Chapter 4: How Patriarchy Shows Up in Schools

1Chapter Quote

Chapter Quote

Education either functions as an instrument which is used to facilitate integration of the younger generation into the logic of the present system and bring about conformity or it becomes the practice of freedom, the means by which men and women deal critically and creatively with reality and discover how to participate in the transformation of their world.

— Paulo Freire

Schools don’t just teach reading, writing, and arithmetic. They teach gender. They teach hierarchy. They teach who gets to have power and who must submit to it. They teach patriarchy.

Most of this teaching is invisible. It’s not in the curriculum documents or lesson plans. It’s in the daily practices, the unexamined assumptions, the “that’s just how things are”. It’s in who gets called on, who gets punished, whose voice matters, what behaviors are rewarded, how space is organized, what language is normalized.

As a teacher, you participate in this system every day — not because you’re a bad person, but because schools are patriarchal institutions. Recognizing how patriarchy operates in your school is the first step to challenging it.

2In Discipline

Discipline systems are one of the most visible sites of patriarchal enforcement in schools. Gender shapes everything about who gets disciplined, for what, how severely, and with what consequences.

2.1Who Gets Disciplined

Boys are disciplined more frequently and more harshly than girls. This pattern is well-documented across schools, districts, and countries (Skiba et al., 2002). Boys receive more office referrals, more detentions, more suspensions, and more expulsions. But this disciplinary burden isn’t evenly distributed among boys. Boys who have been racialized as Black or Indigenous — sorted into categories of differential treatment based solely on constructed racial categories — and boys labeled as disabled — whose functional differences become disabilities only when measured against ableist social structures — face discipline at dramatically higher rates than white, middle-class, able-bodied boys (Morris, 2016). This disparity reflects not differences in behavior, but differences in how adults perceive and respond to these boys. Patriarchy intersects with racism, ableism, and classism to create compounding harm.

The standard explanation claims boys misbehave more. They’re more disruptive, aggressive, defiant — notice the biological excuse creeping in. But the patriarchal reality is different. Boys are punished for behaviors that violate school norms of compliance and stillness — norms that are themselves gendered. What counts as “misbehavior” is shaped by gendered expectations. Teachers perceive and respond to the same behavior differently based on student gender. Patriarchy teaches boys to be physically active, take up space, challenge authority, compete — then schools punish them for it.

This is patriarchy eating itself: the system teaches boys to be dominant and physical, then punishes them when they enact those lessons in ways that disrupt institutional control.

2.2What Behaviors Get Punished

For boys, discipline targets physical disruption — moving around, touching things, rough play. It targets overt defiance: talking back, refusing directives. It targets aggression and fighting. It targets what gets coded as “disrespect” — not showing deference to authority. These are all violations of institutional control, but they’re also behaviors patriarchy encourages in boys outside of school.

For girls, discipline operates differently. Girls are punished for “attitude” — eye-rolling, tone of voice, facial expressions. They’re punished for relational aggression: social exclusion, gossip, “drama”. They’re punished for dress code violations with obsessive attention to shoulders, bra straps, shorts length, leggings. They’re punished for being “too loud” or “too much”. Notice the difference: boys are punished for actions; girls are punished for attitude and appearance.

Both forms of discipline are patriarchal. Boys are being trained to submit to institutional authority even as patriarchy tells them they should dominate. Girls are being trained to be compliant, quiet, pleasing, and to manage their bodies for others’ comfort.

2.3How Discipline Is Administered

The framing of misbehavior reveals patriarchal logic. Boys’ misbehavior gets treated as a discipline problem; girls’ misbehavior gets treated as a character problem. “He’s being disruptive” versus “She has an attitude”. “He needs to learn to follow rules” versus “She’s being disrespectful”. “He’s having a hard time” versus “She’s being difficult”. The language subtly shifts responsibility and implication.

Boys’ aggression is normalized while girls’ aggression is pathologized. When boys fight, adults say “Boys will be boys, they’re working it out”. When girls fight, adults respond with “What’s wrong with these girls? This is disturbing”. Boys’ physical aggression is seen as natural development; girls’ is seen as aberrant behavior requiring intervention.

