To The Folks At The News: Stop Spouting Homophobic Hatred.
Posted: May 30, 2011 Filed under: Political | Tags: Homosexuality, Media, Men, Rants, SexGenderBody 9 Comments »This rant is in response to this piece published in The News last Sunday: [http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=48395&Cat=6&dt=5%2F22%2F2011]
–
Right from the outset, I want to state in no uncertain terms that homophobia infuriates me to no end. Whether or not one agrees it is a natural proclivity and/or a conscious choice, the State has no business regulating sexual expression and practice between consenting adults. There are far more pressing matters for the government to spend its budget on than policing what people do in private. Having said that, I understand that lawmakers in Pakistan will not remedy homophobic laws because majority of the citizens would oppose such a move. I’m not naïve enough to believe we’ll follow suit on the precedent set by Delhi last year when it de-criminalised sodomy by reversing bigoted laws set by British colonials. Not any time soon at least.
But what excuse does the so-called independent and free English media have for spouting such hatred?
The problem is not that there are people who are anti-homosexuality: there is enough literature to enrich such a debate, theocratic or otherwise. I can even concede, hesitantly, that it is entirely rational to be opposed to homosexuality if one follows Islam strictly. Literal interpretations of the scripture would demand such a blanket disagreement with acceptance of homosexuality.
The problem is when journalists and medical doctors get their facts blatantly wrong, twist conclusions, conflate several issues and misrepresent a correlation completely. In a country where personal freedoms are easily violated especially if the suspect is poor and voiceless, this is downright criminal. The piece I’m referring to appeared in The News recently and quoted a certain Dr Abrar Umar. Right from the first line, it is reeking with bigotry:
“Homosexuality is fast spreading in the country putting health and social norms at stake and if the issue is not duly addressed, the situation may lead to the epidemic of AIDS. In an ethnographic study of men who have sex with men (MSM) in twin cities, a public health professional working on prevention of AIDS and Assistant Professor of Community Medicine in Islamabad Medical College Dr Abrar Umar alarmed that homosexuality, if not duly addressed may lead to the epidemic of AIDS.”
Let me spell it out for you: homosexuality does NOT lead to AIDS. Having unprotected sex increases the risk to sexual infections as serious as AIDS. This is a perfect example of when correlation does not mean causation. It is well-documented fact all over the world that by itself, the act of two men having sex does not increase the risk of becoming HIV positive. Having sex without adequate protection, however, will lead to an increase risk of contracting diseases whether you have sex with a man or a woman.
Betraying colossal ignorance of basic facts about human biology, the writer states:
“Like other parts of the country, the homosexuals are multiplying in twin cities of Islamabad and Rawalpindi.”
Newsflash: it is physically impossible for gay men to multiply as they cannot get pregnant or give birth. Heterosexual reproduction is what one means by multiplying. If the writer is upset about the alarming rate of population growth, I’m with him. Lord knows we need fewer bigots around us.
Although the numbers are disputed, several studies suggest that approximately 5% of the population in any place is gay. Evidence of that is reproducible with a simple Google search. A study done at the UCLA just last month indicates that an estimated 3.5% of adults in the United States identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual. Moreover, an estimated 8.2% report that they have engaged in same-sex sexual behavior and nearly 11% acknowledge at least some same-sex sexual attraction.
This basically means that at the very least one person out of every twenty people you know is likely to be a gay dude or a lesbian and you can do nothing to change that. While condemnation of and discrimination towards gay people is fairly recent in history, there is plenty of recorded evidence of acknowledgment, acceptance and even appreciation of homosexual behavior in every civilization in history. Each and every society, be it the Ottomans or the Romans. It is by no means a new “phenomenon” that requires immediate redress and recourse. If it is still not obvious, let me clarify by saying gay people exist under every religion, regime, reign and renaissance. I apologise for sounding like I’m talking to a four year old but the article in The News beseeches such condescension.
