#stephen frosh

[…]

The idea that boys’ ‘excess energy’ should be channeled into boyish things like sport and military or outward-bound schemes misses the point that, on their own, these are exactly the kind of ‘hard’ activities which support the construction of the narrow mode of masculinity which is itself a large part of the ‘problem’ of boys. [We argue] for a broadening of boys work (in line with some contemporary projects) to confront the assumption that real boys only do hard things.

While we are critical of the emphasis placed on boys-only activities of ways of ‘taming’ their supposedly wild nature, equally we are concerned about the tendency to problematize boys in boys-only groups. […] We suggest that by encouraging boys to talk about themselves and their relations in single-sex groups, close and supportive relations with other boys can be forged.

Andy: There’s a boy in my class really, and he says he’s like, like [inaudible] likes Barbie dolls. RP: A boy in your class? Danny: Yeah. [Laughter] He said he likes Barbie dolls and then all the girls started laughing and then he said, um, ‘What’s the difference? An Action Man is a Barbie doll,’ but it’s different, it’s different. RP: And was it just girls that teased him? Jim: No. Girls and boys teased him. ‘Oh my God, you play with Barbie dolls!’[noisy laughter] Rob: ‘You’re queer.’ Danny: ‘You're poof.’ RP: Is that what happens? Do some boys get called poof then? Jim: Yeah, they get called gay and things like that. Rob: Yeah, if boys do something that girls do, it’s considered wrong, but girls are doing everything now, short hair, wearing trousers, everything like that. Playing football. And you don’t call ‘em nothing.

[...]

What seems to be going on in this episode is rather mixed. In part, the boys are lamenting the greater flexibility available to girls, who can transgress gender roles with less fear than can boys. On the other hand, it is clear from the mockery directed towards the boy who likes Barbies that they are still mainly exercised by the need to confirm established gender behaviours and would not wish to be thought of themselves as having this peculiar interest. [...] When it comes down to it—when dolls and babies are really in the frame—the boys back away, worried about feminisation and the accusation of homosexuality.

Recognizing that homophobia is linked to the idealization and not just the denigration of girls has important implications in relation to anti-homophobic educational practices with boys. As we have seen, this idealization is linked to dissatisfaction with other boys. Our findings suggest that anti-homophobic practices can be developed which aim at addressing the self-interest of boys, as it were, focusing on the costs of them being homophobic, rather than simply problematizing them for this and for being mysogynistic.

This does not mean that boys’ homophobia, sexism and disruptive behaviour should be tolerated. On the contrary, we would argue for a stronger response to it and less tolerance—including less tolerance of the legitimation of homophobia by teachers, which some boys reported occuring. But simply blaming blaming boys for being homophobic and mysogynistic is likely to be counterproductive. Many boys we spoke to were concerned about being seen as less mature, responsible and clever than girls by teachers, parents and girls themselves. This gave rise to much resentment, and seemed to make them more inclined to ridicule and deride attributes which they associated with femininity, asserting their perceived superiority as physically and emotionally tough, hard and active boys. Schools need to address homophobia and boys’ investments in this, by helping them to value the sorts of characteristics and ways of relating which they commonly deride (though also idealize) as feminine. This presupposes being less didactic and authoritarian, and developing the sorts of relationships which validate boys and encourage them to feel valued.

Concomitantly, because of its status as ‘not masculine,’ homosexuality is associated with femininity and the construction of masculinity is partially underpinned by projecting this ‘femininity’ onto particular boys who are singled out as gay or not sufficiently masculine. Kayak and Kehily suggest that the compulsive and repetitive way in which boys assert their masculinities through homophobia implies just how fragile and precarious these identities are. As Butler observes, ‘crafting a sexual position ... always involves becoming haunted by what's excluded. And the more rigid the position the greater the ghost, and the more threatening it is in some way.’ Boys’ homophobic performances may thus be understood as ways of shoring up their masculinities by constructing the feminine other as an ever-present threat.