LYATDc&t=178s

[Hughes, C. (2002). Key concepts in feminist theory and research].

Sandager, J., & Ravn, S. (2023). Affected by STEM? Young girls negotiating STEM presents and   futures in a Danish school. Gender & Education, 35(5), 454-468. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2023.2206841

Centering Black Life In Canadian Early Childhood Education by Nxumalo and Pacini-Ketchabaw

In last week’s content, we heard Judith Butler speak on gender performativity. Butler states:

We act as if that being of a man or that being of a women is actually an internal reality or something that is simply true about us, a fact about us, but actually it’s a phenomenon that is being produced all the time and reproduced all the time, so to say gender is performative is to say that nobody really is a gender from the start. (1:12 Judith Butler: Your Behavior Creates Your Gender | Big Think)

This is directly linked to Hakeem’s findings, in that the participants upheld masculinity as a socially expected performance. In discussing the main character in Labelle’s “Les vestiaires,” participants continuously misgender her (and chuckled about it). This reaction highlights how discomfort with gender nonconformity becomes a crutch for affirming dominant masculinity. As Hakeem states, “Il appert donc que la performance de la masculinité hégémonique dans l’espace public est liée à la performance du savoir sur le binarisme cisgenre.” (p. 51)

In one interview, a participant becomes defensive when challenged on their binary view of gender and where intersex people fall within that binary.His response enforces cisgenderism, hegemonic masculinity, and devaluing and delegitimizing intersex identities and in doing so unearths the fragility of masculinity when it is called into question.  

The research uses a queer feminist lens where it casts doubt on the socially constructed masculine identity and how it functions. Hakeem's emphasis on masculinity shows that feminist inquiry must interrogate all gendered power structures, not just those affecting women. He is quick to highlight that both gender conforming and nonconforming individuals are at equal risk of violence, bullying, and victimization due to the rigid masculine norms (p.42) Focusing on the hegemonic masculine identity subverts the misconception that feminism is only for and about women’s issues. 

The findings of this research emphasize the importance for educators in deconstructing the gender binary in order to allow students, in this case males, to free themselves from the performativity that inherently constrains them. For those students in the study who did not comment on the transphobic comments of their peers and who identify as bisexual or gender non-conforming also partook in the performance of masculinity and maintaining the cisgender equilibrium in order to prevent the legitimacy of their masculinity being called into question “[...] s’il choisissait de prendre la défense de S. (p. 49)

This research is eye opening, as much of the feminist ideology that is shared in K-12 education focuses on the power of the girl, rather than interrogating how masculinity operates, is enforced, and can harm those who inhabit or resist it. Reading the research multiple times, I did not find much that was not useful as it tightly aligns its data with the research to support the thesis that the construction and fragility of masculinity go hand-in-hand, and that all are harmed if it is not discussed, debated, or questioned. I agree with the authors that a larger sample would be beneficial, however, the willingness of school districts and individual schools to participate in a study that would dismantle and overturn the cultures and identities that they have/are creating is, in itself, fragile. Although space is limited, the article unveils a deep discussion around intersectionality and masculinity’s varied expressions and constraints. 

My partner, who is a trans man, and I read the article together as I was curious about his takeaways. (Un)Fortunately, our discussion lasted 2-3 hours, during which he shared the ease of which his masculinity was accepted and the unease with our that acceptance reinforces heternormative expectations. While neither of us can speak for trans women, intersex, or nonbinary individuals, we both acknowledge the extreme difficulty that comes with breaking society’s expectations and the overall impact it has on every single person, regardless of their gender identity and expression. 

