Pupils’ sexual and gender identities

Ways in which pupils’ experiences in school construct/ reinforce their gender and sexual identities?

Double standards, verbal abuse, male gaze, male peer groups, female peer groups, teachers and discipline

CONNELL : Hegemonic Masculinity

The dominance of heterosexual masculine identity and the subordination of female and gay identities.

Double standards (LEE)

AO1 (Knowledge)

• Double standard = different moral standards applied to different groups ⬇

• Sue Lees (1993): boys praised for sexual exploits, girls called ‘slags’ ⬇

• Sexual conquest gives boys status ⬇

• Promiscuity in girls attracts negative labels ⬇

• Reflects patriarchal ideology ⬇

AO2 (Application/Analysis)

• Reinforces male dominance and female subordination ⬆

• Male peers reward boys, ignore teachers; girls punished socially ⬆

• Schools contribute to constructing gendered sexual identities ⬆

AO3 (Evaluation/Criticism)

• ✅ Explains how schools reinforce hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 1995)

• ✅ Shows social control via peer and teacher responses

• ❌ May exaggerate uniformity → some teachers challenge double standards

• ❌ Doesn’t fully consider girls’ resistance or negotiation of labels

Verbal abuse (LEE/PAECHTER)

AO1 (Knowledge)

• Connell: “rich vocabulary of abuse” reinforces dominant gender/sexual identities ⬇

• Name-calling by boys to control girls’ behaviour/dress ⬇

• Lees (1986): ‘slag’ for sexually available girls, ‘drag’ for those who aren’t ⬇

• Paechter: negative labels (‘gay’, ‘queer’, ‘lezzie’) police sexual identities ⬇

• Parker (1996): boys labelled gay for being friendly with girls or female teachers ⬇

AO2 (Application/Analysis)

• Reinforces male dominance and peer-regulated gender norms ⬆

• Pupils’ sexual identities controlled by peers via verbal abuse ⬆

• Labels often unrelated to actual behaviour; function is enforcing conformity ⬆

AO3 (Evaluation/Criticism)

• ✅ Explains how language maintains hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 1995)

• ✅ Shows social policing of gender/sexuality in schools

• ❌ May overlook variation → not all pupils comply with or accept labels

• ❌ Ignores wider cultural factors outside school influencing identity

The Male Gaze (MAC AN GHAILL)

AO1 (Knowledge)

• Mac an Ghaill: male gaze = males looking girls up and down ⬇

• Girls seen as sexual objects; appearance judged ⬇

• Reinforces dominant heterosexual masculinity and devalues femininity ⬇

• Boys prove masculinity via gaze + telling sexual conquest stories ⬇

• Boys not displaying heterosexuality risk being labelled gay ⬇

AO2 (Application/Analysis)

• Visual surveillance = peer policing of gender norms ⬆

• Femininity is constantly judged; reinforces school’s gender hierarchy ⬆

• Combines with verbal abuse to maintain hegemonic masculinity ⬆

AO3 (Evaluation/Criticism)

• ✅ Shows visual/verbal methods of enforcing gender norms (Connell, 1995)

• ✅ Explains peer pressure in shaping gender identity

• ❌ Focuses on heterosexual norms; may ignore LGBTQ+ or alternative masculinities

• ❌ Mostly school-based; broader cultural/media influences also important

Male Peer Groups (MAC AN GHAILL)

AO1 (Knowledge)

• Male peer groups use verbal abuse to enforce masculinity ⬇

• Epstein & Willis: boys in anti-school subcultures label hard-working boys as gay/effeminate ⬇

• Mac an Ghaill (1994) Parnell School study: different class-based masculinities ⬇
  

  • Working-class ‘macho lads’ dismiss hardworking boys → ‘dickhead achievers’ ⬇

  • Middle-class ‘real Englishmen’ project effortless achievement ⬇

• Redman & Mac an Ghaill (1997): dominant masculine identity shifts in sixth form from working-class toughness → middle-class intellectual ability ⬇

AO2 (Application/Analysis)

• Peer groups enforce social norms about masculinity ⬆

• Anti-school subcultures punish academic ambition ⬆

• Class influences how masculinity is performed and valued in different school stages ⬆

AO3 (Evaluation/Criticism)

• ✅ Explains peer pressure & social policing of gender ⬆

• ✅ Shows interaction between class and masculinity in shaping identity ⬆

• ❌ May overstate peer group influence; individual ambition & family background also matter

• ❌ Focused on boys; girls’ peer influence operates differently

Female Peer Groups: policing identity (RINGROSE)

AO1 (Knowledge)

• Working-class girls gain symbolic capital from peers by performing a hyper-heterosexual feminine identity ⬇

• Appearance & fashion are central; failure to conform risks being called a “tramp” ⬇

• Ringrose (2013): Popularity crucial; transition from friendship culture → heterosexual dating culture ⬇

• Tension between:
  

  • Loyalty to female peer group (non-competitive) ⬇

  • Sexualised identity competing for boys ⬇

• Shaming enforces conformity:
  

  • Too competitive → “slut shaming” ⬇

  • Don’t compete → “frigid shaming” ⬇

• Boffin identity: Girls pursuing academic success must adopt asexual, non-fashionable persona ⬇

• Risk of exclusion by peers; middle-class girls label working-class girls as ‘chavs’ (Francis, 2010) ⬇

AO2 (Application/Analysis)

• Peer pressure regulates gender and sexual identities ⬆

• Girls balance competing demands: academic success vs peer approval ⬆

• Symbolic capital is both a motivator and constraint ⬆

AO3 (Evaluation/Criticism)

• ✅ Explains the social policing of femininity in schools ⬆

• ✅ Shows intersection of class and gender in shaping identity ⬆

• ❌ May overemphasise peer influence; family and school policies also affect choices

• ❌ Focused on working-class girls; middle-class girls experience pressures differently

Teachers and discipline (MAC AN GHAILL)

AO1 (Knowledge)

• Teachers reinforce dominant gender identities ⬇

• Haywood & Mac an Ghaill (1996):
  

  • Male teachers reprimand boys for “behaving like girls” ⬇

  • Tease boys who get lower marks than girls ⬇

  • Ignore boys’ verbal abuse of girls ⬇

  • Sometimes blame girls for attracting abuse ⬇

• Askew & Ross (1988):
  

  • Male teachers protect female colleagues, “rescuing” them from disruptive pupils ⬇

  • Reinforces idea women cannot cope alone ⬇

AO2 (Application/Analysis)

• Teachers’ actions subtly maintain hegemonic masculinity ⬆

• Boys learn that toughness and dominance are valued ⬆

• Girls may internalise dependence or lower status in school ⬆

AO3 (Evaluation/Criticism)

• ✅ Explains how school staff contribute to gender socialisation ⬆

• ✅ Highlights subtle forms of power, not just peer influence ⬆

• ❌ Doesn’t account for female teachers’ potential reinforcement of stereotypes

• ❌ May not reflect schools with strong gender-equality policies