has a fundamental influence on the formation of their masculine identities, and that there
is a powerful, almost overwhelming, need to play safe and conform to the group norms.
Although difference from girls is a central component in the construction of masculinity,
the boys in the three schools generally tended to categorise girls as different rather than
oppositional, and the most common reaction and relationship was one of detachment and
disinterest. Some writers such as Jordan (1995:69-86) and Renold (1999) claim that it
becomes even more important for subordinated boys to define themselves against the
female, and that when they are threatened, and feel more insecure, they are more likely to
engage in anti-feminine behaviour than boys who exhibit other masculine forms.
However this was not confirmed amongst the subordinated boys in this study. From my
observations and interviews (including those with the girls), I was unaware of any boy in
this category of masculinity traducing the girls; if anything, they tended to keep away
from them as they were still keen to mark out their own spaces and define their identities
as different from femininity.
The final section discussed the pervasive use of homophobia and I concluded that,
although masculinity defines itself as exclusively heterosexual, and homophobic abuse is
used as a means of normalising a boy’s masculine identity, it is also employed as another
way of positioning boys at the bottom of the peer group hierarchy as ‘non-masculine’
and/or ‘effeminate’ and can therefore be conceptualised in terms of gender as well as sex.
* Approximately 7600 words
Key to Transcripts
/ Indicates the moment when an interruption in speech begins;
... a natural pause in the conversation;
[italic text] descriptive text to provide background information;
24