Kathleen Engebretson*
IDENTITY, MASCULINITY AND SPIRITUALITY: A STUDY OF
AUSTRALIAN TEENAGE BOYS
Abstract
This paper presents data on the construction of masculinity among 965 boys of 15-18 years, in 6 schools, in
Melbourne, Australia. The data are part of a much larger research project on teenage boys and spirituality, and it
presents data within the component of spirituality, which in the research is termed “connectedness with the
self”. The boys’ responses to the question “What kind of man do you want to be?” are presented in the
categories of: a) personal integrity and relationship values; b) success oriented values; and c)
physical/personality values. It is argued in the paper that the dominance of personal integrity /relationship values
in the boys’ responses, suggests that a key component of their spirituality is a growing tendency to challenge the
hegemonic ideal of masculinity, and to look towards a future where masculinity is defined in more varied and
fulfilling ways.
Introduction
This paper presents and discusses data gathered
from 965 boys1 of 15-18 years in regard to their
constructions of masculinity. The boys were all
students at six schools in Melbourne, Australia,
five of them Catholic and one Lutheran, and the
data form part of a large body of data gathered for a
research project on teenage boys and spirituality.
This paper first describes the whole study, so that
the data presented on masculinity may be seen
against the whole concern of the study with
spirituality. It then provides a theoretical
framework of knowledge about the construction of
masculinity, against which the data may be viewed
and analysed. Finally it presents and discusses the
data, summarising findings and pointing to further
research to which it may lead.
Section 1: The Research
Aims
The aims of the whole research project are to:
1.
2.
3.
Discover the ways in which teenage boys
experience spirituality;
Discover ways in which teenage boys
express spirituality;
Discover ways in which educators may
enhance education for spirituality for
teenage boys.
The reasons2 for finding out how teenage boys
experience and express spirituality are related to the
1
Data have been collected from 1200-1300 boys
representing eight schools. The data presented and
discussed in this paper are drawn only from those
six schools whose responses have been thoroughly
analysed. The analysis of the data is continuing.
2
The first two paragraphs of this section have
appeared in Engebretson, 2004.
42 Journal of Religious Education 54(1) 2006
feminisation of religion that is the experience of all
mainstream churches (Francis & Kay, 1996; Hoge,
Dinges, Johnson & Gonzales, 2001; Kenny, 2003)
and to the known fact that religion and spirituality
are protective factors for adolescents against
depression, suicide and risk or harmful behaviours
(White, 1997; Hassen, 1996; Maslen, 1997;
Withers & Russell, 2001; Resnick, Bearman, Blum,
Bauman, Harris, Jones, Tabor, Beuhring, Sieving,
Shew, Ireland, Bearinger & Udry, 1997; Human
Services, Victoria, 1999; Abbott-Chapman &
Denholm, 2001). Boys in particular are more
affected by these behaviours (White, 1997; Hassen,
1996; Maslen, 1997). Teenage boys are frequently
depicted in the media as under threat, with the
suicide rate among young males increasing in many
countries, including Australia and New Zealand.3
Although these claims need to be carefully
contexted, (see footnote) it can appear that while
many girls have gained from the advances of first
3
It is important to avoid over simplification of this
phenomenon. Media reports do not necessarily give
the whole picture (Gilbert & Gilbert, 1998, p. 15).
Deaths that appear to have other causes, such as
fatal car crashes among young men, or deaths from
eating disorders among young women, may be
suicidal in intent. Gilbert and Gilbert (1998) refer
to a 1995 report of the Australian Commonwealth
Department of Heath and Human Services that
points out that there is little gender difference in the
rates of attempted suicide between young men and
women. Young men, however, are generally more
successful in their attempts, due perhaps, among
other things, to their greater access to weapons.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander boys, nonindigenous boys from rural areas, and young
homosexual men make up disproportionate
numbers of suicides among teenage boys (Gilbert
& Gilbert, 1998, p. 15).
and second wave feminism, entering into spheres
previously considered to be the preserve of males,
boys are frequently depicted as disoriented,
confused about their identity, and lacking direction
and purpose ( Pearce, 2001, p. 1). The media often
portrays boys as lacking role models, dislocated
and disempowered (Pearce, 2000, p. 1)
participants.6 The questionnaire explores the
components of spirituality addressed in the
definition, that is experience of the sacred other,
connectedness with self, others and the world,
expression of spirituality and naming of
spirituality. After gathering data about age,
ethnicity, religion, the questions were:
In the good old days, males had a pretty
clear vision of what a man was. In the
nineties the emphasis has been upon male
victimhood, internalised oppression and
questions of self-destruction and violence.
So called new age philosophies,
particularly
those
dealing
with
mythological approaches … appear to
have replaced the religious ideologies of
earlier era, with what could be described
as a search for meaning in a post-Christian
age (Pearce, 2000, p. 8).
What do you hope for in the future? Who inspires
you and why? What kind of man do you want to be?
Do you like being alone sometimes and if so why?
Describe a friendship that has had a big impact on
you. What did/do you learn or gain from that
friendship? What does it mean to be a true friend?
What “rules” or philosophy do you try to live by?
Who has influenced your views about the “rules”
that you try to live by? If you had lots of power and
money, what would you “fix” in the world? What
would you “fix” in Australia? What kinds of prayer
do you take part in? Apart from daily prayer at
school, how often do you pray and/or reflect
privately? Describe a situation in which you found
yourself thinking deeply about your life? Write
about an experience you had that made you feel
fully alive inside. Have you ever had a sense that
God was very close to you or have you ever
experienced a close relationship with God? If so,
try to describe the experience.
According to Pearce, however, the media lacks any
sophisticated analysis of the many other socioeconomic factors that also contribute to the
challenges faced by teenage boys, such as the loss,
through economic
rationalism,
of
many
traditionally male jobs, the devaluing of industrial
skills, and the celebration in contemporary culture
of a diversity of male identities4. The presence of
even one of these factors, however, makes a study
of the spirituality of teenage boys timely, so that
their spirituality may be given more prominence in
education.
The Definition of Spirituality, and the
Questionnaire.
A search of classic and contemporary texts led to
the following definition of spiritually which has
underpinned the research project.5 Spirituality is: a)
experience of the sacred other which is
accompanied by feelings of wonder, joy, love, trust
and hope (James, 1958; Harris & Moran, 1998;
Shanasy & Bates, 2002; McBrien, 1994); b)
connectedness with and responsibility for the self,
other people and the non-human world ( Harris &
Moran, 1998, James 1958, Evans 1979; c) the
illumination of lived experience with meaning and
value (Harris & Moran, 1998); d) the need for
naming and expression in either traditional or nontraditional ways (Tacey, 2003, Harris & Moran,
1998).
The definition was first tested in twenty interviews
that were conducted in 2003 with teenage boys, and
from this pilot study was developed the
questionnaire that has been used with the 2000
The students were then asked to nominate their
level of agreement with nine statements of
Christian belief. Who or what has influenced your
religious beliefs? What does your school do well in
the education it offers you in religion and
spirituality? How could it improve this?