References: 

Big Think. (2011, July 7). Judith Butler: Your behavior creates your gender [Video]. YouTube.  https://youtu.be/Bo7o2LYATDc

Hakeem, H. (2024). Between performance and fragility: Constructions of masculinity in high

school boys’ discourses on gender. McGill Journal of Education / Revue Des Sciences De l’éducation De McGill, 58(1), 40–60. https://doi.org/10.26443/mje/rsem.v58i1.10129

              Cahill et al. (2024) examined opportunities for secondary school English teachers to contribute to consent education through exploring sexual consent themes in both commonly taught and contemporary adolescent literature. The interdisciplinary nature of English enables discussions on social and cultural topics; however, health and physical education is the preferred environment for consent education. The study confirmed that both sets of text included themes of interpersonal violence, including racism, gender inequity, poverty, and sexual consent. As consent topics are readily available in literature, English has the potential to engage learners in discussions related to power relations and gender-based violence. However, many English teachers reported hesitancy to initiate discussions or assign written work on the subject citing concerns over learner well-being and potential backlash from parents. Teachers who did engage in conversations on consent did so without the support of their colleagues. The article concluded with calls for increased teacher training and guiding frameworks to approach consent education in a sensitive and constructive manner.

              The study reflects intersectionality, a key feminist principle, by recognizing that consent and power relationships are influenced by gender, ethnicity, social class, ability, religion and cultural power relations (Cahill et al., 2024). An intersectional analysis of sexual violence reveals an uneven distribution of vulnerability, with those who experience less privilege within society facing heightened vulnerability for non-consensual advances or sexual assaults (Colpitt, 2022). Examining these topics within literature would provide a solid foundation to discuss consent components and could be extended into broader conversations on societal inequities.

              The study by Cahill et al. (2024) adds to the growing body of research indicating teachers do not feel confident or empowered discussing feminist themes with their learners (Kettley-Linsell, 2024; Elwell & Buchanan, 2021). Feminist pedagogy elevates the natural tension within the classroom by challenging popular discourses and encouraging examination of social issues through intersectional perspectives. When teachers avoid open discussions on feminist themes within the text or allow learners to lead a conversation on damaging discourses related to consent and power dynamics, they are actively reinforcing the dominant narratives and associated worldviews (Elwell & Buchanan, 2021; Cahill et al., 2024).

              The concerns raised by the English teachers in the article echo similar sentiments expressed among military instructors who express unease facilitating conversations on sexual misconduct and consent. Several of our workshops directly address these topics; however, we provide clear guidance on a creating psychologically safer spaces for these sensitive discussions through a trauma-informed approach (TIA). While Cahill et al. (2024) briefly alluded to TIA in their conclusion by supporting trigger warnings and compassionate learning environments, I felt this study fell short of examining TIA as a viable option to support both teachers and learners. TIA reflects feminist principles of empowerment and inclusivity by acknowledging the cumulative impacts of trauma, especially for students with intersectional identities who may experience various forms of trauma through their lived experiences, and encouraging active control of their own learning to avoid re-traumatization (Wilkin & Hillock, 2014). Given teachers have regular interactions with their students, they are well suited to hold sensitive conversations through a TIA lens as this personal knowledge of each learner enables them to notice signs of distress and provide more tailed support. I support Cahill et al. (2024) in their call for greater teacher training and guiding frameworks; however, I feel the article only defined the barriers preventing English teachers’ involvement in consent education and did not adequately address potential solutions to the identified issues, including a TIA to education.

References

Cahill, H., McLean Davies, L., Truman, S. E., Potter, T., & Hinton Herrington, M. (2024). Consent and literary education: the opportunities and challenges of teaching consent in secondary school English. Gender and Education, 37(1), 116–135. https://doi-org.proxy.bib.uottawa.ca/10.1080/09540253.2024.2409237

Colpitts, E. (2022). “Not even close to enough:” Sexual violence, intersectionality, and the neoliberal university. Gender and Education, 34(2), 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2021.1924362.

Elwell, A., & Buchanan, R. (2021). Feminist pedagogies in a time of backlash. Gender and Education, 33(2), 156-170. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2019.1680810.

Kettley-Linsell, H., Sandford, R., & Coates, J. (2024). “Like putting a puzzle piece in the wrong spot”: Transgender and non-binary experiences of physical education. Gender & Education, 36(5), 453–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2024.2358194.