I can try and ignore the horrendously biased language used in the piece:
For example: In Islamabad, many fashion and production houses are “stormed” with gays and homos in closet. (Emphasis is my own)
…but what gets me foaming at the mouth in anger is when it casually discloses popular locations where gay people allegedly meet and socialize. Do we really need to endanger people who are already deeply marginalized and forced to be closeted because of the potential shame and brutal violence they can face on the streets? It is because of this moral and social policing those gay men cannot be open about their activities. And if you haven’t made the connection already, it is BECAUSE of this forced seclusion they do not have access to adequate protection and are at a much higher risk of getting infected. If safe sex could be appropriately discussed and addressed, many of these diseases could be tackled in the professional and ethical manner they deserve to be treated with.
“Rape, theft, drug trafficking and blackmailing are also associated with the phenomenon.”
…just like they are connected with most marginalized groups. And I repeat, for fuck’s sake it is not a ‘phenomenon’! Did all editors at The News just fall of their building on I.I. Chundrigar and die? Who fact-checked this piece?
More conflation of different terms follows in the piece:
“To a query, Dr Abrar said that about 80 per cent of Haijras (eunuchs) are basically gays who have turned into Haijra identity for better acceptance in the society.”
While it is true that some men resort to cross-dressing and queer gender performance to escape social exclusion and physical violence (hijras and khwaja-siras have somewhat more social acceptance in Pakistan while having zero economic acceptance), this is not the case for many gay people who either don’t want to or can’t just adorn various identities. This also profoundly confuses the umbrella term of ‘trans’ which includes far more gender and sexual variation than just castrated men. In short, anyone who doesn’t identify with the gender or sex (two very different terms meaning two very different things) they were born with is trans. And trans is an adjective just like beautiful is. Not a noun like man or woman. But I digress.
Just when I’m about to give up completely, there is some acknowledgment of the actual issues.
“Poverty, broken families, uneducated parents, absence of sex education and drug addiction drag the children to unprotected environment outside the family.
He, however, added that to have a better analysis of MSM we have to be very specific about their gay and other identities. There is a marked behavioural difference between the two. All the gay subjects in the study except one who is considered fake gay by the others have strong perception that they are gays by birth.
Dr Abrar said that the study reveals that most of the MSM are blackmailed and threatened by the police. Due to insecurity, many MSM enter the transgender while some of them get castrated. The gay segment of MSM faces a lot of pressure from family and the gays who marry are victims of marital disharmony thus problems are replicated.
He added that general rejection by the society and insulting behaviour of the general people put MSM into isolation. Due to homosexuality being a taboo in society and stigma associated with it, MSM are reluctant to go to physician and tell the right history of the ailment. Eventually they cannot get right and in-time treatment, he said and added that most of the MSM are living at high risk of having sexually transmitted diseases especially AIDS. Preventive measures are generally not being practiced by them in spite of awareness among them, said Dr Abrar.”
Yes! Finally! Issues and problems we really need to talk about!
This piece had the potential to discuss serious concerns faced by the gay community in an objective way. Except it flushed all hope down the toilet with its undisguised homophobia, deliberate dishonesty in how the facts were presented and a total disregard for privacy concerns of its subject. It turned out to be nothing more than a space for violent condemnation of gay men with unwarranted paranoia and supreme hypocrisy.
Well done Dr Abrar Umar and The News for allowing and supporting such bigotry in the most unethical way possible.
Veena Malik’s Victory Is Not ‘Our’ Victory
Posted: February 3, 2011 Filed under: Personal, Political | Tags: Feminism, Media, Men, Secularism, The Left Leave a comment »
Express Tribune boasting increased ratings for Kamran Shahid
Media is pernicious! But it is no laughing matter.
Two weeks ago, not many ‘liberal’ kids had heard of Kamran Shahid, let alone watch his show. Today, there’s a remix on YouTube of Veena Malik’s appearance along with Mufti on his show on Express News. The interview was posted on several websites in its entirety and all of Pakistan’s Facebook-ing awaam shared the same on their profiles. What else could a late night show host possibly want?
The show itself is a double-edged sword, really. On one hand its remarkable that a confidant, articulate and dare I say, sexy actress silenced an Islamic cleric on national television (no mean feat by itself!). On the other hand, however, a misogynist anchor walks away with the highest ratings for basically compiling a cheap-shot video of Veena Malik during Bigg Boss and then insulting her for being the instigator!
