In education, transformation diagnoses of masculinities can be identified throughout Europe in recent decades. Some European countries have proclaimed a “boys crisis” on the basis of a change in educational successes. Currently, boys in public media as well as in educational science are being discussed as the so-called “new educational losers,” as they perform more poorly at school than girls. Subsequently in these countries, there has been a call for more men as professionals in the field of education in Germany (Pangritz, 2019), the Czech Republic (Fárova, 2018), Sweden (Diewald, 2018) or the UK (Skelton, 2002) and more, in order to provide boys with seemingly alternative concepts of masculinity as role models. Furthermore, more fathers are undertaking or want to undertake caring roles within the family, which is discussed on a theoretical level under the heading of “caring masculinities” (Elliott, 2016).

On the one hand, these transformation processes of masculinities initially cause uncertainty. For some men and boys, but also women, they mean breaking away from established (behavioral) patterns and structures that have given individuals stability and security. But these traditional structures and behavioral patterns are also linked to power and dominance relations. On the other hand, the transformation or change in constructions of masculinity therefore always holds the potential to democratize gender relations (Elliott, 2016; Pangritz, 2023a). Therefore, the uncertainty is also associated with the hope that the transformation of masculinities will contribute to improving gender equality and greater diversity.

However, when it comes to the transformation of masculinities, mainly men and boys are discussed as the driving force. For example, male professionals in the educational context are considered to have the potential to stimulate a transformation of masculinity among boys by acting as role models. This assumption repeats the discursive triangle of boys - men - masculinity (Budde & Rieske, 2022), which links masculinity to the male body. Accordingly, boys have to learn or unlearn what masculinity means from men. Through this discursive triangle, all other forces that have an influence on the transformation of masculinity are ignored. This discursive triangle also shows what Gottzén and colleagues (2022) had already highlighted: In the negotiation in CSM as well as educational science of masculinities, queer or female positions are mostly left out. However, these perspectives can initiate a change in masculinity or equally contribute to the stabilization of the hegemonic male norms. In this context, Connell (1987) had already pointed out the relevance of emphasized femininity: A form of femininity that supports hegemonic masculinity.

Against this background, this paper aims to examine the perspective of girls with regards to current negotiations of masculinity. I will present four episodic interviews (Flick, 2022) with girls aged 14-16, which are dedicated to the question of what concepts of masculinity the girls support and how these relate to their own femininity. The interviews are analyzed using the documentary method according to Nohl (2010, 2017).

The girls initially show an orientation towards a hegemonic masculinity norm. They relate femininity to this norm in different ways. On the one hand, they relate to it as a subjective reference to be able to construct their own femininity and female identity and on the other hand as a counter-horizon that retains an outdated image of femininity that is linked to the domestic sphere. In addition, some of the girls formulate the need for a change in masculinity, as it is associated with violence and danger. In this context, the girls identify educational institutions such as schools as places that should initiate a transformation of masculinity.

The project on which this report is based addresses the question of what concepts of masculinity young people between the ages of 14 and 16 in Germany support. The sample comprises five boys and six girls with diverse social backgrounds. For the paper, four of the girls will be presented. In the context of the interview, masculinity is not understood as a social practice, but as an incorporated norm that can be supported or rejected by all genders (Pangritz, 2023b). This conceptualization makes it possible to address masculinity as a topic that is relevant to all genders, including girls and queer people. Following Connell's (1987) theoretical concept of emphasized femininity, it is thus possible to ask how femininity supports or rejects a hegemonic masculine norm. I choose a qualitative approach consisting of episodic interviews (Flick, 2022) and documentary methods for interviews (Nohl, 2010, 2017) to analyze the young people's beliefs around masculinity. A semi-structured episodic interview (Flick, 2022) served as the data collection instrument. Systematic integration of narratives into an interview guideline characterizes the episodic interview. Flick (2022) distinguishes two forms of knowledge: Semantic knowledge, “based on concepts, assumptions and relations, which are abstracted and generalized from concrete events and situations” (Flick, 2022, p. 221) and episodic knowledge which “is organised closer to experiences and linked to concrete situations”(Flick, 2022, p. 221). The episodic interview thus allows for alternating between the different forms of knowledge and asking about concrete definitions and assumptions, but also about the young people's experiences. This dual knowledge structure was important for the project, as it formed the core. The aim of the project was to ask about the abstract concepts of masculinity as well as the girls' experiences and ways of dealing with masculinity in everyday life. The documentary method enables the analysis of the different forms of knowledge in the episodic interview. It focuses on "orientations, attitudes, worldviews in the interactive and socialization-historical production process" (Bohnsack, 2006, p. 272; translated by the author). Following Mannheim, a distinction is made between reflexive knowledge, which is explicit and accessible via communication, and implicit and more atheoretical knowledge. This approach is therefore suitable for the consideration of masculinity or gender in general, as forms of gender knowledge can be centered (Cremers, Klingel & Stützel, 2020). The documentary method according to Nohl (2010, 2017) was used for the analysis.

