Connell (1995) recognised that it is important to consider the relationship between masculinity and femininity which presents gender binaries as rigid. Gender is a social
construct that is given currency and legitimacy through social and cultural values that ascribe gender scripts to males and females. Embedded within these gender constructs are
characteristics that boys must display in order to achieve hegemonic masculinities. Connell envisages the ideology of masculinity as one that shows heterosexual dominance, risk taking, entitlement to sexual experiences, objectification of females, aggression and misogyny. Boys are expected to be strong, tough, loud, fearless and champions of hegemonic heterosexual behaviour. Deviations—any display of opposing characteristics or qualities such as passivity, obedience and sexual restraint—are seen as markers of femininity and are punished. In schools, boys draw on the power accrued to masculinity to pursue heterosexual experiences, show dominance and police gender boundaries to achieve an exalted masculinity.
Yet Connell is firm that within masculinity itself, hegemonic masculinity is constructed in relation to other masculinities and femininities through the structure of gender relations. For example, Connell notes that not all boys are perpetrators of sexual violence, although the compulsion to display heterosexual masculinity comes into effect when boys gather in their
44
support for hegemonic displays of masculinity, such as being bystanders and condoning or ridiculing girls’ experiences of sexual harassment. This is also evidenced in their
monopolising of school space, both in the classroom and in the school playground. To enter into boys’ space ultimately means that girls have usurped their place, disturbed the ‘rules’
and disrupted the norms that govern feminine behaviour.
In school, boys’ identity is thus caught up in demonstrating a hegemonic masculinity in heterosexual relationships which often translates into an exercise of power over girls. This is a key finding in studies by Butler (1993) and Conroy (2013), who show that the performance of dominant masculinity is often nested within the context of a relationship with a girl
(woman). Past and emerging studies highlight the direct link between the pursuit of this idealised form of masculinity and the subordination of girls by pointing especially to how heterosexual relationships are unduly shaped by gender inequalities that are supported by normative gender roles, race, class, age and economic factors (see, for example, Bhana and Pattman, 2011; Mojola, 2015; Ranganathan, 2016; Wood et al., 2007; 2008). Thus, in the construction of an idealised masculinity, subordination, domination and sexual violence becomes a ‘legitimate’ means through which boys (and men) seek to display their position within the heterosexual matrix (Butler, 1993). However, competition to achieve an exalted masculinity is constant. Boys’ and men’s engagement in the perpetration of gender and sexual violence can therefore be seen both as a means to reinforce a dominant masculinity and also as a response to envisaged threats to male power. This is supported by research that consistently highlights how sociocultural beliefs surrounding gender, sexuality and age underpin school girls’ experiences of sexual violence (Dunne, 2007; Parkes & Heslop, 2015;
Mirembe & Davies, 2001).
Mirembe and Davies, in their study in Uganda, showed that cultural variants on gender and sexuality influenced how gender and sexual violence is understood. They found that both the informal and formal school environment demanded that both boys and girls adhere to
normative gender and heterosexual scripts. Boys and girls who displayed a lack of interest in the opposite sex were ostracised and labelled as homosexuals or lesbians. Furthermore, their study showed that boys’ sexually harassing behaviours were normalised as “pupils having fun” (2001:409). In other instances they found that girls were blamed for tempting boys through their dress and appearance, and hence argue that the heterosexual domain of
45
schooling is a risk for both boys and girls as it diminishes girls’ self-worth and exacerbates the power differentials accorded to male and female.
Sexual harassment by boys towards girls is often placed within the context of initiating relationships (Cobbett & Warrington, 2013). This notion is supported by Gadin (2012) who found in her study in Sweden with girls aged 7-12 years that when girls did not capitulate, sexualised verbal abuse, taunts and teasing became conduits through which boys inserted themselves into the heterosexual matrix to assert their heterosexuality. Boys’ engagement in sexualised verbal harassment towards girls usually points to the objectification of girls’
sexualities and their bodies (Gervais & Eagen, 2017). For example, being called ‘bitch’, ‘ho’
and ‘slut’ are powerful slurs that seek to taint and stain girls’ sexualities. Verbalised sexual abuse is generally aimed the sexual objectification of girls’ bodies, and it can cause girls to experience much anxiety and loss of self-worth (Garrido & Prada, 2018; Gruhn, 2016).
Furthermore, girls who are deemed unattractive by boys are targeted and become
‘opportunities’ for them to engage in misogynistic behaviours which can also be interpreted as a means to punish girls for deviating from the proscribed belief that girls should be sexually alluring in order for boys to secure heterosexual experiences (Eliasson et al., 2007;
Shute, Owens & Slee, 2008). In addition, girls who repudiate or reject sexual overtures are labelled frigid or uyabanda (cold), which calls into question girls’ sexuality whilst further suggesting an absence of female sexuality.
Mncwango and Luvuno (2015) examined how discrimination and sexism against women is inserted in the isiZulu language whilst simultaneously recognizing that isiZulu is not the only language that encompasses discriminatory and sexist language for women. Mncwango and Luvuno point out that when sexualised words are used in the learners’ mother tongue (isiZulu in the case of my respondents), they are even more powerful because the derogatory message that such words seek to convey is embedded in society’s perceptions of the morality of girls and women. These authors also stress that sexualised verbal abuse equates to hate speech as it works to reinforce gender inequalities that seek to keep girls (and women) in a subordinate position. However, these authors also maintain that when boys use hate speech and
derogatory cultural slurs towards girls, it is often with the aim of shaming girls for daring to challenge the sociocultural valence accorded to boys and masculinity— rather than being a reflection on the girl’s sexual behaviour (Mncwango & Luvuno, 2015). This also suggests that boys believe that they have natural dues over girls. Such misogyny is part of the
46
enactment and pursuit of hegemonic ideals since it works to destroy girls’ self-image, erodes their sexuality and dignity, and results in humiliation and tension within girls—especially as they, too, are invested in heterosexuality. School boys’ identities are thus caught up in an exercise of power that is central to displaying and achieving a sexualised masculinity. This is not to suggest that boys (and men) only have sexual power—a point to which I return below.
I now turn to femininities in order to show that girls are active sexual beings who are invested in heterosexuality—an argument which is illuminated by the Foucauldian notion of power as unstable (Foucault, 1978).
Femininities are also fluid and unstable, thus discourses around masculinity and femininity are mutable. This concept is fundamental to addressing gender inequalities and gender and sexual violence in the school and beyond, and also suggests that change is indeed possible.
Furthermore, recognising femininities as fluid creates opportunities for defining power as something that circulates (Foucault, 1998).