Education as an arena for anti-feminism: devaluation of femininity in primary education

ABSTRACT

In the European context, there have been discussions for many years about how the number of female and male teachers in primary education should be more balanced. This story is also linked to the deteriorating school performance of boys, who are perceived as lacking male role models in schools. Thus, the feminization of primary education is often seen as an undesirable condition that should be rectified. This pejorative perception of feminization of education is related to the broader trends of anti-feminist politics, and this anti-feminist backlash is gradually being introduced into education as well. This article presents two case studies, Germany and Czechia. The analysis is based on data collected in 2015–2020 from ethnographic research in elementary schools, data from analysis of policy documents and media output, data from a systematic literature review, and quantitative research. In conclusion, three re-masculinization strategies used to devalue femininity in education are presented. First, ‘female climate’ as a reason for boys’ failure; second, father figures missing in education; third, promoting ‘gender diversity ‘as pretext to bring back more men and masculinity. All strategies share an antifeminist core because they all devalue women and femininity and reinforce the current gender order.

KEYWORDS:

• Anti-feminist politics; feminization; education; male teachers; re-masculinization

Introduction

The call for more male teachers in schools is omnipresent in many geographical contexts. These challenges occur primarily in the primary education environment, where women outnumber men. There have been discussions for many years about how the number of female and male teachers in primary education should be more balanced and how it is therefore necessary to lure more male teachers into this environment (e.g. Hurrelmann and Schultz 2012; Rolfe 2006). Another part of this story is also linked to the deteriorating school performance of boys, who are perceived as lacking male role models in schools (Connell 2000; Martino 2014). The feminization of primary education is thus often framed in this context as an undesirable condition that should be rectified.

This pejorative perception of the feminization of education is related to the broader trends of anti-feminist politics, which have become increasingly important in the Euro-American environment in recent years (Goetz and Mayer 2023). This anti-feminist backlash is gradually being introduced into education as well. Some researchers have already pointed out that the feminization of primary education is being used as an attack on feminism and its ideas (Martino 2008; Skelton 2002). This backlash may manifest itself in an attempt to re-masculinize primary education, thus also in emphasizing the need for more men, as we will point out in this article.

Since anti-feminist politics threatens both democratic principles in general (Kováts 2017; Köttig, Bitzan, and Petö 2017) and democratic principles in education, it is important to examine in detail how they specifically affect the field of education. In this light, the aim of our article is twofold. First, we want to examine what anti-feminist strategies are being used in the field of education. We will show this using the example of two case studies from the Czech Republic and Germany. However, since anti-feminist politics can be defined as transnational (Kuhar and Paternotte 2017), it is possible to apply it to different geographical contexts where similar discussions are taking place.

The second aim of our article is to conceptually broaden the use of the concept of feminization in the sense of a deliberate strategy of anti-feminist politics. Skelton (2002) points out that feminization can be defined in three ways – statistically, culturally and politically¹ – while anti-feminist politics can be explicitly observed in the political definition of feminization. Skelton understands the concept of feminization here more as the description of a status. We will build on this knowledge and show that the other two definitions of feminization are used in the same way. Furthermore, it will be shown that feminization is more of a process. The new contribution of this article is that it will not only describe that this process is taking place, but also present the specific re-masculinization strategies and how they are used.

In the article we will first present the definition of anti-feminist politics we apply and how re-masculinization strategies manifest in primary education. The focus here, is mainly on primary education, as this field of education has been particularly discussed in the public media in both countries, Germany and Czechia. Then we will focus on our two case studies, followed by the specific strategies that are used in this context. The article will conclude by discussing whether the demand for more men in primary education does not bring more troubles than benefits.

Anti-feminism and re-masculinization

Anti-feminism can be understood as a collective or umbrella term for different understandings and conceptualizations such as ‘anti-genderism’ or ‘anti-gender campaigns’. These various terms are often taken as synonyms or show a large overlap in their definitions. Moreover, the terms anti-feminism or anti-genderism are used variously in different national contexts (Henniger 2020). Due to the multitude of attempts to define anti-feminism, we will present and argue for our framing of anti-feminism in this section.

