This article showcases how young men, from a high school in Aotearoa/New Zealand, made sense of the rules of homosociality, with specific reference to how boyfriends and girlfriends should act in their relationships with one another. Young men talked about the importance of being a ‘good’ homosocial mate, which led them to also talk about the importance of expelling femininity as a way for them to manage their masculine identities and avoid being shamed, and therefore feminized. This article will argue that these reactions to femininity were embedded in a homosocial habitus, influencing how young men made sense of the various overlapping fields of action. Young men’s talk, however, also presented a range of ambivalences that contradicted these endorsements of homosociality. These contradictions are meaningful because of the opportunities they present in disrupting the hegemonic sense-makings of homosociality and gendered roles in (hetero) romantic interactions.
AdamsP. (2012). Masculine empire: How men use violence to keep women in line. Auckland: Dunmore Press.
3.
AdkinsL. (2004). Reflexivity: Freedom or habit of gender?Sociological Review, Supplement, 52, 191–210.
4.
AllenL. (2007). ‘Sensitive and real macho all at the same time’: Young heterosexual men and romance. Men and Masculinities, 10(2), 137–152.
5.
ArxerS. L. (2011). Hybrid masculine power: Reconceptualising the relationship between homosociality and hegemonic masculinity. Humanity and Society, 35, 390–422.
6.
BäckströmA. (2013). Gender manoeuvring in Swedish skateboarding: Negotiations of femininities and the hierarchical gender structure. Young, 21(1), 29–53.
7.
BarkerG. (2005). Dying to be men: Youth, masculinity and social exclusion. London: Routledge.
8.
BarlowC.LyonsA. (2015). (The good), the bad, and the ugly: The visual construction of female child sex-offenders. Journal of Mass Communication, 5(9), 480–494.
9.
BarnesC. (2011). A discourse of disparagement: Boys’ talk about girls in school. Young, 19(1), 5–23.
10.
BarnesC. (2012). It’s no laughing matter…boys’ humour and the performance of defensive masculinities in the classroom. Journal of Gender Studies, 21(3), 239–251.
11.
BergB. L. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
12.
BirdS. R. (1996). Welcome to the men’s club: Homosociality and the maintenance of hegemonic masculinity. Gender and Society, 10(2), 120–132.
13.
BourdieuP. (1977). Outline of a theory or practice (NiceR. Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14.
BourdieuP. (1990). The logic of practice (NiceR. Trans.). Blackwell Publishers: Oxford.
15.
BourdieuP.WacquantL. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
16.
ButlerJ. (1996). Performativity’s social magic. In SchatzkiT.NatterW. (Eds.), The social and political body (pp. 29–48). New York: The Guilford Press.
17.
CarrN. T.HanksR. S. (2013). ‘Everything I’ve done I’ve done for men’: One woman’s deployment of femininities and her pathway to crime. Sociological Spectrum, 33, 433–452.
18.
ConnellR. W. (2005). Masculinities. Cambridge: Polity Press.
19.
DekeseredyW. (2015). New directions in feminist understandings of rural crime. Journal of Rural Studies, 39, 180–187.
20.
DekeseredyW.SchwartzM. D. (1993). Male peer support and woman abuse: An expansion of Dekeseredy’s model. Sociological Spectrum, 13, 393–413.
21.
DeVaultM. L.GrossG. (2012). Feminist qualitative interviewing: Experience, talk, and knowledge. In Hesse-BiberS. N. (Ed.), Handbook of feminist research: Theory and praxis (2nd ed., p. 206). eBook Collection (Sage Research Methods). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
22.
DuncanA.KingiV. (2015). Evaluation of ACC’s mates and dates: School based healthy relationships primary prevention programme pilot. Wellington: Lighthouse Consulting New Zealand.
23.
FinleyN. J. (2010). Skating femininity: Gender maneuvering in women’s roller derby. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 39(4), 359–387.
24.
FloodM. (2008). Men, sex, and homosociality. Men and Masculinities, 10(3), 339–359.
25.
FloodM. (2013). Male and female sluts: Shifts and stabilities in the regulation of sexual relations among young heterosexual men. Australian Feminist Studies, 28(75), 95–107.
26.
ForrestS. (2010). Young men in love: The (re)making of heterosexual masculinities through ‘serious’ relationships. Social and Relationship Theory, 25(2), 206–218.
27.
FrancisB. (2010). Re/theorising gender: Female masculinity and male femininity in the classroom. Gender and Education, 22(5), 477–490.
28.
GieselerC. (2014). Derby drag: Parodying sexualities in the sport of roller derby. Sexualities, 17(5/6), 758–776.
29.
GilbertT.FarrandP.LankshearG. (2011). ‘I don’t want to live like this anymore’: Disrupted habitus in young people ‘at risk’ of diagnosis of personality disorder. Youth and Society, 45(3), 347–364.
30.
GilmartinS. K. (2007). Crafting heterosexual masculine identities on campus: College men talk about romance. Men and Masculinities, 9(4), 530–539.
31.
HalberstamJ. (1998). Female masculinity. Durham: Duke University Press.
HayesS.BakerB. (2014). Female sex offenders and pariah femininities: Rewriting the sexual script. Journal of Criminology, 1–8. doi: 10.1155/2014/414525
34.
HaywoodC.MacanGhaillC. (2003). Men and masculinities. Buckingham: Open University Press.
35.