Different standards for “respect” and “talking back” emerge based on gender. Teachers often have lower thresholds for what counts as disrespect from girls, especially Black girls (Morris, 2016). A tone of voice, facial expression, or posture that would be ignored from a boy triggers discipline for a girl. Conversely, boys can be more overtly defiant before it’s coded as serious misbehavior — it’s expected, even admired as “spirit” or “leadership potential”.

2.4Emotional Expression and Discipline

When boys cry, the response reveals patriarchal conditioning. Crying is seen as weakness or manipulation. “Stop crying”. “Be a man”. “Toughen up”. Boys learn to suppress sadness and vulnerability, to associate emotional expression with shame. When girls cry, it’s also seen as manipulation or attention-seeking. “She’s just trying to get out of trouble”. “Crocodile tears”. Girls learn their emotions are tools for manipulation, not valid experiences deserving response.

Both messages are harmful. Boys learn they can’t be vulnerable. Girls learn their emotions aren’t real or trustworthy. Both learn to perform gender-appropriate emotional displays rather than express authentic feeling.

Anger receives gendered treatment too. For boys, anger is somewhat acceptable, especially if channeled into sports or competition. But anger directed at authority is severely punished — it threatens the institutional hierarchy. For girls, anger is unacceptable in any form. “Calm down”. “Don’t be hysterical”. “You’re overreacting”. Girls learn to suppress anger or express it indirectly, through passive aggression or relational manipulation.

The patriarchal lesson is clear: Boys can have some emotions — anger, pride — but not others — sadness, fear. Girls can have some emotions — sadness, anxiety — but not others — anger, rage. Everyone learns to perform gender-appropriate emotions and suppress the rest.

2.5The School-to-Prison Pipeline

This is where patriarchy intersects devastatingly with racism and classism. Black boys, especially, are perceived as older and less innocent than white boys (Goff et al., 2014). They’re seen as more threatening for the same behaviors. They’re disciplined more harshly for the same infractions. They’re funneled into the juvenile justice system through school discipline. This isn’t individual teacher bias, though that exists. It’s structural racism and patriarchy working together: Patriarchy codes Blackness as hypermasculine and threatening. Schools respond with surveillance, control, and punishment. Boys are criminalized for being boys while Black.

3In Curriculum

What gets taught, whose voices are centered, what knowledge counts — all of this is shaped by patriarchy.

3.1Whose History Gets Taught

Standard history curriculum centers men’s experiences, men’s contributions, men’s perspectives — and calls it just “history”. Women’s experiences are relegated to special units, women’s history month, or optional add-ons. The message is clear: Men’s experiences are universal and important. Women’s are niche and supplementary.

What gets taught reflects this bias. Students learn about wars — men fighting. They learn about politics — men governing. They learn about exploration — men “discovering” places where people already lived. They learn about invention — men creating. They learn about “great men” shaping history, from European conquests to Asian dynastic battles, from African kingdoms to European parliaments, from Columbus and Vasco da Gama to Zheng He, from the European Industrial Revolution to Chinese innovations, from Napoleon to Gandhi to Mao.

What remains invisible is equally telling. The domestic labor that sustained all these “great” achievements disappears. Women’s political organizing and resistance is erased. The care work that allowed men to do public work becomes invisible. Women’s intellectual and creative contributions are either ignored or attributed to men. Collective movements get reframed as individual male leadership.

3.2Literature and the Canon

Literary canons are overwhelmingly male, white, Western, heterosexual, cisgender. In India, upper-caste male writers dominate. In Nigeria, male Yoruba and Igbo voices are centered over women and minority ethnic groups. In Japan, male perspectives have historically dominated despite significant women writers. Women writers, writers of color, queer writers, non-Western writers become “diverse voices” added to the “real” canon.

Whose stories matter reveals the hierarchy. Male protagonists go on heroic journeys. Male coming-of-age stories are treated as universal human experiences. Male perspectives on love, war, morality, and existence become the default lens. Women appear as supporting characters in men’s stories — love interests, mothers, obstacles to overcome.