Henniger (2020, 15) understands anti-feminism ‘as an analytical structural concept’ that refers in its orientation to feminist movements as a counter-horizon. In this way, feminism is conceived as an intersectional project that aims to overturn social relations of domination and is thus linked to the democratization and denormalization of gender relations. Accordingly, anti-feminist agitation strives to prevent and reverse feminist politics of emancipation in order to maintain the hegemonic gender order and the privileges embedded in it. In doing so, anti-feminist approaches refer to those areas of society where feminist aspirations are visible and perceived as particularly far-reaching. In this context, Schmincke (2018) argues that modernity is characterized by contradictions and uncertainties. For example, women demand equality for themselves, which means a break-up of the hegemonic gender order and can therefore be associated with fears and losses. Schmincke (2018) interprets anti-feminism as a reaction to the emerging ambivalences and contradictions of modernity. Studies have repeatedly shown to the importance of education and educational institutions as points of attack for anti-feminist agitations and strategies (Nyklová and Fárová 2018; Oldemeier et al. 2020; Skelton 2002).

Scholars have been able to identify various anti-feminist strategies aimed at reclaiming the field of education. Different argumentation bases can be identified that attempt to justify an anti-feminist approach. Scheele (2016) states that anti-feminism has undergone a thematic shift. Whereas previously the focus was on men and masculinity and the supposed threat posed by feminism and the associated women and femininity, anti-feminism now is centred around the threat to the traditional family. In the following, two ways of reclaiming become significant for anti-feminism. One is re-masculinization, which we frame according to Martino (2014), and delegitimization, which is defined by Oldemeier et al. (2020).

Martino (2008) refers to the ongoing trend of re-masculinization, which is exemplified by the discussion about male role models. Re-masculinization is described by Martino (2008, 195) as ‘a project […], committed to an investment in maintaining stereotypical appearances and naturalizing heterosexuality by denying the contradictory effects of gender relations, that has a historical legacy’. Inherent in this project is the dominance and supremacy of masculinity over femininity. Thus, ‘re-masculinization is committed to reinforcing a system of gender polarization that is grounded in a repudiation of the feminine’ (Butler 1993 quoted in Martino 2008).

Oldemeier et al. (2020) analyse anti-feminist discursive strategies in the discussion about sex education in Germany. Sex education is perceived as a threat to the traditional family by anti-feminist movements, as the naturalness of the family is challenged. The child is given an essential role here, as the main argument is the threat to the child’s well-being. Oldemeier et al. (2020) point out that all patterns of argumentation against sex education aim at delegitimizing certain pedagogical fields.

Following Henniger (2020), we understand anti-feminism as a social movement that tries to prevent and reverse feminist achievements of emancipation. The aim is to maintain the current gender order and the privileges it contains. For the field of education as an arena for anti-feminist agitation, two ways of reclaiming show up as important for us: First, re-masculinization, which focuses on the threat to masculinity posed by girls’ emancipation movements, visible in the change in educational achievements. And second, the protection of the traditional family. Thus, according to these anti-feminist strategies, we will examine the demand for ‘more men’ and the related discussion of the ‘boys’ crisis’ in Germany and Czechia. Connected to this is also the conceptualization of the term ‘feminization’, which plays a central role in the debates.

Case studies

In this article, we will first analyse two countries as case studies: Germany and Czechia. We chose Germany and Czechia primarily because we are native speakers in those countries and debates about the feminization of education are held in respective national languages. The analysis is based on our knowledge of the environment, as we both have long-term experience in research on gender issues in primary education. With regard to the topic of this article, we re-analysed our PhD data collected in 2015-2020. The data includes different forms; from ethnographic research in elementary schools focused on male teachers (Czechia), data from analysis of educational policy documents (Czechia), and data from a systematic literature review as well as quantitative research about beliefs around masculinity of professionals working in education (Germany). At the same time, we also analysed the latest media output related to the topic of male teachers and feminization (Czechia and Germany). The data were carried out as part of our PhD studies, one at the University of West Bohemia (Czechia) and one at Bielefeld University (Germany). The research and its methodology were assessed and verified several times during our PhDs to meet all ethical standards.

