Gendered and Sexualized Bullying and Cyber Bullying

Abstract

Drawing on semistructured interviews with Canadian Grade 4 to 12 students, this article uses a feminist lens to explore gendered and sexualized bullying and cyberbullying among children and youth. Our findings indicate that while boys’ roles and behaviors were frequently made invisible, girls were typically spotlighted, blamed, and criticized. Girls’ experiences were often minimized and normalized by peers and linked to gender norms and stereotypes that were largely invisible to participants. The central theme of invisibility emerged, which encompassed and interconnected the three subthemes: (a) gendered stereotyping, (b) spotlighting girls, and (c) gender surveillance and policing. Gendered and sexualized bullying and cyberbullying were found to be part of a socialization process wherein girls come to expect gender-based aggression, violence, and inequality in their lives. This article makes explicit how bullying and cyberbullying are linked to societal norms that put girls at risk of harassment, violence, abuse, and discrimination.

Keywords

bullying cyberbullying children youth gendered sexualized

Introduction

Scholars increasingly seek to articulate the intersections between gender, bullying, and cyberbullying among children and youth (Chiodo, Wolfe, Crooks, Hughes, & Jaffe, 2009), drawing on discussions of gender-based harassment, discrimination, and violence (Gådin, 2012; Karaian, 2012; Miller, 2016). Gender structures how bullying and cyberbullying are perpetrated, experienced, and culturally understood (Bailey & Steeves, 2015; Meyer, 2009). Girls’ experiences of bullying and cyberbullying are frequently sexualized and tend to involve gendered stereotypes, often taking the form of “slut-shaming” (shaming based on perceived or actual sexual behavior; Payne, 2010; Tanenbaum, 2015) and sexual rumors (Miller, 2016). The purpose of this article is to explore the socialization processes in gendered and sexualized bullying and cyberbullying experiences among Canadian students in Grades 4 to 12, through structured interviews over 3 years.

Gendered and Sexualized Bullying and Cyberbullying

Bullying is a form of aggression that occurs in the context of a relationship that can be direct or indirect, and includes physical, verbal, psychological, relational, or cyber acts. Bullying generally involves a power imbalance and is repeated (Craig & Pepler, 2007; Olweus, 1993). Gendered and sexualized bullying are considered intertwined (Espelage, Basile, De La Rue, & Hamburger, 2015; Jamal, Bonell, Harden, & Lorenc, 2015). We define gendered bullying as behavior that maintains and asserts dominant cisgender norms of heterosexual masculinity and femininity (Meyer, 2009) and sexualized bullying as bullying of a sexual nature (Angrove, 2015), echoing Sullivan’s (2011) description as “unwanted sexual attention that makes the recipient feel uncomfortable, demeaned, or humiliated” (p. 54). Sexualized bullying ranges in severity from unwanted and unwelcome sexual comments, name-calling, and teasing, to sexual assault and rape (Fineran & Bolen, 2006; Sullivan, 2011).

Gendered and sexualized bullying and cyberbullying have been defined variably, leading to a constellation of terms such as harassment, aggression, violence, and bullying to describe similar behaviors and experiences (Landstedt & Persson, 2014; Shute, Owens, & Slee, 2016). The definition of these terms is necessarily political and shapes how we perceive and respond to the behaviors (Ringrose & Renold, 2010). Some scholars contend that much research on bullying is “gender blind” and that gender must be recognized as shaping bullying victimization (Besag, 2006; Landstedt & Persson, 2014). While we utilize the phrase “gendered and sexualized bullying and cyberbullying,” we understand this phenomenon as entangled with the behaviors and experiences labeled as harassment, aggression, or discrimination.

Theorizing Gendered and Sexualized Bullying and Cyberbullying

Normative constructions of gender shape how bullying and cyberbullying are understood, experienced, and responded to (Bailey & Steeves, 2015; Brown, Chesney-Lind, & Stein, 2007). Gendered and sexualized bullying and cyberbullying occur according to widely shared heteronormative gender norms and stereotypes that often position girls/women as more vulnerable, dependent, and passive, and boys/men as more powerful, autonomous, and agentic (Budgeon, 2013; Ridgeway, 2009; Ridgeway & Correll, 2004). Scholars argue that the failure to identify the influence of gender socialization processes obscures the social realities that young people navigate, as well as the motivations of bullying (Brown et al., 2007).

We employ a feminist lens to explore the socialization processes involved in gendered and sexualized bullying and cyberbullying. We draw on Butler’s theory of gender performativity to explore how gender categories are constructed through social performance, and require repetition and disciplinary practices to maintain their normative function (Butler, 1988, 1990, 1993). We specifically employ Butler’s (1988) notion that gender identity performance revolves around a “stylized repetition of acts . . . which the mundane social audience, including the actors themselves, come to believe and perform in the mode of belief” (pp. 519-520). Butler explains that the constant impersonation and imitation at the heart of gender performance is inextricably linked to both gender binarism and the ideology of heterosexuality, and is plagued by unending anxiety and efforts to meet these ideals. The intersection of these demands, idealizations, anxieties, performances, and disciplinary practices is what concerns us. We use this approach to (a) explore how children and youth mobilize and appropriate dominant gender norms and narratives from the adult world (Thornberg, 2015) and (b) better understand how and why young people render some bullying behaviors invisible, normal, or natural.

We focus on the discursive construction of gendered and sexualized bullying and cyberbullying, drawing on post-structural theories of discourse (Butler, 1990; Youdell, 2006) to explore how young people are socialized into gender binarism and patriarchal systems that value male power and aggression (Hlavka, 2014; Pascoe, 2013). By enabling a close exploration of the language and narratives that young people use to describe their social worlds, discourse analysis provides the tools to elucidate the processes by which particular behaviors are understood and responded to as bullying, and how and why others are understood as “drama,” “flirtation,” or “talking trash” (Marwick & boyd, 2014). Enabling us to better understand how young people develop as gendered beings through gendered and sexualized bullying and cyberbullying, this focus illuminates how structural inequities are created and maintained in the everyday interactions of children and youth.

Gender Socialization and Bullying: Research

A major focus of scholarship has been on how bullying and cyberbullying maintain and are shaped by gender norms and heteronormative sexuality. Birkett and Espelage (2015) find that homophobic name-calling, particularly among boys, is entrenched in ideals of heteronormative masculinity that structure social relations. As Pascoe (2005) explains, the power of the label “fag” “has as much to do with failing at the masculine tasks of competence, heterosexual prowess and strength or an [sic] anyway revealing weakness or femininity, as it does with a sexual identity” (p. 330). Similarly, the label “slut” maintains normative heterosexual femininities (Hlavka, 2014; Miller, 2016). Such slurs are one way through which youth co-construct one another as gendered. Pascoe (2013) argues that, for boys, and we would add, for girls and gender minority youth, “analyzing bullying as part of a gender socialization process suggests that these interactional practices may be as tied to structural inequalities, and gendered and sexualized meaning-making process as they are to individual-level variables” (p. 91).

