Urban Chinese Adolescents’ Perspectives on Gender Roles and Differential Treatment: The Significance of Teachers and Schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emerging research has been exploring Chinese boys’ and girls’ upbringing in the complex and evolving gender landscape. However, most existing studies focus on adult perspectives, leaving a gap in understanding Chinese children’s and adolescents’ own experiences and reflections on their gendered upbringing. This study draws on semi-structured interviews with 20 urban Chinese adolescents (50% girls) to investigate how they conceptualize gender and how they come to these understandings. Results suggest that adolescents view school, instead of the family, as a central arena of their own gender socialization. While adolescents were aware of common gender stereotypes, they often resisted definitive conclusions about gender differences, except in the realm of social interactions, where girls were commonly criticized as indirect, and boys were praised for being direct—even when that directness involved aggressive behaviors. Moreover, gender-differential treatment by teachers was consistently reported across schools, with boys assigned more demanding tasks and treated more harshly, while girls were given lighter duties and treated with greater leniency. We discuss how schools reinforce gender norms, create unequal opportunities for skill and group role development for boys and girls, and contribute to the reproduction of unequal gendered power dynamics in the workplace, family, and society.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".