A small number of the questions were closed, in
that they provided a range of responses for the
students to choose among, but most were open
ended, and the students wrote as much or as little as
they chose.
The responses were completely confidential in that
while they were administered by teachers at the
boys’ schools, always after discussion with the
researcher, the teachers and other students did not
see, and had no knowledge of, what the boys wrote.
The questionnaires were sealed for collection by
the researcher without being read by anyone. Boys
were assured of this before they completed the
questionnaire, and it is the view of the researcher
that this accounts for the frankness and
thoughtfulness that characterised almost all of the
responses.
Section 2: The Theoretical Framework for
Analysing the Boys’ Constructions of
Masculinity
4
The Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras is one
example.
5
An explanation and justification of this definition
is given at some length in Engebretson, 2004.
6
The paper cited in footnotes 3 and 5 contains an
analysis of the content of these twenty interviews.
Journal of Religious Education 54(1) 2006
43
Data about the Boys’ Constructions of
Masculinity
The data generated regarding constructions of
masculinity were given in response to the question
“What kind of man do you want to be” and it was
one the four questions in the first section of the
questionnaire. This section dealt with the
component of spirituality which, in the definition,
is referred to as connectedness with the self. The
data that were generated by this question provide
part of the jigsaw that, taken as a whole, gives
insights into the ways in which teenage boys
experience and express spirituality. However, it is
also interesting in itself, for the insights it gives
into the ways in the teenage boys involved in the
study constructed masculinity, and for the links that
can be drawn between their developing gender
identity and spirituality.
Constructing Masculinity
As noted earlier, the historical origin of the debates
about men and masculinity is twentieth and twentyfirst century feminism, which has not only
expressed women’s concerns, but has challenged
many assumptions about the construction and
appropriation of gender roles. Psychoanalytical
research has shown how adult identity including
sexual orientation and appropriation of gender, is
constructed
throughout the processes of
development, often in conflict and turbulence, and
deeply affected by the gender dynamics of the
family (Lewes, 1988). Psychoanalytic case studies
have shown that men’s gender-identities are not
fixed, that they are internally divided, even
contradictory, and that both masculinity and
femininity are “the product of psychological
compromises often tense and unstable” (Chodorow,
1994, cited in Connell, 2000, p. 7). There is a
growing understanding that masculinity and
femininity are social (and individual) constructs
and developmental psychologists (Erikson, 1980;
Seifert & Hoffnung, 2000; Slee, 2002) have
demonstrated that rather than being stable and
immutable, gender is “chameleon like”, realised
and appropriated through choices and actions that
are open to challenge, question, variation and
transformation. Gender is “done” not “made” and it
is derived from the social and cultural practices that
constitute it over time (Butler, 1990, p. 157).
Increasingly men are wrestling with the
implications of this for parenting and education
(Connell, 2000, p. 3). Contemporary men’s
movements and groups7 raise questions about
men’s lives and identities, and concern about the
lives, education and identity of boys preoccupies
Note as one example concern with boys’ literacy
that is the focus of Victorian Government’s
Lighthouse project.
7
44 Journal of Religious Education 54(1) 2006
educationalists and education providers (Connell,
2000, p. 3). This concern with the education of
boys has, among other factors, precipitated the
research described in this paper.
Masculinities
Connell (2000, p. 10) claims that we need to speak
of masculinities not masculinity, for between,
among and within cultures there is no one exclusive
pattern of masculinity. Various cultures and
historical periods construct gender differently
(Connell, 2000, p. 10), and the importance of
ethnicity and history in the construction of
masculinity is now recognised (Poynting et al.,
1998, cited in Connell, 2000, p. 10). Therefore, in
multicultural societies we can expect that there will
be many and diverse ways of being masculine.
However, while masculinities are defined by
culture, history, ethnicity and the family, among
other factors, they are sustained in institutions
(Connell, 2000, p. 11), which tend to define
relationships between them. This construction and
sustaining of masculinities is evident in many
settings, from playgrounds and classrooms to large
public and private institutions (Hearn, 1992, cited
in Connell, 2000, p. 11).
Schools as Connell (1996) has argued, contribute to
gender formation and the making of masculinities
(often in very unreflective ways) and they are both
agents and sites for the formation of a boy’s
concept of masculinity (Connell, 1996). Other
influential institutions such as the government and
the media tend to favour male values such as
aggression and power, although it is acknowledged
that in different historical circumstances and
periods, different institutions will be more or less
dominant in the construction of masculinity.
In Australia today the institution of competitive
sport is particularly important (Whitson, 1990,
cited in Connell, 2000, p.11), and the “mateship” of
the ANZAC experience has had a powerful
influence on the Australian construction of
masculinity. Murrie (1998, p. 1) puts it this way:
Our man is practical rather than
theoretical, he values physical prowess
rather than intellectual capabilities, and he
is good in a crisis but otherwise laid-back.
He is common and earthy, so he is
intolerant of affectation and cultural
pretensions; he is no wowser, uninhibited
in the pleasures of drinking, swearing and
gambling; he is independent and
egalitarian, and is a hater of authority and
a “knocker” of eminent people. This
explicit rejection of individualism is
echoed in his unswerving loyalty to his
mates.
Dominant Masculinities
Some masculinities are clearly dominant, and
others are marginalised. According to Connell
(2000, p. 10) in most of the situations that have
been studied there is a hegemonic masculinity that
is the most favoured. This may not be the most
common or the most comfortable form of
masculinity, and many men and boys no doubt live
in various forms of tension with and distance from
the hegemonic ideal, a situation that can cause great
personal pain, as illustrated in these words from
one of the boys who took part in the pilot
interviews:
There is a stereotype of a Year 10 boy. He
must play sport, must hang out with
certain guys. It’s really hard growing up in
that environment. I’m not a sporting type.
I enjoy maybe doing it but because
everyone expects you to be the best at
everything you do, and if you’re not, they
do tend to put you down, and that makes
you feel bad and self conscious all the
time.
You have to do what everyone else is
doing otherwise you are considered
different and treated differently. I like to
sing but that’s really embarrassing, guys
who sing etc …. That group who tease
people, you sing what they like or you’re a
wuss. I like the fashion designing industry
and the interior design industry. I like to
perform. I’m really ashamed and
embarrassed in front of other people, but
I’d like to perform. I take part in the
school musical and this year I’m doing a
talent quest. It’s just hard to perform when
people are talking about you and making
fun of you. Like you open yourself up to
them, but they shoot you down because
they don’t like you, even if you’ve done
nothing wrong.8
Other men, such as sporting heroes, are seen as
models of hegemonic masculinity and are under
some pressure to constantly live up to this image
(Messner, 1992).