Wilkin, L., & Hillock, S. (2014). Enhancing MSW students’ efficacy in working with trauma, violence, and oppression: An integrated feminist-trauma framework for social work education. Feminist Teacher, 24(3), 184-206. https://doi.org/10.5406/femteacher.24.3.0184

In his ethnographic study, Emmanuel Mayeza investigates how gender roles and norms are constructed and enforced by young children on the playground of a South African township primary school. The research focuses on the social dynamics surrounding soccer during break times and reveals how this space, often assumed to be “free” or egalitarian by teachers, is actually a highly gendered site where children actively police each other’s behaviors.

Mayeza draws on poststructuralist feminist theory, particularly Judith Butler’s concept of gender as performative, to position children as active agents in the reproduction and sometimes disruption of gender norms. This theoretical lens highlights how power is not only exercised by adults, but is also relational and negotiated among children themselves. The study contributes to feminist scholarship by showing how young boys and girls participate in maintaining hegemonic masculinity through inclusion, exclusion, and bullying, while also demonstrating resistance and agency.

The study is feminist in its grounding in theories of power, identity, and gender performativity. It aligns with feminist educational research that critiques assumptions of neutrality in learning environments. The research challenges the idea of the playground as apolitical or liberatory and argues that it is actually a critical space where children learn and reinforce social hierarchies, especially those related to gender.

One of the most compelling aspects of the article is how the feminist lens surfaces perspectives that might otherwise be ignored. This includes the nuanced experiences of girls like Amahle, who persist in playing soccer despite being labeled “tomboys,” and boys like Wandile, who are ridiculed for associating with girls. Without a feminist framework, these dynamics might be reduced to simple teasing rather than understood as early expressions of patriarchal power. The study also makes visible how heteronormativity is enforced through the use of insults like “gay,” showing how gender and sexuality policing are deeply connected from a young age.

The potential educational impact of this research is significant. It encourages educators and curriculum developers, particularly those working with Life Orientation in South Africa, to recognize and address gender-based microaggressions and power dynamics that occur during recess. Teachers often assume that learning about gender happens only in formal instruction, but Mayeza reveals that playground culture is itself an informal curriculum in gender socialization. For this reason, schools should intervene early to promote inclusive play and challenge the assumption that sports like soccer are naturally for boys.

I find this study both valuable and necessary. It offers a rare child-centered, feminist ethnographic perspective and gives children a voice in a meaningful and respectful way. The use of visual methods, including drawing-based interviews, is especially powerful because it allows young participants to express complex ideas about identity, belonging, and exclusion. If I were to carry out this study myself, I might consider including the perspectives of teachers in order to explore the disconnect between adult assumptions and children’s lived realities.

On a personal level, the article resonates with my own experience as an educator. I have seen students reproduce rigid gender roles during unstructured play, often without adults noticing. Mayeza’s work is a powerful reminder that we must take children’s social worlds seriously and pay attention to what they are teaching and learning outside the classroom. It reinforces the idea that feminist theory is not just about adult systems of oppression but also about recognizing the early roots of these systems and helping children imagine something different.

Reference

Mayeza, E. (2017). ‘Girls don’t play soccer’: children policing gender on the playground in a township primary school in South Africa. Gender and Education, 29(4), 476-494.

Smith, Hurst, and Linden-Perlis (2023) present a deeply reflective and much-needed study on how early childhood educators can incorporate gender equity into their planning and teaching. The study evaluates a professional development program trialed in Australia that focused on addressing gender-based violence (GBV) by helping educators understand the connections between gender inequality and the perpetuation of GBV, even in the earliest years of schooling. Through surveys and focus groups, the study measured how educators' attitudes and practices changed over the course of the program. The results showed encouraging shifts: participants gained deeper awareness of how societal gender norms shape children’s experiences and expressed a growing confidence in challenging these norms in their teaching.

