Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 04 December 2014, At: 21:08Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Gender and EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cgee20
Boys, masculinity and school violence:reaping what we sowSandy White Watson aa University of Tennessee at Chattanooga , USAPublished online: 29 Oct 2007.
To cite this article: Sandy White Watson (2007) Boys, masculinity and school violence: reaping whatwe sow, Gender and Education, 19:6, 729-737, DOI: 10.1080/09540250701650672
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09540250701650672
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Gender and EducationVol. 19, No. 6, November 2007, pp. 729–737
ISSN 0954–0253 (print)/ISSN 1360–0516 (online)/07/060729–09© 2007 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/09540250701650672
Boys, masculinity and school violence: reaping what we sowSandy White Watson*University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, USATaylor and FrancisCGEE_A_264909.sgm10.1080/09540250701650672Gender and Education0954-0253 (print)/1360-0516 (online)Original Article2007Taylor & Francis196000000November 2007Associate Prof. [email protected]
In this paper the author explores the relationship between masculinity and violence. She begins bypointing out that although all of the recent school shootings in the US have been perpetrated byboys, very few are associating the acts with the gender of the offenders. Perhaps this connection isnot made because society is so conditioned to the fact that men and boys have always made up thepreponderance of violent offenders in the US. In this paper the attitudes and behaviors associatedwith the socially constructed culture of masculinity that lend themselves to male violence andaggression are explored. It includes a discussion of a Freirean approach to the problem andconcludes with practical suggestions for transformation.
● 19 February 1997: Bethel, Alaska: Evan Ramsey, 16, shoots and kills hishigh school principal and a classmate and wounds two others (Rage: a look at ateen killer, 2001, March 7).
● 1 October 1997: Pearl, Mississippi: Luke Woodham, 16, opens fire at his highschool, killing three and wounding seven after fatally shooting his mother (Teenguilty in Mississippi shooting rampage, 1998, June 12).
● 1 December 1997: West Paducah, Kentucky: Michael Carneal, 14, shoots and killsthree at a high school devotional meeting (Bradis, 1997, December 2).
● 15 December 1997: Stamps, Arkansas: Joseph Todd, 14, shoots and wounds twostudents (‘Two students wounded’, 1997).
● 24 March 1998: Jonesboro, Arkansas: Mitchell Johnson, 13 and Andrew Golden,11, gun down four classmates and a teacher (White & Cofer, 1998, April 1).
● 24 April 1998: Edinborough, Pennsylvania: Andrew Wurst, 14, shoots and kills ateacher who was chaperoning a school dance (Ramsland, 2007).
● 19 May 1998: Fayetteville, Tennessee: Jacob Davis, 18, opens fire at his highschool, killing a classmate (School killer described by witnesses as Asian male,around 19 years old, 2007).
*University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, 615 McCallie Ave., Dept. 4154, Chattanooga, TN37403, USA. Email: [email protected]
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
21:
08 0
4 D
ecem
ber
2014
730 S. White Watson
● 21 May 1998: Springfield, Oregon: Kip Kinkel, 15, opens fire at his high school,wounding 22 and killing two after fatally shooting his parents (Daw, 1998, August/September).
● 15 June 1998: Richmond, Virginia: Quinshawn Booker, 14, opens fire in his highschool, wounding a teacher and a volunteer (Daw, 1998, August/September).
● 20 April 1999: Littleton, Colorado: Dylan Klebold, 17, and Eric Harris, 18, shootand kill 12 students and a teacher and then kill themselves (Daw, 1998, August/September).
● 20 May 1999: Conyers, Georgia: Thomas Solomon, 15, opens fire at HeritageHigh School, wounding six students (‘Four shot’, 1999).
● 6 December 1999: Fort Gibson, Oklahoma: Seth Trickey, 13, opens fire at hisschool and wounds four students (Ruble, 1999, December 6).
● 29 February 2000: Mount Morris, Michigan: A 7-year-old boy shoots and fatallywounds a 6-year-old classmate (Dickerson, 2000, March 6).
● 26 May 2000: Lake Worth, Florida: Nathaniel Brazill, 13 kills his English teacherafter he was refused admission to the class to speak to friends (Gandhi, 2000,September/October).
