Exploring Masculinity
Kamla Bhasin
Why are so many people suddenly talking about masculinity these days?
For almost three decades the current phase of the women’s movement in
South Asia has focused on the raw deal that women and girls have been
getting from our patriarchal societies. As a result of the
tireless efforts of a large number of women (and some other men) of all
classes, caste and persuasions, pervasive and extremely damaging
violence against women is now recognized as a major social issue.
Decision-makers and societies have been made aware of the continued
deprivation, exploitation, discrimination against girls and women, and
of their marginalisation in economic, political, religious and cultural
decision making processes.
The women’s movement has also been successful, to a limited extent, in
mainstreaming gender concerns. Large numbers of women’s groups and NGOs
have helped working class and middle class women reflect on patriarchal
injustice, gain confidence, and mobilize to challenge the many forms
and faces of patriarchy.
Many of us have also been trying to understand our own ingrained
patriarchal inclinations, changing ourselves and helping other women to
change. Women’s groups have organized gender awareness workshops
and trainings to enable women to become activists, and initiate the
process of women’s empowerment in order to achieve gender equality.
Along with this, women’s studies have emerged as a strong and
multidisciplinary approach to analyzing gender issues.
Debates on equality and the kind of action needed to achieving it were
aimed primarily at changing roles, attitudes and status of women.
Not surprisingly, women themselves have taken the lead role in this
struggle, as a result of which women and women’s lives have begun to
change. However, corresponding changes have not taken place in
men’s lives- while women have been organizing for change, most men have
made few or no efforts to do so; in fact they have generally resisted
change, sometimes with violence.
This more or less exclusive focus on women as agents who would
challenge gender inequalities was necessary it is women who were, and
are, subordinated by patriarchal structures. But many of us now realize
that we also need to focus on men and masculinity, men and women both
must change if gender gender relations are to be more equal and
just. A transformation of these relations requires that we
understand the notion of masculinity and what it does to men and women,
and to change it where necessary.
It is also important that men become partners in the movement to
challenge patriarchy because it doesn’t only harm women; it harms men,
too, by reducing their choices, putting them to straitjackets and
dehumanizing them. In countries like Sweden, debates on men and
masculinity began as far back in the ‘70s in response to the women’s
movement and to economic and political changes. Such debates, policies
and programmes are long overdue in South Asia.
I feel men and the notion of masculinity need to be understood for the
following reasons:
* Gender issues are not women’s issues alone. We need to
understand that “femininity” does not exist in isolation from
“masculinity.” The image and power of one determines the image
and power of the other. Women can be considered “inferior” only if men
are considered “superior.” Women can be and are subordinated only if
men are willing and enabled to subordinate them.
* For far too long women’s organizations have taken the sole
responsibility for issues like violence against women, as if men had
nothing to do with them. This has to change. Men must assume
their share of responsibility and join the feminist struggle against
this and other issues that are social issues.
* Boys and men also suffer from the stereotyping that exists in a
patriarchal culture. Boys are discouraged from being emotional, gentle
and caring or from admitting to being weak or fearful. They are
thrust into the role of breadwinners, protectors, warriors. It is
important therefore, to play close attention to masculinity and what it
can do to boys and men.
* Most men cannot live up to the notion of hegemonic masculinity.
They are ridiculed for being effeminate if they are not
aggressive. Gentle boys are pushed around and sexually exploited
by stronger, macho men. An excessive emphasis on virility, male
sexual powers and performance leads to tremendous insecurities and
anxiety in men. A sensitive understanding of and discussion these
issues is long overdue.
* Men need to understand how masculinity is related to their
risk-taking behaviours, especially in the context of HIV/AIDS, drug
abuse, alcoholism and high-risk activities. Such activities
endanger not only the men who engage in them but large numbers too,
especially women.
* Research on reproduction, HIV/AIDS, sexuality etc. has shown that
women have limited choices in the matter and are more vulnerable to
sexually transmitted diseases and HIV/AIDS, mainly because of unequal
gender relations.
