This discourse authorises the male students‘ view of hegemonic masculinity as the authentic performance of male gender, and it enables the male students to use hegemonic masculinity as a measure against which all other gendered performances are found lacking. Non-heterosexual masculinity, non-hegemonic heterosexual masculinity and femininity are all constituted by this discourse as ‗other‘ (Derrida 1973) to hegemonic masculinity, and then positioned as its deficit and negative counterpart. This discourse enables the male students to perform masculinity in ways that control, dominate, influence and justify the production of knowledge within sex education classes that supports hegemonic male privilege.
The normative version of masculinity within this discourse is prescriptive and values the physical and active role of the male. It authorises the male students to be factual surface thinkers, to value the physique and devalue the psyche, to be risk takers in sex, to be sexually active, to lust after women in overt ways, to be violent and aggressive toward anything constituted as ‗other‘, to be violent and aggressive toward anything threatening to disrupt the hegemony of heterosexual masculinity, and to constantly prove their eligibility for sharing the privileges of hegemonic masculinity by performing hegemonically heterosexual acts.
This discourse sanctions the male students‘ use of dichotomous and biological discursive strategies. The male students who take up this discourse are authorised in their view that the males‘ role is constituted purely within the physical act of sex and/or reproduction with no reference to relationships,
feelings, emotions or issues regarding morals, ethics or personal values. This discourse authorises the male students‘ use of negative and oppressive language use, and uniform, surface level thinking strategies. It also authorises their view of normative heterosexuality. Comments made by the male students who take up this discourse are made within a heterosexual frame of reference, most refer to the role of sperm in conception, others refer to facts and statistics involving the most common male forms of contraception, and other comments have specific homophobic overtones aimed at marginalising male students who do not perform in an acceptably hegemonic and heterosexually masculine way.
This discourse authorises the males‘ use of slang, stereotypes, sarcasm and put- downs to devalue and exclude males who perform masculinity differently. It also authorises their performances of hegemonic masculinity within the sex education classroom. This discourse allows the male students to convey warnings to other males about the consequences of not conforming to the dominant masculine norm. The following statements made when discussing homosexuality demonstrate how these meanings are conveyed and how hegemonic heterosexuality is affirmed.
It‘s wrong. It‘s that simple. No it‘s not wrong, it‘s deranged.
Yeh, it‘s unacceptable, even the bible says it‘s unchristian. It‘s just disgusting. I mean, why would you want it up the
arse, when there‘s so much muff out there [lots of laughter and calling out in agreement].
Yeh all that grub…gobble, gobble [lots of laughter].
My dad‘s mates go poofter bashing all the time. You know, they‘d drive around looking for poofters and then bash em. Yeh, they go out looking for em, and then when they come
home, it‘d be like ‗we got three gay guys tonight‘ [laughter].
Yeh, my girlfriend‘s dad went gay bashing, good value.
The discourse also authorises the male students‘ use of sexist and misogynist language to devalue the role of the female in sex, sexuality and sexual decision- making. These strategies enable the male students to convey meaning about their role in sex, sexuality and sexual decision-making, and to justify and
normalise the males‘ position of authority; it also allows the male students to marginalise and silence female student voices. The following statements made by the male students demonstrate how these meanings are conveyed.
Health educator: How would you let a girl know you were interested in her?
Student: I‘d get her drunk and then pash her.
Student: I‘d grab her on the genitals [lots of laughter]. Health educator: Do you think it‘s a good idea to grab someone‘s genitals when you don‘t know them?
Student: You get them pissed first.
Health educator: What if she wasn‘t interested in you? Student: She would be by time I‘ve finished with her [lots of laughter].
Health educator: What does that mean?
The policing of difference authorised by this discourse extends to and supports attitudes of racism among the male students. While what is counted as normative becomes somewhat obscure at this point, it is quite clear that by taking up this discourse they feel authorised in replacing sexual difference with racial difference to justify displays of violence and aggression directed at a perceived threat to white western hegemonic masculinity.
I‘m not racist, I just can‘t stand Asians [lots of laughter]. Yeh, you need to put em in a line and kapow! [Simulates gunshot].
They‘re taking over the country.
We went on a trip on the Spirit of Tasmania and we went up to this guy and said ‗Konichi wa you fucking nip‘ and this guy turns around and goes ‗ah, ah, fuck you‘! You know, like totally flipped, bloody nip.
Yeh, they‘re all poor and the scum of the third world, you know?
Yeh, they‘re just chinks and stuff. I just hate fucking Asians you know, they‘re all taking over our country.
This discourse authorises the male students‘ direct challenge to the health educators‘ monopoly of power during sex education lessons. The male students easily respond to the health educators‘ expectations in terms of using biological,
functional and fact-based discursive strategies to answer questions. The problem is the way in which power operates through teaching practices to position them as passive recipients of knowledge. The discourse authorises the male students to interrupt class or offer unsolicited information. For the male students, being positioned as a listener and learner is to be positioned as passive.
This discourse authorises the male students‘ view that passivity is either the effect of normal femininity or abnormal masculinity, and, in terms of securing their investment in heterosexual masculinity, it requires immediate resistance and disruption. This also applies to the issue of feelings and emotions. As previously noted, the male students make no reference to feelings or emotions within their data. These concepts are not counted as knowledge within this discourse nor are they authorised as part of normal masculine behaviour. Feelings and emotions are understood within this context as purely feminine characteristics and therefore have no place within hegemonic, heterosexual masculine identities.