Debating Childhood Masculinities

The introduction sets out the wider context which led to the development of this volume. I argue that younger children have often been overlooked and under-theorised within Critical Studies on Men and Masculinities (CSMM). Moreover, existing research on childhood masculinities is often siloed in either childhood studies, gender studies or masculinity studies, with little dialogue between these fields. This volume bridges these fields to showcase an international and interdisciplinary body of scholarship that explore the way childhood masculinities in today's world are being negotiated, represented and lived out at the intersection of generational and gendered politics and social change. This chapter ends with an overview of the chapters in this volume and their contributions to wider debates on age, gender and social change.

Based on interviews conducted in three schools in Helsinki, Finland, I examine in this chapter 12- to 15-year-old boys' narratives about their possibilities and practices of sharing emotions in their relationships with friends and parents. I focus on how these possibilities and practices are shaped by their understanding of masculinities and ask whether these narratives continue to be shaped by hierarchising hegemonic masculine norms or if there is room for discourses and practices that depart from these norms. I argue that contradiction is a central feature in the boys' narratives of masculinities: On the one hand, the boys are critical of hegemonic masculine norms that define confiding and sharing emotions as feminine. On the other hand, they reproduce the very same norms in many discourses and everyday practices, which makes confiding and sharing emotions difficult for them.

The purpose of the chapter is to explain how boys learn to mask their expression of fears and emotions. The aim is to understand how boys internalize socially prescribed masculine traits, including masking of fear, certain emotional expressions and discomfort. The sample consisted of 20 parents, 30 school teachers and 50 boy students and 50 girl students between the ages of 11 and 14 from government-funded co-education schools in Delhi, India. School observation, focus group discussion, and interviews were used for data collection. The study found that gendered social norms are enforced on boys in the form of ‘boy codes’. These boy codes are so deep rooted in daily practices that they are considered as an essential ‘ideal male’ trait. Although the ‘ideal male image’ is presented as a uniform category among boys, the masking of fears and emotional expressions is not the same for all boys. Thus, many boys internalized the ideal male images in the form of hegemonic displays of masculinity, where they are focused on conforming to rigid masculine traits. However, through challenge, negotiation and renegotiation, many boys would like to conduct themselves according to their personal masculinity. There is a shift among some boys from the internalization of the traditional male image to giving meaning to personal experiences that deviate from the ideal male figure without the fear of being judged by society.

In this chapter, practice-theoretical perspectives on the production of gender and childhood are extended by the theory of new materialism. A practice-theoretical view of masculinity(ies) radicalises the concept of doing gender and thereby makes it possible to show that gender is always co-produced as part of other complexes of praxes. Thus, the connection between masculinity(ies) and youth cultural praxes can be discussed. The chapter first elaborates theoretically the connections between masculinity and childhood research. We will explore how these theoretical and methodological thoughts might be used in empirical research on masculinity(ies) and boyhood by referring to our own study on children and young people riding stunt scooters in a medium-sized city in north-west Germany.

In this chapter, we draw on trans-informed theoretical frameworks to provide insights into gender justice and gender democratization in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC). Our purpose is to illuminate the systemic impact of cisgenderist and cissexist beliefs which refer to the legitimation of birth-assigned gender identity and what this means for embracing a critical project of gender expansiveness in the ECEC classroom. More broadly, we explicate how our engagement with trans studies informs a critique of existing debates about masculinities, boys and male teachers in the early years. We draw on the work of trans scholars in the first part of this chapter to ground an epistemological basis for our understanding of gender expansiveness and masculinities that challenges a cisnormative framing of gender justice in ECEC. In the second part, we draw specifically on scholars in the field who have been pivotal in elaborating what we understand to be gender expansive identities and what this means for thinking about gender justice in the early childhood classroom. In the third part, we reflect on the pedagogical implications of boyhood sissiness through a trans-informed lens and explicate its implications for understanding boys and masculinities in the early years. Finally, we draw on transgender studies-informed perspectives on masculinity which call for ‘de-essentializ[ing] masculinity as grounded in a cis-male body’ (Gottzén & Straube, 2016, p. 217) and explore their implications for re-envisioning masculinities as a gender-transformative project in ECEC.