Scholarship has linked these socialization processes to the creation and maintenance of gender inequality and gender-based violence. Miller (2016) demonstrates that slut-shaming, for example, normalizes and reinforces gendered inequality by blaming girls and rendering boys invisible in the spreading of sexual rumors. Hlavka (2014) find that girls have few spaces free of sexual harassment, abuse, and objectification (see also Shute et al., 2016). In her research on sexual violence among youth, boys’ aggression was depicted as natural, and acquiescence to boys’ power and privilege was considered routine among girls aged 11 to 16 years. Girls are at risk of being called names such as slut if they do not act in accordance with impossibly high societal standards and norms of behavior, beauty, and popularity (Bailey, Steeves, Burkell, & Regan, 2013; Marwick, 2012; Ringrose, 2010).

There is a robust literature on gender socialization and the representation of girls’ bullying behaviors in popular media. For example, relational aggression among girls and young women framed as “mean girl” behavior has generated significant cultural attention (Males & Chesney-Lind, 2010). These narratives have become tropes depicting “popular girls” as “protecting and cultivating [power] . . . in increasingly duplicitous and cruel ways” (Ryalls, 2012, p. 466). Sensationalization of verbal and/or indirect bullying and cyberbullying among girls vilifies and condemns girls’ patterns of communication, resulting in “calls for escalating inspection of girls in order to tame the ‘threat’ of female aggression, while ignoring the role boys may have played” (Ryalls, 2012, p. 463). This attention to relational aggression among girls extends to research and scholarship (Chesney-Lind, Morash, & Irwin, 2007; Currie, Kelly, & Pomerantz, 2007), and may even inform “current violence prevention and anti-bullying programs” (Chesney-Lind et al., 2007, p. 109).

Gendered and Sexualized Bullying and Cyberbullying: Research

Gendered and sexualized bullying is remarkably prevalent (Bailey & Steeves, 2015; Coker, Austin, & Schuster, 2010; Poteat, Mereish, DiGiovanni, & Koenig, 2011). Girls disproportionately experience gendered and sexualized bullying (Faucher, Cassidy, & Jackson, 2015; Guerra, Williams, & Sadek, 2011), boys commonly experience homophobic bullying and bullying linked to masculine norms (Chiodo et al., 2009; McMaster, Connolly, Pepler, & Craig, 2002), and gender and sexual minority youth frequently experience sexual harassment and verbal abuse related to their gender and/or sexuality (D’Augelli, Pilkington, & Hershberger, 2002; Telljohann & Price, 1993). Bullying can begin as early as kindergarten and continue through high school, postsecondary education, and into the workplace (Fineran & Bolen, 2006; Gådin, 2012; Stein, 1995). There is limited research on peer sexual harassment in primary and intermediate schools (Gådin, 2012), partly, because of the assumption that these behaviors emerge during adolescence.

Although cyberbullying research has exploded in recent years, there is a dearth of research on girls’ experiences of gendered and sexualized cyberbullying. Defined as the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to harm another person in some way (Smith, del Barrio, & Tokunaga, 2013), cyberbullying is often characterized as inescapable because it can occur anytime, anywhere, and has a potentially limitless audience (Kowalski, Limber, Limber, & Agatston, 2012; Sabella, Patchin, & Hinduja, 2013).

Girls are targeted twice as much online as boys (Finkelhor, Mitchell, & Wolak, 2000), and gendered and sexualized cyberbullying is disproportionately experienced by girls and LGBTQ2SA (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Questioning, Two-Spirited and Ally)–identified children and youth (Bailey, 2013, 2014). Aggression toward girls has been described as rampant online (Navarro & Jasinski, 2013), whereas perpetrators tend to be boys (Navarro & Jasinski, 2013; Shute, Owens, & Slee, 2008). Severe sexualized cyberbullying can be a risk factor for suicidality among girls (Bazelon, 2013; Dodge, 2016). The distress can discourage girls from online participation (Faucher et al., 2015).

Method

This 3-year study (Mishna et al., 2016) employed stratified random sampling at a large urban Canadian school board. Schools were ranked using an existing index on external challenges to student achievement and stratified into three categories of need (low, medium, high). This index was developed based on neighborhood-level census data, including income and education levels, ratio of households receiving social assistance, and ratio of single parent families, and used to ensure ethnocultural and socioeconomic diversity. Twenty-nine schools participated (Year 1 [Y1] = 19; Year 3 [Y3] = 10). All students in fourth, seventh, and 10th grades were invited to participate in the quantitative portion. A subsample was then purposefully selected (based on gender, grade, school needs category, and bullying/cyberbullying involvement) to participate in an approximately 60-minute interview during Years 1 and 3. The University Research Ethics Board and the External Research Review Committee of the participant’s school board granted ethics approval.

The Y1 subsample comprised 57 students in the fourth (n = 20), seventh (n = 21), and 10th (n = 16) grades. Y3 interviews were undertaken with 43 students, then in the sixth (n = 16), ninth (n = 14), and 12th (n = 13) grades. For the purposes of clarity, students will be identified by their grade during the year of the interview, followed by the year in which the interview took place (i.e., Y1, Y3). The interview guide was developed based on literature and team expertise (Mishna et al., 2016). The 100 interviews were recorded and transcribed. Following preliminary analysis of transcripts, the guide was revised. Interviewers asked participants questions such as how they defined cyberbullying, motivations for cyberbullying, experiences with cyber technology and cyberbullying, whether they sought help, and whether they considered cyberbullying as a serious problems. Interviewers probed for rich detail, asking for examples and for detail about experiences of peer aggression that students did not classify as bullying or cyberbullying.

Using a grounded theory inquiry, data were concurrently analyzed and theorized in a reciprocal process of constant comparison (Birks & Mills, 2015; Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Initial coding was undertaken by seven coders, each of whom was assigned a subset of the interviews. Each coder inductively identified preliminary themes through line-by-line, open coding of transcripts. Given the grounded theory approach, no hypotheses guided data analysis and coders sought to bracket their biases through reflexive journaling and team discussions of coders’ assumptions (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). During team meetings, each interview was collectively coded, building upon, revising, and/or removing codes proposed by the initial coder. Emerging themes were identified and discussed at regular meetings, with a large number of preliminary codes identified. Next, a holistic “middle-order” approach to coding condensed the number of initial codes (Saldaña, 2015). Axial coding was then used to identify connections within and between themes and subthemes (Birks & Mills, 2015; Charmaz, 2006; Corbin & Strauss, 2008).

