international education answer question

Dora_Chen

GenderEducationDevelopmentandtheRoleofMasculinity.pdf

Home >Education homework help >international education answer question

Education and International Development: theory, practice and issues

Clive Harber

SYMPOSIUM BOOKS

Education and International Development

CHAPTER 10

Gender, Education, Development and the Role of Masculinity

If you educate a man, you educate an individual, if you educate a woman you educate a family. (Old African proverb)

Introduction

In no society do women yet enjoy the same opportunities as men. They work longer hours, and they are paid less, both in total and pro rata. Their choices as to how they spend their time, in both work and leisure. are more constrained than they are for men. These disparities generate substantial gaps between how much women and men can contribute to society, and how much they respectiveI y share in its benefits. In most countries, a fundamental aspect of these disparities, which is both one of their causes and one of their continuing consequences, is inequality in access to and performance in education. These inequalities are deep seated. (UNESCO, 2003/04, p. 24)

In this section we explore a series of key issues concerned with education and development. We begin with an issue that has already arisen in earlier chapters of the book - the role of gender in education and development. The United Nations (UN) Millennium Development Coal 3 is 'promoting gender equality and empowering women'. We saw in chapter 1 how gender inequality is an important indicator of development for the United Nations; in chapter 2 how gender is related lo educational access, quality, outcomes and inequality; in chapter 6 how it is related to violence in schools; and in chapter 9 how it is related to religion and education. In this chapter we look at gender in more detail as a topic in its own right and, in particular, examine ideas of masculinity in relation to gender.

Here we differentiate between the sex of people, which refers to the biological distinctions between men and women and boys and girls, and gender, which refers to the social and cultural construction of what it means to be male or female - how one is expected to behave and to do

157

Clive Harber

things in life. particularly in relation to the other gender. While there are dominant or hegemonic forms of gender identities across many societies, it has to be remembered that gender is interpreted and acted out within societies in many different ways, particularly in terms of other cross cutting forms of social identity such as race, class and religion.

Aikman et al (2011) differentiate between four different but overlapping approaches to gender and education but here the main distinction is between two broad approaches. The first is a traditional Women in Development (WID) approach which is mainly concerned with equal access. retention and opportunities for girls and which sees gender equality foremost as a girls' and women's issue. The second sees inequality based on gender identities rooted in unequal power structures and relationships between males and females and asks what can be done to change these to provide greater capabilities for both genders. We begin with more of an emphasis on the first by examining the current situation for both boys and girls in terms of access and outcomes before looking in more detail at how gendered relationships play out in schooling, and in particular by looking at the role of masculinity.

Gender Equality and Education

In 2003-04 UNESCO devoted its annual Global Monitoring Report on Education for Al I to gender inequality in education. It made the following case for the importance of gender equality in education and development:

There is also a powerful development case for achieving gender equality. It is clearly in the private and social 1.nterest to eliminate gender inequalities in education wherever they exist. The personal and social benefits are immense. Livelihoods are improved, families are healthier and better nourished. education is valued, and civic responsibility is enhanced. It is an affordable investment ·with high pay-offs. (UNESCO, 2003/04, p. 17)

It defined gender equality in education in the following way:

Full gender equality in education would imply that girls and boys are offered the same chances to go to school and enjoy teaching methods, curricula and academic orientation unaffected by gender bias. And more broadly, equal learning achievement and subsequent life opportunities for similar qualifications and experience. (UNESCO, 2003/04, p. 17)

So, what is the current situation with regard to gender parity in education? In UNESCO's recent assessment of gender parity in education in terms of access and outcomes (2012a, pp. 106-121), it notes that there

