Tokenism - The relevance of numerical proportion

Rosabeth Moss ^{Kanter (1977}, 1993) pioneered the study of tokenism theory by studying group dynamics and gender inequalities in organisational contexts. Her theory has underpinned various research studies oriented towards analysing the effects of numerical balance and distortion in relationships and between the groups constituted, especially based on gender (^{Santos & Amâncio, 2014}).

In her study, carried out in the United States of America, Kanter analysed the organisational dynamics in a context marked by the under-representation of one group (women) in relation to another (men), thus understanding how the interaction between both was affected by the very marked numerical imbalance and to what type of consequences women were subjected as members of the under-represented group. The author concluded that the numerical proportion of the groups is a fundamental factor in social life and that this has effects on the interactions established between the members of each group (Kanter, 1977, 1993).

^{Kanter (1993}) began by defining four types of groups existing in an organisational context, categorising them by the numerical proportion of their composition: i) the “uniform groups”, homogeneous, made up of only one socially significant category in a proportion of 100:0; ii) the “skewed groups”, made up of a proportion of about 85:15, in which one category predominates and the “phenomenon of tokenism” occurs. The author designates the members of majority groups as “dominant” because they control the group and its culture, and the minority category individuals as “tokens”, “loners” or “solos”, as if single individuals. The tokens are so named because they are treated as representative of their social category, as “examples” or “symbols”, rather than as individuals; iii) the “tilted groups” have a 65:35 ratio, with less extreme distributions and effects in interactions, because there is greater numerical balance between the majority (dominant) and minority (dominated). Minority individuals become allies and may create coalitions and affect the culture of the group, thereby becoming differentiated from one another; and iv) “balanced groups” are composed of a ratio ranging from 60:40 to 50:50, with the culture and interactions reflecting this numerical balance.

According to this author, in contexts where there is a numerical balance between the groups, the organisational dynamics should be more positive. Focusing on a context of skewed groups, ^{Kanter (1977}, 1993) concludes that, in comparison with the dominant group, tokens are disadvantaged and subject to three negative consequences: i) high visibility, leading to additional pressures to turn in good performance levels in an attempt to meet the expectations of the dominant group, which may cause their performance to increase or decrease; ii) contrast or polarisation of the differences in relation to the dominant group, which, due to their minority situation, may lead to their isolation or accommodation or even attempts to integrate into the dominant group; and iii) assimilation of the stereotypes attributed to their social group by the dominant group members in order to meet their expectations, which may prevent free expression and thus lead to their further marginalisation.

Tokenism from a gender perspective

One current of research has criticized Kanter’s perspective by arguing that gender-neutral, numerical proportion-based analysis is insufficient to fully understand the “phenomenon of tokenism” (^{Budig, 2002}; ^{Ott, 1989}; ^{Williams, 1992}; ^{Yoder & Sinnett, 1985}; Yoder, 1991, 1994; ^{Zimmer, 1988}). In as early as 1975, ^{Laws (1975}) argued that only “double deviant” tokens, i.e., members of groups proportionally under-represented in the context and of socially low status, such as women in male-dominated professions, will experience negative consequences in organisations. Thus, this author added the social normative context to the numerical factors and, following her perspective, men, in general, with high social status, would not be expected to experience the consequences of tokenism even when underrepresented because they are not, as a group, double deviant.

Concerning studies subsequent to ^{Kanter’s (1977}, 1993) research, ^{Yoder and Sinnett’s (1985}) research corroborated ^{Laws’ (1975}) “double deviant” theory by demonstrating that, unlike women tokens, men tokens do not experience the negative effects of high visibility, contrast/polarisation or assimilation of stereotypical gender roles, thus suggesting that numbers alone do not explain the negative consequences of tokenism. ^{Zimmer (1988}) has further shown that male tokens in a female profession (for example, nursing) have more benefits, such as receiving greater consideration and prominence, than women tokens in male professions. Yoder (1991), in turn, claimed that Kanter conflated four factors: numerical imbalance, gender status, professional inappropriateness and intrusiveness. This author maintains that the gender of the token affects the status, with male tokens not experiencing the same negative consequences as women because of their higher social status. Yoder (1991) thus argues that Kanter’s findings are only generalizable to women tokens integrated into male-dominated professions.