Through this iterative process of open, holistic, and focused coding, key themes emerged related to gendered and sexualized bullying and cyberbullying. Although our intent was to pursue all participants’ experiences, early analysis revealed that boys rarely discussed such experiences. Therefore, a majority of the themes discussed herein emerged from interviews with girls. In contrast, a prominent theme in boys’ interviews comprised cyber aggression and victimization in online gaming, giving us cause to split boys’ experiences into an additional exploration (McInroy & Mishna, 2017).

Measures were employed to ensure trustworthiness and authenticity. Prolonged engagement through researchers’ years of research and practice guided theory development. Rigor was established through documentation for auditing purposes (Padgett, 2008). Reflexive journaling, bracketing, and dense descriptions further ensured trustworthiness and transferability (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).

Results

Y1 interviews (n = 57) included 22 boys and 35 girls, and Y3 interviews (n = 43) included 17 boys and 26 girls. Boys’ interviews tended to be shorter and less descriptive. The higher number of girls is reflected in the presentation of results, which includes disproportionately more quotations by girls. Participants were diverse in terms of ethnicity and school need level—Y1 (14 low, 20 medium, and 23 high), ethnoracial background (17 White, eight East, nine South and one Southeast Asian, three Black, two Latin American, three Middle Eastern, eight Mixed, one other ethnicity, two don’t know, and three missing), and cyberbullying involvement (nine victimized, 31 witnessed, and two perpetrated) and Y3 (11 low, 14 medium, and 18 high), ethnoracial background (13 White, six East, six South and one Southeast Asian, three Black, two Middle Eastern, seven Mixed, one other ethnicity, two don’t know, and two missing), and cyberbullying experience (seven victimized, 16 witnessed, and one perpetrated).

Analysis revealed an overarching theme and three subthemes. The central theme of invisibility encompassed and interconnected the three subthemes: (a) gendered stereotyping, (b) spotlighting girls, and (c) gender surveillance and policing.

Overarching Theme: Invisibility

The overarching theme of invisibility comprised two facets: (a) the invisibility of boys’ behaviors, motivations, and presence in participant accounts, and (b) the participants’ lack of awareness of the influence of the gendered norms and stereotypes on which they relied.

Invisibility of boys

Boys’ roles and even presence were typically invisible in participants’ accounts. In the three subthemes, participants used gender norms and stereotypes to discount, normalize, or justify boys’ behaviors. In contrast, girls’ involvement was frequently spotlighted, with girls held responsible for boys’ behavior. Girls’ victimization was attributed to their poor judgment or inability to manage boys’ sexual desires. Narratives tended to focus on how girls’ behaviors should change, which often functioned to erase boys’ culpability and roles.

Even when boys and girls engaged in similar behaviors (e.g., sexual rumors), participants typically discounted boys’ behaviors while problematizing these same behaviors by girls. Moreover, participants often did not consider boys’ bullying behaviors to be bullying because they aligned with masculine gender norms, whereas girls’ behaviors were spotlighted. For instance, when asked who is most likely to bully, one Grade 6 girl (Y3) responded, “Mostly girls, not boys, because boys would just go over and do some physical things . . . [Girls would] post embarrassing stuff of the person and do that kind of stuff.”

Invisibility of gendered norms and stereotypes

The influence of the norms and stereotypes was typically invisible to the participants. For example, one Grade 9 girl (Y3) expressed that boys do not disclose bullying victimization because

they don’t want to show they’re weak because guys . . . think they’re very strong . . . so I don’t think they would show it as much. Girls kind of like the vulnerable look, so I think girls tell, more than guys do.

This sentiment was echoed in many accounts and was often linked to participants’ endorsement of the stereotypical notion that girls “overreact” and “overthink.” Many participants framed girls’ attempts to seek help as “attention-seeking” and “making a big deal,” reinforcing the expectation that girls should accommodate boys’ bullying behaviors without complaint. This once again erases boys’ responsibility and fosters an intensely critical focus on girls. Such instances of invisibility may promote normalizing gendered and sexualized bullying and cyberbullying, making it challenging for children and youth to identify these experiences as bullying or cyberbullying.

Subtheme a: Gendered stereotyping

The participants expressed the belief that girls and boys perpetrate and experience bullying and cyberbullying in distinct ways. They described boys as bullying through physical means (e.g., “beating up” others) and girls as bullying through relational means (e.g., gossiping). A Grade 9 girl (Y3) stated, “[F]or girls it’s more of talking badly about someone behind their back or even to their face. But for guys, it’s more physical. If a guy didn’t like another guy, he wouldn’t talk about him. He’d probably beat him up.” Another Grade 7 (Y1) girl explained that girls “share secrets and they never tell the other person. Boys, they might hurt each other with your fists, or they’ll just talk it out loudly to let everyone hear.” Similarly, a Grade 12 boy (Y3) stated, “[B]oys tend to bully by physically harassing them, whereas girls just talk about other girls behind their backs.” These stereotypes were endorsed by girls and boys as young as Grade 4, some of whom believed that all relational bullying is perpetrated by girls. For example, when asked where cyberbullying takes place, a Grade 4 boy (Y1) responded, “[S]ometimes in high schools when they text, when like sassy girls text.”

These typifications align with gendered stereotypes that boys and men are more physical in their relationships and bullying behaviors, whereas girls and women are more psychological and emotional (Crick, Grotpeter, & Bigbee, 2002; Rodkin, Espelage, & Hanish, 2015). Participants commonly identified physical bullying among boys as rooted in a desire for power and dominance, which they did not feel was a motivator for girls. As one Grade 7 (Y1) girl expressed,

Guys tend to be more aggressive, so if it’s more power, it’s kind of like they’re in control and they can do what they want, and kind of boss you around, or tell you what to do. And I don’t think most girls want that as much.

Notably, participants emphasized these stereotypes even when their narratives about their own and others’ experiences were contradictory. For example, a participant said a boy used “guilt trips” to coerce a girl into sharing intimate images yet depicted boys as bullying physically.

Participants typically characterized girls as deceptive. As a Grade 6 girl (Y3) explained, “[G]ossiping about someone is just, I don’t know, kind of a girl thing, you talk about someone behind their back because it’s more comfortable than saying it to someone’s face.” In contrast, boys’ physical bullying behaviors were characterized as straightforward and less complex. A Grade 7 girl (Y1) stated,

Mostly for girls it’s usually psychological because girls really overthink things and we’re really up in our minds and we’re all like . . . Guys just like have no brains. They just beat people up.

