33.3

.3.

vii. .

a...

:0 i
; .4 1.3;

1:.

.

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(an... a
. n “3.“.

r Siva...
‘ or 3‘
1...}?
.. l
..

.1. . . 3.
.. «.33.-..

3...... a ‘3
‘5}

. .5

3b

.1 . EU...
I) it:
E

. I: “Wu... r "MT; .
€5.13“. ...‘L.....v‘
. . . 13.
.9. an.» dgnquhfi
but .12:

1 £313....
c. 1..) :5... £5. .
2.: )1

V 1
l . 60"
afinfimumm

.6. n 1..
$3.13....)
I ’52:)

. 3...... tzatsuixal‘
{fig-#45121)»;

in A;
.vu.b..!:.
lax-3‘1}. .

h...»
. 5.15 1.1.3.!
Ziaieit 5
1:22 5.... .
I, tic... is
.34 It...) .r.

: t:
i7;"t\|~1.-
$91.21....a5i

! II!)!:~==¥
:1; 3.-.... ?
......l.:..

s .25.
3...... f. .:.Kr\|$.l:
{a {Iii-[.3155 .n

15...:

. .icitamé

8’. 5.... A

THESlS

11111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

2&0 3 1293 02106 1753
LIBRARY

Michigan State
Unlverslty

 

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

High School Masculinity and Gender Politics:

Submerged Voices, EmergingTGhoices
presented by

Michael Duncan Kehler

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph. D Education

degree in

 

 

Kama/1: Jew

Major professor

Date May 10, 2000

 

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

1105169 50%“

d

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11/00 Wm.“

 

HIGH SCHOOL MASCULINITY AND GENDER POLITICS: SUBMERGED
VOICES, EMERGING CHOICES

By

Michael Duncan Kehler

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Teacher Education

2000

ABSTRACT

HIGH SCHOOL MASCULINITY AND GENDER POLITICS: SUBMERGED
VOICES, EMERGING CHOICES

By
Michael Duncan Kehler

The problem of gender bias and sexism in high schools has had a long
history. The problem of young men dominating classroom conversations and
alienating girls in schools is well documented. And the problem of eliminating
sexism and gender bias in schools is likewise an ongoing concern. In this
dissertation I examine the problem not of sexism and gender stereotypes per se
but of high school masculinity, framed within gender and education research. At
the center of this study are four high school young men whose daily school
experiences reveal the choices they made to reject the stereotypically sexist
behavior of their peers and the gender stereotypes that hung over their
classmates.

This research challenges mainstream gender and education research on
several fronts. First, rather than accept "the boys" as a coherent and
undifferentiated group of young men I argue that high school masculinity is best
understood as a multiplicity of masculinities within a high school setting. I argue
that masculinity is socially constructed. All men do not necessarily accept
"scripts" of masculinity but instead negotiate ways of being young men. Second,
and somewhat overlapping with the first, I argue that masculinity is about making
choices between different ways of being a man in school. Through informal and

formal interaction young men learn and understand what it means to be a high

school young man. As such they define their masculinity in high school through
an array of expressions and social practices. Third, through daily interaction high
school young men convey a series of choices that reflect a connected set of
beliefs and attitudes, what I argue is their "gender politics." The beliefs of the
young men in this study in particular uncover the ability of some high school
young men to exercise a degree of human agency that rejects sexism and
gender stereotypes.

This research brings to the foreground an alternate view for responding to
sexism and gender stereotypes in high schools. In their list of forty
recommendations the AAUW (1992) suggested that reform and change to
eliminate sexism and gender stereotypes in education come from curricular,
financial, and administrative means. This research demonstrates that while these
are useful starting points to change the face of American education, the problem,
deep seated in the beliefs and expressed in the behaviors of young men, must
and can come from destabilizing what and how young men learn about
masculinity and gender stereotypes from their peers. Young men need to be
invited into a conversation for social change and accepted as allies who have the

potential to contribute through a progressive gender politics.

DEDICATION

To a woman, a wife, a model of dedication, caring and loving.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In the recent past days the voices of many who have contributed to my
efforts embodied in this dissertation have echoed in my mind. Writing and
completing a dissertation is not about one person but about a collection of
people. In varying capacities and with a range of responsibilities each person
has helped, prodded, and propped me up at different times. Let me offer my
thanks to all those who are both near in the College of Education including
support staff and faculty to those who are far but whose thoughts and support
arrived via email and through lengthy phone conversations.

The four young men, David, Philip, Thurston and Hunter, whose school
lives are at the center of this study are to be thanked first and foremost. They
opened their arms figuratively and literally to allow me to see and become a part
of their school lives. In an uncanny but heart-warming way they embraced me as
one of their friends. For this I thank you.

The person with whom I shared my journey as a doctoral student and for
whom I share the utmost respect and gratitude is my Advisor, Sandy Wilcox.
You are a scholar whose dedication and commitment is admired and deeply
appreciated. You always had space for me in your daily schedule even if we
were hard pressed to find space in the recesses of your office! My gratitude
comes to you for not only knowing when to push, to question, to make me
uncomfortable, but for also knowing when to cheer. The sparing but ever so
comforting words allowed me to direct and redirect without losing sight of my goal

and purpose. You are a support like none other.

To my committee members, David Labaree, Wanda May, and Lynn Paine
I offer my appreciation in different ways. Each one of you has guided with
individual attention and determination. David has been a stable force that has
never relinquished; never stepped back from the edge he had pushed me
toward. You have shown me the demands, the challenges, and the possibilities
that remain for me as an academic. After meeting early in my career as a
doctoral student Wanda introduced me to the complex and troubling theoretical
boundaries that bind researchers. You gave me the chance to intellectually
explore and expand the horizons that I thought were bounded. I grew out of our
conversations and look forward to pushing even further beyond where you have
guided me. Finally, Lynn, a person for whom my appreciation is filled with richly
textured notions of what it means to see, understand, and truly know what it
means to be a man. Your open, caring, and endless energy for my interests
moved me. I am indebted to you for the many conversations and opportunities
you allowed me to see, hear, and know both about education and the salience of
gender in the school lives of young men and women.

Beyond my committee members are my friends, the people who nudged
me and jogged my mind when it was on hold. Among many others Pat Norman,
Faaiz Gierdien, Mike Stone, and Jeremy Price will always be in my heart. The
unending support was a smattering of humor, collegial bantering, and intellectual
challenges that few others have managed to wrap into any conversation let alone

every conversation! There is little that can be said to accurately convey my

vi

depth of regard and respect for you as friends and colleagues. Thank you for
being both, when l was not even sure who I was!

My family is like none others, or so l think. With a loving mother and two
brothers I can hold no candle to the endurance and forbearance they have
shown while I followed my academic adventures. To my mom, I find fewer and
fewer words to express what it has meant to know that you are and always will
be accepting of me as a son, a teacher, and an emerging scholar. May I never
lose sight of the love, laughter, and wealth of curiosity you have instilled in me.
As for Doug and Bill, my older brothers who have looked upon me with
occasional disbelief and perhaps awe, rest assured I am here listening and
watching as you have for me. You have heard the familiar tales of woe and even
cries of relief. The distance between us has been purely geographical but the
models of masculinity we express are clear windows upon which to see how we
are and always will be together, three men, three sons, and three brothers
forever.

The final word is for a woman whose place in my heart, my mind, and my
life is forever cherished. As a confidant, friend, and wife you have filled my days
with immeasurable support. There has never been a moment when you
questioned, doubted or sought to relieve the burden of the task before me. You
are a strong, confident, and loving woman without whom my accomplishments
would have paled. I thank you for investing in not only me but in my passion and

love for education and the intellectual challenges that confront me.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract
Dedication
Acknowledgments

Chapter One
In the shadows: Dissenting voices among high school young men

Submerged voices: Moving out from the shadows
Opposition: Defining the terms of resistance

The lessons of time: Sexism and mis-naming "the students"

Unraveling the lessons of old: Identifying the problem
From theory to practice: The problem in context
A familiar view: boys being boys

Responding to sexism: A renewed look at high school masculinity

Related literature and research
Gender studies: What lessons have we learned?
Men's studies: Theorizing masculinities

Men with countersexist beliefs: A window of opportunity?

Drawing lines: A field divided
Summary
Overview of the text

Chapter Two

Research Methods

The primary focus: Knowing which questions to ask
Fieldwork: Gaining access to a familiar culture
Researcher relationships

Gaining support and fitting in with the boys
Researcher come high school student
Complications in the field

When teacher/adult turns student

Ethnographic methods

The sampling

Emergent data: Hearing and seeing from within
Listening to the data and seeing the patterns

Men interacting with men: But where are the women?
Defining moments: Interactions and conversations
among young men

Working definitions: Masculinity among men
Analytic and theoretical framework

viii

41
42
45
47
48
49
51
55
57
58
63
65
68

70
74
75

Central High 78

Choosing names: What shall I call you? 80
David: . . . "so I gave him a hug." 81
Hunter: " I am not ashamed of anything I do." 82
Philip: From the halls to the stage 83
Thurston: An 'alternateen' in 'the corner' 84
Chapter Three
Four cases: Masculinity, choices, and gender politics 85
David 88
A hockey player with an attitude? 89
Masculinity: Beyond a unidimensional concept of "the boys" 90
Physical prowess: Athleticism, "python guns"
and muscle magazines 92
Telling jokes: Displays and affirmations of sexual prowess 96
Scoring goals and an academic masculinity 99
High school young men: Making choices unlike the boys 103
Public displays: Physical closeness among men 103
"High-fives" and "hattrick hugs" 106
Gender politics: Degrees of opposition 107
Jokes: Knowing when and how to say "no" 108
Dissenting voices amidst the clamor of others 112
The difficult decisions and making choices 114
thp 117
Philip's emerging beliefs: From girl friends to family 119
Masculinity: Beyond a unidimensional concept of "the boys" 121
Marginalised masculinities: l was trying to think of something to say"122
High school young men: Making choices unlike the boys 126
Straddling two worlds: The difficulty of "just being yourself." 126
Gender politics: Degrees of opposition 129
Rejecting male stereotypes: Physical closeness among men 130
Hanging with the boys: The struggles to be yourself 131
Thurston 1 36
Competing models: A perspective of understanding 138
Masculinity: Beyond a unidimensional concept of "the boys" 139
"Boys will be boys" 139
"It’s just weird an incomprehensible" 140
High school young men: Making choices unlike the boys 142
"All my friends are girls" 143
Gender politics: Degrees of opposition 149
Sexism: "Caught off guard" and "knowing the person saying it" 149
Subtle opposition 151
Hunter 153
Sport images, relationships, and mushy stuff 155
Masculinity: Beyond a unidimensional concept of "the boys" 158

High school young men: Making choices unlike the boys 162

ix

Flirting with masculinities 164

Hugging among men: Knowing when and how 167

Gender politics: Degrees of opposition 172

Conversations among men: When can a man be honest and open? 172

Young men together: "Good buddy type talk" and "shooting the shit"175
Across the faces: A renewed vision of masculinity, choice,

and gender politics 178
Masculinity: Beyond a unidimensional concept of "the boys" 179
High school young men: Making choices unlike the boys 182
Gender politics: Degrees of opposition 185
Chapter Four
Reactions and responses: What happens when young men embrace
competing gender politics? 188
Reactions and responses: Ridicule, verbal derision, and mimicking 191
Ridicule and verbal derision 192
Physical closeness: "Touchy feely type of guys" and
heterosexualised masculinities 193
Venues ridiculed: Gender politics, creativity, and conversations 202
The benefits: Being comfortable and being yourself 205
Powerful assumptions holding back the possibilities of change 213
Chapter Five
High school masculinity: Choosing a progressive gender politics 215
The findings 219
Masculinity: Definitions from a polyphony of voices 221
Choices: Masculinities in a high school context 223
Gender politics: Views and displays unlike mainstream young men 225
The study: Its limitations 229
Re-writing and re-thinking: Young men as social allies 235
Conclusion
A renewed call for change: Embracing high school young men 239

References 245

Chapter One
In the shadows: Dissenting voices among high school young men

As the title of this chapter might suggest, in the shadows of our schools
exist some young men whose experiences have yet to be heard. Unlike
mainstream young men the individuals in the following study are high school
young men whose voices differ from the rest. There is no question that
historically "the boys" have been advantaged in education and "the girls," for all
intents and purposes, have been unfairly served. However, what past studies
have failed to acknowledge is the extent to which there are differences among
and across the school experiences of both men and women. Not all the boys
share common school experiences.

In the late nineteen-seventies I was a young man in my teenage years at
high school. I remember distinctly looking around and noticing differences
between many of my friends but particularly my male peers. They hung out with
other groups of guys, played football, basketball, went to the same parties, and
generally acted much the same around each other. But at the same time, from
where I stood they were all doing things different from me. I was on the outside
looking in. l was not one of the boys.

ln grade twelve I decided I wanted to be like the rest. I wanted to be one
of the guys. They had privilege and social status. They had a place within our
school as athletes, student body members and the like. I walked away from my
primary group of friends, Susan, Karen, Carol, and Terry and instead sought to

be one of the boys. The problem was, I was not like the rest of the boys.

My views and beliefs about men and women in particular were different
from my male peers. These beliefs and attitudes, what Connell (1995) has
referred to as “gender politics” were imbedded in my daily interaction with my
peers, men and women. My gender politics were intricately woven to what it
meant for me to be a high school young man in the nineteen seventies.

I did not share the same high school experiences as many of my
mainstream male counterparts. This happened for two reasons. One, I
represented a competing version of masculinity. Among other things I did not
play any of the major sports at the school and I did not participate in school
politics. I was a young man whose position was not well defined by the standard
activities and events that typically brought young men together in high school.
Second, my gender politics conflicted with a hegemonic masculinity to which my
male peers belonged. That is to say that my views about men and women
differed significantly from those of my male counterparts. Even in light of these
competing views I nonetheless struggled to be a part, to be one of the boys.

During the last two years of high school I worked at being one of the boys.
I learned what it meant to be a high school young man. One version of
masculinity was largely adopted in place of another. I began hanging out in
different places, and going to events I had not previously attended. I observed
and eventually mirrored the actions and behaviors of many of my male peers. I
chose to be among the boys because of the privilege and status they had in my
high school. What I did not anticipate nor understand at the time was how my

own gender politics conflicted with what it meant to be one of the boys. And

though I experienced it, I did not understand the tensions that separated and
divided competing versions of masculinity. Instead I accepted these tensions as
part of being on the outside looking in.

Twenty years later the tensions between competing masculinities and
prevailing images of the boys in high schools remain largely unchanged. Until
recently, the very notion that the boys is a coherent group in and of itself has
gone unquestioned. The decisions I made as a young man growing up in the
seventies are similarly seen today embedded in the broader and more enduring
crisis of sexism and gender stereotypes that has colored the school experiences
of students, men and women, across America.

This study raises questions about a small portion of the student
population, namely high school young men who routinely make choices about
masculinity and gender politics during the daily interaction of their school lives.
In this dissertation I examine what I argue is a three pronged issue in which
masculinity is wedded to one's individual gender politics within a high school
setting. More specifically I explore the extent to which four young men oppose
sexism and gender stereotypes during their daily interaction in high school.

These young men represent a significant divergence from mainstream
high school masculinity. In certain comers of academia such as men's studies
and cultural studies research, young men such as these have been referred to as
"social allies" or "countersexist men." (see Connell, 1995; Messner, 1997) The
participants in this study were models of masculinity unlike the rest of the boys.

At the same time these young men were among the boys. They were delicately

positioned as young men negotiating not only their masculinity but also different
sets of gender politics which defined who they were as young men. This study
uncovers the repertoire of ways that four high school young men a) present
themselves as young men and b) reject sexism and gender stereotypes
commonly reported as the norm among high school young men. (see AAUW,
1992; Sadker & Sadker, 1994, 1986; Spender, 1989)

Submerged voices: Moving out from the shadows

The title of this dissertation refers to submerged voices and emerging
choices. As I have previously mentioned, this research sheds light on a small
disproportionate number of high school young men. My aim was to look beyond
the shadows of "the boys" and admittedly, to hear the voices of a few. Why, after
all the research that has convinced us of the aggression and domination
expressed by young men, should I look beyond them? If blame need be placed
and researchers want to reform education to create greater gender equity, then
clearly the light has rightly been cast upon these particular young men. This view
however is nearsighted. Unmentioned, unobserved, and unheard are the young
men who do not share the same school experiences, or express the same views
as those found in many mainstream studies of gender and education.

There are a variety of voices not being heard among high school students
and particularly among young men. The voices which I have captured in this
study are submerged in the sense that they have not been heard or at least not
clearly. To a large extent they have been muffled. By acknowledging that there

are competing versions of masculinities within any given school context we also

acknowledge the fact that making choices among and between these versions is
often difficult for some young men. Boys respond to various social practices
which define masculinity "in active, selective and even oppositional ways, so the
effect of any discourse on the construction of masculinity is contingent, tentative
and unpredictable" (Gilbert & Gilbert, 1998, p. 51). The choices young men
make about how and when they present and represent their masculinity
contributes to the degree to which their voices are heard or submerged among
their peers.

High school masculinity is not about one way of being a young man but as
I will argue, it is about multiple voices and multiple masculinities. The voices and
perspectives of some high school young men thus are submerged in a process
that gives power and credibility to some perspectives and less to others. The
opinion of a young man who is gay for example might be less valued and in fact
not heard in a classroom. The experiences of the young men in this study have
been submerged on the basis that they do not represent a more pervasive form
of masculinity generally accepted and legitimated in most schools. The
participants enact forms of masculinities grounded in social practices that
highlight the competing and contradictory ways of being young men in high
school. They also provide a much broader understanding about the basis upon
which some voices among high school young men become submerged.

Issues addressed in school assemblies and taken up in classroom
discussions include school violence, sexual harassment, and sexual orientation.

These are telling signs of the complicated lives students lead. They are also

indicative of a growing number of tensions within and across students, men and
women. They alert us to the competing social agendas that in no uncertain
terms have an affect of delineating students in addition to the already racially and
socially class based distinctions in American high schools.

The submerged voices captured in this study illustrate the possibility of a
progressive gender politics among high school young men. This study
documents the competing realities of being a high school young man unlike the
rest of the boys. In this case the young men are not negotiating their sexual
orientation, class, or race, but instead, the means by which they interact and
express their masculinity as well as their views of gender more broadly. Not
surprisingly what is largely intact is their identity as white, middle-class men.

The tensions in the lives of these students and their classmates stem from
competing views about masculinity and the assumptions that frame how high
school young men interact and express their views about gender as men.
Conceptually this leads to another key definition freely used through out this
dissertation. I will now explain more fully what constitutes opposition as a form of
response to the sexist behavior and gender stereotypes that have colored the
school experiences of these young men.

Opposition: Defining the terms of resistance

This study explores various forms of opposition to sexism and gender
stereotypes. l have used the term opposition to signify the act of positioning
oneself in contrast to pre-existing norms of masculinity. This study thus is an in

depth look at the various means and degrees to which four young men resist

long standing views of masculinity and gender relations. By examining the daily
interaction of the participants and their peers l illustrate how some young men
actively and intentionally move against the grain of mainstream definitions of
masculinity.

The term opposition in this study is a poignant reminder that the daily
action and inaction of students might also be interpreted as a powerful socio-
political statement. I highlight the various contexts within a school setting that
frame how and when young men are likely and less likely to express their gender
politics. The actions and words of these young men define competing social
agendas in the wider context of schooling. Messner (1997) highlights the
important position men can play in the process of contributing to movements for
social justice. It extends beyond the individual and bears a significant social
impact. In the closing comments to his text, Politics of Masculinities: Men in
Movements, he emphasizes that

in rejecting hegemonic masculinity and its rewards, we [men] also may

become more fully human. For I am convinced that the humanization of

men is intricately intertwined with the empowerment of women. (p.110)

It is also worth remembering that the positions these young men express are not
strictly those of the four participants. In fact they reflect on a much broader set of
competing agendas.

The stance these young men take with regard to gender and masculinity
in particular is defined in relation to other more familiar and deep-seated

agendas. The contrast in agendas and sets of beliefs are evident on an ongoing

basis. However, as this study shows, the distinctions between opposing gender

politics are overlooked and instead the attention is typically diverted toward the
most powerful and glaring examples that support and maintain mainstream
masculinity.

The lessons of time: Sexism and mis-naming "the students"

American education has been witness to recurring problems of sexism
and gender stereotypes. During the seventies education was besieged by what
appeared to be a mainly feminist agenda for improved gender equity in schools.
Feminists rallied support arguing that education must provide greater
opportunities for girls which, up until then, had largely been reserved for the
boys. With increased political pressure at the time legislation enacted Title IX of
the Education Amendments of 1972. According to this act “discrimination on the
basis of sex is illegal in any educational program receiving federal funding”
(AAUW, 1992, p. 12). The battle for improved opportunities in education and
equity between boys and girls in school however was short lived. Decades later
educators, teachers, and administrators continue to struggle to eliminate sexism
and gender bias.

In subtle and not so subtle ways students, both boys and girls, have been
the victims of an education system that has responded to them in very different
ways. Gender has continued to make a difference in the type of education
students receive. In a highly touted report the American Association of University
Women (1992) roundly criticized current education debates in which “the
students” remained just that, the students. Their point was to make clear that this

lack of specificity about who these students were further “perpetuated the

invisibility of girls and compromises the education of our nation's students”
(AAUW, 1992, p. 4).

The AAUW prompted renewed awareness that the progress made with
Title IX was not enduring. The rhetoric of the AAUW report along with a study by
Myra and David Sadker (1994) strongly suggested that girls remained on the
academic sidelines while boys dominated the fields. The argument stemming
from these reports is far reaching. Each report suggested that in education the
“current debate is short-changing not only our daughters but our sons as well”
(AAUW, 1992, p. 4). Issues of gender and sexism are deep-seated and
disturbingly evident in the daily lives of many students, both young men and
women. (AAUW, 1992; Sadker 8 Sadker, 1994)
Unraveling the lessons of old: Identifying the problem

Nearly a quarter of a century after Title IX was implemented the problem
of sexism and gender stereotypes in education remains. This dissertation
examines what I argue is a three-pronged problem. I will outline the various
elements of my argument. Following that I will provide further background that
connects the parts together in a larger picture.

Rather than rely on categorical differences that separate and divide young
men and women on the basis of sex, educators must re-examine gender as a
social construct. Past arguments captured by the familiar "gender gap" debate
have done littlemore than cement into place traditional notions of biological

differences between sexes. Barrie Thorne (1990) has aptly argued that a "two

world approach" such as this simplifies student lives and remains wedded to
assumptions about "the blues" and "the pinks."

Differences within and across young men and women have been denied.
Instead, attention has remained focused on the similarities. This research
reveals the tensions among and between masculinities. Past research has left
the boys and the girls as unquestioned and unchallenged conceptual
frameworks. A theoretical stance such as this fails to explain, for example, why
men accept masculine roles. At the same time it does not explain contradictions
within and across young men nor the possibility of rejecting traditional male roles
and attitudes. As I will show in this research high school masculinity is a
complicated process. This leads to the second prong of my argument.

Masculinity is fluid. Young men make choices about how and when to
represent themselves as men. In different contexts and with different people for
example high school young men express different elements of masculinity. In
other contexts the same young men might reveal a different version of
masculinity. This study sheds light on several versions of masculinity within a
common high school setting. It also deepens our understanding into the means
by which young men negotiate masculinities within and across their peers. This
research reveals how and when young men routinely make choices that define
what it means to be a high school young man. The third prong of my argument
extends this by illustrating the point that high school young men have human

agency.

10

The final prong of this argument centers on human agency. This research
reveals the degree to which young men routinely express certain sets of beliefs,
attitudes, and behaviors that run counter to the prevailing norms of high school
masculinity. The participants in this study push a practical and theoretical
argument by demonstrating the power to reject and or accept competing versions
of masculinity in their school lives. As such their daily actions mirror specific sets
of beliefs and attitudes, namely their gender politics, that underscore who they
are as high school young men.

From theory to practice: The problem in context

The above mentioned reports revealed that sexism and gender bias is an
issue that shortchanges both boys and girls. Educators however need to be
clear about how and when students are affected by sexism and gender
stereotypes. In many ways broad categorical references to “the boys” and “the
girls” have set them apart as though their experiences were mutually exclusive
and never the two shall meet. This clearly is not the case. It is also not the case
that “the boys” and “the girls” share a collective set of common school
experiences. It is the case however that the boys have been a dominating,
alienating, and truly silencing force in many classrooms. (AAUW, 1992; Sadker 8
Sadker, 1994; Spender, 1989) This point is not debated.

It is debatable however whether in fact all high school young men share a
common set of beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors that allow them to be
categorically lumped together as one of the boys. Some young men are not like

the rest. It is also debatable whether in fact the boys willingly accept what Myra

11

and David Sadker (1994) refer to as “timeworn scripts.” In other words it is
questionable to say that students act without agency. Popular literature and
mainstream research however has broadly cast an image of young women
“turned into educational spectators instead of players” while the boys remain the
dominating force on the educational field. (Sadker & Sadker, 1994, p. 13). The
students portrayed in much of this literature are denied any sense of choice in
their daily school lives. Sexism and gender stereotypes instead have become
symptoms or characteristics of an American education with a disturbingly
enduring history.
A familiar view: Boys being boys

Mainstream gender and education research has documented the high
school experiences of a relatively familiar group of young men often referred to
as “the boys." To teachers and administrators they are a familiar group of high
school young men. The gender and education literature has described them as
un-expressive, dominating, aggressive, and attention seeking. (See AAUW,
1992; Sadker 8 Sadker; 1994; Spender, 1989) Teachers have described them
as disruptive and unruly. (Spender, 1989) They are the ones who take the lion’s
share of attention in schools and alienate women in classrooms. Their behavior
and attitudes have been viewed simply as “boys being boys.”

Informal peer interaction among students is a particularly powerful arena
in which sexist behavior and attitudes have gone unchecked in schools. (AAUW,
1992, p. 128) Daily interaction among high school students thus offers a potent

sample of the type of behaviors and attitudes accepted and unquestioned within

12

school settings. At the same time however it is in this arena that some young
men pose a striking contrast to the typically sexist behaviors of their mainstream
counterparts. Missing from the picture that has become so familiar to teachers
and teacher educators are the experiences of young men who reject sexism and
gender stereotypes. These are the young men in high school about whom
research in gender and education has given very little attention.

Among the many high school young men documented in school
ethnographies (see Connell et al, 1982; Foley, 1990; MacLeod, 1995, 1987;
Weis, 1990;Willis, 1997) few if any have told of young men whose gender politics
have become a diverging point in their school experiences. Instead research has
focused on high school young men who have been easily identified and codified
as seemingly coherent and unified entities within schools. Categorical claims
have glossed over within group differences among “the students” and thereby
created what appear to be clear-cut divisions along lines of race, class, gender,
and sexual orientation. (see AAUW, 1992)

Both theoretically and conceptually mainstream gender and education
research has become complacent maintaining a simplistic and uncomplicated
picture of high school masculinity. Myra and David Sadker (1994) for example
have offered a very narrow view that is almost myopic in its field of vision. Central
to their research is the assumption that boys “grow up learning lines and practice
moves from a time wom-script" (Sadker 8 Sadker, 1993, p. 220). This study
challenges this conceptual framework of high school masculinity by arguing that

it is fluid, complicated, and often times contradictory. (see Connell, 1995;

13

Gutterman, 1994; Hearn 8 Collinson, 1994; Kaufman, 1994; Kimmel, 1994) This
research builds on men’s studies in ways that problematize masculinity as a
construct as well as a contested terrain enacted in the daily experiences of high
school young men.

In this dissertation I examine how and when four high school young men
opposed sexism and gender stereotypes. The purpose of this study is threefold.
First, rather than assume that the boys are a homogenized group, I argue that
high school masculinity is complex and characterized by multiple ways of being a
young man. Masculinity is not static but instead fluid. High school young men
negotiate within and among multiple masculinities. Second, this research
provides a different perspective from that already documented in the mainstream
gender and education literature. Unlike previous research, which has focused on
students, both men and women, as passive and willing recipients of “time worn
scripts,” this research conceptually refocuses attention on the human agency
demonstrated by high school students but namely young men. And finally, this
research extends to broader issues found within the context of schools and
specifically student culture. In this sense students, and not schools, teachers, or
the curriculum are the primary source for examining sexism and gender
stereotypes. Daily interaction between high school young men and women
become an arena in which to observe young men expressing their gender politics
while simultaneously negotiating between competing versions of high school

masculinity.

Responding to sexism: A renewed look at high school masculinity

For some time now mainstream gender and education research has
maintained its focus on the blatantly sexist behavior typically characteristic of
many high school young men. To a large extent teachers and schools have
been blamed for the sexism and gender stereotypes in American schools. (see
AAUW, 1992; Sadker 8 Sadker, 1994) Teachers and teacher educators have
been led to believe that sexism and gender stereotypes can be eliminated in
education by curricular and structural reforms. Curricular changes and new
staffing policies for example have become responses for ridding schools of
sexism and gender stereotypes. And at the school level, “equity programs
concerned with gender are mostly targeted on girls, as might be expected given
their “equal opportunity” rationale“ (Connell, 1998, p. 151). These approaches
however have only been marginally successful.

Sexism and gender stereotypes remain to be a problem in education.
Reform initiatives are but one step in the process for improving gender equity in
education. As Connell (1993) has pointed out “we are still far from having a well-
reasoned overall strategy in gender education, [one] within which the
countercurrents in masculinity could find a clear voice” (p. 206). This research
provides an opportunity for young men who hold non-traditional views of sexism
and gender stereotypes to be heard by both men and women, but particularly
other high school young men. By expanding research within and among high

school masculinities men’s studies research opens up the possibilities of creating

15

a broader basis from which to challenge and destabilize gender stereotypes and
sexism in education.

High school young men who oppose sexism and gender stereotypes are
an invisible minority among the boys. Both individually and collectively they have
been overshadowed by a louder and more dominant version of high school
masculinity, what Connell (1995) defined as a hegemonic masculinity. Past
research has been limited in its scope in a way that has kept other young men on
the margins. “One form of masculinity rather than others has been culturally
exalted “ (Connell, 1995, p. 77). Mainstream education and gender research has
cemented into place the notion of a hegemonic masculinity while excluding the
possibility of competing masculinities within a high school setting. Young men
who reject the daily practices and ways of being part of a culturally dominant
masculinity thus have been marginalised by mainstream conceptions of
masculinity in addition to being overlooked amidst the cultural landscape of our
schools.

An emerging field of research in men's studies has recently begun to look
closely at high school masculinity in significantly more complex and penetrating
ways. (see Connell, 1998, 1995; Messner, 1998; Martino, 1997) Long-standing
beliefs about biological determinism and natural sex roles have been challenged
as flat and simplistic. Men’s studies has offered a new lens for understanding
masculinity. As a social construct masculinity is being re-envisioned with greater

depth and breadth of understanding.

16

Both conceptually and practically men's studies research has raised
questions that shift the focus from masculinity as a coherent and unified whole to
a vision of masculinity that is multi-dimensional and at times unsettling. (see
Connell, 1998, 1995, 1985; Mac An Ghaill, 1995; Messner, 1991; West and
Zimmerman, 1991) The conceptual and practical grasp on high school
masculinity has remained staid with a narrow band for identifying and
understanding high school masculinity. In Messner’s (1997) words we must be
attentive to “the vast differences and inequalities among men” which in and of
themselves prevent us from “talk[ing] honestly about men as a coherent group”
(p. 9). This research broadens the field of inquiry in gender and education by
posing richer ways for seeing, hearing, and understanding multiple masculinities
within a high school context.

The research that I conducted adds to the debate in education by using
the often dominant voices of the boys as a springboard for seeing within group
differences among high school young men. By interrupting the typically dominant
male voices in schools I attempt to bring to the surface what Canaan (1991)
referred to as “a textured and multivocal perspective on masculinity" (p. 123). In
doing so this research invites high school young men into a conversation that
critically interrogates high school masculinities by “not leaving the male voice a
privileged one” but instead, making room for it to be interrupted in education,
especially in their school lives (Weis, 1993, p. 245). This approach differs

significantly from school efforts mentioned above in which high school students,

17

both young men and women, were denied any sense of agency in the process
toward gender reform.

Masculinities are negotiated and constructed through daily social
practices. Connell (1995) and Messner (1997) in particular have provided a
theoretical foundation from which to launch a more critical and insightful
exploration of masculinities. This research adds to men's studies and furthers the
debate by arguing that boys are not “blank slates onto which the values of
masculinity are imprinted“ (Messner, 1991, p. 63). Building on feminist and
critical studies, men’s studies research has argued that gender is socially
constructed. We need to continue questioning the belief that "masculinity is a
single, uniform, and innate form" (Hearn 8 Collinson, 1994, p. 108). And instead
make more explicit the tensions that exist for high school young men.

Educators must look closely at the very complex nature of what Connell
(1993) has described as a “heterosexual masculinity [that] is not homogeneous; it is
fissured, divergent, and stressed in many ways" (p. 205). Masculinity in and of
itself is complicated. The choices high school young men make during their daily
school interaction are a reflection of much deeper issues that underscore them. The
challenge for teachers and teacher educators is to be able to see and hear how
and when competing versions of masculinity are expressed in schools and most
importantly, to support different ways of being young men.

Being a young man in high school involves actively choosing from among
various and competing masculinising processes. Schools are but one site within

which young men are forced to make both formal and informal choices that

18

reflect more broadly on issues of masculinity. The choices these young men
made as active agents are not well understood in the gender and education
literature. It is imperative that these decisions are carefully critiqued in order to
develop a more robust and meaningful appreciation and understanding of what it
means to be a young man in high school.

Different versions of masculinity in a cultural context such as schools give
rise to relations of dominance and subordination among them. (Connell, 1998)
High school masculinity thus

must be seen as an active process of construction occurring in a field of

power relations that are often tense and contradictory, and often involving

negotiation of alternative ways of being masculine (Connell, 1998, p. 143).
In light of emerging research in masculinity and particularly in high school
masculinities it is becoming increasingly apparent that knowing and responding
to the boys poses a great deal more complexities but also a good deal more
possibilities than previously thought in gender and education research. Thus
while high school young men have historically detracted from the education
women have received (see Tyack 8 Hansot, 1990), more current research has
shed light on how young men are becoming agents of change invested in gender
progressive politics. (see Gilbert 8 Gilbert, 1998; Kaufman, 1994; Messner,
1997)

History has left little doubt in education that generally young men have
been an ongoing concern as “unruly boys bent on causing trouble” but it is

increasingly clear that this is only part of the picture. (Spender, 1989) Young

men who reject sexism and gender stereotypes are admittedly a minority within

19

high schools. Nonetheless they represent a growing number of men involved in
gender work grounded in social justice. (Kaufman, 1994; Messner, 1997)
Connell (1998) and Messner (1997), among others, have opened a dialogue that
invites young men as social allies in the move toward gender equity and social
justice.

Young men and particularly high school young men need to be seen as
potential conduits for promoting change. It is the seemingly invisible minority of
young men in high schools who “pass” as “normal” in Gutterman’s (1994) words,
and moreover have access to a group of men often excluded from conversations
of gender reform. In this capacity high school young men shielded by “cultural
presumptions of normalcy,” have various opportunities to “reveal the rewrites
they have made in the cultural scripts of masculinity, as well as encourage,
challenge, and nurture other young men to rewrite the scripts of their own
identity” (Gutterman, 1994, p. 230). Voices from among the boys but not of the
boys need to be heard and supported in ways that allow them to carve out a
niche in schools to promote non-traditional, non-sexist gender politics.

Related literature and research

This section outlines some of the research in the field of gender and
education. I begin this section with an overview of the lessons learned primarily in
mainstream gender and education research. Next, I follow up by surveying some
of the research in men's studies. I lay the foundation for examining a particular
population of high school young men who, I argue, have been overlooked in past

research. I include in this section a review of previous studies for what they have

20

 

and have not said about the agency of high school young men, specifically young
men who demonstrate counter-sexist beliefs through daily interaction at school. I
conclude this chapter with an overview of the following chapters in this dissertation.
Gender studies: What lessons have we learned?

ln gender and education studies, research has focused on identifying a
problem, namely how girls are "left on the sidelines" and then suggesting
responses that might eliminate gender bias in school. Very few studies have
examined how and when men may also be part of the solution rather than strictly
part of the problem. The following outlines the contributions of past research. The
studies themselves come from a variety of fields of inquiry but together provide a
sense of the issues related to gender bias in education. I begin with an outline of
how and to some extent why boys have been advantaged in classrooms. I follow
this by examining what the research suggests about boys and girls in schools. The
final part of this section provides a summative critique of this research by raising
questions about what is left unanswered in the current literature.

The AAUW report points to curricular, administrative, and financial steps that
need to be taken if we hope to move girls from "the sidelines to the center of
educational planning" (AAUW, 1992, p. 147). Myra and David Sadker (1994),
noted education researchers, have also published their findings of sexism in
schools. These studies have prompted national attention. Each of these studies
has shown how girls and young women are shortchanged in education through
"subtle and insidious gender lessons, micro inequities" and generally a "powerful

hidden curriculum that surfaced in the way teachers treat children and the way

2]

children treat one another" (Sadker 8 Sadker, 1994, p. ix). However, what these
studies have not shown and fail to attend to are the ways that students, boys, girls
or both, resist sexism. Instead, study after study has shown how girls in contrast to
boys, are failed, shortchanged, and robbed of a gender equitable education.

Day in and day out students are faced with an education system that better
responds to boys than it does girls. In an analysis of classroom interaction between
students and teachers, Spender (1989) outlines numerous problems and reasons
that contribute to a gender biased system of education. Most telling perhaps is how
some boys tend to respond to teachers efforts to provide greater gender equity in
their classrooms. Consider for example cases in which teachers attempt to
distribute time equitably to boys and girls. In these cases the teachers found that
"many of the boys are against it, they make trouble and they get results" (Spender,
1989, p. 57). Boys felt that they were being neglected and moreover, they felt the
teachers were favoring the girls. In these cases the teachers had not reached
equitable time for boys and girls and ironically were still responding to the boys
more than girls. The fact of the matter is that the boys felt unjustly served. Such is
the case. Boys have traditionally occupied a dominant and central position in many
classrooms. (Houston, 1994) Attempts to alter the balance, or imbalance of power
as it were, have been met with resistance from boys.

Boys have historically dominated the curricular and extra curricular domains
in schools. The above example illustrates part of the difficulty encountered when
trying to challenge gender bias in schools. Currents that go against traditional male

dominance in the classroom are hard fought for those who take up the challenge.

22

The history of males as central figures and primary subjects of study in school is
long-standing. (Hansot 8 Tyack, 1988) It is one in which "males are the authority
figures, males do the talking, and lessons are designed to cater to male interests
because, as most teachers acknowledge, if males do not get the attention they
want, they are likely to make trouble" (Spender, 1989, p. 54). In cases when males
do resist or call out for attention then, it is seemingly to be expected. That is, if
teachers and students accept traditional images of males as aggressive and
forceful, then they also accept and better yet, expect unruly and uncooperative
behaviors from males.

Young men who express the traditional beliefs, attitudes, and behavior
evident in the classes described above continue to be privileged in a gender biased
education. It is these voices of male dominance that researchers continue to
record and moreover, it is these voices which maintain and perpetuate a privileging
of males, especially young white males whose voices are uninterrupted in the
classroom. (Weis, 1993)

Men's studies: Theorizing masculinities

Age old debates that have drawn biological distinctions between the sexes
have faced growing cpposition within the academy. Men's studies in particular
have made theoretical brakes that challenge the more static and fixed
conceptualizations of masculinity. (Connell, 1985, 1993; Coltrane, 1994; Hearn 8
Collinson, 1994; Kaufman, 1994) While still considered a relatively new field of
research in the academy, several common themes are evident in men's studies.

One, the construction of masculinity in everyday life. Two, the importance of

23

economic and institutional structures. And finally, the significance of differences
among masculinities and the contradictory and dynamic character of gender.
(Connell, 1995)

The basis of my research builds on a theoretical stance which argues that
not all young men share common experiences as men in school. That is to say,
there is within-group variation among men's experiences. Thus it is misleading to
say that one's gender, in this case being a man, means that all young men
participate equally or similarly in a set of common school experiences. In the past,
research about gender and education has inadvertently contributed to broad
overarching claims about the school experiences and attitudes of all men.

Theoretically I draw from previous work in men's studies which uses a fluid
conceptualization of masculinity in contrast to that evident in mainstream gender
and education research. Connell (1985, 1993) and others have developed a
persuasive argument that contributes to a much more complex and dynamic picture
of masculinity.

My research builds on Connell's theoretical framework of masculinity. I
provide empirical evidence to bridge, what I see as a gap between, a theoretical
argument that acknowledges multiple masculinities and a mainstream perception
that suggests all high school young men act, behave, and subscribe to a shared set
of beliefs about gender arrangements. The former argues that there are
differences between masculinities while the latter relies on a singular masculinity
within a traditional view that all young men subscribe to and support a sexist and

gender biased form of education.

