The Dynamics of Construction of Youth Masculinities Among Male and Female Learners in Eswatini’s High Schools

Abstract

This study explores how youth masculinities are constructed in Eswatini’s high schools. Using hegemonic masculinity theory as an analytical lens, data were coded to identify patterns of dominance, strength, and gender hierarchy, thereby highlighting the study’s original contribution to understanding the local manifestation of hegemonic masculinity and advancing theoretical knowledge in this context. Data were collected through a qualitative case study approach involving 36 adolescents aged 16 to 18, comprising equal numbers of 18 boys and 18 girls, from six coeducational high schools. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups revealed that hegemonic masculinity shapes perceptions of gender roles, often promoting aggression in boys and marginalising girls. Sports, especially rugby, are key symbols of masculinity, emphasising strength, dominance, and competitiveness, while girls are excluded from these activities, reinforcing gender inequalities. Institutional practices like task allocation and disciplinary methods further sustain stereotypes, influencing youth identities within cultural and peer pressure contexts. The findings highlight persistent gendered power dynamics and stereotypes that perpetuate inequality. The study makes a significant contribution to the scientific literature by demonstrating how hegemonic masculinity manifests uniquely in Eswatini’s educational and cultural context, thus extending regional studies and providing insights for broader applications. It recommends gender-transformative curricula, increased girls’ participation in male-dominated sports, and gender-neutral disciplinary practices to foster more inclusive, equitable environments.

1. Introduction

Understanding how youths construct their gender identities in school contexts is critical for tackling persistent gender disparities and fostering social cohesion. This study contributes to the literature by offering novel insights into Eswatini’s specific cultural and institutional mechanisms that sustain hegemonic masculinity, thus filling a gap in regional research. In Eswatini, a society characterised by entrenched patriarchal traditions and cultural norms, high schools serve as critical environments for negotiating, enacting, and reinforcing notions of masculinity and femininity (Connell 2005; Bhana 2025). These institutions often embody cultural stereotypes, associating masculinity with traits such as physical strength, aggression, and dominance, which are typically perpetuated through sports, disciplinary measures, and task assignments (Hennessy 2017; Gajda et al. 2022). Conversely, femininity is frequently built around caring, compliance, and aesthetic responsibilities, which serve to subordinate female learners and maintain established gender hierarchies (Arshad et al. 2025). However, what makes Eswatini’s case distinct from other African or Global South contexts is the influence of specific educational policies, customary practices, religious influences, and national gender discourses that uniquely shape youth masculinities. In this setting Eswatini’s cultural and political landscape, including the influence of traditional monarchy, religious institutions, and specific education policies, uniquely shape gender norms, making this case particularly significant.

The purpose of this study was to explore how male and female learners internalise and implement gender roles in the high school setting, with an emphasis on the influence of peer relationships, institutional practices, and cultural expectations. By examining the construction of youth masculinities—particularly through sports, disciplinary procedures, and task distribution—the research seeks to uncover the social mechanisms that perpetuate gender stereotypes. The overarching objective is to generate insights that can inform targeted interventions to promote gender equity, challenge harmful stereotypes, and foster more inclusive and diverse expressions of gender identities among young people in Eswatini’s schools.

1.1. Background to the Study

Educational institutions are critical sites of socialisation, where societal norms, values, and behaviours related to gender are transmitted and reinforced (Althusser 2025; Freire 2005). In Eswatini, these norms are deeply embedded within traditional patriarchal systems that valorise masculinity linked to physical strength, aggression, and dominance, especially within sporting contexts (Hennessy 2017; Bhana 2025). Schools mirror and reproduce these societal hierarchies, where gender roles are reinforced through institutional practices, peer interactions, and cultural expectations. What makes Eswatini’s context particularly distinctive is the interplay between traditional authority structures—such as the monarchy and customary laws—and formal education policies that continue to reinforce gendered hierarchies. For example, specific national discourses emphasise male leadership and traditional masculinity, which are embedded within school practices and sports. This contextual specificity justifies the focus on Eswatini as a unique case to understand youth masculinities within a deeply patriarchal and culturally specific environment. Research indicates that sports such as rugby are regarded as the epitome of masculinity, emphasising traits like physicality, competitiveness, and violence (Pringle 2024). Boys often use participation in such sports as a means of performing and validating their masculinity, while girls are systematically excluded from these male-dominated activities, reinforcing gender hierarchies.

The emphasis on physical strength and aggression reflects hegemonic masculinity, which elevates certain traits while marginalising alternative or expressive forms of gender (Wedgwood et al. 2023). Research from South Africa (Ani and Katende-Kyenda 2025; Bhana 2025) and Zimbabwe (Zungu 2025) demonstrates that constructions of masculinity centered on strength, resilience, and dominance are pervasive across Southern Africa. These works highlight the regional persistence of gender hierarchies reinforced through sports, cultural practices, and educational norms, echoing the Eswatini context.

