In recent decades, male protagonists in Australian realist fiction for young adult readers have increasingly become more others-regarding, emotionally intelligent, and self-aware. (John Stephens 2000; Perry Nodelman 2002). Psychologist Roger Horrocks (1995) claims these protagonists are less “tendentious and more realistic” than male protagonists of the past. These boys, despite not bearing the hallmarks of hegemonic masculinity, develop subjective agency and ultimately propose new ways for young men to construct their gender identity. Using Phillip Gwynne’s (1998) Deadly Unna? and David Metzenthen’s (2000) Boys of Blood and Bone as case studies, and my own novel My Private Pectus as creative practice, I explore the construction and deconstruction of hegemonic, complicit, and alternative masculinities in Australian realist young adult fiction. I also analyse the construction of the New Age Boy—a label used by John Stephens for young male protagonists who develop positive self esteem because of their perceived gender differences compared to boys of the hegemonic masculine type. By critiquing the manner in which masculinities are constructed in each case study, and supporting my critique through the literature of leading gender theorists, I question the seemingly homogenous manner in which the New Age Boy gains agency. This question is further explored through my creative practice, as I put into dialogue a protagonist who also recognises his gender differences, but instead of proposing a new and better masculinity, he tries to adhere to and reap the rewards of hegemonic masculinity.

In a heteronormative society where hegemonic masculinity prevails, beauty is often synonymous with, and presented as, feminine. For example, pictures of tall, thin women with perfect teeth and perfect skin gloss the covers of magazines and other forms of media as representative of some beauty ideal. This “ideal” is the barometer by which, on many levels, all women are judged. While some women may choose to ignore these messages, few women can always escape comparison. Our society constantly informs us that appearance matters. More specifically for women, a feminine physical appearance is often considered “ideal.” But what exactly does this construct, feminine, signify? Fundamentally, femininity is not static. To speak of it as a logical, simple construct is problematic for it means different things and is expressed in different ways in different environments. Furthermore, to assert one definition by which all others will be measured is difficult in that it presumes a homogenous population and/or idealizes one specific representation. In this research project I conducted in-depth interviews with 43 non-heterosexual women to discern how they constructed “femininity.” What did it look like? What meanings did it connote? When was it important and how was it negotiated? Applying a cognitive sociological lens and using grounded theory methods, I describe what femininity, or arguably femininities, look(s) like within this subpopulation. This project contributes to and extends the literature on gender, sexuality, and appearance. It does this by demonstrating the importance of analyzing non-heterosexual women’s experiences and understandings of femininity within a patriarchal society that valorizes hegemonic masculinity. Most literature contemplating appearance and related misogynistic messages emphasizes a heteronormative perspective. However, feminine and femininity uniquely impact non-heteronormative women. Non-heterosexual women must negotiate both misogynistic and heterosexist messages concurrently. By simultaneously addressing this “double” subordination or marginalization, this research endeavors to provide a more comprehensive overview of meanings and ramifications of appearance choices.