Participants depicted boys as better able to brush off bullying incidents. One Grade 6 girl (Y3) commented, “For guys, physically saying it to someone’s face doesn’t really affect you that much.” Some participants believed it would be preferable to be a boy, as a Grade 10 girl (Y1) explained,

I think I would rather be a boy because boys just . . . like, even in hallways, they just fight, like physically fight . . . But girls, they hold grudges . . . It’s more like verbal . . . “I don’t like you, your hair is bad, you smell, you have lice,” kind of like that.

Girls’ responses were frequently characterized as dramatic, petty, and too sensitive, whereas boys’ aggressive behaviors were typically not framed as “dramatic” or “over-reactive.” A Grade 7 girl (Y1) claimed, “Girls definitely make more drama. They’re over-reactors, they overreact over everything. Guys are more laid back, chill.” The few participants who reflected on these characterizations as stereotypes still held them to be accurate. A Grade 6 girl (Y3) contended,

Not to be stereotypical, but girls, they are like extreme. If that person hates the other person, everything that person does will make the girl hate them. Let’s say I hate this girl and she’s eating her crackers. I would be like, “Look at her eating her crackers like she owns the place.” You would take it to the extreme like, write mean comments on social media websites.

These stereotypes were voiced by participants as young as Grade 4. Moreover, participants suggested that adults held such stereotypes as well. A Grade 9 girl (Y3) explained,

. . . She was sending death threats, to not just me, but to my friends, and then she said she was going to hurt my little sister and it was really bad . . . a police officer came in, and he talked to me and my friends . . . He was explaining to us how this social media thing is really, it’s not worth it, and we shouldn’t put ourselves down, especially we’re teenage girls and we overthink everything.

Subtheme b: Spotlighting girls

Participants frequently framed gendered and sexualized bullying and cyberbullying, particularly the nonconsensual distribution of intimate images, as the fault of the victims, who were mostly girls. Victimized girls were often described as making a “stupid” or “sad” mistake. A Grade 12 girl (Y3) expressed, “It happens to girls the most where a girl decides to make a dumb mistake and sends a picture, like a nude picture, to someone.”

Girls’ creation of intimate images was considered risky, with the nonconsensual distribution of these images viewed as an expected consequence. One Grade 7 boy (Y1) said, “They’ve probably done something they shouldn’t have, like Amanda Todd [Dean, 2012], and they find they’re getting blackmailed.” Similarly, a Grade 12 girl (Y3) contended, “I’ve never personally met someone that has sent [naked photos], but I have heard of people in other schools . . . kind of talking about how she really shouldn’t have done that.” As explicated by a Grade 10 girl (Y1), girls are considered responsible for protecting themselves from such behavior:

They have a picture that yeah, they shouldn’t have sent out because it could be a nude picture or it could just be a picture that they don’t like. And I’ve seen it get on Twitter and in like less than 20 minutes, everyone is laughing at them, everyone is talking about it, everyone is re-tweeting it . . . I think that girls do get targeted more and victimized more just because it’s way more easy, because a lot of girls are naïve.

Some participants described girl victims as intentionally creating drama. A Grade 10 girl (Y1) explained,

I think he felt he was being funny . . . He just thought she was annoying so he wanted to make her feel bad. I think she definitely felt upset and everything, but this boy was a Grade 8 boy who treated everyone like that, and she just escalated the situation. No one else would take that to heart . . . I think because it was directed to her she wanted to make the situation a bigger deal than it was.

Participants tended to focus on the girl victim, and at times the bystanders who responded to the image. Participants rarely acknowledged the behaviors or existence of the perpetrators, who, according to participants, were mostly boys. Rather, images were described as “getting out” or “ending up on the Internet.” One Grade 10 girl (Y1) commented, “I know girls, like they send pictures of themselves. Like they’ll send it to someone and then it gets out to everybody.” Another Grade 10 girl (Y1) explained, “A lot of girls like, especially when it comes to boys, they want to please boys by sending them pictures and saying certain things that end up getting on the Internet and so many people see it.” The invisibility of the perpetrator created a “spotlighting” effect on victimized girls specifically, and girls in general. As a Grade 10 girl (Y1) recalled,

I remember there was one girl who, as many girls do, sent a picture out to whoever, and it got exposed onto the Internet. A lot of people decided that they were going to laugh at her, and they were going to say whatever they had to say.

Girls were also held responsible if they were cyberbullied for photos they posted of themselves, such as selfies. One Grade 10 girl (Y1) commented, “Girls posting inappropriate photos of themselves . . . gives someone the opportunity to say something, or spread a photo like that.”

Subtheme c: Gender surveillance and policing

Analysis revealed that gendered and sexualized bullying and cyberbullying often involved the surveillance of boys’ and girls’ gender performance and sexual lives, which manifested as gender surveillance and policing. We define gender surveillance and policing as the processes through which individuals reinforce traditional gender norms in others by rewarding behaviors that conform to norms and stereotypes while chastising behaviors that defy these (Karaian, 2012; Mayeza, 2017).

Appearance-based bullying and cyberbullying emerged as a key way through which gender surveillance and policing occurred. Insults directed toward girls often involved assertions that they were “fat” or “ugly,” while other derogatory comments focused on girls’ sexual behaviors. One Grade 9 girl (Y3) stated that cyberbullying directed at girls often involves statements like “you’re a slut, or you’re stupid, you’re ugly,” whereas a Grade 7 girl (Y1) explained that many girls “get bullied if they show maybe too much stomach or something.” Similarly, a Grade 4 girl (Y1) stated,

I don’t think many guys are [cyberbullied] unless it’s like they’re gay or they’ve done this or that, but for girls, it’s mostly about appearance and it’s mostly trying to get inside their brain and trying to get them to think like that. So, you say you’re fat, you’re ugly, you’re stupid.

Participants reported that appearance-based bullying and cyberbullying could focus on everything from a girl’s eyes to her teeth, skin, breast size, and dress. A Grade 10 girl (Y1) recounted, “I had small boobs. So, they would [bully me]. Girls, not boys because boys didn’t care. Boys are boys. But girls, yes. . . In changing rooms. . . Oh my god, some of the girls were just horrible.” A Grade 6 girl (Y3) conveyed a peer’s story, “[S].” Many participants commented that bystanders rarely intervened, as explained by a Grade 10 girl (Y1):

But things like photos of girls not wearing much clothing or something and everyone will see it and then they’ll share it with everybody and they’ll make fun of you and call you a slut . . . I see more the people join in with it or just ignoring it. There’s not a lot of people that will stand up and say stop.