158

GENDER, EDUC/\ TJON AND DEVELOPMENT

has been considerable success in the convergence in primary school enrolment between boys and girls, but that there are still 68 countries which have not achieved gender parity in primary education and that girls are disadvantaged in 60 of them. In low-income countries in 1999, the gender parity ratio was 0.91 girls lo every 1.0 boy whereas by 2010 the figure was 0.97. In lower-middle-income countries the respective figures were 0.83 and 0.87. Despite significant progress since 1999, the Arab states and sub-Saharan Africa are yet to achieve parity. Also, the incidence of severe gender disparity had also declined so that the number of countries where fewer than nine girls were in primary school for every ten boys fell from 33 to 17 between 1999 and 2010. A key reason for fewer girls being in school is that fewer start school in the first place, but once in school their chances of progressing are similar lo those of boys. Reasons cited as disadvantaging girls in terms of entering schools are distance to school, early marriage, poverty and schools which are not necessarily gender-friendly. Al the secondary level, the gender parity index of 0.82 for girls to boys in sub-Saharan Africa has not changed since 1999 and girls remain al a disadvantage in the Arab states and in South and West Asia. In Latin America and the Caribbean, on the other hand, there is a reverse gender gap, with more girls enrolled than boys.

In terms of outcomes, girls perform better than boys in reading and there is evidence that the gap is increasing. Boys retain an advantage in maths, though there is some evidence that the gap may be narrowing (UNESCO, 2012a, p. 111). However, as UNESCO notes, the reasons for this are not genetic: 'There is no inherent difference in the capacities of boys or girls in reading. mathematics or science. Girls and boys can perform equally well in these subjects under the right conditions' (UNESCO, 2012a, p. 112). For more than half the 97 countries that have not achieved gender parity in secondary education, the problem is that fewer boys are enrolled in school than girls. The reason for this is a higher drop-out rate for boys than girls. A key factor in this is poverty and the need lo earn an income, with boys being more likely lo work outside the home than girls, and therefore less able to attend school. UNESCO uses the example of Honduras where 60% of boys aged 15-17 were engaged in economic activity compared to 21 % of girls - about 82% of the boys engaged in economic activity were not in school compared with 61 % of the girls (2012a, p. 116).

Gender (In)Equality within Education?

Whatever the progress of gender parity in terms of access and outcomes, in chapters 2 and 6 in particular we saw that there is considerable evidence that female pupils are not always treated fairly in relation to attitudes towards their schooling or to what happens to them inside

159

Clive Harber

schools. To understand better the different ways in which gender inequality can occur in practice as part of daily 'normality' within schools, and to preface a discussion of masculinity and education later in the chapter, we next describe in some detail a study of the gender dimension of everyday life in six junior secondary schools in Botswana and six in Ghana (Dunne, 2007). In reading about this study it might be useful to think in terms of opposites - what are the male and female attitudes and behaviours that would best help to foster a more equal set of gender relationships in such schools?

In both countries there was a dominance of male teachers in senior and management positions and on the whole both female and male teachers seemed happier to work under a male head. Teaching staff attributed the male and female resistance to female leadership to cultural expectations which cast men as leaders and women as followers. It was accepted by many as 'natural' and a mirror of their domestic gender relations, and not an issue to be addressed. Male pupils, in public affirmation of their masculinity, often attempted to challenge the authority of female teachers in refusals to accept punishment from them. Some of the boys in Botswana expressed a dislike of female teachers, referring to them as 'pompous and showy' in one school and in another as moody, emotional, 'hormonal' and inconsistent. They also claimed not to take lessons taught by female teachers seriously. The boys did not respond to the male teachers in the same way. Female teachers reported an uncomfortable working environment where they were not given the same authority or respect as male teachers by the pupils or by their colleagues and school managers.