The analysis below is based on the use of thematic coding to identify key patterns in our data from both countries. In the analysis we relied on techniques of critical discourse theory (Reyes 2011), focusing specifically on regularities, arguments, and interpretative repertoires used when feminization of education was discussed. Some of them can be understood as anti-feminist, and those are the ones we focus on here. These anti-feminist argumentations are understood to be discursive practices because they work as a network of different statements and are built on the assumption of problematizing feminization in education. These strategies are considered anti-feminist because there is no empirical research evidence to date that claim women as teachers have a negative influence on boys and their educational success (Helbig 2010; Johnson 2008). The aim of these discursive practices is the re-masculinization of the field of education. Three re-masculinization strategies were identified in both countries. These strategies were not the only ones present, but they were the ones most visible. They directed the entire public debate and permeated all levels of it.

After presenting the two case studies, we focus on discursive practices of re-masculinization strategies. Our aim is to cover the public debate as a whole and follow the ideas that are circulating in the field of education. Therefore, we are not concerned with the strategies put forward by representatives of anti-feminist movements only, but with the overall message of the debate concerning the feminization of primary education, coming also for example from politicians, journalists, educational experts and teachers themselves.

The advantage and limitation of our research is to focus on two specific contexts of Germany and Czechia. On the one hand, our knowledge is limited by these geographical contexts. On the other hand, anti-gender tendencies or arguments have an international aspect and form similarly across different geographical contexts. At the same time, we bring to the discussion the important and sometimes neglected perspective of a post-communist country from Central Europe.

Feminization debate in Germany

Feminization debates can be identified in German-speaking countries even before the discussion about the ‘boys’ crisis’ began. Historically, the opening of educational and pedagogical professions for women was always linked to a debate about ‘feminization’, i.e. alleged dangers through the feminization of these professions (cf. Faulstich-Wieland 2012). In the course of the proclaimed ‘boys’ crisis’, an intensive debate about feminization can again be observed, conducted on different levels or in different fields, such as politics, public media, and academia. Even though a discussion about the educational successes or educational failures of boys in Germany had already been taking place since the 1990s, the debate intensified in the 2000s. This was mainly related to the publication of the PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) study, which was used as empirical evidence in Germany that boys were now the new disadvantaged group compared to girls (cf. Budde and Rieske 2022). In 2002, Heike Diefenbach and Michael Klein published an article entitled ‘Bringing boys back in’, where they made the connection between boys’ educational failures and the low number of male teachers in the profession (Diefenbach and Klein 2002). With this contribution, both laid the foundation for further anti-feminist action within the debate. For example, Heike Diefenbach repeatedly argued against the state-feminist orientation of educational research (Diefenbach 2010). In the case of both Heike Diefenbach and Michael Klein, a clear relationship to right-wing networks in the German-speaking world can be discerned. Together they founded the anti-feminist platform ‘sciencefiles.org’, which is part of a right-wing network in Germany.² Even though Heike Diefenbach and Martin Klein are only two persons, both managed to be very present in the discourse. What is problematic here is that Heike Diefenbach repeatedly became part of anthologies on this topic, where she was given the platform to continue spreading her anti-feminist arguments.

The cause of boys’ failure at school was quickly linked to the ‘feminization’ of the field and the associated absence of men. For example, Spiegel reported on 12 March 2009 that schools massively disadvantages boys. The cause of the problem, Spiegel went on to write, is that ‘Kitas and primary schools are firmly in female hands’. Similar formulations can also be found in other media at the time.