Under a more thoughtful, ethical watch such a matter wouldn’t even make headlines. A self-identified Pakistani Muslim actress in a reality TV show is schmoozing with an Indian man. So what? In a country where hunger is rising to epic proportions, militants are getting more conniving and someone gets murdered in defense of what a poor Christian woman said, what Veena Malik does on reality TV is barely controversial. It’s a non-issue.
But then again, it isn’t. It is very much the heart of the plethora of problems plaguing Pakistan. It is yet another reflection of the deep division in society: those who think Veena Malik is a hero for finally having the grace and gall to stand up to the moral police, and those who think Veena Malik did a terrible job of representing Pakistanis abroad. There are no numbers to show how many lie on either side and just how many are in grey, those who either don’t care or can’t afford to care. Veena Malik versus the Mufti may be great late night TV, but when it turns into another Salman Taseer versus Mumtaz Qadri, it is no longer a trivial matter. Moral policing coupled with vigilantism has dangerous consequences and as we’ve seen, the silent majority’s complicity is never held accountable.
The reality TV show Bigg Brother is produced in the same ilk as Big Brother in the UK.
Recall 1984.
The term Big Brother alludes to moral policing, social control, CCTVs, totalitarianism and a wretched Orwellian nightmare. Even though the show borrows the same concept of Big Brother as the ever-watchful, not-so-secret, controlling Man On The Screen, I doubt even Veena Malik had imagined just how much of a dystopia it was going to turn out for her. No one stood up for her when she was being repeatedly insulted while the show was going on. No one stood up for her till she came back and had to stand up for herself.
Admittedly, I was among those who cheered and clapped when I saw Veena Malik defending her womanhood, her right to look good and her role as an entertainer. But then again, when have we, the self-congratulating, pompous liberals ever mobilised for political space in Pakistan? We ceded that space many moons ago when we decided our privilege and comfort was enough to built walls around ourselves. Even those of us who weren’t rich but had afforded ourselves a liberal education thought ourselves too smart to engage in local politics. Why reduce ourselves to that level, we said. And in that misguided arrogance, we lost the right to appropriate Veena Malik’s courage as our own.
It is not ‘our’ victory. It’s Veena Malik’s victory. She was a lone ranger in the battlefield that day.
Pakistan Drama Serials: A Feminist Nightmare
Posted: November 10, 2010 Filed under: Political | Tags: Feminism, Media, Men, Rants, Sexual Harassment, Urdu 9 Comments »For the last couple of months, my mother and I have been hooked to TV serials running on Hum TV, ARY and Geo TV. Most of the high profile ones are, mercifully, quite short and wrap up the entire plot in 15 to 16 weeks. The quality of production is impressive and there is commendable acting talent. Stories of political scandals, love, money and family drama on a backdrop of extraordinary wealth and lavish set designs, have indeed found a niche and are, admittedly, addictive.
The glitz and the glamour, notwithstanding, some very disturbing trends beg the question of what we’re internalising as consumers of Pakistani soaps. Perhaps it is futile to ask, yet again, the erstwhile question of whether life imitates art or art imitates life. But then again, with every new trend in popular culture, it might be worth digging a little deeper in what are obvious red herrings, lest it is accepted as legitimate representation.
The first glaring problem is the role assigned to women in most (if not all) of these TV serials. Whether a woman or a man writes the plot, all characters written for women are not just expectedly cliché, but also shocking at times. Women are either decidedly passive, silenced by the men in their lives (for e.g. Yaarian on Geo TV, Qaid-e-Tanhayee on Hum TV), or stubborn, incoherent rebels out to shame their families (for e.g. Paarsa on Hum TV or Haal-e-Dil on ARY). Then there are others who exude classic patriarchy by opposing female education and arranging forced marriages (e.g. Qaid-e-Tanhayee on Hum TV). Stereotypes are aplenty: even where there are female lead roles depicting strong, independent women, one finds them in the toughest of circumstances going through some far-fetched trauma. In they end they either capitulate to the classic demands of the society or end up leaving the country (for e.g. Ishq-e-Gumshuda on Hum TV or Haal-e-Dil on ARY).
