Matriz de Análisis de los Diarios de Campo

Introduction

There is much debate and discussion about identifying and labelling certain characteristics as ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’ (for example, Paechter 2006). Without due caution, this characterisation of ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ can reinforce an essentialism which may no longer be tied to sexed bodies, but instead to behaviour or performance (Francis, 2008). Halberstam’s (1998) discussion of Female Masculinity is important as it opens up space for discussion and consideration of different types or performances of ‘masculinity’ and ways of being female. However, she only offers vague indicators of what ‘masculinity’ is or what traits should be considered ‘masculine’ (Francis, 2008). This means that researchers can rely on stereotypes and binary gender notions in labelling behaviours ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’ which is problematic as ‘we risk assigning the feminine as lack; reinscribing the old hierarchised dichotomies of Self and Other or power and lack, that underpin traditional allocations… [therefore we need to consider] which characteristics are being labelled masculine and feminine, and for what reasons’ (Francis, 2008: 217).

Although it could be argued that some of the ‘popular girls’ at Widney Academy behaved in ‘masculine’ ways, it seems problematic to label these as ‘masculine’ for two reasons. Firstly, the students construct these ‘masculine’ girls as feminine. This may not be surprising since Schippers (2007: 96) argues that when women perform characteristics associated with men they are ‘necessarily and compulsively constructed as feminine’, which, as feminine characteristics, are then regulated through social stigmatisation. ‘Masculine’ women or those who perform a femininity which is not constitutive to the relationship of hegemonic masculinity and femininity are policed, sanctioned, or ostracised (Schippers, 2007), and therefore ‘masculine behaviour among girls and young women is not usually associated with the most powerful positions’ (Paechter, 2012: 232). Schippers (2007) draws on the example of the ‘badass group’ in Messerschmidt’s (2003) study as a further demonstration of this. The ‘badass’ girls ‘were those who embodied a sexualized, heterosexual femininity and were also physically tough and aggressive’ (Schippers, 2007: 95). Schippers goes on to argue that it is no coincidence that the ‘badass girls’ were lower in status than the ‘preppies’ who are seen to embody emphasised, or in Schippers (2007) terms, hegemonic femininity. Schippers (2007)

148

concludes that ‘the symbolic construction of girls’ sexual agency and ability and willingness to use physical violence as undesirable and deserving of sanction and social expulsion turns their potential challenge to male dominance into something contained and less threatening’ (Schippers, 2007: 95). Therefore, although ‘masculine’ femininities have been shown to exist in secondary school, they have been seen to be positioned as less popular or powerful than other types of girls. However, the second problem with labelling the ‘popular girls’ at Widney Academy as ‘masculine’ is that these girls do not occupy less powerful positions. In fact, they are widely acknowledged as the most popular girls in the year group. However, there seems to be little discussion of feminized dominance beyond traits of ‘masculinity’. This is highly problematic since the assumption that violence or dominance are ‘masculine’ diminishes the actions of girls and positions them as trivial and non-threatening (Solomon, 2006). Considering whether a certain act is ‘violence’ or ‘aggression’ is not free from social construction. ‘Materially as well as discursively, physical aggression and violence are stereotypically considered masculine behaviours and therefore the violent girl challenges normative gender constructions, more so than the relationally aggressive girl’ (Brown, M., 2011: 114). Therefore, whilst it is widely reported that girls engage in relational aggression and forms of bitchiness or meanness, there is less reporting of girls as aggressive (Waldron, 2011).

Budgeon (2014) argues that neo-liberalism and the individualisation of the subject is having an impact on forms of femininity and discourses of female empowerment. Femininity is ‘being rearticulated to ideally integrate and embody both conventionally feminine and masculine aspirations’ (Gonick, 2004: 191). Therefore, ‘new femininities are associated with a heightened emphasis on individual responsibility, the ideological de-gendering of social relations and a position within the gender binary consistent with the workings of a hegemonic form of femininity’ (Budgeon, 2014: 326). Research has focused on topics such as female aggression to both demonstrate the existence of these types of femininity and to ‘deconstruct the myth of the non-aggressive female’ (Rickett and Roman, 2013: 675). However, despite this, female aggression remains an under researched area (Waldron, 2011). Further research to understand violent, aggressive, assertive and dominant girls should be conducted to understand how these girls are constructed amongst themselves and peers to move beyond the ‘good’ feminine girl and the ‘bad’ masculine girl (Merten, 2005). At Widney Academy the popular girls did not see their behaviour as masculine or contradictory, neither did the girls construct their behaviour as deviant or problematic. In fact, there is a positive, celebratory tone when talking about girls who are able to ‘stick up for themselves’. This is not to say that

149

this is a full or complete representation of these girls, as Marion Brown (2011) argues, whilst there is a ‘bad girl’ discourse, in fact these girls occupy multiple discourse and identities simultaneously. Using group discussion data, this chapter discusses how these girls both construct and resist these positions and identities.

This chapter will argue that labelling performances as ‘feminine’ or ‘masculine is highly problematic. The chapter also points to the value of more micro (bottom-up) analyses of students interactions to gain an understanding of the processes of construction, and how students position themselves and others in different ways. After considering popularity in a broader sense in the first two chapters, this chapter focuses on popularity in this specific school. Since others have argued that neo-liberalism and the individualisation of the subject ‘distorts the subject as one with seemingly unrestrained choice and opportunity’ (Brown, M., 2011: 116), recently some women have been shown to demonise those who are considered to not take advantage of these new opportunities, and position emphasized femininity as ‘pathetic’ (Budgeon, 2014). Furthermore, due to dominant ideas of men as ‘aggressive’ and girls as ‘relationally aggressive’ (Brown, M., 2011), girls’ ‘voices are frequently missing from research about aggression and violence in schools’ (Waldron, 2011: 1299). Therefore, the focus of this chapter is on the achievement and enactment of dominance by girls positioned as ‘popular’.