For Germany, the question of a ‘male quota’ for educational institutions was raised, which was controversially discussed especially within educational science (Hurrelmann and Schultz 2012; critically Rose and May 2014). Within this debate, it could also be observed at an early stage that the problematization of feminization often took place with the help of anti-feminist argumentation. In this context, for example, the argument was raised that the ideology of state feminism had dominated educational research for a long time and thus the situation of boys was being neglected (Diefenbach 2010). Although feminist scholars repeatedly took a stand on such argumentations (cf. Forster 2007; Pangritz 2020; Rieske 2012), the assumption that feminization posed a threat to boys’ educational achievements remained stable in the media and education policy discourse.

Even though the connection between feminization and the educational failures of boys was not given sufficient empiric investigation in the 2000s, about 10 years after the publication of the first PISA study, model projects were launched to increase the proportion of male professionals in the education sector. In 2011, one of the most popular model projects, ‘More Men in Kitas’, was launched, which was financially supported by the Ministry of Family Affairs under Kristina Schröder³ in Germany. In an interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine, Schröder described early childhood as well as school education as poor because of the lack of male role models in these areas (cf. Bohmeyer 2012). The model projects to increase the number of males were thus part of her new gender equality policy, in which she also focused more on boys as a disadvantaged group (cf. also Icken 2012). The model project ‘More Men in Kitas’ or the follow-up project ran until summer 2020.

Feminization debate in Czechia

Debates about the feminization of Czech education started to open in Czechia mainly around 2009, when an international conference called Men in Schools took place at the Ministry of Education.⁴ The conference was held under the auspices of then Minister of Education Ondřej Liška (Green Party). Many voices in Czechia from educational and political backgrounds, point out at this conference the need to have more men in schools, mainly to provide male role models for children.

In general, we can witness a tendency in Czech society to see the female teacher as a symbol of the current rigid primary education that needs reform and on the contrary to see male teacher as a symbol of change (Fárová 2015; 2018). The perceived need for male teachers as role models has been documented at a government level, where this issue is addressed in strategic documents of the Ministry of Education and of the Office of the Government, and also in the media. A substantial part of the media space is dominated by the issue of boys’ worsening school performance. This worsening is mainly linked to feminized primary education, as female teachers are seen as people whose teaching style automatically suits and gives preference to girls (Fárová 2018).

In the context of boys’ worsening school performance and its connection with the feminization of education, it is important to look at when education began to be feminized in Czechia. Primary education began to become feminized mainly in the 1960s (up to 70% of all teachers were women and 30% men by the end of the 1960s), with 84% of primary school teachers being women by the end of the 1980s (Gobyová 1994). The worsening school performance of boys has only started to be talked about in the media in recent years, mainly in the context of the prevalence of women as secondary school and university graduates; women made up more than 60% of all university graduates in 2020 (Koubayová 2022). It is therefore unclear why female teachers are blamed for boys’ results, although the feminization of education in the Czech Republic has been observed for many years, even in times when boys’ results were at least comparable to those of girls and men dominated universities. One of the reasons why this is happening is probably the increasingly frequent turn to gender conservative values and the rise of anti-gender movements that we are witnessing in the CEE region (Nyklová and Fárová 2018; Slačálek 2021).

In the last few years, the framing of feminization of education as a problem is starting to be used by some Czech politicians who can be described as ‘members’ of the Czech anti-gender movement scene. The most visible example is member of parliament Nina Nováková, who regularly speaks out publicly against gender issues and initiatives. In the last election, she ran as a non-party candidate for the KDU-ČSL (Christian and Democratic Union – Czechoslovak People’s Party), which is the only influential religious-oriented political party in Czechia. In 2016, Nina Nováková conducted a seminar on the floor of the Chamber of Deputies about Czech education, where she spoke about feminization as follows: ‘The link between the uncomfortable situation of boys and feminization of regional education is likely.’⁵ Similarly, one of the leading figures of the Czech anti-gender organization Aliance pro rodinu (Alliance for Family) Jana Jochová, said in 2021 that ‘the main problem of Czech education is feminization. Unfortunately, this is addressed in the approved gender equality plan only in one of the last places, i.e. not at all’.⁶ Alliance for Family is one of the most visible and influential players in the field of anti-gender movement, closely tied to religious and far-right groups.