24

The past decade has seen the emergence of research which has
problematized the traditional notion of a unitary and singular masculinity. Theorists
(see Coltrane, 1994; Connell, 1995; Gutterman, 1994; Hearn 8 Collinson, 1994)
have developed a much richer and arguably more accurate picture of masculinity.
Monolithic notions and categorical claims about masculinity, such as that made by
Sadker and Sadker (1994) have been strongly criticized within men's studies.
Theorists have argued that categorical claims about "the boys" oversimplify the
complex relationships between men and in doing so, deny the possibility of within-
group differences. With increased research into this field it has become more
evident that "there is no single masculinity or even one experience of being a man.
The experience of different men, their actual power and privileges in the world, is
based on a range of social positions and relations" (Kaufman, 1994, p. 152). The
experiences of high school young men are a developing field for research. As
Willis (1977), Connell (1982, 1985, 1995) and others have shown, high school
young men participate in what Connell refers to as "typology of masculinities"
(Connell, 1993). Research has only recently begun to explore and record the lives
of young men whose school experiences have been excluded from earlier studies
which have concentrated on a hegemonic masculinity.

The conceptual framework I use challenges certain mainstream research,
which I argue, has paid no attention to within-group differences among boys. The
result has been a general impression that maintains and perpetuates categorical
differences between "the boys" and "the girls." This study provides empirical data

that shows differences between high school young men including different

25

expressions of masculinity and competing sets of attitudes and behaviors toward
sexism and stereotypical gender arrangements.

Schools are social institutions within which multiple masculinities exist and
co-exist. Some masculinities prevail and are legitimated institutionally while others
are suppressed, silenced or rejected. (Canaan, 1991; Connell, 1993, 1994, 1996;
Kessler et al. 1985; Mac An Ghaill, 1996; Peshkin 8 White, 1990; Weis, 1993;
Willis, 1977). The multiplicity of masculinities was perhaps best captured in a well
known ethnographic study by Paul Willis (1977) whose research revealed
competing and conflicting masculinities co-existing within a working class
secondary school in England.

Willis' study powerfully revealed how the "lads," a group of non-conformists,
challenged and opposed school authority. VWlis also showed how within the same
milieu, a group of their peers, the "earoles," co-existed as compliant, submissive
receptors of school authority. In this study students participated in varying degrees
and through differing practices in ways which demonstrated a complex negotiation
of power relations among young men. In this case the high school young men held
separate and distinct beliefs but nonetheless co-existed within a common milieu.

Within a school setting the relationships between different kinds of
masculinities are complicated and often time contradictory. Schools are not neutral
institutions for the playing out of these competing masculinities. On the contrary,
schools operate in direct and indirect ways via curricular and pedagogical practices
that support, perpetuate, and legitimate some forms of masculinity over others.

(Luttrell, 1993; Mac An Ghaill, 1994; Messner, 1988; Spender, 1989) There

26

emerge patterns of masculinity within schools and across varying class, race, and
ethnic student populations. According to Connell (1982) "the boys themselves
become the police of masculinity" (p. 95). Young men in secondary school are
involved in a "gender regime" (Kessler et al., 1985) or what Connell (1993) refers to
as "a process of demarcating masculinities" (p. 197).

The sense of competition between masculinities, that is men among men
vying for status and territorial rights within schools, is significant. In fact the
differences between young men are so striking that research has dedicated a
considerable amount of attention strictly trying to identify the various factions of
masculinities in schools. Earoles, lads, swots, wimps, cool guys, jocks and
bumouts are but a few terms used both by researchers and students to sort out the
various groups of students in schools. But these attempts to organize and codify
student groups is not enough. Researchers need to go beyond this. While we
need to "recognize diversity in masculinities" we must also "recognize the relations
between the different kinds of masculinities" (Connell (1995). Clear and distinct
"borders" separate masculinities in subtle and not so subtle ways. (Thorne, 1993)
Often identified by appearance, physicality or geographical location in schools,
multiple forms of masculinity are visibly evident in school halls, lunch rooms, and
classrooms across the nation.

Young men experience power and privilege differently because of varying
social locations in high school. In a study by Connell et al. (1982) they examined
the varying relations between school, family, and social divisions. Competing

masculinities and femininities were evident in students‘ everyday school

27

experiences. This study, along with others that have examined men's relationships
of power, does not in any way deny that

men, as a group, have social power, or even that men, within their

subgroups, tend to have considerable power, but rather that there are

different forms of structural power. . . and that there is not a linear
relationship between a structured system of power inequalities, the real and
supposed benefits of power, and one's own experience of these

relationships of power. (Kaufman, 1994, p. 153)

High school young men often demonstrate their masculinity through formal and
informal means of expression. According to Kaufman (1994) we learn as
adolescents “that our peers are a kind of gender police, constantly threatening to
unmask us as feminine, as sissies" (p. 132). The threat posed by ones' peers
consequently leads many young men in high school to exaggerate or at least
routinely emphasize their masculinity through forms of expression that reveal
traditional rules, beliefs, and attitudes about masculinity. Traditional forms of
masculinity thus, not surprisingly, have remained center stage in much of the
research surrounding gender and education.

Men with countersexist beliefs: A window of opportunity?

The public has been lead to believe that school lessons are so engaging and
persuasive that students are unable to resist or challenge them. In essence
students are depicted as passive receptors. And even though Sadker and Sadker
(1994) themselves acknowledge the fact that students are aware of sexism and
gender bias in school, there is no mention of how students react or respond to
sexism in schools. The bulk of their research suggests that sexist lessons are

taught by teachers and accepted by students. "They grow up learning lines and

practicing moves from a time worn script" (Sadker 8 Sadker, 1994, p. 220).

28

However, other research has shown that not all young men accept social
inequalities of gender with such complicity. Connell (1995) for example, has shown
that some men actively challenge gender inequities. Various forms of anti-sexist
politics among men in Canada, England, and the United States has demonstrated
the possibility that some men are willing to challenge sexist beliefs and behaviors.

The impact of modern feminism, such as the emergence of a "profeminist
men's movement" according to Kaufman (1994) has helped "focus on the social
and individual expressions of men's power and privilege" (p. 156). My research
contributes to feminist and critical traditions in education research by examining a
narrow piece of the debate surrounding multiple masculinities among high school
young men. Situated within critical and men's studies research (Connell, 1996,
1995, 1985; Messner, 1998, 1997; Thorne, 1993; West 8 Zimmerman, 1991;
Willis, 1977) this study problematizes masculinity as a social construct in addition
to re-envisioning men exercising human agency invested in a progressive gender
reform (Connell, 1995; Gutterman, 1994; hooks, 1998; Kaufman, Kessler et at,
1985; 1994; Messner, 1997). As Connell (1993) has pointed out, "if research has
shown anything, it is that heterosexual masculinity is not homogeneous; it is
fissured, divergent, and stressed in many ways" (p. 205).

Anti-sexist efforts of high school young men have not been closely examined
as a point of inquiry in education research. There is no shortage of evidence to
indicate how and why young men oppress, silence, or alienate women through
schooling. However, there is very little research that sheds any light on how and

when some high school young men reject sexism in school. We have long since

29

known of the evidence demonstrating why some young men reject schooling as a
social class institution. Willis (1977), for example, has shown that certain groups of
working class youth, namely "the lads," resist or reject schooling and all that it
represents because of what amounts to as ideological differences. "The lads" defy
authority and reject all that resembles middle-class values and beliefs. MacLeod
(1987) likewise has shown how competing ideological beliefs in schools contribute
to social class tensions that further alienate working class students from a middle
class education. However, there is no evidence to explain how and why some high
school young men reject sexist beliefs and behavior that might be rooted in school
curriculum, interaction, or classroom practices.
Drawing lines: A field divided

The above illustrates the lines that divide the various camps of research in
gender and education. What appears most striking about this research is that none
of the studies have tackled how and when students, girls or boys, challenge
sexism. Ironically, Sadker and Sadker (1994) only gave brief mention to a
seemingly powerful force, namely, "daughters [who] circumvent sexist gender
lessons [and] know the need for constant vigilance" (p. xi). Their study overlooks
the agency students have to promote change for gender equity in school. Rather
than call on students as agents of change, the alarum bell that has rung so often
has called to arms parents, teachers, school administrators, law makers and civic
leaders, "to transform our educational institutions into the most powerful levers for
equity" (Sadker 8 Sadker, 1994, p. 280). The following reviews several studies to

demonstrate how and why students mobilize themselves as human agents.

30

The most apparent gap in these studies is the degree of human agency
expressed by many students but which has never been examined as a political
force per se, with regard to gender equity. Instead, in these cases student agency
has been framed by cultural differences, namely class and racial divisions. The
backbone of my study relies on students demonstrating their agency and political
commitment to social justice. Some may call me naive but I consider myself
optimistically hopeful. This section reveals the various forms in which students
have shown agency for class and race issues.

Popular literature has repeatedly created an image of students who appear
to be docile, passive, and generally complicit in a gender biased education. Other
research in education however has portrayed compelling images of students as
human agents, actively engaged in challenging contradictory ideologies of
femininity and masculinity. In fact, in a study of fifth grade children, Anyon (1984)
found that "most girls are not passive victims of sex role stereotypes and
expectations" (p. 44). In this case girls were involved in a form of resistance and
accommodation which, according to Anyon, powerfully conveys "a form of
organized responses—as organized non-conformity." (p. 43). Studies such as this
have shown the significant influence that schools, teachers, and peers, along with
various other institutions have in the lives of young men and women. Most striking
about these studies are the types of relations students have within and across
milieus.

A study by Connell et al. ( 1982) examined educational inequality by looking

at the various relationships secondary school students had in school, at home, and

31

among their peers. Part of their findings showed how schools were implicated in
the production of a specific masculinity and femininity. Masculinising and
feminizing practices such as sport, for example, have been mainstays in many
schools for producing particular kinds of masculinities and femininities. Schools
thus are active agents in the construction of femininities and masculinities. (see
Hansot 8 Tyack, 1988) At the same time, it is worth noting that students, both
young men and young women, are likewise involved in accepting and rejecting
certain masculinities and femininities.

High school young men and women negotiate competing and conflicting
masculinities and femininities. Connell et al. (1982) have shown that while schools
produce a dominant pattern of masculinity, some young men struggle trying to
"make their own peace with the competitive, physically aggressive, space-
occupying form of masculinity which dominates their schools" (pp. 95-96). In
essence young men operate within a "hierarchy of masculinities" in which some
emerge as winners and some do not. We can take from this the fact that men, and
I suspect women, become akin to brokers in a gendered system of education. In
this sense the social relations men and women have in school are "organized in the
interests of some groups over-riding the interest of others" (Connell et al., 1982, p.
173).

Gender relations in secondary schools were problematized both
conceptually and practically in an Australian study by Kessler et al (1985). Their
research posed a significant challenge to conventional theories of masculinity

and femininity in terms of accepted roles and socialization. In their words

32

role theory underestimated what it was up against. The schools are an
arena in which a complex, often contradictory, emotionally and sometimes
physically violent politics of gender is worked out. ( Kessler et al., 1985, p.
35)
Kessler et al (1985) examined the relations among students via various school
practices. In doing so they uncovered the messy and tense relations between
gender and education. Their research revealed the powerful ways in which the
school, as an institution,
is characterized at any given time by a particular gender regime. This may
be defined as the pattern of practices that constructs various kinds of
masculinity and femininity among staff and students, orders them in terms
of prestige and power . . . the gender regime is a state of play rather than
a permanent condition. (Kessler et al, 1985, p. 42)
In this context schools operate to legitimate some forms of masculinity while de-
legitimating others. Gender is a complex social structure which their research
clearly demonstrated involved "a complex differentiation of people around the
axes of masculinity and femininity" (Kessler et al, 1985, p. 44). This study, along
with V\fillis' research has contributed to an ongoing examination of school
masculinities and femininities. The neatly organized, arguably simplified
constructs of mainstream gender and education research have offered but one
lens for seeing gender in a school setting. Competing theoretical research
traditions have provided a much more robust and layered way for understanding
high school experiences of both men and women.
Mairtin Mac An Ghaill (1994) also captures the complicated matrix of
domination evident among daily expressions of high school masculinity. His

study of English high school Afro-Caribbean men revealed emerging tensions

evident in the social practices, beliefs, and self—representations of masculinity

33

during their daily encounters at school. The "Rasta Heads" expression of anti-
authoritarianism was a response to underlying tensions in school curriculum.
Differentiated masculinities were grounded in assumptions about Afro-Caribbean
young men. This study powerfully showcased how multiple black masculinities
were formed within a school context. It adds significantly to the literature by
demonstrating that masculinity is a complicated process contextualized by a
series of racial, cultural, and institutional relations.

Through the various forms of rejection, acceptance or reshaping gender
identities, these studies shed light on a much more textured and multi-vocal
perspective of student’s school experiences than previously acknowledged. A
matrix of domination centering on race, class, and gender underscore the
multiplicity of relations simplified by mainstream education research. The
conceptual framework in each of these studies centers on a fluid notion of
gender. Second, they illustrate how masculinities are contextually grounded
within a school, in different locations, and in relation to differing curricular and
interpersonal interactions. And finally, these studies demonstrate the competing
ways in which high school young men enact their views and beliefs, which often
run counter to a prevailing set of beliefs about masculinity.

Kessler et al (1985) along with others (Connell, 1996; Messner, 1998;
Thorne, 1990) have developed a persuasive argument revealing how the
discussion about gender and education has been guided by a pervasive
determinism rooted in sex-role theory. These studies add to this dialogue by

suggesting that young men enact ways of being men that are not accurately

34

captured by the broader more generalized pictures preserved in mainstream
literature and perpetuated in public media accounts.

The study I conducted focuses on what Connell (1995) refers to as a "project
of masculinity." This study will uncover the conditions under which a non-traditional
masculinity emerges as well as the conditions it produces. By looking more closely
at the non-sexist behavior, attitudes, and beliefs of four high school senior young
men, this study contributes to a growing field of education research that seeks to
eliminate sexism in our schools.

Social change will hopefully come from mobilizing students, both women
and men, in ways that contribute to a "new, more equitable kind of social
arrangement" in schools. (Anyon, 1984, p. 46) With this as a motivating factor for
my research into gender equity in education, I hope to contribute by more rigorously
examining how some young men in high school are as Segal (1990) points out,
capable of change. Further research into the countersexist lives of young men and
women can hopefully bring about the fundamental changes needed in student's
attitudes and behavior regarding sexism. My primary reason thus for examining
these men's' lives, ones which I have argued have been silenced, is emphasized by
what Segal (1990) sees as a need to nourish a sense of social activism. As she
points out:

The stronger and more confident the pressures from women (and I would

add men!) for men to change, both at the personal level and through the

collective political struggle, the more the men will be forced to question the

unthinking presumptions and unexamined prerogatives of 'masculinity'.
(Segal, 1990, p. 294).

35

Summary

Historically boys have maintained a privileged position in the American
education system. And although boys have been variously disadvantaged, the sort
of systemic gender bias and sexism noted above is unparalleled in the school
experiences of most boys. Boys have received the greatest amount of in-class
attention. They have remained the central subjects of study in school. And they
are, unquestionably "the favored gender, heirs apparent to all society's rewards"
(Sadker 8 Sadker, 1994, p. 197). Overstated? Perhaps, but the point remains,
boys and girls receive different types of education. However, it is misleading, as
this study will show, to suggest that all boys are complicit in a gender biased
system of education.

Mainstream research has unjustly denied human agency to those affected
by gender bias in schools. Students, both boys and girls, have been relegated to
unquestioning automatons. "Sexist lessons transform girls into second class
students" while boys are destined to become "troubled men . . . unable to
communicate with women as equals" (Sadker 8 Sadker, p. 225, 1994). This study
challenges the assumption that all students, and for the purposes of this study
boys, are complicit in a gender-biased system of education.

Numerous studies have shown that multiple masculinities exist in the
everyday lives of students. The tensions that emerge out of competing factions
present in school practices that legitimate some and de-legitimate other
masculinities are striking. Research needs to look more closely at how and why

some masculinities occupy the limelight while others are overshadowed.

36

To some extent the study I conducted looks beyond the limelight. I attempt
to bring into focus and provide some clarity about the lives of men who express
non-traditionally sexist beliefs and behaviors in school. And while to many it may
seem unrealistic or better yet unbelievable to think that there are young men who
have a vested interest in gender equity, it is likewise unrealistic to assume that all
boys are sexist.

Overview of the text

This chapter has set the stage for the remaining chapters. l have outlined
the problem identifying several theoretical and practical elements within gender
and education research. The gap I seek to fill involves developing a different
angle from which to probe into the school lives of young men. I have not debated
the position, privilege, and power white, middle-class men have in high school.
Instead I have proposed another dimension that repositions the observer so that
beyond seeing and hearing the voices of the boys, we are better able to hear and
understand the school experiences and voices of other young men less well
documented in gender and education research.

My objective in this chapter has been first to illustrate the significance of
gender as an organizing principle in the daily school lives of students and
particularly high school young men. By way of introduction I began with a
glimpse at my school recollections as a high school young man. My experiences
as a young man did not differ significantly from what I saw and heard transpiring
among the participants in this study. The remainder of this chapter laid the

foundation and set out the framework for the following chapters.

37

Chapter 2 is a look from beyond the data. I begin this chapter by opening
up the window to see the various complications involved in conducting qualitative
research such as this. From positioning myself among the boys to defining my
role within the larger school community I describe and share with the reader the
intricacies of trying to gain authentic and accurate data. The latter part of this
chapter details the type of research methods used. The next section outlines
more fully the theoretical framework. I close this chapter with an introduction
both to the school and the four young men involved in the study. This chapter
provides both the theoretical underpinning and the practical aspects involved in
forging ahead with this research.

In the next chapter I examine the actual school experiences of each of the
participants. The primary focus of Chapter 3 is on identifying how and when
these young men negotiated their masculinity as well as their gender politics.
The analysis raises to the surface recurring patterns or themes apparent in the
daily interaction among these students. The young men shed light on different
and at times similar ways for being young men. They also reveal the repertoire
of ways they have for expressing social identities constructed out of competing
definitions of masculinity. Their vantage points in social groups that occasionally
overlap but generally remain distinct is important to bear in mind. The
differences between groups again highlight the difficulty of understanding all boys
when one's focus is restricted to some boys. Nonetheless the primary aim of this
chapter is to show how four young men in varying degrees, opt to reject the

norms and attitudes of masculinity most prevalent within their high school.

38

Chapter 4 explores several reactions and responses emerging out of the
school experiences of the four participants. The aim of this chapter is to reveal
some of the tarnish as it were from the shine of the efforts of these young men.
That is to say this chapter attempts to respond to the nagging question: But what
are the costs for these young men? I examine some of the remarks, slurs, and
suspicions that other young men used to define the boundaries of masculinity. I
also explore what these young men described as a primary benefit for opposing
sexism and gender stereotypes. Their level of comfort with themselves, their
peers, and the various means by which they communicate with others forms the
core of this discussion. This chapter closes on a note that reveals the
assumptions of masculinity embedded in the interaction of these men and their
peers. Ranging from peer rejection to outsidedness I provide a thumbnail sketch
for each to suggest possible explanations why many high school young men
cling to the norms and attitudes with which they are already most familiar.

The final chapter ties together the various sections of this dissertation. l
string together the findings as a way of fastening down the theoretical and
practical components that I argued were far from connected. In the second
section of Chapter 5 I identify some of the limitations to this study. I share with
the reader the various weaknesses that might have hampered or influenced how
and what I collected as data. After all, as I see it, this too is part of the research
process. This is the place in my research where I turn the light on the decisions I

made as a researcher.

39

l shift the focus slightly following this by revisiting a conceptual argument
for considering high school young men as social allies. In doing so I propose a
more careful fleshing out of the research on young men in high school. I argue
that high school young men can be a resource for eliminating sexism and gender
stereotypes. Who better to question high school masculinities then young men

themselves?

40

CHAPTER TWO
RESEARCH METHODS

Gender and education has shared both a tenuous and tumultuous
relationship. For decades its enduring history has been played out in the daily
lives of school children from the elementary to the secondary level. The following
study is a snapshot of this history during a brief moment in time. The research I
conducted examines the daily interaction of four young men whose masculinity
and gender politics were intricately woven together in the daily interaction of their
high school experiences. In Chapter One I provided an explanation for
conducting ongoing research into the lives of students and specifically the
experiences of high school young men. In this chapter I offer my analysis of the
process for collecting the data for this study. This section draws attention to the
methods and theory that have informed the research. The main aim of this
chapter then is to invite the reader to see both the mechanics of conducting
qualitative research and the theoretical framework that runs throughout.

I begin by defining a set of research questions that focus on both
masculinity and the enacted views and attitudes of high school young men who
reject sexism and gender stereotypes. I refer to these views as their gender
politics. The second section of this chapter focuses specifically on the fieldwork.
Subsections within this part outline issues of access, relationships within the
broader school community as well as among the students, the data collection
process, the theoretical and analytical framework and finally, an introduction to

the school site and the participants.

41

The primary focus: Knowing which questions to ask

When I began this research one of the greatest struggles was knowing
how to frame my interests. For the most part this meant knowing how to talk
about the issues of gender within education. Years of study had allowed me to
read widely, extensively exploring the complicated nature of gender and its
embeddedness in education. With an undergraduate degree in Sociology, a
Masters degree in Education, and recently being enrolled in a doctorate
programme in Teacher Education, my academic grounding appeared solid. This
was complemented or perhaps contrasted by teaching experience that spanned
six years in both private and public education and in both a boys' school as well
as mixed sex classrooms. Even with this array of experiences the challenge
before me was daunting.

The questions seemed endless and the answers not always clear. I
fumbled, initially wondering: How could I turn my interest in gender and education
into a research question? What was it about gender that I wanted to examine?
Was my interest come research question even worthwhile in the education
community? These were but a few of the questions that l was awash with before
leaving my desk! Of course the much larger question still yet to be answered at
that time was why was it important to ask this question? This question like the
others always had several parts. For example, What did I hope to add to the
research community? What and how did I see this research contributing to the
understanding teachers and teacher educators already had about gender in

education? What was I providing different from what we already knew? The list

42

was ongoing. And there was no shortage of probing from my committee
members. They diligently pushed me to the limits to clarify my thoughts and
tighten my theoretical and practical grasp of the task before me as a doctoral
candidate completing the final stage of the program, namely conducting original
research. They also prepared me in a much broader sense as a new member
entering a community of scholars within the education research field.

None of the courses, teaching experience, or studies I had been exposed
to had prepared me for the difficult task of learning how to talk about my
research. To this day I am still mindful of how I frame my research, the way I
pose questions, and the way that I present my findings. The questions that
follow were points of entry for examining a narrowly defined aspect of gender in
education. Individually and collectively these questions define what I see as part
of the research niche l have carved out for myself within the broader field of
gender and education studies.

The primary question directing this study is:

How and when do some young men oppose sexism and gender

stereotypes via curricular, extracurricular and interpersonal

relationships in high school?
The subsidiary questions are:

I. What knowledge, views, and beliefs do these high school young me
have about sexism and gender bias?

What qualities do young men consider masculine, feminine, neither?

What qualities do young men value in their relations with young men,
young women, and mixed relations?

What qualities of masculinity/femininity are valued among the peers
of these young men?

43

How do young men describe their relations with other young men,
young women, and mixed-sex relations? Through what experiences?

How do young men express countersexist views through high school
curricular and extracurricular activities?

What views of masculinity/femininity are most prominent in a
student's understanding of the official school curriculum?

What venues are available via the curriculum for students to express
their views about sexism, masculinity, and femininity?

Vlfl'iat views of masculinity and femininity are expressed by peers? By
teachers?

To what extent do students’ high school experiences influence their
views of masculinity/femininity?

VWiat range of masculinities/femininities are evident in young mens'
high school lives?

What image of masculinity/femininity is valued? Most? least? Why?
By whom?

How and why are high school young men affiliated with or distanced
from mainstream masculinity in school?

How do young men express countersexist views through peer and
teacher interaction at school?

What reactions to sexism do these young men exhibit in school?

To what extent do reactions to sexism vary in different settings?
How?

What factors do young men consider before expressing opposition to
sexist practices or incidents?

Why do young men challenge sexism and stereotypical gender
arrangements in high school?

What benefits/costs do young men experience as a consequence of
their public expression against sexism?

44

Fieldwork: Gaining access to a familiar culture

Previous researchers have labored to hear the voices of students. (see
Mac An Ghaill, 1994; MacLeod, 1987, 1995; Weis, 1990; Willis, 1977) They have
struggled trying to gain access and maintain the authenticity of student voices.
They have likewise struggled to set their own limits, defining their own place,
role, and relationship amidst the cultural setting about which they wrote. (see
Eckert, 1989; Foley, 1990; MacLeod, 1987, Thorne, 1993) As a doctoral student
and a university liaison within a teacher education program I likewise juggled and
attempted to manage my role and position within the school where I conducted
this research.

Schools offer a unique setting in which to conduct qualitative research.
The tensions I felt as a young man, a researcher, and a university liaison were
never far from my mind. And even though I, like other researchers, worked to
manage impressions and the role I played as a participant observer, l
nonetheless was constantly aware of the allegiances and responsibilities I had to
different people. Several researchers have reported the ways in which they
performed a delicate balancing act while being attentive to various factions within
a school community.

While conducting ethnographic research in a South Texas town Foley
(1990) described a public persona he managed while in the field. From being
suspected as a "narc" to more accurately identified as an "ex-college player,"
Foley experienced the process of gradually gaining acceptance among his

subjects by carefully defining his role. Penelope Eckerts' ethnographic study

45

took her into Belten high school where she focused "on the social polarization
between class-based social categories, the Jocks and the Bumouts" (1989, p.
viii). She described a type of "impression management" in which she actively
constructed a role. One of her primary concerns as an ethnographer was
managing how students saw her. She limited her interaction to students in an
effort to stifle any questions of allegiance to school figures. She preferred to be
an "outsider with no great status" (Eckert, 1989, p. 30).

Jay MacLeod (1987) likewise experienced a familiar journey as an
ethnographer seeking access to a new cultural setting. Weekly games of pick-
up-basketball gave him the opportunity he needed to develop status among his
subjects. He worked to become a member of two groups, namely the Hallway
Hangers and the Brothers at Claredon Heights. His speech, physical
appearance, and the way he carried himself with an "air of cocky nonchalance"
were "the unstudied products of his increasing involvement with the Hallway
Hangers" (MacLeod, 1987, p. 278).

Finally, in a study of girls and boys at two elementary schools, Barrie
Thorne (1993) described how her gender, age, and daily interaction became
significant factors framing her data collection. As a woman she "felt closer to the
girls" . . . knowing "more about their gender-typed interactions" (p. 26). She also
commented on the status she had as an adult in an institution that drew sharp
generational distinctions grounded in power and authority. Each of these

researchers highlights the complicated work involved in becoming participants in

46

addition to gaining access to the inner social world of students in various school
settings.
Researcher relationships

Researchers who conduct ethnographic research do so within a web of
complicated relationships, some of which are not easily managed or foreseen. I
will explain some of the unforeseen complications I experienced in the section
about relationships within the school. For now it is clear that ethnographic
research is conducted at different levels, in different ways, and within different
groups of people. How cumbersome or complicated gaining entry to the field
depends on a series of factors, some of which are described above. ltum now
to look at how I managed to gain access to different groups of high school young
men while conducting research at Central High.

Prior to conducting this research I entertained several possibilities for
potential school sites. Central High was not my first choice as research site.
The final decision to approach Central High for this study was based on a pre-
existing relationship I had with the administration and staff at the school. In my
capacity as a university-school based liaison I had worked for four years in close
association with both the administration and numerous teachers at Central High.
In a sense I had a history with the teachers and the school. My familiarity with
the staff as well as my own professional credentials as a past high school English
teacher gave me a particular "in" with these teachers. These connections were
at one and the same reassuring but admittedly also reason for concern. I

describe the tension and conflicts that arose later in this section.

47

Gaining support and fitting in with the boys

During the initial stages of writing the proposal for this study I was able to
draw on the support and intrigue shown by numerous teachers. Their willingness
to allow me in their classrooms and more broadly into their school community
was crucial in gaining access. The administration likewise supported me by
allowing me to be a "student" among twelve hundred other somewhat younger
ones! I was furnished with a parking pass and given the schedule of my
participants. The parking pass in itself was a significant way for increasing my
presence among the students. I parked alongside the students, walked to our
cars together, and exchanged end of the day stories. Our daily experiences
were shared, as was the common knowledge we had of the events that took
place each day in school. In small but significant ways I was becoming
immersed in their social worlds. I had found my way both into the lives of
students and more importantly, into the school lives of four senior young men
upon whom this study is based.

On several levels I intentionally distanced myself from the school
authorities. The connections I had to the school as a university liaison with
practicing lntem teachers was minimized. I conducted meetings and formal
conversations with Collaborating Teachers and Interns outside of school time. In
a sense my relationships as a liaison went underground during the seven months
that I conducted this research. I never denied these relationships to the
participants but at the same time my liaison work never became part of our daily

conversations either.

48

Researcher come high school student

I worked hard to adopt the persona of a typical high school young man.
As a young man my age became of secondary importance after some initial
curiosity. I focused my energies in learning what was important to talk about
among high school students. I generally listened and contributed after
conversations were initiated among the group. At times it was difficult to
passively listen. I recall numerous conversations where the talk turned to sexual
encounters. There were no inhibitions among the boys but I felt a curious sense
of bewilderment on my own part. The experiences of these young men
contrasted sharply with my virginal experiences as a high school young man
some twenty years earlier. I stifled my surprise and appeared eagerly interested
while taking mental notes.

Consumed by my role as one of the students I found myself engaged in
conversations that supported and maintained a number of different school
experiences. At times I was conflicted. My "adult" views and attitudes often fell
to the wayside. My voice was muted in an effort to better hear and understand
the social world of the students. I found myself treading lightly, doing more
listening and probing than outright supporting specific options the young men had
chosen. David for example disagreed with the Mardi Gras theme of the prom but
nonetheless explained he would attend. Thurston, who rejected the "Cancunian
experience" common for many seniors during spring break, opted to spend time
at a cabin on a lake in Kentucky. And Hunter, totally absorbed with the exploits

of Cancun, shared and regaled me with his experiences of drinking and "getting

49

with" girls. Given the fact that each of the young men belonged to different social
peer groups I was mindful of what and how my responses might be interpreted.
By straddling several social worlds l was in a curious predicament negotiating
between friendships and crossing paths that generally would never have met.
The complicated nature of this became increasingly evident as I developed
bonds within the different groups.

One of my main concerns during these conversations was to establish
rapport while building a sense of trust among different peer groups. In the early
stages of entering the field I was uneasy. I began reading the actions of the
students and leaming what was involved in being among the boys. This was an
ongoing process that initially highlighted how far removed I was from
understanding student life. At the same time my knowledge of students and how
to become one, or at least assume the role of one again increased substantially
with time.

The early days of this research perhaps found both the students and
myself a little unsure of our relationship. One incident in particular stood out
during the first month. While hanging out between classes with Hunter one of his
friends approached us. I recognized the familiar exchange of heads nodding and
then "Hey, what's up?" Then there was a sudden furtive glance at me. I felt
uneasy, stepping back from Hunter and his friend. They whispered briefly and
then Hunter turned to me saying, "Oh, him. He's cool." A sense of relief broke
the air and his friend introduced himself. With a nod from Hunter and the

affirmation that l was cool, the conversation opened up. His friend immediately

50

started talking about the weekend. "How much schwag do we need? Do you
want to go do a bowl now?" Hunter later let me in on the lingo-schwag meaning
marijuana and bowl being a joint. His friend had accepted me. This took me
further into Hunter's circle of friends.

It became increasingly clear from this point on that I would hear, see, and
eventually know more about these young men than I ever anticipated. For some
reason I had not expected the additional work involved in being accepted by my
participant's extended peer relationships. These young men casually accepted
me as a member of their group. But they also allowed me to penetrate further to
a point where l was party to some of their more intimate conversations.
Complications in the field

Doing ethnographic research involves operating in different contexts and
with different people. A key element of this type of research is being able to
negotiate and manage oneself within different social contexts. This becomes
complicated particularly when images and previous histories of the researcher
might become inserted into the setting. I went into this setting knowing full well
the baggage I carried. As my relationship evolved among the students there was
also potential for compromising my integrity as a researcher.

Hunter's friends repeatedly prompted me to go with them during their
lunches. This translates into going outwith them when they got high. They
wanted me to have the full experience. In a not very graceful way I managed to
back out of several invitations. On one occasion I commented I had to remain

lucid while taking notes and added I disliked second had smoke. The latter only

51

prompted a stronger invitation to participate! l staved off their invitations further
by jokingly reminding them that as a Canadian I might be deported and ousted
from the university. For the most part they accepted these responses. I received
the following email from Hunter a day after his peers attempted to drive off with
me in their car. They were going to "smoke some schwag at cloud nine"-a
parking lot not far from the school.
Michael,
Rubbish! If you were truly dedicated to your research you wouldn’t
let the law get in the way. No, I'm just joking. That's a little too harsh. I
do really wish that you could come out and chill with us. There ARE
always ways around the legal implications, and if you're worried about me
or someone else driving while we are high, you could drive separately. I
seriously think you miss a lot. I mean, just like today, we got donuts,
looked at plants, sword-fighted with sticks, ran and frolicked in the woods,
played frisbee, climbed trees, sunbathed, and sat around and talked. It
was a lot of fun. Outside of school we can relax more, be ourselves. We
don’t have to worry about being quiet or doing what we are told. We can
just run around and do whatever we want. That's why I think you should
come out with us.
Your friend, Hunter
My relationship with the participants as well as their friends had seen
considerable growth after the first month of this study. Casual remarks, high
fives, shared lunches, intimate conversations of sex, drugs and drinking, and
eventually open embraces were some of the clearest signs I had been accepted
and trusted within their social circles. My image as an adult and outsider had
changed significantly from first appearing on the scene months earlier.
As a member of four almost distinctly separate peer groups I walked
carefully between each. There were instances for example when I would be

hanging out with Thurston in "the comer" and friends of Hunter's would make

contact in what appeared to be an almost intrusive manner. And though no one

52

said anything, his presence in the corner was clearly unusual. As they talked
with me they did so without looking around at the others in the corner. Our
conversation was fast and focused. Moments like this revealed the different
social spheres of which I had become a part. They also made me
uncomfortable. My discomfort came from knowing that I was intentionally
negotiating between different ways of being a young man in the different groups.
During our interviews David and Hunter commented about the entree they had
provided me into their social worlds.

I wanted to like, introduce you to some of my friends instead of having you

just following and writing. You know like, 'This is Mike. You guys should
get to know him.‘ . . . It wouldn't be right to keep you like, just as some

9W-
Halfvvay into the semester Hunter reflected on our relationship. He sent the

following email.

In the beginning of your study I thought you were just going to observe me
and not really talk much. I thought you would want to keep things on a
professional level so to speak. But now, it's different. I don't see you as
someone who is studying me. In fact, I would consider you as one of my
friends. When you’re not around, people ask me why you follow me and
why I'm letting you but I always just say how cool you are. And you are.
It's weird I guess, but to me, you no longer seem like this adult who is
following me around, but actually my friend. I like it better this way too
because I feel much more at ease and I can talk to you, even if you don’t
ask me a question. Before I used to just wait until you asked me
something, but now I know I can just tell you whatever, and talk to you as
though you're just “one of the guys' so to speak.

The relationships I shared with these young men evolved over the course of the
semester. I moved from being referred to as "the shadow" to just being one the
guys. I successfully positioned myself among the boys in an effort to push the

relationship dynamic we shared. To a large extent the participants shared the

53

power of developing our relationships. They could have adopted a very distant
stance but as they explained above they embraced me as one of their friends.

Reciprocity between the researched and the researcher promotes a
relationship in which "the researcher moves from the status of stranger to friend
and thus is able to gather personal knowledge from subjects more easily"
(Lather,1991, p. 57). The intimate relationship we shared as students and
friends was apparent in my developing knowledge of these men. On the surface
I knew their daily routines and at any given hour during the day I knew where
each of my participants might be and with whom. If I had to find them I knew
who to ask and where to go. And if they were not in school I generally knew
where they might be. Our school lives had become closely intertwined in many
ways.

Maintaining relationships and connections to the participants required
extra work since generally none of these young men shared similar social
spheres. Aside from David and Philip who had some friends in common and two
classes together, the crossing of paths between the participants was rare.
During the weeks that l was not with the other young men I kept in touch through
emails or more casually by head nods in the halls. Admittedly we rarely had time
to talk on these off weeks. I tried to keep in touch more casually. l was able to
have more infrequent contact by dropping into the school library, hanging in the
halls, or walking with them out to the parking lot at the end of the day.

Towards the close of the school year the crossing between and belonging

to different social groups was more publicly acknowledged. I received twenty-

54

seven invitations to open houses. On several occasions the invitations were
given to me while I was in other social groups. The reactions from within the
groups echoed marked distinctions about the different types of students I knew at
the school. My membership in different groups prompted some surprise and a
degree of curiosity. The exchange of open house invitations for example
prompted some to ask "How do you know her?" and "How come I am not
invited?" My friendship with the students had been cemented into place over a
period of months. I had established trust and a solid rapport with not only the
four young men, but their peers as well.

Distancing myself from any role of authority within the school was a
complicated process. For the most part the students had developed an
impression of me as a student from the university. At the same time, their
specific knowledge of my research was relatively vague. Rather than explain in
detail I responded to inquiries about the study by offering a broad overview of my
interests in gender and education. Students accepted this explanation often
reiterating "Oh, so you just want to hang outwith us to see what we do." For the
students this did not appear to be a problem. There was some initial concern
about my connection to authority but that passed as I became accepted as a
member within different groups.

When teacher/adult turns student

The teachers at Central High never expressed any concerns about me as

a member of their classes. There was an understanding that I was in these

classrooms to observe and record the interaction of my participants. I attended

55

classes, study halls, and abided by school rules (as much as the participants
did!), showing hall passes and admit slips when required. I was a shadow
following these students when they went to class as well as when they did not.
When any of the young men skipped classes I was alongside them. Likewise if
they were called to the office I went with them. There was very little time during
the weeks that the participants were not saddled with me at their side. At the
same time I also assured teachers that I would be punctual and as unobtrusive
as possible. I was not involved in doing the classroom work but merely there to
listen and record my observations. There were times however, as one teacher
chided me, jokingly saying, "You're as bad as the students." Being among the
students thus put me in situations where my behavior became indistinguishable
from an outsider perspective such as the teacher. Several other teachers had
observed and acknowledged how well I had been accepted among the students.
This was reassuring but also posed a problem for one teacher.

My field relationship in this instance was muddied by my previous history
as a teacher and university liaison. Four months into the study the familiar role I
had negotiated as a researcher and "student" became a contentious point for one
teacher. The event leading to this was unforeseeable. I had been in other
classes with substitute teachers and had no reason for concern. In this situation
however the teacher thought I had crossed a boundary by refusing to use my
authority as a past teacher.

The scenario unfolded one April day during the regular teacher's absence.

The class was unruly and generally hard to manage for the substitute in

charge. Prior to the beginning of class the next day, Mr. Krantz remarked
to me "I am not pleased with yesterdays' class. You're an adult. You

56

should have stepped in." I was somewhat blind-sided by his comment. I
responded "I don't have any authority to step in and besides it would have
jeopardized my research." He persisted saying, 'Would you have let that
go on if you were up there?" I replied "No, I would have made different
choices if I were the teacher in charge." Before closing the conversation
he remarked, "I'm going to talk to the boss and have you removed from
here." To settle the waters I responded "Do you want me to leave now?"
He allowed me to stay saying, "No, I will talk to them in the office first."
The tension that had arisen was unfortunate. However it was a situation that
clearly could have had a potentially damaging effect on the relationships I had
established among the students. I could not risk changing roles at this stage in
the research. And while Mr. Krantz had hoped I would have taken charge from
the substitute teacher, I refused to jeopardize the credibility, trust, and
relationships at the core of my research. For the remaining several weeks left of
school our relationship was cool and distant. We had no occasion to talk any
further. I extended my thanks to him through a letter at the end of the year.
Ethnographic methods
Ethnographic studies have provided powerful lenses for gaining insider
insight to the cultural context of education. In order to learn about the cultural
meanings, behaviors, and more generally, the way of life, ethnographers need to
be immersed in the cultural setting. In education this means entering a school
and to some extent becoming a participating member. This section outlines
several techniques used to gather data in the process of developing a specific
perspective for interpreting and understanding the school experiences of four
young men.

