CHAPTER 6: UNMASKING GENDER REGIMES IN THE LEARNING
6.4 Section 2: The ‘operations of gender regimes in higher education
described the attitudes of male academic teaching staff towards them as different from the attitudes towards their male peers, as they were given discriminatory treatment in class and in fieldwork, even when it was done with good intentions.
Most participants stated that the additional attention and support that they received from male academic teaching staff in class and in fieldwork caused them to feel that they were singled out and made them uncomfortable in some way.
6.4 Section 2: The ‘operations of gender regimes in higher education
Conventional beliefs refer to expectations concerning suitable behaviour within a community and provide functions that enable social coordination (Yariv, 2009, p.
93). Women’s presence amongst men and their degree of economic independence are important factors within gender regimes. Due to the influence of the Asian socio- cultural values in Mauritian society, the subordination of women is prevalent.
The ‘operations of gender regimes in higher education institution’ is an exploration of Connell’s theory of gender relations (2002) particularly wherein the dimensions of gender relations of power are analysed. As elaborated and discussed in section 1 of this chapter, the theory of gender relations of power, applied to a higher educational context, helps in exploring the gendered processes that reinforce the disparities between men and women and the intersecting power relations within which gender is created (Bee, 2016, p. 8). Gender relations of power comprise the following four dimensions as illustrated in Figure 4:
(i) Epistemic power (ii) Cultural power (iii) Psychological power (iv) Social power
Figure 4: Operations of gender regimes in higher education institution
What emerges from the findings is that specific masculinities and femininities were constructed in relation to each other. Butler (1990, p. 160), for instance, sees sex and gender as distinct categories, which are not imaginary but always derive from standards and norms. Further, she understood gender not as natural to men (masculine) and women (feminine) but as “performative” (Butler, 1990, p. 179).
These constructions will be discussed below, with an elaboration of how they were performed within dominant discourses in the sections that follow.
Gender regimes influence the allocation of power by strengthening and depending on gender roles. The set of gender roles, qualities and attitudes that a context allocates to men and women is the effect of power relations as revealed through the learning experiences of the participants. The interplay of structural and interactional practices is discussed to explain the position of female students in an engineering major. This was depicted by four dimensions of power, as follows.
6.4.1 Epistemic power
The literature suggests that gender is the performative accomplishments of specific articulations of space (Butler, 1990, p. 34). Within the learning spaces of the engineering major and the interactions between the participants and their male peers, the qualities that were evident amongst the male peers, judging from the learning experiences of the participants, were those of hegemonic masculinity. This social construction allocates the female gender a dependent position and the male gender is allocated a dominant position (Meena, 2018, p. 45). The construction of hegemonic masculinity will now be discussed in the context of the performance of gender and gender regimes in the learning spaces of an engineering major.
6.4.1.1 Dominant men
Hegemonic masculinity was introduced to describe the perseverance of male authority (Duncanson, 2015, p. 2). Connell (1995, pp. 79-82) suggests that most men support hegemonic masculinity because, from it, they develop a patriarchal understanding “that ensures men’s collective power and privilege over women”. In this study, hegemonic masculinity was persistent, authoritative and assertive, especially in class. Attempting to perform hegemonic masculinity was a way by
which women could gain reasonable status as men and recognition from their peers (Coles, 2008, p. 237). The sexist and stereotypical behaviours of the male students also added to the chilly climate that female students experienced in the academic environment (Khan, Khan, Ali & Bilal, 2019, p. 159). As the embodiment of the dominant male, most of the male peers who constructed this type of masculinity were portrayed as strong and intelligent domineering men who determined the agenda for the female students. The dominant male students also mediated gendered language and asserted dominance within class discussions and fieldwork as they performed their masculinity to intimidate female students. Class discussion, according to some participants, was a male driven practice, as the female students did not join class discussions, fearing that they may be ridiculed. Most of the female students were attentive in class and did not have the opportunity to participate in class discussions while male students dominated the discussions; this demonstrates the presence of hegemonic masculinity and patriarchy in classrooms. From the findings, the participants reported that most of the male students positioned themselves as compliant students towards academic teaching staff. The male students were marked by their domineering attitude towards the female students where these male students were deliberately uncooperative as students, especially during class discussions.