Re-masculinization strategies

Even if differences can be observed between Germany and the Czech Republic about the timing and the concrete educational policy approach to ‘feminization’, there is a great deal of overlap in the lines of argumentation and the presentation of the potential threat of feminized education for boys or the feminization of education in general. In the following paragraphs, we will explore these arguments and elaborate on the re-masculinization strategies circulating within the feminization debate.

Martino (2014, 30) emphasizes in this context that the demand for more male professionals is meant to address the ‘problem of feminization’. Simply by being physically present, men are supposedly able to counteract the negative effects caused by feminization. This section will address which problems or negative effects are attributed to the feminization of education. We have attempted to separate the strategies presented as much as possible for analytical purposes, but they are inherently intertwined and doing so is not always possible.

‘Female climate’ as a reason for boys’ failure

The first level of problematization of feminization emphasizes the difference between the two genders, man and woman or boy and girl, and focuses on the resulting discrepancy in the educational process. The two genders are placed in a binary relationship to each other, as in other areas of society, which negates similarities between the groups and differences within the group. This results in the assumption that the feminization of the educational system is to the disadvantage of boys and the advantage of girls, since school and teaching climates are allegedly more attuned to girls’ needs, or a feminine teaching climate is created through the high number of female teachers. In this logic, masculine behaviour or behaviour that is constructed as typically boyish is sanctioned in the feminized educational context (cf. Forster 2007; Helbig 2010). In this approach, the sanction against boys arises from a lack of understanding on the part of female teachers: they penalize boyish behaviour because they are not in a position to understand it due to different socialization experiences and also because they perceive it as disturbing in the first place. The demand in Germany and Czechia to increase the number of male teachers is thus linked to the argument of setting a contrast to the feminized, female teaching/learning climate and creating an understanding for boys in the educational process that ties in with the discursive triangle of boys-male-masculinity (Budde and Rieske 2022). Accordingly, boys can only learn how masculinity works through men and only men can accordingly understand the needs and behaviours of boys.

In German and Czech media, the problematization of the female environment for boys is repeatedly evident (i.e. Aktuálně.cz 2009; Bild 2023; Der Spiegel 2009; Lidovky.cz 2019). For example, we can read Czech media articles claiming that, ‘The problem [of unequal grading of boys and girls] is also caused by the fact that the teaching profession is mainly held by women’ (Lidovky.cz 2019). Similar narratives can also be observed for the German context. For example, DER SPIEGEL reported in 2009 that the school system puts boys at a disadvantage. The reason for this disadvantage lies in the female character of the education system. According to DER SPIEGEL, the reason is that day-care centres and elementary schools are firmly in female hands. This narrative continues to this day. In 2023, for example, the Bild newspaper points out that female teachers and educators are orienting their programmes more toward girls and that the lack of men in the education sector can be used as an explanation for the poor performance of boys.

Thus, feminization and the resulting lack of male role models are problematized, as female teachers are supposedly not able to meet male requirements. This problematization is also evident within the German-language academic debate. In 2012, an edited volume was published (Hurrelmann and Schultz 2012) which discussed the necessity of a male quota for the German education sector and in its structure made a simplified ‘pro’ and ‘contra’ comparison. Therefore, this volume contains contributions arguing both for and against male quotas. Even though not all supporters of the male quota can be classified as anti-feminist, it is also evident in this volume that some authors describe feminization as negative for boys. The feminization thesis is thus used as a starting point for the demand for more men. In the process, the professional competences of female teachers are repeatedly ignored and men are constructed as the solution due to their gender. In the Czech academic debate, similar indications occur, albeit marginally. One example is a study suggesting a link between the feminization of education and the supposed phenomenon of failing boys,⁷ but this study contradicts decades of research on gender inequalities between female and male pupils and rejects the gender perspective in social science and qualitative research in general.