What makes this article so clearly grounded in feminist theory is its core assertion that gender is socially constructed, not biologically determined. The study disrupts dominant discourses that portray children as “too young” to talk about gender and pushes back against the notion that gender is innate. For example, one participant described how shocked they were to realize “how inequitable we are in our society” after reflecting on something as seemingly simple as gendered birthday cards. That moment illustrates the power of reflection and feminist pedagogy in helping educators see the everyday ways inequity is reproduced. The article also draws on key feminist themes like hegemonic masculinity, structural violence, and the role of social institutions in perpetuating inequality, ideas we've also explored in this course. It also echoes Blaise’s (2005) and Davies’ (2003) work, which emphasize how young children actively construct gender through interactions with peers, adults, materials, and space.

A feminist lens in this study critiques the status quo and also makes visible the subtle, taken-for-granted beliefs that educators (myself included) may unknowingly hold. The article connects directly with course discussions on gender performativity (Butler), intersectionality, and the idea that education is never neutral, it always reflects social values. It also supports the idea that feminism in education means looking critically at what is not being said or taught, especially around equity and justice. As a teacher myself, reading the quote from the participant who said, “If I am able to make some sort of change then I think this is brilliant” really resonated. It reminded me of the quiet but powerful moments of agency teachers can find when given the tools to reflect and act. Another quote that stood out was a participant realizing that “boys do not always have to be brave” and that children should be told it's okay to express fear or emotion. These are such important disruptions to traditional masculinity, and they align with my own values as an educator trying to create inclusive spaces.

The potential impact of these findings is wide-reaching. If more educators are given the time, support, and professional learning opportunities to explore gender equity, this can lead to more inclusive classrooms where children are not boxed in by outdated stereotypes. I was especially inspired by the inclusion of the “audit tool” that asked educators to examine their materials for bias and outdated gender norms. I’ve already began thinking about how I could do a similar review of my own classroom books and resources. What stories am I telling, intentionally or unintentionally, about who belongs and who gets to be brave, emotional, or a leader?

Overall, I found this research incredibly worthwhile. It doesn’t pretend that transformation happens overnight, and it acknowledges the real tensions like resistance from colleagues or the discomfort of speaking to parents about gender bias. It also offers hopeful and actionable insights. If I were carrying out a similar study, I might want to follow up with participants several months later to see whether the shifts in thinking actually led to sustained changes in practice. Still, this research gave me a lot to reflect on personally and professionally, and I’m grateful for how it has reframed my thinking around what’s possible in early childhood education when we center feminist values.

            In their article, “Medical fetishism in education: gendering the ‘clinical’ metaphor,” (2023) McKnight and Morgan critically examine the rise of the "clinical" metaphor in teacher education, arguing that its adoption is not neutral but deeply gendered, reinforcing masculine power structures within the feminized profession of teaching. Through a  methodology of feminist discourse analysis informed by Stuart Hall’s work on fetish, Sandra Harding on scientism, and Lakoff and Johnson on metaphor, the authors reveal how clinical language in education privileges traits coded as masculine—such as mastery, scientific authority, data-driven decision-making, surveillance, and competition—while marginalizing feminine-coded holistic, collaborative, relational, and care-based approaches. The study identifies five overlapping masculine figures constructed by the clinical metaphor: the master, the doctor, the statistician, the omnipotent viewer, and the competitive capitalist. These figures serve to legitimize scientism, promote a neoliberal agenda, and mask underlying power relations, ultimately limiting professional autonomy and diversity of approaches in teaching. The feminist lens is crucial in this analysis, as it exposes the hidden gendered assumptions and ideological functions of clinical discourse that would otherwise remain invisible, highlighting the need for more critical engagement and alternative frameworks in educational practice and research.

In this course, we encountered the work of Stuart Hall in his work on representation, and here again we see his analysis of power and discourse, as the authors employ his theory to explain how medical festishization works to embrace the authority of medicine while ignoring the embedded gendered power relations and masking the surveillance and control at the heart of these approaches. My grandmother was a teacher, and I spoke to her about this paper during a recent visit. In speaking with her about the best practices promoted in the ‘clinical education’ approach, such as evaluating the student and teacher to respond and adapt teaching methods based on what is working for individual students, she said that this is what she was taught and aimed to do when she went to teachers’ college in the 70s. She said that what the ‘clinical’ framing failed to acknowledge is that there are practical reasons why teachers aren’t always able to do this: increasing classroom sizes limit their time with each student, they are underfunded and under-resourced while supporting students with barriers to learning ranging from learning disabilities to poverty and unstable home lives. Presenting a formulaic approach to teaching as a silver bullet to improving education outcomes, masks those systemic problems while acting as a trojan horse for the surveillance state making its way into our classrooms.