Most of these stories revolve around elite families in Pakistan and their personal strife. I come from a fairly privileged background myself and yet, after watching at least six of these shows till the end, there was not a single woman I could relate to. Why is the narrative of oppression the only available narrative on TV in Pakistan? Despite the economic hardship, the daily frustrations of a patriarchal society and lack of choices prevalent around us, there are many of us who lead fulfilling lives and do not choose male domination as the singular underlying narrative of our life.
Increasingly, these drama serials have become an echo chamber for ridiculous ideas regarding education, marriage, career, love reiterated by women themselves. This would not be a problem had we a variety of opinions being voiced by female characters but that is not the case. Nearly every single show on T.V. today has a couple of token women who spew self-righteous inanities about not educating their daughters, suspecting their daughter’s intentions when they go out of the house, restricting women’s mobility in urban settings, distrusting women’s choices of who to marry and so on and so forth. These women then go around reprimanding others who are going astray and the old blame and shame game ensues.
It is important to point out that these characters are deliberate caricatures developed either to mock the increasingly conservative mass consciousness or to hold up a mirror to the society. In voicing these opinions, it is quite apparent that most of these producers, writers, and directors are laughing at the women they are writing about. But that isn’t the contention here. It is the sheer prevalence of such characters that is the problem. It is as if an alternative conversation about women and their lives in Pakistan is impossible or non-existent.
Lastly, while some attempt is made to include a cross-section of society in the characters to make it more representative of class divides in the country, most of the successful stories were based on lives of the exceedingly rich and their disconnect from the world outside their mansions. It is quite an absurd site to behold where, on one hand there is a huge house spread over thousands of yards that most Pakistanis cannot relate to, and on the other hand there are these people living in these houses that think and behave like the writers expect the larger populace to think and behave.
Women travel with ease to foreign countries, divorce cheating husbands, run their ex-husbands businesses but yet confront the most horrifying backlash when say, falling in love with a person with disability. Sitting in an expansive mansion, we see a head-strong young woman miserable because her father threatens to get her killed if she continues to meet her blind friend and her gradual acceptance that daddy knows best. In fact, by the end of it most of these women resign to a fate ordained by other people controlling their lives. Again, I’m not saying this does not happen but I am saying that they do not reflect millions of Pakistani women who did not fit this drama serial narrative. What is more, they are also not representative of so many Pakistani men who are, in fact, progressive, supportive and enabling of women’s choices.
It is alienating to watch this night after night; to enjoy it as entertainment one either has to totally disconnect from it or employ the proverbial suspension of disbelief. But alas, I am probably going to continue watching these drama serials as they attempt to unfold the all-Pakistani woman’s story. Due to a troubling lack of variety on the telly, all absurdities, contradictions, generalisations and caveats be damned.
New Bill On Second Marriages Puts Women’s Bodies Up For Legal Speculation
Posted: May 5, 2010 Filed under: Political | Tags: Feminism, Islam, Men, SexGenderBody 3 Comments »The Express Tribune reported that PPP parliamentarians introduced a bill today in the National Assembly to protect women from the physical and mental torture they go through when their husbands seek a second marriage. The PPP parliamentarian Justice (Retd) Fakhar-un-Nisa, herself a woman, introduced this bill to deal with situations where men seek a second marriage and the first wife may or may not consent to it.
According to Express, the bill proposes some progressive changes which include “prompt payment of dower to women in case their husbands opt for a second marriage with or without the first wife’s consent; the mother having the custody of a minor child in case of divorce; the husband being bound to pay lifetime child support (also, if he is financially capable, he should not deprive the wife from the house she was living in before the divorce); and the husband providing maintenance, at least for two years, for the wife who is breastfeeding an infant.”
The bill is not without some red flags, however. As Shaheryar Mirza, a reporter from Express 24/7, pointed out on Twitter “the bill proposes that a husband must provide medical evidence if he’s seeking a second marriage on grounds of his first wife not being able to fulfil his sexual desires”
“To be called the Muslim Family Laws (Amendment) Act 2010, the bill proposes that a husband must provide medical evidence if he seeks permission for a second marriage on grounds that his wife is unable to fulfil his sexual desires,” the Express Tribune reports.