* Feminist theorists and the women’s movement have tried to understand
patriarchy as a social system. Rather than taking recourse to
violence and triggering a backlash against feminism, men should be
encouraged to seriously engage with the gender issues raised by
feminists, and try to recognize that they affect women and
men both.
* Socio-economic changes have led to some changes in gender roles and
relations and relations; e.g., the widespread unemployment of men
taking away from them the privilege of being “providers” and
“breadwinners.” In some parts of India and the world, as many as
40 percent of households are now female-headed. The erosion of
male power and privilege in some spheres of life has led to
psychological and social problems for many men. This decline in
the economic and social power of men within households as well as in
communities can be disastrous, leading some men into greater violence
against women; into alcoholism and drug abuse, or violent crime, as
antidotes to anger and frustration.
* Divorce rates are increasing in many parts of the world, including
South Asia. In the US, UK and many North European countries, there are
at least 40 divorces per 100 marriages. Single-parent families
are becoming more common and the lone parent with children is usually
the mother. In 1998, one-third of all families (12million) in the
US were single-parent ones. Thirteen percent of all children in
the European Union came from single-parent families. Many families are
breaking down because of men’s refusal to accept women as their
equals. Some women are now refusing to get married because they
do not wish to shoulder the entire burden of running households,
bringing up children and, on top of that, having men lording it over
them. This trend is particularly evident in some industrialized
countries.
* Yet another important reason for understanding men and masculinities
is that hegemonic masculinity is the cause of many of the problems
facing the world today. In most cases it is men who are violent
against women; most violent conflicts and wars are also started and led
by men; men control and direct more resources and decision-making
processes. It is men who run this world and, as we know, the
world is neither just nor peaceful. Millions of people are barely
able to survive.
* The global women’s movement has demanded equality, development and
peace. Without challenging masculinism (and militarism) these goals
will remain unachievable. Women will be able to take up positions and
responsibility in the public sphere (e.g. in local government bodies)
only if there is a redivision of labour, and men enter the family
kitchen and share in child rearing. Without this it will be
difficult for women to participate in public life and be economical
independent.
* Although we have been talking about women as victims of male
violence, we have not paid enough attention to why men often become
aggressive. Why does violence erupt in football stadium or street
corners every now and then? How is that men can go around
killing, setting people and property on fire? Why and how do some
men get so brutalized that that they can rape little girls or boys, can
violate their wives, rape their own daughters? What does this
kind of masculinity do to men? Just as it is important to see
what patriarchy does to women, it is equally important to see what it
does to the minds, imaginations, psyches and behaviour of men.
If we want to reduce violence, conflicts and wars, if we want peace, if
we want meaningful relationships, and if we want meaningful
relationships, and if we really are interested in sustainable
development we will have to understand men and masculinity and develop
partnerships between boys/men and girls/women in order to achieve
these. Women can, and may have to, lead this movement but men must be
made to join it large numbers.
What exactly is meant by the terms “masculine” and “masculinity”?
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, masculine means “having
qualities or appearance traditionally associated with men;” that is
masculinity has to do with particular traits and qualities rather than
with biology. Collins’ Thesaurus has the following equivalents for
masculine-“male, manful, manlike, manly, mannish, virile, bold, brave,
butch, gallant, hardy, macho, muscular, powerful, Ramboesque,
red-blooded, resolute, robust, stout-hearted, strapping, strong,
vigorous, well-built.” Wow! This list tells us what our societies
(Western and Eastern) think of real men. Masculinity, then, is a
social definition given to boys and men by societies; like gender it is
a social construct. Nature makes us male or female, it gives us our
biological definition, but it is society which makes us masculine or
feminine. It defines how boys/men should behave, dress, appear;
what attitudes and qualities they should have, how they should be
treated, etc. Thus, masculinity, like gender, is not static-it is
constantly reconstructed, it may keep changing in response to changes
in economic patterns, natural or man-made disasters, war or
migration. This is also why different kinds of masculinity are
manifest; working-class, bourgeois or intellectual masculinity may be
quite different to cowboy-masculinity; hegemonic masculinity to
marginalized masculinity. This is why it is better to speak of
masculinities rather than one kind of masculinity.
