How we are failing women by failing men

This week's blog is by Naomi Clugston and investigates:

How we are failing women by failing men: the importance of promoting alternative masculinities in contexts of increased violence against women

 

In the global fight to end violence against women (VAW), recognising the role men can play in achieving this end deserve high praise. However, there is a distinction between compelling men to play a role and actually engaging them in this fight. If we are truly committed to preventing VAW, we must go beyond damaging narratives that imply VAW is caused solely by violent individuals and work with men to identify the structural dynamics that cause violent models of masculinity, which legitimise such behaviour, to become dominant. When we fail to do this, we risk placing the responsibility to reduce VAW on those men and boys with the least power to affect change. We also miss crucial opportunities to better support communities trying to reclaim alternative models of masculinity when violent ones have gained traction.

 

For the purposes of this blog, masculinity and femininity are defined as the traits and behaviours that societies expect men and women to express.

 

Let me begin by explaining what I mean by suggesting that violent models of masculinity become dominant in certain contexts. Evidence across the world, from Nepal, through Sub Saharan Africa, to the UK, suggests that in times of peace, acceptable forms of male behaviour are varied, that we would struggle to describe many of them as violent, and that these intersect with a plethora of other identity features including but not exclusive to caste, race, ethnicity, and age. Having said this, it is true that when a group believes the State is either unable or unwilling to protect them from perceived or actual attacks exceptionally violent models of masculinity do tend to gain dominance. In such contexts, leaders often narrow definitions of masculinity and femininity to compel men to take up arms. For example, they may propagate claims that the embodiment of violent masculinity is the only legitimate way to ‘be a man’, increase the proportion of power held by men able to achieve this definition, and justify violence by reinforcing narratives of women as weak, childbearing and in need of protection. As violent models of masculinity gain purchase within a community, the space in which non-violent models of masculinity are valued is often reduced.

 

It is important to note that, in order for such messages to gain traction, they must be reproduced by men and women alike. The “White Feather Girls” and women in Rwanda who incited violence during the genocide are prime examples of the role women play in compelling men to fight and shaming those who don’t. Women may not always be aware of the full consequences of this messaging and so, through this insidious process, they risk becoming agents of their own victimisation. Without even discussing the use of VAW against women perceived as ‘belonging to the enemy’, in conflict affected states violence against the female subjects of supposed protection tends to increase. Far from being protective then, evidence suggests that violent masculinities put women in great danger.

 

So, how can it be that VAW tends to increase in contexts where men are called upon to protect the women in their communities? There is no doubt that the reasons are as varied as they are complex. However, I propose that the structural dynamics, which reduce the space in which non-violent models of masculinity can be valued is key.

 

Firstly, when societies endorse violent masculinity as the only authentic manifestation of ‘manhood’, men able to embody this model are often legitimised in committing violence against those deemed subordinate to them. Since narrowed definitions of masculinity are linked to narrowed definitions of femininity, which reinforce narratives of women as subordinate, VAW may be legitimised. 

 

Secondly, and perhaps less obviously, men who struggle to express this narrowed definition of masculinity may see VAW as the only attainable path to achieving this goal. Because the value given to non-violent models of masculinity is limited, the pressure to conform to violent models increases. We can see the seriousness of this pressure when observing the increase in violence against ‘weak men’ from ‘real men’. Since this violence against men is intended to humiliate as well as harm, underreporting, especially about sexual violence is likely high. As a result, this violence is probably more widespread than the statistics suggest. Further, in these contexts, ‘weak men’ are at higher risk of committing violence against themselves, illustrated by the suicide rates of those deemed unable to fulfil narrowed definitions of masculinity. When pressures to express masculinity violently are so high, the risk that civilian men become perpetrators of VAW in order to achieve this increases. While we should of course commit to reducing these pressures for the sake of male victims themselves, it is also important to recognise that, when trying to stop VAW, such work is key.

 

It is worth noting that these pressures have negative consequences for women beyond VAW. We should not for example, be surprised in peace-building contexts when civilian men resist attempts by women to remain in economic and political spaces they inhabited during times of violence. This is especially the case when such spaces represent opportunities to reclaim non-violent models of masculinity, denied to men during war.

 

While we platform the voices of female survivors and commit to bringing violent individuals to account, we should also recognise the role that widening definitions of masculinity can play in stopping VAW. As such, we must commit to supporting societies promoting and reclaiming alternative masculinities and address attempts to undermine these efforts wherever they arise. Creating spaces where women are valued as more than ‘child bearers’ is only sustainable if we create spaces where men are valued as more than ‘protectors’. By playing into narratives that all men necessarily benefit from violent models of masculinity, we not only fail those men who fall victim to this model, we also fail women for whom the rise of violent masculinities legitimises their continued and intensified oppression.