When women writers are taught, their work gets categorized differently. Often they’re tokenized — one woman on the syllabus to check a box. Their work is framed as being about “women’s issues” while men’s work addresses “human issues”. Domestic and emotional themes are devalued compared to war and politics. The message repeats: Men’s experiences are universal. Women’s are particular. Men are fully human. Women are gendered.

3.3STEM and Gendered Fields

The message “math and science are for boys” is rarely stated explicitly, but it’s communicated constantly through practice. It’s in who gets called on and encouraged in STEM classes. It’s in whose errors are treated as learning opportunities versus evidence of inability. It’s in role models and examples — textbooks and lessons featuring mostly male scientists and mathematicians. It’s in classroom culture: competitive, individualistic, built around “genius” mythology. It’s in career counseling and tracking that steers students into gendered paths.

Research shows girls and boys have equal math and science ability (Hyde et al., 2008). But girls receive less encouragement, more criticism, and face stereotype threat — the documented phenomenon where awareness of negative stereotypes impairs performance. By lower secondary school, many girls have internalized “I’m not a math person”. This isn’t ability — it’s patriarchy pushing girls out of fields coded as masculine and therefore valuable.

Meanwhile, humanities get coded as feminine. Boys who love reading and writing face teasing. Literature and language arts are seen as “soft” compared to “hard” sciences. Teaching and care professions are devalued and underpaid. The message is clear: Thinking, rationality, and important knowledge are masculine. Emotions, relationships, and care are feminine — and less valuable.

3.4Sex Education (or Lack Thereof)

When sex education exists, it’s often deeply patriarchal. Abstinence-only education teaches girls to guard their virginity — their value — while teaching boys that girls are gatekeepers they must persuade or overcome. Purity culture treats girls’ bodies as property of their families and future husbands.

Even “comprehensive” sex education often remains patriarchal. Consent gets taught as “no means no”, putting the burden on girls to refuse rather than teaching “yes means yes” or enthusiastic consent. Pregnancy prevention is framed as girls’ responsibility. There’s little discussion of pleasure, especially female pleasure. The curriculum is heteronormative, ignoring LGBTQ+ students. The focus stays on risk and disease rather than healthy relationships.

What’s missing is telling. There’s rarely education about patriarchy itself, gender roles, and power dynamics in relationships. There’s little discussion of emotional labor and relationship equity. Teaching boys about consent as their responsibility is absent. Comprehensive discussion of gender and sexuality beyond the binary doesn’t happen. Pleasure, desire, and agency — especially for girls and LGBTQ+ students — remain taboo topics.

3.5Hidden Curriculum in Examples and Language

The hidden curriculum operates through countless small choices. Who’s the default in examples matters. Math word problems feature male protagonists: “John has 5 apples…” Science examples use male defaults: “A scientist observes… he records…” History uses “man” as universal: “Man discovered fire, invented the wheel, built civilizations”.

Whose work is visible shapes student imagination. We say “the mailman, fireman, policeman” using gendered language that makes these roles seem naturally male. Pictures in textbooks show more men than women, especially in positions of authority and expertise. Guest speakers and field trips expose students to which professions and which people, creating models of what’s possible.

The message transmitted through these choices is consistent: Male is default, universal, human. Female is other, specific, gendered.

4In Classroom Dynamics

The day-to-day interactions in your classroom are shaped by patriarchy in ways you might not notice without deliberate attention.

4.1Who Gets Called On

Research consistently shows teachers call on boys more frequently than girls (Sadker et al., 2009). Boys call out answers and teachers respond to them; girls call out and are told to raise their hands. Boys receive more attention, feedback, and instructional time. Teachers make more eye contact with boys. Boys are asked more open-ended, challenging questions; girls are asked more recall questions requiring simple answers.

This isn’t conscious bias. Most teachers believe they’re calling on students equally. But when researchers actually count interactions, the pattern is clear and consistent across contexts. Why does this happen? Boys demand attention more — they’ve been taught the world is theirs. Girls are socialized to wait, be patient, not interrupt — they’ve been taught to accommodate. Teachers unconsciously expect boys to be leaders and girls to be helpers. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and boys squeak more.