In turn, ^{Budig (2002}) argues that token men experience some effects of tokenism but, contrary to the case of token women, they do not suffer negative impacts at the professional level and are still even more likely to benefit from career promotion. She added that the typical sexual division of labour and occupations causes women to have more domestic and childcare responsibilities, which leads to them not being perceived as “ideal workers” as organisations attribute value to employees with fewer non-work obligations, that is, men.

One of the various criticisms of Kanter’s theorisation is that the numerical proportion, although relevant, is not the only explanatory factor of the “phenomenon of tokenism” in organisations and, therefore, social factors (for example, differences in the treatment of women and men, blacks, and whites, etc.), ideological, cultural, and psychological factors should also be integrated into the analysis. This perspective is based on the idea that the negative consequences identified by Kanter do not occur evenly across social groups (^{Santos & Amâncio, 2014}; Santos et al., 2015) because the division of labour tends to benefit men and organisations through valuing more the qualities associated with masculinity to the detriment of those related to femininity (^{Acker, 1990}; ^{Maume, 1999}).

Organizational structures and dynamics are not gender-neutral; they are “gendered” (^{Acker, 1990}). Under this assumption, ^{Williams (1992}, 1995) undertook a study of under-represented men in traditionally female professions: nurses, elementary teachers, librarians, and social workers. She concluded that women and men in “gender-typical” professions or occupations experience discrimination but the consequences and types are different for each gender. Token men are generally treated differently by women but in a positive sense, for example, gaining advantages in promotion and hiring in professions where they are a minority. In these situations, it is common for men to benefit from a “glass escalator” that takes them up to higher positions and higher pay. In contrast, women tokens often face “glass ceilings”, which hinder and prevent them from accessing higher hierarchical positions and then becoming the object of marginalisation (Williams, 1992). In addition, the above-mentioned studies have shown that the main difficulties and situations of negative discrimination experienced by women tokens occur in the workplace; the greatest obstacles experienced by men tokens are external to their profession as they originate outside the organisation. These men are mainly faced with the effects of negative stereotypes, usually associated with their masculinity, expressed by people external to the working context, with accounting for the main source of their negative discrimination.

Another effect of the influence of gender relations on the dynamics of tokenism relates to the reception in professions of minority group members. Women in majority situations, in an attempt to boost the status of their professions, tend to welcome men, making them feel integrated (^{Heikes, 1991}; ^{Santos & Amâncio, 2018}, 2019; Santos et al., 2022). On the contrary, in masculine professions, the process of women’s entry and integration does not prove as positive as their entry often becomes perceived as a threat to the status of these professions (^{Marques, 2011}; Santos et al., 2016).

Men in atypical professions: The case of teaching

Men who choose to be teachers at levels of education prior to higher education often experience difficulties in negotiating their professional identity with their identity as males as these are socially perceived as contradictory (^{Rabelo, 2016}, 2019; ^{Sabbe & Aelterman, 2007}; ^{Sargent, 2000}). Preschool and elementary school teachers are often perceived as more feminine, homosexual and/or potentially paedophilic (^{Ashcraft & Sevier, 2006}; ^{Pruit, 2015}; Rabelo, 2021; ^{Santos & Amâncio, 2018}; Santos et al., 2022). These social attributions may lead to the need to change their ways of teaching and acting (^{Hedlin & Åberg, 2019}; Sargent, 2000), moving away from the domains associated with femininity to affirm and confirm their masculinity (Ashcraft & Sevier, 2006; Sabbe & Aelterman, 2007; Rabelo, 2019; Santos et al., 2022). Thus, in order to display the traits stereotypically associated with men and the conformity to traditional masculinity, teachers and educators tend to maintain greater distance from their students, avoid emotional involvement, control their affective expressions, and exacerbate authoritarian traits (Ashcraft & Sevier, 2006; Pruit, 2015; Santos & Amâncio, 2018).

