“Saving Our Boys!”: Do Chinese Boys Have a Masculinity Crisis?

Abstract

Highlights

The issue of the boy (masculinity) crisis was examined in both the global and Chinese contexts.

To examine the authenticity of the masculinity crisis in China, we first historicized the debate on the boy crisis between Yunxiao Sun (孙云晓) and An'qi Xu (徐安琪) in China and its implications. Then, we examined the contributing factors to the masculinity crisis from the social-ecological perspective, which encompasses the familial (helicopter parenting style), educational (burdensome academic pressure), and societal (feminine and misleading social media) factors.

We concluded that the Chinese masculinity crisis has evolved into a socio-cultural issue in recent years. We suggest the potentials of gender-relevant pedagogy and the collective capability among various stakeholders in addressing the boy crisis.

Introduction

This viewpoint article examines the nature of and the contributing factors to the boy crisis, or the so-called masculinity crisis, in various contexts. First, the authors reviewed the recent social context and the debate on the authenticity of the boy crisis in China. This paper suggests that the boy crisis is neither solely an educational nor simply a simple family problem, as it relates to an assortment of social and cultural factors. We, therefore, need to explore this issue from a more comprehensive perspective, which goes beyond the scope of the educational issue. Second, the authors proposed a social–ecological approach to examining the main contributing factors to the boyhood crisis in China, which encompasses the familial, educational, and societal dimensions.

To address the boy crisis in China, the authors concluded that schools, parents, government, and other stakeholders should forge a collective capability to readdress this problem. Feasible solutions include but are not limited to the recruitment of more male teachers in K-12 schools, enacting gender-relevant pedagogy, developing more gender-responsive curricula and activities, and forging collective capability among related stakeholders to raise public awareness and cooperation.

Global boy crisis

Globally, the boy crisis phenomenon, or the so-called masculinity peril, is ubiquitous in Western countries (Francis, 2010; Hird, 2012; Levant, 2005; Perkins-Gough, 2006). The boy crisis has plagued numerous educational systems in the world in recent decades (Goodkind & Bay-Cheng, 2019). For example, British and Australian boys are becoming the “failing sex” academically and fail to fully realize their academic potential. German girls are more successful than their male counterparts in school examination scores and school diplomas (Pang, 2007). In Canada and the USA, boys are at greater risk of academic failure than girls, which causes “the plight of boys” (Pang, 2007). Other trends suggest that girls seem to be outperforming boys in all academic domains. Girls often report higher grade point averages, are more widely chosen as school valedictorians, and attend and graduate from college by a higher percentage than boys (Sadowski, 2010).

However, Western scholars (e.g., Barnett & Rivers, 2006; Farrell & Gray, 2018; McCready, 2012) constantly interrogate the cause of the boy crisis from a broad array of theoretical angles and relevant shreds of evidence. Regarding math and reading achievement during early primary school in the USA, Husain and Millimet (2009) found that white boys outperform white girls in math by the end of third grade. Furthermore, boys lag behind girls in reading at the start of kindergarten and the end of third grade across all races.

When it comes to the factors causing the boy crisis, Bristol (2015) revealed that the intersection of the race (or ethnicity), class, and geography collectively contribute to the dilemma. More specifically, boys who are of color, from poor or working-class families, or who live in inner city or rural areas are more likely to exhibit troubling academic and social–emotional learning outcomes when compared with their counterparts. Acknowledging its complexity and multidimensional nature, more and more Western academics (e.g., Farrell & Gray, 2018; Ferguson, 2000) have begun to examine the issue of the boy crisis more broadly from perspectives, such as social/racial inequality and income gap.

Boy crisis in China

Since the millennium, Chinese adolescent researchers and educators have warned that China is in the midst of a “masculinity crisis” or “boyhood catastrophe.” The renowned Chinese adolescent scholar Yunxiao Sun, who is the chief expert of family education at the Chinese Youth and Children Research Centre, published one acclaimed book with his colleagues in Chinese entitled, Saving Boys (《拯救男孩》) (Sun et al., 2010a). In this book, Sun and colleagues investigated the Chinese boys’ growth problems and determined four major crises regarding the growth and education of boys: academic crisis, psychological crisis, physical crisis, and social crisis. Sun and colleagues pointed out that exam-oriented education is the most ferocious killer in the crisis of boy growth. Finally, Sun and colleagues provided some food for thought in terms of boys’ education, including respecting the gender difference and foregrounding the influence of fathers on boys’ education (Sun et al., 2010a).