School exclusion in England is highly gendered, racialised and classed. For instance, boys are three times more likely than girls to be excluded from school and certain groups, including Black Caribbean boys are subject to disproportionate levels of exclusion. Against this backdrop, I explore the context and consequences of exclusion from English mainstream schooling for young masculinities. The arguments presented also have broader international significance due to a global tendency towards punitive measures in schooling. Through bringing masculinities scholarship into conversation with childhood studies, this chapter aims to present a nuanced theorisation of young masculinities which foregrounds lived experience and is located within the interdisciplinary field of childhood studies. It examines ways in which exclusion and schooling in alternative settings, such as a Pupil Referral school, can shape the identities of boys and their subjectivities. The empirical data demonstrate that excluded boys face severe constraints arising from ways in which they are positioned. Drawing on original qualitative data, it is argued that boys who are categorised in this way demonstrate highly agentic ways of ‘doing boy’. This chapter is underpinned by two questions, firstly, how can we theorise boyhood and school exclusion in ways that recognise excluded boys as agentic and constrained subjects? Secondly, what possibilities for change might our theorisation reveal? This chapter concludes by arguing for intersectional masculinities and strengthened theorisation of childhood studies which explicitly recognises lived experience. Through this discussion, I seek to illuminate the emotional costs of school exclusion and insights into ways to achieve change.

While the global body of knowledge on men and boys' experiences of sexual abuse during childhood has incrementally grown over the last several years, it remains an under-researched area of study. Drawing upon primary phenomenological research with men survivors of child sexual abuse (CSA) in India, in this chapter, I report and discuss findings that explore the gendered meanings that men who have experienced CSA make of their abuse experiences against a backdrop of heteropatriarchal assumptions and expectations regarding masculinity. Specifically, I discuss how effeminophobia – anxiety and disdain regarding feminine-identified behaviors, mannerisms, attributes and presentations among boys and men – is an ingredient and also the product of such meaning making and eventually works as another form of violence against men and boy survivors following the primary experience of sexual violence. More broadly, acknowledging the role of effeminophobia in constructing men and boy survivors' experiences supports the argument that heteropatriarchy is a double-edged weapon that injures women and gender-expansive people disproportionately but also hurts boys and men.

In this chapter, we discuss masculinity in relation to Swedish sports for children with refugee backgrounds. Specifically, we explore how the structure of sports shapes the distinct conditions for their athletic endeavours, including the traits associated with masculinity, which are perceived favourably in sports because they align with the physical and mental norms of male athletes, thereby reinforcing hegemonic masculinity. Moreover, we aim to show that perspectives valorising masculinity can frame children with refugee backgrounds as passive athletes who lack agency. Thus, we discuss two refinements of inclusivity in sports for children with refugee backgrounds in terms of (a) stereotyped notions of gender and refugees and (b) substantial links between desired masculinity and expectations of a perfect match with the Swedish sports system.

This chapter draws on an ethnographic study with children aged 10–14 and their parents from heterogeneous socio-economic backgrounds in Türkiye. Building on a relational approach, it employs parental surveillance and children's individual privacy management in their intrafamilial relationships as a point of entry to reflect on childhood masculinities. From the perspectives of boys, girls and their parents, it illustrates how children's experiences of achieving privacy emerge as a gendered and age-related cultural phenomenon. Looking particularly at family negotiations around personal spaces and time at home and outside, it suggests that privacy regulation is a significant aspect of everyday family lives through which childhood masculinities and femininities are constructed, reproduced and performed. It further argues the ways that Turkish parenting culture may view intergenerational dialogue as a hierarchic category, rather than a relational category, contribute to a generational divide in boys' and girls' access to individual privacy.