2.3 SCHOOLS AS PLACES FOR THE MAINTANANCE OF INEQUITABLE GENDER RELATIONS RELATIONS
2.3.3 Roles teachers play in reinforcing unequal gender relations
Osborne (1993) refers to the “power of out-dated ideas that counter policies that are in place. He further mentions that it is easy to dream up new approaches to problems, people do it all the time; the hard part is selling them to those who still see the world through old lenses.” To apply these ideas to this context, teachers seem to be holding on their historically upbringing of gendered social relations in their specific contexts in such a way that they are unable to effectively implement the new approaches. Morojele (2010) brings up how educators' basic consciousness of sexual orientation disparities in the schools is diminished. This results in teachers unwittingly or otherwise socializing girls and boys into unequal gendered desires and exhibitions that strengthen the current gender. In other words, it might be difficult for teachers to treat girls and boys equally because of the way they were socialised; consequently, they will need to be trained thoroughly in order to implement the new policies.
I therefore conclude that teachers' understandings of gender orientation draw on the dominant gender discourses in any given setting. This frame of view in this study construes gender
46 discourses as a vehicle through which inequitable gender relations are infused. I maintain that the power of gender discourses in society prescribe gender roles and performances which ensure the normalising of the polarised discourses of masculinities and femininities. I regard girls and boys as socialised and pressured through these discourses to perform gender in conformity to what is thought up to be a typical status of undertakings. These discourses legitimise the inequitable gender relations to appear as if they are a normal part of life. As Cole (2013, p. 342) has succinctly summarised, teachers‟ understandings of gender become dependent upon the available repertoire of gender values and discourses in the schools and society.
Much of the literature I have come across on the reproduction of gender inequality in schools and in developing countries is focused on the issue of violence in and around the school. While many studies focus on sexual violence and harassment of girls by peers and teachers, broader conceptualisations emphasize the use of aggression to assert the power of masculinity. Thus experiences of violence in school may be linked not only to the endorsement of violence but also regarded as an acceptable way to resolve conflict. Hence, violence also serves to assert dominance and control in the context of existing hierarchies and inequalities that exist between teachers and children, and between women and men, or girls and boys. As a result, several studies, primarily from Africa, have revealed a consistent pattern of sexual abuse in school, perpetrated mostly by other students but also by teachers or school staff (Bhana, 2009, p. 39).
This means that at present schools seem to be arenas of gender inequality despite all the gender policies in place.
47 Humphreys (2008) has examined the issue of corporal punishment in school, placing the analysis firmly in the context of theories of gender relations and gendered practice. In his study of corporal punishment in 16 schools in Durban, South Africa, Morrell argues that violent hegemonic masculinities contribute to perpetuating the practice of corporal punishment, which in turn reinforces these notions of masculinity. Corporal punishment both symbolises and secures hierarchical dominance (of adult over child, boy over girl). It teaches boys to be tough and uncomplaining, and girls to be submissive and unquestioning. In the same way, if girls can be offered equal opportunities with boys they can stand up and change the current situation. That is why I decided to use the voices of girls and boys as of paramount importance to change their lives. Corporal punishment involves the performance of masculine authority by both male and female teachers.
Male teachers essentially have uncontested authority while female teachers, on the other hand, have to consistently prove their authority. I contend that attempts to eliminate corporal punishment in schools need to take into account gendered power relations and should therefore provide opportunities for girls, boys and teachers to reflect on their beliefs, and how these related to the practice of corporal punishment. The gendered aspects of various school practices and routines have also been highlighted. The routine behaviour of adults in school, including labelling groups (e.g., a teacher starting the day by saying “good morning boys and girls”) or segregating them (e.g., students grouped by gender to walk home), emphasizes the difference between girls and boys. By frequently using gender labels when they deal with children, teachers make being a girl to self-definition and to the continuous existence of schools. A study of Umutende School in Zambia highlighted the requirement that all students participate in cleaning
48 the classrooms as an important feature of the school‟s deliberate effort to transform conventional attitudes about gender (Bajaj, 2009). From Bajaj (2009) I have learnt that the differentiation of tasks and responsibilities is often based on other social positions such as class in addition to gender.
The traditional gender distribution of personnel at the school, with women holding less prestigious positions compared to men (e.g., female teachers and male principal, or female teachers at the primary level and male teachers at the secondary level), reinforces patriarchal patterns of power and authority. For instance, the schools where I conducted have research principals are males, therefore to girls and boys in the primary school it may look as if only males are suitable for high profiled positions. Hence, in my case as a women principal I will find children referring to me as “uthisha omkhulu oyintombazane” (“a principal who is a girl”) because throughout their lives they are only exposed to males occupying the positions of power.
Furthermore, the routine behaviour of adults in school, including labelling groups (e.g., a teacher starting the day by saying “good morning boys and girls”) or segregating them (e.g., students grouped by sex in the assembly), emphasizes the difference between girls and boys. The findings of this study concur with those of Thorne (1993) as I observed in the two schools that I visited during assembly or when the announcement is made through the public announce (PA) system.
The teacher will start by saying “attention boys and girls”. To some children it might sound as if those who were called first are accorded more powers.