Masculinity does not exist in isolation away from femininity. In a way,
femininity is negative masculinity: a woman is what a man is not.
In most societies masculinity and femininity are mirror images of each
other; if men are expected to dominate and control women must be
submissive; if men are supposed to order, women have to take orders; if
men are allowed to be hot-tempered, women have to be patient, and so
on. One without the other will not work; if men dominate but
women refuse to submit, “peace” and “harmony” will be disturbed;
“peaceful” families will splinter. But men’s image, status and
qualities remain the norm.
Under patriarchy, masculinity is to femininity what upper castes are to
lower castes in caste system. One rules, the other is ruled, one is
superior, the other is inferior.
Anyone, male or female, who has the so-called masculine or feminine
traits is called masculine or feminine. Men who are gentle are
derisively called feminine; on the other hand, women who are strong and
in control are called manly or masculine. Hijras or transvestites
are biologically male but feminine in appearance and behavior.
Masculinity and femininity, thus, are not biological categories, even
though in most cases they may be connected to biological women and men.
You say that masculinity may differ over time and from community to
community - but almost everywhere it is synonymous with strength,
power, control, aggression. Can you explain this?
What you are saying is correct. Even though there are
masculinities, masculinity normally means having qualities like
strength, assertiveness, fearlessness, independence, authoritarianism,
and ambition. Power, control over others and leadership are
considered important markers of masculinity almost universally. “Men
are commonly described as aggressive, assertive, independent,
competitive, insensitive and so on. These attributes are based on the
idea that there is something about men, which transcends their local
situation. Men are seen as having natures, which determine their
behavior in all situations.
Notions of masculinity may change men may dress differently, the
“breadwinner ethic” may collapse, but it does not change male power as
such. Only the form, presentation or packaging of masculinity change.
“Masculinity is always local and subject to change. What does not
change,” says Arthur Brittain “is the justification and naturalization
of male power or masculine ideology.”
So does masculinity have nothing to do with biology or male hormones?
Well, there are some people who believe that masculinity is biological;
that men are born with it. They believe male aggression and sexuality
and other aspects of behavior have to do with bodies, biochemistry and
male hormones. Some people go so far as to say that men’s sex
drive is based on an autonomous and independent penis! Such views
make men slaves to biology. If we accept this view then we have
to believe its corollary, that all men are aggressive, domineering and
violent, land that none of them can be different because one’s
biological make-up cannot be changed.
We do not subscribe to this view. We believe that masculinity and
femininity, both, are socially constructed. Men’s biology or
biochemistry does not make them domineering, aggressive and competitive.
Ann Oakley, a British feminist who has studied and written on gender,
while distinguishing between sex (biological) and gender (masculinity
and femininity, which are socio-cultural) says, “sex is a biological
term: gender a psychological and cultural one. Common sense
suggests that they are merely two ways of looking at the same division
and that someone who belongs to, say; the female sex will automatically
belong to the corresponding (feminine) gender, In reality this is not
so. To be a man or a woman, a boy or a girl, is as much a
function of dress, gesture, occupation, social network and personality
as it is of possessing a particular set of genitals.”
Robert Stoller, in his book Sex and gender, defines the relationship
between the two as follows:
... With a few exceptions, there are two sexes, male and female. To
determine sex one must assay the following physical conditions:
chromosomes, external genitalia internal genitalia, gonads, hormonal
states and secondary sex characteristics. . . One’s
sex, then is determined by an algebraic sum of all these qualities and,
as is obvious, most people fall under one of two separate bell curves,
the one of which is called ‘male’ and the other ‘female’. .
.