Furthermore, social expectations regarding female and male teachers differ. Male teachers associate with discipline, leadership, and authority, and are thus expected to be more objective and interested in what is stereotypically associated with their sex (^{Drudy, 2008}; ^{Hedlin & Åberg, 2019}; ^{Santos & Amâncio, 2018}). As for female teachers, it is socially expected that they show understanding, affection, and attention towards their students (Drudy, 2008; Hedlin & Åberg, 2019). The division of responsibilities at school may have direct gender effects, for example, through the greater involvement of men in the management of situations of indiscipline among students, their connection to the so-called “more problematic” classes, as well as to areas related to technologies and physical strength (^{Colombo & Barabanti, 2020}; Santos & Amâncio, 2018).

^{Cognard-Black (2004}) tested the theory of tokenism from a gender perspective, focusing on men in so-called feminine professions, specifically, elementary school teachers. The study findings did not support Kanter’s proposal as they did not demonstrate that male elementary school teachers, despite being in a numerically female-dominated environment, experienced the disadvantages of tokenism. Instead, this study supported ^{Williams’ (1992}, 1995) view by identifying the existence of the “glass escalator”, which facilitates male elementary school teachers moving up the ladder more quickly than their female counterparts and often experiencing privilege. Cognard-Black (2004) thus found that male and female teacher teaching and experiences as professionals are more related to their gender than to numerical proportion as primary school teachers benefit from their male status and are more likely to be promoted, rewarded, and privileged than their female colleagues.

Also applying the theory of tokenism from a gender perspective, ^{Santos and Amâncio (2018}) carried out a study focused on the experiences of elementary school teachers. In this study, as part of a minority group, male teachers were indeed more visible than female teachers (the majority group) but this did not lead them to feel pressured to perform better and to prove their competences to their colleagues. Furthermore, the polarisation of differences neither led to social isolation nor did it create obstacles for male teachers; on the contrary, they were often discriminated against positively, leading them to reach higher positions more quickly. The authors also found that the assimilation of stereotypical male roles ended up benefiting them. Furthermore, the entry of more male teachers into this grade was perceived by female teachers as adding value to the profession as it would increase its prestige.

In sum, these results contradict ^{Kanter’s theory (1977}, 1993) and demonstrate how at least elementary school teachers do not experience the negative dynamics of tokenism. The authors conclude that, in agreement with the ^{Williams (1992}, 1995) perspective and with the symbolic gender asymmetry model (^{Amâncio, 1992}), although men are a small minority in elementary education, they not only do not lose the social advantages that benefit them but also actually seem to gain several privileges. In this way, tokenism seems to be limited to maintaining the social gender order (^{Santos & Amâncio, 2018}).

Also adopting a gender perspective, ^{Santos et al. (2022}) set out to verify whether men involved in pre-school education experienced the negative consequences of tokenism identified by ^{Kanter (1977}, 1993). This study conveyed how male early childhood educators are indeed more visible in this professional context, experience some pressures to prove good standards of performance but only at the beginning of their career due to their lack of experience and knowledge rather than their token status. They felt that although there was a polarisation of differences between themselves and female early childhood educators, this neither led to their isolation nor hindered their professional careers, and they were additionally also associated with advantageous characteristics. However, they did experience some negative situations related to physical touch and closeness to children, largely due to the paedophilia case at Casa Pia.¹ This led them to adopt self-defensive behaviours on their own part in order to avoid situations of mistrust arising mainly with parents and guardians.

^{Santos et al. (2022}) conclude that, apart from this specific contingency, male early childhood educators did not, in general, experience the negative consequences identified by ^{Kanter (1977}, 1993). However, the authors emphasise, as a relevant observation, that the women interviewed clearly expressed the attribution of stereotypical traits of masculinity to their male colleagues in the form of expectations that naturalize the differences, which are picked up by men, thus circumscribing them within the rigidity of the meanings of “being a man”.

In sum, studies carried out in the context of education have shown that men, as tokens, experience the phenomenon of tokenism in ways different to women and they tend to benefit from certain advantages that derive from their superior social positioning.