6.4.1.2 Intelligent women?
In this study, some female students demonstrated a “deceptive compliance” to the male students but they reclaimed pride and power when they scored high marks in the assignments/examinations. The female students were taunted for excelling in their assessments, rather than being appreciated by their male peers for working hard in engineering. The male peers often downgraded their female rivals by attributing their high marks to preferential treatment based on gendered treatment by male academic teaching staff. Such teasing led to the objectification of the participants.
However, the findings also suggest that the struggle which female students experienced with the class discussions and fieldwork and their perceived powerlessness led to the construction of a resistant femininity.
For these resistant female students, learning became a struggle. The findings suggest that hegemonic masculinity was manifested in the use of crudeness in the language
used and undesirable jokes made by some male students. These were demonstrations of the gender relations of power (Connell, 2002). From the learning experiences of the participants, the findings revealed that the male peers repeatedly expressed their frustration when the female students scored high marks in an assessment, through their offensive and sexist language.
6.4.2 Cultural power
Powerfully, the engineering field was culturally shaped as being masculine (Blosser, 2017, p. 28). Gender stereotypes that highlighted physical fitness for the engineering field were often reinforced. The learning experiences of the participants showed that female students had to demonstrate strength, resilience and fitness for the engineering environment. The findings also showed that male students demonstrated the ability to blend in the professional spaces of engineering better than female students.
6.4.2.1 Culturally compliant women
The subordinate role that participants often performed, as shown by the findings, was that of quiet compliance where some of the female students cooperated and offered no resistance. Women are found to be good compliant students (Radovic, Black, Salas & Williams, 2017, p. 456). They noted that the male peers persistently made a distinction between ‘the fit for engineering female students and the not fit for engineering female students’, with the male students finding the ‘not fit for engineering female students’ as caregivers - some male peers reminded some participants that the role of women is to look after the family. In this study, some of the participants were considered by the dominant male students as being not fit for the engineering field because these female students expressed their femininity. The form of femininity shown through the findings was often portrayed as being
“fragile” physically, wearing dresses, having long hair and being in the girls’ group.
As noted above, the reproduction of this form of femininity was sometimes performed as a mixture of compliance, cooperation and submission towards the male students, as some of the participants performed cultural compliance through the festival ‘Raksha Bandhan’ where their male peers are given the role of a protector to the female students. This cultural compliance created a persistent superiority of masculinity in favour of the male students.
6.4.2.2 Resistant women
Emotions and human relations as well as gender culture and symbolism of gender relations (Connell, 2002) were constantly negotiated by the participants. Those who were powerless in one instance became powerful in another. This was evident when some of the female students used their girls’ group to move from a seemingly powerless position to a position of power, rather than become passive victims by working better than male students academically.
Some female students in this study positioned themselves in relation to the hegemonic masculinity as they performed their ‘resistant femininity’. The specific nature of this hegemonic masculinity is described in the literature that suggests that western science is linked with the mental ability and power of men (Letts, 2001).
The male students exerted their gender culture and symbolism of the engineering field over the female students through their discourses and their ways of relating to female students. The female students had to learn engineering through wilfully resisting and being defiant to the male students. Here, femininity was performed in resistance to the hegemonic masculinity and patriarchy by remaining in the girls’
group. Those female students challenged ideological notions of traditional femininity and they were therefore resistant to conventional thinking about gender and STEM.
6.4.3 Psychological power
Some participants believed that female engineers are successful because they exhibit male characteristics. They attributed success in engineering to a renunciation of femininity, as implied by the data from the participants. Some of the participants
‘transformed’ their femininity, which was altered through a process of assimilation to fit the engineering field. This process of assimilation is a psychological instrument, which is covertly exercised for those who seek acceptance to the boys’
group (restrictive membership or selective membership) by stripping off their female identity through dress, language and activities. Psychologically, such female students felt that they belonged to the engineering field and this reveals that their entry into the engineering field comes at a cost.