In addition to gaining access and being accepted in a school, part of the

ongoing task of the ethnographer is to truly develop an accurate picture and

57

interpretation of the lives about which s/he has studied. While conducting this
research I attempted to capture the daily interaction among high school students
by intentionally narrowing my focus. In the following I will explain how I chose
these participants. Second I will describe the techniques I used to gather data.
Third, I will explain the decisions I made to include some data while excluding
other data. I conclude by providing my theoretical and analytical framework
The sampling

The participants in this study were chosen specifically because they
presented and represented a particular model of behavior and views atypical of
mainstream high school young men. In other words I chose the four young men
in this study because they offered a perspective about which education
researchers know very little. Few researchers have explored the school lives of
young men who have not fallen into a range of familiar social categories. This
research moves us further by examining the school experiences, patterns of
behaviors, and attitudes or beliefs of young men who are exemplary because, in
many observable ways, they are unlike the rest of the boys.

The participants were taken from a purposeful sampling of senior high
school young men. Four young men were approached for this study because
they were exemplars demonstrating an array of behaviors atypical of mainstream
young men. I began looking for these young men in the face of considerable
cynicism from several teachers. "You actually think they are out there?" "Don't
you mean you want to examine the young men who are sexist?" After talking with

thirty teachers I had complied a list of eighteen students who were suggested as

58

possible candidates for this study. In the 6 weeks prior to the end of first
semester I began visiting twenty-one different classes. The classes varied
including Fiber class, Mathematics, Jewelry and Metal Art, Organic Chemistry,
American Government, Spanish, Economics, Statistics and Probability, and
Psychology. While in these classes I observed the routine interaction and
listened to the conversations of the recommended students.

From the list of names provided I approached 6 students. One declined
because his parents thought being a part of this study would be too time
consuming in his final semester and the other declined because he was
concerned about privacy. The other four young men volunteered
enthusiastically. None held any reservations but were assured nonetheless they
could withdraw from this study at any time. The participants, David, Hunter,
Thurston, and Philip are all white, middle-class, heterosexual males‘. I provide a
much more detailed account for each young man in the final section of this
chapter.

In the previous sections I described the types of relationships I nurtured
while being what Wolcott (1988) described as an "active participant." During the
second and final semester of the high school year I shadowed the four

participants. I gathered data at Central High from January 1998 until the June

 

1It is arguable if in fact the participants were heterosexual, however I accepted their admissions
and introductions to girlfriends as some indication of their orientation nonetheless. The
appearance as a heterosexual man is significant. I agree with Gutterrnan (1994)who argued that
"whereas women and gay men are often forced to seek to dismantle the categories of gender and
sexuality from culturally ordained positions of the ‘other,’ profeminist men can work to dismantle
the system from positions of power by challenging the very standards of identity that afford them
normative status in the culture” (p. 229). During the six months of this study each of the
participants was dating for a period of time. This presented itself as evidence on one level of the
heterosexuality of the participants.

59

graduation ceremonies of that academic year. During this time I attended
classes, hung out in the hallways, shared lunches, and generally blended with
the rest of their friends. The participant's schedule became my schedule. I
recorded their daily interaction, conversations and routine patterns of behavior.
At the end of each day I revisited my notes adding and clarifying any details I
missed. Generally however I was able to keep detailed descriptions while the
students worked in class.

Part of the data for this study was gathered using structured and
unstructured interviews. These interviews were conducted twice during the
course of the year. I wanted to encourage a relationship between us that was
respectful and in doing so upset what might be seen as a power differential
between us. One way to do this was to invite the participants to choose the
interview locations. We had the interviews at locations they had chosen. These
included local cafes, a park and a hamburger joint. I used their insight about
"good buddy type talks." Briefly, according to them the honest open
conversations, the ones that I hoped to capture, occurred between guys when
they were just hanging out on an informal basis. During the interviews we drank
coffee, walked in the woods, and had a cigarette. These were activities they had
chosen as events around which we could talk freely and openly.

The primary aim of my initial interview was to develop a picture of the
student's beliefs and views that informed their daily interaction. These interviews
were broadly structured to elicit more general insight into the events and

relationships these young men shared in schools. The first interview read a bit

60

like a rambling documentary. Having said that however it is worth noting that my
primary objective was to allow the participants a chance to tell me what they
noticed, heard, and possibly saw as important aspects of their daily lives. I
wanted then to tell me what I should be attuned to as I entered the field with
them. I directed the conversations but I gave considerable room in my
questioning. For example I asked the students to take me on an imaginary walk
with them as we went from one class to the next. The descriptions became a
source of insight into their individual observations. They provided me with an
opportunity to familiarize myself with their surroundings, their friends, and their
perspectives on school events.

The final interview was significantly different from our first ones. These
occurred after graduation. And though I attempted to have the interviews during
the latter part of the school year, it became virtually impossible. Time restraints
and various end of the year events left little time for much one on one time
together. The interviews were structured around a series of events, what I refer
to as vignettes, that I had captured during field observations. For each interview
I had described specific situations and conversations during the year. The
primary objective of these interviews was to create an opportunity for the
participants to provide me with a reflective commentary on their school
experiences. It also had the potential for providing insight into how the
participants behaved in certain situations.

The real life scenarios offered a window for seeing how the participant's

beliefs were implicitly or explicitly embedded in the scenarios, if at all. This was

61

also another way that I attempted to hear their voices and at the same time
ensure a level of accuracy in the depiction of their school experiences. I
intentionally developed an interview process that I hoped would be empowering.
My aim was to invite the participants to provide their interpretation and
explanations of events. The meaning of events ultimately were negotiated
between the researcher and the researched. In this study I offer my
interpretation of the students' social lives but I did this largely in collaboration with
the participants. They provided a set of meanings and a lens for seeing their
school lives. I tried to avoid what Lather (1991) has described as the
researchers attempt to "impose meanings on situations rather than constructing
meaning through negotiation with research participants" (p. 59). Their beliefs
and daily interaction in school represent what I argue are atypical ways for being
young man. More boldly stated I argue that the data these young men provide
demonstrate a distinctly different perspective—one that runs counter to prevailing
gender stereotypes and sexism, commonly expressed by high school young
men.

As I have described above the data for this study came from several
places. From the students own words the to the snapshots of their daily
interaction, I tried to look at the cultural experiences of these young men and
faithfully share what and how they participated as members within specific
contexts. While conducting this research one particular question stuck with me.

'What is going on here?" Wolcott (1988) has argued that in a fundamental way

62

ethnography involves answering that very question. I attempted to answer this
question by developing a form of inquiry that would allow me

some understanding of how one particular instance, or event, or case, or

individual, described in careful detail, is not only unique but also shares

characteristics in common with other instances or events or cases or

individuals (Wolcott, 1988, p. 203).

The participants in this study became the source of insight for better
understanding both masculinity and gender politics within the cultural context of a
high school setting. Much like past cultural studies that provide a window on the
school lives of students, this study does that while moving one step closer. The
view in this study centers around a set of conversations and interactions among
students and more specifically among young men who routinely constructed and
reconstructed the gendered lives they led.

To this point I have explained the mechanics of conducting qualitative
research. From knowing which questions to ask to the complications in the field,
I have developed a map that guides one through the procedural steps and
decisions I made. The next section closely examines the process involved while
analyzing the data.

Emergent Data: Hearing and seeing from within

As the previous sections have shown I struggled on several levels as a
researcher. The decisions were complicated. I ambled about trying to define my
own role while also gathering data that was authentic. The evenings of sifting
through the data were no less complicated. This section discusses the various

decisions I made as I probed deeper into the data that filled one journal log after

the next. In essence this section is my way of unlocking the filing cabinets that to

63

this day are filled with data, some of which still remains the unheard experiences
of these students. There are several sections. First, I begin briefly with a
comment on the process of organizing the data. Second, I discuss the lens I
used for categorizing and arranging the data. This section outlines the process of
choosing some vignettes and conversations while omitting others. These earlier
sections unpack the process of analysis and organization of the data. The latter
sections however explain more pointedly the decisions I made to include data
that centered primarily on male-male interaction to the exclusion of other forms of
interaction.

In order to see and hear themes or recurring patterns in conversations and
in the daily interaction between the participants and their peers, I looked for
elements of organization in a social world of conflicting pressures and demands
of four high school young men. Broadly speaking the descriptions of the daily
accounts that form the core of this study became points of inquiry and analysis.
In order to find these vignettes l sifted through the data, including field notes, and
audio tape recordings of the formal and informal interviews. Gradually I
developed a series of analytic memos that helped in the process of organizing
emergent theories. It became abundantly clear that, as Hammersley and
Atkinson (1983) suggested, "there are in no sense pure descriptions, they are
constructions involving selection and interpretation" (p.176). As such the data
included in this study was chosen specifically because of what I interpreted as its
theoretical and practical significance. I will later explain the basis for determining

the theoretical and practical significance of this data.

64

Listening to the data and seeing the patterns

The events, upon which this study is based, ranged from conversations to
daily vignettes taken from the school lives of the four high school young men. As
high school young men they were typical in a manner that was both familiar and
yet puzzling. The everyday nature of the events suggested how unremarkable
and indeed commonplace they were among "the boys" and within the general
student population overall. At the same time they highlighted something peculiar.
Though they appeared much like their classmates, the pattern of interaction and
set of beliefs that informed these interactions were noteworthy.

As I began piecing together the data the utility of certain events or
moments of interaction was largely unclear. l was unsure how this data would
become a window on some "theory" connecting the seemingly disparate pieces.

I nonetheless began organizing the data by using broad conceptual categories as
a foundation for my initial interpretations. With fresh eyes on a setting that was
still new to me from the perspective of student lives, I moved forward, carefully
and tentatively. My primary goal was

to see whether any interesting patterns can be identified; whether anything

stands out as surprising or puzzling; how the data relate to what one might

have expected on the basis of common-sense knowledge, official
accounts, or previous theory; and whether there are any apparent
inconsistencies or contradictions among the views of different groups or
individuals, or between people's expressed beliefs or attitudes and what
they do. (Hammersley 8 Atkinson, 1983, p. 178)
As such the data allowed me to both hear and see different sets of beliefs or

gender politics which I later argue informed the daily conversations and school

interaction characteristic of each of the four young men in this study.

65

While sifting through the data I felt compelled to look at two levels namely,
the surface level, and a second deeper level. At the surface level the social
interaction I witnessed struck me as typical of many students but high school
masculinity in particular. They were familiar events or conversations given what
previous studies had identified as patterns of conduct, conversations, and
general social interaction among students, men and women. (see Connell, 1998;
Gilbert 8 Gilbert, 1998; Walker, 1998; Messner, 1997; Thorne, 1993, Vifillis,
1977) These and other studies were central to developing an understanding that
defined schools as a cultural context and gave a specific lens for seeing various
versions of masculinities and femininities within this setting.

At a second, more textured level numerous conversations and field notes
appeared more contoured in a seemingly very familiar cultural landscape. The
data was both common and yet uncommon. I considered incidents and
conversations that were representative of the typical interaction among high
school students. In addition to the past research of high school masculinities l
conceptually mapped out what I saw as a pattern of behavior and attitudes
among the young men in this particular school setting. On the one hand then the
vignettes in this study were chosen because substantively they were not unusual.
On the other hand though what was unusual and made them stand out was the
type of response expressed by the participants. I will explain further. In one
vignette Hunter acted much like one of "the boys." He did not. reject the standard

behavior of his male counterpart, which I viewed as a sexual representation, or

66

display of a specific form of high school masculinity. Instead he supported a
typical version of high school masculinity.

The practical and theoretical import of this data came first, from its ability
to highlight standard normative behavior among these high school young men
and second, from the stance that it allowed me as the researcher to see a
tension between a set of beliefs and the adherence or lack of adherence to those
beliefs in any visible way. The power of the aforementioned vignette was in
identifying it as a moment when Hunter did not respond in a way that I
anticipated based on my understanding of his gender politics.

The above reveals how I organized the data using conceptual categories.
I also briefly explained how some vignettes and not others became the topic of
conversation and analysis. In summary, conducting this research forced me to
straddle two worlds in order to capture what I saw from the perspective of these
young men as typical interaction. Yet, as a researcher I also sought events or
vignettes that carried import for developing theory about high school
masculinities.

The data that is front and center to this research emerged out of the lives
of these young men. Wolf (1992) described the data collection process this way:

Experience is messy. Searching for patterns in behavior, a consistency in

attitudes, the meaning of a casual conversation, is what anthropologists

do, and they are nearly always dependent on a ragtag collection of facts
and fantasies of an often small sample of a population from a fragment of

historical time. (p. 129)

She went on to say that

As ethnographers, our job is not simply to pass on the disorderly
complexity of culture, but also to try to hypothesize about apparent

67

inconsistencies, to lay out our best guesses, without hiding the
contradictions and the instability. (p.129)

I chose specific vignettes and portions of conversations to highlight consistencies
and inconsistencies in the expression of both masculinities and the gender
politics that informed them. The participants were involved in ensuring l was
accurate and clear in the details I had captured. In addition, they were the ones
who provided the explanations and insight. Rather than impose meanings, I
attempted to "construct meanings through negotiation with [the] research
participants" (Lather, 1991, p. 59). The next section addresses further questions
about why I chose data that centered primarily on male-male interaction but did
not include data of male-female interaction.

Men interacting with men: But where are the women?

When I began this research I was mindful of the types of relationships I
saw unfolding before me. The relationships among high school young men and
women are complicated. Cultural studies however have allowed outsiders to see
the patterns and regularity with which these relationships develop both within and
across settings. The types of high school relationships captured by mainstream
studies often appear simple and uncomplicated, to a point of familiarity. Readers
are easily lured by a familiarity that allows them to freely see themselves
represented in the data.

Past education studies have looked at masculinities and femininities by
drawing on experiences that range from young men in the company of women to
looking at young men in the company of other young men, to looking at young

women among other young women. (see Canaan, 1991, Connell, Kessler et al,

68

1985; Mac An Ghaill, 1994; Martino, 1997; Willis, 1977) Each of these studies
posed important theoretical and practical questions with regard to gender in
education. The conundrum for many researchers is in determining how to
theoretically frame an argument that emerges out of the data in front of them.
There is a tendency to rely on familiar theories and overlook other possible
explanations. New researchers such as myself often fall prey to this trap. As
such some researchers have been accused of myopia, a narrow field of vision
that has limited the scope and depth of their analysis.

Researchers who have explored gender relations are frequently attacked
in academia for underdeveloped theories and narrowly conceived studies that
deny alternate possibilities. Barrie Thorne (1993) for example, has argued that
gender and education researchers must remain skeptical and cautious of
accepting long standing theories. Her research of playground interaction among
boys and girls was not immune to the temptation to "light up" familiar patterns of
interaction that collectively isolated boys and girls. In her words

a skew toward the most visible and dominatingu-and a silencing and

marginalization of the others-can be found in much of the research on

gender relations among children and yout " [emphasis hers] (p. 97).
Neatly organizing and aggregating data by gender differences and overlooking
similarities of interaction or times when the boys and girls are together as
opposed to apart leaves the full story untold.

By aggregating data that dichotomizes the social world of boys and girls,

researchers exaggerate gender differences and overlook or neglect within

gender variation. In these cases conceptual frameworks and theoretical

69

arguments become boxes for already determined routes of analysis. It is often
the case that
Large bonded groups of boys may get more than their share of attention
because their talk and actions fit prevailing images of masculinity. And
here the literature moves in a circle, carting in cultural assumptions about
the nature of masculinity (bonded, hierarchical, competitive, 'tough'), then
highlighting behavior that fits those parameters and obscuring the varied
styles and range of interactions among boys as a whole. (T home, 1990, p.
1 00)
We are left largely unfulfilled because the data does little more than reaffirm pre-
existing theories. The study I conducted does not examine the development of
gender conceptions across young men and women. Rather, this research
concentrates on the moments when young men, often times in the company of
other young men, construct and challenge conceptions of masculinity through
daily interaction in high school. The data is primarily restricted to conversations,
or incidents of men among men. This was not by design but by circumstance. I
will explain further in the next section. The question begging to be asked then--
Where are the women?
Defining moments: Interactions and conversations among young men
The absence of any data that might suggest when and how these young
men constructed definitions of masculinity while among women is striking.
Before addressing this issue I will discuss how the micro-context of men among
men in a high school setting became the premise for examining specific forms of

interaction, namely physical affection and conversations. Following this I will

elaborate further on how this precluded my intellectual framework which clearly

7O

supports the notion that gender is relational, but at the same time is presented
here largely, though not exclusively, without the voices of young women.

I filtered through my field notes looking for patterns much as Hammersley
and Atkinson (1983) suggested. I found two patterns. Each of these carries
powerful import for understanding the actions and attitudes of a particular group
of men, namely those who reject sexism and gender stereotypes. The data was
representative of a regularly occurring type of social interaction among these
particular high school men. I will describe each of these. First, there emerged a
series of male-male interactions that relied on physically affectionate contact
such as touching or hugging between men. And second, a set of conversations
that were gender exclusive by the very nature of the substantive issues with
which they dealt. These conversations thus were among young men because
they would not and could not have occurred elsewhere. The level of intimacy,
the substance, and the type of exchange that characterized these vignettes
demonstrated dis-confirming evidence that challenged previous mainstream
theoretical frameworks for explaining high school masculinity. Though my choice
of data may raise some eyebrows since it is heavily grounded in male-male
interaction and conversations, this does not in and of itself deny the argument put
forth by Thorne (1993) and others, that gender is relational.

Social practices and forms of interaction are a medium through which
masculinities are modeled on the basis of competing views about gender
relations and masculinity specifically. Interaction among students goes beyond

social divisions traced to a class, race, gender, and sexual matrix. It

71

encompasses a deeply embedded set of beliefs, namely one's gender politics, in
the subtly and nuanced expressed ways we engage as young men and women.
The perspective these young men brought to the fore reflect a range of
responses, which in and of themselves challenge the assumption that young men
share common school experiences. Masculinities and the social practices that
define them need to be more broadly viewed. As Thorne (1990) has pointed out

Looking at social context shifts the analysis from fixing abstract and binary

differences to examining the social relations and contexts in which multiple

differences are constructed, undermined, and given meaning" (p. 112).
The construction of differences among and across young men may also be
"undermined" and challenged. Gender relations need not be seen strictly as a
set of disparate social world experiences. It is also worth noting the ways that
young men and women interact together supporting, maintaining and,
undermining conventional forms of gender expressions and relations. The fact
that the research I conducted does not reveal mixed groups constructing gender
definitions is more a reflection on the degree to which these young men in
particular and possibly high school young men more broadly interact among men
than a theoretical claim or omission.

High school young men and women routinely exchange and enact ideas
that sustain competing versions of masculinity and femininity. Social interaction
among students thus is a public means by which different forms of masculinity
are expressed on a daily basis. Schools provide one of many contexts in which
gender is worked out among students, both men and women.

To construct and maintain a sense of who they are, boys must draw on
the available terms, categories and ways of thinking, acting and interacting

72

which these various contexts provide, including the specific forms of
masculinity associated with them. (Gilbert 8 Gilbert, 1998, p. 51)

The daily conversations and social practices that become a part of being among
the boys or among the girls mirror different patterns of masculinity and femininity.

Displays or expressions of one's gendered identity become opportunities
for showing allegiances among competing masculinities and femininities. It is not
uncommon to find the conversations or physical interactions among young men
focusing on sexuality. Terms such as "fag," "wimp" and "queer" are echoed
among students to delineate a hierarchy among masculinities. (see Connell,
1996) The frequently sexualized banter that fills the school halls or is whispered
behinds one's back is done in a way that further defines differences within and
across masculinities and femininities.

The interplay between masculinities is evident not only in schools but also
in the media and the portrayal of desirable forms of masculinity. "Masculinities
are far from settled" (Connell, 1996, p. 210). On the contrary masculinities are
constantly being constructed and re-constructed. Students are bombarded with
competing images of masculinity that prompt them to affirm or reject specific
models of masculinity. As such peer interactions become a powerful context for
examining and understanding how and when masculinities evolve.

The affirmation or challenge to different versions of masculinities occur
both within and across single and mixed gendered gatherings of students. (see
Gilbert 8 Gilbert, 1998; Kaufman, 1994; Thorne, 1993) In this study the social
context for observing how and when the participants rejected sexism and gender

stereotypes was defined by the students. It was the lack of sexism witnessed

73

within mixed gender settings which lead to the considerable emphasis on sexist
remarks and behavior in single sex gatherings. At the same time discussions or
public expressions of masculinity that competed with other versions of
masculinity were more likely to occur in cross sex gatherings. In my analysis of
the data in Chapter Three I offer some possibilities to explain how the context
and specifically the audience may bear on these expressions of masculinity.
Working definitions: Masculinity among men

The study I conducted focused on interaction among young men while
largely omitting the moments when they constructed and reconstructed
conceptions of masculinity along side young women at Central High. In doing so
the research illuminates the intensity and degree to which, at least in this context,
definitions of masculinity were heavily influenced by male-male peer interaction.
The relative absence of data revealing how these high school young men and
women co-constructed masculinities is powerful in itself. Rather than flawed for
its inattention to how high school young men and women constructed definitions
of masculinity and or how young men rejected sexist behavior and gender
stereotypes, this research strongly suggests that men do much of their gender
work in the company of other young men.

The relationships the participants had in mixed gendered gatherings were
less likely to be characterized by sexist moments. The times when these young
men and women commingled however, often became a forum for expressions of
gender stereotypical behavior. During an interview Philip explained.

I think issues of sexism are more widely known and talked about. And
they are still sexist but I think that a lot of the sexism in school is kind of

74

under the table. . . . It's kind of that under the table covert sexism as
opposed to right out in the open.

He later added that
Some of the girls just kind of accept this under the table sexism. . . . A lot
of the girls are kind of passive even though there is all this sexism going
on, they just kind of laugh it off. This whole, 'boys will be boys' attitude
about“.
The process of constructing gendered identities occurred in a more active and
public manner in gatherings where high school men gathered together. In mixed
gendered gatherings on the other hand, students were either more subtle in their
sexist remarks or their behavior was chocked up to "boys being boys."
Analytic and theoretical framework
Gender and education debates have had a well charted history. The
issues are clear. Questions of funding, resources, and equal opportunities have
been central to the many discussions for improving equality in education and
ultimately eliminating sexism and gender bias. The emphasis has been on
promoting change to a system of education that has favored boys and
disadvantaged girls. Change has been directed primarily from a structural level.
However, this research reveals that change can also occur at a different level,
namely from among the students. The following research demonstrates whether
and how high school young men challenge sexism and gender stereotypes
through daily interaction with their peers.
Students are central to the process for eliminating sexism and gender

stereotypes in schools. In this study four high school young men illustrate the

potential they have as young men to challenge and discourage sexism and

75

gender stereotypes among high school students. Their experiences reveal the
possibilities for enlisting and supporting young men as allies invested in social
change. In a sense, these young men were change agents. By this I mean they
operated intentionally and thoughtfully. They acted as individuals whose gender
politics became a type of social agenda. Amidst the daily interaction with their
high school peers these young men rejected sexist beliefs and gender
stereotypes in ways unlike many of their mainstream peers.

This study widens the range within which young men are seen as social
agents. Previously studies have examined the views and attitudes of young men
after high school, during college or while in the workforce. The following study
forces us to look at young men before they reach college age, before they are
introduced to college level feminist courses and before they are introduced to
formal movements or organizations that ostensibly confirm or locate men as
agents for social justice.

I begin this study by outlining my theoretical lens. First, perhaps most
central to this research, is my argument that sex role theories which have long
claimed students, young men and women, have willingly accepted time worn
scripts of femininity and masculinity are insufficient. Previous theories of
socialization do not explain the complicated and contradictory experiences of
students' lives. For all intents and purposes I restrict my argument to explaining
how masculinity in particular has been simplified by these previous theories. The
data suggests on the contrary that masculinity is complex involving an array of

differences among high school young men. These differences have been

76

overshadowed because past theories have assumed that all young men willingly
accept sex roles. The theoretical arguments have emphasized similarities and
shared experiences while overlooking differences among and between high
school young men.

Second, I build on recent critical theory and men's studies research by
arguing that gender is a complicated process involving choices and possibilities
influenced by, but not restricted to a preordained set of standards for masculinity.
I extend the theoretical and practical debate in gender and education by
revealing how and when masculinity is negotiated as a fluid construct—-one that
is neither static nor fixed. In other words, gender is what one does by carefully
managing specific ways for being in high school. These young men thus express
and display masculinities plural through courses of action and interaction among
their peers. In doing so each of these young men represents specific versions of
masculinity that are similar but different from mainstream masculinity.

Third, this study builds on previous arguments in men's studies research
by claiming that high school young men are engaged in a social process of
defining their own gender politics. These four young men hold a set of well
defined gender politics that contrast significantly with those commonly reflected
and documented in mainstream studies. I add to men's studies by showing that
the choices young men make while expressing their masculinities are as much
about their gender politics, namely their views, beliefs, and attitudes about
sexism and gender stereotypes, as they are about being a man. One informs the

other. In light of this I argue that high school young men represent a dynamic

77

countercurrent of diverse ways of being within and among masculinities. In other
words as high school young men they present and represent a strikingly powerful
stance that runs counter to the prevailing beliefs and attitudes common among
mainstream young men.

Finally, this study is anchored in what I argue is the routine expression of
masculinities. Social practices and conventional norms of behavior among
students and specifically young men are central as an arena in which to observe
the process of choosing one masculinity while rejecting others. The process is
complicated and involves overlapping ways of being young men. Daily social
practices among high school students thus become the vehicle for conveying
individually competing and conflicting gender politics. In a variety of contexts and
situations these young men expressed a repertoire of ways for displaying their
masculinities while also emphasizing their individual gender politics. The social
context of a high school provided multiple contexts within which these young men
operated intentionally accepting and rejecting various conventions of masculinity.
The participants demonstrated what was involved in adhering to a set of beliefs
about gender relations that frequently challenged and at times supported
traditional masculinities within high school.

Central High

Central High is a public high school in a mid-westem city that borders a
Big Ten university. In and beyond the immediate community Central is widely
respected both academically and athletically. Its student body is likewise well

known for the high energy and enthusiasm exhibited on a regular basis. While

78

the student body is predominantly white, it does reflect a vast and rich
multicultural livelihood in its students and school programming. Of the almost
1200 students 24 percent are from minority backgrounds. Three hundred of the
total school population is seniors.

The school sits nestled amidst the local community with a grove of trees
bordering it to the north. At the front of the school several contemporary style
benches and tables sit with small clusters of students gathering on and around
them. A meandering sidewalk leads to the front doors. To the side is a well
planned garden bursting with a variety of brilliantly colored flowers and wild
grasses. The parking lot is filled with a variety of cars, and jeeps, many of which
sport school stickers advertising athletic and academic involvement. The student
parking lot runs parallel in length and width to the school football field. The
surrounding neighborhood is a mix of student homes, fraternity houses, sorority
houses and established homes. The closer you get to the high school the more
evident the high school presence appears.

Upon entering Central High you are immediately struck by either a rush of
human activity or semi-deserted hallways, depending of course on when you
enter the school. The school halls are welcoming. The administration has spent
considerable time and effort hanging inspirational banners, signs and posters.
Show cases of student work dot the halls. At the center of the school is a
meeting place called “the crossroads." During a five-minute passing time
between classes many students, but not all, stop and chat with friends. Other

students fill the halls, stopping at lockers, standing in corners or stopping in the

79

office. The school is alive with energy flowing from the bodies bustling in the
halls. In the crossroads there is a noticeable presence and common look among
both boys and girls. Name brand clothing and accouterments are the norm. LL.
Bean, Jansport, Abercrombie and Fitch, Birkenstocks, Polo, Nautica and the like
are visibly displayed designer names of choice. Not all students, but many share
this fashion. The school year book in fact suggested the importance of fashion
by including a six-page spread of “Your guide to what’s in style and what it will
cost you.”

Choosing names: What shall I call you?

In an earlier section I described several ways that I attempted to challenge
the researcher/researched dynamic in this study. I intentionally nurtured
relationships that positioned the participants along side me as collaborators in a
process of documenting their school lives. One other means of empowering the
participants was by not naming them. Instead I asked them for names. I wanted
them to be responsible for naming the self. In each case the name was either
agreed upon collaboratively or chosen from several names offered by the
participants.

The names these young men chose generally reflected something about
each of them. Thurston chose his name from several. He gave me a list of
names, all of which were musicians. His passion for music was evident in his
choice of names, which included Miles, Nels, and Archer. We agreed upon
Thurston. He recently explained via email that

Thurston Moore is the guitarist of Sonic Youth, and Sonic Youth is a pretty
good band. Also, I just like the name. It has a nice ring to it, but it's not

80

very common. It just reminds me of someone like me (or how I picture
myself).

As a researcher I invited the participants to name themselves. The reasoning for
each varied. Whether grounded in childhood memories or special interests it
was the participants who assigned the names and not me as the researcher.

Hunter's name was chosen for several reasons. Along with recollecting a
boyhood memory of his dog named "Hunter," he also connected his name to a
crazy journalist, Hunter S. Thompson, with whom he was familiar. He emailed
saying "He did a lot of drugs and is from the 60s and 705 and is just an
amazing/funny/talented person." During a conversation Hunter also pointed out
that it is "like, a twist" on his character since in his words "I detest hunting. It is
ironic that I would call myself Hunter when the total opposite is true. It's like,
people look at guys one way but with me I can be the total opposite to what they
expected." David's name came from the biblical tale of David and Goliath. His
religious background made this name fitting. Philip's name came about after
several email exchanges. The name was more or less one that seemed to work.
There was no extensive reasoning for this name.

David: . . .“so I gave him a hug.”

David stands tall in the halls. He is strong academically and juggles his
many responsibilities with the help of a school daily planner he carries
everywhere. Assignment due dates, hockey practices, and the like are all
carefully entered. Most recently his contribution as the Co-Captain of the school
hockey team has gained him notable attention as he walks the halls. However,

he is a humble young man and often downplays the accolades from peers and

81

teachers. As he flows through the halls he frequently shares his warm
personality and smile with his friends. He is genuine in his concern for his
classmates, often stopping to actually hear how they are doing. " I like to find out
what’s really wrong or to find out what’s going on in people's lives as opposed to
just ‘Hey, how’s it going?’ His affection for his peers is evident in his unabashed
physical expressiveness toward his male friends. “We used to be in freshman
biology together so I gave him a hug.” Often embracing or simply physically
reaching out to his fellow classmates, David presents a striking image of a young
man through his caring and understanding manner. He is well received by his
peers and indeed provides many with a model for his unfailing character.
Hunter: “I am not ashamed of anything I do.”

As he stands in the comer of the crossroads Hunter appears to be like
many of the other boys around him. In fact he is closer to a mainstream youth
than any of the other participants in this study. At the same time he
demonstrates how a thoughtful and sensitive young man can carve out his own
niche and be accepted by the prevailing mainstream youth. Whiling time away
with his friends his charisma and energy are evident in the seamless flow of
conversation. He talks in an almost fluid jovial manner among his peers. When
he is not surrounded by his close peers Hunter assumes the role as Student
Council President. Perhaps evident of youthful naiveté or an unfettered ambition
he often remarks smiling, “I will be President before I am thirty-five.” His youthful
liveliness is invigorating and at times disarming when he finds himself in a jam.

He is confident and honest in his approach saying “I’m not ashamed of anything I

82

do.” Hunter is daring and at times brazen. Skipping classes and boldly greeting
teachers in the hallway as he does so, is only one example. At the same time
Hunter is a young man who will share his deepest feelings in class during a
poetry reading. He is also a young man who will freely embrace another young
man when “he is down and just needs a hug.” He is a counselor, a listener, and
a man with compassion for others.
Philip: From the halls to the stage

As he walks through the hall carrying a coffee to his morning class Philip
flashes a smile. His jovial, rather carefree attitude is evident in his voluminous
voice. Beyond the classroom his enthusiastic zest in life and professional
passion appears on stage in school productions like “Cinderella.” He admits he
is not outstanding academically but he nonetheless is committed applying to and
attending a Big Ten university. He is a young man whose contributions in class
reflect an element of risk on his part because he does not know or assume to
know the right answer. “I may be wrong but” or “I’m not sure about this” are
common entries into discussion as he offers his thoughts and ideas in class.
There is little pretence in his interaction with his peers. He opens his arms and
often embraces his close friends with little if any reserve. His presence in his
classes is not dominating but tends to be more reserved than not. He knows his
responsibilities and tries to fulfill them even if without the help of a school planner
which he says is “too much work.” Philip stands along side many friends in
school but he does so in a transient manner. He often floats in on conversations

and groups and steps away from them in the same unobtrusive way. It is the

83

open and honest expressive manner of Philip that sets him apart from many
other young men.
Thurston: An ‘altemateen’ in “the comer"

Thurston, drawing from a popular cultural definition, refers to himself as an
“altemateen.” He looks different from the mainstream youth described above.
For Thurston, his appearance is not dictated by current fashion trends commonly
worn by mainstream youth. He meets his friends, most of whom are girls, in “the
comer,” an out of the way corner located at the end of the English wing.
Geographically and socially then he is situated and connected in the school very
differently from the other boys. He is thoughtful and attentive to his peers. He
interrupts a young man to invite a girl to continue what she was saying. He
invites his girl friends to his house where they can share lunch. He is a bright
young man and academically is well directed in his pursuit of a university
education. Thurston’s expression is apparent in the venues he has chosen to be
a part of in school. He is musically inclined and invested in projects that in his
words he is “passionate” about. He is also an Editor with the school newspaper,
a member of the Editorial Board for a poetry publication, and performs as a bass
player in both his own band and a school band. He provides a different
perspective from many other young men his age perhaps because of his
willingness and ability to invest himself in ways in school that are arguably non-

traditional for many other young men his age.

84

CHAPTER THREE
Four cases: Masculinity, choices, and gender politics

In the previous chapter I outlined the methodological details for conducting
qualitative research as well as my theoretical and analytical lens. This chapter
takes us into the center of a high school and more specifically along side four
young men who arguably represent a new wave of high school masculinity. The
data I provide for each participant demonstrates how both masculinity and
gender politics are intricately woven together. Furthermore, the vignettes I
include reveal the extent to which individually and collectively school experiences
become powerful contexts within which young men exercise varying degrees of
agency to oppose sexism and gender stereotypes. I turn now to outline the three
main themes l have used to organize this chapter and the aim of each section.

First, masculinity is fluid. It is not static but instead being a high school
young man is about choosing from among multiple ways of being a man. In any
given situation such as a high school context, there is an array of ways for being
a man. This multiplicity of masculinities is not always evident because of the
power and status that often upholds and overshadows some forms of
masculinities over others. Each of the participants was surrounded by different
types of masculinities, some more valued than others.

This section provides data that illustrates how and when different
masculinities are played out in a high school. The evidence I provide in this
section demonstrates that in varying degrees each young man is directly and

indirectly connected to a variety of masculinities. The primary aim of this section

85

then is to challenge a stagnant and unidimensional concept of masculinity that
overlooks the complex lives of young men choosing to be different from the rest
of boys.

Second, gender is a process. Being a high school young man means
making choices about how and when to express certain elements of masculinity.
The process of defining one's masculinity is at times coherent while at other
times contradictory. In other words the way one presents and represents the
self, as a man is not always consistent. This section offers evidence that reveals
how and on what basis young men make choices about defining particular forms
of masculinity. l illustrate how, for example, different contexts (shared
experiences, mood) levels of friendships, levels of openness-or receptivity from
friends bear on the extent to which these four young men stray from traditional
norms and attitudes common among mainstream young men. The data further
illustrates that being a young man in high school involves a complicated process
of reading people, knowing what the norms of behavior represent, as well as
operating within a broader social context that defines and informs one's
behaviors and attitudes. And finally, the evidence in this section illustrates that
the ways these young men represent themselves as high school young men is
occasionally contradictory. This aspect of socially enacting one's gender as a
man highlights a process of negotiation that occurs within and across high school
masculinities.

The primary aim of this section is to further a debate in gender and

education by arguing that high school masculinity is layered in meanings both

86

conceptually and practically. It is not unidimensional. Being a young man is
about making choices. It is about knowing how and when to express the self as
a man in high school. It is about delineating forms of expressions that reflect
clear and powerful images of specific masculinities. It is about choosing from
among a spectrum of masculinities by variously expressing different elements
that contribute to what it means to be a man within a high school.

Finally, the beliefs and attitudes, or what I refer to as gender politics of
these four young men shed light on how differences among young men are
manifest in their daily interaction at high school. In other words then the
conversations, interaction, and nuanced forms of expression among young men
reveal an array of attitudes and beliefs underscoring how and what men do as
high school young men.

By narrowly defining my focus to four young men, this research provides
an intense view on a set of beliefs and attitudes hitherto not documented let
alone acknowledged as possible among high school young men. With each
situation in this section I reveal a) the different forms of masculinity and b) a
response that explicitly or implicitly reflects on the participant's views or attitudes
toward sexism and gender stereotypes. Generally the data centers on a specific
situation-a vignette taken from the field. In light of the incident or scene I then
turn to the insight or reflection of the participant as a way of interpreting and
understanding how the scene is a representation of the playing out or silencing of
one’s gender politics. In a sense I unravel the scene to identify the gender

politics and the ways they are intertwined together with other issues.

87

In each case the primary aim within this section is to develop an argument
that sees young men as social allies. It is an effort that conceptually and
practically moves us beyond seeing all the boys as the source of the problem.
Moreover this section pushes us to conceptually and practically re-envision
masculinity. In doing so the data reveals the possibility of seeing young men as
potential allies for eliminating sexism and gender stereotypes.

DAVID

I am sure you could sit down and trace this [hugging] back to my

childhood and like, blah, blah, blah. You might think David didn’t get

hugged by his parents enough or something. But I think really what it is, is

that we really draw from each other for a lot of strength . . . . Those kinds

of relationships mean a lot to me where I know I am there for somebody.
Introduction

Standing among his friends as he so often does between classes, David
looks much like the other young men that flank him. Clad in the latest styles of
American Eagle or Abercrombie and Fitch, these high school young men share a
common fashion as high school youth. The surface is telling perhaps of a shared
commodity of fashion sense. But beyond the style and fashion David is a young
man whose physical closeness and sense of appreciation for his friends is almost
uncanny among his mainstream male counterparts.

David represents a striking contrast as a young man who, though he may
reflect a similar outward appearance, possesses an attitude toward gender and

sexism that bears listening to and closely observing in his daily interactions with

his school peers. It is here, at school, with his friends that David presents a set

88

of views that run counter to prevailing mainstream beliefs among his male
counterparts. He explained his perspective with thoughtfulness and maturity.

I think there is something that has not even to do with the women

themselves but what is important is my attitude towards them. . . . It

comes from more of like, who I want to become. I mean you could trace it
back to 'Oh well, I grew up with my mom and, you know, [he laughs]. You
can do that and I am not sure it has a lot to do with it.
David has no clear explanation for how these attitudes have evolved. His actions
however offer compelling insight into the nature of these views and the struggles
for a young man such as David who is routinely surrounded by peers whose
ideas and beliefs mirror mainstream masculinity.
A hockey player with an attitude?

With little pretense David stands tall among his peers. As the co-captain
of the high school hockey team he was highly regarded and well respected. His
attitudes toward women reflect none of the bravado or machismo one might
eXpect caught up in being a star hockey player. He did not succumb to the
pressures his coaches might have hoped he would. Rather than try to hurt
people and fight to appease his coaches' calls, David remained calm and
unbending. David recalled the type of attitude that not only did he harbor earlier
as a young man growing up, but it was promoted and sought after by coaches on
the hockey team.

I'll admit, in eighth grade I was a pretty mean kid. I was bitter. I came

from a broken home. I used to be pretty bitter about a lot of things. And

so I would get mad and I would get angry and I would try to hurt people
and fight in hockey.

After some tumultuous years however David's commitment, energy, and attitude

as a hockey player and a young man had changed substantially. What had not

89

changed however were [the demands of the coaches. The expectations that
players be aggressive and violent prevailed. To their dismay David explained
"the coaches would get so furious that I couldn't get mad." David rejected the
typical sports image as an aggressor. Instead he expressed his commitment in
different ways. In contrast to what was expected of him as a hockey player and a
young man, David offered a different version of masculinity rarely acknowledged
or legitimated within a sports arena such as this. He explained;

lwould feel that wasn't right. . . . He [the coach] was trying to get that from

me just because it's hockey, you know, blah blah blah. And I would be

like, helping people up who were checked down. If they got hurt, I mean
you don't have to hurt them, you just got to knock them and keep them out
of the way really. But the coaches would get so furious that I couldn't get
mad.
As a young man then David presented an alternate version to the prevailing and
more highly valued images of an athletic masculinity. His beliefs and attitudes
not only to sports but also to relationships in general distinguished David among
his peers.

It was not easy to adopt and adhere to a set of values that challenged
mainstream masculinity. Expressions of masculinity thus were not only
contested during the daily interaction among David’s peers, but the struggles and
tensions between masculinities extended to the formal sports arena as well.
Definitions of masculinity were both formally and informally woven into the daily
fabric of David's school life.

