Re-adjustment of masculinities and sexualities amongst first year male students at Rhodes University in the wake of the residence Consent Talk’s programme

This study seeks to understand how Rhodes University first-year male students adjusted and re-adjusted their masculinities and sexualities in light of the Consent Talk programme offered by the university, the aim of which is to liberate masculinities and femininities from patriarchal and dominant discourses. In the past 26 years, South Africa has seen an increase in academic research establishing causal links between boys, men, masculinities and a number of social ills such as the HIV/AIDs epidemic, violence against women, substance abuse, homophobia, gender-based violence and a lower pass rate amongst boys. This in turn inspired an increase in interventions seeking to involve boys and men in order to identify and address their role in combating gender based violence. These various forms of social deviances that have been linked to masculinity have indicated that young men's masculinity is in crisis and as a result needs great attention in order to address the social issues linked to them. Institutions of higher learning have proven to be microcosms of the larger society. Universities have become highly sexualised spaces; coercive sexual practices in heterosexual relationships are a norm, young women don't feel safe and have lost confidence in universities addressing their concerns. With the emergence of the #RUreferencelist in 2016, the spotlight fell on Rhodes University; young women challenged the rape culture and sexual assaults on campus. In 2016, staff members who are well-informed and educated on issues of gender, sexuality and rape initiated discussions with students in their residences; these discussions were later to be called the Consent Talks. This research makes use of Pierre Bourdieu’s critical theory in understanding how young men negotiate their masculinity within the field of higher education, at Rhodes University. Bourdieu’s three main concepts, field, habitus and capital are used to describe how young men negotiate their masculinity and how the field of gender intersects with the field of higher education. A qualitative paradigm has been employed. The study has collected data through the use of in-depth interviews to get a richer insight into the participants’ perspectives. There were 15 interviews conducted in total for this study, 14 were with first year male students, and one with a senior official of the University. The data was analysed through a qualitative thematic analysis. The findings of the research reveal that some of the participants were exposed to patriarchal and dominant forms of masculinity when growing up. However, most of the participants revealed they were also exposed to alternative masculinities. These were either taught or learnt at home, from family members, circumcision school, church or peers in society. Both the dominant and alternative masculinities were revealed in the discourses of what it means to be a man and in how the young men performed their masculinities. Furthermore, one of the major themes that emerged was that most of the young men in the study were raised by single mothers with mothers playing a significant role in encouraging healthy masculinities. The findings went on to reveal that families (mothers, fathers, older siblings and culture) play a role in socialising and shaping healthy masculinities. The acceptance or rejection of either dominant or alternative masculinities was influenced by an exposure to an environment that either encouraged or shunned either dominant or alternative masculinities. The findings further unveils that different societies are strongly identified with their own definitions of what it means to be a man and are not open to other definitions of masculinity. Moreover, most of the participants accepted the content of what was taught in the Consent Talks; however sought healthy participation, interaction and inclusion of female students. Lastly, the study has also revealed that knowledge of the consequences of breaking (the law) university’s policy does affect some change of behaviour in potential perpetrators