The effect is profound. Boys learn their voices matter, their ideas are important, they deserve attention. Girls learn to wait, to defer, to be quiet and patient. Both learn patriarchal lessons about whose voice counts.

4.2Who Interrupts and Who Gets Interrupted

In classroom discussions, boys interrupt more frequently — interrupting each other and girls. Girls are interrupted more frequently, especially by boys. Teachers interrupt girls more than boys. When boys interrupt, it’s often tolerated or ignored. When girls interrupt, it’s corrected. This mirrors adult patterns that research on professional meetings, media interviews, and casual conversations has documented: men interrupt women far more than the reverse, and male interruptions are more tolerated (Karpowitz et al., 2012).

Students are learning through these patterns. Boys learn their voice is important enough to interrupt for. Girls learn their voice can be interrupted; they should wait their turn. Everyone learns male voices are more important, more urgent, more worthy of immediate attention.

4.3Whose Ideas Get Developed

Pay attention to what happens after a student speaks. A boy shares an idea: “Interesting! Let’s explore that. What do others think?” The teacher picks up the idea, develops it, makes it central to discussion. A girl shares the same idea: “Okay, thanks. Moving on…” The teacher acknowledges and dismisses, moving quickly past. A boy shares an idea that’s ignored, then another boy repeats it: “Great point!” A girl shares an idea that’s ignored, then a boy repeats it: “Excellent, [boy’s name]!”

This is the classroom version of what happens in workplaces — women’s ideas are overlooked until a man says them, a phenomenon so common it has its own name: hepeating (he + repeating). The lesson is clear: Boys’ ideas are valuable and worth developing. Girls’ ideas are forgettable or need male validation to matter.

4.4Gendered Expectations for Behavior

Boys are expected to be active, energetic, physical. They’re expected to compete and assert themselves. They’re expected to take up space. They’re expected to be less emotionally expressive. They supposedly need movement and hands-on learning. They’re assumed to be “naturally” good at math and science. They’re seen as natural leaders.

Girls are expected to be calm, quiet, still. They’re expected to be cooperative and helpful. They’re expected to take up less space. They’re expected to be emotionally expressive but not angry. They’re assumed to be detail-oriented and organized. They’re assumed to be “naturally” good at reading and writing. They’re seen as natural supporters.

These expectations shape everything: how we interpret behavior (the same action means different things based on gender), what we tolerate or correct, how we group students, what roles we assign, what we encourage or discourage.

4.5Spatial Dynamics

Watch your classroom and notice who takes up space. How do students sit? Boys spread out; girls make themselves small. Who sprawls versus who sits with legs crossed, arms contained? Who puts their stuff on others’ desks versus who keeps everything neatly contained? Who moves freely versus who asks permission? This isn’t natural — it’s learned. Girls are taught from early childhood to be small, contained, unobtrusive. Boys are taught to expand, spread, take what they need.

On playgrounds and in gyms, the pattern intensifies. Boys dominate central space — basketball courts, soccer fields. Girls are relegated to the periphery. Boys’ games are louder, bigger, more space-consuming. Girls’ games are smaller, quieter, more contained in leftover areas. Teachers often facilitate this by explaining “boys need to run around and be physical” (so they get the good space) while “girls can play over there” (in whatever space remains).

4.6Group Work Dynamics

When you assign group work, pay attention to who takes which roles. Boys gravitate toward leader, presenter, idea generator. Girls become note-taker, organizer, peacekeeper. This happens even when you assign roles randomly because students gravitate to gendered expectations. If you don’t actively interrupt this pattern, you’re teaching patriarchy through practice.

Who does the work reveals another dimension. Often girls do more actual work while boys get more credit. Girls do emotional labor — keeping the group on task, managing conflicts, ensuring everyone participates. Boys do visible work — presenting, speaking for the group, taking credit for collective effort.