As stated before, in skewed groups, tokens experience the negative consequences of the “phenomenon of tokenism”, thus, visibility, polarisation and assimilation (^{Kanter, 1977}, 1993). However, according to this author, in contexts where there is a greater numerical balance between groups, there would be less discrimination, the organisational dynamics would be more positive, and the “phenomenon of tokenism” would be less evident. On the other hand, some studies (for example, ^{Rabelo, 2016}; ^{Santos & Amâncio, 2018}, 2019; Santos et al., 2022; ^{Taylor, 2010}; ^{Williams, 1992}, 1995) have since pointed out that when the minority group is made up of men, and because they also belong to a socially dominant group, they are not discriminated against (or only to a very slight degree) in keeping with their status as tokens.

Therefore, with this study we intend to observe whether, in a context that may be considered close to a “skewed group” (^{Kanter, 1977}, 1993), the minority constituted by men experiences the negative consequences of “tokenism” identified by the author, as well as the perspectives of women in the same profession on this aspect. We start out from the theory of tokenism (Kanter, 1977, 1993), adopting a gender perspective, specifically seeking to: i) analyse the experiences of secondary school male teachers in order to identify and characterise the possible obstacles and difficulties they experience; ii) identify the strategies adopted by male teachers to manage the gender imbalance situations in which they find themselves; and iii) analyse the perspectives of their peer female teachers about the presence of men in their profession.

Participants

We carried out 16 individual semi-structured interviews with Portuguese teachers working in 12 different secondary schools: 8 men and 8 women. Aged between 36 and 59 years old (M=47.56; SD=6.92), male teachers were on average 48.86 years old (SD=7.09) and female teachers 47.75 years old (SD=7.13). The participants held between 13 and 36 years of service in this cycle of education. In the 12 schools involved, located in the districts of Évora, Setúbal and Portalegre, the percentage of male teachers varied between 22% and 33%, so that, according to the categorization put forward by ^{Kanter (1977}, 1993), these may be considered, by approximation, as “skewed group” contexts.

Procedure

The recruitment of secondary school teachers to participate in the study began among our personal contacts, through e-mail, Facebook, and telephone, and we proposed an interview and presented the framework of the content. The interviews were scheduled with male and female teachers according to their availability. We subsequently adopted the “snowball” technique to identify and contact more participants. A poster was also produced to encourage participation in the study and distributed across social networks, aimed mainly at men due to the greater difficulty in attracting male respondents.

Due to the pandemic situation, the interviews took place online through the Zoom, Microsoft Teams and Google Meet platforms, between November 27, 2020 and February 11, 2021, with their duration varying between 28 minutes and one hour and two minutes. All interviews were transcribed and analysed in full.

We previously sent an informed consent form to the participants, which presented the study objectives, ensured participant anonymity, and ensured the confidentiality of the data collected. In this document, which was signed by all participants, we also requested their permission to record the interview in order to allow for their accurate transcription.

Following the positive opinion issued by the Ethics Committee of the institution of two of the authors (133/2020), we started the data collection process.

Instruments

We collected data through individual semi-structured interviews, following a script oriented towards achieving the study’s objectives and aligned with the literature review, which included certain questions necessary for the sociodemographic characterisation of the participants (for example, sex, age, years of professional experience). Two versions of the script were constructed, one for male and one for female teachers, sharing the following three areas in common: a) the phase of entry into the profession; b) the numerical gender imbalance in secondary education; c) their experiences in the current professional context, exploring any eventual effects of tokenism.

Data analysis

The transcripts of all interviews constituted the corpus which was subject to thematic analysis in accordance with the perspective of ^{Braun and Clarke (2006}). This deliberate choice arises from its appropriateness to the study’s objectives, specifically by summarising the discursive elements collected and, simultaneously, describing them in depth while also highlighting similarities and disagreements. In undertaking this analysis, we followed the six phases recommended by the abovementioned authors, and performed a type of analysis that they call mixed analysis (Braun & Clark, 2006). We started with deductive analysis, guided by the three organising interview themes, in turn, supported by the literature review, that is, visibility, polarisation and assimilation while accepting the scope for identifying other relevant themes or subthemes, thus assuming an inductive analytical positioning.

