Research in South Africa has found that when the classroom becomes a space that is claimed and dominated by boys, it also becomes a space that allows for the construction of unequal gender power relations that privilege male domination (see, for example, Bhana, 2013;
Burton & Leoschut, 2013; Du Plessis & Smit, 2011; Mncube & Harber, 2012; Ngqela &
Lewis, 2012; Renold, 2005). The classroom has also been identified as an ideal space for the display of the nexus between masculinity and power (Connell, 1995). Connell (2005) further explains that demonstrations of aggression amongst boys created and maintained perceptions of powerful masculinities. This was evident in my study, too, as this section illustrates.
During one focus group discussion (12 September 2012), the girls discussed an event that had occurred in the classroom, where a boy took a girl’s head and placed it on his private parts in front of the class. Fundamental to this kind of mimicking of oral sex is the operation of power and the public display of hypersexual masculinity before other boys and girls. According to Kuhle, Azande and Loanda, three girls who are in the same class, the perpetrator, a boy whom they described as a strong (fit) boy, was a self-confessed bully, who was feared by all his classmates except one friend who was able to convince him to stop the harassment. The incident upset the girls immensely:
125
Kuhle : There is one girl who is the quietest in the class [The girls nod their heads]. And there was a boy in class, a fit boy, he is still in our class. He took the girl’s head, he saw the girl was sitting down. He took the girl’s head and placed it on his private part in front of the class. The girl couldn’t say nothing. I was looking and he told the boys that he is being a bully because you know the girl is quiet. He started talking and talking. Only his friend could convince him. That is, one friend of his that’s not scared of him.
P.J.: This happened in the classroom?
Loanda and Kuhle: Yes.
P.J.: Did the girl do anything about it? Did she just keep quiet?
Azande: She couldn’t do anything because she was scared of that boy.
P.J.: What did you all do?
Loanda: Nothing. Because we are also scared of that boy. There was only one boy
that said stop it.
P.J.: What did the rest of them do?
Kuhle: Laughed. Laughing and enjoying.
Azande: How…look at that girl!
P.J.: Did you also laugh?
All: No, No, No!
Kuhle: We went and just kept our girl quiet because we wanted to. She was crying.
The girls’ description of the incident and their subsequent responses makes it clear that they felt there was a risk in any direct confrontation with the perpetrator as this could have resulted in an angry reaction, physical harm or social retribution. While not all boys perform masculinity in such a violent way, they all derive benefits from certain kinds of misogynistic behaviour since such violence and harassment is legitimised by their laughter and enjoyment.
As other scholars have shown, sexuality and humour are mobilised in the interests of consolidating heterosexual masculinities and securing status amongst boys and girls (Allen, 2014). The humour serves to make the sexual misconduct a frivolous and laughing matter while maintaining hierarchical gender and sexual relations of power. Thus, while not all the boys were responsible for harassing the girl, they all benefitted from this display of
hegemonic masculinity. As Connell (1995) said, gender is a concept of power. An incident such as this illustrates how merely being male can confer power. The girls’ silence also
126
reinforces their oppression, as can also be seen in that their efforts to comfort the girl
occurred only after the perpetrator had been subdued and the danger had passed. The incident is echoed in other studies that have identified the classroom as a dangerous space controlled by boys, where girls are reduced to victims (Renold, 2005). Renold’s study conducted in with 12 -13 year old girls in two schools in England also found that the classroom is a space in which boys contest for the apex position in the classroom and within hegemonic masculinity more generally by demanding a recognition of their male supremacy from peers – both boys and girls.
Similarly, JJ and Buhle learnt that submission is a necessary tool to mitigate such threats.
They described how in some instances some boys demanded money in exchange for freedom from touching. Refusal to hand over money exacerbated the touching, which was not
restricted to their hips, bums and breasts, but also extended to their vaginas:
JJ: Sometimes they say maybe… like… give me about R5 [$US .33] and if you don’t give them [R5] then you are not walking away. They put their hand, their
hand, mam, [she stresses this] in your private part [she indicates her vagina].
Buhle: They push you into the corner and they say just kiss me, just kiss me and
all of that stuff.