Who gets heard in group discussions follows predictable patterns. Boys’ ideas dominate group discussions. Girls’ ideas get talked over or ignored. Mixed-gender groups often function like all-male groups with female note-takers, recreating workplace dynamics in miniature.

5In Teacher Modeling

Students learn as much from how you are as from what you teach. Your own gender performance, how you embody or challenge patriarchy, matters enormously.

5.1Gendered Communication Styles

Do you speak more softly or more loudly based on your gender? Do you apologize more or less based on gender? Do you assert yourself directly or hedge with phrases like “I think maybe…” versus “Here’s what we’re doing”? Do you take up space or make yourself small? Do you show emotion or maintain professional distance?

Students notice all of this. They’re learning what’s acceptable for their gender by watching you model it daily.

5.2Who Does Care Work

In your classroom, who decorates and makes the space welcoming? Who remembers students’ birthdays or personal details? Who checks in on students’ emotional well-being? Who mediates conflicts and repairs relationships? Who organizes class events or celebrations? Who does the invisible labor of maintaining community?

If you’re a woman teacher, you probably do most of this, and it’s expected and invisible. If you’re a man teacher, you probably do less of this, and when you do it, you’re praised as exceptional. This teaches students that care work is women’s work. Men who do it are special; women who don’t are failing. Emotional labor is natural for women, optional for men.

What changes this pattern? Male teachers visibly doing care work and naming it as important work everyone should do. Female teachers setting boundaries around care work and refusing to do it all. All teachers teaching care work as a skill everyone needs to develop.

5.3Authority and Discipline

How is your authority challenged or accepted based on your gender? Women teachers often report having to prove authority more than male colleagues. They’re called by first names when male colleagues are “Mr.” or “Sir.” Students, especially boys, test boundaries more with women teachers. Parents question women teachers’ competence more readily. Women teachers are expected to be nurturing, not authoritative — warmth and control are seen as incompatible.

Men teachers often report that authority is assumed automatically. Respect is given by default. They can be “fun” without losing control in ways women teachers struggle to achieve. They’re praised for basic care work that women teachers do invisibly.

Students are learning through these patterns: Male authority is natural and unquestionable. Female authority must be proven and can be challenged. Men are leaders; women are caregivers.

5.4Emotional Expression

What emotions do you show? What do you suppress? Traditional gendered expectations suggest women teachers can show warmth, care, and sadness — but not anger or stern authority. Men teachers can show authority, humor, and anger — but not vulnerability or tenderness. When you challenge these expectations — male teachers showing vulnerability, admitting mistakes, being nurturing; female teachers showing (righteous) anger, being authoritative, setting firm boundaries — you’re teaching students that people of all genders can have full emotional ranges. Emotions aren’t gendered; they’re human.

6In Physical Space and Policies

The physical organization of schools and institutional policies enforce patriarchy in concrete ways.

6.1Dress Codes

Dress codes are one of the most visible sites of patriarchal control in schools. What gets policed reveals the underlying logic: girls’ shoulders, bra straps, midriffs, shorts and skirt length, leggings. The justification is always “It’s distracting” — but distracting to whom? To boys and male teachers. The message is clear: Girls’ bodies are sexual objects that must be covered to prevent boys from being distracted.

What doesn’t get policed as heavily is boys’ clothing choices or boys’ bodies. The message: Boys’ bodies are neutral, default, not sexual. Girls’ bodies are problems to be managed.

The harm is multiple and compounding. Girls’ education is interrupted for dress code violations — pulled from class, sent home, missing instruction. Girls learn their bodies are problems requiring constant management. Girls are made responsible for boys’ attention and behavior — if boys are distracted, that’s girls’ fault for existing in bodies. Boys learn girls’ bodies exist for their consumption and that girls are responsible for managing male desire. Everyone learns girls’ bodies are public property subject to regulation.

Additional harm comes from how dress codes are enforced along racist lines — Black girls are policed more harshly for the same clothing (Morris, 2016). Dress codes police gender non-conformity, punishing boys in “feminine” clothing and girls in “masculine” clothing. Dress codes often ban cultural and religious clothing, adding xenophobia to the mix of oppressions.