            McKnight and Morgan’s use of feminist analysis and Hall’s theory of festishization to explain the power relations at play in the medical metaphor is a major contribution in it’s warning for the field of education. From what I can understand through this paper and a quick search into ‘clinical teaching,’ the comparison to medicine is being used as a shiny repackaging to sell us on the best practices that are already widely taught in education in order to push an agenda of surveillance in classrooms and mask the systemic issues that represent the real barriers to education: inequality and underfunding. In the competitive framing of ‘clinical teachers’ as superior, there is also an underlying message that those who are simply ‘teachers’ are inadequate, erasing their knowledge, while co-opting the best practices they’ve developed over generations.

Three dominant frames emerged from the analysis. First, men are widely viewed with suspicion in ECEC settings, with societal fears of sexual abuse leading to their exclusion from caregiving roles. While many participants denied personally holding these fears, they acknowledged their pervasiveness in culture. This reality reflects Stuart Hall’s (1997) concept of representation, whereby the cultural portrayals of men as risks become embedded in culture, even when the average individual disavows such views.

Secondly, men in ECEC roles were perceived as lacking key emotional and interpersonal capacities deemed essential for the work, such as patience and nurturing, yet were simultaneously valued for stereotypically masculine traits like physical play. Finally, ECEC was seen as misaligned with conventional male career aspirations due to low pay, limited opportunities for career advancement, and its association with emotional labour.

These dynamics touch on Judith Butler’s (1990) theory of gender performativity, as men are compelled to uphold traditionally masculine values. Men are only welcomed in ECEC fields for traits like physical play or serving as male role models. When they don’t perform according to these masculine metrics and take on larger care roles, they often get labelled as effeminate, predatory, or underachievers.

The authors used a feminist research approach. Rather than treating gender imbalance as neutral or inevitable, the study interrogates the cultural norms, institutional practices, and dominant narratives that uphold it. By centering women’s voices, the majority in the sector, the research highlights how lived experience both reflects and reproduces gendered power structures.

The study’s findings also offer critical insights with implications for students. For students, especially young boys, increased gender diversity in ECEC can foster a sense of admiration for care work. I think children need to see themselves reflected in their teachers to feel like they belong in that space, so having more males represented may give boys the sense that it is okay for them to be interested in this line of work. ECEC work is also at the earliest stages of human development, so exposing boys to such a gendered system at the beginning of their educational journey immediately signals that this field is not built for their participation.

The results also point to the need for more cultural support to value ECEC work as highly skilled and socially essential. The undervaluing of this field risks reproducing narrow gender norms. If men report craving feeling a sense of achievement in their work, then society has to signal that this work is worthy of praise. The literature already points to early childhood being a crucial period of human development, so why isn’t this emphasized more in wider culture?

The research highlights a rarely discussed gender imbalance by emphasizing the lack of male representation, using a less societally respected job as a point of reference. Most studies examine the exact opposite circumstances, but I think both circumstances are important to examine. The authors did a good job of demonstrating how men’s absence in ECEC is not just a personal choice but is shaped by cultural narratives around masculinity shaped by toxic patriarchal systems.

We must begin to incentivize and legitimize men’s participation in feminized fields like ECEC. Not just to balance numbers, but to break harmful cycles of gender stereotyping and elevate the social value of early education. 

References

Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge.

Hall, S. (1997). The work of representation. In Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. London: Sage.