Staff rooms were gender-segregated, with minimal teacher interaction across the gender boundary. The view of most female teachers was that male teachers were more often consulted and given decision-making roles, leaving them in subordinate positions. Female teachers tended to carry out social tasks such as greeting visitors and offering seats whereas male teachers took responsibility for sports, school grounds, sanitation and tasks that required physical exertion. Male teachers also tended to deal with discipline, especially corporal punishment. Around the school high-status duties such as helping to organise assemblies and ringing the bell between lessons were carried out by boys - these duties were almost never carried out by a girl. There was also a tendency for male prefects to be responsible for male pupils and female prefects for female pupils. In terms of general school duties, in all schools in both countries girls were usually responsible for cleaning classrooms and offices and for fetching water. Boys did weeding, picking up litter, cleaning windows and tree cutting. Seldom were boys seen with brooms or mops. Whereas girls sometimes helped boys in their tasks, the reverse was not observed. In some cases teachers used pupils, especially girls, to carry out private duties for them like

160

GENDER, EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT

cleaning their house or running errands. Boys who swept or did 'female' duties were ridiculed by both other boys and girls. Rather than being passive, the girls were active in colluding with the gender order, thereby helping to sustain it.

Whenever pupil lines were formed, for example in assembly or when entering the school in the morning, they were gender segregated and this gender segregation also occurred among the teachers. In both countries the dominant pattern of seating in the classroom was for boys to sit at the back and along the sides, as if surrounding or controlling the girls, and teachers rarely intervened in the seating arrangements. A misbehaving boy would be made to sit amongst the girls as a discipline strategy. Boys dominated communication in the classroom by being most vocal, by shouting answers to teachers, by verbally harassing girls who attempted to answer questions and by ridiculing them if they gave the wrong answer. This had the effect of discouraging participation by girls. Intimidation of girls by male teachers in question and answer sessions was observed in both countries.

Corporal punishment was common in both countries and those who carried it out were male teachers and those who received it were more often male pupils. Female teachers used less demonstrative forms of violence such as pinching and verbal abuse, the latter being described by the pupils as more damaging and violating. Within the classroom and informally around the school, male teachers communicated with female pupils in a more personal, sexist and even sexually suggestive way. Gender stereotypes and sexist behaviour presented in textbooks in both countries tended to be left unchallenged by teachers. Boys engaged in routine intimidation of girls, and older boys snatched money or other property from girls. It was also common for boys to sexually harass girls by pinching or touching their breasts or buttocks. However, in all the schools negative gendered behaviour was not seen as a matter of concern as it was seen as 'natural', so that complaints from girls about sexual harassment and verbal abuse were largely ignored or trivialised, being regarded by teachers as a normal part of growing up.

It is important to note, however, that such unequal and separate gender relationships don't just begin in secondary school. Research by Bhana et al (2011) in South Africa showed that in the early years of primary school friendships were already highly gendered by the age of seven or eight. Moreover, the young girls in the study were very clear about their accounts of boys' violence, referring to verbal as well as physical accounts of violence, though sexual violence was already implicit in some of the comments of the boys. The 'masculine' identity of the boys was already forming through physical prowess and dominance over girls.

161

Clive Harber

Masculinity and Education

It is clear that, globally, men have a lot to lose from pursuing gender equality because men, collectively, continue to receive a patriarchal dividend. (Connell, cited in Arnot & Fennell, 2008, p. 516)

In this chapter, and in various other places in this book, we have examined evidence about gender equality and education in developing countries. In terms of access and examinations considerable progress has been made, but in terms of what goes on inside schools and what happens to females when they leave school to go home or when they finally leave school altogether, it is a different story. However, in many contexts the main obstacle to gender equality both inside and outside of education remains men and boys and the unequal power that they exercise. Greig et al (2000) argue in relation to development that men have tended not to think of themselves as gendered beings and this is one reason why policy makers and development practitioners, both men and women, often misunderstood or dismissed gender as a purely women's issue. However, as Greig et al also argue, achieving equality is not possible without changes in men's lives as well as women's. Thus, the social construction of masculinity, and how it is socialised and learnt, is of considerable importance in understanding gender inequality in education and development.