6.2Bathroom Policies

Binary gender bathrooms enforce rigid categories: only two genders exist, gender is determined by biology or assigned sex at birth, bodies must be segregated by gender. This system harms trans and non-binary students who must choose which bathroom to use or whether it’s safe to use any bathroom. It harms gender non-conforming students who get policed for being in the “wrong” bathroom based on their appearance. It harms students who don’t fit stereotypes — masculine girls and feminine boys face questioning and harassment.

The patriarchal logic extends further. Women’s bathrooms have long lines; men’s don’t, revealing unequal infrastructure based on assumptions about biological needs. Changing tables appear only in women’s rooms, reflecting assumptions about who does care work.

What changes this? Gender-neutral bathrooms that anyone can use. All-stall bathrooms without urinals that provide privacy for everyone. Allowing students to use bathrooms aligned with their gender identity without policing or questioning.

6.3Sports and Activities Funding

Look at your school’s budget and facilities. Which sports get funding, equipment, space, coaching? Are boys’ and girls’ teams funded equally? Which activities are coded masculine — robotics, debate — versus feminine — dance, theater? How are resources distributed?

The typical pattern shows boys’ sports, especially football and basketball, receiving disproportionate funding. Girls’ sports are underfunded or treated as less important. “Masculine” activities get more resources and prestige. “Feminine” activities are seen as extracurricular fluff, nice but not essential.

The message students receive: Boys’ physical development and competition matter more. What boys do is more important and valuable. Girls’ activities are supplementary, less worthy of investment.

6.4Playground Equipment and Recess

What’s available and for whom? Large equipment for running, climbing, and ball sports gets dominated by boys. Small equipment for quieter play gets relegated to girls. Central space versus peripheral space gets distributed by gender. Supervision and intervention patterns follow gendered assumptions about what’s normal.

The typical pattern: Boys dominate space and equipment. Girls accommodate or get pushed to margins. Teachers intervene less in boys’ rough play, treating it as natural. Teachers police girls’ physicality more, discouraging roughhousing or athletic play.

7In Peer Culture

Schools are where peer enforcement of patriarchy happens with particular intensity. Students police each other’s gender performance constantly.

7.1Gendered Bullying

For boys, bullying enforces masculine norms through feminizing insults. Boys are called “gay”, “fag”, “pussy”, “bitch” — all insults that work by comparing them to women or femininity. They’re mocked for showing emotion, being gentle, liking “girly” things. They’re physically bullied for being weak, small, or unathletic. They’re socially excluded for not performing masculinity correctly. The enforcement is clear: Boys must be masculine — tough, unemotional, dominant, heterosexual — or face punishment.

For girls, bullying operates differently. Girls are called “slut”, “whore”, “prude” — sexual policing that punishes them for being too sexual or not sexual enough. They’re mocked for appearance — too fat, too thin, too masculine, too feminine. They’re relationally bullied through exclusion, gossip, and social manipulation. They’re sexually harassed — bodies commented on, touched without consent, reduced to physical attributes. The enforcement: Girls must be feminine — attractive but not sexual, nice but not weak, pretty but not vain — or face punishment.

For everyone, gender non-conformity is the most reliable trigger for bullying. “That’s so gay” functions as generalized insult for anything that deviates from gender norms. Clothing, interests, friendships, mannerisms all get policed. The message is clear: There are strict rules for gender. Deviation is punishable.

7.2Romantic Relationships as Status

For boys, having a girlfriend increases status. Sexual conquest becomes something to brag about. “Body count” matters — the more sexual partners, the higher the status. Controlling one’s girlfriend is seen as masculine — jealousy gets framed as love, possessiveness as caring.

For girls, the calculation is more complex. Having a boyfriend can increase status, but it can also decrease it. Sexual activity decreases status through slut-shaming. Girls must navigate an impossible balance: be desirable but not sexual, attractive but pure. Accommodating one’s boyfriend is seen as feminine — his needs come first, her role is support.