Institutional practices, including task allocations and disciplinary measures, further reinforce traditional gender roles. Boys are generally assigned physical or technical tasks, aligning with societal notions of masculinity rooted in strength and utility, while girls are confined to nurturing, domestic, or aesthetic roles, which sustains subordinate gender positions. Teachers’ attitudes and disciplinary strategies also play a significant role; male teachers often embody and reinforce traditional masculine qualities such as authority and strength, which students tend to emulate, whereas female teachers’ influence is often marginalised or confined to nurturing roles (Andrš Fárová 2025; Gajda et al. 2022). This interconnected web of peer influence, institutional norms, and cultural expectations shapes how youth internalise and perform their gender identities. Understanding these processes is essential for developing interventions that challenge harmful stereotypes, promote gender equity, and foster inclusive educational environments.

1.2. Geographical and Socio-Economic Context of the Study

This research was conducted in six high schools in Eswatini. Eswatini, formerly the Kingdom of Eswatini and also known as kaNgwane, is a separate nation in Southern Africa that has a border with South Africa on all sides except the east, where it borders Mozambique. Eswatini’s people speak the same language and maintain a traditional way of life based on Christianity and patriarchy that is both traditional and stagnant (Fielding-Miller et al. 2021). Manzini, Hhohho, Shiselweni, and Lubombo are the four geographically distinct regions of the country. The study was carried out in high schools around the country’s four regions. The schools are all coeducational.

1.3. Theoretical Framework

This study is grounded in the theory of hegemonic masculinity as articulated by Connell (2005). Hegemonic masculinity refers to the culturally dominant ideal of masculinity that sustains social hierarchies by valorising traits such as physical strength, emotional stoicism, dominance, and competitiveness. These ideals are reinforced through social institutions—including schools and sports—that serve as arenas for the performance of hegemonic masculinity (Connell 2023). The theory was instrumental not only in guiding the data collection and coding process but also structured the analysis deductively, allowing the identification of hegemonic masculinity as a key lens to interpret the data. The framework informs the study by elucidating how cultural ideals of masculinity—such as strength, aggression, and dominance—are reinforced through school practices, sports, and peer interactions in Eswatini. This theoretical positioning advances hegemonic masculinity theory by applying it within a specific cultural context, revealing how these ideals are localised and maintained. Specifically, the study contributes to the literature by demonstrating how hegemonic masculinity manifests in Eswatini’s school environment, emphasizing cultural particularities and the role of national discourses. Within the context of Eswatini’s high schools, hegemonic masculinity manifests through participation in sports like rugby, which symbolise physical power and aggression, and through institutional practices that favour male-dominated activities and disciplinary norms. The concept of the “Man Box” further illustrates how societal expectations constrain men and boys into rigid roles emphasising traits like emotional repression, violence, and dominance, while marginalising alternative expressions such as emotional openness or nurturing (Alsawalqa et al. 2021). This framework provides a lens to analyse how learners internalise, enact, and resist these hegemonic ideals and how these processes perpetuate gender inequalities.

2. Research Methodology

2.1. Research Approach

This research adopted a qualitative approach, emphasising in-depth exploration of participants’ social realities and perceptions concerning masculinity and femininity. Qualitative research is particularly suited for understanding complex social phenomena, such as gender socialisation, because it captures detailed, context-rich data that reveal the nuanced ways in which social norms are internalised and enacted (Lim 2025). The approach prioritises naturalistic inquiry, allowing participants to express their experiences and viewpoints authentically within their social and cultural contexts.

2.2. Research Design

The study employed a multiple embedded case study design to facilitate an in-depth investigation of gender constructions within specific high school environments. The six schools serve as multiple cases, each with defined boundaries in terms of location, socio-economic status, and cultural context. Case studies enable researchers to explore complex social phenomena within their real-life contexts, emphasising the interactions of social, cultural, and institutional factors (Cole 2024). The sample consisted of 36 purposefully selected learners—18 males and 18 females—aged 16 to 18, from six coeducational high schools located in the four regions of Eswatini. Participants were selected based on their relevance to the research objectives, accessibility, and willingness to share their experiences. Schools were purposively selected to capture regional diversity, including urban and rural settings, with criteria grounded in socio-economic variation and institutional engagement with gender issues. Data collection involved six semi-structured focus group discussions—one from each of the six coeducational high schools—with each group comprising three boys and three girls. The use of mixed-gender focus groups aimed to capture dynamic interactions and diverse perspectives on gender issues within a shared environment. Focus group sessions lasted approximately one hour, while individual face-to-face interviews lasted about 30 min.