Masculinity: Beyond a unidimensional concept of the boys

David took up a particular version of masculinity different from his

mainstream male counterparts. In the process of defining his own masculinity he

90

rejected different aspects of mainstream masculinity, namely various attitudes
and typical behaviors common among his male counterparts. In this section of
my case study I lay out several vignettes to showcase the competing
masculinities within David’s own peer group in addition to a broader sweep at
Central High as a high school context in which to observe these masculinities.

During routine school interaction David used various forms of expression
and conversations that ran counter to a long standing prevailing image of
masculinity. The school interaction between David and his peers was a powerful
context for observing how this young man framed and became framed as a high
school young man attempting to define a particular masculinity within a specific
school context.

In many ways the school arbitrates between different kinds of
masculinities. There emerges in schools what Kessler et al (1985) have
described as a "gender regime." Schools are one of many institutions in which
young men and women either accept or reject different forms of masculinity and
femininity.

It [school] provides a setting in which one kind or another becomes

hegemonic . . . It produces other masculinities but marginalizes them,

while giving most honor and admiration to a tough and dominant virility . . .

the school as an institution is characterized at any given time by a

particular gender regime. This may be defined as the pattern of practices

that construct various kinds of masculinity and femininity among staff and
students, [and] orders them in terms of prestige and power. . . . The
gender regime is a state of play rather than a permanent condition. It can
be changed, deliberately or othenrvise, but it is no less powerful in its

effects on the pupils for that. It confronts them as social fact, which they
have to come to terms with somehow. (Kessler et al, 1985, p. 42)

91

The tensions between staking a claim and knowing where one stands have
significant implications that are played out implicitly and explicitly among high
school students and boys in particular. There is very little neutral ground or open
spaces in a high school that is not bound by conventions of masculinity. Be it
formally or informally young men are frequently confronted by challenges that
push them to know what it means to be a man and "make the masculine grade”
(Kaufman, 1994, p. 159).

Physical prowess: Athleticism, "python guns" and muscle magazines

Casual conversations or comments among students allow us to hear
which aspects of masculinity are most important and valued. In class one day
David's peer for example grabbed his arm and remarked "Oh man! You got some
python guns!" His comment was said in jest. The underlying message however
is telling. Physiml prowess was important. On different occasions students
could be overheard commenting and occasionally comparing one another. This
aspect of masculinity as a form of daily expression is taken up in a later
discussion with some of David's other peers.

Physical prowess and competition was broadly supported at different
levels within the school. Teachers, for example, could be heard supporting
student participation but specifically participation within the sports arena. Casual
in-class comments brought many athletic events into the classroom. The
frequent and good-natured inquiries about last night's hockey game or the
lacrosse game inadvertently showcased certain aspects of being a high school

young man over others. Rarely was there any discussion for example about the

92

successes of the debating team, the numerous displays of senior artwork, or the
contributions students made to the literary publications at Central High.

On one level these types of casual conversations encouraged school
involvement but at another level they conveyed messages about which type of
masculinity was valued as a model for others. In one class David's teacher
enthusiastically asked, "Are we celebrating a victory yet?" Another teacher
offered congratulatory praise. Daily conversations contribute to the sense
students make about an athletic masculinity and its place within the gender order
of a school.

Students are aware of the significant place athletics have in a school
community. In many cases the shaping and re-shaping of masculinities pivot
around sports as a social organizing agent in schools. (see Bissinger, 1991;
Messner, 1988, 1991) "The meaning most men give to their athletic strivings has
more to do with competing for status among men than proving superiority over
women” (Messner, 1991, p. 72). And while teachers support and legitimate
certain forms of masculinity through daily informal conversations, students
likewise are a part of an "informal peer-group life [in which] much of the politics of
gender is worked out" (Kessler et al, 1985, p. 42). The posturing among young
men in school sports evolves within a sports arena. In addition the legitimacy of
some masculinities over others is played out in classroom and hallway
conversations in a way that cements into place the differences between young

men.

93

High school young men such as David are constantly engaged in the
process of taking up different versions of masculinity. Along with an emphasis on
athleticism at Central High, media images were also a point of reference for
defining masculinity for some students. In the following vignette David talks with
his peers during contemporary math class. The discussion was prompted after a
young man left a "Muscle Magazine" at one of the desks in the cluster of tables
where David was seated. David’s classmate, Kevin, was not in the class at the
moment so another student dropped the magazine at his desk.

David picks up the magazine as the young man walks away. The glossy

covered magazine depicts numerous sculptured, extremely muscled

young men. As he looks at the cover David inquires 'What’s this?" The girl

next to him looks on curiously and comments "That’s gross!" David smiles

responding, "I know. I don’t think I'd really want to look like that.
Both David and his classmate rejected the image of masculinity depicted by the
magazine. It was "gross" and David clearly did not “want to look like that." Their
comments revealed a sense of curiosity about one version of masculinity
portrayed by the media. Centered on one representation of masculinity this
conversation also sheds light on perspectives that do not support a more highly
valued image of masculinity portrayed by the magazine. When Kevin returned to
his seat to find the magazine, a more enthusiastic and supportive response
surfaced.

Kevin sees the magazine slipped under his knapsack. As he pulls it out

he barely contains his excitement. "Oh sweet! Is this from Trevor?"

"Yeah” He smiles, dropping the magazine into his lap and fingering

through the pages. As he beams with excitement he remarks "Merry

Christmas to me!" The teacher's voice is heard in the background as she
explains the homework for next class.

94

Kevin was remarkably animated about the significance of this magazine. He was
absorbed in the images he saw. David and the young woman next to him
looked on. No conversation ensued. Kevin was immediately transfixed, ignoring
class discussion and carefully hiding his magazine just below the table so he
could continue to see the pictures. His enthusiasm was a striking contrast to the
earlier reactions of disgust and curiosity.

Each of these students responded differently to these images of
masculinity. As such masculinity and how it was portrayed in this magazine
became a point of difference between these students. David did not disagree
with it being a "gross" representation. He rejected it, as an image of masculinity
depicted in terms of sheer physicality and moreover added that he did "not want
to look like that." His remark was a statement about what he valued and chose
to represent in terms of his own masculinity. He did not subscribe to nor did he
express his masculinity by displays of physical prowess or brute strength. In fact
David presented quite the opposite. During an interview he commented that ”a
lot of people are surprised I can play hockey . . . People, like Kevin, they want to
hear like ’did you hurt anybody?” The emphasis on physical strength and
aggression prevailed among David's peers. It was a powerful framework within
which David tried to maintain his own version of masculinity in striking contrast to
that of Kevin and his male counterparts.

Informal exchanges among young men at Central High became

opportunities for defining masculinities. David explained the extent to which

95

physicality and strength were a part of a defining rubric among high school men.
David described the aspects of fitness valued among his friends this way.

Not be[ing] huge but to be bigger would be encouraged, just by what's

attractive maybe. I think it is just the way guys compare one another

against each other. It's like how much they can bench press . . . It’s

different ways of you sizing people up.
Differing notions of masculinity co-existed at Central High. The above vignettes
followed by David's insight illustrates how one version of masculinity in particular
dominated the cultural landscape for these young men. Differences existed in
how and what expressions of masculinity were embraced by these young men.
Classrooms and the weight room were only a few of the places that young men
defined for themselves how and what it meant to be a man at Central High.
Broadly speaking then high school young men like David and Kevin are routinely
engaged in making different and opposing claims about what was representative
and by extension, what they valued in terms of their own masculinity.
Telling jokes: Displays and affirmations of sexual prowess

Telling jokes among men is but one way masculinity is socially
constructed through informal interaction. As a social practice, telling jokes
operates in different ways ranging from exaggerating gender differences and
degrading women to prompting conformity among other men. (Walker, 1998) In
the following situations at Central High several young men in different classes
could be heard telling jokes or focusing attention on their physical endowment.

This sort of emphasized masculinising social practice was demonstrated on

numerous occasions.

96

In the following situation one high school young man showed how jokes
became a medium through which he expressed his view on masculinity. Jokes
operate to "ritually affirrn heterosexuality among men whose social
circumstances create a level of physical and emotional intimacy culturally
regarded as unmasculine" (Walker, 1998, p. 230). In this situation David was
party to such an event in which his friend approached us and shared a joke. This
joke was prompted by his observation that the corner of my t-shirt was
embroidered with JAMAICA.

As Tyson approaches our table David greets him saying "You want to

work with us on these problems? Tyson responds "No," glancing toward

me; "the reason I came over was I saw Michael's Jamaica T-shirt. I got
this joke to tell you." David and I look in anticipation. I ask cautiously, "Do

I want to hear it?" He assures us "Yeah, wait till she leaves," pointing to

the teacher. He begins. "So there is this American guy and he's got his

girlfriend's name, Sarah, tattooed on his dick. But when it gets limp all you
can see is the S H. So when this guy goes into the bathroom he’s
standing there and he notices this guy next to him with a W Y on his. The

American guy says ’Cool, I've got my girlfriend's name tattooed on mine

too. Your girlfriend's name must be Wendy.’ The Jamaican guy turns to

him and says 'No mon, mine says 'Welcome to Jamaica, mon. Have a

nice day.’ David glances up from his work expressionless and then

returns to his homework problems.
The joke served as a means of broaching a topic not often discussed among
men. The focus on penis size is one aspect of sexuality among men that allows
them to express and emphasize their virility and masculinity. David was not
engaged in the joke but instead continued working. I, on the other hand, listened
attentively. I provided Tyson with an audience. The topic is striking. It illustrates
how and when fundamental components of high school masculinity, specifically

physical endowment as a characteristic of masculinity, are played out in routine

conversations and expressions among high school young men. David was not

97

interested in or willing to support this form of joke telling. Tyson however
expressed his masculinity and virility via joke telling.

In another class several men routinely made gestures using their books.
The phallic symbolism represented by raising their books above their crotch was
played out in this class on three separate occasions during the same week. It
became a standing joke among these boys. The ritual initially started after a
conversation in which several boys spoke of "uncontrollable urges." Much like
the practice of telling jokes these young men used humor as a forum in which to
express their heterosexuality. In this situation their masculinity was attributed to
their "uncontrollable urges” and the uncontrollable, perhaps "natural" urges they
had as young men.

Public displays of heterosexuality among young men are often couched in
common social practices such as joke telling. Jokes and public displays served a
clear purpose among David's male friends. In his words

I think it is easier for guys to communicate like that. Like especially with

things that are wrong. Or like when girls walk by and guys are like, 'David,

I would really like to have sex with that girl.’ So they kind of like, say it as

a joke and other guys go [he changes his voice to a deeper, gruffer sound]

'Yeah, yeah! I can relate to that!’

Several of David's peers emphasized various elements of their masculinity such
as their heterosexuality and virility. They set the norm of masculinity by defining

for themselves as well as others what was most valued for young men at Central

High.

98

Scoring goals and an academic masculinity

The degree of public expression about competing masculinities at Central
High was evident in their daily interaction. At different times and in different
contexts different versions of masculinities came to the foreground. Willis' (1977)
research, for example, showed the sorting out of varying masculinities that took
place. Likewise this study illustrates that within the participant’s peer groups
some forms of expression and displays of a specific version of masculinity were
given more “air time" and in a sense, were more strongly legitimated than others.
An alternate form of masculinity, namely one of being studious, received less
public expression and acknowledgment.

Relations of power structure the process of negotiating between multiple
masculinities. The tensions that underlie these masculinities strike at the degree
to which they became broadly accepted or rejected within Central High. Young
men who valued and publicly displayed their commitment to their academics
were often on the fringes of conversations or formal acknowledgment in schools
and generally struggled to be recognized. The powerful interplay between
competing ways of being young men in high school arises as "a contest for
hegemony between rival versions of masculinity” (Connell, 1998, p. 145). David
for example stood on interesting grounds as a young man. He was the co-
captain of the hockey team while also being dedicated to his studies. In a
conversation with a young woman in his class he raised the question of future
plans.

David asks his classmate, ’What are you doing next year?" Trisha replies
’What do you mean, studying?" "Yeah," he responds. Trisha explains

99

"Veterinary School. What about you?" David is thoughtful. "I don't know

what I'll do. I'm thinking about Dental School but I don't know. Six years is

a long time and that's after the first two years.

Alongside this conversation David expressed his waning excitement about school
sports and then followed up with a conversation about his enthusiasm for
physics.

Trisha asks, "Are you excited about your last game?" In a lacklustre tone

David responded " I kind of am. I want to score a lot of goals but I want to

be done. You know what I mean? Trisha appreciates his remarks saying,

"Yeah, I understand completely! Ifeel that way in tennis."

As Ms. South walks by, she stops and talks with David.
'I really enjoy physics," says David. Ms South agrees saying; "You can see
the application of it." David agrees drawing a comparison, "Yeah, it's like
literature." Ms South smiles "I got enough problems of my own, I don't
need other peoples." Trisha chimes in as Ms. South walks away. "Do you
like physics?" David reassures her saying, "Yeah, it's cool!"
This string of three conversations reflects a richness about how and when
students, and David in particular, have the opportunity to express their
commitment and valuing of their academic studies.

This series of brief conversations is significant. First, in a broader context
it revealed that some conversations did in fact promote and encourage an
academic masculinity to survive even amidst a prevailing voice valuing
athleticism. That is to say then that an academic masculinity was a possible
alternative though not often publicly acknowledged in casual conversations
among students. The conversations above are poignant examples of the

possible intermingling of masculinities framed in daily peer conversations. They

importantly demonstrate that an academic masculinity is a viable option, one

100

which in this case was not overshadowed or completely marginalised by a highly
valued athletic masculinity.

The above conversations show a marrying of different interests that
dominate the lives of students, both men and women. They also are an
important source for understanding what interests informed the choices David
was making about where and how he directed his energies in school. In a
separate conversation David was asked to play volleyball after school. The
choices he expressed in this brief conversation illustrate the tensions between
what students valued individually and collectively. These tensions are captured
by seemingly disparate academic and athletic masculinities within a high school.
David explained that he had other commitments and could not play volleyball. "I
have to review the stuff for the Physics AP test." His peer was less supportive
saying; "You always have homework!" Divisions between masculinities took hold
in subtle ways during these casual conversations between David and his peers.
In addition, shortly after hockey season ended David was encouraged by a
classmate to join the track team. His classmate encouraged him saying, "You
would be good." I heard you were fast." David however refused to participate.
Unlike some of his peers David chose to invest himself in a less valued but more
career oriented masculinity. David's interest in the hockey season was tempered
somewhat as he stated "I want to be done." This contrasted significantly with his
enthusiasm for studying physics, which according to him was "cool."

The jostling of conversations above draws attention to the way in which

students support and maintain different versions of masculinities via daily

101

conversations. The casual and taken for granted quips over what students
choose to do or not do in school raise important questions about the process of
informal gender construction in high school. For example, What aspect of school
sports-athleticism is important or valued by students? How do students support
different forms of masculinities? How and when do conversations among
students sanction various masculinities and femininities?

The tensions between rival versions of masculinity are often times subtle.
Among David and his friends the discussions were not tense. And though
Messner (1991) has argued that there emerges a sort of jockeying for position or
a competition of sorts, these young men demonstrated that some masculinities
co-exist without necessarily being threatening to one another. What was also
clear however was that the dominating presence of some masculinities,
specifically an athletic masculinity, become a significant framework among young
men because it was so pervasive and at times overshadowing and dominating
the cultural landscape at Central High.

Young men like David are surrounded by multiple representations of
masculinities. Some are manifested within the school organization both formally
and informally while others are supported or challenged in informal peer group
discussion and interaction. David posed a striking figure amidst this polyphony of
voices representative of differing versions of masculinities. His way of being a
young man is more fully explored in the following section. It is evident from the
examples above that high school masculinity emerged in the halls and

classrooms in various forms and through competing voices.

102

High school young men: Making choices to be unlike the boys

Social norms and attitudes about how young men ought to interact are
deep-seated. For example, among high school young men physical displays of
affection prompt an array of questions tied to masculinity. Kimmel (1994)
reminds us of the significant way in which “as adolescents . . . our peers are a
kind of gender police constantly threatening to unmask us as feminine, as
sissies“ (p. 132). It follows then that for young men like David, Hunter, and
Philip, whose gender politics included non-traditional forms of daily interaction,
they represented a significant challenge to mainstream masculinity. They
rejected the social conventions of a high school masculinity that involved for
example, rough housing in the hallway, horseplay in the classroom, and more
common forms of masculinised practices.

The participants routinely exhibited non-traditional forms of interaction.
And although their public displays of affection were not always consistent, their
behavior nonetheless posed a challenge to the more traditional male greetings
such as hand shakes and "high fives" witnessed among many of these young
men. They openly and freely expressed more public displays of affection among
their peers which, as Kimmel (1994) has argued, goes against “the traditional
rules of masculinity” (p. 133).
Public displays: Physical closeness among men

Like a public stage open to the critics, high school young men such as
David are constantly under the watchful eyes of their peers. Daily interaction in

the halls, the classrooms, and the school parking lot thus became contested

103

terrain. Expressions of masculinity were accepted, rejected, and challenged.
Social practices among students were interpreted as expressions of masculinity.
David for example, explained that he was careful about how he expressed
himself among some of his male peers.
For some people like Rick, you just don’t encourage them in that way
(using physical contact such as putting his hand on his shoulder) just
because, you know, they don’t take it as an encouragement type thing.
It’s like I never, like I don’t really touch Rick at all. You know what I mean.
Because everybody’s different, you know.
David identified physical contact as a form of support. At the same time he was
aware that his expression of support might be mired in questions of masculinity.
He went on in the interview to say, “Rick cracks me up because he’s always like,
if anyone smells him, he’s like, ‘Man, that guy’s a homosexual.” Physical
closeness among men like Rick was taboo. Rick described this interaction as
common among "a touchy feely type of guy." Young men like David thus were
named and categorized in a sense. They were different because they
represented competing models of masculinity. And while Rick identified people
by their behavior David likewise shared his observations and interpretations of
young men like Rick. The interview continued, "Rick cracks me up because no
matter what’s wrong, he would never tell you anything's wrong. He's that kind of
person." David's remarks provide a powerful image of Rick as a familiar model of
mainstream masculinity. His observations and understanding of Rick adds to an
overall picture about how masculinity was presented and represented among

these high school young men. It also suggests the various ways in which

expressions of masculinity competed with other versions of masculinity.

104

David rejected a stereotypical form of interaction among many of his male
counterparts. Rather than adhere to traditional social practices such as hand
shakes, he embraced his male peers. By doing so David challenged the
masculinising social practices commonly accepted and practiced among his
peers. He judiciously used various forms of expression in different contexts and
among different other young men. While he knew Rick would mis-interpret his
physical contact, he also knew that in other contexts close physical contact was
better than talking. I asked David to explain further.

Sometimes like, being reassuring and hugging them [guys] that way can

mean so much more than what I can ever say. I am saying 'I am here for

you' and it's just like, that [the hug] helps them to feel that.
He was clearly aware of the rules and traditions of masculinity he witnessed in
young men like Rick. Physical closeness, for example, was one aspect of
masculinity that crossed the boundaries. According to David "they don’t’ take it
[physical closeness] as an encouragement type thing." He added that for young
men like Rick physical closeness was interpreted as a sign of being a
"homosexual." His final comment pulled together an all too familiar picture of the
type of masculinity David challenged in his daily interactions. His remark struck
at Rick's inability to openly express himself. "He would never tell you anything's
wrong."

David was a poignant reminder of the differences among masculinities.
He offered this story during an interview in which he recounted a relationship he

shared with a close friend "He [Josh] started crying. I was just like, driving and

holding Josh's hand. It's just like, something we have." His intense ability to both

105

openly express himself and share this concern for his male peers provides a
powerful contrast of masculinities. But it also goes beyond that in the way in
which he not only represented a different version of masculinity but he enacted
this via his opposition to gender stereotypes that potentially limited the many
ways of being young men.

"High- ives" and 'hattrick hugs"

Conceptually high school masculinity is fluid but its representations and
demarcations are clear and concrete. The various forms of expression and
interaction among young men further highlight the reality that in high schools,
“heterosexual masculinity is not homogeneous; it is fissured, divergent, and
stressed in many ways” (Connell, 1998, p. 151). Young men like David negotiate
their masculinities via daily interactions. Social practices such as daily greetings
among young men was just one of the subtle and nuanced ways that
masculinities were negotiated among competing versions. Consider the
following greeting in the school halls.

As David walks down the hall he notices a friend leaning against the wall.

David walks toward him. As he approaches him the other young man

raises his hand. At the same time David extends his hands and places

them on his friend’s waist.
David attempted to embrace his peer while his friend offered a more typical “high
five” greeting. The collision of bodies would have been humorous had it not been
for what it represented. Drawing from their understanding of common social

practices each young man clumsily expressed himself. The clumsiness came in

when their norms for communicating as young men were misread.

106

Public forms of expression among high school young men are layered in
meanings. On a separate occasion David and another young man similarly
worked out competing displays of masculinity.

As David approaches math class he hears his name called out. “David,

David, stop! David turns to see his friend Ross approaching him. He

reaches out to David and fully embraces him saying “Hattrick hug!" They

smile and part.
This brief and almost fleeting exchange captured one way that public
expressions such as hugging among young men might become legitimated in a
masculinist framework. In this vignette David challenged traditional social
practices by accepting the embrace. He did not back away or verbally express
any opposition to this form of interaction. Instead he accepted the hug as
another form of greeting. Ross attempted to legitimate their public affection by
framing his hug as a congratulatory “Hattrick hug.” He verbally defined their
embrace in an effort to legitimate their closeness within a sport’s context. The
open embrace without any contextualization thus would have been naked and
unspecified in an arena where anything remotely feminine might have raised
questions about masculinity. (Kimmel, 1994)

Gender politics: Degrees of opposition

Gender politics are often times expressed publicly in the daily lives of
students. My observations of and routine interaction with David and his peers
opened the door to a world in which he was frequently bound to and yet torn from

his views and beliefs regarding gender. David's daily interaction revealed a

pattern of behavior and views that were seamlessly woven together. He

107

displayed his gender politics in the everyday taken for granted set of relations he
held with his classmates.

The following illustrates how David's gender politics surfaced amidst his
daily conversations and interaction with his peers. As I attempted to see and
hear his politics I was forced to look both at the actions as well as the
undercurrent that informed his behaviors. Seeing and hearing the gender politics
of these young men involved knowing where to look and how to make the
participants’ views an explicit part of our follow up conversations.

Jokes: Knowing when and how to say "no."

Telling jokes was one social practice among others that brought David
together with his male counterparts. At the same time practices such as these
also gave rise to divisions between David and his peers. His views and attitudes
created a noticeable distance because of competing perspectives that prevailed
among other young men. In general David's views came to light as aberrations
from the norm. Exchanging jokes became a way for these young men to "just be
boys" by specifically expressing their heterosexuality. It became a place for the
familiar “boys being boys” while they engaged in jokes that were specifically
sexual in nature. (see Walker, 1998) The following scene, captured while David
was in class, reveals opposition on two levels.

Six young men sit in their chairs awaiting the teacher’s instructions. ldle

chatter breaks out. One young man pipes up “Hey, I have a joke.” The

boys lean in slightly. “What’s the difference between the Titanic and

President Clinton?” A brief pause and he blurts out the answer. “We

know how many went down on the Titanic.” Laughter erupts but David

stares, showing no expression. Another student offers his joke. David

immediately rises from his chair. “No, no, no, don’t say it.” He walks away
as the other student begins a joke. "What did the President say about

108

Lewinsky? Now, she opens her mouth.” David in the meantime sits with
some other students, a group of girls sitting in another corner of the room.

Subtle though it was, David rejected the humor his male counterparts shared.
His lack of expression and refusal to laugh was his way of rejecting a
conventional social practice of one version of masculinity, namely one that
valued sexualized expressions of manhood. He opposed both the nature of the
joke and the context by leaving the other young men and in a very striking
manner, sitting with a group of his peers, all of whom were girls.

Rather than remaining quiet amidst the shadows of his peers, David chose
an alternative response. His decision to leave his male peers and sit with women
was a strong and clear indication of his views about what it meant to be a young
man, namely one that did not support or encourage sexual jokes.

For David, like the other participants, his gender politics were intricately
woven into the fabric of his daily relations with his peers. His public display of
both his politics and an alternate version of being a young man became an
explicit part of his everyday interaction at school. In a follow-up interview David
shared his views about being a man and the sexual jokes he heard among his
classmates. Again what he offered is a partial glimpse at a connected and
thoughtful set of beliefs about gender and masculinity. He explained how his
views underscored his behavior.

When you laugh at jokes you have to be careful of what you’re supporting.

When you know things are inappropriate just like, you shouldn’t really tell

dirty jokes or laugh at them. So this is when you have to use judgment,
even though by nature you think it’s funny.

109

David rejected one version of masculinity by disengaging from the social norms
associated with telling jokes among mainstream men. In the above comment he
explained that “dirty jokes” elicit supportive laughter because “by nature you think
it’s funny.” David's perspective is double edged. On the one side he suggested
that men laughing at sexual jokes is "by nature . . . funny." On the other side he
suggested that judgment or in other words, rationale had to prevail even in the
face of what by nature might be funny. His comment powerfully illustrates a
dichotomy between what men arguably do naturally such as telling jokes and
what by reason can be rejected because it is inappropriate. David had
poignantly captured a dual perspective almost assumed to be inherent in the
choices available to young men opting to be unlike the rest of the boys. The
possibilities were counter-posed on the basis of nature and rationale.

David's comment draws our attention to a competing and much more
pervasive framework of high school masculinity. He pointed out that some
practices such as telling dirty jokes among young men elicit an almost natural
response that supports a specific model of masculinity. David however rejected
that model and in his words, "used judgment." In doing so he did not support a
common masculinising practice evident among mainstream young men. He
refused to passively accept or maintain this typically male sexist joke-telling
interaction. He opposed both the typical male behavior of joke-telling as a social

practice as well as the more substantive, denigrating nature of the joke.

110

David’s opposition was apparent on another level. He later approached
one of his classmates who told the joke. David voiced his opposition again but
this time in a more intimate context.

As he walked out of class David turned to his peer “ I was really sad you

said that joke." His classmate, looking rather sheepish, acknowledged

David’s feelings saying, “I’m sorry.”

This brief interaction revealed the extent to which David willingly expressed his
opposition. His daily interaction with his peers became an arena for observing
the principles that grounded his gender politics. His decisions to challenge or
destabilize the conventions of a hegemonic masculinity were informed by an
overarching principle. During an interview he summed up his approach to
expressing his gender politics by saying, “I wouldn’t keep like, beating a dead
horse. I would just kind of not really react to it that much, just so they know I don’t
condone it." Although his opposition was strongly stated and openly expressed
in some situations, David pointed out that there were times when his gender
politics were less forcefully expressed. David, like the other participants in this
study, demonstrated a range in degrees of opposition to sexism and gender
stereotypes.

Daily vignettes like the above reflect the seemingly sound byte interactions
among high school students. They also indicate the subtle and casual way in
which sexism and gender stereotypes are allowed to remain a part of the
everyday discourse among students. As David mentioned above there were

times when he did not express his opposition but instead allowed more traditional

views and behaviors to prevail and go uninterrupted. His gender politics were

111

stifled by a stronger and deep-seated set of views and attitudes that supported
these jokes. By not interrupting the prevailing voices of a hegemonic masculinity
it further encourages and props up the power young men have to both dominate
other young men as well as women. It is amidst the din of students that a
pervasive and dangerously so accepted voice prevails. Rarely are these voices
challenged but instead they are left uninterrupted and intact as a symbol of a
highly valued masculinity.
Dissenting voices amidst the clamor of others
It was difficult in the best of situations for these young men to register their
opposition. In the shadow of prevailing mainstream voices and attitudes some of
the participants could be seen struggling to be heard. The following vignette
between David and his classmates reflects one circumstance in which his gender
politics were almost understated. In this scene David was seated with a couple
of classmates during an in-class study hall.
Sitting in a cluster of four tables, David, Jeff and Melanie are working
quietly. David cocks his head as he looks around the room. Miss Drake’s
words of help echo across the room. Staring at his teacher, David
comments "Miss Drake’s really smart.” Melanie looks up from her work,
“Yeah, I heard she’s brilliant.” Jeff smiles as he glances towards Miss
Drake and then back at David and Melanie. “But I bet she’s never been
whooped!” David looks at Jeff and shakes his head saying, “Ohh, No, no,
no!”
In this conversation David praised his Contemporary Math teacher for her
intelligence. His admiration for her was grounded in her ability as a Math
teacher. Jeff's remark on the other hand posed a striking contrast. His

comment focused on wagering whether Miss Drake had been “whooped” or in

other words, had sex. He did not acknowledge her ability as a Math teacher but

112

instead degraded her by specifically casting aspersions about her sexual appeal.
He equated her being “smart" and “brilliant” with a loss of sexual allure. David
spoke admiringly of Miss Drake’s abilities as a professional but his male
counterpart degraded her and furthermore, negated her accolades and
intellectual prowess as a woman. The opposing stances by these two young
men are noteworthy.

The above situation revealed how dissenting voices among students were
muted by others and specifically that of a mainstream young man. An outsider's
attention is immediately drawn to the disparaging remark. David's opposition is
almost lost in the scene however it is important to consider the broader context.
The discussion between these students began by acknowledging and praising
the abilities of the teacher. The emphasis and tone of the conversation however
shifted when Jeff degraded the teacher's abilities calling into question her
sexuality.

David reacted to this remark with a subtle, almost negligible response. He
expressed his disdain by shaking his head back and forth while simultaneously
saying, "Oh, no, no, no!" His opposition to this remark was evident in both verbal
and non-verbal forms of expression however it failed to dissuade Jeff. He neither
recanted nor apologized for his comment. David clearly opposed the remarks
Jeff had made but it was also evident that not all opposition was equally as
powerful or meaningful in different contexts. This should not imply that David’s
opposition was meaningless. In fact his attempt was significant as a part of a

broader pattern of behaviors related to his gender politics.

113

The difficult decisions and making choices

Deciding when to oppose sexist remarks or stereotypical behavior and in
what contexts was complicated but not impossible. As David has already shown,
he was thoughtful about how he registered his opposition to the sexist joke made
in his other class. In the study hall however David responded differently. His
repertoire of responses for rejecting sexism and gender stereotypes was
tempered by other factors. The above situations revealed how and when David
purposefully enacted counter-views that challenged mainstream attitudes among
young men. The level of opposition was differently expressed because the
events were differently contained in each of the situations.

David's responses need to be contextualized more broadly. His efforts are
a reminder that young men have choices in their daily expressions of their
masculinity. He also reminds us that although he subscribed to a clear set of
gender politics they were not always openly or ardently expressed. Even for a
young man like David whose beliefs and attitudes were firmly seated, it was not
always easy to abide by them.

David's gender politics were framed by his masculinity. David's struggle to
voice his opposition is not uncommon among high school young men. His efforts
remind us of the difficult work involved in rejecting a typically mainstream gender
politics and the way in which some masculinities and gender politics are more
strongly supported than others. (see Kaufman, 1994; Kessler et al, 1985;

Kimmel, 1994; Mac An Ghaill, 1994; Messner 1997, 1989)

114

David expressed his gender politics through various degrees of
opposition. In the earlier vignette David could have remained silent and sat by
as yet another sexist joke was told. In doing so his actions could be interpreted
as silent support for the views underlying those jokes. David did not however.
During an interview David elaborated, explaining further how he made choices
about whether and how to voice his opposition among his peers.

It’s so hard for me not to laugh at Jeff because, as you know, he is just so

hilarious . . . so this is when you have to use judgment. . . With me and

Jeff, because he’s so funny, I am just like [He grows solemn looking,

shaking his head to and fro.] ‘Jeffl?’ I don’t know how to put that into

words . . . It’s that feeling I think. [Laughs] What can you do?
David almost resigned himself to Jeff's remark as though it was typical and
perhaps beyond his repertoire to register any opposition. In this situation David
acknowledged the difficulty in trying not to laugh at his male counterpart. Again
David was mindful of the meaning of certain behaviors such as laughing at his
classmate as a sign of support. During the interview he struggled, trying to
explain his reaction. David shook his head saying “Jeff!?" The difficulty for David
was in trying to articulate his response. He understood Jeff's remark as part of a
different set of beliefs and views grounded in an alternate version of masculinity.
David struggled to explain how he had reacted. Upon reflecting on the scene I
had described to him perhaps David had been struck by the lack of response he
had registered. And although his response was faint at best he might have
simply said nothing. What message do young men like David send by not

interrupting these remarks? What views and attitudes are harbored in the daily

conversations among students if no one questions them? David’s opposition

115

was not as strong as it could have been. He did however interrupt the
conversation and in doing so rejected the sexism expressed by Jeff.

Enacting gender politics that were atypical among the mainstream young
men at Central High was a complicated process. This process occurred mainly
on two levels. First, David presented and represented an alternate form of
masculinity that was most visible in daily expressions that ran counter to more
traditional beliefs and ways of being a young man. On several occasions during
class David's peers remarked, " I don't understand how David can be so good.
Like if you want to tell him a joke, he’ll say 'no’ and walk away." Another student
similarly remarked "Your such a nice guy. ldon't see how you do it." Being
unlike the rest of the boys in their terms translated into being "good" or being "a
nice guy." His ability to reject mainstream ways of being a young man was
looked upon with admiration and disbelief. On another level David '5 expression
of his gender politics went beyond being unlike the rest of the boys. It involved a
careful and clear set of non-sexist views demonstrated in his daily interaction.
This process of enacting his gender politics was woven to his masculinity.

David did what not many young men would do by challenging the often
uncontested sexist remarks of his male counterparts. His response to Jeff was
subtle yet it reflected David’s discomfort with the remark Jeff had made. Efforts
such as this are valuable starting points for high school young men to begin
interrogating their own masculinities and that of their peers. (see Gutterman,

1994; Kaufman, 1994)

116

For a young man like David, rejecting views and attitudes commonly held
and supported among his peers was not always easy. He had options whether
to reject or accept the competing gender politics of his classmates. For most
high school young men the options generally appear to be limited. David
however has shown that being a young man and investing in one's own gender
politics does not have to be about being like the rest of other boys. The
decisions he made were informed by a clear set of gender politics that
underscored his daily interaction. David shed light on whether and how he made
those decisions while also maintaining membership within his peer group. He
was not ostracized by his classmates but looked upon with admiration and
occasional disbelief.

PHILIP

There's definitely sexism in school. (He chuckles) I'm sure it's been there

as long as school has been around. . . . you know, the guys that tell

jokes about keeping the women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. And

a lot of guys joke about that kind of stuff but they don't actually believe that

women should be kept in that kind of position. They kind of act that way

around their friends. They kind of, try to impress their friends
Introduction

In an almost matter of fact tone Philip's words reflect on a history of
gendered experiences in schools. His remark was emphatic and unwavering.
Sexist behaviors, attitudes, and remarks have become familiar undercurrents to
many high school students. Gender stereotypes have likewise become
commonplace, often overshadowing the daily school experiences of students

from an early age, through high school, and into university. As Philip pointed out

sexism has seemingly been a part of the cultural landscape of many students'

117

school experiences. Particularly striking about his remark is his candid ability to
name what and how young men express their sexist views. Equally provocative
is the explanation Philip offered for the typically sexist jokes bantered about
among his peers.

Philip's remark points out what might be a period of transition among
young men in school. On the one hand his observation was contextualized
historically by suggesting that sexism was an age old problem. On the other
hand he pushed beyond the historical context to explain sexism in school. He
drew attention to an emerging sense that though young men make these
remarks, they do not actually believe them. According to Philip then, there
appears to be a dissonance between the actions of young men and their beliefs
about gender and sexism. Philip's remarks highlight a possible shift in attitudes
among some high school young men. However, the sexist behavior rooted in the
past nonetheless lingers in an often veiled manner that shadows the daily
interactions of many students.

The use of jokes that degrade or belittle women among these young men
reveals only a minute part of the work still to be done to eradicate sexism and
gender stereotypes in schools. According to Philip however these views and
beliefs are not deep seated. Rather, high school young men act certain ways
and express these opinions as a means of gaining status and impressing their
male counterparts.

In high school the facade of being one of the boys provides a powerful

context for understanding a dynamic which supports sexism and gender

118

stereotypes, and one, that Philip has refused to accept. He is a young man
unlike many of his mainstream male peers. In the shadows of the typically sexist
remarks of his male counterparts Philip abided by a different set of beliefs and
views. His school experiences, though not completely devoid of sexist remarks
or gender stereotypical behavior, were not typical of many high school young
men. His behavior, actions, and attitudes reflected a relatively newly emerging
set of beliefs, what Connell referred to as "gender politics," characteristic among
countersexist young men.
Philip's emerging beliefs: From girl friends to family

As he finishes his senior year at Central High Philip offers a refreshing
perspective on high school masculinity. Recorded in report after report the
familiarity with which Philip commented on mainstream young men was not
surprising. What is surprising however is the contrast between his perspective
and school experiences and those typically pictured in gender and education
reports. Not often documented to date, Philip expressed a view that embraced a
much more liberal understanding of masculinity and a far broader perspective on
gender within the context of schooling. Philip explained that his views about
gender were partially informed by his parents but also through his school
experiences among girls.

. . . I have been friends with girls . . . . and my parents have just raised me

to be very open, to question things, and not just accept things at face

value, which I thank them for because it's given me a perspective on life.

The choices Philip made about with whom to socialize in school were only

partially explained by the his parents prompting him to "question" and "not just

119

accept things at face value." Being a young man particularly in high school is
much more complicated than simply following the urgings of one's parents. The
expression of masculinity and the means by which a student such as Philip
conveys a set of beliefs are complicated by various factors beyond the control of
parents. In other words, though his parents may have contributed to Philip's very
open views, it is Philip himself who is responsible for adhering to or rejecting
those beliefs in situations beyond his parent's earshot.

Philip made choices about the type of interaction he supported and was
party to at school. And though he admittedly traced his perspective on gender to
his parents, he also made choices about whether or not those beliefs would be
demonstrated in school, a context separate and often times uninformed by his
parents. His experiences were framed by a set of beliefs perhaps connected to
his parents but it was Philip who chose if and how he would demonstrate this
commitment to a more liberal perspective on gender and masculinity which ran
against the views of his mainstream male counterparts. His school experiences
were a time when he alone decided how and when to display his views. His
beliefs were linked to earlier times in school:

I think I have been pretty much, for a long time, like since, middle school I

guess, kind of pretty open as to gender and understanding girls. I've hung

out with girls for a while since seventh or eighth grade and I think that has
helped me form ideas about gender in high school.
With this as the backdrop Philip shed light on both the importance of his parents

and his school peers as two different contexts in which his views and attitudes

were shaped and possibly re-shaped.

120

At seventeen years of age Philip stood at the doorway of his high school
relatively unencumbered by the gender stereotyped bonds of his peers. The
stark reality of sexism and gender stereotypes in high school that he so aptly
captured in the opening comment reveal a facet of the history of education that
has not yet been eradicated in current school halls or classrooms. In fact the
problem of sexism and gender stereotypes are perhaps more troubling in the
nineteen nineties. As Philip pointed out:

I think the issues of sexism are more widely known and talked about. And

they are still sexist but I think that a lot of the sexism in school is kind of

under the table. Kind of like, not overt, like archetypal sexism, but like the

teacher not calling the girl as much as they call on guys. It's kind of that

under the table covert sexism as opposed to right out in the open.
Sexism remains an issue in education but most disturbingly it is a reality as part
of the everyday experiences of students, both men and women. Philip was not
distanced from nor unmoved by the familiar images and voices that perpetuated
and maintained sexist behavior and gender stereotypical attitudes among his
classmates and teachers. The following experiences in high school however do
reveal the manner in which he as a young man negotiated his non traditional
views and behavior regarding sexism and masculinity among and across his
peers, both men and women.