● 24 April 2003: Red Lion, Pennsylvania: 14-year-old James Sheets shoots and killsfive classmates, a teacher and an unarmed guard at his rural high school, then takeshis own life (Toiv, 2003).
● 21 March 2005: Red Lake Indian Reservation, Minnesota: Student Jeff Weiseshoots and kills five classmates, a teacher and an unarmed guard at his rural highschool, then takes his own life (Gunderson, 2005).
● 29 September 2006: Cazenovia, Wisconsin: Eric Hainstock, 15, retaliates forreceiving a tobacco disciplinary referral and shoots and kills the principal (Erskine,2006).
Although few people seemed to have noticed it, a very clear and frightening patternhas emerged among the incidents of violence taking place in America’s schools. Thepattern is so disturbing that it demands serious explanation and intensive study. Thestartling commonality among all of these senseless and tragic incidents of schoolviolence is that each and every one was perpetrated by one or more boys. (And inalmost every case the offender or offenders are also White and middle class.) Theseare not cases of kids killing kids. These are cases of boys killing boys and boys killinggirls and boys killing teachers (Katz & Jhally, 1999, May 2). Katz and Jhally (1999)raise an interesting question when they ask what the public’s reactions would be ifthese crimes had been committed by girls rather than boys. Make no mistake aboutit, the public would immediately connect gender with the crimes. We would all bequestioning how it could possibly be that girls would commit such heinous acts. As itstands, very few people are asking what is happening to our boys to cause such violentbehavior. Also, are we not surprised that these crimes have been perpetrated by Whitemales rather than Black males? Haven’t we all seen that ‘representations of violenceare largely portrayed through forms of racial coding that suggest violence is a Blackproblem, a problem outside White suburban America?’ (Giroux, 1996, p. 66). I, for
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
21:
08 0
4 D
ecem
ber
2014
Boys, masculinity and school violence 731
one, could easily imagine the public’s immediate determination of a racial commondenominator among the acts of school violence. But because the offenders are middleclass, White males, the general public cannot seem to make the connection betweenthe masculine culture and the crimes. Perhaps it is because we are so used to the factthat males have always made up the preponderance of violent offenders. Hall (2002)states ‘The claim that men commit most acts of physical violence is possibly the near-est that criminology has come to producing an indisputable fact’ (p. 36). Accordingto the National Committee on Violence 1990, ‘men are responsible for 80% of homi-cides’ (Ollis & Tomaszewski, 1993) and ‘men and boys are responsible for 95% of allviolent crimes in this country’ (Kimmel, 1999). So we are now witnessing this violentbehavior in adolescent or even younger males. And we are blaming the violent acts ofthese boys on ‘the easy accessibility of guns, the lack of parental supervision, theculture of peer-group exclusion and teasing, or the prevalence of media violence’(Katz & Jhally, 1999). Girls have the same accessibility to guns, are exposed to thesame media violence, undergo their own form of peer-group exclusion and teasingand also experience a lack of parental supervision, but are they bringing guns toschool and gunning down teachers and classmates? Not that I can see. Could it trulybe that this trend among boys is emerging because they are boys?
There are those of us who will point to the biological differences between boys andgirls as culprits of the male violence phenomenon. According to Kindlon andThompson (2000), testosterone has become the ‘buzzword for masculinity and apopular explanation for all boy attributes’ (p. 13). However, they go on to say that ‘arecent review of scientific studies of preadolescent and early adolescent boysconcludes that the research literature “provides no evidence of an associationbetween testosterone and aggressive behavior”’ (p. 13, Tremblay et al. as cited inKindlon & Thompson, 2000). Further evidence has been obtained by numerousother researchers who have examined various culturally distinct groups such as theAmish, the Semoi of Malaysia and the Hutterite brethren, who have reputations fornonviolence and peacefulness. The men of these groups have virtually no history ofaggression or violence (Kindlon & Thompson, 2000). These studies can only lead usto believe that boys and men are not destined to be aggressive because they are males,but rather they become so because they are raised to be so.