Masculinity! close your eyes. What
images or words come to mind when you
hear the term masculine? Chances are that
images of John Wayne, Mel Gibson or
8
Martino (2000) also demonstrates how certain
boys who become the brunt of other boys’ abusive
treatment appear to develop skills for reflecting
about dominant or hegemonic forms of
masculinity.
Tom Cruise, and words like strong,
powerful, competitive, brave, rational
heterosexual and masculine come to mind
(Young, 2000, p. 1).9
Hegemonic notions of masculinity are very
powerful, for they shape our perceptions of what
makes a “real man” or “real boy”, and pervade our
definitions of masculinity. While they may be
implicit rather than overt, they may also be
strenuous and violent as in the case of homophobic
violence (Herek & Berrill, 1992, cited in Connell,
2000, p. 11), and violence against women who
challenge notions of male power and authority
(Cunneen & Stubbs, 2003, pp. 83-84). They
privilege certain ways of “doing” masculinity over
others, and lead to strained and unequal relations
between men and groups of men, and between men
and women. This norm can pressure boys to
demonstrate
their
masculinity
through
inexpressiveness, control, avoidance of emotion
and other qualities considered to be feminine −
homophobia, competition, and aggression.
In her study of nineteen young men in a football
team in an Australian school, Wedgwood (2003,
pp. 180-188) found specific patterns in their
construction of masculinity and relationship with
hegemonic masculinity. She provides evidence that
ten of the young men embodied and reproduced
hegemonic masculinity (of little surprise, she
remarks, given the ritualistic celebration of
hegemonic masculinity in Australian Rules
football), while the remaining nine had constructed
defensive
masculinities
and
contradictory
masculinities. Those embodying hegemonic
masculinity were confident in their status as male,
and had invested their identity and masculinity in
the prevailing gender order. This investment was
supported in their families, where invariably there
was a division of labour worked out along gender
lines. Those in the defensive group were insecure
and defensive about their own tenuous masculine
status. The feminine, including their mothers and
sisters, was implicitly regarded as inferior to all that
was masculine, and this included “feminine”
tendencies within themselves. The third group had
constructed a more complex and contradictory
masculinity. While not defending the hegemonic,
patriarchal gender order, they were accepted by
their male peers because they “passed”
(Wedgwood, 2003, p. 185) as reproducers of
hegemonic masculinity. However, in their
9
Neroni (2000) establishes a clear link between
violence and “real masculinity” as portrayed in
films in her analysis of the Columbine massacre in
the United States. The men of Columbine: Violence
and masculinity in American culture and film.
Journal of Religious Education 54(1) 2006
45
egalitarian relationships with females, and their
avoidance of excessive hegemonic maleness in
violence against other males and the domination of
females, they critiqued hegemonic masculinity.
Jason ... refrains from the excesses of
hegemonic masculinity like fighting,
domination of females, and acting
superior. Nor does he compromise the
Christian value system within which he
has been raised. He belongs to a Christian
youth group ... not a very “cool” pastime.
His best friend is Aboriginal. He gets
along well with his female peers, and is
particularly close to an ex-girlfriend. He is
only slightly built (though tall). Thus he
does not have a physically menacing
presence on the field, and does not
approve of, or participate in, illegal
violence. However… Jason is fast, kicks
goals and takes spectacular aerial marks.
As Jason says, “if you’re into football then
pretty
much
everyone
likes
ya
(embarrassed laugh) ... if you’re good at it
it’s like − ‘he’s good, he can play footy’”.
His peers have likened him to his AFL
hero. Thus being a highly skilled
footballer, the embodiment of hegemonic
masculinity, allows Jason to have his
masculinity conferred on him by his peers,
and to successfully “pass” as a reproducer
of hegemonic masculinity, though he
clearly is not (Wedgwood, 2003, p. 185).
recover their former balance (Pearce,
2001, p. 2).
An essentialist model of masculinity assumes one
universal and biologically determined notion of
masculinity, but as Connell, (1995) has pointed out,
the essentialist approach arbitrarily chooses the
“essence”, and “claims about a universal basis of
masculinity say more about the ethos of the
claimant than anything else” (p. 69). The inroads
being made into conventional notions of
masculinity allow the possibility of a more
inclusive, egalitarian and ultimately more fulfilling
construction of gender (Forbes, 2003). Boys as
well as girls can learn to become less identified
with, and less attached to narrow, oppositional
definitions of masculinity and femininity, and more
aware of universal personhood and selfhood.
Indeed, Young (2000, p. 1) claims that the situation
is already more complex than essentialist notions of
masculinity suggest.
Think about yourself or the men and boys
that you are closest to – your husbands,
brothers, sons and best friends. When I do
that, words such as gentle, powerful,
muscular, athletic, competitive, brave,
caring, funny and intelligent come to
mind. These words represent a more
complex male, one who is multifaceted,
contradictory and inconsistent, as well as
whose displays of masculinity are situated
within particular social contexts. As you
visualise the boys and men you know,
think about how they compare to the
hegemonic masculine ideals portrayed in
movies, magazines and books. Also think
about the struggles they may encounter
trying to measure up or to resist
hegemonic standards (Young, 2001, p. 1)
Wedgwood posits this small group of young men
with contradictory masculinities, as a tentative
example of a slow but positive change in gender
relations, and cautiously as indicative of a growing
challenge to hegemonic masculinity (Wedgwood,
2003). The data presented later in this paper will
provide further evidence in this area.
Changing Masculinities
Whereas in the comparatively recent past, Pearce
(2001) claims, Australian boys really had only one
model of masculinity to aspire to, now the choices
are diverse, theoretically at least. In light of this,
Pearce sees men’s self help manuals, such as Bly’s
Iron John (1990) and those of Bly’s Australian
disciple Biddulph (1994, 1997) as retrogressive:
fuelled by a rejection of contemporary
society and a longing for a fantasy world
that is not and never has been fragmented,
chaotic and incoherent. This new
masculine tradition-indeed therapy-is
basically reactionary, conservative and
backward looking, because it appears to
ask not how men can discover a new postpatriarchal equilibrium, but how they can
46 Journal of Religious Education 54(1) 2006
There is no doubt that many boys struggle with a
restrictive norm for masculine success, and,
perhaps unlike the boy quoted earlier, they often
lack the emotional and conceptual skills that would
enable them to distance themselves from the norm
and become conscious of their own development.
However, Frosh Phoenix and Pattman (2002) argue
that many boys imagine a better future. From their
large research project involving 11-14 year old
boys in London schools, they propose five major
issues in the gender construction of young men.
They are summarised here for the relevance they
have to the research reported in the following
sections of this paper (Frosh et al., 2002, pp. 259260).

It is difficult for boys to find a space in
which they can try out masculine identities
that are different from the hegemonic code
of macho masculinity. Masculinities are
closely policed by peers and adults in
ways that communicate that “softer”
characteristics are abnormal for males. So
boys constrict their identities to opposing
ends of a continuum, where they are either
“properly” masculine or feminine, with
the feminine side being associated with
homosexuality. Wandering from the path
of true masculinity has to be continually
guarded against. However, even “macho”
boys suffer from the isolation that comes
with fear of intimacy and vulnerability.