Masculinity: Beyond a unidimensional concept of "the boys"

A high school provides a unique social context in which young men like

Philip are increasingly faced with multiple versions of masculinity. During their

daily interaction in high school young men participate in social practices that

legitimate and de-legitimate certain masculinities. With the evidence these

121

young men provided from their daily school lives I argue that different
masculinities emerge to varying degrees in school depending on the choices they
made to support some and not others. (see Connell, 1998)
Marginalised masculinities: "l was trying to think of something to say"
Differentiated masculinities often surfaced in the content of the
conversations the young men at Central High had in school. Philip was on the
outside of many conversations that echoed among his peer group. He explained
at one point that the conversations with some of his male counterparts were not
meaningful to him. His lack of investment and participation in these
conversations reflected how he became an interloper, a young man finding his
place among other young men. He elaborated:
They [conversations about cars and sports] are conversations that I guess
are short, kind of like, not important conversations, just kind of like small
talk . . .. Like the first one was about junky cars and the third one is just
about sports that I played for a while but I don’t really play anymore and I
don’t have much interest in. And I guess they're about conversations that
l was kind of listening in on. I was trying to maybe think of something to
say but not really having anything to say. . . in some of these I wanted to
say something but I don't know what to say or how to say it. . .
His struggle to become a part of the conversation even though he was not
invested in it was a powerful indictment of the degree to which casual peer
conversations became a point of entry or membership among his peers.
Philip's struggle to say something was an effort to be accepted and
acknowledged as one of the boys. Daily conversations such as these provided
opportunities for these young men to express what they knew in a variety of

subjects. In a sense these conversations became a public arena for displaying

certain aspects of masculinity valued at Central High. By focusing on topics

122

typically considered male in nature such as cars and sports these young men
demonstrated a very specific type of knowledge as men. Philip did not have the
same interest or investment in these topics but eavesdropped almost with
anticipation that he might have something to say. The fact of the matter was in
Philip's words "I wanted to say something but I don’t know what to say or how."
Philip's struggle to be a part of these conversations illustrated the way in
which "small talk" though substantively not terribly important, nonetheless
operated in an exclusionary manner. Among these high school young men
casual conversations became grounds for playing out their masculinities. The
topics, some of which emerged in later conversations included: cars, engines,
football, JV soccer, and driving around with the guys. They were typically
"masculine" in content. That is to say they were primarily about traditionally male
centered activities. Their investment and contribution to the conversations were
a display of what they knew and how they were connected to the events at hand.
Contrast the above conversations with the topics that Philip found more
meaningful and the subtle boundaries and means of differentiating masculinities
become clear. In the following interview Philip elaborated on the conversations
to which he freely contributed with his other friends.
We talk about the play. Just, you know, chatting about college. He asked
me if I got into Michigan. . we talk about English. I like talking to them [my
friends] about religion because I like to question my beliefs . . .and so we
talk about religion and choir. . .and about school, you know, the stuff in
class and that typical stuff.

He went on adding that

We have good discussions about how everything's going and sometimes
we carry over our English discussions into the play or about philosophy.

123

The conversations Philip described above present a striking contrast to the daily
"small talk" he heard among his classmates. The list of topics included college,
English, religion, choir, the play, and philosophy. It is not surprising then that the
typical male conversations seemed somewhat foreign to Philip. He struggled to
say something but as he later explained was "reluctant to" because talking meant
asking himself "Should I risk being wrong or what should I do?"

At Central High the casual conversations among the students were a
testing grounds in which young men showcased what they knew and understood
as young men. Particular voices among these high school young men were
more highly valued and prevalent than others. Philip, for example, showed how
he tried to find a way of including his voice in the conversations. On another
occasion Philip remained on the fringes of a mainstream discussion among
several young men in his Pre-calculus class. The conversation centered on a
fight that had erupted during lunch hour. In this situation Philip attempted to
interject asking, 'Wait, what's going on?" His query was not even acknowledged.
Instead, the other young men continued describing the details of the fight, the
location, the people, and the altercation that led to the fight. Philip left the
recounting of the fight mldstream and went to the teacher's desk to pick up an
assignment. His failure to "enter" into the conversation again left him as an
outsider. Young men dominate conversations among and between each other.
There is a process of valuing among men that occurs in the ways that some

voices carry more weight and ultimately social value over others.

124

The legitimacy of certain masculinities, such as the rough, fighting,
aggressor involved in the scuffle the day before was supported in another class
the next day. As the young man entered class, minutes after the buzzer had
sounded, his peer called out, "Oh you're back." The attention of the class shifted
to his arrival. He nonchalantly sat in his seat and turned to his classmate saying,
"Yeah, I fucking killed him. I hit him in the head." The class continued. In this
case neither the event of the fight nor the disruption caused by being late was
addressed. Shortly after the class was underway the teacher distributed some
assignments. He struck up a conversation with the young man from the fight
asking 'Why were you suspended? Were you one of the dukors yesterday?" The
young man's participation in the fight was legitimated by being named by the
teacher. He was given a title which the young man then appropriated for himself
saying, "Yeah, I was one of the dukors." The conversation was about a young
man's involvement and status that had surfaced from a fight. The status was
granted by the teacher who named his involvement. The actual event was not
challenged but instead given attention and left as an accepted and legitimate
form of behavior among some young men.

The young men in this class spoke of a mainstream event, one that
happened at the heart of the school. The teacher gave attention to both the
event and the young man involved. Philip however was not aware of the fight.
He also became excluded from the conversation even though in this case he was
interested. Philip’s exclusion from specific topics of conversation was witnessed

repeatedly. His position on the fringe, the teacher's contribution, and the

125

student's conversation sans Philip, further demonstrated the different ways that
some masculinities were affirmed and others marginalised at Central High.

The stniggle for power over conversations between men adds to the
distances between masculinities. Access and membership thus become features
that separate young men. (Kaufman, 1994; Kimmel, 1994) The topics of
conversation such as sports, cars, and fights contributed in a subtle way to
isolating and differentiating these young men. Not only did they talk about
different topics but also their experiences and relation to them further
demarcated the boundaries between competing versions of masculinities.

High school young men: Making choices to be unlike the boys

Philip and the other participants framed their responses differently within
the context of different types of relationships. In other words their expressions of
masculinity were fluid and partial depending on specific contexts. Certain
aspects of masculinity were more fully displayed in different places and with
different people within the school context. More broadly then it is understandable
how, within a school, competing versions of masculinities are either rejected or
accepted.

Straddling two worlds: The difficulty of "just being yourself."

Curricular and extra-curricular activities are difficult terrain in which some
high school young men negotiate between the standard beliefs about masculinity
associated with each. From academic success to athletic prowess, young men
make choices about the type of masculinity that eventually defines them.

Students and young men in particular see these activities in terms of social

126

power. (see Connell, 1998, 1993) The most striking contrast evident in many
high schools is the differentiation between young men who pursue an academic
path, often seen as effeminate and the “cool guys” who ultimately define
masculinity. (see Foley,1990; Messner, 1998) Both types of activities reflect and
maintain dominant conceptions of masculinity and femininity.
Philip negotiated between rival versions of masculinity. He was active as
a football player in the athletic arena and at the same time he felt conflicted
because he was “not being himself.” His interests remained elsewhere, namely
in theater. During Choir class his teacher commented about the rich experiences
offered in the arts program. Philip reflected on that moment.
You know when he says ‘you can’t get this kind of experience in sports,’
he’s right. I’m not dissing sports because I was a football player and we
had some good experiences but a lot of sports is competition. A lot of
sports play up the macho angle of things. They play up this thing that
(changing his voice-being gruff sounding) ‘You have to be tougher than
the other guy is. Raggggghhhh!’
Philip confirmed his own feelings about the differences between the arts’ and
sports’ arena at Central High. His differentiation however was more pointedly
about the type of masculinities that were presented and represented by each of
these curricular programs. And while he began delineating the different
experiences each activity offered he quickly narrowed his definition to the
individual as a context. In other words he spoke less of the collective
experiences of each activity and instead referred to the emphasis on competition
and toughness between men.

Philip made an important distinction about the differentiated types of

experiences young men chose from at Central High. He offered a contrasting

127

image that also introduced a crucial element which informed his final decision for
directing his energies in school. In much broader terms his comment illustrated
the degree to which young men like Philip not only chose between venues for
participation in school but they also made significant choices between specific
versions of masculinity.

And the arts . . . you don’t get the macho aspects in the arts. You can be

who you are. You don’t have to feel like you have to portray this image in

front of people. Like sometimes when I played football I felt like I had to
project this image of myself, at least while I was on the field. But in the
arts I can be who I am. I can do what I want to do. And not feel like I have
to answer to anybody.
As a football player Philip struggled trying to project a specific image. He
contrasted his involvement on the field with his arts’ experience in which he was
able to be who he was, not an image of something else more valued. The
tension Philip described pointedly affirms a polarity that exists between
competing masculinities that have become entrenched and sustained in school
activities.

In the sports program Philip operated under a traditional set of definitions
of masculinity. He identified several distinctions between the types of
masculinities produced and supported in each of the programs. In particular he
made the distinction that in the athletics arena he had a specific image to portray
whereas the arts allowed him to be himself. As a football player he acted in ways
that were expected of him. He added that these expectations extended in more

informal settings as well.

Some girls I have a problem being myself in front of because I feel like I
have to live up to some expectations. I kind of feel I like, have to act in a

128

certain way. . . Part of it might be the expectation of how they think we
[guys] are going to act and part of it is just some girls.

The differentiation between masculinities was both formally and informally
supported. The expectations to which he referred were narrowly about what it
meant to be a man within a sports context but more broadly they were about
competing definitions of masculinity within his peer group. The difficulties he
experienced being himself were exacerbated when not only was he dealing with
the formal structures of curricular and extracurricular activities but he also felt
compelled to behave in certain ways in daily school interaction.
Gender Politics: Degrees of opposition

The more public and openly displayed some masculinities are, the
stronger the reaction and form of legitimation or de-legitimation. This led to
demarcations and boundaries between and among masculinities. In Philip’s
case he accepted a wider range of masculinities than “a lot of typical guys.” He
explained.

There are a lot of typical guys that will say ‘oh he's gay if he’s acting a

certain way.’ That‘s a big thing. I don’t quite understand it. I don’t think

it’s a big deal if someone is gay. I think it [people’s response] is just

(pause) ignorance and comes out of society.
Philip’s gender politics involved embracing multiple masculinities by rejecting
stereotypes about young men. His comment reflected two aspects of his gender
politics. First, he expressed an openness toward public affection among young
men and second, an acceptance of alternate versions of masculinity such as

being gay. This attitude was rare among many of his male counterparts.

Traditional norms of behavior such as the type of physical closeness described

129

above were common indicators used by mainstream young men to differentiate
masculinities.
Rejecting male stereotypes: Physical closeness among men
Philip expressed a conceptual framework of masculinities that was much
more encompassing than the “typical guys” at Central High. Among his close
friends in particular he revealed how he commonly rejected certain aspects of
male interaction. These relationships allowed for a type of “physical closeness”
to replace the more typical high-five hand gestures common among many of his
peers.
We greet each other with a hug a lot of the time. We have a really close
relationship like that where lam not afraid to hug him or pat him on the
back or you know, give him a little back rub or something. And it’s that
kind of physical closeness, I mean that is part of our relationship . . . ljust
think it’s good that as guys we are able to avoid that male stereotype of
‘Hey, he’s hugging that guy. He must be gay.’ You know, that kind of
aflflude.
Philip was frequently aware of and involved in challenging male stereotypes
through a kind of public demonstration. His observations and understanding of
the social norms which defined one form of masculinity did not generally limit
how and when he redefined those norms. As a matter of his way of being as a
young man, Philip freely expressed himself through close physically affectionate
contact with his male peers.
Unlike his male counterparts Philip displayed a much broader repertoire of
ways for interacting with other young men. His male-male relationships were

openly affectionate. In this regard Philip delineated how his relationships were

unrestricted by standard norms of behavior. With his attention on his friendships

130

he described a richness in the daily greetings he shared among some men. In
doing so he also highlighted what it meant to reject the traditional norms of
behavior modeled by his male peers. Central to his opposition of gender
stereotypes in this situation was his willingness to courageously reject the
attitude that being physically affectionate was not acceptable among young men.
Instead in retrospect Philip saw this as an opportunity to reject prevailing male
stereotypes.

Hanging with the boys: The struggles to be yourself

The tension between being one of the boys and opting to be apart from
them is a struggle for young men involved in non-sexist politics. While looking at
two groups of men who were in different ways distanced from the dominant mode
of masculinity Connell (1998) described what he referred to as a “typology of
masculinities.” In essence young men were “choosing a masculinity” (p. 145).
Much as was the case for Philip, being one of the boys meant membership and
acceptance among a broader social group of young men.

Philip grappled with being one of the boys or being on the outside, that is,
not being a part of the mainstream young men. These choices between
masculinities are strongly structured by relations of power (Connell, 1998).
During an interview Philip reflected on what he called “a cool guy moment.” His
interpretation of that event highlights several aspects of masculinity and what it
meant to be one of the boys. It was his eighteenth birthday. He recalled the
event and his feelings.

I felt good . . . this crowd of guys circled around me and they said ‘Philip
we got something for you.’ And they passed me this brown paper bag and

131

I looked inside . . .You know it was like one of those things out of the
movies and the guys are standing in a circle congratulating each other and
like slapping each other on the back and like (deepened, louder voice)
‘Yeahhhhhh’ It was just a very cool guy moment . . . It was just a great
feeling. I felt, (pause) loved. And (he nervously laughs) I mean, I know it
was just a cheap porn but it was still, you know, like getting a porno on
your eighteenth birthday.
Feelings of male bonding and typically sexist behavior became entangled in his
more sensitive and non-traditional views as a young man. The brown paper bag
contained a Playboy magazine. Philip likened the event to a sports huddle with
back slapping and husky voices! His reflection on this event ironically juxtaposes
competing versions of masculinities. The back slapping celebration of men is
overlaid with a more sensitively contrasted version. His description of the
physical closeness in this scene involved a striking mixture of male bonding and
male love. The remarkable contrast was between what symbolically represented
a right of passage for young men and the atypical feelings of love that this event
evoked for Philip.

Philip's relationships with some of his male peers was another arena in
which he rejected male stereotypes. His relationships with his school friends,
both men and women, became a powerful context in which he negotiated amidst
a range of gendered forms of interaction from high fives to hand shakes to hugs
and back rubs. In an interview Philip described his feelings for some of his male
peers.

I will say without hesitation that I love each and every one of them. I

mean, a lot of guys are scared to use that word. But I mean friendship,
ahhh I love them, each and every one.

132

In the earlier situation above Philip was consumed by his birthday and the
gathering of his friends. The substantive issue of what the magazine
represented was overlooked. Rather than regard this gift as an affront on his
beliefs, Philip embraced his peer’s efforts as a sign of friendship and love. His
desire to be a part of the boys outweighed any possibility of refusing their gift. In
the interview he emphasized the loving relationship he held with his male friends.
He further highlighted a distinction about his masculinity in terms of an ability to
both show and express his love for his male peers.

As a young man Philip posed an alternative masculinity characterized by a
significant degree of physical closeness and open expression that in many ways
contradicted the typical norms of behavior among mainstream high school young
men. He rejected that which many of his male counterparts feared-close male
relationships that were supportive both physically and emotionally.

Philip negotiated between prevailing norms and social practices that
defined his masculinity among his high school peers. His daily interaction in high
school revealed several challenges in the process of rejecting more stereotypical
ways of interacting as a young man. In particular Philip explained that his
everyday greetings among his peers became contested terrain. As an openly
expressive young man Philip shared what he described as a physical closeness
not common among high school men. He was also aware of the fact that this
type of a close physical relationship ran against what was commonly accepted
among high school young men.

There’s definitely some people that I just won’t attempt to like, hug or
whatever. Well, I mean, of course there are a lot of backward thinking

133

people in this school. A lot of people that I know take a hug as a
homosexual gesture. There are some people, I know that I would go to
hug and they’d be like, What the hell are you doing? Get away from me
you freak.’
Many of Philip’s peers were less than accepting of his physical affection. In his
view they were “backward thinking” and likely interpreted “a hug as a
homosexual gesture.” This type of response from young men reflected what
Kimmel (1994) argued is an effort by young men to distance themselves from
anything remotely feminine. For the most part David, Hunter, and Philip have
highlighted the recurring difficulty of publicly challenging typically masculine
social practices. For each of these young men the closeness they shared with
their peers, both emotionally and physically, was guided by what they knew
about the broader context of masculinities within which they defined themselves
and others.

Philip expressed himself in a way atypical of many high school young
men. In order to nurture and maintain these atypically close physical and
emotional relationships among his male peers Philip carefully read his peers. He
challenged stereotypes about male-male contact by carefully reading and
interpreting the responses of his classmates. His approach resonates with the
similar strategies both David and Hunter used when they likewise were physically
affectionate toward their male peers.

I think I read these people pretty well. And I guess it’s just a matter of like,

sensing it. I think there was one time with Kevin when I said ‘Okay Kevin

you have to give me a hug now.’ And he did. I guess with Kevin we never
really. We were always cool with each other. We were always kind of
friendly, but we were never like, friends friends. We never like, hung out

or spent extended time together. . . So I just look for it in the sense of
trying to feel it out.

134

The art of reading people, sensing it, or feeling them out allowed Philip to
challenge the gendered framework in which handshakes and hugs have become
dichotomized as masculine and feminine greetings respectively. He described
this ability to read people as almost a science in which some people he just
would not hug and others he would.

Philip operated on the basis of what appeared to be a set of rules for
determining whether or not to push the standard norms of interaction among his
male counterparts. He identified a) the contextual relationship of a friendship, b)
the social context surrounding the interaction, and c) the receptiveness of their
peers. With this set of rules in mind Philip interacted in very specific ways that
either maintained traditional social practices or allowed him to cross the
gendered boundaries that separated them At the same time, the wrong decision
or mis-reading other young men was not uncommon.

I mean I don’t always know. Sometimes I mis-read it. There are times

when I go to shake their hands and they want a hug or I go to hug

somebody and they walk away. I know there have been times when l

have gone to slap him high five and he’s gone ‘ Come here.’ I guess there

are times when I just know. He looks like he needs a hug. I want to give
him a hug and I walk up and give him a hug.
Daily interaction for Philip was complicated. While he suggested that there was a
way of just knowing he also acknowledged the potential for mixed
communication. Why did Philip not adhere to a more traditional form of
interaction? Philip was aware of the consequences for stepping beyond typically

male interaction. His decision to engage in ways typical and atypical of young

men left him yet again negotiating between competing versions of masculinity.

135

Philip’s gender politics were complicated by design. That is, he played by
two sets of rules that at times were at odds with one another. Philip nonetheless
chose these politics that made his every day interaction challenging. He
exercised human agency reading people and enacting his gender politics via
extra-curricular and curricular activities as well as through more informal, casual
greetings.

THURSTON

I had all female teachers up to high school and maybe they were good

role models. Like, they weren‘t ditsy or whatever. They all had strong

opinions and everything. . . . But the way I was brought up was like,
everyone was the same; maybe it was the uniforms [at the Catholic
school]. I‘m sort of surprised that I turned out like, not playing into gender
roles because my dad and my mom are very much in gender specific
roles. My dad works. He works, he makes the money, he comes home
and like, sits there and my mom does the housework, she makes dinner.

It is like, so fifties nuclear family type of things. They're not unfair to each

other. They both voice their opinions. My mom has very strong opinions.

That might have something to do with it. Like, they’re very into the gender

roles because of how they were raised because they are really old. So

they're from the old school of gender roles.
Introduction

For Thurston both the educational context and his family offered possible
windows on his emerging views of gender and sexism. His opinions about
women for example, might have stemmed from the experiences he had with
female teachers at his Catholic school. But his explanation of how he viewed
women was also connected to his family. His home life reflected very traditional
gender-typed roles between his parents. The irony is that Thurston himself did
not subscribe to the views and beliefs that might have been more typically

maintained in the days of his parent's childhood during the nineteen-fifties.

136

On the threshold of entering his university career, Thurston has not
mirrored the beliefs and behaviors that support the gender roles he saw
displayed in his home. On the contrary Thurston’s high school experiences
revealed a much broader repertoire for understanding women and masculinity.
His experiences as such were a far cry from the ones that might have
underscored his parent’s schooling. Thurston developed a set of beliefs and
views regarding sexism and gender that was broader in its scope and breadth of
understanding typical of many of his male counterparts. He commented:

I think I am normal . . . They [his peers] treat girls differently. And I think I

don‘t. I give everybody the same chance and I make my opinions of them

based on their personality, not on the fact that they are girls or guys. . .

So I don’t know. I will try to give them [women] the same chance that I

would give everybody. I am to the point where I don‘t even think about

whether they are a girl or a guy anymore. It‘s just a person.
Thurston's views contrast significantly from those often assumed to be typical of
high school young men. The standard behaviors of his peers in response to
women hint at a broader conceptual framework among these high school
students. Unlike his peers Thurston set himself apart by suggesting that he
viewed his classmates as persons. This contradistinction powerfully marked a
difference in his views of men and women compared to his peers.

Thurston co-existed within a school setting that was characterized by a
multiplicity of masculinities. Though many of his male peers treated girls
differently, Thurston adhered to a seemingly uncommon set of beliefs that made
no distinctions between "girls" or "guys." By his estimation Thurston was

"normal." At the same time Thurston hinted at the fact that he had shifted in his

views. His gender perspective had evolved, in his words, "to a point where l

137

don't even think about whether they are a girl or a guy anymore. It's just a
person." This perspective powerfully conveys the emerging voice often unheard
in classrooms dominated by the attitudes and behaviors of mainstream young
men.

Competing models: A perspective of understanding

Thurston‘s views and opinions emerged elsewhere, beyond the views and
habits modeled by his parents. His understanding of his own masculinity and the
relationships he nurtured in school were traced to informal interaction.

. . . Maybe because I've been hanging out with girls for so long or maybe

that has something to do with the way I was born. But in general, since

that guy part is so there, as well as the girl part is also there, that I guess,
like, it‘s easier for me to understand both sides as opposed to a guy who
has hung out with guys and who is always with guys. . . So mine's like,
more even I guess.
In large part Thurston‘s explanation of how his views emerged were caught
between a model of socialization and a model of bio-determinism. On the one
hand he suggested his experiences among girls might explain his views but on
the other hand he linked his perspective to his birth and upbringing. Neither one
was completely convincing. His perspective was reduced to understanding and
having a more balanced view than his peers.

High school young men such as Thurston have rarely been found in the
limelight of gender and education research. Rather these young men have been
overshadowed. There voices have been submerged and instead the much louder
prevailing voices of their male counterparts have been allowed to dominate and

silence others. In the process the voices of these few young men have gone

unheard. The choices about how and when to express countervailing beliefs and

138

behaviors that challenge the traditional views of masculinity have rarely been
noticed because of the attention directed to mainstream young men. Ironically,
even beyond the classroom the popular and the familiar boys continue to
dominate the limelight in the gender and education research. "Other kinds of
boys may be mentioned, but not as the core of the gender story." (Thorne, 1993,
p. 98). Thurston, like the other three participants in this study, offers insight into
the choices he made to reject the traditional norms of behavior he saw both in his
home life and among his high school peers.

Masculinity: Beyond a unidimensional concept of the boys
“Boys will be boys”

The beginning of a semester involves new daily routines and the gradual
process of getting to know classmates. In the following scene, Thurston and his
keyboarding neighbor had both adopted a routine to the beginning of class.
Seated not by choice but by height along side two other young men at the back
of class, Thurston had been relatively quiet showing no interest in his peers. The
following conversation surfaced out of nowhere and consequently took Thurston
by surprise because of the lack of history they shared.

The bell has rung. Like clockwork Thurston sits at his computer, looks to

the board and reads the warm up assignment. He begins the exercise.

Eric, his neighbor is a burly junior with an imposing figure. Several

students are still settling down to work. As Thurston is typing, eyes fixed

on his monitor; Eric interrupts him saying, “Hey, did you see Karen’s tits?”

Surprised by the interruption, Thurston glances up from his computer,

remarking “What?” Eric repeats his question; “Did you see Karen’s tits?"

Stunned Thurston responds “Uhh, no."

The exchange between Eric and Thurston revealed a significant division between

high school masculinities. In many ways Eric represented a typical high school

139

young man. His remarks were common according to noted researchers Myra
and David Sadker (1994). Comments such as these are “tolerated under the
assumption that ‘boys will be boys’ and hormone levels are high in high school”
(Sadker 8 Sadker, 1994, p. 9). The picture of the boys is vivid and familiar. At
the same time however it is unidimensional and flat. Missing from this picture are
the voices of young men like Thurston who are silenced or overshadowed by
mainstream young men.

Masculinities are constructed through daily interaction and grounded in
power relations that divide different types of masculinities in a context such as a
high school. There is, what Connell refers to as, a “gender politics within
masculinity” (Connell, 1995, p. 37). The vignette above hints at the diverse
politics these two young men held regarding gender relations.

“It’s just weird and incomprehensible”

The opening vignette illustrated what Kaufman (1994) referred to as
“gender work.” Thurston made decisions about his response and interaction with
Eric. Those decisions were partially informed by his own gender politics.
Gender is not static but instead involves an ongoing struggle embedded in the
above vignette. For Thurston his daily interaction with his peers involved
conflicting pressures, demands, and possibilities. (Kaufman, 1994, p. 147). And
while in this situation Thurston’s opposition seemed faint at best, it is worth
noting that he did not outwardly support the remark either.

Thurston’s attitude and interaction with women is different from many

mainstream high school young men. He did not subscribe to or participate in

140

behaviors typically characteristic of high school young men. He looked upon his
male counterparts with considerable distance and particular insight. Take for
example his impression of Eric. The following commentary reveals where
Thurston saw himself in relation to a more traditional and typical masculinity
generally supported at Central High.

He’s this big stereotypical jock football player. . .And I guess there must

be a whole group of people like him. People who would say like ‘Dude,

did you see her tits?" And not even think anything about it. It’s just weird

and incomprehensible to me that there are people like that.

His view of Eric involved organizing him and his peers into distinct groups. In this
case he explained that Eric must belong to “a whole group of people like him," a
“stereotypical jock” as he called him. Viewpoints regarding gender and sexism
thus were cast as disparities between groups of people.

Thurston voiced discomfort both with Eric’s comments and more broadly
with the masculinity that he represented. He spoke of Eric as though he and
people "like him" were an anomaly. To this extent his observation may have
sounded na'i've but at the same time it revealed the degree to which Thurston
was socially removed from the "big stereotypical jock football players." His
perspective was socially informed by his daily peer interaction. As we left the
classroom Thurston smiled and commented almost surprisingly "It's interesting to
know stereotypes do exist.“ During an interview Thurston reflected on Eric's
remarks.

I would guess they picked it up from their parents or grandparents that

they really treat women more as like, prizes or something than as people.
Like they don’t really treat them like they could be any sort of equal.

141

Thurston suggested that Eric‘s attitude toward women was learned. So while he
thought it was weird he nonetheless explained it as a legitimate attitude. Sexist
attitudes were framed in terms of what Eric learned at home. Ironically Thurston
himself admitted that his parents were very traditional in their roles but offered no
explanation for his own non-traditional viewpoints. The explanation he offered to
excuse Eric‘s attitude did not hold in his own situation.

Thurston’s opposition to Eric’s sexist remark was faint but important
nonetheless. He did not ogle or conjoin with Eric. He made a cursory glance at
Eric and returned to his work at hand. Why did he not express his opposition
more forcefully or out-rightly? If this is opposition to sexism is there much hope
for a change in attitudes among young men? Thurston behaved in an atypical
manner. He did what not a lot of young men would do and that was, he rejected
the stereotypical behavior of “a whole group of young men“ like Eric. The
opening scene revealed two competing masculinities underscored by a set of
vastly different gender politics.

High school young men: Making choices unlike the boys

High school peer relations operate in powerful ways to define and re-
define behavior and attitudes among students. Different contexts emphasize
different ways for being men in school. The daily interaction witnessed among
the participants and their peers illustrates how governing conceptions of
masculinity were expressed during daily informal conversations. Predominant
roles and values of masculinity are either altered or maintained depending on the

extent to which they are challenged or supported. (Gutterman, 1994)

142

In the following conversation Thurston explained the decisions he made
about working among his peers. In this and other situations Thurston revealed
how he intentionally shaped and re-shaped elements of his masculinity by
emphasizing some aspects and downplaying others. His relationships were
central as an arena for defining an alternate version of masculinity often
overlooked in schools. Thurston revealed how his relationships with his girl
friends both comforted him and isolated him at the same time. The process
involved in being a young man and sharing friendships among a group of
women, unlike many of his male counterparts, sheds light on several tensions.
"All my friends are girls"

Girls figured prominently in Thurston's definition of masculinity. Thurston's
way for seeing himself in relation to others, both other men and his girl friends,
provided him with a way for affirming or challenging his behaviors and attitudes.
In a casual conversation Thurston explained that upon entering Central High he
"had to make all new friends." While reflecting on his friendships he added "It‘s
weird, all my friends are girls." He paused, almost qualifying this statement
saying, 'Well, not really weird." The conversation continued as he elaborated
that he only knew a few people from his previous school.

Like many students Thurston's primary group of friends played a
significant part in his daily routine. He met with these friends throughout the day,
exchanging stories and sharing a running commentary of their school
experiences. As his comments above suggest, Thurston was aware of the fact

that his group of friends was different in terms of the gender composition. He

143

was one of two young men in this group of seven people. The imbalance
between the numbers of boys to girls was a feature that Thurston identified on
the basis of what he knew of other young men and their peer relations. In light of
that his relationships stood out for him as slightly different and even "weird."

The peer group experiences Thurston shared were an anomaly from the
relationships he witnessed among his male counterparts. Thurston's
acknowledgment of gender as a conceptual framework of his daily relations
emerged as an explicit part of a conversation during a break between classes
with his friends. The following vignette from my field notes captures a minute but
conceptually significant point within Thurston‘s gendered relations. As he met
several of his friends he initiated the following conversation. Both Thurston and I
had arrived at "the corner," a meeting point for his friends, before the rest of the
group.

As Ellen and Trina arrive Thurston greets them saying "Hi girls!" He

pauses, "Does that bother you when I say ‘girls?‘" Ellen quickly replies

"Yes.“ Thurston thoughtfully inquires ‘What should I say? I realized that all

my friends are girls so I can’t just say ‘hi guys’" Trina agrees suggesting

that Thurston just say ’hi.‘
The above briefly introduces the way that Thurston had conceptually
problematized his daily interactions with his peers. He had observed and realized
the extent to which his routine friendships, primarily with young women, had
become a significant but subtle framework within which he defined his gender
relations at school. It is arguable whether my presence prompted this realization.

What is significant however is the fact that Thurston identified gender as a

conceptual framework and moreover, raised it for discussion among his peers.

144

He actively challenged his own gendered conceptualization of his female peers.
He was concerned that his collective reference to them as "girls" might "bother"
them. The alternative greeting of "just say[ing] hi" changed the conversation so it
was no longer a gender marked greeting.

The intermingling of young men and women in school offers an often-
missed social context for examining differences among and between
masculinities and femininities. Thorne (1993) has argued that the times when
boys are together as well as apart from girls are powerful moments during which
gender arrangements are played out in schools. During our interview Thurston
described the significance of his primary relationships at school within a group
dominated by young women.

I think the fact that I hang out with all girls, I think, I don‘t know if this is

true or not, but I could see it making me more approachable as a friend.

They can see that I am not afraid. . . . If all the girls think I'm a nice guy

and I hang out with them (girls), they hang out with him, then he must be a

nice guy. So I‘m probably more approachable that way. I might also be

able to understand their points of view on things better. . . . By hanging out

with girls I can also see what their points of views are and just by

experiencing that I can broaden my horizons.
Thurston‘s comments revealed how a social context such as his primary
friendships with young women provided valuable opportunities for deepening and
broadening his understanding of gender relations. Perhaps this is not surprising
but what added a deeper level of complexity to these relationships not common
among young men was the dual way in which Thurston‘s friendships functioned
for him.

He described the above relationships in terms that set him apart from

other young men who might be afraid to hang out with girls. The potential

145

outcome he saw was in becoming more approachable than other young men.
Unlike most young men his relationships were not restricted by traditional gender
divisions. Thurston also highlighted the importance of his relationships in terms
of developing an understanding of different perspectives. The relationships he
shared with young women allowed Thurston to broaden his horizons. Moving
beyond single sex relations allowed him to better understand

not only the social relations that uphold but also those that undermine the

construction of gender as binary opposition . . . and the complex

understanding of the dynamics of power. (Thorne, 1990, p. 108)

Peer relations both in and outside of the classroom informed Thurston‘s definition
of gender and specifically how he interpreted and defined competing
masculinities. Relationships such as these were moments of growth in how and
what Thurston understood not only about his own masculinity but more broadly
about gender relations.

In-class relationships were another arena in which Thurston‘s made
decisions that challenged gender stereotypes that often define young men.
During our final interview Thurston reflected on his choices for working with
women instead of his male counterparts during class. Of particular interest is
how he described the relationships and the outcomes of working with girls
different from what he gained from working with boys.

I wasn‘t afraid of working with five girls. I'm completely comfortable with

that. . . . We can all really talk and nobody is afraid of talking or whatever.

And they can all throw out ideas. . . . everybody is comfortable with each

other . . . So it‘s easier like, to get along with them [girls]. And I can feel

comfortable talking to them and I don't necessarily feel as comfortable

talking with a bunch of guys.

Thurston later elaborated about these in-class relations.

146

If there‘s all girls and then there's a guy. I mean you’re going to feel just a
little bit of outsidedness. But then if there's another guy then the girls
won’t necessarily be apt to talk about things that we can‘t relate to, sort of.

. . . Like I said, I am more comfortable with girls.

The relationships Thurston shared with his female classmates were preferred
over working with men. Most striking about his reflection is the recurring
references he made to levels of comfort in contrast to notions of fear that
presumably steered men away from working with women in class. Beyond this
Thurston also draws out what he saw as a more genuine and invested
relationship coming from his in-class relations with young women. His dedication
to his studies contrasted with other young men in class who he suggested were
more concerned with being cool.

Thurston intentionally worked along side girls in his classes because of
the differences he saw in terms of their gendered behaviors. His comfort level
with girls was a key factor in his decision to work apart from the boys. And
though he preferred to work with girls Thurston explained that there were times
when he felt a "just a little bit of outsidedness."

Thurston worked among women in his classes in ways that mainstream
men would not. His choice to do so illustrated how multiple contexts and multiple
ways of being a young man provided and allowed for different gender relations to
be nurtured and supported in school. He rejected specific displays of masculinity
witnessed among "a bunch of guys" that made him feel uncomfortable.
Thurston‘s experiences with other young men in school raises the specter yet

again on what is seen as a broadly cast prevailing masculinity that has been

allowed to if not encouraged to dominate the cultural landscape.

147

Thurston‘s peer relations were but one arena in which he recognized the
dynamics of being a young man within a group of predominantly women peers.
He saw himself in relation to both women as his friends and in contrast to the
men as his counterparts with whom he was less comfortable. The context in
which young men like Thurston view themselves and their relationships with their
peers is powerful because of what it suggests about differences between and
among masculinities and femininities.

It is crucial to see boys and girls not only apart but together as well.
(Thorne, 1993) As I have mentioned before previous research has left the boys
and the girls as distinctly polarized categories. This is not the case given the
pattern of interaction for Thurston, not to mention the other participants in this
study. Thurston's experiences reveal a more complex understanding of gender
relations. He occupied a different standpoint as it were. Thurston had "a regular
place in the other gender’s social networks" (Thorne, 1990, p. 110).

His experiences thus help us see "the multiple standpoints, complex and
even contradictory meanings, and the varying salience of gender" (Thorne, 1990,
p. 111). Thurston captured the value of his experiences working with and
hanging out with girls by saying "Since the guy part is there, as well as the girl
part, I guess, like, it's easier for me to understand both sides as opposed to a guy
who has only hung out with guys." As a young man Thurston revealed how

standard ways of being masculine meant, "trying to act cool" and "not really

trying."

148

For young men like Thurston they negotiate within a context where trying
and not trying in school is also wedded to issues of gender relations. His primary
interaction with women both in and outside of class might not have been viewed
as cool by his mainstream peers but Thurston nonetheless rejected this typical
framework common among his male peers. He represented an alternate version
of masculinity that was underscored in a broader context by feeling comfortable
but at times being on the outside. These tensions among and between
masculinities are significant in terms of what is valued and not valued in different
gendered contexts within a high school.

Gender politics: Degrees of opposition
Sexism: "Caught off guard” and “knowing the person saying it”

Deciding to reject stereotypes and sexist remarks among high school
young men involved a series of calculated responses. In the opening section
Thurston’s comments about how Eric Ieamed to see women as prizes and not
equals showed how a broader context of masculinities framed his response.
Within this framework Thurston interpreted his own masculinity along side that of
Eric’s. When Thurston reviewed the vignette from his keyboarding class he
made the following remark.

I was really caught off guard. I couldn’t believe he asked. It was like, (he

laughs) ‘What?’ Like, that would never occur to me just to say to

somebody next to me. . . lwouldn’t say it anyway. . . Iwouldn’t even
notice something like that. . . It really showed the different kinds of people

. . . I’m not going to be friends with this kid. We don’t share any interests.

I just don’t care, you know. It doesn’t even matter to me.”

Through casual interaction Eric and Thurston enacted competing sets of beliefs

that defined their masculinities. For Thurston, Eric represented a stereotypical

149

masculinity. He displayed this through his interaction and comment. Exchanges
such as these contributed to what Thurston understood about the different kinds
of people and moreover the gender politics that divided them.

Thurston explained his almost negligible response to Eric in two ways.
First, he was “caught off guard.” Second, Thurston pointed to their differing
perspectives in terms of how they viewed the world. Thurston pointedly
remarked “that would never occur to me” and moreover, “I wouldn’t even notice
something like that.“ Their masculinity coupled with their gender politics was
grounded in their experiences as “different kinds of people.”

The level of friendship shared among these high school young men was a
primary consideration for determining when and how to reject sexism and gender
stereotypes. As I mentioned above Thurston ignored rather than challenged Eric
mainly because they were “not going to be friends.” In its simplest terms
opposition boiled down to how well he knew Eric. In the following reflection
Thurston expanded on how he decided to oppose sexism in situations when he
was among friends.

It might have to do more with the person who‘s saying it, more so than the

comment maybe. Because I mean like, of course in the context that it’s in

and how well I know the person and how well like, I think it might be a

valuable asset to be friends with them sort of, like, how much I want to be

friends with them.
Thurston further clarified how this situation differed from others.
If it was somebody else that I didn’t really know and the context was sort

of different and things like that, lprobably just wouldn’t say anything. I
would be like, ‘Yeah, whatever.’ I’d just like, look away.

150

In other situations and with people who might become friends Thurston
introduced a different approach for enacting his politics.

You can take it as an off remark and just go along with it and then maybe

like, when you are better friends with them you can say like, ’Yeah, I don’t

know.’ or just not give the same response. You would feel very self-
righteous but you’d be really lonely.
These differing approaches reveal the complicated nature of a) high school
masculinity and b) enacting gender politics among high school young men.

Among friends Thurston’s response to sexism and gender stereotypes
was much more gradual or veiled to some extent. By initially going along with an
off remark Thurston indicated the importance of opposition from along his peers.
His approach emphasized a type of opposition that both allowed his voice to be
heard and at the same time allowed him to sustain and maintain his connections
with his peers. As Thurston put it “you would feel very self-righteous but you’d be
really lonely.”

His approach resonates with what Connell (1998) argued is the need to
bring men into social alliances such as a progressive gender politics. Thurston‘s
approach to rejecting sexism among his peers was calculated. He observed the
context, the people, and then decided on the strategy if any for responding. In
this final vignette Thurston went one step further to reveal when he was willing to
speak out more forcefully against sexism.

Subtle opposition
Thurston opposed sexism and gender stereotypes with various levels of

intensity. On one level he ignored a sexist remark. On another level he

gradually voiced his rejection and in this the final level, he openly and without

151

hesitation would express his opposition. Again, he starts by defining the group in
which he frequently found himself. It is not the person next to him in class, nor
the person he might want as a friend, but in this scene it is somebody with whom
he already shared a history. They were friends from a group he routinely met
with at a local Denny’s restaurant.
There aren’t many people in my group that do sexist things I guess.
There’s not anybody who is just like, ‘Oh, that girl is fine. I want a piece of
her’ or whatever. Like that never happens. And if it does, which it might
happen with some of the kids that we hang out with at Denny’s restaurant,
who dropped out of school and just skateboard for a living. If they say
something like that, it’s not something that’s like, accepted. It’s like (he
laughs) we just laugh at it ‘like that was so dumb.’
Among Thurston‘s close friends there were few that would make a sexist remark.
But he acknowledged that it could happen on occasion. He stipulated by
identifying who would likely make a sexist remark and went on to say that it was
not accepted. In this situation Thurston identified both the context and the
means of opposing sexism among his friends, namely by laughing at them. He
clarified how his opposition became more direct in this situation than in others.
I don’t think I would do it [react] with a stranger or somebody I didn’t know.
But like people I know really well. If we’re just hanging out and they say
something like that I would be like ‘Oh man, that’s not cool.’ Yeah, like
when it’s something that like, guys would say and they’d all laugh about it.
But then I could say something like ‘That’s not cool’ and it would sort of be
like, obviously that‘s not cool but then like, these guys would be thinking
it’s not cool . . . I don’t know if I would ever go all out and just say like ‘You
shouldn‘t say that, that’s not cool.’ Just because I don’t know if I would
change anybody’s mind with that.
During the six months of this study his reaction and manner of opposition to
sexism was sharpest among his friends. Thurston’s opposition to sexism was

partly connected to how much he thought he could change a person’s mind. He

152

was also concerned about how he expressed his opposition vocally. He made a
distinction saying “I would be like ‘Oh man, that’s not cool’ but qualified his
response by saying that he would never go all out and just say ‘You shouldn’t say
that, that’s not cool.” The subtle difference is in how he voiced his opposition.
Again Thurston considered the people and the approach. Even with his closest
friends Thurston used an approach that would leave his friends “thinking it’s
(sexism) not cool” rather than more forcefully telling them “you shouldn’t say
that.“
HUNTER

I think my mom; she has always encouraged me. I think she has always

felt kind of bad that we didn't have a male role model because like, she

wouldn't let me be in Boy Scouts or anything. Because like, they had dad-

son things all the time and because my dad wouldn’t show up for any of

that she didn‘t want me to get hurt. But I don‘t know she took me out

camping and stuff like that. She always tried to fill that in, you know. She

just never shied away from anything that I would want to do you know, as

long as I didn‘t get hurt. Like, she let me play football and that kind of stuff.
Introduction

Hunter‘s home situation is increasingly common for many students in
American schools. In Hunter's case his parent‘s divorce left his mother to care
for him, his younger sister, and older brother. The effort to provide an array of
experiences while being mindful of his emotional well-being was evident in
Hunter's comments. Today, a young man heavily involved in the school student
Congress and plans to go on to university, he mirrors the aspirations and career
direction of many of his classmates.