Within this strategy, the supposedly ‘natural’ gender characteristics are reproduced and consolidated. Moreover, the two exclusive gender groups (female vs. male) are placed in an antinomic relationship with each other: the two groups cannot understand each other and accordingly do not support each other pedagogically. In this line of reasoning, female teachers are unable to understand boys and their behaviour, and teacher interventions consequently fail. In this logic, male teachers are required to provide boys with guidance. With men, they find a form of understanding that female teachers are not capable of. Not only are the professional competencies of female teachers questioned, but the demand for more male teachers is based on the supposed natural difference between men and women, and boys and girls. At the same time, it is quite obvious that trans or non-binary children fall completely outside of these debates. This leads to a re-masculinization in educational institutions based on a heteronormative gender order.

‘Missing father figures’ in education

Furthermore, the feminization of education and educational institutions is criticized concerning the classic heteronormative family structure. The increasing number of single mothers is highlighted as problematic because this family structure means that boys lack male role models in the form of the father (Brandes, Andrä, and Röseler 2012). Against this background, feminization is denounced because it does not provide role models to fill the father’s void. This requirement is also accompanied by the assumption that classic heteronormative family structures must be reflected in educational institutions and are indispensable for children’s ‘healthy’ development.

Not only should the heteronormative family structure be reflected in the absolute numbers of men and women in educational institutions, but also in specific educational styles. In Germany, one can find statements that contrast a paternal and maternal style of education, associating the paternal style with confrontational pedagogy (Tischner 2008). The confrontational, paternal part in educational institutions is supposed to contrast with the feminine, motherly and soft style. In the German-language public discussion about the demand for ‘more men’, a form of masculinity can also be identified, which Diewald (2018, 201) describes as a ‘punishing and threatening educator’. This figure of the punishing and threatening educator follows traditional notions of fatherhood in order to tame the ‘wild boys’ and thus release them from their crisis (cf. Diewald 2018). In this context, critical voices repeatedly argue that the tendency towards punishment and thus towards a punitive style of education is related to anti-democratic attitudes (Pangritz and Berghan 2020) and thus reproduces power relations in the field of education (Pangritz 2019).

We can find similar examples in the Czech context as well. In Czech primary education a male teacher is seen as ‘a dignified purveyor of education and a female teacher as a distracted nanny deformed by her profession’ (Václavíková Helšusová 2007, 39). Furthermore, male teachers are also associated with increased discipline. As Fárová (2019) points out, in the heteronormative setting of primary education, a man is seen as a father figure who should solve problems in a different way than his female colleagues or a mother in general. Male teachers are expected to be authoritative and able to intervene (physically) or fairly assess the situation, as we can observe in this citation:

We had a hyperactive little boy here, he was on medication, and one time he had a total meltdown. My female colleague came up to me and said, ‘Come help us handle the boy in there.’ So they pulled me in, he bit me, we struggled, the situation was tense. It wasn’t even that my colleague couldn’t handle him, it was just such an instinct that even at home, when Mom and Dad are there, there are things that Dad deals with. And as we substitute these ‘extended family hands’ at school, it can happen. (research participant, male teacher, cited in Fárová 2019, 76).

In both countries we can thus observe that heteronormative family structures are applied as guiding principles for educational institutions. This orientation not only neglects and ignores perspectives that do not correspond to this model, it also devalues them as insufficient and threatening. Single mothers are constructed as insufficient in this context. LGBTQ + families usually do not appear at all in this discussion and are ignored. They do not seem to represent any part of this reality. Female professionals in educational institutions, like single mothers, are also insufficient and need to be complemented by a male or ‘fatherly’ part. It becomes apparent that heteronormative family structures are used as an argument to increase the number of men in educational institutions. This strategy builds on the devaluation of non-heteronormative family structures and serves re-masculinization. It also becomes apparent here that two re-masculinization strategies are combined: The dramatization of non-heteronormative families as a threat to boys’ development, which is then used as a pretext to call for more men in education.