Although there are multiple forms of masculine identity within and between societies - masculinities - there are also dominant or hegemonic forms of male identity internationally which have traditionally preserved patriarchal power and privilege. Among the characteristics of this hegemonic form of masculinity are argued to be misogyny, homophobia, racism, compulsory heterosexuality, the importance of sport, a denial of emotions, competition, success, individualism, strength, toughness and the threat or use of violence to get what is wanted or, often, what it is assumed the male is entitled to and has a right to. Boys or men who deviate from this model where it dominates can be seen, labelled and treated as 'unmanly' (Salisbury & Jackson, 1996; Morrell, 1998, 2001a).

Elsanousi (2004), writing of the Yemen for example, notes the dominant position of men in Yemeni society and that women 'silently' accept this because they have no alternative. She argues that

Boys and men are socialised within a narrow concept of 'masculinity'. They are supposed to be strong, dominating, earners and breadwinners, guardians of their female counterparts (mothers, sisters, wives, daughters and female relatives). Reflecting this image, the national costume for men includes a knife worn at the front, emphasising the importance of courage and the ability to fight. (2004, p. 164)

162

GENDJ_m, EDUCATION AND DEVELOl',\fENT

A workshop of Loth men and women in Yemen produced the following ways in which gender is socialised:

• Lays are treated as superior to girls in the family; • women in the family serve men with the best food going to men; • Lays' education is given precedence over girls' education; • men are discouraged from performing domestic work; • males are allowed complete freedom of movement in public and

Lays can come home late ,\'ithout being questioned: • men are meant to be strong but not emotional; they should not weep

or cry; • men are brought up to Le decision-makers a~d to hold power over

women; • the educational curriculum reinforces the pattern of men's and

women's socialisation (for example, girls clean and cook, boys play outside);

• men are socialised to Le violent (with toy guns and sticks and aggressive games);

• misinterpretations ofislam enforce men's domination; • girls' schools do not provide sporting activities (2004, p. 164).

This dominant model of masculinity is predicated on aggressive behaviour and a proclivity towards violence and, as we have seen in chapter 6, male teacher and pupil violence against females is not uncommon in schools. However, as Salisbury and Jackson put it, 'men and Lays aren't violent because they have male bodies. They are violent in order to become more masculine' (lmJ6, p. 106). Physical violence, including sexual violence, overwhelming!y is carried out by males and particularly by young males. Nevertheless. whilst most violence is carried out by men, most men are not violent. Violent behaviour Ly males is not biologically determined Ly, for instance. high levels of testosterone. If it were, then all, or at least most, most men would Le violent. The GulLenkian Foundation made the following case against biological determinism of violence in males:

First, one can point to the admittedly unusual socinties in which the biologically normal females have shown a greater tendency to violence than the biologically normal males. Secondly, we know that Lays brought up in non-violent households with parents providing good quality earn and living in non-violent neighbourhoods, show levels of violence that are very little different from girls brought up in the same circumstances. Thirdly, there is evidence that the levels of testosterone in young violent males are no different from those in non-violent young males. (1995, p. 42)

163

Clive Harber

Moreover, as Connell (2000, p. 22) notes, cross-cultural studies of masculinities reveal a diversity that is impossible to reconcile with a biologically fixed master pattern of masculinity.

So, what might be the role of schooling in learning dominant or hegemonic forms of masculinity? Salisbury and Jackson (1996, p. 105) argue that 'Schools, clubs and colleges are institutions where gender is actively forged. Gender isn't just reflected or expressed. They are places where a certain type of "top dog" masculinity is made, celebrated and confirmed through daily acts of violence and bullying'. Woolley (2007, p. 29) adds:

From the earliest years of schooling, masculinity and the undermining of an individual's perceived masculinity, is a powerful socialising tool. The taunts of the playground bully make clear what is socially acceptable in terms of being a man and from that point onwards many males seek to define themselves in terms of the dominant hegemony.