Gender is a term that has psychological and cultural rather than
biological connotations: if the proper terms for sex are ‘male’ and
‘female’, the corresponding terms for gender are masculine and
feminine: these latter may be quite independent of sex. Gender denotes
the degree of masculinity or femininity found in a person, and,
obviously, while there is a mix of both in many humans, the normal male
has a preponderance of masculinity and the normal female a
preponderance of femininity.
Gender operates at different social levels:
1. Level of subjective identity: a level at which we
learn (or are forced to learn what it means to be a man or a woman in a
particular society, with all that it entails.
2. Level of institutional practice: the educational
system (with girls learning domestic science and boys learning math’s),
the labour market (with the assumption of male soldier, defender of
women and children), the organization of political life (with an
assumption of politician as male).
3. Level of ideologies and doctrines: systems of
thought such as religious and political doctrines, and national and
communal ideologies (their norms and values) and their assumptions
about workmen and men, femininity and masculinity (for example, women
as keepers of tradition and group identity, men as defenders of
territories and borders).
4. Symbolic level: masculinity and femininity are
present in signs that are used to denote all sorts of norms, qualities,
virtues and vices (freedom; democracy; motherland/fatherland; reason as
masculine, emotion as feminine; power as masculine, powerlessness as
feminine). Dubravka Zarkov, SANGAT REPORT 2002
Boys are not born brutish. They can be as kind, affectionate and
emotionally expressive as girls if these qualities are not
systematically knocked out of them by society. All of us know men
who are gentle, caring and non-competitive. We also know men who
may be aggressive and domineering husbands but who act like fearful
creatures in front of their bosses. This means men may take on
masculine (aggressive, domineering) traits in situations where they are
in power, and behave in a feminine way (follow orders, be submissive)
when they are in a subordinate position.
Thus, masculinity and femininity have more to do with power that with
biology.
When we speak statistically of “men” having higher rates of homicide,
etc. Than women, we must not slide to the inference that therefore all
men are violent. Almost all soldiers are men but most men are not
soldiers; though most killers are men, most men never kill or commit
assault; though an appalling number of men do rape, most men do not.
We believe attitudes, behaviors, traits are socially prescribed, taught
and learned.
We imbibe them through socialization and gendering which take place
within the family,
In schools, religious institutions, etc. Because socialization
and gendering begins as soon
as we are born (sometimes even earlier), it seems as though
feminine and masculine
qualities are in-born and natural. If that was so no men would be
gentle and caring, and no women aggressive and domineering. Yet
such men and women exist. What is important is that these
differences among men and women exist IN SPITE of all the gendering
that is done round the clock. Just imagine how much more
diversity there would be if ideological and material pressures were not
pushing girls and boys, men and women into prefabricated behavior and
roles.
If gender traits were natural and in-born why would societies and
cultures spend so much time, energy and resources teaching children
their gender roles? Why would parents bring up their children to
be “masculine” and “feminine”? Why would social and religious
institutions perpetuate these differences through different codes for
women and men?
What do the terms masculinism and hegemonic masculinity mean?
In a patriarchal ideology masculinism is the notion that men and
masculinity are superior to women and femininity. Masculinism
believes in and justifies male superiority and male domination; it
naturalizes masculinity thus making it inevitable and non-negotiable.
Hegemonic means all-encompassing leadership or dominance. Hegemonic
masculinity is therefore overpowering masculinity. This form of
masculinity is clearly about power and asserting power over
others. Masculinity is thus clearly different from femininity
because it is in command, it controls. Hegemonic masculinity
demands submission.
But surely there is some validity in ancient philosophical concepts
like the Chinese yin and yang and the Hindu purush and Prakriti.
Not only has Hindu philosophy distinguished between prakriti (feminine)
and purush (masculine), Chinese philosophers too have talked about yin
(feminine) and yang (masculine) principles and traits. More
recently psychologist/psychoanalyst Carl Jung has spoken about anima
(feminine) and animus (masculine). All of them characterized
certain energies, traits, ways of thinking and behaving as either
masculine or feminine. Feminine is supposed to be intuitive, receptive,
emotional and compassionate; and feminine nature is said to be made up
of wisdom, love and clear vision. Masculine connotes rationality,
action, control, and strength.