Appearance-based gendered and sexualized bullying and cyberbullying were largely considered an expected part of girls’ lives. Participants reported instances in which adults failed to respond. One Grade 7 girl (Y1) relayed,

[M]y friend got called a slut and a stripper in front of two teachers and they did nothing, they just looked at the person and looked away and they heard everything. She went to the washroom crying and got in trouble because she went to the washroom.

The surveillance and policing of girls’ gender performance occurred among children as young as Grade 4. One Grade 4 girl (Y1) who commented that girls often called each other “slut” said that although she didn’t know what slut meant, she knew it was “something to do with ugly.” Analysis indicated that girls face a delicate balance, on one hand, experiencing pressure to appear attractive and sexualized, and on the other, criticized if they were too sexy. Some participants exhibited considerable anxiety about appearing to be the right kind of girl. A Grade 7 girl (Y1) expressed, “I don’t get how she could call me a slut and a whore, because I don’t show myself at all. I don’t wear bad clothes, I don’t post bad pictures. I don’t get how I could be that.”

Participants rarely articulated the ways class, race, ethnicity, religion, or ability intersected with these practices of gender surveillance and policing. One Grade 4 girl (Y1) was an exception:

And now people like laugh at girls who wear long dresses and hijabs . . . One of my best friends, she has long curly hair and she always wears t-shirts and long sleeves at gym. But some girls, kind of like give her dirty looks because of the way she dresses because she wears pants with short dresses.

Most participants did not reflect on gender surveillance and policing. One Grade 6 girl (Y3), however, reflected,

It’s from when we were little because those Barbie dolls are super skinny. We wanted to have blonde hair, blue eyes, and be like Barbie or something like that. I think it’s just how maybe we were raised, and how we look at things. We tend to be very submissive and dependent.

Discussion

Consistent with recent studies (Bailey & Steeves, 2015; Gådin, 2012; Miller, 2016; Ringrose, Gill, Livingstone, & Harvey, 2012), our findings suggest that gendered and sexualized bullying and cyberbullying are commonplace in the lives of children and youth and, as described by the participants, frequently normalized and trivialized. According to the results, girls disproportionately experience and are blamed for gendered and sexualized bullying and cyberbullying.

Unique to this study was the finding that among children as young as fourth grade, boys’ actions and even presence were frequently invisible in participant accounts whereas girls’ behaviors were often spotlighted. These findings are supported by evidence that girls who sexted were considered irresponsible and slutty, even when they sent sexts in response to male pressure (Lippman & Campbell, 2014; Ringrose et al., 2012).

Research has found boys more likely to engage in physical bullying and girls more likely to engage in relational bullying (Brown et al., 2007; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995, 1996). Other studies contradict these results, finding that boys and girls are just as likely to engage in verbal bullying (Miller, 2016; Sourander, Helstelä, Helenius, & Piha, 2000) and that boys both bully and are bullied more than girls in traditional forms of bullying, including relational (Parada, 2006). A meta-analysis found that girls’ tendency to engage in more indirect aggression was “statistically significant but trivial in magnitude” (Card, Stucky, Sawalani, & Little, 2008, p. 1203). In her analysis of research on social aggression among girls, Underwood (2003) underscores that “the evidence for gender differences is quite inconsistent” (p. 34), and highlights the complex and nuanced picture of aggression based on gender.

The cyberbullying literature is similarly inconsistent regarding gender differences (Griezel, Finger, Bodkin-Andrews, Craven, & Yeung, 2012). Our study found no significant differences in student reported cyberbullying by gender. Both parents and teachers, however, believed girls engage in cyberbullying more than boys.

Although participants recounted stories in which boys and girls engaged in similar behaviors (e.g., spreading rumors), they did not recognize such behavior by boys as bullying or cyberbullying, because their actions did not match the stereotype that boys bully through physical means. Moreover, participants did not appear to notice these contradictions. These results correspond with findings that, despite similar bullying behaviors, boys and girls are characterized as engaging in distinct bullying strategies, thus perpetuating dominant binary ideologies (Miller, 2016; Orpinas, McNicholas, & Nahapetyan, 2015; Wang, Iannotti, & Nansel, 2009). Even in those instances when participants characterized boys’ relational aggression as bullying or cyberbullying, the participants rarely applied the negative labels (e.g., dramatic) to boys as they did to girls (Lippman & Campbell, 2014). This suggests that gender norms and stereotypes often render invisible the relational bullying of boys.

These results highlight what other scholars have termed the “responsibilization” of girls (Karaian, 2012). Societal norms and narratives position girls and women as responsible for anticipating and managing boys’ and men’s sexual desires (Chambers, Tincknell, & Loon, 2004), and thus as blameworthy when these desires manifest themselves in sexual violence, harassment, or abuse. Conversely, boys are positioned as not responsible for their harmful behaviors. A recent systematic review of nonconsensual distribution of sexting images highlights how legal, psychological, and educational literatures commonly use language that minimizes the actions of the offender (typically male) and characterizes such incidents as provoked and an inevitable outcome of youthful indiscretions (Krieger, 2017). Although some scholars have suggested that gendered and sexualized bullying begins at puberty (McMaster et al., 2002), our results suggest this begins much earlier.

Girls’ reactions to gendered and sexualized bullying and cyberbullying were frequently criticized, ignored, or attributed to characteristics related to their gender (e.g., overreactive). Participants depicted girls’ attempts to seek help as attention seeking or as making a “big deal.” Such trivialization combined with the negative labeling of girls who attempt to challenge this behavior, socializes girls to expect and accept gender-based aggression or harassment in their lives (Berman, McKenna, Arnold, Taylor, & MacQuarrie, 2000; Gådin, 2012), and teaches boys that aggression is a part of affection. As Gådin (2012) articulates, “If girls who complain of sexual harassment to a teacher get the answer that the boy is just doing it because he likes her, then the perception that violence can be a part of love starts in an early age” (p. 1774).

There is evidence that adults minimize, normalize, and/or ignore girls’ experiences of gendered and sexualized bullying (Mishna, Pepler, & Wiener, 2006; Rodkin & Fischer, 2003). Adult acceptance of such behaviors may contribute to a culture that perpetuates gender inequality and promotes gendered violence and sexualized aggression as children continue into adolescence and adulthood. With evidence that women’s experiences of gendered and sexualized violence and harassment are frequently met with denial, victim-blaming, and claims that the woman was responsible (Suarez & Gadalla, 2010), our results suggest that this enduring pattern begins in childhood.