The patriarchal logic underlying all of this: Boys pursue; girls are pursued. Boys want sex; girls guard access. Boys own girlfriends; girls serve boyfriends. Heterosexuality is compulsory. Relationships are hierarchical, not egalitarian. This is where the “good girlfriend” conversation from chapter 1 emerges — that student learned from peer culture, media, and patriarchy that girlfriends are property to be controlled.

7.3Social Hierarchies

Among boys, hierarchy is based on physical dominance, athletic ability, and social aggression. “Alpha” boys sit at the top — most masculine, most dominant. “Beta” boys occupy the middle. “Omega” boys languish at the bottom — least masculine, most bullied. There’s constant competition and jockeying for position, constant enforcement of the hierarchy through mockery and exclusion.

Among girls, hierarchy is based on appearance, popularity, and social skills. “Queen bees” sit at top — most attractive, most socially powerful. Social climbing happens through relationships with high-status boys. Relational aggression maintains or improves position. There’s constant monitoring of appearance and social standing, constant anxiety about maintaining position.

Both hierarchies are patriarchal. They rank people by gender-conformity and performance. They’re enforced through bullying and exclusion. They teach that some people are worth more than others based on how well they perform gender. They prepare students for adult patriarchal hierarchies in workplaces and society.

8What This All Adds Up To

By the time students leave your school, they’ve received thousands of hours of patriarchy education, most of it invisible and unexamined.

Boys have learned they should dominate, compete, and control. They’ve learned emotions are weakness. They’ve learned care work is women’s work. They’ve learned their voices and ideas matter most. They’ve learned their bodies are neutral and powerful. They’ve learned they’re entitled to space, attention, and authority. They’ve learned femininity is shameful. They’ve learned they must constantly prove masculinity or face punishment.

Girls have learned they should accommodate, defer, and please. They’ve learned their emotions are manipulative or excessive. They’ve learned care work is their responsibility. They’ve learned they should wait their turn and support others. They’ve learned their bodies are sexual objects to be policed. They’ve learned they should be small, quiet, and attractive. They’ve learned they’re responsible for boys’ behavior. They’ve learned their value comes from appearance and desirability.

Everyone has learned gender is binary and rigid. Deviation is punishable. Hierarchy is natural. Some people — masculine, male — are worth more than others. This is just how things are.

And most of this teaching has been invisible, unexamined, unchallenged.

This is the elephant in the classroom. This is what we must see, name, and dismantle if we want to create liberatory education.

The question is: Are you ready to see it in your own practice?

9“But This Isn’t Happening at My School”

You might be reading this and thinking: “Our dress code is actually pretty relaxed”. “I don’t see girls being slut-shamed in my classroom”. “Our students are pretty progressive about gender”. “We have good relationships between boys and girls”. “This seems extreme — maybe it’s a problem elsewhere, but not here”.

Stop. This is exactly the thinking that allows patriarchy to continue.

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: Even if you’re not actively participating in patriarchal practices, they’re happening around you. Even if you don’t see them in your immediate sphere, they’re operating in your school.

Patriarchy doesn’t need your permission. It operates through multiple channels simultaneously: between students in conversations you don’t hear, in social media group chats you’re not part of, in locker rooms and bathrooms where adults aren’t present, at lunch tables and on the bus and walking home, through looks and gestures and whispered comments. Between other teachers and students in classrooms down the hall, in coaching and extracurricular spaces, in “jokes” and “harmless” comments, in differential treatment you don’t witness. Between students and parents at home where parents reinforce or challenge school messages, in conversations about “appropriate” behavior for boys versus girls, in restrictions placed on daughters versus sons. Between parents and school in complaints about teachers being “too strict” with sons or “not strict enough” with daughters. Between teachers in staff rooms where “boys will be boys” explanations circulate. In institutional policies you don’t control — budget allocations, dress codes, discipline policies, curriculum requirements, bathroom decisions made at district level.

You don’t see it because you’re not the target. Students don’t perform patriarchy the same way in front of teachers as they do with each other. They’ve learned what’s acceptable to say around adults and what to keep hidden. The slut-shaming doesn’t happen in your classroom during lesson time. It happens in whispered comments when a girl walks by, in group chats naming and rating girls’ bodies, in rumors spread about who did what at a party, in the word “slut” written on a bathroom stall, in social exclusion based on perceived sexual behavior, in the way certain girls are treated versus others.