Since its release, this book has aroused wide social attention, even long-term controversy on the issue of the boy crisis in China. By drawing upon evidence, such as PISA tests, high school entrance examinations, and student health survey reports in China, Li and Zhao (2010) concurred on a similar boy crisis in the areas of academic, psychological, physical, and social development. In other research, Li and Sun (2012) empirically found that compared with female counterparts, male students distinctively lag behind in academic achievement from elementary school to college period. This group of scholars examined various factors contributing to the boy crisis, such as pursuing quick success and drill and practice in schools, bank-style education, and a one-sided educational evaluation system (Zhao & Li, 2010). Other educational researchers in China have examined the issue of the boy crisis from multiple vantage points, such as educational equity and core competency (Hu & Zuo, 2010; Le, 2019).

A real masculinity crisis in China?

In 2021, in response to the proposal on preventing the feminization of male teenagers put forward by members of the National Committee of the Chinese people's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), the official website of the Ministry of Education (MOE) in China stated that it will address this problem by broadening the allocation of physical education teachers, strengthening the top-level design of physical education (PE) system, carrying out in-depth health education and supporting research on problems related to adolescent mental health education (MOE, 2021). The MOE (2021) also stated that education systems should improve the teaching methods and forms of PE teachers and pay more attention to the cultivation of students’ masculinity.

Recently, the issue of the boy crisis has caused wide attention among various social media outlets, such as New York Times, NBC, CCTV, Sohu, and Tencent. Some Chinese business leaders and policymakers proclaim that the “feminization” of boys is such a threatening social problem that it might harm the survival and development of the Chinese nation.

While the authenticity of the masculinity crisis in China appears widely accepted, partly due to the acceptance and popularity of the book Saving Boys coauthored by Sun and his colleagues (Li & Zhang, 2018; Zhang, J., 2011; Zhang, X., 2011), other scholars (e.g., Xu, 2010) in China hold different opinions that the so-called “boy crisis” phenomenon has been overstated. These detractors argue that the disparity in scholarly achievement, psychological, and social adaptability between boys and girls mainly arises from the natural gender differences between these two opposite sexes.

One representative rebuttal comes from the article “Boy crisis: An alarming pseudo-proposition” (《男孩危机：一个危言耸听的伪命题》) by An’qi Xu (2010), who comes from the Shanghai Youth Research Centre. Xu (2010) challenged many viewpoints in Sun and coauthors’ book and journal articles. A telling example is that there are many top-achieving girls in the College Entrance Examination who are the main signs of boys’ academic crisis. Xu (2010) further posits that we should not only see the progress and advantages of girls in school but also be aware that they are the victims of exam-oriented education and gender-role stereotype. Finally, Xu contended that the boy crisis in China is just a pseudo-proposition with extensive research and statistical data.

In this paper, Xu (2010) mainly problematized four propositions on the masculinity crisis in China: 1) There are more girls than boys at the top of the National Matriculation Test; 2) The examination-oriented education system is a savage killer of boys. Xu argued that the recent exams increasingly emphasize testing students’ comprehensive ability and competence rather than mechanical memory. The examination questions have become more flexible and student-centered. Accordingly, Xu contends that girls naturally perform academically better than boys. In this scenario, the examination-oriented education system should not be regarded as the scapegoat of the boy crisis; 3) The lack of father involvement results in women flourishing while men decline; and 4) The feasibility of gender division education.

A subsequent rejoinder to Xu et al. (2010b) confirmed the existence of the boy crisis in China again. Drawing upon rich empirical research results, Sun et al. (2010b) demonstrated that the boy crisis is not an alarmist false proposition, but an irrebuttable fact, and that boys are facing a developmental crisis in academic performance, psychological development, and social adaptation. Boys and girls are both victims of examination-oriented education in China. More specifically, examination-oriented education runs counter to boys’ nature and is more detrimental to boys’ intellectual and physical health. To address the boy crisis, Sun et al. (2010b) proposed two solutions. In Chinese families, fathers normally play a very important role in the development of boys’ gender role perceptions. Accordingly, fathers should act like boys’ role models and strengthen their parenting role in families. In schools, the gender difference is obvious and needs to be appropriately taught by gender-differentiated pedagogy.

In a nutshell, although Sun and their colleagues have not reached a consensus on the nature and the main reasons for the boy crisis in China, more Chinese researchers (e.g., Le, 2019; Zhang et al., 2014) have realized that the boy crisis is neither a sole educational nor a simple family problem, as it relates to an assortment of explicit/implicit social and cultural factors. Zhang et al. (2014) suggested that we need to explore the issue of the boy crisis from a more comprehensive standpoint, including family, school, and society.