Although girls’ experiences are the focus of this article, it is important to recognize that gender inequality, sexualized violence, and pervasive gender norms can have detrimental effects on boys and sexual and gender nonconforming young people. Boys are more likely to experience homophobic bullying and bullying related to norms around masculinity (Chiodo et al., 2009; McMaster et al., 2002), and considerable evidence indicates that sexual and gender nonconforming young people are at heightened risk of experiencing bullying (Coker et al., 2010; Poteat et al., 2011). Furthermore, the intersection of gender with race, ethnicity, class, sexuality, background, and other identities powerfully structures young people’s experiences of bullying and cyberbullying (Sawyer, Bradshaw, & O’Brennan, 2008).

Limitations

Although this study draws from a large and diverse sample, there are limitations. First, although boys and girls participated in identical semistructured interviews, girls were more likely to raise the themes that emerged. Second, our study did not analyze the views of children and youth who identify as gender nonconforming. Third, our study provided limited analysis of how children and youth’s intersecting identities shape their experiences and understanding of gendered and sexualized bullying and cyberbullying.

Implications for Practice and Research

A feminist approach to understanding gendered and sexualized bullying and cyberbullying makes visible gender-based bias as a prime motive. It is essential that adults recognize and respond to gendered and sexualized bullying and cyberbullying, including behaviors considered “benign,” in ways that validate the experiences of girls and facilitate their right to a learning environment free of harassment. Training is needed for primary and secondary school educators and staff, as prevention and intervention must begin early.

Participants rarely identified the societal norms and stereotypes that influence their perspectives. Interventions must therefore challenge societal norms and discourses that foster a culture in which girls are sexualized and objectified, as well as assist youth in identifying and challenging such discourses. Girls are hypersexualized in mass media imaging and experience intense pressure to appear sexually attractive (Ringrose, 2010) while simultaneously shamed and punished for appearing too sexy (Steeves, 2015). Without the tools to unpack these societal forces, girls may be more likely to blame themselves and each other for failing to achieve impossible standards of appearance and behavior. Because boys’ behavior is often invisible and/or normalized, interventions must address boys’ understanding of their responsibility and the rights of others.

Children and youth are primarily educated about digital technologies through an “online safety model” that focuses on protecting themselves and avoiding “risky” activities (Johnson, 2015). Our findings suggest that the language young people use parallels language in online safety models, focusing on the victim’s responsibility to protect herself. Alternative frameworks are needed to conceptualize and teach online safety.

As an increasing number of children and youth identify as gender nonconforming, research should explore these youth’s experiences of gendered and sexualized bullying and cyberbullying. Research is needed to better understand the association of children and youth’s intersecting identities with gendered and sexualized bullying and cyberbullying, including race, class, ability, ethnicity, sexuality, gender, and other forms of identity.

Conclusion

This study is unique in its presentation of evidence that children as young as Grade 4 have already begun practicing the norms that perpetuate gender inequality. Our findings highlight that gendered and sexualized bullying and cyberbullying are linked to societal norms that put girls at risk of harassment, abuse, and discrimination. We argue that girls’ victimization occurs because they belong to a gendered group that is systematically subordinated. When girls are encouraged to view their victimization as normal, trivial, their fault, or a sign of a boy’s affection and when boys’ perpetration is rendered invisible, teachable “moments” or opportunities of learning for all children and youth are missed.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research received financial support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Fund: 491087.

ORCID iD

Arija Birze

Author Biographies

Faye Mishna is the dean and professor at the Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto and is cross-appointed to the Department of Psychiatry. Faye holds the Margaret and Wallace McCain family chair in Child and Family. She has conducted research on bullying, cyber bullying, cyber counseling and the impact of cyber technology in traditional face-to-face counseling and interventions with vulnerable youth.

Kaitlin J. Schwan, PhD, is a postdoctoral fellow at the Canadian Observatory on Homelessness at York University, where her research focuses on youth homelessness, knowledge mobilization, and research impact. Her research interests include social movements, social change, and mobilizing research to promote the rights and equity of young people experiencing poverty, homelessness, marginalization, and social exclusion.

Arija Birze is a PhD candidate at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto. Her doctoral research explores how the gendered organization of emotion work shapes biological, psychological, and social experiences of stress in high-stress occupations.

Melissa Van Wert, MSW, PhD, is a postdoctoral fellow at McGill University. Her research focuses on promoting the development and wellbeing of children and adolescentswho have experienced abuse and neglect, particularly those living in out-of-home foster or group home care.

Ashley Lacombe-Duncan is a PhD candidate in the Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work at the University of Toronto. Her major research interests include health equity, with a particular focus on healthcare access for women who experience multiple forms of intersecting oppression. As a co-investigator of the CIHR-funded Canadian HIV Women’s Sexual and Reproductive Health Cohort Study (CHIWOS) and a student member of the CHIWOS team, Ashley works to understand issues of access to and experience of healthcare for trans women.

Lauren McInroy, MSW, PhD, is a research coordinator and course instructor at the Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto. Her research interests include vulnerable adolescents and young adults, LGBTQ+ populations, the impacts of information and communication technologies on young people’s well-being.

Shalhevet Attar-Schwartz, PhD, is an associate professor at the School of Social Work and Social Welfare at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Her research focuses on child well-being and child welfare among children and youth in the community and in out-of-home care. She has published extensively on children’s safety in schools and in residential care settings and she examines the quality of life, social support, and adjustment of young people in out of-home settings. She also specializes in intergenerational relationships and its contribution to child well-being.

References

Angrove

(2015). “She’s such a slut!” The sexualized cyberbullying of teen girls and the education law response. In Bailey

Steeves

(Eds.), eGirls, eCitizens: Putting technology, theory and policy into dialogue with girls’ and young women’s voices (pp. 307-336). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: University of Ottawa Press/Les Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa.

Bailey

(2013). “Sexualized online bullying” through an equality lens: Missed opportunity in AB v. Bragg? McGill Law Journal, 59, 709.

Bailey

(2014). Time to unpack the juggernaut: Reflections on the Canadian Federal Parliamentary Debates on Cyberbullying. Dalhousie LJ, 37, 661.

Bailey

Steeves

(2015). eGirls, eCitizens: Putting technology, theory and policy into dialogue with girls’ and young women’s voices. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: University of Ottawa Press/Les Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa.

Bailey

Steeves

Burkell

Regan

(2013). Negotiating with gender stereotypes on social networking sites: From “bicycle face” to Facebook. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 37, 91-112.

Bazelon

(2013). Sticks and stones: Defeating the culture of bullying and rediscovering the power of character and empathy. New York, NY: Random House.

Berman

McKenna

Arnold

C. T.

Taylor

MacQuarrie

(2000). Sexual harassment: Everyday violence in the lives of girls and women. Advances in Nursing Science, 22(4), 32-46.

Besag

V. E.

(2006). Bullying among girls: Friends or foes? School Psychology International, 27, 535-551.