Hunter‘s awareness and developing understanding of social relationships

in school straddled several social spheres. He identified his daily relationships at

153

school as well as the relationships he witnessed in his own home as significant
models for his emerging understanding of what it meant to a be a young man.

I guess it [reading people] probably started just like, with my parents

getting a divorce and like, you know, trying to figure people out. I think it‘s

really important to figure people out. . . I can read people well. And I

think it is just because it is something that I find important in terms of

making people happy or like, if you're pissed off at someone, you know

how to express it to them.
The process of reading and interpreting the relationships around Hunter was
central in his daily interaction. Not unlike the other participants in this study,
Hunter was mindful of the types of relationships he supported and maintained
among his peers. The considerable attention he gave to understanding and
reading people in many ways allowed Hunter to develop a broader repertoire of
ways for communicating among his peers. As a young man he drew on his
observations of others to nurture different forms of interaction and
communication that went against the typically gender bound norms of
masculinity.

Hunter was a young man who was more at ease communicating with girls
than boys. "Like for me, my best friends have always been girls. I have always
just found it easier to talk to girls before like, guys." There was little question
according to Hunter that he was better adept at talking with girls. His
experiences as a young man however were also framed by what he saw as
noticeable divisions among boys and girls at different levels in school.

I think high school is the big divider of like friends. Like in middle school

and elementary school I mean you weren't really like boyfriend/girlfriend

with anyone. I mean you kissed girls and stuff but that was it. And so it

didn't matter if who you hung outwith was a guy or a girl. You all did
basically the same thing, four square. . . And so it didn't matter but in high

154

school, I don‘t know I guess it kind of matters more just because you start
hanging out with girls and all of a sudden you are talking about
relationships and all that kind of stuff. And you didn't worry about that
before.
As Hunter described, relationships between students became more complicated
by the types of activities and the shift in attention to relationships between young
men and women. Young men are gradually inducted into various social practices
that directly and indirectly define and affirm specific forms of masculinity.

Social norms and gendered expectations within a school setting gradually
become the standards by which one is routinely assessed as being a young man
or woman. The concern or "worry“ that went along with adhering to certain rules
of masculinity were less rigid in the earlier years of Hunter‘s schooling. In part
Hunter saw emerging definitions of masculinity arising out of a process of
socialization.

Sport images, relationships, and the mushy stuff

Competing images of masculinity proliferate in school settings. Whether
supported formally or informally, images of aggressive, virile, and highly
competitively oriented masculinities tend to dominate the cultural landscape,
particularly at the secondary school level. (see Messner, 1998) Dominant
conceptions of masculinity thus are connected to the organized sports most
valued in given school settings.

In the following comments Hunter reveals several tensions within the

sports arena that further organized and legitimized specific forms of masculinity

at Central High.

155

Swimming is looked down upon. All the football players and stuff will call
them gay. I don’t think they really mean it, like gay as in homosexual. It's
more like that‘s gay, like retarded, that kind of thing. I think some people
look at, like guys should be playing physical sports and swimming is not
like, as physical in the sense of contact. I mean swimming you have to be
extremely strong for it but football is more physical contact.

The images masculinity often associated with being a jock for example were

losing staying power according to Hunter.

I would say that football is supposedly the masculine sport but I think that

is kind of dying down. And actually some of the people who are, or come

across as ’arggggghhhh‘ [Hunter growls] are actually really nice. . . .And
so he opened up and kind of relaxed . . . . He [a friend] always used to
come across as a big rough and tough guy but he actually wasn‘t as big
and as tough as I thought. . . . I think soccer is kind of masculine but you
not only have to be rough and tough but you have to have brains, which
kind of lowers the big and tough look.
Hunter’s insight illustrates the lines that define different forms of masculinity even
within a single domain such as sport. At the same time his remarks reveal how
images of masculinity, constructed within specific contexts, can be deconstructed
in other contexts. Though his friend adhered to a typically "big rough and tough
guy" image as an athlete, Hunter‘s comments suggest that these images of
masculinity operate as masks or facades removed in other settings.

His insight into athletic masculinity suggests that several key elements
contribute to prevailing conceptions of high school masculinity. One, being an
athlete in and of itself does not ensure high status. Students hierarchically
organize different versions of athleticism among high school masculinity. Two,
status among athletes is heavily connected to the level of physical contact. That
is to say that even though physical strength is important, aggressive displays of

masculinity such as that demonstrated in football and hockey is most valued.

156

And finally, athletic versions of high school masculinity remain firmly rooted in
long standing images of aggression that continue to be at odds with alternate
versions that combine intellect with physical ability.

Masculinities are valued differently in various school contexts. The
distinctions Hunter made highlight a competing set of norms and standards that
though they overlap in some cases nonetheless have considerable weight in
influencing how and what is defined masculine among high school young men.
The tensions described above are played out in the more complicated contexts of
daily relationships. Young men negotiate between masculinities. And as Hunter
explains, negotiations between masculinities are rarely easy. Among his male
counterparts Hunter saw differences in the types of conversations and level of
honesty they shared together.

I think it depends on them. Like, my relationship with Doug differs from

Kevin, just because Kevin doesn‘t like to talk about certain stuff and kind

of keeps stuff a secret. He just kind of doesn‘t like to talk about the mushy

stuff so much and how he really feels. . . . Doug and I can pretty much talk

about anything.
Attempts to be honest and open rather than bring young men together might also
divide them. Close and intimate conversations about feelings and emotions were
taboo for some of Hunter‘s peers but more of a regular occurrence with others.
Divisions among high school men thus are not only formally inscribed in their
school activities but they are also routinely expressed informally during the
everyday interactions among students.

Hunter is a contradistinction as a high school young man. The qualities he

most routinely expressed such as honesty, openness, and closeness among his

157

peers were juxtaposed with a standard of masculinity that appeared almost
unbending. He did not fully subscribe to what Kimmel (1994) referred to as "the
rules of masculinity.“ Instead, Hunter rejected several of the cultural norms and
practices of masculinity at Central High. His daily school life reflected the
negotiations of a young man who was both with and yet apart from his male
counterparts. He struggled to be among “the boys" while at the same time
adhering to a competing set of gender politics that challenged traditional
conceptions of high school masculinity.

Masculinity: Beyond a unidimensional concept of "the boys"

Hunter displayed competing elements of masculinity both formally and
informally. In two separate situations Hunter reveals how different versions of
masculinities are wedded to routine behaviors such as being verbally expressive
and showing feelings. In a formal context, namely that of his Creative Writing
class, Hunter made a decision about sharing his writing with his classmates that
again revealed a non-traditional view about being a young man.

In this situation he read a personal, more serious piece of writing in
contrast to his classmates, both men and women, who had previously shared
“light pieces.” As he listened to the support evident in the laughter and cheers for
his classmates before him, he wavered in his decision about which piece to read.

He read the following piece and later explained what lead to that decision.

Walki down a deserted hi hwa 'n o fin is we back home

A disillusioned boy,

Travelling through a scorched desert.

No food, no water, just sand and heat.

A picture of a lost brother and dad float in his head.
Pain comes from mysterious places.

158

Stumbling around a bend, saying to his self
"I can make it, just up the hill . . . ."
Only when he reaches the top of that hill, he finds another.

And then, the hallucinations begin.

It's like a TV set, getting fuzzy around the edges,

Pretty soon things melt and more spots appear in his twisted vision.
Blurred and slowed, objects lose their meaning.

Connections are not being made.

His tongue is sandpaper, saliva stopped a day ago.
He is no longer walking, just a stumbling bag of bones.
Only small shrubs and dessolation [sic] surround him,
What a lonely place to die.

The closest help is miles away,

They would never hear you shout.

The past is back to haunt the boy, he feels almost drunk.
His dad abandoned him, his brother too,

He aches to know them both. . .

Before he is grown and it is to[sic] late.

His mind flashes from those memories of them,

to the skull of the coyote.

"Is this real?" the boy asks.

"Of course," a voice replied.

'What is it?"

But no one answered back. So the boy picked it up to show the others,
But dropped it due to its weight.

One foot in front of the other,

That's all he has to do.

But he is exhausted, frustrated, deteriorated.
Life has suddenly become hard, difficult, and this adds weight upon his shoe.

Memories of a dad.

A dad who was never there to see him fail,
Never there to see him win,

Never there to take him fishing,

A dad who was never there.

Memories of a brother.

A brother who left him alone,

Left him with no one to talk to,

No one to stick up for him.

All this floods his head, making it harder and harder.
Pain comes from mysterious places.

Out in the desert of southern Utah,

on a sun scorched afternoon. Sand is
so hard to travel through, his bones ache
through and through.

Crystal clear emotions. Nothing to cloud his mind.

People are far from reaching him, there is no such thing as time.
No money, no gossip, no TV, no cars, no friends, no smokes,

159

Nada you'll find here.
Just try to stay a live.

He can‘t quit, can‘t give up, must face his obstacle with strength.

His fat is gone, and soon his muscle, it feels as though he'll die.

His skin is blistered, his lips are gone, his hair is falling out.

His feet are numb, his nerves are shot, a plane flies by high above.

Frustration, guilt, confusion, pain. These are just words to him.

He's known them all his life, can feel them all, but the words could never do justice to his
state.

So there he goes, he keeps on trudging, on to meet his fate.

Pain comes from mysterious places.
His reading of this poem is a compelling example of the type of raw emotional
expression possible among young men. However, it occurred very rarely among
the young men at Central.1 At the same time his reading also highlights the rarity
of such occasions occurring in classrooms. During an interview he described
both his feelings and the decision he made to share this poem.
I started writing that poem for the class and like, once I got into it, it was
no longer like, for the class, it was for me . . . it really became vivid . . . I
wanted to share it . . . l was about to cry. No. [pause] l was nervous about
reading it just because everyone else was reading light pieces and nothing
serious. Everyone was having a good time . . .and then reading it, it kind
of got me a little bit. It’s just, I don’t know, really personal.
Hunter wrote the poem primarily because it was required as an assignment
however his motivation changed as he continued writing. The impetus for
reading that poem was his desire to share it. He was not stifled or limited by the
norms of other young men. His decision to share the poem aloud with his peers

reflected a willingness to openly express his emotions, not common among high

school young men. In light of what he knew and understood about young men

 

1 Part of this reluctance to share feelings and be openly expressive might be explained more
broadly by a comment by Thurston. In his words 'boys are afraid to express their feelings, that
type of thing, because poetry is a very feelings sort of thing." He extended his commentary to
extracunicular activities saying "less guys are willing to be in plays and sing unabashedly and

160

expressing their feelings he nonetheless went forth sharing some personal and
intimate thoughts on his own life. The decision to openly share his emotions in a
public forum reflected his ability as a young man to go against certain norms of
masculinity commonly displayed by his mainstream peers.

Hunter‘s decision to be open about his feelings in the context of this
classroom contrasted sharply with his peers. In a follow-up interview he
described his Creative Writing class as "crazy. There was a lot of goofing
around; a lot of people blurting out weird stuff at odd times." In this situation the
uncertain nature of the classroom was overridden by his need to share this
poem. The context of the classroom became secondary in deciding whether or
not to read this piece. By reading this poem Hunter demonstrated that being
openly expressive and honest about feelings is a legitimate manner of behavior
even though it was not common among his male classmates.

Being creative or expressive was not always valued during classroom
assignments. Creative and non-traditional presentations were offered as an
option in numerous classes including American Government,
Anthropology/Sociology, Contemporary Math, and English. At the same time that
teachers allowed for these creative assignments, there was a distinct
undercurrent evident in the comments of various people. In one class, for
example, a young man looked on while his male classmate presented a mobile
strung with current events. As he listened to the presentation he commented, "I

guess homosexuality allows for more creativity than I have." In a similar vein a

 

write and express their feelings." The norms for behavior among man thus were such that many
did not go beyond the prescribed gendered boundaries with which they were most familiar.

161

teacher explained the requirements for an assignment. "Some people can get
real cute and be creative to do a skit, but I don‘t know . . . This is for the artsy,
craftsy people. You can do a visual." Students, both young men and women,
were not strongly encouraged or supported to act in non-traditional ways via their
education. In fact the teacher relegated "creativity“ to the "artsy, craftsy people"
while the student cast aspersions about male sexuality as indicative of an ability
to be creative.

Creativity and being expressive in non-traditional ways was not valued.
Nonetheless Hunter showed that being creative and open among his peers was
a possibility. He showed particular courage and indifference to both the cultural
context of the classroom and the standard norms typical of his male
counterparts. He chose his piece of writing intentionally. Even with the
knowledge that his openness was atypical of many of his male peers, Hunter
nonetheless disregarded those norms by later explaining that he "wanted people
to hear it" and "wanted to share it."

High school young men: Making choices unlike the boys

Generally Hunter did not adhere to or accept the standard attitudes
echoed by his male counterparts. Hunter, for example, openly shared his
feelings and in doing so challenged typical behavior among mainstream young
men at Central High. This type of open resistance was not uncommon behavior
to the participants. It was at times masked and muted but these young men
nonetheless offered striking models of alternative masculinities, each one

enacted slightly differently. In varying degrees each of these young men resisted

162

typical male behaviors and attitudes. During an interview Hunter explained the
difficulty of rejecting the common attitudes and behaviors of his mainstream

peers.

It's like you have to come up and say the right things and do the right
things in order to be cool . . .You can't just be yourself and you can't just
goof off in being cool, basically.
Thurston echoed a similar sentiment. He described a type of strangle hold
specific models of masculinity have for informing how young men interact and
behave in high school.
. . . the typical male. Like, what they've seen since they've been growing
up of what guys are supposed to be like. You see guys on TV. who are
afraid to express their feelings. So they're [most young men] sort of afraid
to break from that. Like, they feel the need to be normal. And I think they
are just afraid to because they feel they might be ostracized from some
community of friends.
Both Thurston and Hunter described a tension young men felt while trying to be
accepted as a member of their peer groups. This underlying need to belong and
do all the right things bears heavily on young men as they attempt to fit into high
school peer groups. Hunter and Thurston's remarks reflected their
understanding about why others accepted and abided by the norms of
masculinity. At the same time, and what makes them somewhat remarkable, is
the fact that they nonetheless rejected these stereotypes by going against the
standards defined and commonly accepted by many of their peers.
For the most part these four young men actively constructed versions of
masculinity not typically mirrored around them. As a context for observing

masculinities these young men did not draw from their surroundings for support.

In other words, the versions of masculinity that they embodied and enacted were

163

not versions well represented among their peers. On the contrary, they stood out
from other young men who not surprisingly maintained and sustained traditional
male behaviors and attitudes. The typical models of masculinity depicted on
television became a type of mould that mainstream young men commonly
replicated in their daily interaction. To some extent popular culture offered a
powerful model of masculinity for these high school young men. From muscle
magazines to sit coms, the traditional terms of masculinity prevailed.

The tension underlying competing models of masculinity not surprisingly
was grounded in "the need to be normal" and a fear about "being ostracized from
some community of friends." The real tension for many of these young men
boiled down to issues of being cool and not being ostracized. The unfortunate
aspect of this is that for many young men they opt for a masculinity and set of
views and beliefs that is more in line with being cool than being themselves.
Flirting with masculinities

Hunter’s masculinity was entangled with his gender politics. On the one
hand he opposed sexism and gender stereotypes and on the other hand he often
wanted to be one of the boys. Hunters participation in different types of
conversations emphasized and legitimized different ways of being a high school
young man. For Hunter, this meant negotiating between different forms of
expression. At times his daily interaction appeared to contradict his atypical
gender politics. In the next scene Hunter participated as one of the boys but in
doing so his gender politics were muted. The contradiction between Hunter's

beliefs and his actions are striking.

164

While the teacher talks to the class Hunter’s friend, Josh, stares across
the room at us. Hunter stares back looking at Josh and the girl next to
him. As they look back and forth Josh begins making sexual gestures by
pressing his tongue against the inside of his cheek, imitating oral sex.
Hunter responds using his tongue in the same fashion and placing a
clenched fist against his face, alternating sides for effect. The exchange
of facial expressions continues while the teacher is talking. The teacher
glances at them occasionally but they carefully hide their actions.
Hunter's behavior was typical of high school young men on two levels. On one
level it was disruptive and attention seeking and on another level it was a kind of
performance to display their sexuality as men seeking oral gratification. Hunter
did not reject the disruptive and sexual behavior expressed by his male
counterpart. Instead he participated alongside. His actions supported a familiar
version of mainstream masculinity, namely one that centered on heterosexuality.
Rather than reject the typically male behavior in this situation, Hunter acted as
one of the boys.

Hunter's actions were not atypical but instead imitated the behavior and
attitudes of mainstream young men. As Hunter has shown above, he did not
always consistently enact his gender politics during his daily interaction. Instead
he flirted with competing masculinities, one more valued than the other. The
tension for Hunter was knowing when and how to enact his gender politics while
still being accepted among his male peers.

Hunter made choices about when to enact his gender politics during daily
interaction with his peers. These choices reflected not only his gender politics

but also how competing versions of masculinities were aligned and realigned

within the school context. His decisions were as much about his gender politics

165

as they were about competing versions of masculinity and how he struggled to
negotiate between them.

Hunter demonstrated what it meant to reject the prevailing norms and
behaviors commonly associated with being one of the boys. His particular school
experiences revealed the difficulty of trying to “make their own peace with the
competitive, physically aggressive, space occupying form of masculinity which
dominates in their school” (Connell et al., 1982, p. 95-96). As active human
agents these high school young men were able to enact a counter-sexist politics
not often acknowledged, supported or understood by many teachers and teacher
educators.

Hunter challenged several traditional norms that typically guided and
defined high school masculinity at Central High. Routine interaction with his
peers, including casual conversations, physical exchanges, and his individual
forms of expression became a platform for displaying his gender politics. In
different contexts and in competing ways his masculinity was an expressed part
of his daily interaction with his classmates. In a series of situations he expressed
himself as a young man representing a specific version of masculinity. At the
same time his representation conveyed a much deeper set of beliefs and
attitudes about gender relations. These beliefs or gender politics as I refer to
them are embedded in his choices about how and when he displays various
aspects of his masculinity. I examine each of these as a mirror on both his

masculinity and his gender politics.

166

Hugging among men: Knowing when and how

Physical contact among high school young men is generally aggressive
and usually played out to assert territorial rights or some form of "pissing
contest." That is, high school young men symbolically defend their territory as
men and also exert their power by formally and informally flexing their
masculinity. At Central High for example, some men taunted other young men
belittling them and making disparaging remarks about their masculinity. This
type of interaction among young men is not uncommon in high schools.

Some forms of behavior among high school young men however operate
to challenge and reject more traditional interaction. In most cases these non-
traditional behaviors are described from the vantage point of the aggressor.
These behaviors or reactions are framed as forms of aggression or "machismo."
At the same time these incidents reflect an interesting countercurrent among high
school young men.

Competing displays of masculinity are significant on two levels. First, they
highlight the tensions between different versions of masculinity within a high
school. And second, they represent a more profound sense of an underlying set
of views that run counter to the long standing beliefs held by mainstream men.

Hunter displayed one aspect of his masculinity and his gender politics by
being publicly affectionate toward several of his male counterparts. Rather than
abide by traditional rules of masculinity that would deny this type of human
contact between men, he demonstrated that hugging was a viable form of

expression. By doing so Hunter presented and represented a competing version

167

of masculinity “involving negotiation of alternative ways of being masculine”
(Connell, 1998).

During an interview Hunter offered his insight into being physically
affectionate with other high school young men.

You can always hug guys when they’re having bad days. That's just a

given. Like I remember one time when Curt was walking through the hall

and his girlfriend had just broken up with him and he was all like, about to
cry. . . and I’m not like, great friends with him or anything but I saw him
and I was like What’s wrong?’ and he was like, “Cathy broke up with me.’

And so I gave him a big hug. You know. Like lwouldn’t usually do that

with him but since he was in a down mood, you know.

Hunter's interaction with Curt reveals two guiding principles that informed his
choices about whether or not to challenge gender stereotypes. First, context was
key. He crossed the boundaries of typical male-male interaction in specific
contexts. In the above vignette the emotional context gave license for rejecting
standard forms of interaction. Hunter extended himself to Curt both emotionally
and physically in what he perceived as a time of need. Similar to David, and
Philip, Hunter rejected what was considered "normal" interaction among his male
peers.

Hunter identified social context as a fundamental aspect that informed his
decisions to step beyond masculine social practices that might othenlvise avoid
any physically affectionate contact between men. He displayed a way of being
both supportive and caring toward his classmates and particularly toward another

young man. As I explain later, in other contexts this form of expression among

young men carried with it considerable costs. Most striking about this situation is

168

the option available to a young man like Hunter to willingly extend himself
physically and emotionally.

The level of friendship Hunter shared with people was a primary factor for
determining when and how he challenged typical behavior and attitudes among
his peers. In the above situation he qualified his behavior by identifying the level
of friendship as a basis upon which he decided whether or not he would hug
Curt. His description of the relationship with Curt was a way of identifying with
whom he challenged gender norms. He was not close to Curl but given the
social context he openly embraced him with considerable disregard for standard
social practices among men.

His politics about masculinity and gender expectations for interaction were
woven into routine and public expressions with his peers. The decision he made
about interacting with his male peer was carefully chosen. This type of non-
traditional male-male interaction however, was not always well received.

The decision to be physically and publicly affectionate among high school
young was guided by a clear set of parameters. Hunter explained that there were
times that you could give hugs to people but some restrictions applied as well.
On two separate occasions during our final interview Hunter made the following
comments about hugging.

Or like, sometimes when you are really happy, you want to give a good

hug. And then like certain people you can just kind of tell and sometimes

you just try it out. . . . I think some people can’t hug, like Jason. He has to
be big rough and tough, like he’s a man. You know what I mean? That
type of stuff. Those are the people who right away I would see wouldn’t

want to hug someone. And I think that is part of the reason; they’re trying
to be all rough and tough.

169

I know who to give hugs to and who I don't. Certain people you just don't
give hugs to unless it is just a total joke. Like I'll run up to Rick and it's just
like farting around and there are other people that I can really give a hug
to and like, mean it.
In addition to context such as being happy or in a down mood Hunter's behavior
was also informed by his ability to read people. He routinely gauged how his
peers, specifically other men, would respond to non-traditional interaction such
as hugging. Hunter made distinctions between the type of interaction he had
with his friends. Hugging was reserved for some young men but not others. And
even though he knew some young men might reject his physical closeness,
Hunter occasionally pushed the boundaries. In these riskier situations Hunter
was able to hug other guys in a manner that almost poked fun at their inability to
reciprocate.

The danger of hugging among men is embedded in the meaning people
attach to it as a social practice. A prevailing model of masculinity that
emphasized being rough and tough at Central High posed a counter image to
Hunter's more openly expressive and affectionate forms of interaction with his
male counterparts. In light of this Hunter exercised discretion about when and
how he displayed alternate forms of expression as a young man. In doing so
both his masculinity as well as his gender politics were negotiated. In a sense
they were masked by a much stronger and more highly valued masculinity. The
decision then to interact in unconventional ways among his male peers was
carefully executed.

Hunter gauged his peer’s receptiveness to his non-traditional behaviors.

His willingness and ability to behave in non-traditional ways as a young man was

170

based on a set of prevailing norms he saw played out among his male
counterparts. In concrete terms then hugging, as an alternate form of expression
used by Hunter, was only used in certain circumstances. His decisions about
when and how he could hug other young men were grounded in what he knew
about his peers and specifically about different versions of masculinity.

Hunter drew from prevailing mainstream definitions of what it meant to be
a man. There were times when he knew his peers would reject any physical
contact and other occasions when he took a more haphazard approach and "just
tried it out." He contrasted his masculinity with others identifying some that
needed to be big rough and tough. Alternate versions of masculinities were
frequently defined in terms of their limitations. The big rough and tough guys are
the ones who could not hug. Hunter posed a contrasting image of masculinity in
his ability to reject the means and efforts of others to uphold and sustain the
rough and tough type of masculinity so familiar in high schools.

Hunter negotiated his masculinity by rejecting social practices commonly
associated with being one of the boys. In doing so he routinely opted for different
ways of being a high school young man. He generally rejected a familiar
hegemonic masculinity represented by Jason and characterized by Hunter as
“be[ing] big rough and tough” and “unable to hug.” It is young men like Jason
who Hunter later explained in an interview ”are sensitive but they try not to be.
They try to build up a wall.” Hunter’s gender politics challenged what it mean[t]
to be a man combined with [the] deep-set securities about making the masculine

grade” (Kaufman, 1994, p. 158). Each of the participants carefully and cleverly

17]

enacted a gender politics that went against standard beliefs and attitudes about

masculinity commonly expressed by mainstream high school young men.
Gender Politics: Degrees of opposition

Conversations among men: When can a man be honest and open?

Daily interaction and the various forms of expression among high school
young men operate as part of a masculinising process. In the above I explained
how physical interaction operated as a vehicle for demonstrating competing
forms of masculinity. In this section I examine both formal and informal
conversations that ring among high school students. These conversations
similarly operate as a specific medium through which certain models of
masculinity are affirmed or rejected.

During daily conversations with his male counterparts Hunter sheds light
on both what is expected and the norm for talking among men but also the
possibility for rejecting those conversational norms. His conversations showcase
the tensions between traditional male-male interaction and the alternate forms of
expression he had chosen.

Unlike many mainstream young men, Hunter openly expressed his
emotions among his classmates. His openness and ability to express himself
contrasted significantly with his male counterparts. In an interview Hunter
explained that most young men "don’t talk much about feelings." He however
rejected this way of being a young man. He was openly expressive and
demonstrative both in school and privately among his male friends out of school.

He explained. “I mean, I’m not really afraid to tell people how I feel or anything.

172

In fact I think I am quite open about it.” Hunter's remark highlights an element of
fear among young men who openly express their feelings. Unlike his peers he
was not "afraid" to tell people how he felt. Hunter refused to abide by the
prevailing standards of masculinity with which he was most familiar and instead
intentionally expressed himself in more intimate and openly expressive
conversations not common among high school young men.

Hunter’s rejection of the standard norms of conversations among young
men was inconsistent. His struggle to engage in or display alternate ways for
expressing himself was heavily influenced again by the overarching context. In
the following he reveals how different contexts provide different opportunities for
young men to accept or reject typical forms of expression among young men.
The types of conversations ranged, as did the ways in which he opposed or
supported them. Hunter's choices significantly reflected on different versions of
masculinity and the extent to which certain ones were supported and under
supponed.

Many of the young men at Central High were reluctant to openly share
their feelings because of the questions that doing so would raise about their
masculinity. In a school that valued a tough, virile masculinity more than being
openly expressive it was rare to find the opportunities or the inclination among
these young men to be openly expressive about their feelings. Hunter explained
that classrooms were “too open” for talking about “real emotions and real like,
what’s going on.” These remarks seemingly contradict the behavior he displayed

in his Creative Writing class. Nonetheless he painted a picture of the school

173

context as one that did not promote or support open and honest communication
among students. His opposition to being closed and un-expressive which was
typical among his male peers was apparent on numerous occasions.

Hunter expressed an attitude toward being openly expressive and publicly
demonstrative that was atypical of mainstream high school young men. He
challenged a common gender stereotype by routinely showing that a young man
can be verbally and physically expressive in supportive and caring ways. Hunter
provided a sharp contrast as a young man engaged in two types of conversations
with other young men. I will elaborate on these.

Open expression among young men was connected to the broader
context in which relationships developed among these young men. In the
following he recounted the conditions under which some young men were
inclined to be honest and open about their feelings.

Like when we talk I wouldn’t laugh at him or for something more serious I

wouldn’t go and tell other people. Like, he knows he can trust me and that

I am there for him and I am his friend and I’m not trying to screw him over.
Hunter’s comments reflected what was involved in developing open relationships
with other young men at school. He described an ability to empathize and “not
laugh at him” as well as a level of trust. And finally he remarked that he was
"there" for his friend. Supportive relationships of this nature were rare particularly
among young men according to Hunter. The rarity of these relationships and
what Hunter sharply described as "good buddy type talks" occurring in school is

significant. Hunter explained that generally conversations of this nature did

174

Not [occur] much in school. At least not in the classroom, maybe in the
car. Actually, Iwouldn't even say, I would almost say not at all in school
except maybe at lunch time if you’re lucky. . .
If these young men were not having "good buddy type talks" based on trusting
relationships then what type of conversations were they having? Hunter went on
to explain that for the most part the conversations he engaged in with his peers
at school were basically what he referred to as "small talk, "like little gossip” or
what basically amounted to as "a bunch of guys shooting the shit."
Young men together: "Good buddy talk" and "shooting the shit"

The distinction between the types of conversations supported among high
school young men provides a lens for seeing how and when Hunter‘s gender
politics were woven to issues of masculinity. That is to say that these two distinct
types of conversations are compelling because they provide a sketch of both the
typical dialogues and atypical dialogues among young men. In doing so they
highlight the significant ways that young men like Hunter routinely negotiate
between prevailing masculinities and his own set of gender politics during daily
peer conversations.

In the following interview Hunter provides a detailed description that
speaks broadly to issues of masculinity as well as his manner of resisting a
gender stereotype that defined young men as closed and non-communicative.
Describing good buddy type talk:

. with Drew asking about sex you know, we weren't joking around
anymore, it was serious. . . It was like, if I am in his shoes I would want to

know. I mean, like, lwas there once. I am going to tell him seriously. . .

but usually it's alone, either one on one or like, with Drew it was three

people who are really good friends. Almost always when you are in those
situations you are not afraid to really talk about anything. And the same

175

thing with when Doug is depressed. We will always do something like go
out for dinner or just go and sit.. Like we used to go up to Daffy Duck hill
and just sit up there and talk or go for walks over at the woods. And we
would just sit back and talk and there are no distractions. Like, we're not
going to go play basketballs and start talking about it. . . . You know, like
you’re not going to have a good conversation with someone like, playing
basketball.
Hunter provides a useful look into the rare occasions when young men talk to
each other openly and honestly about "serious" issues. The issues were
substantive ranging from sex to depression. Powerful though these
conversations were, they did not occur in school. That was where the other
conversations happened. Good buddy type talks were vehicles for what Hunter
later described as ”being a friend" and a need to have someone to "listen" and
"just like, help him." Hunter was unlike many of his male counterparts in the
ways that he became a type of support and listener.

Hunter became a unique type of "counselor" and "friend" in ways that were
uncommon among these high school men. He described the role he played with
another young man.

So like he would call me up and say 'Hey, can we go talk?’ . . . and he

would just tell me his life. Basically I was kind of like, his counselor, you

know. Like, and his friend, because he could tell me everything and I

wasn't just like one of his other friends, like smoker friends which is like,

’Yo, let's get high.’

Being supportive and a good listener as a young man was valued even though
there were seemingly few opportunities for these relationships to be nurtured in
school. Particularly disturbing about this is the fact that young men like Hunter

who challenge these typical ways of being young men are rarely supported. As I

explain in the next chapter these young men run great risks for acting in ways

176

atypical of their mainstream peers. The following looks at another type of talk
which was perhaps most common among these young men.

Hunter's male counterparts commonly participated in what Hunter called
"shooting the shit" or "stupid guy talk." It occurred primarily in school, during
passing time between class, and mainly among friends. The content varied as
Hunter explained in the following portion of an interview. He offered examples of
this type of conversation.

Okay, oh, one example would be if it's a nice day outside. ’Let's go play

Frisbee.’ Or ’Man it's a shitty day outside.’ and 'This sucks.’ or like 'I hate

school, I'm tired.’ All that usual stuff. . . like, ’Guess what happened to

me today?’ or 'I got a fifty percent on my test.’ Or like, 'l'm flunking.‘ You
know, that kind of stuff . . that kind of small talk.
Hunter later elaborated with a broader sweep to explain this kind of
conversation.

. . . like, guy talk stuff is when we are in the car all shooting the shit

around, you know. And I don’t know who it was but they were like ’Yea, I

would fuck her and they were like, 'Yeah, I would rape her and tear her

up.’ And all that kind of stuff. But like none [raising his voice] of us would
do that. It’s just like, stupid guy talk that we all laugh at. It's kind of howl
would say [he deepens his voice] ’Jack's drinking beer and shooting deer.’

It’s like it’s true that people do that but I'm not one of them and none of my

friends are so we kind of just like mock them. It's almost like making fun of

them.

MK: Who are you mocking?

H: All the womanizers. . . . It is like mocking hicks and stuff. It’s kind of
like; you can’t change them so you might as well have some fun.

Beyond the daily chatter shooting the shit was also grounded at a deeper and
more troubling level. The above distinctions between conversations showed a
type of talk among young men that swayed dangerously and arguably beyond

simply "shooting the shit." The level of sophistication with which these young

177

men interpreted these conversations can not be assured. When left
uninterrupted then, the "stupid guy talk" type of conversations operated in two
ways. First, they emphasized a disturbing model of masculinity centering on sex
and rape and second they surreptitiously operated, according to Hunter, as a
form of protest with their primary aim being to mock "the womanizers."

The above is compelling evidence that suggests that young men express
their masculinity and gender politics via different types of conversations. On
different levels and in different contexts a young man like Hunter is torn between
adhering to his own gender politics while also being a part of a hegemonic
masculinity.

Across the faces: A renewed vision of masculinity, choice, and gender
pofifics

This chapter has brought to the foreground a variety of voices and
experiences of four high school young men. Their responses to sexist remarks,
comments or attitudes span the gambit. Likewise their responses to the standard
norms of masculinity that define how and what it means to be a high school
young man, also varies. Though there is overlap in how and what these young
men responded to, it is abundantly clear from this data that high school
masculinity is not confined to either or choices. In their daily school interaction
these young men illustrated that masculinity is about a series of choices that are
played out, negotiated, and let go in different and competing contexts.

Through informal interaction with their classmates, David, Philip, Thurston,

and Hunter revealed a set of beliefs of their own. These, in large part, stem from

178

a range of places and influences beyond the scope of this study. This study was
not designed to explore why these young men chose to express their masculinity
different from the rest of the boys. This study set out to discover how and when
four young men expressed their masculinity in high school. At the same time it
was designed to identify the sets of beliefs that informed their choices as young
men who opposed sexism and gender stereotypes of masculinity. As such this
study has identified contexts, people, conditions, and considerations that shaded
the process for young men involved in rejecting standard norms of masculinity
and opposing typically sexist behaviors or attitudes of their male counterparts.

In the following section I provide a cross-cutting look at the experiences of
these four young men. I have framed this section using the three major themes
around which this study is organized. For each theme I pull together the strands
that bind these cases together along the lines of their differences as young men
unlike the rest of the boys.

Masculinity: Beyond a unidimensional concept of the boys

Both conceptually and practically speaking this study has widened the
lens for seeing how and when young men expressed different elements of
masculinity through their interaction among their peers. Not surprisingly, when it
comes to high school masculinity, young men make a series of decisions that are
more broadly connected particularly when it comes to a context such as a school
setting.

Masculinity is fluid and constantly changing according to competing

definitions within a given cultural milieu. The young men in this study

179

demonstrated that multiple masculinities emerged out of the daily and taken for
granted conventions inscribed in school interaction and conversations. Gender
thus is always in transition. It is at rest only until it is tested, challenged, and
called into question. As this study has shown, the difficulty for many high school
young men is in accepting that there are alternate versions of masculinity that are
equally as legitimate as that which is commonly displayed and heralded within
schools. The conceptual divide that has maintained a narrow definition of high
school masculinity is currently under scrutiny but this time not from the academy,
but rather from young men themselves.

During informal interaction and conversations in school young men take
cues and learn to "read" or "sense" from one another what it means to be
masculine and what it means to be un-masculine. According to these young men
the differences among their peers is sometimes as simple as being "cool" and
"fitting in." At other times masculinity and the territory surrounding it is much
more complicated. Being masculine meant carefully constructing "a wall" to hide
what is most evident, that is, "though young men are sensitive, they try not to
be." Of particular note then is how and when young men purposely emphasize
various elements of their masculinity that adheres to a coherent set of rules and
norms. While the mainstream young men at Central High were concerned about
keeping their masculine images intact they were also concerned with intentionally
portraying images of masculinity that could not be misinterpreted or called into

quesfion.

180

Masculinity was framed by relationships. Young men opened up and
shared the un-protected and unrehearsed sides of masculinity in private, close
encounters with male counterparts that they could thst. In these contexts young
men were able to see each other as supportive and caring rather than
threatening and untrustworthy. They did not fear being unmasked as sissies.
And though historically "masculinity has become a relentless test by which we
prove to other men, to women, and ultimately to ourselves, that we have
successfully mastered the part" (Kimmel, 1999, p. 138), the four young men in
this study have demonstrated an ability to rewrite how and what they defined as
elements of masculinity.

In most situations these young men resisted the rules of male-male
interaction. In particular they supported and opened themselves up by allowing
for intimate interaction with their male counterparts. They expressed themselves
affectionately by using verbal as well as physical means of reaching out to their
close friends. Philip captured a type of evolving relationship among these men
saying, "it's that physical closeness that is part of our relationship." The
closeness, the honesty, and the unquestioned respect for sincere communication
allowed these young men, in Philip's words, "to avoid that male stereotype of
'hey, he's hugging that guy he must be gay.” In an unusual way these young
men redefined the types of relationships and types of masculinities they
supported in school.

These young men stood in opposition by rejecting the conventions of

prevailing images of a high school masculinity. Rather than support the norms of

181

interaction that kept men distant from one another they modeled alternate
versions of masculinity. Close intimate physical contact among these boys was
but one means by which they pushed the boundaries of the masculinised ways of
interaction. Instead of subscribing to the rules of masculinity well accepted and
defined as a hegemonic masculinity, these young men extended themselves and
found a broader repertoire of ways for displaying their masculinity not restricted
by stereotypes. Thurston illustrated that the veneer of masculinity was often
times a question of "trying to say the right thing" compounded by the threat of
being "ostracized" by their'male counterparts for not being like "what guys are
supposed to be like."

Competing versions of masculinity involved a give and take relationship.
Men Ieamed through daily interactions and conversations that being a young
man meant different things in different contexts. The contexts and competing
relationships I have described above revealed how men constructed
masculinities among and across their male counterparts. At the same time the
experiences of these young men also suggests a degree of intent. Masculinities
are presented and represented by an array of expressions and daily social
practices. In the following section I pull together the types of choices these
young made in the process of redefining high school masculinities while also
maintaining a position among their mainstream peers.

High school young men: Making choices unlike the boys
Decisions to oppose sexism or reject standards of masculinity are

connected and often grounded in well organized sets of beliefs. Much like the

182

decisions young men make routinely to emphasize their masculinity as a way of
fitting in and being accepted among the boys, David, Philip, Thurston, and Hunter
similarly made choices to be unlike their mainstream male counterparts. Their
decisions were situated in a set of beliefs that reflected concerns with what they
supported as young men. As I have outlined above masculinity is constructed
intentionally and enacted in varying contexts. "Gender is not fixed in advance of
social interaction but is constructed in interaction" (Connell, 1995, p.35).

The choices these young men made were informed on different levels by
what they knew and understood about masculinity as it was played out within a
high school setting. Choices about what and when to oppose sexism or
stereotypes of masculinity were based on mutual respect, concerns over gender
expectations, and a more general disregard for a facade of masculinity that held
little weight with these young men. This section adds to the above by
summarizing the framework these young men used for moving against the public
conventions of masculinity while in the process rejecting sexism among their
peers.

Mainstream definitions of masculinity are powerful contexts framing what it
means to be a man in a high school. From the "stereotypical jock football player"
to the glossy images portrayed in Muscle Magazine to the sexualized context of
masculinity captured in sharing a Playboy magazine, there emerges a clear
picture of what it means to be a man. The decision to reject these images is

noteworthy.