On an abstract level, the girls show an awareness of a hegemonic masculine norm. This norm is often linked to physical body practices in the sense of doing gender, which associate masculinity with strength, superiority, and power. The girls relate their femininity to this conception of masculinity in different ways. First, this masculinity norm serves as a point of reference against which they can develop their own femininity and female identity. The formation of their own femininity shows ambivalences and oscillates between emphasized femininity (Connell, 1987) and an alternative forms of femininity. Second, some girls use this norm of masculinity as a counter-horizon which marks an outdated image of masculinity and subsequently an outdated image of femininity. They distance themselves from this image and try to reflect on and critically question gender norms. Here, notable, beauty norms of femininity and masculinity become significant. Furthermore, some of the girls perceive masculinity as a form of danger that restricts their everyday lives. Subsequently, they demand a change in masculinity in order to be able to move more freely. They address the school here as an educational institution that should initiate a transformation of masculinity by educating boys about the consequences of masculinity and the associated effects on girls and women. The girls embody different femininities and none of the girls interviewed can be identified exclusively as emphasized femininity. Rather, the girls' femininity is a mixture of different forms that oscillate between rejection and approval of the male norm.

Bohnsack, R. (2006). Mannheims Wissenssoziologie als Methode. In D. Tänzler, H. Knoblauch & H.G. Soeffner (eds.), Neue Perspektiven der Wissenssoziologie (pp.271 -291). UVK. Budde, J. & Rieske, T. V. (2022). Erziehungswissenschaftliche Jungenforschung—eine Einleitung. In J.Budde & T. V. Rieske (eds.), Jungen in Bildungskontexten (pp. 7–34). Barbara Budrich. Cremers, M., Klingel, M. & Stützel, K. (2020). Die Dokumentarische Methode am Beispiel einer Geschlechterforschung im Feld der Kindheitspädagogik. In M. Kubandt & J. Schütz (eds.), Methoden und Methodologien in der Geschlechterforschung (pp. 107–124). Barbara Budrich. Connell, R. (1987). Gender and Power. Society, the Person and Sexual Practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1177/027046768800800490 Diewald, I. (2018). Männlichkeiten im Wandel. Zur Regierung von Geschlecht in der deutschen und schwedischen Debatte um ‚Männer in Kitas’. Transcript Verlag. Elliott, K. (2016). Caring Masculinities: Theorizing an emerging Concept. Men and Masculinities, 19 (3), 240–259. Fárová, N. (2018). „Muži do škol? Ano! Ale...: Potřeba mužů v primárním vzdělávání.“ Gender a výzkum. Gender and Research, 19(1), 82–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1306 0/25706578.2018.19.1.406. Flick, U. (2022). Doing Interview Research. SAGE Publications. Gottzén, L., Mellström, U. & Shefer, T. (2020). Introduction: Mapping the Field of Masculinity Studies. In L. Gottzén, U. Mellström, & T. Shefer (Hrsg.), Routledge International Handbook of Masculinity Studies (pp. 1–16). Routledge. Nohl, M. (2010). Narrative Interview and Documentary Interpretation. In R. Bohnsack, N. Pfaff & W. Weller (Eds.), Qualitative analysis and documentary method in international educational research (pp. 99-124). Barbara Budrich. Nohl, M. (2017). Interview und Dokumentarische Methode. Anleitung für die Forschungspraxis (5th ed.). Springer VS. Pangritz, J. (2019). Fürsorgend und doch hegemonial? Eine empirische Untersuchung zum Verhältnis von Männlichkeit, Feminisierung und Punitivität in pädagogischen Kontexten. GENDER, 11 (3), 132–149. Pangritz, J. (2023a). Verortungen transformierte und transformierende Männlichkeiten – Ein theoretischer Beitrag zum Verhältnis von Caring Masculinities und hybrider Männlichkeiten. GENDER, 15 (3), 136 –150. Pangritz, J. (2023b). What Does Masculinity Mean? Young People’s Perspectives on Masculinity in the Mirror of Education in Germany. In: Boyhood Studies 16 (2), 73–91. Skelton, C. (2002). The ‘Feminisation of Schooling’ or ‘Remasculinising’ Primary Education? International Studies in Sociology of Education, 12 (1), 77–96.