Although it occurred about 10 years ago, the debate on the boy crisis between Sun and Lu still holds current theory, practice, and policy implications. First, the debate requires us to pay special attention to Chinese boys’ academic, psychological, physical, and social development across different life stages. Second, the debate provides a platform for us to reflect on the potential problems in China's current schooling practice, especially traditionally neglected gender-related issues. Recently, the front page of China National Defense Newspaper (Zhongguo Guofangbao) (2018) issued one influential article “Chinese teenagers shouldn’t get rid of their masculinity” (中国少年,阳刚之气不可消!), which probes into the feminine tendency of Chinese male adolescents and its reasons. As noted, the controversy among different adolescent and educational research communities in China on the nature and causes of the boy crisis is still ongoing.

What factors contribute to this vexing problem?

Educational scholars and practitioners have examined the contributing factors to the masculinity crisis from enriching perspectives (Xu & Zhang, 2007; Yang, 2010). Farrell and Gray (2018) attribute the emergence of boy dysfunction to four types of crises with corresponding pieces of evidence: the crisis of education (Boys perform poorly in reading, math, and science), the crisis of mental health (Boys have more ADHD syndromes), the crisis of fathering (Boys have fewer less-involved fathers), and the crisis of purpose (Boys are experiencing a “purpose void” and are addicted to immediate gratification). In this viewpoint paper, drawing upon the extensive literature on the boy crisis, we divided these contributing factors into familiar, educational, and societal factors from the vantage point of social–ecological theory, which is displayed below.

First, the familiar factor mainly includes the helicopter parenting style in China. Since the 1980s, many Chinese families have only one child due to the enactment of the One-Child Policy, which was implemented in Chinese mainland between 1979 and 2015. In the context of the One-Child policy, most Chinese parents, especially those from rural regions and those influenced by traditional patriarchal Chinese culture, tended tenderly to give birth to one boy.

Within the core-family structure, many Chinese parents consciously or unconsciously overprotected or indulged their sons, which caused the “little emperor” syndrome in numerous Chinese families (New York Times, 2018). For instance, many Chinese boys do not engage in housework and lack basic life skills. In fear of causing problems to their boys, many Chinese parents remove or take over their sons’ responsibilities, unexpectedly inhibiting the cultivation of boys’ adventurous yet dutiful natures. Meanwhile, some parents excessively emphasize the importance of academic work, which also restricts Chinese boys’ social–emotional learning, adaptability, and resilience in their daily lives.

Second, the educational factor comes from the burdensome academic pressure in the Chinese educational system. Currently, the widespread schooling mission, traditional pedagogical routines, and the school climate collectively reinforce the masculinity crisis in China (Zhao, 2011). Nowadays, the K-12 Chinese educational system still prioritizes students’ essential text knowledge delivery and literacy and numeracy skill mastery. To enter more selective middle and high schools, students must earn high scores on high-stake examinations. The fierce academic competition among students and between schools causes Chinese teachers to narrowly focus on the drill and practice method, a defining yet limiting feature salient of Chinese teachers’ classroom pedagogy.

The aforementioned deteriorating schooling practice undoubtedly constrains the development of Chinese boys’ curiosity, sense of wonder, and outdoor activities (Zhao, 2000). As anticipated, many Chinese boys exhibit comparatively lower academic performance than girls (Li, 2016; Zheng & Wei, 2000). Furthermore, there is an obvious shortage of male teachers in Chinese elementary and middle schools, depriving boys of male role models. A survey conducted by the New York Times (2016) shows that roughly eight out of 10 teaching positions in urban China are occupied by females. Immersed within this feminized learning environment, Chinese boys have few opportunities to interact with male role models who might typify masculinity, and therefore do not have enough chances to cultivate their own masculinity.

Third, the societal factors contributing to the Chinese masculinity crisis encompass the influence of social media on teenage communities. Chinese popular media outlets suggest that the popularity of effeminate Korean, Japanese, and Chinese actors, actresses, and Internet celebrities is an important factor in the supposedly diminishing masculinity of Chinese youth (NBC News, 2017). In this increasingly feminine media scenario, Chinese boys are exposed to typically feminine behaviors, perhaps resulting in boys becoming physically and emotionally weak, tender-hearted, introverted, and shy.