Promoting ‘gender diversity’

The third strategy differs from the previous ones in that it is positively attuned. We can see a tendency here to justify the need for more male teachers in primary education through an emphasis on diversity and equality. The basic premise of this strategy is that when both male and female teachers are in primary education in similar numbers, it will not only be for the benefit of children, but also for education itself. There is a clear reference to democratic or feminist principles of equality, which are perceived as inherently correct and the goal of general society should be to implement them.

In other words, using this strategy involves a certain robbing of feminist ideas and transforming them for other purposes. Although it is more subtle and hidden, the presumption remains that the feminization of primary education is a threat. In Czechia in recent years, there has been a tendency for anti-gender movements or anti-gender politicians to seize on gender equality in matters of feminization of education. As we can see, for example, in the presentation of the aforementioned politician Nina Nováková, the argument is often that ‘feminization impacts teachers, schools and pupils in such a way that it promotes gender stereotypes’, because women themselves do not bring enough diversity.

In the academic and political debate in Germany, the emphasis on a kind of ‘alternative masculinity’, which enters the field of education through the elevation of men, is repeatedly evident (Cremers and Krabel 2012; Fegter 2012). This is supposed to strengthen diversity and help boys to also develop an alternative masculinity. However, it is problematic that there are only a few empirical studies on the construction of masculinity in the field of education and that these mostly show an ambivalent picture of masculinity (Buschmeyer 2013; Diewald 2018; Pangritz 2019). In many cases we can observe recourse to a hegemonic masculinity. For example, images of hegemonic masculinity are evident in the public campaign to increase the number of men in education. Also, studies show that hegemonic practices take place in the field of education. Inherent in these is the devaluation of women and repeated emphasis on one’s own masculine ability (Buschmeyer 2013; Pangritz 2020). Accordingly, it is rather evident that gender relations also persist in the field of education and that diversity is only represented to a limited extent. In the German context, it is clear that there is a drifting apart between wishful thinking and political realization. Attention is not being paid to what diversity still means, namely the recognition of other genders.

We can also see this strategy as a strategy of concealment – an attempt to use the concept of diversity to indirectly promote conservative values. One reason this strategy can be successful is that in today’s society it is safer and more effective to promote diversity and equality. At the same time, it can disarm objections coming from feminist positions. It is not our aim to claim, that every policy using a ‘gender diversity’ argument is anti-feminist. There are many good examples of how to approach topics of gender equality and intersectionality that do not devalue femininity or reproduce anti-feminist argumenta in education (usually concepts such as ‘Boys Days’ in primary or elementary schools). Our aim is to highlight that some conservative personas or institutions are often borrowing this original feminist argument to promote conservative values. Bridges and Pascoe (2018, 264) have already drawn attention to the fact that hegemonic masculinity is also transformed through ‘strategically borrowing’. In this context, borrowing the characteristics of marginalized groups serves to disguise and hide the privileges that exist.

Therefore, it is crucial to point out what type of diversity is being promoted. The requirement of diversity implies that men are clearly separable from women and bring something completely different to primary education. This means that what is being promoted is a specific type of conservative or hegemonic masculinity that is meant to be superior to femininity as well as other types of masculinities. The discussion in Germany and Czechia is not about involving, for example, more Muslim, Roma or gay male teachers. It prefers the white, heterosexual and non-overtly religious male.

It is therefore impossible to speak of intersectional feminist diversity, as the concept of diversity is very narrow in this strategy. Anti-feminist aspects here include the lack of intersectionality as well as the support for only specific (conservatives) types of masculinity and femininity. It is also crucial to focus our attention on where this strategy is being pursued; this so-called gender diversity is promoted in feminized education, but not for example in politics. According to this logic, the prevalence of men is not considered a problem, while the prevalence of women is.

Conclusion

In Germany as well as in Czechia, we can observe an ongoing, intensive debate about feminization taking place on different levels. The topic is widely discussed in educational policy, in the media, and in the public discourse. In addition, the time periods of the debate overlap, even though a historically enduring discussion on feminization can be identified in Germany. Furthermore, references to anti-feminist or anti-genderism argumentation and perspectives can be identified in both countries.