Here are some of my concerns with this statement:
- This is going to be a highly intrusive medical procedure which forces women to have their body and genitals examined most likely not with their consent. What kind of a medical check-up proves if one can satisfy a man’s desires sexually anyway? We end up perpetuating a system whereby women’s bodies become public property. A win for patriarchy that assumes it is acceptable to examine, speculate, use and pass verdicts about a woman’s body.
- This is yet another way women will be shamed publicly for not being good enough sexually. After such humiliation based on her body and ability, what woman in Pakistan will resist her husband marrying a second time? Most women in this society would rather not say anything about her husband marrying for the second time than have to go through the embarrassing and harrowing process of being proven medically that she cannot satisfy her husband.
- Who gets to decides the benchmark of satisfactory sexual performance by women?
- It centres and privileges men’s desires and sexuality as if women do not have equally important needs and desires that may not be fulfilled by her husband. When will we start re-centring our attention to women’s sexual needs and desires? Why are we still pretending women’s sexual desires don’t exist (independently and of their own right)?
- It goes without saying, but women cannot seek second marriages whilst men can at least officially seek permission for them in a legally, religiously acceptable manner.
Justice Khokhar said the same legislation was already in place in countries like Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Tunisia so she predicted that it would be easily passed in Pakistan.
Well, if Saudi Arabia does it….
Faiz Ahmed Faiz on Sadequain
Posted: April 20, 2010 Filed under: Art | Tags: Men, Pakistan, Poetry, Quotes, Urdu Leave a comment »
aaj tak surkh-o-siyah sadiyoñ ké saaye talay // aadam-o-havaa ki aulaad pé kiya guzri hai
“Retrospectively, he began quietly enough painting living things as appearances, but even then, in selection and treatment, he was more of a commentator than a mere naturalist? From things phenomena, he chose only those, which were alive and trying to ‘kick’ however, ineffectually. And in his social community the only living ones are those who toil like, the camel, the ox who is the hewer of wood and the drawer of water, the famished cactus, or the root under the stone. And to paint the figure together with its suffering obviously dictated a distortion of visual appearance, a juxtaposition of the conceptual and the material.
In the process, he also evolved a new social and emotional credo of the essential unity of material things, all caught in the agonizing toils of an evolutionary process of struggle goading them upwards. And now, since his return from Paris, Sadequain has once more reverted to direct social comment to depict a loveless and macabre world a world of the scare-crow acting as the Lord of blood-thirsty crows, of the harridan decked out as a beauty queen, a world of trapped tongues and cob-webbed hearts, of debased flesh and servile manners. Filtering across this world we see a Christ-like Figure perhaps meant to be autobiographical, his body covered with thorns, his head encircled by the crown of atrophied oblivion. This bitter vision of reality may not be the whole truth but it is certainly a part of it and if some of those immediately confronted with the hypocrisy and the heartlessness of a particular environment fail to own the hope beyond the despair, the failure is not entirely theirs.”
- Faiz Ahmad Faiz
Full text of the letter and the rest of Sadequain’s paintings on Faiz’s shayrs can be found here
Going Beyond Lip Service to Women’s Rights At The Workplace
Posted: April 15, 2010 Filed under: Political | Tags: Men, Pakistan, Sexual Harassment Leave a comment »This article was originally published in www.tbl.com.pk and TBL has copyrights to it.
–
When the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act was passed in March 2010, the response in many people was one mixed with surprise and relief. It was surprising that it took this long for the legislation to come through or that it did not exist before, and a relief that at last some recourse could be offered to countless victims of harassment at the workplace.
Alliance Against Sexual Harassment (AASHA) first drafted a code of conduct in 2003 and tested it at organisations such as Attock Refinery, McDonalds and Shell. Apart from the private sector, some labour unions, civil society organizations and government departments were also consulted and AASHA presented the final version to the government in March 2008. The cabinet made some changes and formally approved it in February 2009. It was then tabled in the National Assembly in April and handed over to the law and women’s development committees. The President signed the bill on March 9, 2010 and the Act was successfully passed.
Under the Act, every organization including federal and provincial government ministries, departments, corporations, educational institutions, private commercial organisations and registered civil society associations, has to set up an inquiry committee of three people comprising of at least one woman, that will investigate complaints of sexual harassment internally. The inquiry committee has to issue a verdict within thirty days. It may refer to an ombudsperson for appropriate action. A route of appeal also exists for any party aggrieved with the decision of the ombudsperson.