2.3. Data Analysis

The study employed thematic and narrative analysis to systematically interpret the qualitative data, which was appropriate given the complex and context-dependent nature of exploring how social, institutional, and cultural factors shape gender identities. The analysis began with open coding, where meaningful segments of data were identified and labeled based on their relevance to gender, sport, and cultural influences. These codes were then grouped inductively into preliminary themes and subtopics, such as gender roles, institutional practices, and cultural narratives, following Braun and Clarke’s (2024) guidelines. To illustrate the transition from empirical extracts to interpretative categories, exemplar quotes are provided within the coding process, showing how raw data was systematically analysed into meaningful themes. Themes were validated through member checking and triangulation across focus groups and interviews, ensuring credibility and saturation. Data saturation was monitored by assessing the recurrence of codes across interviews and focus groups, and saturation was confirmed once no new themes emerged. Thematic analysis was conducted inductively to identify key patterns related to gender and sport, while narrative analysis was employed subsequently to interpret participants’ stories and discourses, offering contextual depth and complementarity. Thematic analysis provided a flexible, rigorous framework for identifying key patterns related to sports, gender roles, institutional practices, and cultural influences, offering nuanced insights into youth gender identity formation.

Complementing this, narrative analysis focused on participants’ stories and discourses to understand how they construct their gender identities through language, revealing how cultural narratives influence perceptions of masculinity and femininity (Ahmed et al. 2025).

2.4. Limitations and Mitigation Strategies

In recognising the scope and constraints of this study, we explicitly acknowledge several limitations. While the sample size of 36 participants across six schools limits generalisability, purposive sampling ensured regional and socio-economic diversity. Data triangulation across focus groups, interviews, and thematic analysis was employed to enhance validity. Data saturation was carefully monitored and achieved during analysis, confirming that themes were representative of the data collected. Additionally, the study’s reliance on self-reported perceptions may introduce social desirability bias. To address this, rapport-building and assurances of confidentiality were prioritised to encourage candid responses. Future research could incorporate observational methods or longitudinal designs to deepen understanding of how gender norms evolve over time.

2.5. Ethical Statement

Ethics refers to the principles and standards that guide individuals and researchers to conduct their activities in a manner that is morally right, responsible, and respectful of the rights and dignity of others (Arafat 2024). This study obtained ethical clearance from the Ministry of Education and Training. Additionally, the principals, acting as gatekeepers, sought and granted authorisation to enable access to the participants and the study site. All participants provided informed consent prior to their involvement, and parents or guardians also consented on behalf of minors or dependent participants. Confidentiality and privacy were strictly maintained throughout the research process, and all data collected were handled with the utmost care to protect the identities and personal information of the participants.

3. Findings and Discussions

The findings reveal how institutional practices and cultural norms shape youth masculinities through themes such as sports participation, disciplinary practices, and task allocation. These themes were systematically derived through inductive coding, supported by constant comparison, and validated through triangulation. Saturation was confirmed within each theme, ensuring comprehensive coverage of the data.

3.1. Sporting Activities and Masculinities

The data reveal that the dynamics of constructing youth masculinities in Eswatini’s high schools are shaped by a complex interplay of institutional, social, and cultural factors, particularly within the context of sports. Participants consistently highlighted how school practices and cultural norms reinforce traditional gender roles.

3.1.1. Sports as a Core Symbol of Masculine Identity and Strength

The theme related to sports and masculinity was constructed based on codes from participant descriptions, with validation through repeated patterns across interviews. Participants described rugby as a core symbol of masculinity, highlighting traits like strength and aggression. This theme was developed from participants’ narratives and validated through peer debriefing. Saturation was achieved after coding similar descriptions across the six schools, confirming the robustness of the themes. Engagement in sports, notably rugby, is fundamental to constructing and displaying masculinity, emphasising traits such as physical strength, aggression, and dominance. (See

Table 1. Presenting the sub-themes with the associated participants.

Sub-Theme	Description	Participants
Sports as a core symbol of masculine identity and strength	Engagement in sports, especially rugby, is seen as essential for constructing masculinity, emphasising physical strength, aggression and dominance.	Adamski (FG2), Brusly (FG6), Lizzy (FG1), Menzie (FG4)
Hierarchical and competitive nature of sports reinforces gender norms	Sports participation, especially rugby, is linked to social status, with boys striving for recognition and excluding less “masculine” sports like cycling.	Nothando (Individual), Aydan (FG3), Lwazi (FG2)
Gendered exclusion from certain sports upholds masculine dominance	Girls are systematically excluded from traditional male sports like rugby, reinforcing gender hierarchies and stereotypical roles.	Nomcebo (FG6), Lyn (Individual), Gilbert (Individual).

for sub-themes and associated participants).

(Adamski, FG2) asserts that:

It’s not appropriate for a guy to dislike sports; you must enjoy some sort of sport.

(Brusly, FG6) confirms his love for sports:

I adore sports. I have some knowledge of almost all sports. That’s what we do; boys watch sports and soccer and enjoy being active, and they only enjoy competing in this way.

(Lizzy, FG1) notes that:

Sports also play a significant role in boys’ lives. The boys always discuss sports, either soccer, rugby, motor racing or any other sports while we girls hardly take our time on sports. We discuss social life, relationships, feelings and life issues.

(Menzie, FG4) stated that:

One, it is offered everywhere. It’s far more well-liked than a lot of other sports that I think aren’t as good. The contact and the violence, ‘tjooo’, it is massive.