How, then, does schooling play a part in both reproducing and forging the sort of hegemonic model of masculinity outlined above? Again, when reading this discussion it might be useful to think not only about how valid it is but also what alternative forms of masculinity there are, or might be, that would be more supportive of gender equality in development. The first and most obvious point is that, for better or for worse, teachers are role models. Male teachers act as role models for male students. A study of perceptions of teachers in South Africa, for example, saw male teachers as unbending, unfeeling, violent, egocentric, competitive, unsympathetic and rigid whereas female teachers were perceived as being prepared to abandon their formal positions of authority to create a climate of understanding and negotiation. Male teachers were seen as dogmatically wedded to their authority (Morrell, 2001b, p. 150). By being involved in sexual harassment, as described in this chapter and chapters 2 and 6, male teachers are actively encouraging their male pupils to behave in a similar manner.

Salisbury and Jackson (1996) further identify a number of ways that schools can actively perpetuate forms of masculine identity that lend themselves to violent interpretation. First, they argue that the way that schools are organised - their authority patterns and forms of discipline - reinforce key aspects of the hegemonic masculinity outlined above, which is why men have traditionally dominated school management:

Teaching is seen to be about control and authoritarian certainty. It is also the visible face of material male power in the establishment. The characteristics of effective teaching become talking from the front and controlling any child's responses. It is also about a system of duties, patrolling corridors and the constant checking of students' presence. The

164

GENDER, EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT

atmosphere of control will be underpinned by the need to impose a strong, hard, authoritarian disciplinary system ... Many male teachers maintain their authority over pupils by a 'hard-line' rule of fear. They control by threats and a loud voice to reduce students to frightened silence. From such an aggressive disciplinary style boys learn that 'this is how you get what you want'. Male teachers are also very competitive around their ability to establish firm discipline. There is ridicule of 'soft' members of staff behind their backs ... Boys learn to expect dominant authoritarian behaviour from male teachers since it provides a role model for superior power and strength. It mirrors much of the power they see exhibited by other men in their daily lives - their fathers, brothers, uncles and grandfathers. (1996, pp. 18, 22, 28)

Second, the curriculum is seen as 'academic masculinist' in that knowledge is presented as abstract, neutral and value-free:

School knowledge retains the academic form of a self referring, abstract body of knowledge which strongly separates what is learned from the personal and social experiences of the learner. Knowledge is also organised hierarchically from the less difficult to the more difficult. This emphasises the idea of there being one path through the material which it is necessary to follow. The way knowledge is imparted is by means of transfer teaching, i.e. something the teacher knows is transferred to the mind of the student, i.e. a 'delivery' model. This still occurs by means of chalk and talk and teaching from the front so that impersonal science demands an impersonal teaching style with no attempts to link what is done with the lives of children. Links with students as people are superficial because of the way teachers know their subject and desire to impart subject knowledge. Knowledge control and what needs to be known is in the hands of men. (1996, p. 25)

Third, Salisbury and Jackson argue that closely allied to this curriculum is the way learning is organised and tested. The emphasis on individual competition is closely linked with patriarchal values. They argue that 'Competition brings up many kinds of unpleasant feelings, such as being pushy and arrogant around winning and sneakily resentful around failure' (1996, p. 31). The important point here is that examinations, league tables and competition 'activates the notion of manly values around winners and losers' and that

not to shape up properly as a boy in competition with others causes pain, resentment and anti-social behaviour in the form of truancy, disruptiveness and other attention-grabbing

165

Clivc Harber

devices. After all, a competitive system that fails some boys academically and physically compels a compensatory assertion of masculine pride, a competition in machismo to enable male power to be demonstrated and admired. (p. 32)

A fourth way in which schools reinforce hegemonic models of masculinity is through sport. Pla,,'ing sport in a manly way means a determination to win at all costs by gritting one's teeth and ignoring the hurt of physical clashes:

The language of school sports for many boys is the language of warfare - 'Hit them hard today, lads!' All the talk is of combat, battles, seeing your opponent as the enemy and military conquest. There is a gladiatorial type of imagery of sparring, grappling and not deserting your post. The result of this sport as-welfare approach is often to normalise aggressive competitiveness in the lives of many boys. (Salisbury & Jackson, l(HJG. p. 205)