Boys have fun together and on the whole
have good relationships with their parents,
usually a deeper more intimate
relationship with their mothers and more
joking interactions with their fathers.
However, they very often communicate a
lack at the centre of their masculinity. This
lack relates to the impoverished emotional
contact they have with their fathers and
other boys.

Boys are well aware of their standing as
socially and educationally problematic and
they resent this. This is sometimes visible
in an attitude of antagonism towards
adults who are seen as favouring girls.
They sense that society as a whole writes
them off. The refuge boys take in the
hardness of hegemonic masculinity, in
sharp and aggressive styles and attitudes,
is partly a response to this perception. The
frequent reference to fairness, especially
in relation to being treated unfairly by
teachers, is also part of this phenomenon.

Some boys suffer badly from the
narrowness of conventional masculinity.
These may be boys who are not physically
gifted, who are academic, or emotionally
vulnerable. These boys are often
friendless, the butt of jokes, bullying and
homophobic insults, and unable to share
their experiences and anxieties with
others.
The fifth of Frosh, Phoenix and Pattman’s (2002,
pp. 259-260) findings is of particular interest for
this research.

Boys can be emotionally and intellectually
articulate, thoughtful and insightful. It is
as if they need permission to be so in a
non-moralistic context, and when they are
like this, it highlights both their neediness
and their promise. While ‘hardness’ is of
high status, most boys have a firm
appreciation of moral codes and of the
importance of close and supportive
relationships; they just do not have enough
of the latter …. Many boys want to
become good fathers, and have succeeded
in preserving an image of what this might
mean, sometimes against the odds. The
fantasy space that allows this is both
impressive and at times upsetting, as they
hold on to an image of a possible future
which might be better than their present
situation.
Section 3: The Data
The boys responded to the question “What kind of
man do you want to be” in the first section of the
questionnaire, that which dealt with the component
of spirituality as connectedness with the self. The
responses varied in length, with most boys writing
at least 3-5 lines, and many writing more, some up
to 10 lines. Very few boys did not answer the
question, as the data illustrated in the following
tables show.
For purposes of analysis, all key words or phrases
that the boys used were recorded on a spreadsheet,
and each completed response was collated onto the
spreadsheet. Thus the frequency with which certain
words or phrases were used was determined and
recorded for each school. After determining the
frequency of use of the boys’ words and phrases,
the words and phrases were grouped according to
dominant themes.
The three dominant themes were labelled:
a)
personal integrity/relationship value:
b)
success-oriented value;
c)
personality and physical values.
Personal integrity/relationship values where those
characteristics related to the maintenance of healthy
relationships both with family and friends, and to
personal values related to self-respect. Success
oriented values were those characteristics that
related to career, financial achievement, and
success in a material sense.
Personality and physical values related to
characteristics regarding appearance or health and
personality traits. In every case, the personal
integrity/relationship values predominated, as
illustrated in the data provided in the following
tables. Although correlations have not been made
between
religious
affiliation
and
ethnic
background, this could well be another step in the
research, and so this information is provided for
each school.
Journal of Religious Education 54(1) 2006
47
School 1. (CCCollege)
Table 1a.
Ethnicity and religion: (98 students aged from 14-16 years completed the questionnaire)
Parents born
Religion
Vietnam
30 students (31%)
Catholic
Australia
19 students (19%)
Buddhist
Philippines
14 students (14%)
Buddhist
Malta
11 students (11%)
Other Christian
England, Italy, Missing
4 students (5%) each Greek Orthodox
Germany
3 students (3%)
Muslim
Albania, China, El Salvador, Greece, 2 students (2%) each Missing,
no
Lebanon
religion
Argentina, Afghanistan, Chile, Croatia, 1 student (1%) each
Atheist
Fiji, Hong Kong, Sweden, Portugal,
Cyprus, Macedonia, Netherlands, Samoa
Hindu
55 students (56%)
16 students (16%)
16 students (16%)
6 students (6%)
5 students (5%)
4 students (4%)
3 students (3%)
each
2 students (2%)
1 student (1 %)
Table 1b.
Constructions of masculinity: What kind of man do you want to be?
Personal integrity/relationship values
friendly (12) family man (11) honest (10) caring (9) kind (9) loving (8)respected
(8) good (8) happy (7) helps people (6) good husband (4) wise (4) reliable (3)
respectful (3) courageous (3) Law abiding (2) trustworthy (2) kind father (2)
loves God (1) loyal (1) thoughtful (1) honourable (1) persevering (1) responsible
(1) stands up for beliefs (1) mentally and emotionally strong (1) strong willed
(1) simple (1) no enemies (1) takes care of himself (1) puts God before work (1)
does his best (1) optimistic (1) likes his own company (1) good friend (1) helps
others achieve their goals (1) is loved by others (1) someone you can talk to (1)
serves others (1) helps parents when in need (1) puts family first (1)
Success oriented values
wealthy (10) smart (7) successful (7) intelligent (4) educated (4) famous (4)
hardworking (4) able to support a family (3) no worries (2) enjoys his work (2)
good job (2) powerful (2) financial freedom (2) Achieves his goals (1)
challenged (1) enjoys life (1) good career (1) good life (1)
Personality and physical values
fun (7) physically strong (6) sense of humour (5) sexy (5) handsome (4) clean
(3) likeable (3) sporty (3) fit (2) good personality (2) healthy (2) sociable (1)
young at heart (1) as I am now (1) romantic (1)
134 mentions
58 mentions
46 mentions
School 2. (SCollege)
Table 2a.
Ethnicity and religion (128 students aged from 15-17 years responded to the questionnaire)
Parents born
Religion
34%
Catholic
67%
Australia
India
12%
Buddhist
8%
Sri Lanka, Vietnam
9% each
Agnostic
5%
Italy
6%
Greek Orthodox
4%
Mauritius
5%
Hindu
3%
Philippines
4%
Atheist, Russian Orthodox
2 % each
Argentina, Cambodia, Canada, 2% each
Born again Christian, Jainist, 0.7% each
Chile, Greece, Hong Kong,
Jehovah’s Witnesses, Muslim,
48 Journal of Religious Education 54(1) 2006
Lebanon, Poland
China, Laos, Spain
Burma, Croatia, East Timor,
Egypt, El Salvador, England,
Fiji, Jordan, Nepal, Nigeria,
Palestine,
Russia,
Samoa,
Seychelles, Singapore, South
Africa,
Sweden,
Taiwan,
Thailand, Ukraine
Other
Christian,
Paladin,
Pentecostal, Raelian, Sikh
1.5% each
0.8% each
Table 2b.
Constructions of masculinity: What kind of man do you want to be?