Asymmetric judgements on the choice of profession

This theme focuses on the choice of profession, encompassing two subthemes: i) teaching as a momentary opportunity; and ii) the reactions of people close to them. Both subthemes identify differences between women’s and men’s perceptions.

Regarding the first subtheme, women predominantly mentioned they had expressed the desire to become teachers from an early age, having been greatly influenced by people close to them, such as aunts, mothers and/or teachers. Men tended to emphasise that they opted for the profession later and often as a momentary and temporary opportunity as the following excerpts portray:

Ever since I was little, I said I was going to be a teacher, I always knew that’s what I wanted to be. Since I was born, practically. I was very influenced by my mother, who was a teacher . . . , I never thought I would be anything else. (I3, women).

I am a teacher by chance . . . I decided to go to work, I started in the call centre . . . and I start taking the training of trainers and giving training and I start liking it . . . , I started thinking that teaching could be an option . . . , I saw teaching as an option to earn money . . . , but always thinking it wouldn’t be something I wanted to do for life, it would be a temporary option . . . , but I ended up entering, I started liking it and I’ve stayed until today. (I16, man).

Regarding the subtheme “reactions from people close to them” when they entered the profession, most men mentioned the first reactions they encountered were of surprise, having heard some less pleasant comments about their professional choice particularly its social association with women and not valued very highly. The women stated that, in general, everyone reacted well and was happy with their choice:

In the phase when we are pre-adults, some friends made some not so nice comments . . . , they commented several times “are you really going to be a teacher? That’s for women...”. The truth is that the teaching profession is still associated with women and there is still the idea of “there’s nothing else to do, you’re go to teach”, there is still some prejudice . . . , and the teaching profession is not properly valued. (I4, man).

From my family, it didn’t cause any big reactions, they all accepted it well and were happy that I was following and fighting for my dreams. My friends all reacted very positively. (I6, woman).

Genderization of the profession

This theme encompasses ideas concerning the disparities in the proportions of women and men in secondary education teaching careers with all interviewees aware that the number of female teachers has long been and continues to be much higher. This theme also contains two subthemes: i) a profession associated with women; and ii) a profession unattractive to men.

In relation to the first subtheme, participants mentioned how the main factor explaining why there are fewer female teachers in secondary education stems from the profession being, historically and socially, more associated with women as teaching requires characteristics that are stereotypically attributed to them, specifically traits such as “more maternal”, “relational” and “caring”, which would dissuade men as they lack, from the point of view of social constructions, these stereotypical traits:

It can be explained by the fact that teaching is very much associated with caring, with a greater sensitivity and these are characteristics, these are traits more associated with women. (I9, man).

I think women are more “cut out” for the profession, perhaps because they represent the maternal figure a bit. Women have more of a vocation for teaching. They are more sensitive, they have more of a maternal side, and I think that is why there are more women teachers in secondary education and in education in general. (I13, woman).

We still associate women as more education-oriented . . . to take care of children, women with more patience for children and adolescents and all of this drives men away. (I2, man).

The second subtheme reports how, according to the participants, the education sector does not attract men because it is socially undervalued, with low subsequent employability and low pay, so men tend to prefer more advantageous jobs in these two areas. There was also common reference to how men commonly feel more attracted to professions in areas perceived as more masculine, such as engineering and technology:

Teaching careers are not very attractive, not well paid, and it is easy for men to find other career opportunities that are more advantageous in economic terms. . . . Men opt more for engineering courses . . . , often, for better paid areas and teaching becomes unattractive. (I6, woman).

I think that engineering attracts men a lot and channels their aspirations and grants them more attractive careers, in economic terms, and men often seek that side. (I4, man).

Relevance of the presence of more men in the profession

The third theme identified aggregates the ideas about the value attributed by the interviewees to men entering secondary education teaching.