It also has to be noted that one of the ways that male violence can manifest itself in schools that hasn't been mentioned previously is in bullying gay and lesbian pupils and those perceived to be so. This is a serious problem in schools internationally (PLAN, 2008, pp. 38-39) and can manifest itself through such phenomena as 'corrective rape' in South African schools where lesbian girls are raped to 'make them heterosexual' (see, for example, Action Aid, 2009) and homophobic bullying generally, which is now recognised by the UN as a major problem (Pinheiro, 2006). A UN study, for example, stated that the problem was global but under-researched and, amongst other evidence, noted that a high proportion of lesbian, gay and bisexual learners report homophobic bullying in Chile (68%), Guatemala (53%), Mexico (61 %) and Peru (66%). In Brazil, more than 40% of gay men reported that they had been physically assaulted when they were at school (UNESCO, 2012b, p. 18).

Moreover, schools do not necessarily educate about masculinity in order to curb more violent or unequal interpretations of it. partly because teachers themselves have rarely confronted the idea of masculinity in their ovvn education. A surTffV of South African and English teacher education students found that few had studied or discussed gender issues, including the nature of masculinity, either at school or in their teacher education (Harber & Serf, 2006). Part of the problem may be the teaching methods used in schools and the fear of teaching controversial issues such as gender in the classroom. However, on a more positive note, there are many educational projects that exist in developing countries that provide ideas and advice on working towards greater gender equality in education and development. For example, Leach and Mitchell (2006) include chapters on strategies for change that discuss

166

GJ::;VTJER, EDUC:A TION A.ND DEVb'LOT'AIENT

arts-based participatory methodologies for working with young people, reframing masculinities using films with adolescent boys in South Asia, engaging with young men in violence prevention in Latin America, working with young men and violent masculinities in South Africa, using theatre with trainee teachers in Ghana, using teacher memories to tackle gender violence in Ken ya, the role of classroom assistants in refugee schools in West Africa and gender and AIDS education in Uganda. Ruxton (2004) has case studies of organisations working on gender equality education programmes with men and boys from South Africa, the Caribbean, Timor Leste, Latin America, Yemen and India and Pakistan. Chikoko et al (2011) include references on ways of teaching controversial issues in the classroom in relation to Africa and elsewhere.

In order to provide examples of how positive gender equality programmes might work in practice we now explore two case studies in more detail. Volume 55 (5-6) of the international Review of Education (200~) is devoted to 'undoing gender'. with the introductory article entitled 'From Denouncing Gender Inequities to Undoing Gender in Education: programmes and practices towards change in the social relations of gender', and contains articles on Zambia and Iran as well as one on Honduras which forms our first case stud v.

Murphy-Graham (2009) discusses the Tutorial Learning System or SAT in Honduras, which is a programme for lower and upper secondary schools. The programme uses textbooks that are written in the form of a conversation with students, inviting questioning and investigation. It also has tutors to guide students in their study of the texts, to encourage reflection and to supervise projects - their role is as a guide and facilitator of reflection and discussion rather than a lecturer. Study groups of 15-25 adolescents meet weekly with their tutor and together they participate in a wide variety of educational, productive and organisational activities in their communities. At the end students receive the equivalent of a secondary school diploma. A key principle of SAT is that of gender equality, which is explicit! y mainstreamed into the curriculum and which emphasises change at the individual and structural level. Students are encouraged and facilitated in questioning and discussing gender relationships with the overt aim of more equality within the family, community and society. In researching the programme among a primarily female sample, Murphy-Graham found that students who had undergone SAT did have an increased consciousness of gender equality. A comparison of women in SAT with those not in SAT suggested a higher level of consciousness among the SAT members. Data from open-ended interviews suggested that students had reflected critically on the injustice of hegemonic: masculinity, inc:l uding the need for a more equal sharing of domestic cl uties. The findings suggested that change would be slow and that change was not always automatic or sustainable - in two cases students' husbands verbally abused and