The policing of masculinity doesn’t happen in front of you. It happens when boys mock each other for showing emotion, when “gay” is used as an insult in the hallway, when boys who aren’t athletic are excluded, when physical dominance establishes social hierarchy, when boys learn what they can’t be without losing status.

You might have created a relatively safe classroom. That’s genuinely good work. But your classroom is a small island in a larger patriarchal ocean. Students leave your room and enter that ocean every day.

What awareness actually looks like: Instead of assuming it’s not happening, assume it is and look for it. Listen differently to what students say when they think you’re not listening. Observe patterns in who sits with whom and why, who’s excluded and on what basis. Ask students directly through anonymous surveys or careful conversations about what’s it like being their gender in this school. Talk to colleagues about what patterns emerge across classrooms. Examine data on discipline rates, achievement patterns, participation in activities. Pay attention to what students don’t say — who’s silent, who’s withdrawn, what topics make students uncomfortable.

It’s happening even when you don’t see it. A girl in your class might be called a slut in group chats you’ll never see, be pressured by her boyfriend to send photos, be told by her parents she can’t hang out with boys, restrict her eating because of appearance pressure, avoid raising her hand because boys dominate discussion, be touched without consent in crowded hallways, feel unsafe but never tell an adult.

A boy in your class might be mocked for crying or showing fear, be called gay for having female friends or “feminine” interests, be pressured to prove masculinity through aggression or sexual conquest, feel trapped in rigid masculine performance, be experiencing abuse at home but can’t talk about it, be struggling with emotions he’s never been taught to process.

A non-binary or gender non-conforming student might be misgendered constantly by peers even if you use correct pronouns, be bullied in bathrooms, be excluded from friend groups, face harassment you never witness, feel erased by binary systems, be struggling in silence.

All of this can be happening while you think everything is fine.

10Your Responsibility: Observe and Challenge

You don’t have to fix everything. You can’t. Patriarchy is bigger than any individual teacher. But you do have to stay aware, keep looking for patriarchal patterns, not let yourself become complacent, assume it’s operating even when you can’t see it, and listen to students who tell you what they experience.

Challenge it where you encounter it: in your classroom through language, dynamics, and curriculum; in hallways and common spaces by intervening when you witness harassment; in staff meetings by questioning gendered policies and practices; in parent communications by pushing back on patriarchal expectations; in your own thinking by examining your assumptions constantly.

Make your classroom a safer space even if you can’t control the whole school. Create an island where different rules apply. Model and teach alternatives. Give students language and tools to recognize and resist patriarchy.

Build collective action because you can’t do this alone. Find allies among staff. Organize for policy changes. Support students organizing. Connect with broader movements.

Believe students when they tell you what they experience, even if you haven’t witnessed it, even if it contradicts your perception. Their experience is real whether you see it or not.

Challenge it anywhere and everywhere. When you hear a sexist joke in the staff room, address it. When you see a dress code violation, ask yourself if it’s actually about safety or about policing girls’ bodies. When a student uses “gay” as an insult, stop class and explain why it’s harmful. When boys dominate discussion, implement structures that ensure all voices are heard. When a girl is called a slut, intervene immediately and address it seriously. When parents have different expectations for sons versus daughters, gently challenge the assumption. When a policy reinforces gender binary, advocate for change. When a colleague says “boys will be boys”, respond with “Actually, boys can learn different behaviors”.

Small actions. Constant vigilance. Collective effort. You won’t see every instance of patriarchy. You won’t catch every moment. You’ll miss things, make mistakes, be imperfect. That’s okay. The work isn’t perfection. The work is paying attention and trying.

But you can’t do the work if you’ve convinced yourself it’s not happening. So don’t tell yourself “not my school”. Tell yourself: “It’s happening. I need to see it. And when I see it, I’ll challenge it”.

That’s the commitment required for liberatory education.

Next chapter