Adamski’s remark, “It’s not appropriate for a guy to dislike sports,” reflects the internalisation of hegemonic masculinity, where societal expectations dictate that masculinity is expressed through active participation in sports. His statement reveals how peer and cultural pressures shape boys’ perceptions of masculinity, aligning with Young et al.’s (2025) notion that hegemonic masculinity is often performed through activities associated with strength and competitiveness. Adamski’s perspective underscores the social enforceability of this norm, which discourages deviation and reinforces conformity among male students. This perspective also highlights the role of peer validation—boys often feel compelled to participate in sports to gain acceptance and avoid ridicule. It emphasises the socialisation process where sports serve as a rite of passage into male peer groups, further entrenching gender norms.

Brusly’s declaration, “I love sports. I have some knowledge of almost all sports” exemplifies how sports knowledge and participation are intertwined with masculine identity. His enthusiasm demonstrates how involvement in sports can cultivate a sense of belonging and pride, reinforcing traditional masculinity. The phrase “almost all sports” suggests a broad engagement that elevates his status among peers, aligning with Connell’s (2023) concept of hegemonic masculinity being maintained through visible and symbolic acts of athletic prowess. Brusly’s narrative also hints at the exclusivity of masculinity—those who are knowledgeable and active in sports are perceived as more masculine. This can marginalise boys who do not participate or excel, perpetuating a hierarchy of masculinity based on athletic competence.

Lizzy’s observation that “Sports also play a significant role in boys’ lives,” contrasted with her noting that girls seldom engage in sports, captures the gendered social structure within the school environment. Her remark reflects how sports are culturally coded as a masculine domain, which aligns with Harding’s (2022) argument that adolescent boys often use sports as a platform for identity negotiation and affirmation. This division also reveals societal expectations where femininity is associated with emotional expression, social bonding, and relational activities, whereas masculinity is linked to competitiveness and physicality. Lizzy’s account underscores how these gendered divisions are reinforced through institutional practices and cultural norms, shaping the identities available to boys and girls.

Menzie’s focus on the physicality and violence in rugby—“the contact and the violence, ‘tjooo’, it is massive”—highlights the centrality of aggression in constructing masculinity. This echoes Pringle’s (2024) analysis that violence in sports like rugby is often valorised as a masculine trait, serving as a symbol of strength, dominance, and resilience. Menzie’s emphasis on the violence also points to the normalisation of aggressive behaviour as part of masculine performance. This can have broader implications, fostering toxic masculinity where toughness and aggression become obligatory for male students, sometimes at the expense of emotional expression or conflict resolution skills.

3.1.2. Hierarchical and Competitive Nature of Sports Reinforces Gender Norms

For males, the focus on sports, especially rugby, as more than just a pastime but a rite of passage draws attention to the crucial relationship between sports, gender, and teenage social identity. Sports participation, especially rugby, is linked to social status and masculinity, with boys vying for recognition and exclusion of less “masculine” sports like cycling. (Refer to Table 1 for details on participants and sub-themes).

Nothando (Individual interview) observes that:

The way boys brag when receiving colours for exceptional sporting performances especially in these ‘boyrised’ sports like rugby and chess makes it obvious that sports construct what it is to be a boy or girl. Boys are usually promoted into first team, and this is announced at assembly. You can tell it is pride for these boys to have such promotions. To them it differentiates the strong from the weak.

Aydan’s (FG3) explains that:

Like cycling, you wouldn’t be viewed as someone who plays first rugby; you would be in a different league. You know folks won’t be able to approach me and ask how my cycling game was.

Lwazi (FG2) commented that:

Rugby is primarily a masculine sport. Football, on the other hand, is a sport that even ladies can participate. Rugby is played by women, although they are essentially men.

Compared to many of the guys I know, they are significantly more manly.

Nothando’s observation that boys brag about their sporting achievements, especially in “boyrised” sports like rugby and chess, reflects how success in these activities acts as a social currency that differentiates “real” boys from others. Her statement that promotion to the first team is announced publicly at assembly highlights how institutional recognition reinforces gender hierarchies. This resonates with Connell’s (2005) concept that institutional practices serve as sites where hegemonic masculinity is performed and validated, thereby maintaining gendered social order. Furthermore, Nothando notes that such recognition fosters pride, which constructs masculinity as a marker of strength and dominance. This echoes Butler’s (2022) assertion that cultural validation and public recognition are integral to the performance of gender roles and that these forms of validation sustain the social hierarchies that privilege hegemonic masculinity.

Aydan’s explanation that participating in cycling places a boy “in a different league” illustrates how sports are socially stratified based on their perceived masculinity. His comment, “Like cycling, you wouldn’t be viewed as someone who plays first rugby,” demonstrates how certain sports are hierarchically positioned, with rugby occupying the highest tier. This aligns with research by Messerschmidt and Bridges (2024), who contends that sports serve as symbolic arenas where ideas of masculinity—particularly physical dominance—are performed and reinforced. The devaluation of sports like cycling, despite their physical demands, illustrates how societal perceptions often equate masculinity with roughness and aggression rather than physical fitness per se.