Personal integrity/relationship personal values:
honest (23) family man (17) kind (15) respected (15) good (14) happy (12) caring (9) loving
(5) helpful (5) trustworthy (5) giving (4) earns respect (4) wise (4) reliable (4) responsible (3)
loyal (3) considerate (3) committed (2) helps others achieve (2) generous to people less
fortunate (2) dedicated (2) warm-hearted (2) Approachable (2) compassionate (2) ethical (1)
faithful (1) forgiving (1) friendly (1) genuine (1) believes in God (1) integrity (1) humble (1)
loved by others (1) just (1) kind father (1) kind husband (1) law abiding (1) moral (1) is
himself (1) open (1) principled (1) polite (1) puts family first (1) sensitive (1) someone you
can talk to (1) spiritual (1) stands up for beliefs (1) supportive (1) thoughtful (1) strong willed
(1) truthful (1) community focused (1)
Success oriented values:
wealthy (21) successful (19) intellectual (6) able to support a family (5) smart (4) hardworking
(4) professional (3) achieve my goals (2) admired (2) has dreams (1) proud (1) uses initiative
(1) able to overcome problems (1) accomplished (1) articulate (1) bright (1) business man (1)
capable (1) challenged (1) cultured (1) decisive (1) educated (1) important (1) independent (1)
level headed (1)
Personality and physical values:
strong (12) attractive (10) healthy (9) easy going (8) fun (7) confident (4) athletic (4) good
natured (3) extroverted (2) active (1) adventurous (1) brave (1) calm (1) cool (1) mature (1)
charming (1) good personality (1) elegant (1) sophisticated (1) young at heart (1) carefree (1)
enjoys life (1) entertaining (1) sense of humour (1)
187
mentions
82 mentions
74 mentions
School 3. (MCollege)
Table 3a.
Ethnicity and religion (303 students responded to the questionnaire, and they ranged in age from 14 to 18
years).
Parents born
Religion
Australia
67%
Catholic
237 (78%)
Italy
13%
Greek
15 (5%)
Orthodox
England
9%
Other
17 (6%)
Christian
(not
Orthodox)
Greece
3%
Atheist
15 (5%)
India, America, Croatia
2% each
Hindu
3
(1%)
New Zealand, Malaysia, Lebanon, Egypt
1% each
Buddhist
3
(1%)
Malta, Canada, Mauritius
1% each
No answer
6
(2%)
Journal of Religious Education 54(1) 2006 49
Germany, Poland, Sri Lanka, Ireland, Cyprus,
Macedonia
0.6% each
Vietnam, Serbia, South America, Africa, Fiji,
Curacao, Istria, Indonesia, Spain, Iran, Mexico,
Iraq, Holland, Laos, Belgium, Czech Republic,
Scotland, Hong Kong, Philippines, Seychelles,
Netherlands, Hungary, China, Austria
0.3%each
Muslin,
Jewish,
Paladin,
Coptic
orthodox,
Pentecostal,
Serbian
Orthodox,
born
again
Christian
1 (0.3%) each
Table 3b.
Constructions of masculinity: What kind of man do you want to be?
Personal integrity/relationship values
caring (59) respected (51) happy (40) good (46) kind (40) kind father (40) giving
(30) family man (30) friendly (28) compassionate (28) honest (28) loving (27)
considerate (23) is loved by others (22) helpful (21) warm hearted (21)
trustworthy (21) moral (20) generous to people less fortunate than myself (17)
can be myself (17) helps others achieve their goals (15) have integrity (16)
community focused (15) reliable (14) responsible (13) sensitive (12)
approachable (12) decent (11) genuine (11) loyal (11)someone you can talk to
(11) dedicated (10) supportive (10) wise (9) respectful; (9) devoted (9) just (8)
kind husband (8)thoughtful (8) strong willed (8)spiritual (8) spends time with
family (8) puts family first (7) stands up for beliefs (7) humble (7) ethical (7)
truthful (6) capable (6) committed (6) principled (6) brave (6) mature (4) God
fearing (4) open (4)faithful (3) positive (3) patient (3) polite (3) forgiving (2)
has dreams (1) hopeful (1) tolerant (1) inspires others (1) empathetic (1)
courageous (1) gentlemen (1) knows his family background (1)
Success oriented values
successful (70) wealthy (42) admired (29) accomplished (24) achiever (19)
hardworking (19) achieve my goals (18) earns respect (17) smart (13) able to
support a family (12) businessman (8) able to overcome problems (7) important
(6) independent (6) intellectual (6) challenged (5) educated (5) proud (5) calm
(5) level headed (4) professional (4) uses initiative (4) famous (4) powerful (3)
thrifty (2) talented (2) well know (1) understanding (1) live life to the full (1)
Personality and physical values
good natured (24) enjoys life (21) fun (17) good personality (15) attractive (15)
easy going (12) strong (12) athletic (10) bright (9) confident (8) active (7)
healthy (7) big (6) articulate (6) sophisticated (6) entertaining (5) cultured (5)
adventurous (4) cool (4) decisive (4) extroverted (3) sense of humour (3) normal
(2) tall (2) elegant (1) free (1) social (1) magnetic (1)
Missing
937 mentions
342 mentions
221 mentions
3
School 4. (MACollege)
Table 4a.
Ethnicity and religion (163 boys responded to the questionnaire and they ranged in age from 14-16 years)
Parents born
Religion
Australia
70 students (42%)
Catholic
147 students (90%)
Italy
19 students (12%)
Coptic orthodox
4 students (2%)
Vietnam
16 students (10%)
Buddhist
3 students (2%)
50 Journal of Religious Education 54(1) 2006
India
Sri Lanka
12 students (7%)
11 students (7%)
Mauritius
Egypt, England
Ireland, Philippines
El Salvador, South Africa
China,
Greece,
New
Zealand, Poland, Malaysia
Croatia, Germany, Hong
Kong,
Hungary,
Indonesia, Laos, Lebanon,
Peru,
Samoa,
USA,
Scotland,
Mozambique,
Africa
Missing
8 students (5%)
7 students each (4%)
6 students each (4%)
3 students each (2%)
2 students each (1%)
Anglican
Atheist,
Greek
Orthodox,
Other
orthodox,
Hindu,
Jedi, Uniting Church
Missing
2 students (1%)
1 student each (1%)
1
1 student each (1%)
1
Table 4b.
Constructions of masculinity: What kind of man do you want to be?
