The findings suggest two main conclusions: first, the desire to maintain conformity with prescribed gender behavior was not particular to the social control of girls and second, that the socializing efforts of the staff at the two institutions focused on reproducing the two main power relations in society: gender and class. The comparative analysis revealed many similarities and differences between the two institutions. For example, both could be classified as “total institutions” (Goffman 1961) as well as reformatory institutions. Other similarities included some of the qualities the staff sought to instill in the juveniles: self-control, strength of character, resistance to temptation, and resistance to manipulation. On the other hand, both institutions presented gendered versions of these qualities in that socialization attempts were aimed at different, yet similar ends: to produce a “virtuous girl” and a “proper boy” that reflected the contemporary conceptions of appropriate feminine and masculine behavior. These gendered goals of socialization drove the daily routines of the institutions. For example, the gendered notion that boys who break rules are just boys being boys, was expressed in greater leniency toward boys who broke the rules. Since there was no corresponding cultural value that “girls will be girls,” the rule breaking behavior of the female juveniles was considered a threat to acceptable femininity and was punished accordingly. Differences in class expectations were also observed such that while both genders were socialized to accept their working-class status, girls were taught to be subordinate in both their class and gender position. The analysis was based on data drawn from the 1950s and 1960s case records of the two institutions, Bjerketun and Foldin. References