Hesse-BiberS. N. (2012). Feminist research: Exploring, interrogating, and transforming the interconnections of epistemology, methodology, and method. In Hesse-BiberS. N. (Ed.), Handbook of feminist research (2nd ed., p. 2). California: SAGE Publications.
36.
HickeyC.FitzclarenceL. (2004). Regimes of risk: The need for a pedagogy for peer groups. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 32(1), 49–63.
37.
HuukiT.ManninenS.SunnariV. (2010). Humour as a resource and strategy for boys to gain status in the field of informal school. Gender and Education, 22(4), 369–383.
38.
JacksonD.SalisburyJ. (1996). Why should secondary schools take working with boys seriously?Gender and Education, 8(1), 103–115.
39.
KariorisF. G. (2014). Towards an intersectional approach to patriarchy: Male homosociality in an American context. IDS Bulletin, 45(1), 104–110.
40.
KeddieA. (2003). On leadership and fitting in: Dominant understandings of masculinities within an early primary peer group. The Australian Educational Researcher, 1, 83–100.
41.
KehilyM. J. (2015). On the subject of sex: An ethnographic approach to gender, sexuality, and sexual learning in England. In SmeyersP.BridgesD.BurbulesN. C.GriffithsM. (Eds.), International handbook of interpretation in educational research (pp. 685). New York: Springer.
42.
KorobovN. (2009a). Expanding hegemonic masculinity: The use of irony in young men’s stories about romantic experiences. American Journal of Men’s Health, 3(4), 286–299.
43.
KorobovN. (2009b). ‘He’s got no game’: Young men’s stories about failed romantic and sexual experiences. Journal of Gender Studies, 18(2), 99–114.
44.
KorobovN. (2011). Young men’s vulnerability in relation to women’s resistance to emphasized femininity. Men and Masculinities, 14(1), 51–75.
45.
KraackA. (1999). It takes two to tango: The place of women in the construction of hegemonic masculinity in a student pub. In LawR.CampbellH.DolanJ. (Eds.), Masculinities in Aotearoa/New Zealand (pp. 153–165). Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.
46.
LovellT. (2000). Thinking feminism with and against Bourdieu. Feminist Theory, 1(1), 11–32.
47.
McGheeD. (1998). Looking and acting the part: Gays in the armed forces—a case of passing masculinity. Feminist Legal Studies, 6(2), 205–244.
48.
MoiT. (1991). Appropriating Bourdieu: Feminist theory and Pierre Bourdieu’s sociology of culture. New Literary History, 22, 1017–1049.
49.
NayakA.KehilyM. J. (2014). ‘Cavs, chavettes and pramface girls’: Teenage mothers, marginalised young men and the management of stigma. Journal of Youth Studies, 17(10), 1330–1345.
50.
PaechterC. (2006). Masculine femininities/feminine masculinities: Power, identities and gender. Gender and Education, 18(3), 253–263.
51.
PaechterC. (2012). Bodies, identities and performances: Reconfiguring the language of gender and schooling. Gender and Education, 24(2), 229–241.
52.
ParkJ. (2000). ‘The worst hassle is you can’t play rugby’: Hemophilia and masculinity in New Zealand. Current Anthropology, 41(3), 443–453.
53.
PiniB.PeaseB. (2013). Gendering methodologies in the study of men and masculinities In PiniB.PeaseB. (Eds.), Men, masculinities and methodologies (pp. 1–25). New York: Palgrave MacMillian.
54.
RedmanP. (2001). The discipline of love: Negotiation and regulation in boys’ performance of a romance-based heterosexual masculinity. Men and Masculinities, 4(2), 186–200.
55.
RenoldE. (2014). Learning the ‘hard’ way: Boys, hegemonic masculinity and the negotiation of learner identities in the primary school. In CoffeyA. (Ed.), Masculinity and education (p. 20). London: Routledge.
56.
SchippersM. (2007). Recovering the feminine other: Masculinity, femininity, and gender hegemony. Theory and Society, 36, 85–102.
57.
SedgwickE. K. (1985). Between men: English literature and male homosocial desire. New York: Columbia University Press. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost).
58.
StoneA. L.GorgaA. (2014). Containing pariah femininities: Lesbians in the sorority rush process. Sexualities, 17(3), 348–364.
59.
SwainJ. (2003). How young schoolboys become somebody: The role of the body in the construction of masculinity. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 24(3), 299–314.
60.
ThomasD. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237–246.
61.
TownsA.ScottH. (2008). The culture of cool: Getting in early to prevent domestic violence. Wellington: New Zealand Family Violence Clearinghouse.
62.
TownsA.ScottH. (2009). The cultures of cool and being a man: Getting in early to prevent domestic violence. Wellington: New Zealand Family Violence Clearinghouse.
63.
TownsA. J.TerryG. (2014). ‘You’re in that realm of unpredictability’: Mateship, loyalty and men challenging men who use domestic violence against women. Violence Against Women, 20(8), 1012–1036.
64.
University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee (UAHPEC). (2013). Guiding principles for conducting research with human participants. Auckland: University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee.
65.
WadhamB. (2013). Brotherhood: Homosociality, totality and military subjectivity. Australian Feminist Studies, 28(76), 212–235.
WilsonC. (2012). Healthy relationships programme: On behalf of the kidpower teenpower fullpower trust New Zealand. Standards and Monitoring Services (SAMS): Wellington.
68.
Yancey MartinP. (2003). ‘Said and done’ versus ‘saying and doing’: Gendering practices, practicing gender at work. Gender and Society, 17(3), 342–366.