McDonald, P., Coles, L., & Thorpe, K. (2024). How women educators frame the scarcity of men in early childhood education and care. Gender and Education, 36(5), 510–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2024.2357825

The article Reading Gender: a Feminist, Queer Approach to Children’s Literature and Children’s Discursive Agency examines how children’s literature influences perceptions of gender and how children interact with gender through characters and stories. Using a feminist lens, I will evaluate the study's findings, particularly how children make sense of gender norms and roles through literature.  

Summary of Study 

The study aimed to analyze how children interpret and interact with gendered characters in children's literature. The author argues that there is an active, interactional connection between children and the books they read. The research observed 114 children across 10 different sites, where they participated in read aloud sessions featuring books that depicted gender in various ways. In eight of the groups, children were read stories in which the main character’s gender was intentionally switched. For example, The Legend of Lyla the Lovesick Ladybug was changed to Lyle the Ladybug. Two groups read unaltered versions of the same stories. Additionally, all groups were read Pink! (2009), a book that explicitly explores gender identity.  

The findings revealed that children held strong, preconceived notions of gender normativity. In the stories where the protagonist’s gender was switched, children often commented that the characters’ behaviours did not align with their expectations of that gender. This highlights how societal and cultural narratives shape their perceptions of appropriate gendered behaviour. The study also found that femininity was frequently associated with weakness. For instance, in response to Pink!, children expressed concern that the penguin turning pink was “in danger”, indicating an underlying belief that femininity signifies vulnerability, while masculinity equates to safety and strength. These insights demonstrate how gender stereotypes are internalized from an early age, often through subtle messaging in society, media, and literature.  

Feminist Theories 

This study is grounded in feminist and queer theoretical frameworks, specifically drawing from feminist post-structuralism. This lens considers gender not as a fixed identity, but as something shaped by social, political, and historical contexts. I found it particularly interesting that the author emphasized how children and literature work together to create meaning, with readers bringing in their lived experiences to create symbolic meaning to stories.  

As an educator, this perspective is extremely relevant to how I curate my classroom library. It reminds me that simply including books that question gender norms is not enough. There must be active, intentional discussions that invite students to critically engage with these narratives. This reading connects to Week Fours topic of deconstructing representation, and the broader theme of how meaning is constructed through media and content  

Educational Implications 

The research highlights the importance of implementing intentional strategies to challenge gender norms and dominant discourse in education. One approach is curating a diverse classroom library that includes literature featuring characters who defy traditional gender binaries. As an educator, I believe it is my responsibility to start the conversation on how to deconstruct these harmful gender norms and stereotypes and create a healthy conversation about it with my students. Through these conversations, my students can begin to develop critical thinking and engagement with gendered narratives in literature and beyond. As an educator I need to reflect on my own practices and how I may unintentionally perpetuate gender norms. This article emphasized the importance of not just reading about challenging gender norms in literature but actively engaging and having ongoing conversations that lead to a greater understanding of the impact of gender norms.  

References 

Earles, J. (2017). Reading gender: a feminist, queer approach to children’s literature and children’s discursive agency. Gender and Education, 29(3), 369–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2016.1156062 

Valade’s research is rooted in feminist poststructuralist and queer theory frameworks, which distinguish her work as feminist. Drawing from theorists such as Judith Butler and Bronwyn Davies, she rejects essentialist views of gender development and instead emphasizes how children actively co-construct their gendered identities within discourse and through social interaction. This approach aligns closely with what we have discussed in the course: that feminist theory demands a critical interrogation of power, identity, and societal norms—especially as they manifest in educational spaces. Her engagement with queer theory further strengthens the feminist analysis by addressing the regulation of non-normative gender expressions, including femmephobia and the pressures of “gender intelligibility.”

The feminist lens is vital in this study because it surfaces how seemingly innocent acts of play—like dressing up as a princess—are laden with gendered expectations. Valade highlights moments where girls claim agency through hyperfeminine aesthetics (e.g., sparkle, beauty, and magic), using them as tools for empowerment, while simultaneously noting how such agency remains constrained by the limits of postfeminist logic. Likewise, the gender policing observed—especially when boys attempted to play with princess items and were ridiculed—exposes the classroom as a site where dominant gender norms are maintained through peer and adult interactions. Without a feminist lens, these subtle yet powerful dynamics would likely go unexamined.