JJ: They touch your private parts, your vagina!
Buhle: Sometimes it’s like can you give me R2 [$US .13] and the first time you give him and ask him what are you going to do with the R2 and its like I want to buy airtime and the second time it continues and if you don’t have the money and then he will start to be like abusive and stuff. Ja. [Boys] Treat us like an ATM (automatic teller machine).
While such invasions of their bodies unsettled the girls greatly, their silence gave the boys the opportunity to both coerce money and to sexually harass them. Given that these girls came from poor socio-economic backgrounds and might not have had money on a daily basis to protect them, the threat and likelihood of being touched and/or violated was ever-present. In South Africa, the study by Bhana (2005) with black primary school learners aged from 7-10 years old concluded that boys were able to coerce girls into handing over resources that they coveted through a display of what she calls ‘warrior masculinity’, where the boys’ success is grounded in threats of sexual violence. This finding resonated in my study too. It showed
127
how boys in the context of poverty, drew on a fearless masculinity and a fearful femininity to coerce money from the girls. Their ability to coerce money from the girls is based on their physical strength that invokes fear in the girls. The girls also spoke of how boys harassed them outside the classroom:
Lettie: Most of the boys in class in grade seven hold your bum and squeeze it.
Loanda: When you thought he is your friend, loving, caring, he will squeeze your bum and I feel cheap!
Lettie: They walk like this and then they come behind you and hold you like this and kiss your neck and then they kiss you here and then their private parts stick to your bum and then you are like ‘Get off, you!’
P.J.: Do they pull you to them?
All: Yes! [The girls clapped their hands and I sensed their outrage. I, too, am shocked and upset].
P.J.: Where does all of this happen?
All: At Break. In class, after school, in the morning, everywhere, mam.
Paleesa: Everyday, mam.
Lettie: In the class it is worse.
Thiele: Even if they like they can kiss even your neck and give you a love bite.
Evident here is that the girls are fully aware of the boys’ sexual desire for them. The girls’
testimonies show that the boys have already acquired a distorted understanding of heterosexuality, evidenced in the touching, groping and fondling that requires no
conversation with the girls, and no attempt to gain their consent. Boys’ ability to mobilise masculinity with impunity draws from their restricted understanding of what it means to be male. The girls’ resistance to fondling, touching, squeezing and groping took the form of “get off, you!”, and had little impact. They found these close encounters and the pressing of male bodies against them both demeaning and humiliating; their anger was palpable in the angry clapping of their hands as they reiterated their experiences. According to them, such incidents were regular occurrences, and could happen anywhere in the school, even after school.
Emerging from social environments where sexual coercion and rape against women and girls is normative, the girls’ experiences show how their bodies are a battleground in which gender and sexual harassment and sexual violence is used as a tool to dominate. Boys operate an active male sexuality, and girls are coerced into being unwilling recipients of male sexual action.
128
This invasion of their bodies caused the girls much embarrassment. Even though they
expressed anger towards the boys, their feelings of powerlessness were tangible. Lettie’s and Thiele’s description of the manner in which the boys surprised them by approaching and grabbing them from behind also suggests that they were being stalked in school. These stealth tactics suggest, too, that the boys were quick to act when opportunities to harass the girls presented themselves, for example, the lack of teacher’s presence either within the classroom or on the grounds. The threat of love bites also shows how boys derive power by attempting to mark the girls. Such marking on the girls, however, would put them at risk of being sexual labelled, as peers and teachers would associate the love bites with boyfriends. It would also put them at risk of violence if their boyfriends thought that they were double dating. Their abhorrence of the boys’ attempts to establish bodily contact reinforces the tension between boys’ and girls’ sexuality; virility versus passivity. However, their resistance is situated in their sexual agency, which debunks the myth of young girls as asexual beings and sexually unknowing. The girls contest prevailing norms by rejecting the boys’ gestures, and in doing so, they begin to rework gender power asymmetries.
In the following section I discuss how boys also generate gender power inequalities by defying and transgressing the gendered boundaries of toilet spaces and violating girls’
privacy and dignity.