Lwazi’s remark that “rugby is primarily a masculine sport” and that “football is a sport that even ladies can participate in” further illustrates how sports are gendered culturally. The perception that rugby is “unfeminine”, or “masculine” reflects societal norms that associate certain physical activities with gendered traits—strength and aggression for males, and passivity or femininity for females (Zungu 2025). Such perceptions are reinforced by media representations and institutional practices that valorise rugby as the “masculine ideal” (Pringle 2024). The inclusion of women in rugby does not necessarily challenge this norm but often reaffirms the gendered dichotomy by maintaining rugby’s status as a predominantly male domain.

3.1.3. Gendered Exclusion from Certain Sports Upholds Masculine Dominance

Girls are systematically excluded from participation in traditionally male-dominated sports such as rugby, athletics (sprinting, hurdles, long-distance running), and basketball. This exclusion is a manifestation of deeply embedded gender stereotypes that associate masculinity with physical strength, aggression, and dominance, thereby reinforcing existing gender hierarchies (Connell 2005; Bhana 2025).

Nomcebo (FG6), confirmed that:

We have sporting activities that we do not take part in here at school, like rugby because it is seen to be a sport for boys. This just goes to show that masculinity is favoured compared to femininity. Who said girls cannot play rugby? In this way boys are taken to be a special group.

We are allowed to join music and other cultural dance groups, but not other sporting.

Lyn (Individual interview) commented that:

The way boys brag when receiving colours for exceptional sporting performances especially in these ‘boyrised’ sports like rugby and basketball makes it obvious that sports construct what it is to be a boy or girl. Boys are usually promoted into first team, and this is announced at assembly. You can tell it is pride for these boys to have such promotions. To them it differentiates the strong from the weak.

Gilbert (individual interview) pointed out that:

Physically demanding sports such as rugby, athletics (sprinting, hurdles and long distance), basketball require endurance, strength and courage hence they are not for girls.

Nomcebo’s comment that “we do not take part in [rugby] here at school, because it is seen to be a sport for boys” exemplifies how cultural perceptions shape sports participation norms. Her rhetorical question, “Who said girls cannot play rugby?” highlights the socially constructed nature of these norms, which serve to marginalise girls from engaging in activities that could challenge and expand traditional gender roles (Gajda et al. 2022). Such exclusion sustains the societal belief that masculinity is associated with physical strength and aggression, qualities deemed incompatible with femininity, thus perpetuating gender inequality (Messerschmidt and Bridges 2024). Lyn’s observation that “boys brag when receiving colours for exceptional sporting performances, especially in these ‘boyrised’ sports like rugby and basketball” illustrates how participation and success in these sports serve as symbolic markers of masculinity and social status. The public recognition of athletic achievements—such as promotion to the first team announced at school assemblies—creates a culture that equates masculinity with physical prowess and dominance (Wedgwood et al. 2023). Such practices reinforce the societal valorisation of strength and aggression, which are central traits of hegemonic masculinity (Connell 2005).

Gilbert’s assertion that “physically demanding sports such as rugby, athletics, and basketball require endurance, strength, and courage; hence, they are not for girls” reflects the stereotypical belief that engaging in such activities could threaten traditional notions of femininity (Bhana 2025). This framing aligns with hegemonic masculinity theory, which posits that societal norms privilege traits like toughness and resilience as essential masculine qualities, while discouraging girls from participating in these domains to preserve gender distinctions (Wedgwood et al. 2023).

The gendered exclusion from sports consolidates societal notions that masculinity is tied to physicality and aggression, which marginalises girls and restricts their opportunities for empowerment and diverse identity expression (Bhana 2025). It also sustains a cycle whereby boys are socialised to value toughness and dominance, often at the expense of emotional intelligence and cooperation, while girls are socialised into roles emphasising nurturing and compliance (Arshad et al. 2025).

3.2. In-Class Activities

The theme regarding teachers’ role modelling, disciplinary practices, and task assignments was systematically constructed from participant narratives and validated for credibility. The theme related to teachers’ embodiment of masculine traits, gendered disciplinary approaches, and task allocations was identified through coding of interview transcripts. This theme was validated through member checking and triangulation, ensuring reliability. Saturation was monitored and confirmed, with no new themes emerging after the sixth school. (Refer to

Table 2. Summary of In-Class Findings on Youth Masculinities Construction in Eswatini High Schools.

