In theorising masculinity, Connell (1995) explains that emphasised femininity refers to female behaviour that compliment and support hegemonic masculinity. Connell explains that emphasised femininity, like hegemonic masculinity, is a cultural construct that benefits patriarchy. According to Connell, emphasised femininity are underscored by practices characterised to accommodate masculinity. Thus for hegemonic masculinity to exist,
femininity has to be subordinated. Whilst masculinity is synonymous with power and sexual virility, femininity is constructed as the other, hence Connell does not accord hegemony to
48
femininity as he does to masculinity. As a result, Connell maintains that there is no hegemonic femininity (1978; 1995; 2002). However Paechter (2017; 2018) argues that
Connell’s conceptualisation of emphasised femininity is unduly shaped by patriarchal notions of masculinity which treats femininity as the ‘Other’ in relation to masculinity. As such, she maintains femininity is defined entirely in opposition and subordination to it such that femininity cannot be conceptualized at all without a masculinity. Paechter also stresses that the construction of hegemonic masculinity is in keeping with Butler’s heterosexual matrix which demonstrates heterosexuality as a key component of masculinity. Thus she maintains that in the context of heterosexuality, gender relations are governed by hegemonic
masculinity and emphasised femininity. Within the heterosexual matrix, it therefore becomes constitutional that females are compliant with the laws that govern gender relations. Paechter argues that Connell’s conceptualisation of emphasised femininity erodes the power and dignity of females because moral discourses as well as the threat and use of violence constrain the element of choice for women. Hence she argues that Connell’s
conceptualisation of emphasised femininity reifies, reinforces and re-inscribes the
heterosexual contract and is therefore both restrictive and draconian. Paechter recognises that Schipper’s (2007) argument for hegemonic femininity rather than emphasised femininity hardly disrupts Connell’s concept of emphasised femininity. Schipper put forth that just like there is hegemonic masculinity, there also is hegemonic femininity. She explains that rather than emphasised femininity, hegemonic femininities must be recognised alongside
hegemonic masculinity, since like male adherence and aspirations for hegemonic masculinity, females also draw on constructs of femininity that are revered and upheld, therefore,
hegemonic femininity. Paechter, in noting that gender is not monolithic, conceptualises femininities, like masculinity, as fluid. This recognition of diverse femininities implies different constructions of femininities come into play to accommodate, resist and negotiate gender and power. This acknowledgement of diverse femininities is significant as it creates a space for the shift from the victim-perpetrator binary, thus opening up avenues for addressing gender and sexual violence. By recognising the multiplicity of femininities, Paechter, like others (Bhana, 2018; Renold, 2005; Renold & Ringrose, 2008) stress the importance of moving away from the oppressor-oppressed discourse, thus acknowledging that females are not simply powerless beings. The recognition of a multiplicity of femininities also signals a shift from treating all women and girls as victims of male violence.
49
This recognition of alternate femininities is significant as it reinforces the conceptualisation of gender as fluid whilst also suggesting possibilities for both the shifting and disruption of normative gender beliefs around young girls’ sexualities. This recognition of alternative femininities is central to the recognition of my respondents’ sexual autonomy and agency. In the context of heterosexuality, it suggests that girls will either contest or engage in a
multitude of femininities in response to hegemonic displays of masculinity (Jewkes &
Morrell, 2012). South African studies (Bhana, 2018; Bhana & Anderson, 2013; Gevers et al., 2013; Jewkes & Morrell, 2012; Reddy & Dunne, 2007) have drawn on the concept of shifting femininities to dislocate South African girls from the trapped positioning of ‘victim’. The studies illustrate, instead, how the decisions and choices that girls make in their heterosexual relationships are influenced by their own conceptualisations of what constitutes a good relationship, what an ideal boyfriend should be (and look) like, and by their desire for gender equality in relationships.
In my study, I also contend that the girls were critical and selective about which identity or femininity was most advantageous to them at any particular moment, and that this gave them power and influenced their (often ambivalent) attitudes to interpreting sexually harassing behaviours. Their challenge was not situated in being bad girls or being disrespectful or even disinterested in academic work, rather it was situated in their active engagement in their sexuality which also challenged their teachers’ construction of them as ‘bad girls’. I found that the girls knew to how to position themselves in relation to both traditional and modern femininities because they knew about the meanings that the boys give to these categories. For example, they knew that boys like girls who comply with normative heterosexual behaviour, and harass girls who do not. In many instances, however, the girls conceded their power because of the discourses around the construction of masculinity and femininity. However, their agency lay in determining which type of femininity offered them more power both in their response to boys’ sexually harassing behaviours and in their heterosexual relationships.
Furthermore the girls’ responses showed that they were also emotionally invested in the position they took: they recognised their desires and acted accordingly. Their resistance to and negotiation of their identities suggests that their resistance can be very powerful in reducing the violence that they experience in school. Such plurality of femininities is well illustrated in global studies. For example, Ringrose and Harris (2004) and Maxwell and Aggleton (2013) show how girls reject conservatism and acquiescence by framing their
50
sexualities around a female sexual empowerment that centred on a desire to be free. Dworkin (2009), too, supports that whilst girls are regulated by hegemonic codes of gender, class, race, age and sexuality, they destabilise, challenge and topple the same. Bhana (2018) has similarly shown that primary school girls are agentic in constructing and reconstructing different forms of femininity. This concept of agency that girls play out in exerting power and producing effects in their lives is central to Butler’s theory of gender performativity. Indeed, girls’
sexual agency is most active in these moments of slippage.
Reddy and Dunne (2007) argue that whilst girls’ desire for recognition, attention and
relationships with boys suggests that they concede their power, it actually masks how power is reclaimed in other places, for example, a ‘cool girl’ status amongst peers. In this way, their agency to determine which category they choose offers them more power. Agency is choice.
Girls may have to give up what they enjoy—for example, being leaders or playing exciting games—in order to get it right with the boys, and they thus have agency, even if their choices are restricted. Thus, girls learn that power is negotiable. I found that my respondents faced rejection, injustices, sexual harassment and sexual violence, but this did not quell their desire to hang out with the boys. Why? Because girls are subjective. They know about being bossy and they know about how to be a girlfriend. This knowledge formed the base from which they performed their behaviours.