We are all aware of the segregation of boys and girls that now begins even beforethey are born. We want to know what the sex of our child is before he or she is bornso that we can begin thinking about how we are going to treat him or her. Boys andgirls are given ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ names, clothing styles and toys. Step intoany toy store and the male/female dichotomy is clearly evident. The girls’ sectioncontains dolls, dishes, irons, brooms and other items designed to reflect and main-tain the traditional domesticated behaviors and attitudes assigned to females whilethe aisles housing toys for boys resemble arsenals with vast arrays of toy guns, knives,handcuffs, soldiers, wrestlers and monsters. Many of us continue to teach our daugh-ters to be passive, noncompetitive and ‘ladylike’ while we teach our sons to beaggressive, competitive and unemotional. We envision young boys as being mischie-vous, rowdy and rambunctious. We chuckle as we watch them rough house, play in
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
21:
08 0
4 D
ecem
ber
2014
732 S. White Watson
the dirt, track mud in the house and wear holes in their clothes. As they grow, weencourage them to hunt and fish, get involved in sports, ride bikes and four wheelers.And finally they reach the teenage years. Pollack (1998) describes the typical mythi-cal teenaged boy as one who is ‘obsessed with himself, sports, cars, sex, and—aboveall—being cool’ (p. xxiii). Being cool to many boys means breaking the rules andchallenging authority. And so we have trained our sons and daughters, from birth, toassimilate the practiced cultural attitudes and behaviors according to gender.Barquet (2000) states that the aggression and violence portrayed by boys and men isthe ‘direct result of learned behavior’. We reap what we sow. Barquet goes on toproclaim that the very first messages parents transmit to their children are extremelypowerful. All of these early messages arise from cultural norms that teach males to be‘aggressive, powerful, unemotional, and controlling and that contribute to a socialacceptance of men as dominant’ (Hanson & McAuliffe, 1997). Silverstein (1988)states that ‘boys are shamed into early separation from their mothers and subse-quently cut off from their own expression of sadness and vulnerability in favor ofanger and detachment—all in order to prove their manhood’ (p. 166). Pollack(1998) claims that among boys anger and rage are perceived emotions of strengthand even power—while sadness, fear and loneliness are considered weak. He furtherstates that ‘boys are in the midst of a national crisis of boyhood’. What does thismean? Pollack implies that the traditional American culture of masculinity hascreated a ‘gender straitjacket’ for boys and that this ‘gender straitjacket’ leaves boysno avenues to safely express emotions. Many interpretations of Pollack’s nationalcrisis claim in the US, Canada, UK and Australia have been that boys are the latestvictims of schooling (Hawley, 1993; Kindlon & Thompson, 2000; Sommers, 2000;Thompson, 2000). This claim received considerable criticism and Pollack’s data,methodology and ethics in his research has also been subject to scrutiny. Sommersreceived the research paper and found ‘irregularities’ such as the lack of parentalconsent for the participants, the lack of anonymity on the surveys the boys completedand the fact that Pollack failed to release the results of his study and several details ofthe study (Sommers, 2000). Pollack’s study had not even been peer reviewed,sections of it instead were released to the media.
Despite the criticisms, Pollack’s ‘boy code’ is an unwritten guide of outmoded rulesby which we have raised our sons. The ‘boy code’ does not stop with parents, butrather is perpetuated by schools, communities and society in general.
I can give personal testimony to the fact that the ‘boy code’ is alive and well inAmerica today. My youngest son showed an interest in the martial arts so I enrolledhim in local karate classes. During the first couple of months, he would be droppedoff and then picked up as the class ended. A few times he seemed upset when I pickedhim up, saying the instructors were calling the students names so I decided to sit inon one of his classes. The class was quite large, with probably 50–60 students taughtby two male instructors and one female instructor. Most of the students were in the5- to 10-year age group and most were boys. As the class began, I was shocked to seethat the two male instructors regularly and publicly shamed the boy students anytimethey seemed to display anything less than what they (the instructors) thought was
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
21:
08 0
4 D
ecem
ber
2014
Boys, masculinity and school violence 733
‘masculine’ behavior. They did not hesitate to isolate and ridicule any boy whom theysaw as not performing up to their ‘masculine’ standards. Taunts included ‘You kicklike a girl!’ ‘Sissy!’ ‘Are you going to let a girl beat you?’ and, during sparring: ‘If youlet a girl beat you I’m going to put you up on the stage and make everyone call you asissy’. Not only did these taunts serve to humiliate and embarrass the boys they weredirected against, but they also served to demean the girl students. My immediate reac-tion was one of intense discomfort. I looked around the room to see if other observingparents (and there were many) looked disturbed. No one else seemed to be upset atall (at least by outward appearances). Most of them regularly sat in on the karateclasses and were accustomed to how the classes were taught. I chose not to talk toanyone at that point, but rather to sit in again on the following week’s class. The samebehavior took place again with an added twist. Toward the end of the session one boywas pulled out of the class and addressed for getting into trouble at school. His punish-ment was to be put into a ‘ring’ to fight three other boys of higher rank. What subse-quently took place was the approved beating of one boy by three others until he couldno longer stand, was sobbing, and could hardly breathe. The entire time, the boy’sfather was watching and did nothing to come to the aid of his son. My discomfortwas bordering on actual physical sickness. During the ‘punishment’ I asked severalparents sitting near me, both mothers and fathers what they thought of it. The generalconsensus was that although the parents were a little disturbed, they supported theteachers and felt the training they provided for their sons was necessary and beneficialin their son’s transition from boyhood to manhood. This example illustrates the useof misogyny and homophobia as a means of policing masculinity that in turn servesto benefit men as a social group. I am proud to report that my young son recognizedthe inappropriate behavior of his instructors and opted out of the class.