The potential impact of this research on education is significant. Valade’s findings challenge the developmentalist assumption that gender roles in early childhood emerge naturally. Instead, she urges educators to recognize the ways in which classroom practices, toys, and transmedia narratives contribute to inequities. Her call for a shift toward postdevelopmentalism—one that embraces queer and feminist pedagogies—offers educators concrete ways to disrupt gender binaries and support diverse identities in the classroom. This has direct implications for teacher training, curriculum development, and policies around inclusive play.

As someone who works with young children and who holds a marginalized identity, I found this study incredibly valuable. It reminded me of my own observations in school settings, where girls are often praised for being “beautiful” or “well-behaved,” while boys are allowed greater freedom to be loud or messy. If I were to conduct a similar study, I would consider incorporating race and class more explicitly, particularly given how Disney’s portrayal of femininity often centers whiteness and Eurocentric beauty standards. Still, Valade’s intersectional attention to femmephobia and the marginalization of non-hegemonic gender performances makes this a powerful contribution to feminist educational research.

In sum, this article is a compelling example of how feminist theory can be used to interrogate early learning spaces. Valade offers both a critique and a pathway forward—one that challenges educators to think more critically about the discourses circulating in their classrooms, and how these shape children’s sense of self and possibility.

References:

Valade, T. (2023). Postfeminism at play: Pretend play with Disney princess transmedia in the early childhood education classroom. McGill Journal of Education, 58(3), 57–79. 

Prioletta, J. (2022). Unearthing gender violence with/in kindergarten play environments. Gender & Education, 34(8), 973–990. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2022.2118441

Prioletta’s study is a year-long institutional ethnography taking place in two kindergartens, both in the same city in Ontario. It evaluates the “the hidden gendered effects of a newly provincially mandated fullday play-based learning programme for kindergarten” (p. 978).

Prioletta uses feminist new materialism as her theoretical framework, which recognizes that humans are immersed with materialities and that human and nonhuman actants are mutually dependent. By using this feminist approach, she can evaluate kindergarten learning centers and blocks for their role in the perpetration and perpetuation of gender violence in kindergarten.

This feminist lens allows us to consider the impact of play-based education in kindergarten-level children on the gender roles of girls and boys. Her use of feminist new materialism comes in direct opposition to developmentalist ideologies adopted by developmental psychology. Developmental psychology has greatly influenced current practices in early-education, and it positions children apart from social and material context by being child-centered. She describes these learning practices as positioning the child at the centre as a “pioneer, explorer, constructor and developer of independence” – a stereotypically male image (p. 976). It positions the developing boy as concerned with “discovery and conquest” – an enduring colonialist legacy (p.976). Therefore, this emphasis on child-centered learning propagates a patriarchal and colonial image of masculinity.

Prioletta does uncover some interesting behaviours and environmental organisation through her ethnography. For example, blocks are considered very important objects in early years classrooms for their role in promoting “children’s growth in the physical, language, cognitive, social, and emotional developmental domains as well as their academic learning” so they are placed in the most central and largest areas (p. 975). Blocks and building centres are traditionally masculine activities, and these were the ones allowed the most space and the central locations. The centers that promoted traditionally feminine activities like the dramatic play centre were smaller and scattered in corners and at the edges of the space. This uneven spatial allocation propagates patriarchal values and disproportionally values masculine-centered skills.

The access to the blocks, a prized resource, was also monopolized by the boys. If girls and boys built something together, boys mandated which blocks the girls could use and what they could do with them. If girls constructed structures with the blocks by themselves, these were destroyed by the boys.

Therefore, the importance placed on building blocks, a traditionally masculine activity, in early education and on the organization of play spaces to prioritize block play has facilitated the early institutionalization of gender violence. It has placed boys “at the centre of kindergarten education and girls at its margins” (p. 979). I think this article should make us rethink this practice. Feminine activities should be given equal importance and spaces should be organized consequently.