plastikkpoet, · posts · by · tag: · education · - · LiveJournal

came across this article talking about the victorian anti-homophobia policy and i have to say, despite the outcrys of family groups (which was going to happen anyway), i hail the victorian education department for taking the step to create a homophobia-focused policy. for a long time schools have bundled homophobia under blanket anti-harassment policies which failed to address the severity and frequency of sexuality-based bullying (note: this is not discounting the need to address other grounds for prejudice).

angela conway from australian family association victoria, like many of the other family organisations, reads the policy objective to "create and continually model a school environment that respects and celebrates diversity" as ""celebrate" homosexuailty in the classroom"; but it certainly doesn't say hail the queers to me!

equally, the family organisations seem to have determined at what age people determine sexual identity. i for one am not willing to definitively make such a call (i am not going ot get into the whole nature/nurture debate) so i would like to know what made them decide that "Younger kids are not worried or thinking about various sexual orientations."

conway also argues that "by highlighting sexuality, [the victorian education department will] encourage bullying." sounds like an excuse to keep progressive understandings of sexuality out of schools to me. in reading, writing and homophobia, an article i wrote last year in response to homophobia against a friend of mine, i argued the complete reverse to conway's claim.

[before i re-examine that argument, i want to point out, as i do in the article, that this is a male-orientated argument. i do not wish to undermine the frequency or effect of female-to-female homophobia in schools, but i can only speak on what i know]

in my mind, homophobia policy tends to be reactive, failing to address why homophobia is perpetrated in the first place. it is not always just about sexuality. often it is about gender identity as well. mainly because in schools hegemonic forms of masculinity are cultivated with an implicity culture of compulsory heterosexuality, and anyone who questions or stands in direct opposition to it (the subordinate masculinities (boys who do not exert the masculine 'ideal')) automatically become a target, regardless of their true sexuality. and why? because for the hegemonic straight boys, it becomes necessary to assert their masculinity, and therefore their heteronormativity, and to do so in a visual and oppressive way.

young men, particularly young straight men, need to understand that their gender and/or sexual identities are perfectly legitimate. that in order to exert their identity they do not need to control all other forms of masculine identity in the school yard. we need to reiterate to them the fact that one gender – namely hegemonic masculinity – does not need to subordinate all other alternative genders in order to legitimise itself. an more indepth understanding of masculinity and sexuality mayl help breaking down barriers which legitimise, in the students’ minds, grounds for harassment based on difference. if children can understand that identity is a personal thing, and that in order to feel secure in their own identity they do not need to subordinate other identities it will reduce the ground on which difference can be made an issue, and severely reduce the grounds for discrimination.