167

Clive Harber

physically threatened them because they did not agree with their participation in the programme. However, the research suggested that partir:ipation in SAT did provide women with the interpersonal and communication skills to use 'underground' and 'direct confrontation' strategies to negotiate new roles with partners, such as sharing textbooks with partners, open discussions and telling them that they wanted a more equal division of labour. However, as she concludes, more investigations are needed, that

focus in particular on the process by which boys' and men's attitudes and actions change. Men, after all, must be equal partners with women in our efforts to turn relationships of domination into relationships of collaboration. cooperation and reciprocity. (2009, p. 518)

On this note, Morrell and Makhaye (2006) describe work on masculinity with young men in KwaZulu Natal, South Africa, which, importantly, has the title 'working not blaming'. They point out that there are more men who avoid violence than who resort to it, but that it is nevertheless important to develop new models of masculinity that help to prevent violence as most people involved in violence are men. In South Afrir:a there is a particular challenge because of the HIV/ AIDS pandemic and the risk that the aggressive sexual behaviour of boys towards girls spreads the disease even further.

Morrell and Makhaye examine two projects that work with young men. The first is the Shosholoza AIDS project, which aimed to raise AIDS awareness by working with young men of about 16, whereas it had previously worked with young women but with no discernible effect on reducing the spread of HIV. Part of the work examined gender roles and presented positive visions of masculinity and fatherhood as well as promoting women's rights as human rights. Traditional cultural values supported the rights of men to have many sexual partners and to dictate the terms of sexual intercourse and, in addition, poverty had limited the possibility of the young men expressing their masculinity in healthy ways. The second is the Inkusi Isematholeni project, which focused on boys of 11-15 and which aimed to support the development of boys into good fathers and sexually responsible partners. All the boys in the project were at school. A part from the content of sex education, there was an emphasis on participation and encouraging the boys to think for themselves. Caring behaviour was fostered by establishing vegetable gardens at the schools to provide food for the younger children and by planting indigenous trees which the boys were also responsible for. The idea was to introduce the participants to caring for and supporting others.

The boys discussed violence, including sexual and domestic violence, and gradually began to identify the failings of men rather than

168

GENDER, EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT

just focusing on female weaknesses. They referred to problems such as a lack of communication and understanding within relationships, to infidelity, alcohol abuse and unemployment. Men who had no income from employment failed to meet family expectations of providing and responded by exerting their power over women or by becoming jealous of their successful partners. As a result of these discussions and activities, the boys expressed contrition for their past actions and identified positive courses of action for the future. In both projects there was evidence of increased awareness of women's rights and a commitment to the equal distribution of domestic work between boys and girls. By the end of the workshops most felt that they had no right to force a girl to have sex and had become much more confident about talking about difficult emotional and relational issues. The authors conclude that the two projects succeeded because

they involve young men in activities that improve their self knowledge and analytical skills. They develop confidence in themselves and trust in the facilitators. They are given a supportive environment in which to express difficult emotions. They are not interpolated as oppressors of women or perpetrators of violence ... They also come to realise that they can have healthier relationships with other people and lead happier lives by developing new models of masculine behaviour which do not include any recourse to violence. (p. 160)

Conclusion

Gender equality is a significant social issue and a concern for education globally. However, it is particularly important for international development for reasons set out at the beginning of this chapter. Considerable progress has been made in relation to equal access to and outcomes from education, though there is still much to do. Within debates about gender equality the need to end gender violence and sexual harassment in schools is a priority and it is here that the role of masculinities is so important. There are now many projects concerned with reducing notions of masculinity based on violence and aggression. However, while many of these take place with young people of school age and within schools, they are often not part of mainstream schooling and not therefore necessarily sustainable. At the moment both schools and teacher education do not seem to be providing sufficient opportunities for the examination and discussion of gender and masculinity, and an institutional culture that is more conducive to gender equality, even though knowledge and resources on how to do so exist.