Pollack claims that no one is ‘immune’, that masculinity’s associated behaviors andattitudes are so ingrained within each of us that even those of us who are aware of itoften find ourselves unwittingly adhering to it. Boys are under tremendous pressureto adhere and conform to the ‘boy code’, which is so narrowly defined and strict, thatmost boys fall short of the ideal presented by the code. Furthermore, the code isextremely strong, while at the same time so subtle, that boys may not even know thatthey are following it until they deviate from it, in which case, society (most oftenmale) swiftly rebukes them whether it be ‘in the form of a taunt by a sibling, a rebukeby a parent or a teacher, or ostracism by classmates’ (Pollack, 1998, p. 7). As a result,they become, at the very least, frustrated and depressed and suffer low self-esteem,and at the most, become angry and turn violent (Pollack, 1998). In any case, almostall boys learn to develop a mask, which prevents them from showing emotion. Themask is a barrier. It prevents others from seeing in, and it does not allow emotions toescape. The mask is like an emotional pressure cooker with no steam outlet. It is nowonder that many boys are becoming killers.
Hanson and McAuliffe (1997) claim that:
Through this socialization process, children internalize the rules for ‘masculinity’ and‘femininity’ and because they are learned at a very early age, the meanings attached togender definitions seem natural, rather than socially constructed.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
21:
08 0
4 D
ecem
ber
2014
734 S. White Watson
Feminists have already recognized that this apparent dichotomy between male andfemale mores only exists because we have constructed the notion of ‘gender’ (Harding,1991). I support Simone de Beauvoir’s claim that women and men are not biologicalconstructs, but have instead arisen from social origins (in Harding, 1991). Perhapsthere is salvation in recognizing what we have done. Paulo Freire (1987) states that:
As conscious human beings, we can discover how we are conditioned by the dominantideology. We can gain distance on our moment of existence. Therefore, we can learn howto become free through a political struggle in society. (Shor & Freire, 1987, p. 13)
We can apply Shor and Freire’s wisdom to this dilemma. Once we become awarethat our masculinity or femininity associated with gender has been constructed, webecome liberated, thus opening the door to deconstruction of those long-held culturalnorms. But by no means is this an easy task, as it requires ‘denouncing and workingagainst the reproduction of the dominant ideology’ (Shor & Freire, 1987, p. 36). Ifthe general public has yet to recognize that we should be questioning why boys areturning our schools into killing fields, it will probably be extremely difficult to convincethem that this behavior is a direct result of what we have been teaching our children.
Pollack (1998) believes in the importance of first recognizing the myths of boyhoodbefore one can take steps toward the elimination of those myths. The first of threemyths he mentions is the myth that ‘boys will be boys: nature and testosterone winout over nurture’ (p. 52). When one believes this particular myth, he or she falselyfeels that he or she has little or no influence upon a boy’s emotional, behavioral orpersonality development. The second myth is that ‘boys should be boys’. This mythinsists that boys subscribe to the ‘boy code’ because it is the natural path to follow,even though it may feel anything but natural. According to Pollack, there is no idealway to be a boy, rather masculinity can be and is very diverse. Pollack’s third myth isthat boys are toxic, that there is something within them that they cannot control thatmakes them ‘psychologically unaware, emotionally unsocialized creatures’ (p. 62). Inother words, boys are uncivilized beings, requiring stricter control and tighter rules.In truth, boys have the capacity to be highly empathic, sensitive, caring individuals ifthey are freed from the ‘boy code’.