In this article three re-masculinization strategies used to devalue women and femininity in education were presented. First, the ‘female climate’ as a reason for boys’ failure; second, father figures missing in education; third, promoting ‘gender diversity’. We consider all of these strategies to be anti-feminist. All strategies devalue women and femininity, not only by emphasizing differences between men and women, but also by exposing a clear hierarchy between masculinity and femininity. This prioritization of masculinity thus reproduces the current gender order. Originally neutral or feminist arguments in an anti-feminist context also become anti-feminist.

So, there is unfortunately no neutral way to talk about feminization. As Skelton (2002) suggested, anti-feminist politics can be explicitly observed in the political definition of feminization. We argue that anti-feminist politics can be observed also in the statistical and cultural level of feminization. According to our analyses, feminization is always perceived as problematic and connected to the devaluation of female teachers and their work in the public debate. We claim that the three levels of feminization are intertwined and not separable and all of them can be used against gender equality in the end.

Not only actors of anti-feminist movements or political parties, but also some academics, media and teachers themselves use these re-masculinization strategies. We want to highlight that these discursive practices are present at every level of society and supported (consciously or unconsciously) by very different groups. Organized anti-feminist movements are setting the agenda and they are purposefully raising certain topics to influence the public opinion. However, this ‘need to have more men in education’ argument also comes from within.

Further research on feminization in education is needed, especially empirical research. It would be beneficial to include an international perspective, as anti-feminist politics are transnational. The strategies we described can work in other contexts too, especially if we focus on the ‘failing boys’ issue. The biggest challenge, however, is to find a way to talk about feminization without devaluing femininity and female teachers.

Geolocation information

Germany and Czech Republic.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the University of Hradec Králové (Univerzita Hradec Králové) under grant IRT – New perspectives on feminization [number 2205/03]. The data used were part of the authors PhD projects for which there was no funding.

Notes on contributors

Johanna Maria Pangritz

Johanna Maria Pangritz is a Posdoc at the Potsdam University in the Department of Education and Socialization Theory. She is also a Research Fellow at the Department of Sociology at the University of Hradec Králové (Czech Republic), where she is working on the negotiation of feminization in the context of education in Germany and the Czech Republic as backlash politics. Her research also explores how masculinity is negotiated in the context of education and how masculinity can be transformed through education.

Nina Andrš Fárová

Nina Andrš Fárová is an assistant professor at the University of Hradec Králové where she teaches gender theory, science and technology studies and qualitative methodology. She is also a postdoctoral researcher at the Centre for Gender and Science at the Institute of Sociology, Czech Academy of Sciences, where she focuses on the topic of gender and technology. For her Ph.D. project, she had been conducting ethnographic research into the Czech educational system, focusing on the issue of men and masculinity in a feminized context. Currently she is a member of an international research project on gender division of labour in smart homes SmartUp (EU CHANSE), within which she co-leads ethnographic research in three European countries.

Notes

1 Three definitions of feminization: statistical – to indicate the number of women teachers in relation to men teachers; cultural – where the teaching environment is seen to be biased towards females; political – ‘backlash’ politics (Skelton 2002, 85).

2 Heike Diefenbach filed a complaint against the classification as a right-wing network, but her complaint failed in court, meaning that the network can officially be called part of a right-wing network (cf. Frankfurter Rundschau 2019).

3 Kristina Schröder was Minister for Family Affairs in 2009–2013, during which time she was responsible for restructuring the gender equality policy. She set up a department for boys, whose main aim was to improve the educational situation of boys (cf. Bohmeyer 2012).

4 Conference link: https://www.msmt.cz/mladez/konference-muzi-do-skol

5 Presentation link: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ZjgT9-2uluz3AyuRjXG6Jaz7mA6MisVIkhUBxEDThco/edit#slide=id.p46

6 Article link: https://proped.cz/plan-rovnosti-pohlavi-ve-skolstvi-vzbuzuje-kontroverzni-reakce/

7 Matějů and Simonová (2013).