LIST OF TABLES
6.2 A SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS REGARDING TRANSFORMATIVE APPROACHES TO EMBRACING LGBTI COMMUNITIES AT A UNIVERSITY
6.2.5 Heterosexual majority dominance
The patriarchy has positioned heterosexuals’ exhibits expressions of dominance to oppress target groups and communicate an intention to assert and maintain dominance over a subjective others (Regan, 2009) (cf 3.2.5). This indicates that heterosexuals’ dominance suppresse LGBTI communities to dictate activities’
behaviour. Molden and Finkel (2010), support that submission occurs to different degrees; like some employees may follow orders without question, whereas others might express disagreement but concede when pressed. Nonetheless, Alatalo (2012), argues that heterosexuals do often oppress LGBTI communities by dominance or privileges rather exercise collision with their sexuality for equal to behavioural experiences.
LGBTICo3 expressed breaking of barriers between LGBTI communities and heterosexual as follows; “it seems very difficult in the first place but now…we can have
167
friends even among heterosexual students…things are slowly coming right” (LGBTI Co3). Based on LGBTI Co1 statement; “I think these people that need to know should be educated about us” referred to “heterosexuals” because they are the dominant population at a University campus, maintained that “no one is good to us”. Being a minority population does not matter but education for all students at all schools and universities. The statement below responded to the action expected against dominance of heterosexuals;
”I think these people that need to know should be educated about us…they should be educated about us….even to the some of the students…they accused us…not that they want us but they don’t know anything about us…no one is good to us…(LGBTI Co 1). USSP acknowledged that, “students will come with the knowledge of LGBTI and concept itself at the university to embrace, love and care…embrace…and minority students are good to LGBTI communities”. He maintained that moderate Heterosexual domination is necessary “it will show that not everyone is against the communities, tolerance…support for all and also have the forum with LGBTI organ…I think it might be good approach” (USSP). In contrast, OCFT advocated for “protective measures to make LGBTI communities safe among their peers, such I think to have a listening ears to them, tolerance to socialize with them like being friendly more acceptance and other good relationships to make LGBTI communities feel comfortable in the classroom and campus environment”. The statement was indirectly referred to heterosexual’s cautions through a protective measure to make LGBTI communities comfortable among the majority population.
The data findings by LGBTI Co1, Stu 3, OCFT, LGBTI Co 2 SRC, LGBTI Co 3 indicated of one or two difficulties, and discrimination among peers, while Stu 2 stated that they were doing some things together at TP but not a close friend, UL1 responded differently as written below: showed the situational analysis into transformative approaches to embracing LGBTI communities at a university campus.
This extends to recognizing the importance of school climate which was based on violence and less adaptive challenges arose against cope for LGBTI communities (Thapa, Cohen, Guffey, & Higgins-D’Alessandro, 2013) (cf. 3.2.1) which deprive equal access to academic success for students (Kosciw, Greytak, Palmer, & Boesen, 2014;
168
Kosciw et al., 2013; Toomey & Russell, 2013; Toomey, Ryan, Diaz, & Russell, 2013).
The statement below confirmed that;
LGBTI Co1: being LGBTI member to my peers does not make me feel good at all…its make me bad.
OCFT: “majority students do show discriminating against gay and lesbian that happen to be around them. So this makes some gay and lesbian to feel helpless whenever they abuse then or call them different names. I can say that despite what media awareness ant TV Soaphies – students like to act out against LGBTI communities in their own ways. To me, the attitudes of heterosexual students is from act of hatred, background and beliefs against homosexuality. The results stated by Stu 1 indicated that”, “[LGBTI communities around my campus does exist but they are treated in a different way compared to straight males and females. I don’t know whether it because they like to go as a group or because they feel not wanted by the other students].
These statements indicates that there are classes between students; majority versus minority.
This point indirectly corresponds with Llera and Katsirebas (2010, p. 29), (cf. 3.2.2) who confirm that LGBTI communities cohabit among other students at a University campus by maintaining their interest to transform socially through peers’ intervention.
Beitz (2009), opines that students’ right to privacy jeopardized adequate protection and might intensify victimization experiences on LGBTI communities’ against receiving transformation at a university campus. The research team responded against heterosexual dominance and on discrimination and judgmental LGBTI communities experience as the research team reveals their understanding of their expectations and dissatisfaction as illustrated by that:
LGBTI Co 3 (Mbali): Mmm…to me is just that some guys don’t know how other feels and they just talk anyhow.
LGBTI Co 4 (Marven): Mmm… I go to the section of attitudes…mmm…it is important to know that we are not different from other people….and mmm…I think people from LGBTI communities should take a leading role on this point…
The above statements by LGBTI Co3 and LGBTI Co4 were similar on the behaviour of heterosexual peers who just talk anyhow is treated differently.
169