It is noteworthy that female interviewees consider the entry of more men into secondary education important, stating this would contribute to improving the school environment, making it more relaxed and, simultaneously, changing the dynamics, because men would bring new ways of working and would make use of the authority socially associated with being male. The female interviewees also expressed how the presence of male teachers would improve school relations, making them less conflictual and constituting “role models” for boys, namely so that they would also perceive teaching as a professional outlet for males. Furthermore, female interviewees highlight that the entry of more men is important because it would increase their own social value:

I think it would be important to improve the school climate itself, the dynamics of the relationships between male and female teachers. It would also be good for the students to have more examples of men. If more men teachers entered the teaching profession, it would change the very dynamics of the school and the profession, I think that if they did, they would start to look at the teaching profession with other eyes, I think society would start to value it more. (I8, woman).

The fact of having more men would function almost as a role model for students and would open horizons about what it is to be a teacher and how the profession can be for anyone. . . . The entry of more men could even contribute to a greater appreciation of the profession because the profession would no longer be related only to the teacher-woman ideal. (I11, woman).

I think that the entry of more male teachers would bring less stress. . . , men can transmit a calmer life at the school level . . . , they would also end up imposing more respect. . . . The entry of more male teachers might also bring greater tranquillity to us female teachers. Because the more relaxed side of men would improve the school environment in terms of the relationship between male and female teachers. (I3, woman).

However, it is also noticeable that the men interviewed do not consider the entry of more men into secondary education to be very important, stating that, more than being a man or a woman, it is crucial for a teacher to be competent, professional, and committed:

I don’t think it is a relevant issue for teaching. What is important is what the person brings as a teacher and not whether they are a male teacher or female teacher. (I9, man).

I distinguish my colleagues as good and bad professionals, whether they are competent or not as competent, not because they are men or women. It doesn’t make any sense to me to think that the entry of more men is something important, I don’t see it in terms of sex. (I16, man).

In/visibility of male teachers

This theme encompasses three subthemes: i) visibility of men; ii) pressure for good performance; and iii) men’s successes and errors.

It seems consensual among participants that in the context of secondary education, men are not more visible than women on the grounds that the visibility of each professional comes from personality and competence, without any gender effect:

I don’t think anyone is more visible because they are male or female. In my profession, I think personality and building a cohesive career path is worth more than gender. (I7, woman).

If someone gets more attention or is more visible . . . it is because of who they are as a person, their personality . . . nobody is more noticed because they are a man or because they are a woman. (I15, man).

I don’t feel someone is more visible or is the focus of greater attention, and if someone is more of a focus of attention or more visible, it will not be because they are a man or a woman, but because they stand out in a positive way or in a negative way. (I13, woman).

The second subtheme suggests that men would not feel pressured to perform well and/or to demonstrate their competences. The males interviewed refer that the pressure they feel is generated by their intrinsic need to succeed and not by their peers, a view corroborated by the female interviewees:

No, I was never pressured in that sense. Except the internal pressure that I felt at the beginning, because I wanted to be a good teacher. But I never felt pressured by anyone to show that I’m good at teaching, that I’m a good teacher, that I’m good at what I do, I never felt that. (I9, man).

No, there is no such pressure to show good performance. I think that, as in almost all professions, men don’t have to prove anything to anyone. It is we women who often feel more insecurities and the need to prove that we are good at what we do, to prove that we are competent. (I8, woman).

In the last subtheme, the females interviewed argue that the successes and errors of male teachers do not receive greater attention than those of female teachers, but they do consider that the success of the latter is often more highlighted and the object of greater recognition. Therefore, female teachers understand that success is more easily achieved by males than by females because they have much less availability to devote themselves to the profession. The males interviewed, in turn, state that their errors and their successes are not more salient than those of their female colleagues and that the recognition any teacher gains corresponds to their individual professionalism and competence without any influence of gender:

The errors of male teachers do not get noticed for long. Now, if a male teacher is successful, I think that perhaps he can be praised more, perhaps that success can be given more prominence, perhaps because of the greater status the man has in society, that he is more valued. If a woman is successful, it seems this success is always associated to other causes. It seems as if they never acknowledge the merit of female teacher as much. They say “she was successful because...”, while men are praised and congratulated. (I7, woman).