Personal integrity/relationship values
caring (29) loving (26) honest (23) good (22) respected (20) kind (17) kind
father (14) Happy (14) helpful (12) trustworthy (11) friendly (9) inner strength
(9) reliable (9) understanding (6) nice (6) likeable (6) good husband (5) loyal (5)
giving (4) wise (4) someone you can talk to (4) earns respect (4) moral (3)
spiritual (3) supportive (3) inspires others (2) responsible (2) sensitive (2)
principled (2) decent (2) stands up for beliefs (2) gentleman (2) trustworthy (2)
genuine (1) polite (1) respectful (1) strong willed (1) truthful (1) puts others
before himself (1) make parents proud (1) approachable (1) community focused
(1) ethical (1) helps parents and family in need (1)
Success oriented values
Successful (19) wealthy (14) hardworking (12) able to support a family (9)
achieve my goals (7) intelligent (5) can take care of myself (5) able to overcome
problems (3) good job (2) businessman (2) independent (2) smart (2) famous (1)
good life (1)
Personality and physical values
fun (7) healthy (7) sense of humour (5) fit (3) adventurous (3) calm (3) easy
going (3) lives life to the full (2) carefree (2) big (2) good natured (1) sporty (1)
talented (1) tall (1)
Missing/not sure
295 mentions
84 mentions
70 mentions
9
School 5. (LCollege)
Table 5a.
Ethnicity and religion (65 students responded to the questionnaire and they ranged in age from 15-16 years).
Parents born
Religion
Australia
54 (83%)
No religion
21 (32%)
England
6 (9%)
Lutheran
16 (25%)
Germany, New Zealand
2 each (3%)
Catholic
7 (11%)
India,
Italy,
Laos, 1 (1%) each
Anglican
6 (9%)
Mauritius,
Mexico,
Journal of Religious Education 54(1) 2006 51
Romania, Scotland, South
Africa, Sweden
Pentecostal
Orthodox Christian,
Church of Christ,
Mainstream
Hindu,
Buddhist,
Crossway,
Theist,
Not sure, missing
3 (5%)
2 each (3%)
1 each (2%)
Table 5b.
Constructions of masculinity: What kind of man do you want to be?
Personal integrity /relationship values
kind (16) happy (13) Caring (12) respected (9) nice person (9) good (8) friendly
(5) trustworthy (3) loving (2) loyal (2) considerate (2) helpful (2) does his best
(1) forgiving (1) giving (1) hardworking (1) honest (1) likeable (1) moral (1) no
enemies (1) can be himself (1) truthful (1) understanding (1) peaceful (1) like
Jesus (1) family man (1) husband and father (1)
Success oriented values
financially free (10) successful (6) achieve my goals (3) intellectual (3)
businessman (1) challenged (1) famous (1) fit (1) talented (1)
Personality and physical values
fun (4) carefree (4) enjoys life (3) good natured (2) entertaining (1) sporty (1)
strong (1)
Missing /not as I am now/
96 mentions
26 mentions
16 mentions
1 each
School 6. (PCollege)
Table 6a.
Ethnicity and religion (208 students responded to the questionnaire and they ranged in age from15-18 years).
Parents born
Religion
Australia
131 (63%)
Catholic
167 (80%)
England
10 (5%)
Greek orthodox
8 (4%)
Lebanon
8 (4%)
Buddhist,
Other 6 (3%) each
Christian
Egypt, Greece, Malta, Sri Lanka
6 (3%) each
No religion
4 (2%)
Missing
5 (2%)
Other
Orthodox, 3 (1%)each
Hindu
Malaysia,
Philippines,
Scotland, 4 (2%) each
Anglican,
Jedi, 2 (1%) each
Vietnam,
Missing
India, New Zealand
3 (1%) each
Atheist,
Coptic, 1 (0.5%) each
Jewish,
Sikh,
Maronite
East Timor, Germany, Holland, 2 (1%) each
Yugoslavia, Ireland
Canada, China, Hong Kong, South 1 (0.4%) each
Africa, South America, Spain, Turkey,
Indonesia, Slovenia, Syria, Guatemala,
Italy, Mauritius, Poland, Portugal,
Russia
52 Journal of Religious Education 54(1) 2006
Table 6b.
Constructions of masculinity: What kind of man do you want to be?
Personal integrity /relationship values
caring (52) kind (23) honest (23) respected (23) family man (22) loving (15) helpful
(15) friendly (14) nice (14) good (13) likeable (11) happy (9) loyal (8) generous (8)
trustworthy (7) considerate (6) understanding (5) reliable (5) faithful (4) responsible
(4) one who inspires others (4) strong willed (4) ethical (3) gentleman (3) truthful
(3) giving (3) good friend (3) thoughtful (3) humble (3) wise (3) someone you can
talk to (3) is loved by others (2) patient (2) kind father (2) genuine (1) polite (1)
positive (1) principled (1) respectful (1) sensitive (1) stands up for his beliefs (1)
supportive (1) peaceful (1) compassionate (1)
Success oriented values
wealthy (28) successful (20) hardworking (8) smart (8) enjoys his work (7)
intellectual (6) intelligent (4) achieve my goals (3) proud (3) achiever (3)
independent (3) can take care of myself (3) accomplished (2) admired (2) famous
(1) financially free (1) good job (1) no worries (1) powerful (1) well known (1)
Personality and physical values
strong (22) sense of humour (9) carefree (7) easy going (7) fun (5) sexy (4) fit (3)
attractive (3) calm (3) tall (3) entertaining (2) sporty (2) handsome (2) one who can
be himself (2) adventurous (1) good natured (1) good personality (1)
Missing
331 mentions
106 mentions
77 mentions
10
Section 3: Analysis of the Data
Summary of the Results
The data presented in the tables above are shown in
terms of frequency of mention, and it is on this
basis that the analysis proceeded. The boys were
not asked to prioritise the values they noted, but to
respond in writing to an open-ended question.
Therefore their answers included a range of values
that were differentiated in the analysis, in order to
arrive at the frequency of mentions given in the
tables above. This is illustrated in the following
typical responses, where the codes PIR (personal
integrity/relationship values), SO (success oriented
values), PP (personality physical values) have been
inserted by the researcher.

One of kindness, (PIR) politeness (PIR),
friendship (PIR) and trust (PIR). I want to
be a man who can be relied upon (PIR)
and who stands firm with his opinion on
certain issues (PIR). I want to be a man
who helps others (PIR) and enjoys life
with friends and family (PP).

I want to be known for doing something
good (PIR). I want to be someone who
gives everyone a fair go (PIR).

I want to be a respected family man (PIR)
whom individuals can rely on and trust in
all circumstances (PIR). I want people to
appreciate me as I would them, (PIR) and
become a role model for others (PIR).

I want to be a tall man who people can
look up to both physically and mentally
(PP). I want to be a kind (PIR); helpful
(PIR) and caring (PIR) man whom
children are not afraid to talk to and who
is not too strict (PIR). I want to be a man
who everyone likes for himself and his
personality (PP).

I want to be a good father, (PIR) full of
love and care (PIR). I want to have a good
job (SO) to help the family (SO) and be
successful (SO).

Simple! A good man. Because people are
loyal, trustworthy honourable and kind to
you if you are the rarest of men, a good
man (PIR).

Generous (PIR) and thoughtful to other
people (PIR).