However, Hindu and Chinese philosophers, even Carl
Jung, did not equate feminine and masculine energies with male and
female bodies or biologies. Feminine and masculine are abstract
concepts, not the qualities, traits or energies of biological men and
women, anyone, man or woman, can possess yin-yang energies or
traits. In fact, philosophers have always called for a creative
union of these energies; for harmony and balance of the two in the same
person. The presence of only Yin or yang creates incomplete,
imbalanced personalities or actions; this is why in Hinduism there is
the concept of ardhnarishwar (half male, half female), and in the west
there is the concept of androgyny, or male and female merged in one.
Patriarchal societies, however, have tended to
equate yin-yang, anima-animus, prakriti-purush with biological men and
women, harming not only men and women but also families and
societies. Our societies teach boys/men to deny the “woman” in
them and girls/women to kill the “man” in them. The result is that
neither men nor women are able to be balanced and harmonious human
beings. In pursuit of the “masculine,” men generally become
active, aggressive and domineering, and women become receptive,
subservient and nurturing. Because human beings and societies
need both masculine and feminine energies (one-sided) men become
dependent on women for the other side and women do the same. “As
we cannot live in the worlds without the full range of masculine and
feminine energies, each sex has been helplessly dependent on he other
half for its survival. From this perspective, each person is only
half a person, dependent on its other half for its very
existence. Men have desperately needed women to provide them with
the nurturing intuitive wisdom and emotional support, without which
they unconsciously know they would die. Women have been dependent
on men to take care of them and provide for them in the physical
world. Where they haven’t known how to take care of themselves.”
Isn’t being spoilt an essential part the experience of boys at least in
south Asia?
Yes, and in a way it quite logical. if patriarchal families consider
boys to be superior, if families go to any length to have sons(pray in
temples, churches and mosques; fast for boys; have female fetuses
aborted; go through innumerable pregnancies till a son is born,
etc.) then it is obvious that sons are given special care and
treatment. They are indulged. Because boys are often spoilt, folklore
says men never grow up. There is this joke:
Question: What is the difference between men and financial bonds?
Answer: Financial bonds mature.
In addition to being equated with power and superiority, masculinity
also seems to have something to do with lack of shame, decency and
decorum. Many South Asian men shamelessly stand and urinate just
about anywhere. The same lack of shame is evident when they
scratch their genitals in public or roam around with skimpy underwear,
bare-chested. Whether in private or public spaces, men’s body
language and carriage often exuded a ‘couldn’t care less’ attitude.
Is it correct say that men are more rational than women, that women
represent nature and men represent culture?
One often hears bout the following dualities:
Nature
Culture
Body
Mind
Emotional
Rational
Object
Subject
Women are supposed to represent everything on the left and men
everything on the right and everything on the right is also supposed to
be superior! Culture is supposed to be superior to nature so
those who are close to nature, or live in harmony with her, are
considered to be primitive, backward and in need of
“development.” Similarly, the mind is superior tot he body and
reason superior to emotion. These myths are not only patriarchal:
they are perpetuated by hegemonic caste, class, race and colonial/
imperialist systems. Indigenous peoples, women, blacks, the
entire third world is supposed to represent the left side of the
dichotomy. Because power vests with the superior sex, class,
caste, race or country, powerful. Masculine forces subjugate
weaker feminine ones. There are numerous crude examples of
this--western nations can test their nuclear weapons in the pacific,
dump their dirty industries and toxic waste in the third world, export
medicines banned in their own countries to them, and so on.
Closer home, dams can be built in areas where the tribals live.
The homes, farms and cities of the rich get electricity while the
homes; lands and shrines of the adivasis get submerged.
Nature (The adivasis) merges in nature; the civilized live on and carry
forward their project of taming nature and those who live close to
her. Basically, these dualities represent relations of power.