6.4.3.1 Women with masculine dispositions
The relationship with their male peers led some participants to adopt masculine performance and to erase their feminine identity. According to Koenig, Eagly, Mitchell and Ristikari (2011, p. 620), women who reduce their feminine traits, take part in gendered practices, undertake assertive and authoritative positions, their masculine qualities become an essential property. In this study, some female students went a long way to project themselves as masculine female students to gain acceptance in the male group, which was the symbol of dominance. Being part of the male group meant having access to networks. According to Bagilhole (2005, p. 113), women are not excluded in a male-dominated field when men in such a field form strong networks with these women. In this study, one of these female students, who spent most of her time playing football and wandering around with the male students, was easily accepted in the boys’ group. The male students acknowledged that such female students were made for the engineering field, which they linked to body image and the nature of work of the engineering field. Besides taking the classroom as their territory, the male students had demarcated areas within which they performed their masculinity, such as fieldwork/industrial placement. Hence, there were patterns of relationship, hierarchy, dominance and power that were articulated in a space where, subtly and insidiously, male students assert their
‘maleness’ over the field by indifference. For most of the male students, the body image of the female students became a significant barrier to the engineering field.
The findings showed that most of the female participants reported that according to the male peers, women who attempted assimilation were perceived as physically fit for engineering. Connell (1995, p. 18) states that, in opposition to femininities, hegemonic masculinities act to undermine the power of women, such as preventing female students from operating.
6.4.4 Social power
The male peers demonstrated their social power by taking the lead during group work and in class discussions, to the extent of excluding female students from discourses that enable knowledge. The socialisation process of gender shapes the design of the curriculum (Meena, 2018, p. 45). Most of the female students entered the engineering field with the expectations of family and the hope of attaining rational individuality as students and engineers in the future behind them. According
to the findings, the female students were optimistic of their field and hence they desired for education. Moreover, most of the female students were connected to engineering in ways that were connected to their lives, by which they felt encouraged. Therefore, they desired for education that would lead to success in the engineering field. Their fascination with the engineering field also contributed to this desire and they yearned to be successful in it.
In this study, most female students were optimistic of achieving such success.
However, they entered a field that frequently reminded them of their gender. Female students demonstrated women’s complicit attitudes when they performed roles in ways that suited male expectations (Steele & Ambady, 2006, p. 434). The findings showed that interactions between the students led to the construction of masculine women versus feminine women; compliant women versus resistant women and fit for engineering women versus not fit for engineering women. In performance of the traditional masculinity, most of the male peers maintained their power and control over the female students through emphasis on their gender. In this study, most of the female and male students were thus reproducing traditional forms of femininity.
6.4.4.1 “Quiet” men
Some men did not engage in any form of dominance towards the participants, thus revealing the diversity of masculinities. In the construction of this subordinate masculinity, these male students engaged in performances of compliance with the dominant male students; they failed to get involved in class discussions or join the other male students in their dominant performance. In this way, their quiet compliance was a way of resistance to the aggressive and hegemonic masculinity.
There are certain masculinities that are subordinated by the hegemonic practice and their situations are no different from those of the subordination of women to men (Carrigan, Connell & Lee, 1985, p. 587). Hegemonic masculinity produces power
“not only over women but also over subordinate masculinities” (Connell, 1987, pp.
186-188). The emotions displayed by these men portrayed emotions that typified those men in Connell’s theory of gender relations (2002) who did not participate in an expression of the hegemonic masculinity but rather performed a subordinated masculinity and stayed away from the women. In choosing not to perform a gendered agenda in their role and relationship, they exhibited non-compliance to
hegemonic masculinity. Such type of performance also forms part of a type of gender regime in which men do not associate themselves or socialise with women.