Theme	Findings	Implications	Supporting Quotes/Examples
Teachers as Role Models Embodying Traditional Masculine Traits	Male teachers are seen as primary role models, embodying traits like strength, authority, confidence, and discipline. Female role models are less highlighted but include qualities like humility and passion.	Reinforces hegemonic masculinity emphasising dominance, emotional stoicism, and physical prowess. Female role models challenge stereotypes but are less prevalent.	“He is well built and looks authoritative … confident about himself.” (Brusly, FG6)/“Ms. Mkhonta is humble, loves to love, and speaks the truth.” (Betty, individual)
Disciplinary Practices Reinforcing Gender Stereotypes	Teachers tend to discipline boys more harshly, using physical punishments, while girls receive verbal warnings or are treated with more protectiveness.	Reinforces the association of masculinity with toughness and emotional suppression; perpetuates toxic masculinity and gender inequality.	“Girls are spoken to more respectfully … boys are more aggressive.” (Leon, FG1)/“Girls aren’t beaten … boys do pushups or stand on one foot.” (Nothando, FG6)
Gendered Allocation of Tasks	Boys are assigned physical, technical, and leadership tasks; girls are given nurturing, administrative, and aesthetic roles.	Embeds societal norms of masculinity linked to strength and technical skills, and femininity linked to caregiving and aesthetics, limiting gender role diversity.	“Boys carry heavy items and repair facilities.” (Mia, individual)/“Girls organise events and decorate.” (Ethan, FG2)

for a summary of in-class findings).

3.2.1. Teachers as Role Models Embodying Traditional Masculine Traits

The findings show a strong preference for male teachers as role models, embodying traits like strength, authority, confidence, and discipline—traits associated with hegemonic masculinity. This aligns with the broader cultural narrative that equates masculinity with physical prowess and emotional stoicism, as highlighted by the participants’ choices and descriptions. (See Table 2 for supporting quotes and examples).

Brusly (FG6) commented that:

My role model is Mr. Sithole. He is well built and looks authoritative when dealing with issues specially to do with indiscipline. He is confident about himself.

Meleni (FG5) explained that:

Mr. Kunene is my man. He is harsh, physically strong and always in suits. You do not just messy around with him. Compare him with Mr. Maphosa, who is always smiling and soft. You cannot be really man if you always smiling. He has high self-esteem.

(Ashley, FG3) remarked that:

You can’t really have a role model teacher who is not physically strong, respectable and self-disciplined. Mr. Mkhatswa does it for me. He has all that it takes to be a man. He has confidence in what he does.

Betty (individual interview) pointed out that:

Undoubtedly, Ms. Mkhonta is my role model. She views people as human beings, has an excellent perspective on the world, and seeks out profound meanings in brief statements. She is humble, loves to love, and speaks the truth no matter what other people may think.

Christine (FG6) asserted that:

Mrs. Mavuso is my role model. She has strong emotions and is a hopeless dreamer. She amazes me since she is passionate about the arts and disregards what the rest of society thinks.

Participants’ perceptions of male role models—such as Mr. Sithole, Mr. Kunene, and Mr. Mkhatswa—embody qualities that are widely regarded in the literature as central to hegemonic masculinity (Messerschmidt and Bridges 2024). Brusly’s admiration for Mr. Sithole’s authoritative presence underscores the cultural value of dominance and physical strength. Similarly, Meleni’s statement that “you cannot be really a man if you are always smiling” reflects the hegemonic ideal that masculinity involves emotional restraint and toughness, as discussed by Conlon (2025). These perceptions reinforce the notion that masculinity, especially in traditional contexts, is constructed around power, control, and resilience. Ashley’s emphasis on self-confidence and discipline further illustrates how these traits are viewed as essential components of masculinity. Such traits are consistent with Kimmel’s (2025) assertion that assertiveness and strength are core qualities associated with hegemonic masculinity, which often marginalises emotional expression or nurturing qualities.

The prominence of male teachers as role models also influences students’ understanding of authority and respect. Lameck’s appreciation of Mr. Mthetwa’s combination of authority and empathy suggests that effective masculinity in the classroom is not solely about dominance but also involves caring and responsibility—traits increasingly recognised in contemporary gender theories that advocate for more inclusive models of masculinity (Andrš Fárová 2025). The few references to female role models—notably Ms. Mkhonta and Mrs. Mavuso—introduce alternative masculine ideals centred around humility, emotional intelligence, and passion for the arts. Betty’s admiration for Ms. Mkhonta’s humility and truthfulness challenges stereotypical notions that equate masculinity solely with toughness and detachment. These viewpoints correspond with research indicating that inclusive role models who exemplify emotional depth and relational competencies foster more diverse and healthy interpretations of masculinity (Malonda-Vidal et al. 2021). The marginalisation of female role models indicates that the dominant discourse still privileges traditional masculine traits, which can perpetuate rigid gender stereotypes. The limited selection of female role models by male students points to a broader societal tendency to associate masculinity with hyper-masculine traits, often at the expense of qualities traditionally viewed as feminine. This echoes the findings of Dolan and Garvey (2024), who argue that educational environments often reinforce binary gender constructions, thereby constraining the development of more inclusive and flexible gender identities.