Again, while biology is destiny for women, men can
transcend nature and their bodies. It is true that women
menstruate, conceive and deliver children, and are therefore caught up
in biological or nature dictated activities but other than these
biological functions, women seem to be much more in control of their
bodies than men are. More men give in to or are unable to control
their biological urges desire for food, sex or alcohol. Men are
accustomed to satisfying their appetites, whether literally or
otherwise, and social; and cultural norms encourage them to indulge in
many forms of excess. The one form of control they exercise is
control over others.
How have these notions of masculinity and feminity become so ingrained
is us?
Because masculinity and femininity are not biologically determined they
have to be socially constructed and taught. Every culture has it
s ways of valuing girls and boys and assigning them different behavior
patterns, attitudes, attributes, roles, rights and expectations, all
the social and cultural “packaging” that is done for girls and boys
from birth onwards is called “gendering.” Unlike sex, which is
biological, the gender identities of women and men are psychologically
and socially constructed, which means they are historically and
culturally determined.
In every gender workshop I have conducted, men have said that their
families expected them to be tough and aggressive, always in
control. They were not allowed to express feelings of weakness or
vulnerability; they were not supposed to cry or to seek help. As
boys they were given the best food and the be3st educational
opportunities their families could afford, and were not expected to do
any household work or to return home before sunset.
Women said exactly the opposite. Because they were girls, sometimes
their very birth was unwelcome. They were given less love, care, food
and educational opportunities than their male siblings, and were taught
to serve others, to be the last in line for everything.
This real-life gendering of girls and boys is based
on and reinforced by a patriarchal ideology that makes men
superior. They are heads of households, inheritors of lineage and
property, Gender identity is thus as much a reality and an issue fro
men as it is for women.
Families are too fragile to handle Insensitive and Macho men
Men are expected to be in control of their women. Even the word
husband does not connote partnership or equality; it means controller
or manager (remember the term, animal husbandry?) If by
definition the man a woman is married to is her owner, then is it any
wonder that he thinks he has the right to lose his temper, beat her in
order to tame or control her? Because of his ideology, not only
do men think they have the right to do this, many women also see
nothing wrong in violent husbands. According to a recent study
done in India by the National Family health Survey, 56 percent women
surveyed said it was okay for men to beat their wives.
Isn’t widespread domestic violence proof that violent masculinity
exists all around us?
Indeed it is. Surveys in South Asia, the US, Europe
and other countries have shown that there is widespread violence
against women and children within the home, in many countries, a large
percentage of wives (30 to 50 percent) has been battered at least once,
and some are abused regularly.
Research done in India by the international center
for Research on Women (ICRW) has established that “domestic violence is
high (nearly 50 percent of women surveyed reported experiencing
physical and psychological violence in their marriages), universal
(women of all ages, educational levels and regions reported
experiencing violence) and normative (nearly 58 percent said that it is
a normal part of marriage). More disturbingly, the research highlighted
that domestic violence far from being private is well known to natal
and marital families as well as neighbors.
Marital rape is widespread and so is abuse of girls
and boys, incest in common within families. Cases of fathers,
step-fathers, older brothers and stepbrothers raping their female
relatives have been reported by all media in India. Mental and
emotional trauma and insult are rampant. All this violence is
inflicted mainly by men on women, and it is so widespread only because
male superiority and power are accepted and tolerated, men violate
women both because they benefit from it and because they can get away
with it. Violence or the threat of violence keeps women
subordinated and under male and societal control.
Families need partners not lords and masters
Domestic violence plays and important part in the gendering of girls
and boys, Both learn from the behavior patterns and power of their
parents: boys see what thy can do when they grow up, girls recognize
what they will have to tolerate as women. Look at these words of
a very popular classical song, glorifying violent behavior by a male
lover.
“Baiyyaan na marodo saiyyaan,
Karo na barjori, tooti more choori
(Don’t twist my arm, my beloved, don’t be rough with me, my bangles are
breaking!!)