183

Through their daily encounters among their peers these young men have
shown a repertoire of ways for opposing sexism. In his most compelling and
public expression David displayed the possibility for walking away from sexist
remarks and jokes. His opposition was evident in both large groups of friends,
close and otherwise, as well as in smaller groups. He thoughtfully rejected sexist
jokes for example, stating that "you need to be careful of what you are
supporting." At the same time decisions to challenge the typically masculinised
or sexually degrading banter among men was not clear-cut.

David and Thurston drew attention to the fact that their opposition was not
always consistent but often negotiated. The choice to forthrightly challenge their
peer's sexist or typically masculine expressions was linked to the potential for
change in other's views. Though largely defined in degrees of friendships or
closeness to their peers, these young men made refined distinctions about with
whom they expressed their opposition. For example, they were less inclined to
challenge some young men whose attitudes were not likely to change. At times
sexist remarks or expressions were left uninterrupted. They would "let it go"
because to constantly challenge these people would be to no avail. And though
efforts to reject sexism are admirable, it is important to remember that these are
high school young men and in this context as Thurston points out "you would
feel self-righteous but you'd be very lonely."

Masculinity and sexism was replaced with a range of images unfamiliar to
many mainstream high school males. An athleticism that valued aggressiveness

and competition was challenged by both David and Philip who sought to "just be

184

themselves" even though the expectations within the sports arena required
otherwise. David was compassionate and caring on the ice while Philip was
uncomfortable and torn by the tough image demanded of his role as a football
player. And rather than being distant and unsympathetic to their male peer's
emotional needs, these young men were sensitive and supportive. Their
approaches went against prevailing views of masculinity. And though they were
aware of the conventions of masculinity in which according to Hunter "young men
don’t talk much about feelings," these young men were often affectionate and
sensitive toward their male peers. They comforted their peers through "good
buddy type talks" and in "times of need" by "not laughing at them," but instead
listening to them and being publicly expressive.

The traditional norms of masculinity provided a stark contrast to the
behaviors and attitudes displayed by David, Philip, Thurston and Hunter. Their
choices were informed and orchestrated on the basis of what they knew about
high school masculinity. These young men took risks opposing sexism and
gender stereotypes but at the same time were mindful of the broader social
context. For these young men their opposition was connected first to their
definitions of masculinity and second, to a deeper seated set of beliefs, namely
their gender politics. The final section follows up with a look to young men as
agents or social allies.

Gender politics: Degrees of opposition
As this study has shown there is a strong connection between competing

definitions of masculinity, the decisions to reject sexism and various stereotypes

185

of masculinity and the approach these young men expressed via their gender
politics. The data from this study has noticeably highlighted the times when
young men were with other young men. As l have mentioned previously, gender
is relational and not constructed in isolation. The experiences of these young
men has shed light on the multiple contexts in which masculinity was wedded to
their sets of beliefs and approaches to rejecting more traditional views and social
practices associated with mainstream high school young men. This section
briefly suggests the possibilities young men in a school setting have for
repositioning themselves as allies for a progressive gender politics.

These young men variously expressed oppositional responses. It became
increasingly evident that the choices to reject a sexist comment or challenge
conventional social practices were complicated on several levels. Each of these
young men at one time or another compromised their own sets of beliefs. They
either let comments go, did not intervene at all, or actually supported typically
masculinised practices. Their responses suggest that though they appear as
valuable social allies modeling behavior more desirable than that of their
mainstream male counterparts, the effort to be unlike the rest of the boys was not
easy. As I later discuss, there were consequences for their actions.

As young men with competing sets of politics these four showed that
opposition to sexism and masculine stereotypes is in fact a possibility. Not all the
boys are the same. Their definitions of masculinity as well as the approaches

they took to displaying alternate versions of masculinity to some degree set them

186

apart. The teachers who helped identified them for this study noticed this and it
was well supported in their daily social interaction recorded in this study.

The difficulty in opposing sexism and gender stereotypes for these high
school young men in particular appears in their broader framework of reference.
For instance, these young men suggested that some boys grow up learning
about sexism, and traditional norms of masculinity. In a sense they excused the
behavior and attitudes of some men. In some cases they accepted it as a social
fact that you can not change some people's minds. In these situations they
turned a blind eye. Having said all that these young men nonetheless took a
position that leaned towards eliminating sexism and various stereotypes. Along
these lines their behavior and attitudes were unique, setting them apart from the
standards and norms of many of rest of the boys. A final note is worth mention
before turning to Chapter Four in which I describe the consequences for
opposing sexism. Thurston's earlier remark in which he said "You would feel
very self-righteous but you'd be very lonely" is telling. It reminds us all that these
four were high school students. They were young. They had values that were
linked to and grounded in the specific context of which they were integral
members. This can not be forgotten. Opposition among young men is a
possibility but it is risky and indeed though a "righteous" approach, if unsupported

it could leave one "very lonely."

187

CHAPTER FOUR
Reactions and Responses: What happens when young men embrace
competing gender politics?

In the previous chapter I examined the various ways that the four
participants expressed specific elements of high school masculinities. I also
examined how and when each young man conveyed his gender politics. In the
broader picture this meant looking closely at the familiar landscape of a high
school setting to better understand the complexity of student lives and
particularly the school experiences common or uncommon among young men.
Each demonstrated how and when his masculinity contrasted with his male
counterparts and how he managed to negotiate competing sets of gender
politics.

The aim of this chapter is to describe more fully the reactions and
responses expressed when the participants rejected a mainstream masculinity in
addition to, or along with, demonstrating their own sets of gender politics. This
chapter speaks specifically to what is traditionally referred to as the costs and
benefits chapter. And while it might be construed as such, I have intentionally
framed this chapter in terms of reactions and responses. These terms reflect
more accurately how the participants interpreted their peers' comments and
behaviors. In other words, the four young men did not see their specific gender
politics as beneficial or detrimental per se. Their behavior nonetheless evoked
responses and reactions that were less than supportive. These reactions, I

argue, convey a sense of both the broader context for defining masculinity at

188

Central High as well as the specific consequences for going against the
masculinised norms and prevailing gender politics of other young men.

Up until this point I have painted a picture of four high school young men
who have chosen to be unlike their male counterparts. l have argued that they
have purposefully acted in ways that have defined their social identities as high
school young men. I have shown that high school masculinity involved
constructing the self through a range of daily expressions. l have also shown
that these young men drew from a repertoire of ways for opposing sexism and
gender stereotypes.

What I have not yet shown is the fall-out, or what I refer to as the reactions
and responses for being unlike the rest of the boys. Some questions remain
unanswered. For example, What is the threat, if any, for rejecting mainstream
masculinity? How do high school young men respond when traditional values
and attitudes commonly reflected within mainstream masculinity are challenged?

\Nlth the sense that high school young men can be change agents it is
worth noting that this decision did not come easily. Knowing whether or not to
reject a sexist remark or act in an unconventional way as a young man involved
an orchestrated approach within clearly defined conditions and contexts. The
reactions were not always predictable. In addition to the negative reactions there
were some benefits as well. On the surface the benefits I describe in this chapter
appear to be overshadowed by negative responses. In the bigger picture

however the negative reactions were relatively few.

189

Not all four boys experienced the same reprisals. The level or degree of
response from other young men was inconsistent. The range of responses varied
from more subtle forms of verbal ridicule to a case of outright mimicking. The
benefits on the other hand were not observable per se. Rather, the four young
men each described and alluded to a sense of being comfortable with himself, a
feeling uncommon among many of their male counterparts. The benefit then was
a general sense of being authentic and true to oneself as a young man. This
contrasted significantly with how other young men evidently felt and behaved
according to the participants. I will explain more later.

By presenting a competing version of masculinity as well as a different set
of gender politics from their mainstream male counterparts, the actions and
attitudes of these four young men evoked a clear and tangible set of reactions or
costs as it were. The benefits were less tangible, less apparent, and less
concrete in comparison.

The following is divided into three sections. I begin by outlining several
types of reaction including ridicule, verbal derision, and mimicking. For each type
of reaction I provide incidents from the participants school experiences. Not all of
the young men experienced the same types of reaction from their peers. Peer
reactions varied across the participants for a variety of reasons including different
social locations and the different forms of expression of masculinity and
opposition described in Chapter 3. The second section describes the positive
aspects of rejecting mainstream masculinity and the traditionally male attitudes. I

explain in detail what the participants understood to be as an increased level of

190

comfort and overall ability to "just be themselves." The final section of this
chapter touches on several underlying assumptions about high school
masculinity that according to the participants were relatively common among
their mainstream male peers. These assumptions help explain what I argue is a
reluctance among high school young men to move beyond traditional boundaries
of mainstream masculinity. They also fill out a broader context within which to
better understand the challenges these young men faced while expressing a
competing masculinity as well as an alternate set of gender politics among their
peers.

Reactions and responses: Ridicule, verbal derision, and mimicking

Ridicule prevailed across all four of the participants as a major means by
which mainstream young men attempted to reinforce traditional norms and
attitudes of masculinity. As such this type of common response sheds light on
how some high school young men routinely sought to maintain and perpetuate
mainstream masculinity while denying possibilities across and among
masculinities. Within this framework one form of masculinity was valued and
emphasized through daily interaction. This type of reaction also explains in part
why many of the participant's mainstream male counterparts were generally less
willing to openly express any level of countersexist politics. In most of the
following situations ridicule was used to embarrass, cajole, or belittle people. It
was an attempt to affirm or re-assert one form of masculinity over other less

valued forms.

191

Ridicule and verbal derision

Mainstream high school masculinity was ardently defended by several
forms of ridicule and derision. In varying degrees the four participants directly
and indirectly saw the consequences of rejecting the standard conventions of a
high school masculinity. The conventions including casual greetings, informal
guy talk, and public expressions of creativity were gender marked. In other
words these were activities, events or ways of being men that were typically
precluded by a set of expectations or understandings about masculinity among
these high school young men. These conventions of masculinity marked the
boundaries for defining what it meant to be a man or "act manly" as one student
commented, at Central High.

Through various events and informal types of interaction high school
young men actively construct multiple definitions of masculinity. Within this high
school context these moments or occasions provided a forum in which other
young men operated as what Kimmel (1994) described as "gender police." As I
mentioned earlier, anything remotely feminine became a source of ridicule. In
many situations the ridicule need not have been sharp or abrasive. Subtle or
nuanced remarks were used among these young men in backhanded ways to
leave open the interpretation and instead raise suspicions. The male
counterparts to the four participants thus sought to enforce or at least alert others
to the boundaries in place that defined high school masculinity at Central High.

(see Connell, 1993; MacLeod, 1987; Thorne, 1993; Weis, 1993)

192

Physical closeness: "Touchy feely type of guys" and heterosexualised
masculinities
Classrooms provided a public forum in which certain conventions of
masculinity were reaffirmed and other less traditional manners were rejected. In
the following vignette David was mimicked because of the close affectionate
contact he expressed among his friends. This scene unfolded just prior to the
beginning of Physic's class.
David's friend, Sam enters the classroom and walks toward his seat. Mary
is seated next to David. As he nears Mary he extends his hand and gently
places it on her shoulder. "Hi Mary.” Mary physically recoils as Sam
touches her shoulder. Sam smiles at Mary and remarks “You’re the only
one that went ballistic on me.” He turns to Drew who is seated off to the
side of Mary and directly behind David. “Hi Drew!” As he greets Drew he
begins to massage his shoulders. Drew glances up at Sam and
Iaughingly remarks “You’re just a touchy-feely kind of guy."
David glances over his shoulder to me and says “See, they’re making fun
of me.” Sam turns to David and begins massaging his shoulders.
Smirking, he remarks to David “We’re not making fun of you!” Drew
smiles. Mr. Smith interrupts the conversation by asking students to direct
their attention to the chalkboard.
This display was a public way of defining and delineating the rules of masculinity
among these men. Sam drew attention to a manner of interaction that was
uncommon among high school men. In doing so he acknowledged the way
David expressed himself but did so in a backhanded way to discount this type of
interaction. Drew's remark further demonstrated how different ways of being
young men carried a price. In this situation Drew relegated close physical

contact among men to the touchy feely type of guys. David acknowledged the

fact that his peers were making fun of him. His friends mocked him because he

193

did not abide by the traditional norms, such as handshakes or high fives, most
common among these high school men.

The above occasions illustrate the subtle use of ridicule. In situations
where the participants expressed their gender politics openly and publicly among
their peers, the ridicule appeared to be more severe. The following scene
occurred a week after the choir class returned from a trip to Chicago.

Class has not yet begun. Several students stand milling about a bulletin

board where an array of photos is on display from a recent trip to Chicago.

The pictures are arranged thematically with a caption under each small

collection.

Of the many pictures there is a black and white of David lying on the bed

in a hotel room along side a classmate. The two boys have their pillows

pressed up under their chins and look as though they might have returned
from a day in the city. Under this picture is a caption, that reads "Things

that make you go mmmmmm.”

While I stand looking at this picture Paul, a friend of David's, comes up

beside me. I remark, “That’s a good shot of you two." He looks at the

photo and responds “You can say what you want, I don’t mind." I look to

Paul “Pardon?” He adds, “Actually David doesn’t have to worry, he has a

girlfriend. He doesn’t have to defend himself.” We look at other photos as

Paul retells some stories of the trip.

The photo described above captured the casual and close relationship these two
young men shared. It depicted a type of physical closeness between these two
young men that was atypical for most of their male counterparts. David showed
no inhibitions and was often openly demonstrative of his affection for his friends.
Paul's comments however revealed how one's gender politics were mired in
broader issues. The ridicule that ensued largely resulted from other students

rejecting David's manner of male-male interaction. In this situation his public

194

display of affection was connected to questions of sexuality. Paul later
elaborated in an email.

As far as defending that picture goes, I'm not sure to whom specifically I

would have to defend it. Generally though, David and l are uncommonly

affectionate, I guess I could say, in our friendship as far as typical male-

male relationships go. Therefore it is possible that people who would see
that picture would put two and two together, but they would not get four, if
you know what I am saying. But they would think possibly that we are gay

and David, having a girlfriend, would quell some suspicion. However, I

don't have a girlfriend so it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that I am

gay so I would have to defend my heterosexuality.
A week later the following was scribbled under the picture of David and Paul.

Sick, sick, sick, Faggety.

The open affection these young men demonstrated became a point for deriding
their masculinity. David's interaction with Paul was ridiculed because it did not fit
within a prevailing traditionally heterosexist framework that defined masculinity at
Central High. As I mentioned previously, anything remotely feminine such as the
uncommon physical closeness between two young men was frequently
challenged. The above illustrates how some students voiced their opposition to
what was a potentially threatening model of masculinity captured in the photo of
David and Paul.

David was safeguarded by the fact that he had a girlfriend. His public
heterosexual relationship might have provided David with greater possibilities for
rejecting traditional forms of interaction among his male classmates. David '5
sexuality was not directly questioned in the above scene. His peers questioned

the social norms Paul and David had breached as young men. The physical

closeness depicted in the photo was not typical among these high school young

195

men. As such this type of interaction represented a challenge to prevailing
definitions of masculinity. The reaction, perhaps the most severe form of ridicule,
was yet another way that these mainstream young men emphasised the rules of
masculinity.

Physical closeness among men emerged as a significant point defining
male-male relationships. The recurring focus on displays of physical affection
across these young men was striking. In the following conversation between
Thurston and a classmate social norms, masculinity, and sexuality are pieced
together.

Todd, a man sitting next to Thurston, looks up from his notebook and

peers around the room. He notices Eric is not here today. As he glances

at Thurston and then back across the way to Eric’s empty seat he
comments “I thought the atmosphere was a little less gay today.”

Thurston looks up from his work and over to Todd. He sees him nodding

toward Eric's chair. Thurston comments “Yeah, every time he says ‘hi’ he

grabs my arm.” Todd responds adding, “Yeah, you have to be careful of a

guy touching you.” The two return to a worksheet at hand, working

quietly, individually at their desks.
Though brief the conversation represented how the minutiae of daily interaction
contributed to and supported broader definitions such as masculinity. In this
scene it was tied to sexuality. Unlike the rest of the participants Thurston did not
typically express his affection through any physical displays with his friends. In
the above scene the remarks between Thurston and Todd reflected a stigma
attached to physical closeness between young men. While reflecting on this
scene during our interview he explained the inner workings of his relationship

with Eric as well as the broader contextual framework.

T: I think it was just kind of weird, what he [Eric] did. He just like
grabbed my arm and sort of grabbed my muscle. And like, I'd feel

196

uncomfortable anybody doing that when I say 'hi.’ Girl, guy, it
would just feel like, what are you doing exactly, like whatever. Of
course I didn't get mad at him when he did it, because again, it's
not worth it and like, I don't care that much.

MK: It sounds like what I heard was that Todd interpreted this type of
physical greeting differently.

T: Yeah, he is like a GUY (raised voice) touching me instead of a
person touching me.

To a lesser degree than Todd, Thurston expressed a similar discomfort with
physically affectionate contact between young men. In this case the accusation
of being gay was a heavy cost generally extended to any men who displayed this
type of physical closeness. The derision came in the form of suspicions planted
amidst casual, innocuous conversations.

The above exchange followed by Thurston's reflective comments
highlighted a very specific type of reaction commonly expressed among these
young men. Physically affectionate contact such as this was equated with
homosexuality. Thurston did not deride this behaviour but allowed the
assumptions about male-male contact to prevail. His perspective differed from
Todd's. Thurston was uncomfortable primarily with any human contact. Todd, on
the other hand, connected the behaviour to a form of expression reserved for
men who were gay.

Todd and Thurston drew from a common understanding about social
norms among men. Out of this shared understanding emerged at least part of
the reason young men at Central High were reluctant to stray from the unwritten
rules of masculinity embedded in the informal interaction common at this school.

The cost for challenging social norms stemmed from how these young men

197

made sense of this behaviour. The social cost then was subtle but nonetheless
emerged out of the observable daily interaction that rejected the social
conventions of masculinity.

Verbal ridicule surfaced as a common reaction among and across these
young men. Philip described the reactions he experienced in response to his
public physical closeness with his male counterparts.

A lot of people that I know take a hug as a homosexual gesture. There are

some people that I would go to hug and they'd be like What the hell are

you doing?‘ Get away from me you freak.’
Philip's experience reflected a set of beliefs prevalent among his male
counterparts. The following illustrates a contrast between his perspective and
that of many of his male peers. It also fills in the distinctions he made between
different groups of men.

I just think it's good that as guys we are able to avoid that male stereotype

of ’Hey he's hugging that guy, he must be gay.“ You know, that kind of

attitude. . . . he's not the typical guy, you know. Like a lot of the guys at our

school are like, jocks. . . .he’s not afraid of being physically, like, hugging

other guys.
Long-standing social practices were tied to definitions of masculinity. In
situations when Philip mis-read his peers, their reactions were strong. He was
immediately castigated for his behavior. This type of verbal ridicule influenced
but did not completely deter Philip from sharing what he described as a "physical
closeness that kind of defined his relationships." Philip made distinctions
between different men by drawing partially on the basis of daily interaction and

the relationships that transpired in school. He managed to avoid much of the

verbal ridicule by gauging his classmate's openness to altemate forms of

198

interaction. He became acutely aware of the differences between young men
and the cost for overstepping boundaries between these masculinities.

Rather than be ridiculed Philip surrounded himself with friends that shared
a similar set of gender politics or at least mirrored similar ways of being a high
school young man. In a sense he insulated himself from the threat of derision.
He described his friends in terms of their abilities to be "accepting." He valued
these relationships because he was "able to communicate openly” and "not be
afraid to tell them anything." These types of relationships contrasted with others
in which he felt there were parameters that defined for example what could and
could not be talked about among men.

Philip had developed a strategy for managing his way of being a high
school young man within a much broader framework of masculinity. For the most
part he avoided being derided or embarrassed by other young men. But this was
only possible because Philip intentionally avoided young men who he described
as "classic sexist guys" that would say "Oh he’s gay if he's acting a certain way."
Philip was not alone in the type of reaction he experienced. I turn now to
examine the type of reaction Hunter’s physically affectionate manner prompted
among his peers.

Questions about Hunter's masculinity were an underhanded reminder of
the costs involved in being openly affectionate with his male counterparts. In the
following Hunter unmasks several issues that invariably became connected to
masculinity. The costs in this case were subtle, imbedded in casual

conversations and the ways that students made sense of the remarks.

199

MK’

MK:

There’s so much stuff about gay that it doesn’t mean anything
anymore, or at least I hope it doesn’t. I don’t know, that is where I
am. Like today, like the Frisbee, Dennis wrote HUNTER LOVES
MEN and you know, it's like (Hunter makes his voice deeper)“Oh,
shut up.” But it’s nothing. Of course it’s not true. I mean everyone
knows that, like I feel comfortable where I am and I know I’m not
gay. So it’s like if anyone really calls me gay it’s just kind of like “OK
whatever.” I think most of that is like what goes around. It’s like
‘gayboy.’ You know it’s kind of taken over like, ‘retard.’

You said you felt comfortable where you are. What do you mean by
that?

(He lowers his voice.) “Um, that I like girls.” (He laughs)
Oh okay, I thought you meant in terms of being yourself.

That too. I mean I’m not really afraid to tell people how I feel or
anything. In fact, I think I’m quite open about it. I think some
people can’t hug, like Rick. He has to be big, rough and tough, like
he’s a man. You know what I mean? That type of stuff. Those are
the people who right away I would say wouldn’t want to hug
someone. And I think that is part of the reason; they’re trying to be
all rough and tough.

In a second interview Hunter revisited the above scenario. He clarified and

deepened some of his thoughts about what had happened.

MK:

How did you feel when he wrote HUNTER LOVES MEN on the
Fnsbee?

Actually I didn’t care too much. At times it will bug me, not in that
incident, but at other times. Like, just sometimes people say it and
it sounds like they mean it. And you are like, 'Hey!’ like (he laughs)
'That’s not cool.’ But I think where he wrote it on the Frisbee, it is
just kind of like, ‘Thanks Dennis, thanks a lot.‘ (He laughs). I know
he knows I am not gay but maybe he was a little frustrated with me
or mad at me or maybe he thought it was funny, like a joke. He
might not even tell me if I ask him. He might say it was a joke and
really, maybe he was mad at me and he was like, that is how I can
get him back, to say he’s gay. . . . I think because we all know we’re
straight then you know that like, they might try to defend
themselves. It’s like an automatic button that you can push or just
make fun of people.

200

The Frisbee incident illustrates how subtle remarks operated at different levels.
Hunter was comfortable with both his masculinity and sexuality. Among these
young men however, it was a chance to raise questions and attack his ways of
being a young man. In the earlier part of the interview Hunter discounted the use
of the term "gay" suggesting it was hollow and carried little weight. However, he
later explained that perhaps this term had more significance then he was willing
to admit.

I don’t know if they resented me and the way I am or what. . . . You

know. I am not mad at him for thinking I am a jerk or gay or anything like

that. I don’t think he knew me.
Individual masculinities and how they were expressed among these men
prompted a variety of reactions. The cost, from resentment to being thought of
as being gay, was significant for these young men. Sexuality became a front
from which to launch an attack on ones‘ masculinity. And though Hunter
generally disregarded these remarks, he nonetheless was concerned with the
times when he thought his peers were not joking.

The accusation of being gay or the mere suggestion was a common
vehicle for arousing suspicions that invariably forced some young men to defend
their masculinity. Verbal derision such as this effectively put other men on
notice. It was used in Hunter's words as "an automatic button" and a way "to
make fun of people." Hunter was secure with his own masculinity but
nonetheless he was alarmed by the suggestion that he might be gay.

The greatest reaction or at least the most visible response to these young

men was some type of verbal attack. In each case the ridicule drew from a

201

heterosexualised version of masculinity. In doing so the mainstream male
counterparts contrasted standards of masculinities by pitting one against another.
For the most part the participants challenged the narrow confines of
masculinising practices that denied close physical affection among men. The
risk involved was substantial. As each has shown challenging traditional norms
of masculinity carried a high price, namely having their own sexuality scrutinised.
The reactions did not however significantly deter or dissuade the participants in
their daily expressions with their peers. As I described in Chapter 3 these four
young men Ieamed how and when to express their masculinity and with whom.
They negotiated both their masculinity and their gender politics rather than
sacrifice them completely.
Venues ridiculed: Gender politics, creativity, and conversations

The gender politics of the participants were an integral part of their daily
social lives with their peers. Woven into their daily interaction and expressed
through conversations, these young men demonstrated a fairly consistent set of
beliefs that eventually framed who they were individually as high school young
men. In the following interview Thurston elaborates on the difficulty involved
when a young man rejects one set of norms and views and adopts another. His
insight explains in part the reaction other young men had when a male
counterpart adopted a set of gender politics different from those previously
expressed or more widely valued.

And then like, if you had been doing that [being expressive] all along. It

seems like, the guys that are sort of, are the stereotypical kind, they like,

still respect that for some reason, as opposed to if you had changed like,
in the middle from being a tough guy and then started to do things that

202

weren’t respected by that. . . . they would make fun of you, but if you’ve

always been like that, then it seems they have more respect for it for some

reason.
According to Thurston young men could express themselves with no reprisals if
how and what they expressed about themselves was consistent with their prior
politics. The cost for many young men apparently came into play when they
made any significant shift toward a liberating or embracing gender politics that in
seemingly contradicted past habits and attitudes. In this case the reaction was
prompted by what might have appeared to these young men as a type of betrayal
to an already established set of beliefs. A prevailing conceptual framework of
masculinity prevented or inhibited many of these young men from drawing on a
broader repertoire of ways for expressing their social identities.

The complicated nature of masculinity and the competing manners in
which it was expressed evoked several reactions from mainstream young men.
Within the classroom gender politics were played out, seamlessly woven to the
various expressions of masculinity. A case in point is the valuing of creativity in
the classroom. At Central High for example, creativity was an element of open
expression generally undervalued among the mainstream young men. For
young men who were publicly creative in class for example, the reaction was
often searing.

In Thurston's Government class being creative was equated with being
gay. As one of his classmates sarcastically put it, "I guess homosexuality allows
for more creativity." Ridicule was often used as a means of maintaining

traditional views of masculinity. As Thurston pointed out the transition or change

203

away from conventional gender politics was not easy. Competing versions of
masculinity and various forms of expression were mimicked and ridiculed as a
way of asserting and defending a hegemonic masculinity.

During daily conversations among students ridicule was commonly used
as a means to define and delineate the value of different models of masculinities.
By using ridicule mainstream young men attempted to set up barriers and
cement into place differences between masculinities. These conversations
operated as commentaries about what was important to know and understand as
a high school young man. They were also pointed reminders of what it meant to
be a man because of the power they carried as ports of entry into groups of other
young men. This aspect of membership between young men was described in
Chapter 3.

The following comments by David reveal how routine conversations often
became a means by which young men were ridiculed because they did not share
the same values or experiences as their male counterparts. They also highlight
the costs or consequences for not supporting or contributing to a prevailing
version of masculinity. David reflected on a type of conversation in which his
peer 's comment set him apart from some men.

But he is not one of my closest friends . . . but just to get a rise out of me

he'll be like . . . ‘Hey, David did you get some this weekend?‘ He'll just say

something like that, but I don't get mad, I just shake my head and say

'Chris, come on buddy.’

David’s remarks illustrate how his friends used ridicule to promote and maintain

one version of masculinity that emphasized heterosexual relationships. Chris

highlighted one of the differences between the competing versions of masculinity

204

each of these young men represented. The discussion of sexual exploits, in their
words, "get[ting] some" was one arena that separated two versions of
masculinity. For young men like Chris then ridicule became a vehicle for drawing
these boundaries and to some extent creating differences based on differentiated
experiences as high school young men.

Ridicule between these young men usually occurred in public forums
among other peers within the school setting. David accepted this ridicule but still
attempted to dissuade Chris from making such remarks. And as David later
explained, there was a different side to his peers in more private, one on one
sfiuafions.

. . . When I am around Chris, for example, he acts differently. He has a
more sensitive, caring side around me. But I noticed how a lot of guys are
just interested in you know, maybe hanging with the girls for maybe one
night and stuff like that.

David's description above revealed that without an audience, without a broader
public context, norms of masculinity were less likely to be enforced. Thus,
different norms of masculinity were played out in different contexts. Informal
conversations akin to what Hunter described as "good buddy type talks" were
times when the rules of masculinity among these young men were less rigidly
enforced. These types of conversation contrasted significantly with the "guy talk"
that occurred in the public forum of the high school halls or comers of the
classroom.

The benefits: Being comfortable and being yourself

The four young men in this study benefited from adhering to and

expressing a set of gender politics different from their mainstream male

205

counterparts. Most evident from watching and listening to the comments and
insight of these young men is their individual and collective sense of comfort with
who they were as high school young men. In broad terms the participants
experienced what they described as a level of comfort with just being
themselves. They recounted experiences or drew comparisons with their peers.
They described abilities or ways of being young men that made them comfortable
with who they were and how they expressed that among their peers. I will
explain how this contrasted with their male counterparts who, according to these
young men, were more concerned with being cool and living up to prevailing
images and expectations of masculinity at Central High.

Each of the boys was confident about using multiple forms of expression
atypical of many high school young men. They openly displayed levels of
sensitivity, caring, and affection that challenged past norms of masculinity. They
described a striking degree of openness and ease with being themselves. In
contrast their male counterparts struggled with peer expectations and generally
being accepted by their classmates.

David was a strong and independent character. The louder more
dominant voices echoed from amidst his mainstream male counterparts posed a
challenge to his convictions. Nonetheless David remained comfortable with who
he was. In light of this he was able to reject the prevailing attitudes of many
other young men. In an excerpt from our interview David describes his approach
for maintaining his beliefs and attitudes toward women.

. . . but what is important is my attitude towards them (women). And if I
know that l have an attitude of disrespect towards people or I am being

206

demeaning toward people it's bad and . . . it comes from who I want to
become.

He went on to explain that his attitudes and ways as a young man were tested in
several different contexts. In the following interview segments David reveals his
response to competing viewpoints in sports as well as casual conversations.
I couldn’t deal with him (the coach) always wanting me to be mad. This
was right at the first game of the season and he wanted to get me kicked
off the team and not be Captain anymore. I mean, I did it my way. . . I

ended up scoring a lot of goals and I got my picture in the paper. It made
me feel good like, to show kids on the team that he doesn't have to be that

way.
David revealed how his own comfort with being who he was posed a challenge to
others. In the above he refused to change his attitudes and instead strongly
asserted his beliefs.

His attitude remained strong in private conversations as well. In the
following David explains how competing viewpoints co-existed. His viewpoint

remained intact in the face of a prevailing set of beliefs held by his male

counterparts.

If your goal is to get a girl home and you know, have sexual intercourse
with her, I mean, nice guys are going to finish last. It's sad, that's the way
our world works.

I had a guy try to tell me in sophomore. He was a senior. He was telling
me like, if you want a girl to like you, you just have to treat her like crap. . .
But those aren't my goals and I don‘t subscribe to them. But I mean nice
guys are going to finish last. But you know, it’s not my goal to win the
race. That’s not my goal so it's easy to give up when you think about the
perspective, you know, when you put things in the right frame.

David expressed a remarkable conviction to his beliefs. His perspectives were

grounded alongside a much broader framework. He managed to adhere to his

ways of being a young man. He also modeled for his teammates that there were

207

 

rewards and benefits for going against the grain. In the bigger picture perhaps
David presented an anomaly. He was not interested in winning a "race" and
without question his goals were different from many of his peers. For David
being himself allowed him to remain true to his convictions.

Philip benefited from knowing that there were times in school when he
could be himself. Unlike many of his male peers who were preoccupied with
what he described as trying to impress their friends or act cool, Philip explained
that we was comfortable with being himself at certain times, places, and with
certain people. He benefited mostly through the close relationships he shared
with his peers. He described his relationship with his male counterparts in terms
of an ability to "communicate openly . . . And not be afraid to tell them anything."
His relationships among most young women likewise allowed Philip to "sit back
and be a guy" and in his words "let me be me . . .and not feel intimidated." Philip
also explained that in part his understanding about women came from previous
schoolexpenences.

I think I've been pretty much . . . open to gender and understanding girls.

I've hung out with girls since seventh grade or eighth grade and I think that

has helped me form ideas about gender in high school.

His school experiences were informed by the different sets of relationships he
shared. Philip's relationships were opportunities to grow in his own ideas. He
elaborated on the value of the experiences he shared with his female friends in

school. In this situation he recalled a meeting of the senior students from the

play. He was the only young man at this meeting that night.

208

I showed up and l was the only guy . . . I spent the whole night with girls. .

. Women give you a different perspective. I feel like I can totally be

myself around them.

Philip expressed a genuine sense of belonging and being able to share openly
and freely among female classmates. He was a young man that took chances by
expressing a countersexist politics. He gained a great deal of comfort from his
friendships in school, ones in which he was able to be himself and be accepted
as a guy, out from under the burden of what he described as "past judgments
based on experiences with other guys." His unique set of gender politics and
experiences as a young man provided Philip with the chance to see different
perspectives. He acknowledged however that his position as a young man with
non-sexist gender politics was not easy. He pointed out that "yeah, women have
been exploited in this country and all over the world, but there is no reason to
hate all men."

Philip identified an emerging sense of himself as a young man. His sense
of being who he was and just being himself stemmed from school experiences,
conversations, and informal interaction. He also recognized that there were
times when he was not true to himself. He acted in ways expected of him as a
man. As such Philip experienced an array of competing and conflicting tensions
similar to many high school young men. In Philip's case he managed to
negotiate between multiple masculinities and emerged as a high school young
man whose gender politics reflected insight and courage.

Thurston was a young man resolute in his views. He acknowledged his

own social position among his senior classmates. His peers respected him but

209

rarely did he cross paths with many people beyond the close knit group of girls
he met in "the comer" each day. On this note, Thurston commented admittedly
that

I seem to have more in common, like personality with girls . . . and like, my

ideas are a little different than what they (boys) usually think of. So they‘d

probably look at me weird.
Regardless of how his male counterparts looked upon Thurston, he remained
committed to his gender politics. His way of being a young man stood in contrast
to his mainstream male peers but he nonetheless abided by his own norms,
views, and beliefs. Thurston found strength in knowing that his female
classmates accepted him. He did not find the same acceptance among his male
counterparts. Thurston benefited from knowing first, that he was accepted among
his female classmates and second, that he would be accepted for being himself,
not a reflection of his mainstream male counterparts.

Thurston was comfortable with the many aspects of his masculinity that
were tied to his gender politics. His perspective as a young man was broadened
in several ways because of the array of experiences he shared with a
considerably different group of people than his male counterparts. Thurston
acknowledged that his perspectives were different from most his male peers.

I think I am pretty open about people . . . I think that because I have been

hanging out with girls for so long . . . it's easier for me to understand both

sides as opposed to a guy who has only hung out with guys and who is
always with guys.

He elaborated by describing how his views were changed in the process of

hanging out in different social groups.

210

It’s probably innate to see where guys are coming from on most points of
views since I am a guy. And so by hanging out with girls I can also see
what their points of views are and just by experiencing that I can broaden
my horizons. . . that guy part is so there, as well as the girl part is also
there.
Thurston‘s experiences with girls in school allowed him to broaden his
perspectives. During an interview he described the contrasting level of comfort
he experienced when working with other young men and women. In the first part
he described the open dialogue he shared in group situations with young women

in school.

We can all sort of talk and nobody's afraid of talking . . . everybody is
comfortable with each other.

He then explained the feelings he had about working with his male counterparts.
I can feel comfortable talking to them (girls) but I don’t necessarily feel as
comfortable talking with a bunch of guys . . . They just don't' seem as like,
honest. They seem like they‘re really trying to act cool all the time. Like
mainly in a group they'll all try and act tough and act cool. . .They just
don't seem as intent on working as girls do.

Thurston was not inhibited by gender differences or social norms that generally

framed many of his peer’s relations in school. Unlike many of his male

counterparts, who rarely worked with girls in class, Thurston embraced these
opportunities as moments for expanding his horizons and learning about
alternate views. He was more comfortable with young women who accepted him
as he was. Thurston summed up his in-class relationships with young women
saying, 'When I work with girls, I don't feel like, as outside."

Hunter was a young man with a fairly sophisticated understanding both of

himself and his peers. He expressed his own masculinity and gender politics in

several distinct ways. He was physically and emotionally comfortable with other

211

men and women in a manner not often demonstrated by his mainstream male
counterparts. As I explain in the closing section, there were numerous reasons
for which many of his friends continued to abide by traditional male norms and
attitudes in their daily school relationships. Hunter on the other hand chose
alternate ways to display different versions of his masculinity. He negotiated his
politics and his masculinity but at the same time grew as a young man teaming
and understanding more about himself and others.

Hunter developed unusually close relationships through open dialogues
with other men. He developed a strong sense of trust and honesty with other
young men that provided a foundation for more open and caring relationships to
emerge. He admitted that these relationships were not always easy but
stemmed from his ability to "be able to lay everything out and say this is who I
am" while at the same time acknowledging "it's hard to just be totally open." His
following remarks reflected the unusually close relationships he nurtured with his
male counterparts. During our interview Hunter commented on one friendship in
particular.

. . . he trusts me and he doesn’t think you know, I ’m going to go (Hunter

changes his voice and instills a ridiculing tone) 'Oh Kevin cried during a

movie’ or something like that. He knows I would never do anything like

that. Like when we talk I would never laugh at him or for something more
serious I wouldn't go tell other people.
Hunter was entrusted by many of his male friends. He responded to their needs

by being a trustworthy listener. Hunter enjoyed being a friend and what he

described as a counselor to some of his male counterparts.

212

 

As a high school young man surrounded by competing versions of
masculinity Hunter was able to be himself. And though the pressures to be like
the rest of the boys were substantial, Hunter nonetheless went beyond many
young men by being open and honest about whom he was as a man. He did
however add a cautionary note saying, "you try to expose yourself a little bit and
either someone is going to pry or make fun of that and so you kind of like to hold
it back." Regardless, Hunter took social risks through his daily relationships in
school. By doing so Hunter demonstrated a remarkable and somewhat atypical
approach for enacting both his masculinity and his gender politics.

Powerful assumptions holding back the possibilities of change

Much of the reactions described above are cloaked in a familiar guise of
masculinity. Herein lie the assumptions of masculinity that typically have
deterred high school young men from rejecting a traditionally male defined set of
gender politics. Peer rejection was the greatest fear commonly assumed among
other young men who held on to more traditional ways of being high school
young men. Ironically the four participants did not experience any outright
rejection from their peer groups. The assumption that a young men might be
rejected by his peers or "a community of friends" according to Thurston was
powerful enough to dissuade other young men from choosing to be unlike the
rest of the boys.

Concerns over peer rejection and feelings of outsidedness emerged as a
potent means of allowing a hegemonic masculinity to go unchallenged. These

potential threats however were only experienced marginally by these young men.

213

They were fears and concerns nonetheless that inhibited other young men from

challenging a standard set of sexist and gender stereotypical beliefs and

attitudes among high school young men. I close this section by including what

both Thurston and Hunter respectively summarized as a set of beliefs or fears

that operated unquestioned and uninterrupted among these high school young

men.

They feel the need to be normal. And I think they are just afraid to
because they feel they might like, be ostracized from some community of
friends that they have. So other guys will think they are weird or think it is
dumb what they are doing.

I think they are afraid from all different angles. I think they're afraid that
they’ll get rejected or the girl won't think they're man . . . all the way to their
friends making fun of them. . . . he is afraid kind of whether he's saying
the wrong things or just doesn’t know what to say. I think it is out of fear
either that she's just not going to accept him. And if he keeps his distance
then it doesn't really matter because he‘s not, he doesn’t have to expose
himself so he doesn‘t have to get hurt or lose anything. But if he does
then she actually knows him.

214

 

CHAPTER FIVE
High school masculinity: Choosing a progressive gender politics

Schools, like the youth who attend them, are complex. The cultural milieu
of a high school in particular provides a rich and dynamic setting for examining
some of the most compelling problems of our education system today. Students,
girls and boys, young women and men, mirror an array of complicated and
puzzling problems in the everyday interaction of their school lives. Among the
many problems educators have identified, gender has remained a salient feature.

For decades gender has colored the lives of students' school experiences
across the nation. (see Tyack & Hansot, 1990) But not until the last quarter of a
century has sexism and gender bias in education been formally and legally
acknowledged through legislation. The implementation of Title IX brought the
issue into the limelight. The women's movement of the nineteen-seventies
brought significant weight to influence and enforce a recognition of gender within
the American education system. This study has provided a fresh perspective for
examining not only gender but specifically masculinity within a high school setting
and more broadly, its emergence as a possible point of entry for responding to
sexism and gender stereotypes.