Birkett

Espelage

D. L.

(2015). Homophobic name-calling, peer-groups, and masculinity: The socialization of homophobic behavior in adolescents. Social Development, 24, 184-205.

10.

Birks

Mills

(2015). Grounded theory: A practical guide (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

11.

Brown

L. M.

Chesney-Lind

Stein

(2007). Patriarchy matters: Toward a gendered theory of teen violence and victimization. Violence Against Women, 13, 1249-1273.

12.

Budgeon

(2013). The dynamics of gender hegemony: Femininities, masculinities and social change. Sociology, 48, 317-334.

13.

Butler

(1988). Performative acts and gender constitution: An essay in phenomenology and feminist theory. Theatre Journal, 40, 519-531.

14.

Butler

(1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of gender. New York, NY: Routledge.

15.

Butler

(1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of sex. New York, NY: Routledge.

16.

Card

N. A.

Stucky

B. D.

Sawalani

G. M.

Little

T. D.

(2008). Direct and indirect aggression during childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic review of gender differences, intercorrelations, and relations to maladjustment. Child Development, 79, 1185-1229.

17.

Chambers

Tincknell

Loon

J. V.

(2004). Peer regulation of teenage sexual identities. Gender and Education, 16, 397-415.

18.

Charmaz

(2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative research. London, England: Sage.

19.

Chesney-Lind

Morash

Irwin

(2007). Policing girlhood? Relational aggression and violence prevention. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 5, 328-345.

20.

Chiodo

Wolfe

D. A.

Crooks

Hughes

Jaffe

(2009). Impact of sexual harassment victimization by peers on subsequent adolescent victimization and adjustment: A longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45, 246-252.

21.

Coker

T. R.

Austin

S. B.

Schuster

M. A.

(2010). The health and health care of lesbian, gay, and bisexual adolescents. Annual Review of Public Health, 31, 457-477.

22.

Corbin

Strauss

(2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

23.

Craig

W. M.

Pepler

D. J.

(2007). Understanding bullying: From research to practice. Canadian Psychology/psychologie Canadienne, 48, 86-93.

24.

Crick

N. R.

Grotpeter

J. K.

(1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710-722.

25.

Crick

N. R.

Grotpeter

J. K.

(1996). Children’s treatment by peers: Victims of relational and overt aggression. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 367-380.

26.

Crick

N. R.

Grotpeter

J. K.

Bigbee

M. A.

(2002). Relationally and physically aggressive children’s intent attributions and feelings of distress for relational and instrumental peer provocations. Child Development, 73, 1134-1142.

27.

Currie

D. H.

Kelly

D. M.

Pomerantz

(2007). “The power to squash people”: Understanding girls’ relational aggression. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 28, 23-37.

28.

D’Augelli

A. R.

Pilkington

N. W.

Hershberger

S. L.

(2002). Incidence and mental health impact of sexual orientation victimization of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths in high school. School Psychology Quarterly, 17, 148-167.

29.

Dean

(Producer). (2012, October 18). The story of Amanda Todd. The New Yorker. Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-story-of-amanda-todd

30.

Dodge

(2016). Digitizing rape culture: Online sexual violence and the power of the digital photograph. Crime, Media, Culture, 12, 65-82.

31.

Espelage

D. L.

Basile

K. C.

De La Rue

Hamburger

M. E.

(2015). Longitudinal associations among bullying, homophobic teasing, and sexual violence perpetration among middle school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30, 2541-2561.

32.

Faucher

Cassidy

Jackson

(2015). From the sandbox to the inbox: Comparing the acts, impacts, and solutions of bullying in K-12, higher education, and the workplace. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(6), 111-125.

33.

Fineran

Bolen

R. M.

(2006). Risk factors for peer sexual harassment in schools. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 1169-1190.

34.

Finkelhor

Mitchell

K. J.

Wolak

(2000). Online victimization: A report on the nation’s youth. Alexandria, VA: National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.

35.

Gådin

K. G.

(2012). Sexual harassment of girls in elementary school: A concealed phenomenon within a heterosexual romantic discourse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 1762-1779.

36.

Griezel

Finger

L. R.

Bodkin-Andrews

G. H.

Craven

R. G.

Yeung

A. S.

(2012). Uncovering the structure of and gender and developmental differences in cyber bullying. The Journal of Educational Research, 105, 442-455.

37.

Guerra

N. G.

Williams

K. R.

Sadek

(2011). Understanding bullying and victimization during childhood and adolescence: A mixed methods study. Child Development, 82, 295-310.

38.

Hlavka

H. R.

(2014). Normalizing sexual violence: Young women account for harassment and abuse. Gender & Society, 28, 337-358.

39.

Jamal

Bonell

Harden

Lorenc

(2015). The social ecology of girls’ bullying practices: Exploratory research in two London schools. Sociology of Health & Illness, 37, 731-744.

40.

Johnson

(2015). Digital literacy and digital citizenship: Approaches to girls’ online experiences. In Bailey

Steeves

(Eds.), eGirls, eCitizens: Putting technology, theory and policy into dialogue with girls’ and young women’s voices (pp. 339-360). Ottawa, ON: University of Ottawa Press.

41.

Karaian

(2012). Lolita speaks: “Sexting,” teenage girls and the law. Crime, Media, Culture, 8, 57-73.

42.

Kowalski

R. M.

Limber

S. P.

Limber

Agatston

P. W.

(2012). Cyberbullying: Bullying in the digital age. Malden, MA: John Wiley.

43.

Krieger

M. A.

(2017). Unpacking “sexting”: A systematic review of nonconsensual sexting in legal, educational, and psychological literatures. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 18, 593-601.

44.

Landstedt

Persson

(2014). Bullying, cyberbullying, and mental health in young people. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 42, 393-399.

45.

Lippman

J. R.

Campbell

S. W.

(2014). Damned if you do, damned if you don’t . . . if you’re a girl: Relational and normative contexts of adolescent sexting in the United States. Journal of Children and Media, 8, 371-386.

46.

Males

Chesney-Lind

. (2010, April). The myth of mean girls. The New York Times, p. 23.

47.

Marwick

A. E.

(2012). The public domain: Social surveillance in everyday life. Surveillance & Society, 9, 378-393.

48.

Marwick

A. E.

boyd

(2014). “It’s just drama”: Teen perspectives on conflict and aggression in a networked era. Journal of Youth Studies, 17, 1187-1204.

49.

Mayeza

(2017). “Girls don’t play soccer”: Children policing gender on the playground in a township primary school in South Africa. Gender and Education, 29, 476-494.

50.