I want to be a strong minded man (PIR),
an honest (PIR) and faithful (PIR) person
to my family and the community (PIR). I
want to be experienced (SO) and stay
loyal to my job (SO), and teach my
children the real meaning of life (PIR).
The most frequently mentioned values were as
shown in the following table.
Journal of Religious Education 54(1) 2006 53
Table 7.
Most frequently mentioned values
Personal
integrity/
relationship
values
Caring
Respected
Kind
Honest
Good
Happy
Loving
Family man
Friendly
Helpful
Success
oriented
values
170
mentions
130
mentions
120
mentions
107
mentions
103
mentions
95
mentions
83
mentions
80
mentions
69
mentions
61
mentions
Successful
Wealthy
Hardworking
Achieve
goals
The twelve most frequently mentioned values,
listed in order, which indicate much about the
construction of masculinity of the boys in the study
were:
1) caring
2) successful
3) respected
4) kind
5) wealthy
6) honest
Personality/
physical
values
7) good
8) happy
9) loving
10) family man
11) friendly
12) helpful
Ten of the twelve were personal integrity
relationship values, with two being success
oriented. Personality/physical values did not figure
in the “top twelve”.
A Departure from Australian Hegemonic
Masculinity
In 1960 Donald Horne depicted Australia as a
bastion of tough maleness, and Connell (2003)
observes that notions of Australian identity have
been almost exclusively constructed around images
of men, the shackled convict, the heroic explorer,
the bushman, the sportsman, the surfer, the shearer,
the bushranger. “There are not many women in this
world “ observes Connell (2003, p. 9) “but there are
very definite ideas about masculinity, and ideas
54 Journal of Religious Education 54(1) 2006
my
141
mentions
115
mentions
43
mentions
33
mentions
Strong
Fun
Good natured
Easy going
Enjoys life
Sense
humour
of
52
mentions
47
mentions
29
mentions
2
7mentions
25
mentions
20
mentions
about relations between men and women, real or
imaginary”.
The findings of this research suggest that, at least
among the large group of teenage boys who
responded to the research, the hegemonic ideas
about masculinity that have long pervaded
Australian culture are being challenged. The
frequency
with
which
personal
integrity/relationship values were mentioned in
contrast
with
success
oriented
and
physical/personality values, justifies the claim that
these are becoming more prominent in the
construction of masculinity among the boys who
responded, than may have been the case in the
recent past. In other words, the conclusions of
Wedgwood (2003, pp. 180-188) who found
evidence of a more complex and contradictory
masculinity among the young footballers she
studied,
a
masculinity
which
included
egalitarianism in their relationships with females,
and avoidance of excessive hegemonic maleness in
violence against other males and the domination of
females, are supported by this research. Also
supported by the research is the finding of Frosh et
al., (2002, pp. 259-260) discussed earlier in this
paper, that boys can be emotionally and
intellectually articulate, thoughtful and insightful.
When they are given permission to be so in a non-
moralistic context, (the kind of context provided by
this research which was anonymous and
confidential) their neediness and promise are
highlighted. As Frosh et al., (2002) have claimed,
most boys have a firm appreciation of moral codes
and of the importance of close and supportive
relationships. Many boys want to become good
fathers, and have succeeded in preserving an image
of what this might mean, sometimes against the
odds. As Frosh et al., (2002, pp. 259-260)
conclude: “the fantasy space that allows this is both
impressive and at times upsetting, as they hold on
to an image of a possible future which might be
better than their present situation.” A major
finding of this study about teenage boys and
spirituality, is that a component of the
spirituality of teenage boys is the construction of
masculinity more in terms of personal integrity
and relationship values than in terms of success
oriented or physical/personality values.
Factors Which May Have Contributed to the
Findings
While the key findings noted above are amply
demonstrated by the data, questions arise as to the
influence of family, school, ethnicity and religion
on the findings. A consideration of some of these
questions will strengthen the findings and indicate
areas for further research.
The Influence of the Schools and Family
All of the schools included in this research were
Christian schools, five of them Catholic and one
Lutheran. It is reasonable to expect that the
Christian ethos of the schools may have positively
influenced the constructions of masculinity found
among the boys. However, in response to a later
question about from where their values were
learned, in every school the boys nominated the
school as a source of values after the family, which
emerged as the most important source of values,
and after their peers. Nevertheless the school was
one of three important sources of values noted by
the boys, and when we consider that the peers they
refer to as sources of values are probably, for the
most part also school friends, the role of the
schools becomes much more important, since it is
also influencing their peers. The role of the
Christian school in assisting teenage boys to
develop new models of masculinity would be more
clearly shown if the research could be extended to,
and compared with, schools that are not affiliated
with a religious tradition.
In every case, the family emerged overwhelmingly
as the major source of values, with mothers being
mentioned slightly more often than fathers. In light
of the positive nature of the findings, it can be
concluded that there is a direct link between the
values espoused by the boys, and those they
encounter in their families, although as Frosh et al.,
(2002, pp. 259-260) have pointed out, there may
also be a negative link. In other words, boys may
develop a more kind and caring view of the kind of
father they want to be, as a reaction against the
fathering they have experienced. This may be what
one respondent was trying to express in the
following words:
I want to be thought of by other people as
reliable and calm under pressure. I want to be
trusted by everyone rather than be a negative
person and put other people down because of
my own failures in life.
More specific data on the positive or negative
effects of the family on the development of
masculinity
along
more
personal
integrity/relationship lines, could be gathered using
a more indepth approach to the gathering of data in
this area, than was possible in this study, where the
question about masculinity was only one of many
that gathered data about teenage boys and their
spirituality.
The Role of Religion and Ethnicity.
Only 70 of the 965 boys in the study claimed that
they were agnostic, atheistic, had no religion or did
not answer the question about religious affiliation.
The vast majority identified with a religious
tradition, for the most part Catholic, with 56%
being the lowest proportion of Catholics among the
Catholic schools, and 90% being the highest. These
figures, however, tell us only about the religions
with which the boys identified, and nothing about
their religious practice. Indeed, there is little basis
to claim that the dominance of personal
integrity/relationship
values in the boys
constructions of masculinity, can be accounted for
by their religious identification, for the findings in
regard to their construction of masculinity are
comparable between schools, where there are wide
variations in the percentage who identify as
Catholic. It can also be argued that a construction
of masculinity in terms of relationships is not
widely modelled in the public Catholic church,
although it is acknowledged that there are
variations to this, and that it is changing. In order to
establish any link between religious affiliations and
the boys’ constructions of masculinity, specific
questions would need to be asked about this, and
these questions were beyond the scope of this
research. However, this would provide an
interesting development for another study.
Similarly, links between ethnicity and the boys’
construction of masculinity cannot be made from
the data provided by this study: in School 1 only
19% of respondent had parents born in Australia; in
School 5 83 % of boys had parents who were born
in Australia. These links would need to be made in
Journal of Religious Education 54(1) 2006 55
another study. In Australia, boys of all religions
and ethnicities are exposed to changing views of
masculinity and femininity, and it is arguable that
this may account for their gradually developing
constructions of masculinity more than any other
factor.