This study draws attention to the many differences among the experiences
of high school young men. In particular this study sought to bear out the claim
that masculinity is socially constructed in the daily school lives of students. I
have argued that alongside their peers, young men routinely negotiate, define,

and redefine various elements of masculinity. Within a high school context I

215

have argued that this process of gender construction is vividly displayed in the
formal and informal interaction witnessed among students. I have argued that
the decisions high school young men make about how and when to express their
masculinities are informed by specific contexts, friends, levels of comfort,
knowledge of social norms and masculinising practices that invariably bear on
the versions of masculinity displayed publicly and privately among high school
students.

In addition to the process of defining their own masculinity I have argued
that the high school young men in this study expressed a strong set of gender
politics. Their views and beliefs about sexism and gender stereotypes were
imbedded in the daily social interaction typical of many high school students.
These young men however demonstrated their views and beliefs in a much more
public manner than previously acknowledged in past gender and education
research.

I have examined gender unfettered by dichotomized notions of him/her
and he/she. Instead I have broadened my conceptual lens in a way that has
looked beyond the rigid boundaries of what Thorne (1990) referred to as the
"separate worlds approach." High school young men have not been looked at as
separate entities unto themselves but as people among others. The processes
by which they have become high school young men has become the conduit for
seeing the fluidity of masculinity and the complexity of gender politics in students'
lives. Not only have I argued that masculinity is socially constructed but I have

furthered this position by arguing that woven to images of masculinity are

216

competing sets of views and beliefs. The gender politics of these young men
raise an important aspect of what and how high school masculinity is presented
and represented in the daily lives of young men.

In conjunction with this I have argued that gender involves choices and a
process that more broadly acknowledges the social fact that students, and these
high school young men in particular, have agency in their school lives. That is to
say that these young men have demonstrated the possibilities for men to
construct a social self that involves competing and at times contradictory
elements of masculinity. Unitary notions of masculinity are inadequate.
Conceptually then speaking of masculinity, singular, overlooks and denies the
multi-layered and poly-vocal dimension of masculinity prevalent in high schools
today.

Gender has served as an organizing principle through which I have
examined the school experiences of a particular population of high school young
men. I showed how four young men challenged masculine gender stereotypes
through social practices such as casual greetings and conversations. In doing so
I showed that as young men these participants saw options and were not
restricted by a prevailing hegemonic masculinity. I showed that though powerful,
images and definitions of masculinity were not prescriptive and without option.
High school masculinities are complex and often in tension with other versions.

The sense of a unitary and highly valued masculinity was only as strong
as the voices that perpetuated that image. When legitimated through classroom

activities that might for example belittle creativity and open expression among

217

 

students, and particularly young men, these practices posed a significant
boundary. These young men challenged these boundaries but did so generally
knowing and understanding the potential reactions of their peers. Nonetheless
these young men illustrated that alternative ways of being young men were
possible within a high school setting.

I have built on recent arguments emerging out of men‘s studies research,
cultural studies, and feminist theory that has aptly claimed that men can be allies
in an effort toward eliminating sexism and gender stereotypes in education. In
light of this study it is evident that opposing sexism from among high school
young men is not only possible, but also fundamental as part of any broader
strategy for eliminating sexism and gender stereotypes among high school
students.

Opposition to sexism and the ongoing need to challenge gender
stereotypes hinges on the efforts of many, both men and women, on numerous
fronts. The fact that previous research has not considered men as potential allies
should not overshadow the significant part they can play in the process. Clearly,
changing curricular content to include the voices and experiences of women is
but one front. The employment of women in positions of power within schools is
yet another front. And providing increased resources to encourage girls to enter
non-traditional fields of study in school is but another front. Students‘ school lives
however remain as one front upon which little research and little effort at all has
been focused to promote change in attitudes or ways of being that might

eliminate sexism and gender stereotypes. Teachers and teacher educators must

218

begin entertaining the possibilities by embracing and supporting the behaviors
and attitudes of young men in particular who go against the mainstream current
of "the boys."

This chapter is composed of several sections. First, I outline the findings
of this study. In this section I draw on my theoretical framework to set up
specifically what and how some high school young men opposed sexism and
gender stereotypes. My primary aim in this section is to give a synopsis of the
major points emerging from the research data. Second, I provide what are
arguably some of the limitations of this study. This section both acknowledges
and cautions us to several aspects of this study. And finally, the closing section
discusses the future of ongoing research such as this. I suggest the need for
more research that moves beyond the boys and instead hears and sees the
actions of others but particularly young men who are currently under-supported
and overlooked because they have been consumed or completely alienated by
the boys.

The findings

The basic findings of this research—that masculinity is fluid both
conceptually and practically and that some young men enact countervailing sets
of beliefs in contrast to mainstream masculinity, is a challenge to previous
theories and arguments in gender and education research. The young men in
this study have demonstrated that differences exist within and across men.
Within a single school setting these young men have demonstrated that

masculinity is a process in which they socially construct themselves in relation to

219

others. Masculinity was defined both with and apart from their mainstream
counterparts. They shaped and reshaped their social identities while maintaining
membership among various factions of the boys. The choices these young men
made to reject specific versions of masculinity and moreover, to openly resist
typically sexist behavior common among their male peers poses a challenge to
research that has generally denied agency to students.

The four young men in this study did not willingly or passively accept
traditional roles or viewpoints but instead variously interrupted them. But having
said that it is important to acknowledge that this research focused on the actions,
attitudes, and beliefs of four particular high school young men. If these young
men are representative of a certain proportion of high school populations, then
the outcomes of this study bear significantly. If this is the case and these four
young men are not simply anomalies, then teacher and teacher educators need
to be mindful of what and how the school experiences of these young men might
cast a broader light on the issue of sexism and gender stereotypes in high
schools.

The findings of this study reveal a potential alliance that an admittedly
small portion of a high school population of young men might offer as they go
against the grain of their mainstream male counterparts. This section outlines
several major points first, with regard to masculinity as a fluid concept, second,
with regard to masculinity as a process, and finally, with regard to the manner in
which these young men enacted countervailing beliefs and ways of being men in

high schbol.

220

Masculinity: Definitions from a polyphony of voices

Central High was awash with competing models of masculinity. The young
men in this study were surrounded with competing and varying models that
defined what it meant to be a high school young man. These models of
masculinity were both distinct and yet at times overlapping. The young men at
Central High represented a broad range of ways for being young men. In other
words they were not simply surrounded by one dominant set of definitions for
masculinity. Instead, masculinity was fluid both conceptually and practically.
Directly and indirectly these young men showcased multiple definitions of what it
meant to be a man. Their school experiences were an arena out of which not
one, but numerous masculinities emerged.

Teachers and students alike drew from definitions of masculinity rooted in
daily interaction. Conversations and casual greetings provided public forums in
which boundaries between and across masculinities emerged. In a classroom
for example one teacher referred to a young man as a "dukor." In this situation
the teacher formally acknowledged and legitimated this student's involvement in
a school fight from the day before. The teacher gave status to the student by
naming him as a "dukor." He also provided a forum, namely the classroom
context, in which to discuss the event as a legitimate activity. Other students
such as "the typical jocks" were firmly entrenched in commonly used definitions
that delineated different manners of expression among high school young men.
Students also identified their peers by drawing on a range of definitions from

being friends to best friends. The distinctions between young men however were

221

more sharply defined among these students on the basis of views and informal
interaction. Some were defined as "touchy feely types of guys" while others were
labeled as homosexuals. Teachers added to these definitions by legitimating
some ways of being a young man while denying other ways. ln-class
conversations for example frequently propped up male athleticism. The informal
as well as formal acknowledgments in this school contributed to various
definitions of high school masculinity.

High school provided a context in which the young men in this study
defined their own masculinity in relation to others. Mainstream definitions of
masculinity were prevalent. Toughness and virility for example were central
attributes that separated young men within and across groups of their male
counterparts. At the other end of the spectrum masculinity was captured in the
uncommon expression of sensitive and public outpourings of affection among
some men. These young men were defined by casual references. Different
forms of expressions and manners of being young men in and outside of the
classroom lead to broader distinctions that isolated young men for example as
gay, rough and tough, or nice guys. The definitions varied and were specific to
particular social, curricular, and extra-curricular contexts.

High school masculinity was connected to a set of understandings and
meanings shared across these young men. They associated certain ways of
being a young man with particular types of masculinity—some more valued than
others. These young men drew on a common set of meanings for knowing what

it meant to be a high school young man. At the same time these meanings were

222

not always consistently enforced. Some young men for example skirted
prevailing sets of understandings. Close physically affectionate exchanges such
as hugging for example were recast in a way that allowed young men to give
"hattrick hugs." Uncommonly close interaction among these men thus became
legitimated at times because it was connected to more traditional athletic models
of masculinity.

Other sets of meanings related to being creative similarly revealed the
extent to which high school masculinity was informed by a variety of deep-seated
traditional norms and view points. In this context high school masculinity was
underscored by what young men knew and understood of various norms of
interaction and attitudes directly connected to prevailing images of masculinities.
The young men in this study were aware of the different sets of meanings that
informed and defined different masculinities. The array of competing definitions
of masculinity informed the choices these young men made about how and when
to express their social identity as high school young men.

Choices: Masculinities in a high school context

High school masculinities emerged out of a complex set of principles and
choices about what and how to demonstrate elements of the self as a high
school young man. This meant that the participants were routinely engaged in
making decisions that directly and indirectly mirrored first, their individual
masculinity and second, their gender politics. Each of the four young men acted

in ways that highlighted a broad scope for seeing and hearing what it meant to be

223

a man at Central High. They also showcased what they individually valued as
important features of specific versions of masculinity.

Competing elements of high school masculinity were evident in the routine
expressions of these young men. Social conventions ranging from joke telling to
casual greetings to informal conversations were subtle points and processes for
accepting or rejecting particular versions of masculinity. A joke that emphasized
sexuality or degraded women for example was one way of demonstrating one
form of masculinity tied to a traditional heterosexist framework. Daily
conversations among these men likewise became points of entry and
membership. Participation was centered on what one could say about cars,
sports, and sexual exploits for example. Competing versions of high school
masculinity were supported and legitimated based on the level to which young
men upheld some and undermined specific models of masculinity. Openly
embracing young men was but one way that the participants rejected a traditional
version of masculinity that denied close physical affection among young men.
Honest emotional discussions likewise demonstrated a different version of
masculinity prevalent among the four participants.

Daily and subtle forms of interaction in school became a vehicle for
defining and redefining an evolving repertoire of ways for being high school
young men. In this study masculinity was not strictly and exclusively limited but
instead showed signs of expansion and growth. High school masculinity was
dynamic and multi-Iayered. The participants actively chose to represent

themselves in specific ways in differing contexts. Among some friends for

224

example different choices were made based on what manner of expression was
likely to be accepted or rejected. These choices were informed by the cultural
definitions of masculinity supported within these contexts. Some situations
allowed for and supported being non-conventional as a young man while others
involved various risks such as ridicule.

These four young men carefully surveyed the cultural landscape within
different school contexts. In doing so they gauged the reactions of other young
men. They determined with whom and when to challenge the attitudes and
behaviors of their peers. Through reading the responses of their male
counterparts these young men were able to enact competing versions of
masculinity. This practice of gauging others’ responses while enacting different
ways of being young men allowed them to expand and broaden their definitions
of high school masculinity. Being creative for example thus could not simply be
relegated to young men who were gay. The participants displayed creativity in
ways that gave greater depth and breadth to what it meant to be a high school
young man. This meant that rather than creativity being attributed to being gay,
these young men demonstrated that it was an alternate form of expression
among these heterosexual men. Their displays of creativity contribute
conceptually and practically by challenging previously narrowly defined norms of
high school masculinity.

Gender politics: Views and displays unlike mainstream young men

In a pervasive way choices about gender relations and the views

expressed to oppose sexism and gender stereotypes were related to how these

225

 

young men defined their high school masculinities. The participants displayed a
complicated process in which they purposefully defined their own masculinities.
At the same time they defined a set of gender relations that extended far beyond
their immediate definitions of what it meant to be a high school young man.

Masculinity was a type of springboard. They launched their own definitions
of masculinity, some of which did not always concur with long standing images.
They also went against the prevailing wave of conventional gender relations that
many of their male peers supported. These young men rejected different
versions of masculinity as well as the broader foundation upon which they were
established. In other words they opposed assumptions about masculinity and
equally as important, they rejected the views and beliefs that supported and
upheld sexist ways of being young men.

These high school young men made calculated decisions to reject sexism
and gender stereotypes. First, what they knew and understood about
mainstream masculinity informed their choices. Because of their insight into
what it meant to be a young man in high school, the participants generally were
unscathed, but not entirely, by the ridicule of their peers. Second, the social
contexts, namely the level of friendship these young men shared with their
classmates influenced the degrees of opposition expressed. Third, different
forums in particular became sites of opposition. Daily conversations operated to
maintain or perpetuate sexism among these students. The participants reacted
in varying degrees to reject the tenor of these conversations. Both verbal and

non-verbal forms of interaction also provided a means by which these young men

226

 

resisted the conventions of mainstream masculinity. Public and private
exchanges between these young men and their peers showcased the variety of
contexts and varying degrees to which opposition was expressed on a daily
basis. Fourth, gender expectations operated at subtle and not so subtle levels.
As such the participants as well as their male counterparts grappled with
underlying assumptions about high school masculinity and what it meant to be a
man. And finally, the costs for these young men were mixed. Mainstream young
men attempted to defend traditional versions of masculinity. The manner in which
they did this varied. The more general response to the participants and their daily
expression of a gender politics unlike many of their peers was mixed. Some
reactions were more acerbic than others.

Non-traditional displays of masculinity meant that these young men had
rejected the norms of mainstream masculinity. This type of opposition powerfully
opened the door on masculinity by demonstrating that not all young men
subscribed to a common set of rules for interaction. Instead, these four young
men took a certain license among their peers by interacting for example with
open embraces and the outpouring of support and raw emotions. In this manner
they crossed certain gender boundaries not generally stepped beyond among
young men. The fears of their peers told of the many reasons that high school
young men often times maintained traditional norms of masculinity.

Levels of friendships among high school young men were a common
foundation upon which different degrees of opposition to gender stereotypes

were expressed. Considerable attention was given to the type of relationship,

227

 

long term or otherwise, before these young men would display any opposition.
The views of some young men simply were not questioned because of a distant
relationship to the participants. Other male peers however were challenged once
the participants had gained confidence and membership along side their peers.

A range of venues characteristic of the daily school lives of these young
men allowed for different types of opposition to emerge. Some venues such as
off-campus breaks for example were not included in this study. The main venues
for these young men included the daily informal conversations they shared in and
outside of the classroom. Momentary pauses in classes for example, allowed for
passing remarks, typically disruptive male behavior, and sexist jokes to surface.
Physical relationships that moved beyond rough-housing were another venue in
which the participants rejected standard ways of being high school men. Routine
social exchanges that generally were more distant such as head nods and hand
shakes were contrasted with open displays of affectionate touching between
men. Unconventional forms of contact thus alert us to the social norms being
challenged among these high school young men. And finally, public and private
exchanges between young men highlighted a series of masculinised practices
that the participants rejected. The open sharing of poetry or the caring
supportive conversations among these men demonstrated that mainstream
norms of behavior that guided and upheld hegemonic masculinity could be
resisted.

Gender expectations had a subtle influence bearing on several of the

decisions these young men made to reject gender stereotypes. The participants'

228

peers, both young men and women, expressed typical gender expectations.
There was a backdrop of sorts that broadly defined how and what was expected
of these young men during their daily interaction. These young men were
expected to behave and interact in a manner typical of their male counterparts. In
other words they were supposed to be like the rest of the boys. This meant that
in situations when the participants did not act "manly" as it were, their peers
looked askance, occasionally commenting or mimicking them to emphasize
specific rules of masculinity. Generally the participants rejected the standard
conventions of masculinity. Whether they did so by routinely reaching out to their
peers in caring and supportive ways or were more vocal rejecting the typically
disruptive and sexist behavior of young men, the participants did so as part of a
concerted set of gender politics.
The study: Its limitations

The main impetus for this study came from assumptions past research
and studies made about high school young men as a unidimensional and
coherent entity. The research I conducted posed a conceptual and practical
challenge. I began with questions that conceptually problematized a monolithic
definition of masculinity. I followed up with an examination of the daily interaction
evident among four particular high school young men. These young men were
chosen purposively because they demonstrated non-conventional beliefs and
ways of being high school young men. The four participants provided an
alternate perspective for seeing and hearing sexism and gender stereotypes

different from past research because of the social location and views of these

229

young men. They revealed a set of ways for being young men previously not well
understood. They also shed light on a set of gender politics rarely acknowledged
or identified among mainstream high school young men. This study however was
not without its own shortcomings. In this section I outline several of these.

Conducting qualitative research into the school lives of these students was
complicated. In Chapter Two I identified and discussed several of the
complications that arose while in the field. One aspect underscored by this
particular study was the fact that in broad terms the students knew of my interest
in gender and sexism. They were told up front that my research focused on the
school experiences of young men who were not typical of the rest of the boys.
The explanation I gave them was intentionally vague. I did not mislead the
students but rather attempted to control the extent to which my research interests
might have informed their daily interaction. I did this as an effort to capture the
authentic and routine experiences typical for these students.

The fact that the students knew of my research interest might have
contributed to what I saw and heard. However, lam not convinced of this. I
became a permanent member among several different peer groups at Central
High. This allowed me to become immersed and well connected to the daily
routines of these four young men. I was increasingly accepted into the fold of
these students' daily school experiences. The students were increasingly less
concerned with my research as the first month passed by. The mystique of a
student doing research subsided as I gradually became accepted by different

groups of friends. Initially there was a flurry of questions, mainly of an inquisitive

230

nature. These tailed off after the first month. Occasionally students asked to see
my field notes. The curiosity centered on what I wrote. My field notes were
descriptive accounts of events. Again these inquiries dissipated once students
generally knew what I was doing.

Social class and ethnicity was not examined in this study. I borrowed from
previous research as the foundation from which I conducted this study and chose
four white middle-class high school young men. Researchers such as Sadker &
Sadker (1994) and the AAUW (1992) have either focused on white middle-class
students or blurred racial and ethnic lines. And even though in its report the
AAUW (1993) "attempted to be sensitive to changes in racial terminology and the
differences between various ethnic groups" (p. 6), the researchers were less
attentive in the actual reporting of specific racial differences. The primary
emphasis was more generally on gender bias evidenced among the girls and the
boys. It was less about African American boys and girls or Hispanic girls and
boys.

Gender and education research has focused primarily on white middle-
class young men. They are at the core of this study mainly because it has been
this population that has been most widely reported upon in mainstream gender
and education research. This portion of school populations, both in terms of race
and social class, has historically occupied a position of privilege and power as
white, middle-class men. As such I argue that the school experiences of these
students need to be questioned and interrupted. Hearn 8. Collinson (1994) have

pointed out that "’men' are talked of and about . . . and simultaneously 'men' are

231

relatively rarely talked on. They are shown but not said, visible but not
questioned." (p. 97). My study re-centers young men. In this study however I did
so in an effort to shed light on and listen to the voices of a particular group of
young men. Their school experiences revealed a process in which they
attempted to challenge the voices and actions of their peers while enacting their
own set of gender politics.

This study examines sexism and gender stereotypes by interrupting the
routine school experiences of four white middle class high school young men. I
took issue specifically with questions of masculinity within a narrowly defined
portion of the general school population at Central High. Researchers including
Mac An Ghaill (1994) and Peshkin & White (1990) have provided thoughtful
analyses of issues of ethnicity for African American young men. Other
researchers who have conducted cultural studies in particular have used social
class analysis as a central framework with which to examine the school lives of
students, both men and women. (see Connell, 1993; Kessler et al, 1985; Weis,
1990) I have not attempted to unravel issues of social class or race in this study.
Instead I have used these as starting points for identifying a specific population of
students about whom gender and education research has made some broad and
simplistic generalizations. My research questions several generalizations made
about this group of students but particularly about white middle-class high school
young men.

This study raised questions about the social practices and views of a

portion of the school population presumed to be representative of the boys. I

232

 

problematized gender and specifically examined the complexity of masculinity as
a theoretical and practical construct. In doing so this research looks beyond a
single frame of reference for understanding students and specifically white
middle-class high school young men. Within group differences and across group
differences drew our attention to the complicated school experiences of these
young men. The experiences among and across these young men were at times
similar and dissimilar. In other words, among other things these high school
young men revealed that they did not all share typically masculinised school
experiences.

One further limitation to this study is the fact that it re-centers young men
within gender and education. Unlike previous research that has worked to hear
the voices of school girls and see the struggles they experience as girls in
school, this research shifted the focus back to the boys. Critics might argue that l
have omitted the very people about whom I need to be most concerned, namely
young women. However, the study I conducted intentionally filtered out the
voices of many in order to hear the voices of a few. In this study the "few" are
white middle class young men.

The attempt to question masculinity in and of itself might be interpreted as
yet another chance for boys to steal the focus of attention in education. Most
important to bear in mind is that this study is not about the boys or at least not
about the boys with which teachers, and teacher educators are most familiar.
Still, with a renewed sense of interest in masculinity does this not send a signal

that threatens again to push girls to the sidelines in gender and education

233

 

research? By re-examining masculinity I attempted to delve deeper into what
educators arguably already know about the boys. Rather than narrowing or
limiting the dialogue in gender and education research, this study sought to open
up the conversation. I looked in different places among the boys as an
opportunity to hear more fully what it means to be a high school young man with
an unconventional set of gender politics. Researchers need to be wary of the
way research such as this might threaten the voices of others. At the same time
by not interrupting the voices of young men and examining masculinity we allow
men's voices in school to remain strong, unquestioned, and intact.

Time was also a consideration that might have shaped the data in this
study. The research was conducted during the final academic semester of the
participants' senior school year. I gathered data for six months. The time I spent
with these students was not as prolonged as I had anticipated. It was an intense
period nonetheless. And though I was not able to observe them for an entire
academic year, the semester provided a natural time span across which I was
able to see patterns of interaction emerge and evolve. I entered new classes
along side the participants and became a member of different in-class groups.
There were of course previous connections and friendships that l Ieamed of as a
newcomer to the social scenes. The aspect of the friendships between the
participants and their peers was managed as I became accepted among the peer
groups.

Finally, this research was limited conceptually by focusing on male gender

stereotypes. The data I provided illustrated how and when these young men

234

 

rejected traditionally male stereotypes. The research in this study did not
address efforts to reject stereotypes of women. I do not mean to imply that
these young men did not reject those stereotypes. They offered powerful
examples as men rejecting traditional norms of masculinity. Their experiences
strongly reflect how prevailing stereotypes of masculinity, uninterrupted in high
school, have contributed to how and when these young men acted as agents of
social change.
Re-writing and re-thinking: Young men as social allies

This study broadens the scope for understanding high school masculinity
as a social construct. It also adds significantly by posing an alternate view with
which to address the theoretical and practical elements involved in eliminating
sexism and gender stereotypes from within education. According to bell hooks,
(1998) "men who actively struggle against sexism have a place in feminist
movement. They are our comrades" (p. 586). The position of responsibility and
being agents for change among men is compelling. There is a myriad of ways
that young men can take up the struggle against sexism. It is not beyond the
realm then that within a high school context young men can engage in this
struggle by "exposing, confronting, opposing, and transforming the sexism of
their male peers" (hooks, 1998, p. 578). This study offers an alternative
perspective which pushes us to rethink and begin rewriting how and when men
might be considered advocates for social justice, namely the elimination of

sexism and gender stereotypes.

235

 

 

The views and experiences of these young men are a testament to the
possibilities that exist among high school masculinities. In the past these
possibilities have been limited by a conceptual and practical definition of what it
meant to be a high school young man. For the most part in education the
definitions of masculinity have remained static. However, this study has revealed
a more fluid and a more encompassing definition. In varying degrees the
participants showed that they were able to interrupt the conversations, the
interactions, and the subtle and disturbing ways that sexism and gender
stereotypes held a place in the cultural landscape of these students' high school
lives. Being a high school young man thus was not about simply being like the
rest of the boys. Instead high school masculinity was connected to broader
social issues grounded in the competing sets of beliefs and views these young
men held about gender.

The daily interaction of the young men in this study brought to the
foreground what it meant to be a high school young man but also a man who
rejected sexist beliefs and gender stereotypes commonly found among
mainstream students. I began this dissertation by arguing that change must not
only come from a series of systemic reform efforts mandated in reports but it
must also be spearheaded from within the system of education.

Students can and will be agents for change if they are invested in the
goals that propel and justify change. The young men in this study enacted
gender politics that were not always coherent or necessarily consistent. They did

however enact ways of being young men and importantly, ways of opposing

236

 

sexism and gender stereotypes in degrees that interrupted a fixed gaze on the
mainstream young men who have previously dominated our attention in gender
and education. It is worth reiterating the importance of

acknowledg[ing] the alternatives to this form [aggressive masculinity] for

there are other ways in which boys can deal with the demands of

schooling and masculinity. The conspicuousness of the macho form,
which has been romanticized and vilified, has led to a neglect of those
boys who do not practice this strong form of masculinity. (Gilbert & Gilbert,

1998,p.126)

These young men demonstrated that among the boys there are those who
choose not to be like the rest. The agenda they held and expressed during their
daily interaction offered a glimpse at how and when high school young men
became dissenting voices amidst more traditional masculinities.

Students are savvy enough to identify sexism and gender bias in their
classroom textbooks but to what extent have teachers encouraged them to
challenge it in their daily school relationships? What opportunities are there in
school for students, especially young men, to raise critical questions about
masculinity? Wherein do issues of masculinity take root in our schools and
which cultural definitions prevail? A more supportive and directed approach that
includes students in this process of interrogation of masculinities and gender
relationships is likely to gain greater support if students' lives become the starting
point for the discussion. Teachers and teacher educators need to begin a
process that raises gender and sexism to the surface rather than skirts around it

or avoids it altogether. Sexism and gender stereotypes remain an ongoing

problem in our schools.

237

The possibilities these young men have shown in their daily interaction are
promising. Research into the lives of countersexist high school young men has
potential for allowing teachers and students, boys and girls, to better understand
how to oppose sexism and gender stereotypes from a different angle than
previous research has suggested. It is essential that teachers and teacher
educators develop an orchestrated approach for encouraging and supporting
countersexist views and attitudes among young men. If teachers overlook young
men like David, Hunter, Thurston, and Philip and instead continue to listen to the
louder voices that have historically dominated their classrooms, educators risk
losing a valuable ally in the process.

Gender reform and the ongoing struggle to eliminate sexism and gender
stereotypes in our schools requires a collaborative approach that includes
students, men and women, invested in social justice. Teachers and teacher
educators can not afford to allow the disruptions and dominant voices of typical
young men to be the norm for all the boys any longer.

These four young men are a part of the countercurrents in masculinity
struggling to find a clear voice. (Connell, 1993) They have agency as high
school young men and increasingly their gender politics reflected that they too
had a voice even though it was muted at times. These young men also illustrated
how tensions surfaced among and between masculinities. If instead they had
accepted the normative way of being a young man at Central High they would
have remained in the shadows, their voices would have remained muted, and to

some extent, sexism and gender stereotypes would have gone uninterrupted.

238

 

Conclusion

A renewed call for change: Embracing high school young men

Previous gender and education research has focused primarily on women
and specifically how women have been dominated, alienated, and silenced in
school. (see AAUW, 1992; Gilbert & Gilbert, 1998; Sadker & Sadker, 1994) The
emphasis has been on explaining how, for example, "gender lessons infiltrate the
school environment" and "sexism sabotages girls at school" (Sadker & Sadker,
1994, p. xi). The AAUW likewise has called for change. In fact they have argued
that "the system must change" (AAUW, 1992, p. 147). The 40 recommendations
at the end of the AAUW report called for ongoing "assessment," "investigation,"
"teaching requirements," "evaluation," and a focus that demands that "teachers
must help girls," "schools and communities must encourage and support girls
studying science and mathematics," and "policies" must be developed.

According to the AAUW report, How Schools Shortchange Girls, agencies,
women teachers, administrators, governing bodies, and teacher-training courses
are the primary source of the problem. Students and young men in particular,
men teachers, and boys are not an explicit part of this strategy. Unexplored then
are the ways that education can be a forum within which the other part of the
gender equation, namely young men, can address sexism and gender
stereotypes.

The call for change has centered primarily on women and secondly, on
structural elements to "help them." No where in this list of recommendations has

the report given serious attention to how educators and teachers might promote

239

change and challenge from among students, both men and women. And no
where in this report is there the suggestion that change might come about from
engaging students in ways that would question or destabilize sexism and gender
stereotypes via their daily education. Instead, sexism has been framed as a
systemic problem in American education. In other words sexism and gender
stereotypes are viewed as issues that could be addressed at an administrative
level involving curricular reform, human resources, and finances.

The approach in gender and education reform has been to change some
thing in education. Efforts to revise the curriculum or provide teacher in-service
training to raise awareness of gender bias is useful but does not go far enough.
This approach stops at the surface. I agree that many of the AAUW
recommendations are worthy but I would add that the students, both boys and
girls, are key to the process for promoting change from within the system of
education. That is to say that change and the gradual elimination of sexism and
gender stereotypes can come about if and only if educators re—envision boys and
girls as change agents.

High school young men in particular can play an important part in this
process of gender reform. As Connell (1998) has pointed out "we are still far
from having a well-reasoned strategy in gender education within which the
countercurrents in masculinity could find a clear voice" (p. 152). It is important
that these voices, voices that support countersexist behavior and attitudes, be

heard and acknowledged as legitimate. The potential for change can come

240

about if teachers and teacher educators begin to acknowledge the real and
apparent differences among boys and girls.

The possibilities these young men modeled during their daily school
experiences were striking. They were striking for two reasons in particular. One,
these young men demonstrated ways of being high school young men that
previously have not been identified or acknowledged. Two, they modeled
behaviors and attitudes that generally are not well supported among high school
students. The potential these young men illustrated as allies for social justice
was considerable. What is also powerful is the fact that educators have rarely if
ever looked to young men as human agents invested in eliminating sexism and
opposing gender stereotypes. Instead many respond to the possibility by asking
why would they be interested in questioning their own privilege and status as
men?

One fundamental aspect of high school masculinity is the need to re-
envision masculinity along the lines of individual choices. Teachers and teacher
educators need to push forth by problematizing the formal and informal ways
young men accept gender roles that define and limit masculinity. The school
experiences of many young men are colored by the daily conversations and
forms of interaction that often rest on unquestioned assumptions about what it
means to be a high school young man.

Teachers as well as students need to begin interrupting what and how
students are teaming about masculinity. Schools are but one context within

which social practices for example can be challenged. Daily conversations

241

among students likewise provide another context in which young men can begin
interrogating their own ways of expressing the social self as a young man.

The fear for these young men was not in challenging or rejecting
conventional norms of masculinity but instead it was in not knowing how others
would accept an alternative version of masculinity. The participants often threw
caution to the wind when they were unsure of how others might react to a public
embrace for example. At the same time they tempered their ways of being
young men with the knowledge that their male counterparts may be un-
accepting. More young men however need to see that there are options
available for how and what a young man conveys about his masculinity.
Narrowly defined and prescriptive models of masculinity need to be seen as just
that, models of which there are many from which to choose.

The research I conducted looked at part of the gender equation. I
attempted to fill out what we already know about high school masculinity. There
is much more that can be gleaned from the lives of high school young men. The
foundation upon which this research was launched argued that masculinity is not
coherent and unidimensional. Within and across group differences thus open the
door for ongoing research into the many differences that divide and bring young
men together in school. The boundaries are constructed and played out in the
real lives of young men who make decisions to accept and reject a myriad of
ways for being high school young men.

Qualitative research provides a means through which the stories of

competing versions of masculinity might be heard. Out from the shadows of a

242

prevailing hegemonic masculinity emerge the actions of young men different from
the boys. Out from the distance come the voices of young men who have not
been heard because of the misplaced attention that other young men have
received for silencing those less powerful.

Further research into these young men and their peers holds possibilities
for better understanding how and when young men can become members and
social allies invested in eliminating sexism and gender stereotypes. If the four
young men in this study represent a countercurrent within high school
masculinity, then it is a powerful sign that high school young men can change in
socially progressive ways. The questions that guided this study were ones that
centered on examining the missed possibilities among men. It behooves
teachers and teacher educators to continue looking and to continue hearing the
differences among men. To suggest that all the boys are "just being boys" is to
deny the possibilities young men have as human agents for social change.

The school experiences of these four young men demonstrate the
complicated and rich dynamic of high school masculinity and the emergence of a
progressive gender politics. There are a multiplicity of ways that students, both
men and women, can contribute to a change in attitudes and behaviors that
frame what it means to be a man in high school. Students, young men and
women, must be acknowledged and supported in the process. The possibilities
for changing attitudes from among the boys are provocative but only if teachers
and teacher educators allow themselves to see the differences within and across

high school masculinities. By seeing those differences and hearing the voices of

243

this invisible minority of young men, educators can forge new ground toward

eliminating sexism and gender stereotypes in schools.

244

References

AAUW (1992). The American Association of University Women Remrt: How
schools shortchange girls. AAUW Educational Foundation and National

Education Association.

Anyon, J. (1984). Intersections of gender and class: Accommodation and
resistance by working class and affluent females to contradictory sex role

ideologies. Journal of Education, L6§(1), 25-48.

Becker, H. S. (1998). Tricks of the trade: How to think about your research while
you're doing it. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Bissinger, H. G. (1991 ). Friday night lights: A town, a team, and a dream.
Reading: Mass. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.

Booth, W., Colomb, G. and J. Williams (1995). The craft of research. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.

Canaan, J. (1991). Is 'doing nothing' just boys' play? Integrating feminist and
cultural perspectives on working class young men's masculinity. In 8.

Franklin, C. Lury & J. Stacey (Eds), Off-Centre: Feminism and cultural
studies. (pp.109-125). London, UK: Harper-Collins Academic.

 

Connell, R. W. (1998). Reply. Gender& Socieg. 12, (4), 474-477.

Connell, R.W. (1996). Teaching the boys: New research on masculinity, and
gender strategies for schools. Teachers College Record, _9_§, (2), 206-
235.

Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. California: University of California Press.

Connell, R. W. (1993). Disruptions: Improper masculinities and schooling. In L.
Weis & M. Fine (Eds), Beyond silenced voices. State University of New
York Press. (pp. 191-208).

Connell, R. W. (1985). Theorising gender. Sociology, 33, (2), 260-272.
Connell, R. W., Ashenden, D. J., Kessler, S., & Dowsett, G. W., (1982). Making the
difference: Schools, families and social division. Sydney: George Allen and

Unwin.

Connell, R. W., G. W. Dowsett, S. Kessler and DJ. Ashenden (1981). Class and
gender dynamics in a ruling-class school. Interchange, s, 102-117.

245

Eckert, P. (1989). Jocks and Bumouts: social categories and identity in the high
school. NY: Teachers College Press.

Foley, D. (1990). Learning capitalist culture: Deep in the heart of Teias. PA:

University of Pennsylvania Press.

Gilbert, R. & Gilbert, P. (1998). Masculinig goes to school. London: Routledge.
Goetz, J. & LeCompte, M., (1984). Ethnpgraphy and gualitative design in

eduwtional research. FLA: Academic Press.

Gorelick, S. (1991). Contradictions of feminist methodology. way. _5_,
(4), 459—477.

Gutterman, D. S. (1994). Postmodemism and the Interrogation of Masculinity. In
H. Brod M. Kaufman (Eds), Theorizing masculinities.

Hammersley, M. &Atkinson, P. (1983). Ethnpgraphy: principles in practice.
London: Tavistock Publications.

Hansot E. & D. Tyack (1988). Gender in American public schools: Thinking

institutionally. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and §ocieg. 35(4), 741
760.

Hearn, J. & Collinson, D. (1994). Theorizing unities and differences between men
and between masculinities. In H. Brod & M. Kaufman (Eds), Theorizing
masculinities. (pp.97-118). L.A.: Sage Publications.

hooks, b. (1998). Men: comrades in struggle. In M. Kimmel & M. Messner (Eds),
Men's Lives. (pp. 578-587). MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Houston, B. (1994). Should education be gender free? In L. Stone (Ed.), I19
Education Feminism Reader. New York: Routledge. (pp. 122-134).

Houston, B. (1985). Gender freedom and the subtleties of a sexist education.
Educational Theory, g, (pp. 359-369).

Kaufman, M. (1994). Men, feminism, and mens' contradictory experiences of
power. In H. Brod & M. Kaufman (Eds), Theorizing masculinities. (pp.142
163). LA: Sage Publications.

Kessler, S., Ashenden, D.J., Connell, R. W., & Dowsett, G. W. (1985). Gender
relations in secondary schooling. Sociolpgy of Education, _58, (Jan), 34-48.

246

 

J.

Kimmel, M. (1994). Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame, and silence in the
construction of gender identity. In H. Brod & M. Kaufman (Eds), Theorizing
masculinities. (pp. 119-141). LA: Sage Publications.

Lather, P. (1991). Setting smart: Feminist research and flagogy with/in the
mstmodem. New York: Routledge.

Luttrell, W. (1993). "The teachers, they all had their pets": Concepts of gender,

knowledge, and power. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society.
J§(3), 505-545.

Mac An Ghaill, M. (1994). The making of men: Masculinities, sexualities and
schooling. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Mac An Ghaill, M. (1994). The making of Black English masculinities. In H. Brod
& M. Kaufman (Eds), Theorizing masculinities. (pp. 183-199) L.A.: Sage
Publications.

MacLeod, J. (1995). Ain’t no makin‘ it: Aspirations and attainment in a low-income
neighborhood. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Inc.

MacLeod, J. (1987). Ain't no makin’ it: Leveled aspirations in a low income
neighborhood. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Inc.

Martino, W. (1997). "A bunch of arseholesz" Exploring the politics of masculinity for
adolescent boys in schools. Social Alternatives. JS (3).

Messner, M. (1998). The limits of ‘the male sex rolez’ An analysis of the men’s
liberation and men’s rights movements’ discourse. Sender and Society, 12,
(3), 255-276.

Messner, M. (1997). Politics of masculinities: Men in movgments California: Sage
Publications.

Messner, M. (1991). Masculinities and athletic careers. In J. Lorber & S. A Farrell

(Eds), The social construction of gender. (pp. 60-75). CA: Sage
Publications.

Messner, M. (1989). Boyhood, organized sports, and the construction of
masculinities. In M. Kimmel & M. Messner (Eds), Men’s lives (pp. 141-
154). MA' Allyn & Bacon.

Messner, M. (1988). Sports and male domination: The female athlete as
contested ideological terrain. Sociolpgy of Spprt Journal. S, (pp. 197-211).

247

 

Peshkin, A 8. White, C. (1990). Four black American students: Coming of age in a
multi- ethnic high school. Teachers Sollgge Record, _9_2 (1). (pp. 21-38).

Rubin, H. & I. Rubin (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data.

California: Sage Publications, Inc.

Sadker, M. & D. Sadker (1994). Failing at fairness: How our schools cheat girls.
New York: Touchstone.

Sadker, M. & D. Sadker (1986). Sexism in the classroom: From grade school to
graduate school. Phi Delta Kappan. 512-515.

Segal, L. (1990). Slow motpg: Changing masculinities, changing men. London,
UK: Virago Press.

Spender, D. (1989). Invisible women: The schooling scandal. London: The
Women’s Press.

Stacey, J. (1988). Can there be a feminist ethnography? Women's Studies
lntemational Forum, 11, (1), 21-27.

Thorne, B. (1993). Gender play: Girls and boys in school. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press.

Thorne, B. (1990). Children and gender: Construction of difference. In Deborah H.

Rhode (Ed), Theoretical firsgctives on gender. (pp. 100-113), Yale
University Press.

Tyack, D. & E. Hansot (1990). Learning tggether. A histonr of coeducation in
American schools. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Walker, K (1998). 'l’m not friends the way she’s friends’: Ideological and
behavioral constructions of masculinity in men’s friendships. In M. Kimmel
& M. Messner (Eds), Men’s lives. (pp. 223-236). MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Weis, L. (1993). White male working-class youth: An exploration of relative
privilege and loss. In L. Weis 8 M. Fine (Eds), Beyond silenced voices.
(pp. 237-258). State University of New York Press.

Weis, L. (1990). Working class without work: High school students in a de-
industrialising economy. New York: Routledge, Chapman & Hall.

West, C., & Zimmerman, D. (1991). Doing gender. In J. Lorber & S. Farrell (Eds),
The social construction of gender (pp.13-37). Sage Publications.

248

Willis, P. (1977). Learning to labour: How working class kids get working class
jpps. New York: Columbia University Press.

Wolcott, H. (1988). Ethnographic research in education. In R. M. Jaeger (Ed.),
Somplementam methods for research in education (pp. 187-210)
Washington, DC: AERA.

Wolf, M., (1992). A thrice told tale: Feminism. postmodernism & ethnggraphic
respgnsibilig. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

249

"IlllllllllllllllllllllIll—Ill