Of course since the cultural training of masculinity and femininity begins at home,parents must be the first in the chain of people involved in the transformation process.Mothers must learn to stand their ground and stay infinitely but flexibly connectedwith their sons. As Pollack states, ‘Far from making boys weaker, the love of a mothercan and does actually make boys stronger, emotionally and psychologically’ (p. 80).Perhaps the most difficult task is one faced by fathers as a direct result of the mythswe have already mentioned. Many fathers resist the urge to become emotionally closeto their sons and leave the role of nurturer to the mothers because they fear that bynot acting ‘macho’ around their sons, the boys might grow into something less thanreal men. (Homophobia rears its ugly head.) They must first let go of their traditionalmasculine attitudes and behaviors before they can foster the development of health-ier, happier and better adjusted sons who do not have to resort to violence becausethey have not been taught appropriate ways of communicating feelings and emotions.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
21:
08 0
4 D
ecem
ber
2014
Boys, masculinity and school violence 735
Once again, this is not an easy step to take because in order to change how somefathers raise their sons, they must first become conscious of the existence of the socialconstruction of masculinity and then they must change that very part of themselves.
Schools must also become part of the transformation process because they aredirect reflections of our society. Teachers and administrators must be made aware ofthe ‘boy code’ and be willing to address issues related to it; they must either modelthe undoing of the ‘boy code’ or aid in the creation of a new code (Pollack, 1998).They need to learn how to get around the masks of boys and they need to becomesympathetic to, and knowledgeable of, the specific emotional and social problemsboys face.
And finally, society in general must stop sending the wrong messages to our sons.Gilbert and Gilbert (1998) provide a list of T-shirt slogans that included the following‘in your face’ kinds of hegemonic ‘masculine’ sayings:
1. Guts is good. Balls is better.2. A true test of one’s courage lies not only in the heart but directly between one’s
legs.3. Life is a contact sport.4. No scars. No proof.5. No such thing as unnecessary roughness.6. Balls a.k.a. cojones. You should have several. Preferably brass or steel. Extra
large.
Not only are the designers of these T-shirts sending the wrong messages concerningmasculinity, but they are also obviously convinced that only outrageous and shockingmasculinity is marketable (Gilbert & Gilbert, 1998). Film-makers are also guilty ofglamorizing violence as they produce movies that depict tough, macho, aggressiveand violent males as those who ‘get the prettiest girls’ and who always come out ontop. And finally, musicians and song-writers must stop producing lyrics that promotemale violence and aggression as a natural and winning combination.
It is clear that this is not an issue that only one segment of society, or only a narrowgroup of people need address, but rather it is a universal problem of great magnitudethat all of us must consider and immediately act upon to prevent further tragedies andto liberate our sons.
References
Barquet, N. (2000) Gender and school violence in the United States. Unpublished manuscript,University of Michigan at Ann Arbor.
Bradis, T. (1997, December 2) Tragedy in Paducah, Kentucky. Available online at:www.abcnews.go.com/section/us/DailyNews/carneal0115.html (accessed 13 March 2001).
Daw, J. (1998, August/September) Kids killing kids, Family Therapy News, 29. Available online at:www.aamft.org (accessed 12 October 2001).
Dickerson, A. J. (2000, March 6) Students back in school after first-grade shooting, TheDailyCamera.com. Available online at: http://boulderdailyccamera.com/news/worldnation/07ashoo.html (accessed 12 October 2001).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
21:
08 0
4 D
ecem
ber
2014
736 S. White Watson
Erskine, G. (2006) Principal shot, killed in rural Wisconsin school. Available online at:www.wcsh6.com/news/national/article.aspx?storyid=42434 (accessed 27 September 2007).
Four shot at Georgia high school (1999, May 20) CNN.com. Available online at: www.cnn.com/US/9905/20/conyers.school.shooting.01/ (accessed 12 October 2001).
Gandhi, H. (2000, September/October) Perpetrator without a profile: the Lake Worth schoolshooting. Available online at: findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3812/is_200009/ai_n8915260(accessed 27 September 2007).