Increasingly negative social phenomena, such as Internet addiction and juvenile delinquency, direct Chinese boys away from traditional masculine pursuits. Excessive time spent using social media, surfing the Internet, or other activities may contribute to boys’ lack of interest in typically masculine endeavors such as physical fitness, healthy lifestyles, athletics, or hands-on experiences such as building or mechanics. These worrisome media environments further deteriorate Chinese boys’ masculinity development by misleading boys about their role in their communities and country. At the macro sociopolitical level, the effeminate heritage of past colonial China, including powerlessness, inferiority, feminized passivity, and social deterioration, (un)consciously contributes to the crisis of masculinity in effeminate men (Zheng, 2015). Arguably, the intertwinement of politics, culture, and technology collectively contributes to the masculinity crisis in China.

“Boy turn” and solutions

In recent decades, a “boy turn” has emerged in research on gender and education throughout the globe. This “boy turn” has produced a large amount of theoretically oriented and practice-oriented scholarship on boys’ mental and physical development alongside education (Weaver-Hightower, 2003). Notably, the Chinese masculinity crisis has extended beyond the scope of the educational domain and has gradually evolved into a sociocultural issue (Li, 2016; Lin & Mac An Ghaill, 2019; MOE, 2021). Li and Zhang (2018) claim that the boy crisis is a multifaceted social reality, which entails boys’ slow mental development, unreasonable schooling practice, improper family upbringing, and misleading popular media culture. In summary, the boy crisis not only involves gender and education but also race, family, culture, media, and society. Following the aforementioned research trend, this viewpoint paper proposed a social–ecological approach to examining the major contributing factors to the boy crisis. The framework encompasses the familiar, educational, and societal dimensions.

Adolescent and educational researchers (e.g., Bristol, 2015; Farrell & Gray, 2018) therefore recommended some feasible solutions, such as a pedagogy of masculinity, to address the masculinity crisis. Bristol (2015) suggests gender-relevant pedagogy (GRP) is a practical solution to tackling the boy crisis. GRP is a teaching practice that requires practitioners to examine how they have formed learning conditions that enable or constrain boys’ learning, specifically through unconscious beliefs around gender manifested in curriculum development and responses to students’ perceived misbehavior (Bristol, 2015, p. 61). Compared with gender-neutral pedagogy, GRP caters more to boys’ learning needs and approaches across contexts.

To better implement GRP, Bristol (2015) advocates that schools should implement more gender-relevant curricula that facilitate a more sophisticated understanding of the complexities around the gender issue and promote experiential learning and engagement in a real-world context. Compared with traditional classroom-instructional activities, experiential learning might better fit boys’ multisensory learning styles. On the positive side, teachers’ pedagogy of masculinity or gender-relevant pedagogy can purposively cultivate students’ positive psychological qualities (e.g., stamina, ambition, grit, and resilience), physical fitness (e.g., healthy lifestyle and habit), and social adaptability (i.e., how to cater to the needs of life and work and resilience in the workplace). On the negative side, communities and educational institutions struggle to enact a pedagogy of masculinity because of the complexities of families and local communities. All stakeholders must work together to promote mental health, developmental psychological knowledge, nutrition, and exercising and fitness.

Moreover, since masculinity is not merely an educational conundrum, it also necessitates a broad array of family and social problems (Haywood & Mac An Ghaill, 2012). Accordingly, schools, parents, governments, communities, media outlets, and NGOs should forge collective capabilities to raise public awareness and readdress the masculinity crisis (Kokko, 2012). For instance, K-12 schools can recruit more male teachers, who can better address boys’ physical and psychological development. In Chinese families, fathers, as role models, can spend more time with their boys on learning, exercising, and other essential social activities. Last, local authorities, educational researchers, local communities, and NGOs can develop more masculinity-themed extracurricular activities and gender-related resources for boys.

Conclusions and contributions

Currently, many academics in China still consider the boy crisis an educational problem, limiting coordinated efforts between all stakeholders. However, we argue that the Chinese masculinity crisis has evolved beyond an educational conundrum into a sociocultural issue in recent years. From the social–ecological standpoint, we examined contributing factors to the Chinese boy crisis, which included the no familial (helicopter parenting style), educational (burdensome academic pressure), and societal (feminine and misleading social media) aspects. The social–ecological perspective, which is also the major contribution of this paper, provides a fine-grained account of the boy crisis in China when there are many intertwined factors contributing to this complex dilemma. Informed by the social–ecological approach, we may be able to forge a collective capability among various stakeholders (e.g., schools, parents, governments, communities, media outlets, and NGOs) to address the boy crisis in China.