Informed by literature, these findings suggest that gender socialisation in schools perpetuates stereotypical notions of masculinity, emphasising strength, authority, and emotional stoicism. However, contemporary gender theories advocate for a dismantling of binary gender norms and promote models of masculinity that include empathy, emotional intelligence, and relational skills (Dolan and Garvey 2024). Such inclusive models are essential for fostering well-rounded, emotionally healthy young men who are capable of valuing both strength and sensitivity.

3.2.2. Teachers Reinforce Gender Stereotypes Through Disciplinary Practices

The interviews reveal how male and female students construct their masculinity through disciplinary practices in schools. Teachers use different methods to discipline boys and girls, influencing gendered identity formation.

(Leon (FG1) noted that:

Teacher (name withheld) gives girls a privilege. On boys, he may be more aggressive. When it comes to girls, he is more cautious. Girls are spoken to more respectfully by teachers.

Khanyisa (individual interview) claimed that:

Because girls are a little more delicate, teachers attempt to choose their words more carefully.

Boys, on the other hand, don’t give a damn what they say. For instance, they would say ’Come here hyper’ while calling a boy, but they might say ’Come here my good girl’.

Hlengiwe (FG5) explained that:

Teachers of any gender often show more protectiveness and leniency toward female students, while sometimes being harsher with boys. This approach appears inconsistent, as female students can defend themselves and do not always require extra protection. The level of discipline or support should be based on individual behavior rather than gender stereotypes.

Brendon (FG2) stated that:

Girls aren’t beaten by teachers. Pushups or one-foot stands are used as forms of punishment for boys. However, they exclusively issue oral cautions to girls. (Nothando, FG6).

The participants’ insights reveal that teachers in Eswatini’s high schools often reinforce gender stereotypes through their disciplinary practices, shaping how male and female learners construct their masculinities and femininities. These disciplinary approaches are not neutral; rather, they perpetuate traditional gender norms that associate masculinity with toughness, emotional suppression, and dominance, while positioning females as delicate and deserving of protection.

Leon (FG1) highlights that teachers tend to treat girls with more respect and gentleness, often speaking to them more cautiously. Conversely, boys are subjected to more aggressive treatment, which aligns with the broader societal expectation that masculinity involves resilience and toughness. This differential treatment reinforces the stereotype that boys should be stoic and unyielding, often through harsher disciplinary measures. Gajda et al. (2022) support this, noting that gendered disciplinary practices contribute to the socialisation of boys into traditional masculine roles that emphasise aggression and emotional restraint. Khanyisa (individual interview) observes that teachers’ language reflects gendered expectations, using affectionate terms for girls while dismissively calling boys “hyper”. This illustrates how communication styles serve to reinforce gender binaries—girls being seen as delicate and deserving of respectful treatment, while boys are expected to be unruly and tough. Zabrzewska (2025) argues that such rhetoric fosters a conception of masculinity rooted in emotional stoicism and physical toughness, discouraging boys from expressing vulnerability.

Hlengiwe (FG5) underscores the inconsistency in teachers’ protective behaviours. While teachers are caring and protective toward girls, they often discipline boys more harshly, sometimes physically, with push-ups or one-foot stands, while girls receive only verbal warnings. This differential treatment reflects cultural norms that valorise male strength and emotional suppression (Govender and Cartwright 2021). Such practices not only reinforce toxic masculinity but also implicitly endorse violence as a component of male identity, perpetuating cycles of aggression and emotional detachment. Brendon (FG2) elaborates on these disciplinary methods, noting that boys are subjected to physical punishments, which serve as rites of passage into traditional masculinity. Girls, on the other hand, are spared physical discipline, which may reinforce the perception of femininity as fragile and deserving of protection. Ngidi and Dlamini (2025) suggest that these gendered disciplinary practices contribute to internalised gender norms that associate masculinity with resilience and dominance, often at the expense of emotional health.

Overall, these insights reflect how disciplinary practices serve as socialising tools that reinforce gender stereotypes. Boys learn to associate masculinity with toughness, resilience, and emotional repression, which can lead to toxic forms of masculinity characterised by violence and emotional detachment (Nkosi et al. 2024). Meanwhile, girls are socialised into roles of delicacy and compliance, further entrenching gender binaries and inequality. These findings highlight the need for pedagogical reforms that challenge gender stereotypes and promote more equitable disciplinary approaches, fostering healthier constructions of gender among learners.

3.2.3. Gendered Allocation of Tasks Reinforces Traditional Gender Roles

Participants’ testimonies vividly illustrate how the gendered allocation of tasks within schools reinforces traditional gender roles, shaping youth masculinities and femininities. Across home and school environments, a consistent pattern emerges: boys are predominantly assigned physical, technical, and leadership tasks, while girls are delegated nurturing, administrative, and aesthetic responsibilities. These task distributions reflect and perpetuate longstanding societal norms about gendered capabilities and roles. (See Table 2 for a summary of these task allocations).

Mia (individual interview) highlighted that:

Boys are given by teachers to carry items or perform errands when there is a need to lift something heavy things. The teachers are careful not to give boys light work. The boys are made to repair broken school facilities, carrying heavy furniture and clean outdoor areas.