Gilbert, R. & Gilbert, P. (1998) Masculinity goes to school (London, Routledge).Giroux, H. (1996) Fugitive cultures: race, violence and youth (New York, Routledge).Gunderson, D. (2005) Who was Jeff Weiss? Available online at: news.minnesota.publicradio.
org/features/2005/03/22_ap_redlakesuspect/ (accessed 27 September 2007).Hall, S. (2002) Daubing the drudges of fury: men, violence and the piety of the ‘hegemonic
masculinity’ thesis, Theoretical Criminology, 6(1), 35–61.Hanson, K. & McAuliffe, A. (1997) Gender and violence: implications for peaceful schools,
Education Development Center, Inc. Available online at: www.uncg.edu/edu/ericcass/violence/docs/gender.htm (accessed 13 March 2001).
Harding, S. (1991) Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives (Ithaca, NY,Cornell University Press).
Hawley, R. A. (1993) Boys will be men (Middlebury, VT, Paul S. Eriksson).Katz, J. & Jhally, S. (1999, May 2) Crisis in masculinity, The Boston Globe. Available online at:
www.peace.ca/crisismasculinity.htm (accessed 12 March 2001).Kimmel, M. (1999) Manhood and violence, the deadliest equation. Manuscript submitted for
publication. Available online: www.europrofem.org/02.info/22contri/2.04.en/4en.viol/06en_vio,htm (accessed 25 September 2007).
Kindlon, D. & Thompson, M. (2000) Raising Cain: Protecting the emotional life of boys (New York,Ballantine Books).
Ollis, D. & Tomaszewski, I. (1993) Gender and violence project: position paper, AustralianGovernment Publishing Service. Department of Employment, Education and Training,Canberra
Pollack, W. (1998) Real boys: rescuing our sons from the myths of boyhood (New York, Henry Holt &Company).
Rage: a look at a teenkiller (2001, March 7) 60 Minutes. Available online at: www.cbsnews. com/stories/1999/08/17/6011/main58625.shtml (accessed 25 September 2007).
Ramsland, K. (2007) Court TV, crime library, criminal minds and methods: the list. Availableonline at: http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/weird/kids1/index_1.html (accessed 27September 2007).
Ruble, R. (1999, December 6), Four wounded in Oklahoma school shooting; suspect in custody,The Boston Globe. Available online at: www.boston.com/news/daily/06/shooting.htm (accessed27 September 2007).
School killer described by witnesses as an Asian male, around 19 years old. Available online at:www.citynews.ca/news/news_9851.aspx (accessed 27 September 2007).
School shooting rampage kills two (1997, October 2) The Oklahoma Daily. Available online at:www.daily.ou.edu/issues/1997/October-02/rampage.html (accessed 13 March 2001).
Shor, I. & Freire, P. (1987) A pedagogy for liberation: dialogues on transforming education (Westport,CT, Bergin & Garvey).
Silverstein, O. (1998) The family web: gender patterns in family relationships (New York,Guilford).
Some fatal US school shootings (2006, October 3) Associated Press. Available online at: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_School_Shootings_List.html (accessed 27 September2007).
Teen guilty in Mississippi shooting rampage (1998, June 12) CNN.com. Available online at:www.cnn.com/US/9806/12/school.shooting.verdict/ (accessed 26 September 2007).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
21:
08 0
4 D
ecem
ber
2014
Boys, masculinity and school violence 737
Thompson, M. (2000) Speaking of boys (New York, Ballantine Books).Toiv, N. (2003) School shooting occurs in Pennsylvania. Silver Chips online. Available online at:
silverchips.mbhs.edu/inside.php?sid=1834 (accessed 27 September 2007).Two students wounded in Arkansas shooting (1997, December 15) US News. Available online at:
http://europe.cnn.com (accessed 13 March 2001).United States recent school shootings (1999, April 24) African perspective. Available online at:
www.africanperspective.com/html/25/AtW.html (accessed 13 March 2001).White, M. & Cofer, B. (1998, April 1) 900 mourn, seek strength in Jonesboro, Arkansas Democrat
Gazette. Available online at: www.Ardemagaz.com/prev/jonesboro/aajones01.html (accessed13 March 2001).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
21:
08 0
4 D
ecem
ber
2014