Conclusion
In summary therefore, the research outlined and
discussed in this study has shown that a component
of the spirituality of teenage boys in Australia is
the construction of masculinity more in terms of
personal integrity and relationship values, than
in
terms
of
success
oriented
or
physical/personality values, a construction that
at once challenges the hegemonic ideal of
masculinity, and proposes hope for their future
relationships, family lives and fulfilment.
References
Abbott-Chapman, J., & Denholm, C. (2001).
Adolescents’
risk
activities,
risk
hierarchies and the influence of religiosity.
Journal of Youth Studies. 4(3), 280-297.
Biddulph, S. (1994). Manhood. Sydney: Finch.
Biddulph, S. (1997). Raising boys. Sydney: Finch.
Bly, R. (1990). A book about men. New York:
Vintage.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and
the subversion of identity. New York:
Routledge.
Connell, R. (1995). Masculinities. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Connell, R. (1996). Teaching the boys. New
research on masculinity and gender
strategies for schools. Teachers College
Record, 98, 206-235.
Connell, R. (2000). The men and the boys. Sydney:
Allen & Unwin
Chodorow, N. (1994). Femininities, masculinities,
sexualities: Freud and beyond. Lexington:
University Press of Kentucky.
Cunneen, C., & Stubbs, J. (2003). Fantasy island:
desire, race and violence. In S. Frosh, A.
Pheonix & R. Pattman (2002). Young
masculinities. Hampshire: Palgrave.
Engebretson, K. (2004). Teenage boys, spirituality,
and religion. International Journal of
Children’s Spirituality, 9(3), 248-263.
Evans, D. (1979) Struggle and fulfillment: The
inner dynamics of religion and morality.
New York; London: Collins.
Forbes, D. (2003). Turning the wheel: Integral
school counselling for male adolescents.
Journal of Counselling and Development,
81,1-12.
56 Journal of Religious Education 54(1) 2006
Hanna, F., Bemak, F., & Chung, R. (1999).
Towards a new paradigm for multicultural
counselling. Journal of counselling and
development. 77, pp. 125-134.
Herek, G., & Berrill, K. (1992). Hate crimes:
confronting violence against lesbians and
gay men. Newbury Park: Sage.
Harris, M. & Moran, G. (1998). Reshaping
religious education. Louisville, Kentucky:
Westminster John Knox Press.
Hassen, R. (1996). Social factors in suicide in
Australia. Trends and issues in crime and
criminal justice, No 52. Canberra:
Australian Institute of Criminology.
Hearn, J. (1992). Men in the public eye: The
construction and reconstruction of public
men and public patriarchies. London:
Routledge.
Hoge, D., Dinges, W., Johnson, M., & Gonzales, J.
(2001) Young adult Catholics. Religion in
the culture of choice. University of
Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.
Human Services Victoria. (1999). Survey of risk
and protective factors. Melbourne:
Victorian State Publishing Service.
James, W. (1958). The varieties of religious
experience. New York: The New
American Library.
Kay, W., & Francis, L. (1996). Drift from the
churches. Cardiff: University of Wales
Press.
Kenny, P. (2003). Church must promote the
masculine side of Christianity. The Irish
Catholic. 3/9/03.
http://www.irishcatholic.ie/030903-fl.htm
Lewes, K. (1988). The psychoanalytic theory of
male homosexuality. London: Simon &
Schuster.
Martino, W. (2000). Policing masculinities:
investigating the role of homophobia and
heteronormativity in the lives of
adolescent schoolboys. Journal of Men’s
Studies, 8, 1-12.
http://questia.com. 24/1/05
McBrien, R. (1994). Catholicism. Victoria: Collins
Dove.
Messner, M. (1992). Power at play: Sports and the
problem of masculinity. Boston: Beacon.
Murrie, L. (1998). The Australian legend: Writing
Australian masculinity/writing Australian’
masculine. Journal of Australian Studies,
56, 1-11.
http://questia.com, 24/1/05.
Neroni, H. (2000). The men of Columbine:
violence and masculinity in American
culture and film. Journal for the
Psychoanalysis of Culture and Society, 5,
1-11.
http://questia.com.17/2/05.
Pearce, S. (2001). “Secret men’s business”: New
millennium advice for Australian boys.
Mosaic, 34, 1-10.
Poynting, S., Noble, G., & Tabar, P. (1998). If
anyone called me a wog they wouldn’t be
speaking to me alone: Protest masculinity
and Lebanese youth in western Sydney.
Journal of Interdisciplinary Gender
Studies. 3(2), 76-94.
Resnick, M.; Bearman, P., Blum, R., Bauman, K.,
Harris, K., Jones, J., Tabor, J., Beuhring,
T., Sieving, R., Shew, M., Ireland, M.,
Bearinger, L., Udry, J. (1997). Protecting
adolescents from harm. Journal of the
American Medical Association. 278(10),
823-831.
Tacey, D. (1997). Remaking men: The revolution in
masculinity.
Ringwood,
Victoria:
Penguin.
Tacey, D. (2003). The spirituality revolution.
Australia: Harper Collins.
Tomsen, S., & Donaldson, M. (Eds.). Male
Trouble. North Melbourne: Pluto Press.
Wedgwood, N. (2003). Aussie Rules; Schoolboy
football and masculine embodiment. In S.
Tomsen, & M. Donaldson (Eds.). Male
Trouble. North Melbourne: Pluto Press.
White, R. (1997). Young men, violence and social
health. Youth Studies Australia, 16(1), 3137.
White, R., & Wyn, J. (1997). Rethinking youth.
Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Whitson, D. (1990). Sport in the social construction
of masculinity. Sport, men and the gender
order: Critical feminist perspectives. In
M. Messner & D. Sabo (Eds.),
Champaign: Human Kinetics Books.
Withers, G., & Russell, J. (2001). Education for
resilience.
Australian
Council
of
Educational
Research.
Melbourne,
Victoria.
Young, J. (2001). Displaying practices of
masculinity: Critical literacy and social
contexts. Journal of Adolescent and adult
literacy, 45,1-11.
*Associate Professor Kathleen Engebretson
is a member of the School of Religious
Education at Patrick Campus Melbourne of
Australian Catholic University.
Australian Copyright Council
The Australian Copyright Council has been delivering practically-oriented copyright training
for more than 15 years. Each year they answer hundreds of enquiries about copyright. These
enquiries inform their training, so they don’t just tell you what the law is, but how it applies to
the situations you commonly face.
This year’s two-day program for educational institutions includes popular sessions on:




Using text and images in educational institutions
Using the internet in educational institutions
Using TV and radio programs, DVDs films and other audiovisual material in
educational institutions
Music and performance in schools.
For more information, visit www.copyright.org.au/training or call 02 9699 3247
Journal of Religious Education 54(1) 2006 57