169

Clive Harber

References

Action Aid (2009) Hate Crimes: the rise of 'corrective' rape in South Africa. London: Action Aid.

Aikman, S., Halai, A. & Rubagiza, J. (2011) Conceptualising Gender Equality in Research on Education Quality, Comparative Education, 47(1), 45-60.

Arnot, M. & Fennell, S. (2008) Gendered Education and National Development: critical perspectives and new research, Compare, 38(5), 515-524.

Bhana, D., Nzimakwe, T. & Nzimakwe, P. (2011) Gender in the Early Years: boys and girls in an African working class school, International Journal of Educational Development, 31(5), 443-448.

Chikoko, V., Gilmour, J., Harber, C. & Serf, J. (2011) Teaching Controversial Issues in England and South Africa, Journal of Education for Teaching, 37(1), 5-19.

Connell, R. (2000) Arms and the Man: using the new research on masculinity to understand violence and promote peace in the contemporary world, in I. Breines, R. Connell & I. Eide (Eds) Male Roles, Masculinities and Violence. Paris: UNESCO.

Dunne, M. (2007) Gender, Sexuality and Schooling: everyday life in junior secondary schools in Botswana and Ghana, International Journal of Educational Development, 27(5), 499-511.

Elsanousi, M.M. (2004) Strategies and Approaches to Enhance the Role of Men and Boys in Gender Equality: a case study from Yemen, in S. Ruxton (Ed.) Gender Equality and Men: learning from practice. Oxford: Oxfam.

Greig, A., Kimmel, M. & Lang, J. (2000) Men, Masculinities and Development. UNDP Monograph 10. http://un.by/pdf/UNDP_Men_and_Masculinities- 26557.pdf

Gulbenkian Foundation (1995) Children and Violence. London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.

Harber, C. & Serf, J. (2006) Teacher Education for a Democratic Society in England and South Africa, Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(8), 986-997.

Leach, F. & Mitchell, C. (2006) Combating Gender Violence in and around Schools. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.

Morrell, R. (1998) Gender and Education: the place of masculinity in South African schools, South African Journal of Education, 18, 218-225.

Morrell, R. (2001a) The Time of Change: men and masculinity in South Africa, in R. Morrell (Ed.) Changing Men in South Africa. Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal Press and Zed Books.

Morrell, R. (2001b) Corporal Punishment and Masculinity in South African Schools, Men and Masculinity, 4(2), 140-157.

Morrell, R. & Makhaye, G. (2006) Working not Blaming: masculinity work with young African men in KwaZulu-Natal, in F. Leach & C. Mitchell (Eds) Combating Gender Violence in and around Schools. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.

170

http://un.by/pdf/UNDP

GENDER, EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Murphy-Graham, E. (2009) Constructing a New Vision: undoing gender through secondary education in Honduras, International Review ofEducation, 55(5-6), 503-521.

Pinheiro, P. (2006) World Report on Violence Against Children. Geneva: United Nations.

PLAN (2008) The Global Campaign to End Violence in Schools. Woking: PLAN.

Ruxton, S. (Ed.) (2004) Gender Equality and Men: learning from practice. Oxford: Oxfam.

Salisbury, J. & Jackson, D. (1996) Challenging Macho Values. London: Falmer Press.

UNESCO (2003/04) Gender and Education for All: the leap to equality. EFA Global Monitoring Report. Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO (2012a) Youth and Skills, Putting Education to Work. EFA Global Monitoring Report. Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO (2012b) Education Sector Responses to Homophobic Bullying. Paris: UNESCO.

Woolley, R. (2007) What Makes Men? Masculinity, Violence and Identity, in C. Harber & J. Serf (Eds) Comparative Education and Quality Global Learning. Birmingham: Teachers in Development Education.