No, I don’t feel that. It is more for the person himself, for his personality . . . , and I don’t notice differences between sexes. . . . Even if I make a mistake or even if I am successful, at no time is it more noticed just because I am a man. It is not more noticed if I am a woman, because if a woman makes a mistake, it will be the same. (I16, man).

From non-polarisation to beneficial polarisation

The fifth theme aggregates the ideas associated with the polarisation of differences between male and female teachers in secondary education and integrates three subthemes: i) gendered vs. neutral treatments; ii) integration and valorisation of men in the professional context; and iii) the management of the minority condition by male teachers.

In the first subtheme, the females interviewed highlight that sometimes men benefit from advantages as they often receive more esteem from female teachers as the latter seek to make them feel welcome and well received. The males interviewed refer to male and female teachers being treated equally and that any eventual differentiations in treatment are not dictated by sex but rather by the personality of each individual:

I think they end up being treated differently because they are men but not in a negative way. On the contrary, they end up being treated very well, they end up being very well received, women like having them there, they are more “pampered” because there are so few of them. (I7, woman).

I am not treated differently because I am a man. . . . What might lead a person to be treated differently . . . will be the personality of that person, the way that person relates, how he makes himself known, how he interacts and not because he is a man. (I4, man).

In this subtheme, the opinions of male interviewees, that they are not excluded and/or negatively discriminated against, stand out. On the contrary, these male teachers claim to be well integrated in the context, in the school dynamics, including in informal groups, and that they are professionally valued:

I never felt that we were excluded and much less discriminated against. . . . If it is about having lunch, they don’t leave us out, if it is to discuss student related matters, the subjects, some projects, we are all together and we speak men and women. Even the groups that are formed in the teachers’ room are mixed, there is no attempt for women to exclude us. . . . More than resisting our entry, they integrate us. (I9, man).

We, women, accept the entry of male teachers very well. They are even treated better because we even facilitate the process and are always available to promote an easier adaptation and to integrate them into the school environment. (I11, woman).

The last subtheme aggregates respondent positions about how male teachers manage their minority situation. Our analysis suggests that men do not feel the need to adopt specific strategies as female teachers facilitate their entry and value it, thus creating a cohesive, flexible, and egalitarian environment in terms of dynamics and gender relations:

It may sound strange, but it is very easy to manage. I never had any kind of problems. . . . So, it is very easy to be a teacher and to belong to a world that is associated with women, I never felt any difficulty in this aspect or any prejudice, I always felt very good. (I12, man).

They manage with the greatest of ease, they have more women colleagues than men, but they don’t feel different from us professionally because they are men or because they are under numbered. (I11, woman).

I think they manage it well; I don’t think there are strategies to manage the situation. It is an environment in which there is no gender prejudice. . . . We, women, even integrate them well. We like them to come into teaching, to come into our schools. They bring new things . . . , and they also end up feeling this, they end up feeling welcome and integrated. (I1, woman).

Assimilation of stereotypical masculine roles

The sixth theme identified associates the ideas related to the male assimilation of masculine social stereotypes and encompasses four subthemes: i) advantages of being a man in secondary education; ii) stereotypical expectations associated with men; iii) pressure to exercise management positions; and iv) evidence of femininity traits in male teachers.

The first subtheme illustrates how the majority of interviewees initially reported that there were no gender associated advantages or disadvantages in teaching even while identifying several advantages that men gain, such as: being valued and welcomed by female colleagues; being able to command more respect and authority, particularly from students, due to their social status as men; and also being more frequently invited to higher or senior positions. Two female teachers identified an “external” disadvantage that men experience due to being in a female associated profession and which reflected in their devaluation due to their profession:

They are male teachers, just like we are female teachers, I think that’s what it is to be a man in secondary education. . . . If they have advantages . . . , perhaps they have that of being able to more easily maintain respect, because the male figure ends up transmitting more authority and respect than the female one. They have the advantage of feeling “welcome” and received. (I13, woman).