McInroy

L. B.

Mishna

(2017). Cyberbullying on online gaming platforms for children and youth. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 34, 597-607.

51.

McMaster

L. E.

Connolly

Pepler

Craig

W. M.

(2002). Peer to peer sexual harassment in early adolescence: A developmental perspective. Development and Psychopathology, 14, 91-105.

52.

Meyer

E. J.

(2009). Gender, bullying, and harassment: Strategies to end sexism and homophobia in schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

53.

Miller

S. A.

(2016). “How you bully a girl”: Sexual drama and the negotiation of gendered sexuality in high school. Gender & Society, 30, 721-744.

54.

Mishna

McInroy

L. B.

Lacombe-Duncan

Bhole

Van Wert

Schwan

. . . Johnston

(2016). Prevalence, motivations, and social, mental health and health consequences of cyberbullying among school-aged children and youth: Protocol of a longitudinal and multi-perspective mixed method study. JMIR Research Protocols, 5, e83.

55.

Mishna

Pepler

Wiener

(2006). Factors associated with perceptions and responses to bullying situations by children, parents, teachers, and principals. Victims & Offenders, 1, 255-288.

56.

Navarro

J. N.

Jasinski

J. L.

(2013). Why girls? Using routine activities theory to predict cyberbullying experiences between girls and boys. Women & Criminal Justice, 23, 286-303.

57.

Olweus

(1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what can we do. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

58.

Orpinas

McNicholas

Nahapetyan

(2015). Gender differences in trajectories of relational aggression perpetration and victimization from middle to high school. Aggressive Behavior, 41, 401-412.

59.

Padgett

(2008). Qualitative methods in social work research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

60.

Parada

R. H.

(2006). School bullying: Psychosocial determinants and effective intervention (Doctoral thesis). Retrieved from Western Sydney University Open Access Collection.

61.

Pascoe

(2005). “Dude, you’re a fag”: Adolescent masculinity and the fag discourse. Sexualities, 8, 329-346.

62.

Pascoe

(2013). Notes on a sociology of bullying: Young men’s homophobia as gender socialization. QED: A Journal in GLBTQ Worldmaking, 1, 87-103.

63.

Payne

(2010). Sluts: Heteronormative policing in the stories of lesbian youth. Educational Studies, 46, 317-336.

64.

Poteat

V. P.

Mereish

E. H.

DiGiovanni

C. D.

Koenig

B. W.

(2011). The effects of general and homophobic victimization on adolescents’ psychosocial and educational concerns: The importance of intersecting identities and parent support. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58, 597-609.

65.

Ridgeway

C. L.

(2009). Framed before we know it: How gender shapes social relations. Gender & Society, 23, 145-160.

66.

Ridgeway

C. L.

Correll

S. J.

(2004). Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspective on gender beliefs and social relations. Gender & Society, 18, 510-531.

67.

Ringrose

(2010). Sluts, whores, fat slags and playboy bunnies: Teen girls’ negotiations of “sexy” on social networking sites and at school. In Jackson

Paechter

Renold

(Eds.), Girls and education 3-16: Continuing concerns, new agendas (pp. 170-182). Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.

68.

Ringrose

Gill

Livingstone

Harvey

(2012). A qualitative study of children, young people and “sexting”: A report prepared for the NSPCC. Retrieved from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/44216/

69.

Ringrose

Renold

(2010). Normative cruelties and gender deviants: The performative effects of bully discourses for girls and boys in school. British Educational Research Journal, 36, 573-596.

70.

Rodkin

P. C.

Espelage

D. L.

Hanish

L. D.

(2015). A relational framework for understanding bullying: Developmental antecedents and outcomes. American Psychologist, 70, 311-321.

71.

Rodkin

P. C.

Fischer

(2003). Sexual harassment and the cultures of childhood: Developmental, domestic violence, and legal perspectives. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19, 177-196.

72.

Ryalls

(2012). Demonizing “mean girls” in the news: Was Phoebe Prince “bullied to death?” Communication, Culture & Critique, 5, 463-481.

73.

Sabella

R. A.

Patchin

J. W.

Hinduja

(2013). Cyberbullying myths and realities. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2703-2711.

74.

Saldaña

(2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

75.

Sawyer

A. L.

Bradshaw

C. P.

O’Brennan

L. M.

(2008). Examining ethnic, gender, and developmental differences in the way children report being a victim of “bullying” on self-report measures. Journal of Adolescent Health, 43, 106-114.

76.

Shute

Owens

Slee

(2008). Everyday victimization of adolescent girls by boys: Sexual harassment, bullying or aggression? Sex Roles, 58, 477-489.

77.

Shute

Owens

Slee

(2016). High school girls’ experience of victimization by boys: Where sexual harassment meets aggression. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 25, 269-285.

78.

Smith

P. K.

del Barrio

Tokunaga

R. S.

(2013). Definitions of bullying and cyberbullying: How useful are the terms? In Bauman

Cross

Walker

J. L.

(Eds.), Principles of cyberbullying research: Definitions, measures, and methodology (pp. 26-40). New York, NY: Routledge.

79.

Sourander

Helstelä

Helenius

Piha

(2000). Persistence of bullying from childhood to adolescence—A longitudinal 8-year follow-up study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24, 873-881.

80.

Steeves

(2015). “Pretty and just a little bit sexy, I guess”: Publicity, privacy, and the pressure to perform “appropriate” feminity on social media. In Bailey

Steeves

(Eds.), eGirls, eCitizens: Putting technology, theory and policy into dialogue with girls’ and young women’s voices (pp. 153-174). Ottawa, ON: University of Ottawa Press.

81.

Stein

(1995). Sexual harassment in school: The public performance of gendered violence. Harvard Educational Review, 65, 145-163.

82.

Suarez

Gadalla

T. M.

(2010). Stop blaming the victim: A meta-analysis on rape myths. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 2010-2035.

83.

Sullivan

(2011). The anti-bullying handbook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

84.

Tanenbaum

(2015). I am not a slut: Slut-shaming in the age of the Internet. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.

85.

Telljohann

S. K.

Price

J. H.

(1993). A qualitative examination of adolescent homosexuals’ life experiences: Ramifications for secondary school personnel. Journal of Homosexuality, 26(1), 41-56.

86.

Thornberg

(2015). School bullying as a collective action: Stigma processes and identity struggling. Children & Society, 29, 310-320.

87.

Underwood

M. K.

(2003). Social aggression among girls. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

88.

Wang

Iannotti

R. J.

Nansel

T. R.

(2009). School bullying among adolescents in the United States: Physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45, 368-375.

89.

Youdell

(2006). Impossible bodies, impossible selves: Exclusions and student subjectivities (Vol. 3). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.