Emily (FG5) observed that:

Boys are often given the responsibility for errands that seem risky and work that needs physical presence. You can just see that girls are given tasks that are artistic and that require less of physical strength. Boys perform the tasks if it involves computerized work or the transporting of some commodities.

Ethan (FG2) commented that:

Girls are given the responsibility of organizing classroom events, preparing materials for class activities, decorating, and cleaning the classroom. Girls are assigned to tasks that call for their skills. They are mostly responsible for layout and organizing stuff.

Henry (individual interview) indicated that:

Teachers always assign girls work like decorating the classrooms, keeping class records, supporting organization of school events and functions. They are given roles perceived as nurturing and administrative.

Mia’s observation that boys are tasked with carrying heavy items, repairing facilities, and performing errands aligns with broader societal notions that associate masculinity with strength and technical proficiency (Connell 2005). Similarly, Emily’s account that boys handle computerised tasks and transport goods emphasises how schools mirror societal stereotypes that valorise male dominance in physical and technical domains. Such assignments serve to socialise boys into identities centred on utility, strength, and technological competence—elements of hegemonic masculinity that equate manhood with physical prowess and technical skill (Hine 2024).

Conversely, girls are assigned roles emphasising nurturing, organisation, and aesthetic duties.

Ethan’s remarks about girls managing classroom organisation, decorating, and cleaning demonstrate how femininity is constructed through caregiving and meticulousness. Henry’s statement that girls handle administrative tasks like record-keeping and event support further underscores the socialisation of femininity as nurturing and detail-orientated. These roles reinforce the cultural expectation that femininity involves caring, nurturing, and maintaining social cohesion—attributes traditionally associated with female gender roles (Arshad et al. 2025). Such task allocations limit girls’ engagement with technical or physically demanding responsibilities, thereby constraining their future occupational and social identities.

This gendered division of labour has significant implications beyond individual perceptions. By assigning tasks based on gender, schools function as microcosms of wider societal structures that uphold gender inequalities (Connell 2005). These practices embed hegemonic notions of masculinity rooted in strength and technical mastery, while confining femininity to caregiving and aesthetic roles. Consequently, youth are socialised into gender identities that prioritise dominance and technical competence for boys and nurturing and meticulousness for girls—perpetuating a cycle of gender inequality and limiting the realisation of diverse gender expressions (Brussino and McBrien 2022).

Recent research reinforces these findings, emphasising the urgent need for educational reforms that challenge and dismantle stereotypical gender roles. Schools possess the potential to serve as catalysts for change by promoting more equitable task distributions and fostering gender egalitarian perceptions. Interventions that broaden students’ understanding of what constitutes masculinity and femininity can contribute to more inclusive socialisation processes, ultimately encouraging a society that values individuals’ skills and potentials beyond traditional gender confines (Ani and Katende-Kyenda 2025).

4. Recommendations

The study recommends curriculum reforms that challenge stereotypes related to sports and disciplinary practices, promoting diverse role models and task allocations. These interventions aim to disrupt the mechanisms that sustain hegemonic masculinity, as identified in the themes. Implementing gender-neutral disciplinary policies and promoting inclusive sports participation are strategies directly derived from the analysis. Schools should actively promote girls’ participation in traditionally male-dominated sports like rugby through inclusive policies and awareness campaigns. Responsibilities and tasks within schools should be diversified so that boys and girls are equally encouraged to take on a variety of roles, breaking down gender stereotypes. Engaging parents, community leaders, and students in dialogues and workshops can foster societal change and reinforce inclusive norms. Regular assessment of school policies and practices will ensure these reforms are sustained and effective. Promoting positive role models of both genders who exemplify humility, strength, and empathy can further challenge stereotypical notions of masculinity. Encouraging boys to express emotions and participate in nurturing activities will help diversify constructions of masculinity. Overall, these targeted interventions aim to disrupt mechanisms that uphold hegemonic masculinity and foster healthier, more equitable gender identities among learners.

5. Conclusions

Grounded in hegemonic masculinity theory, this study reveals how institutional practices shape youth gender identities in Eswatini’s high schools. Sports participation, disciplinary norms, and task allocations serve as mechanisms that uphold stereotypes of strength, aggression, and dominance. For example, public recognition of rugby success reinforces gender hierarchies by valorising male athletic achievement, while harsher punishments for boys perpetuate toxic masculinity. The gendered division of tasks within schools further sustains traditional roles—boys in technical and physical roles, girls in nurturing and aesthetic responsibilities. These mechanisms contribute to the continued reproduction of hegemonic masculinity and gender inequality. The themes identified—such as sports as symbols of masculinity, gendered disciplinary practices, and task allocations—demonstrate the localised reproduction of hegemonic masculinity. These findings extend previous studies by providing detailed insights into how cultural, institutional, and peer influences converge to sustain gender hierarchies, thus contributing novel perspectives to the literature. These systematically constructed themes reinforce the theoretical framework and highlight pathways for intervention.