Being in a world of women ends up being an advantage because they can easily dominate, they can arrive at a meeting and easily assume the role of leader and put order in the room. . . . I don’t think there are any disadvantages. (I7, woman).

What I think is that a man’s loud voice still makes a difference, mainly in more problematic or undisciplined classes, and it tends to have more effect if it’s a man working with proble- matic classes, things tend to go better. (I14, man).

I don’t think there are advantages or disadvantages associated with being a male teacher in secondary education. I feel . . . that we can have an advantage by being so few in the context, because actually we feel welcomed and we integrate and there is that effort by female teachers, and so we feel heard and valued. (I10, man).

The contents of the second subtheme reveal how the interviewees generally claim that the desirable professional and personal characteristics are common to both male and female teachers. Nevertheless, expectations attributed to male and female teachers are listed: less sensitive and affectionate, more objective, authoritarian, practical, focused on the profession and normally more respected by students. Most of those interviewed claim, however, that they are not required to demonstrate these characteristics as there is the freedom and openness to act according to who they are:

Men are more pragmatic, more objective, and rational and we end up expecting this from them, they end up being like that. . . . I think they expect them to bring this practicality, not to be so emotionally attached, not to be petty, not to raise relationship problems. . . . A meeting with only women tends to be more dispersive, men are very focused. . . . Men have this more authoritarian role, of being more able to easily lead a meeting and take the reins of the situation than a woman. But, it is natural for them, we don’t make them be like that. (I7, woman).

Maybe they think that, in the relationship with students, we are more authoritarian and that we are not as affectionate as they are because they have a very maternal side. . . . And they know that we are more practical . . . , they always think very much with the heart and we, as more rational as we are, it is easier for us to decide . . . my colleagues expect this, but we are not always like that, and they don’t try to make us meet the expectations. They just expect but I don’t feel that I have to show that or be like that. (I15, man).

Another subtheme unveils how most of the males interviewed mentioned having already felt pressured to take on management positions, which does not seem to occur with female interviewees, some of whom also expressed a lack of ambition regarding such positions as they prefer teaching:

It is easier for us [men] to become directors. This happens because, as we are men, we are more associated with good leaders and managers. This leads to invitations for this position being made mainly to men and it is men who are told “so, why don’t you apply for director?” or “so, don’t you want to be a director? I think you should take a chance”. (I14, man).

And I never felt this pressure. Men are able to feel this pressure more, I think, if they feel some pressure in teaching, . . . even because they have more availability than women and have more discipline to deal with more complicated situations. (I8, woman).

I have the greatest respect for that position, however, what I really like is teaching. . . . Management positions never attracted me in the least, never really. . . . I never felt pressured to do so. (I5, woman).

The last subtheme suggests a consensus among the interviewees as to the non-assumption by men of so-called “feminine” attitudes because they exercise their activity in a women’s world. However, some male interviewees mention that, in some situations, the profession requires greater sensitivity and concern and, therefore, because they relate to young people, there is sometimes a need to show traces of relational dimensions socially attributed to women. On the other hand, the women’s perceptions are divided: most of them state that men do not tend to emphasise their masculinity or to assume more feminine attitudes, but some do mention that males tend to distance themselves from more feminine traits, which they are not always able to do:

Well, I don’t think I assume traditionally feminine postures, however, we teachers tend to show some affection, an emotional side that is more characteristic of women, because we . . . are dealing with adolescents who are often still very young. So, I think it is normal to highlight this side and show more affection. We tend to adopt a close posture towards the students and, in a . . . natural way, we highlight this more affectionate side. (I2, man).

I think they tend to distance themselves a little . . . , in the sense of not being so affable, so close to the students, of being less maternal . . . , but it’s funny that I think they don’t always succeed. . . . For example, they get into women’s gossip a lot . . . men always say that they are not gossips but they are. . . . They tend to try to show their masculinity, and to move away from traditionally feminine traits, but they don’t always succeed. (I1, woman).