The fine print details major and minor penalties for those prosecuted under the act. Major penalties include demotion to a lower post or a lower stage on a time-scale, compulsory retirement, removal or dismissal from service and a fine which will partially be paid to the complainant as compensation. Minor penalties include censure, withholding of promotion or increment, stoppage at an efficiency bar in a time-scale or other fitness to cross such a bar and recovery of compensation payable to complainant from salary or any other source of income of the accused party.
Several concerns from previous legislation involving women’s rights can be reiterated here. Can this law be used against women? In the case of false accusations it says that the ombudsperson will direct appropriate action but precedent reveals in a society that is structured to privilege men and where women are on the peripheries of power, it is neither difficult nor incredible to prove that the complainant is a lying, manipulative gold-digger. Moreover, the law rightfully attempts to be supportive of women who face harassment because it women are by and large the victims in such cases, but it should not be assumed that the victim is always a woman and that the accused party is always a man. It is not impossible to imagine that a male employee can just as well be harassed, sexually or otherwise, by a male superior or a scenario where a woman in a powerful position ends up being the bully.
The law leaves a lot of ambiguity in what constitutes as harassment at the workplace. It is also unclear whether the nature of harassment will warrant the punishment ascribed in a specific case. While there are countless cases of extreme dehumanising harassment that merit the major penalties outlined but will repeated phone calls or inappropriate conversations in the workplace also lead to demotions and salary cuts? If one leaves jargon aside, harassment is mistreatment and unsolicited attention at the very basic level. How these levels of mistreatment and non-consensual advancements are deconstructed and addressed is a very grey area and it is up to the discretion of inquiry committees in every organisation to define it for itself.
This brings us to the role that organisations can play in facilitating and implementing this law internally. While it is an issue that affects hiring, firing and compensation policies, it should not be a task relegated solely to Human Resource departments. It is very much in the interest of Corporate Social Responsibility, that companies take care of their employees’ mental and physical well-being and protect them from harassment. Corporate Social Responsibility departments in every company should actively be involved in creating awareness of the law within the workplace; formulating specific guidelines on how to report cases and get support in their own organisations; espousing an environment of trust and care; and finally, keeping in mind cultural sensibilities, assert anonymity in cases and be sensitive to the needs and concerns of both the victims and the accused parties.
USAID Pakistan’s FIRMS project is in the process of finalising an initiative to improve working conditions for women in Pakistan by introducing a competitive ranking among organizations. This initiative will draw on the Protection against Harassment of Women in the Workplace Act, but details on the design and implementation of the project are not available just yet as it is still under consideration for adoption. If and when it is implemented, chances are the ranking will be disseminated in a high profile manner to ensure maximum exposure. If implemented, this initiative is anticipated to complement and supplement enforcement of the law by providing a soft incentive to employers. Hard incentives will still need to be offered by the government for the bill to have any practical impact on the working conditions for women.
Maleeha Azeem, a Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist for the Gender component at USAID Pakistan’s FIRMS Project is of the view that implementation of the law is not promising unless enforced, or at least encouraged, by Law and that its effects will not be visible for at least the next year and half at least. “This is like a couple deciding to have a baby; they’ve named the baby but haven’t even conceived it yet. I think that’s where we are with the workplace harassment bill right now,” says Azeem.
A final point has to do with the fact that informal sector does not come under the jurisdiction of the workplace harassment. While it is necessary that social progress starts somewhere, the informal sector should not be left behind. As an unfortunate caveat, it is also worth pointing out that relatively speaking the informal sector does not hire as many women so the law should first tweak and refine the formal processes in organisations that seem to have some semblance of those processes.
Like every piece of legislation, Protection against Harassment of Women in the Workplace Act, brings with it a string of challenges and red flags that should be debated both within the organisations it affects and in public discourse. Whether or not it is truly a progressive move depends on the number of cases that come forward and effective implementation of the legislation in providing redress to victims of workplace harassment. One can only hope that it doesn’t fall into the familiar territory of the Hudood Ordinance which masqueraded as aiming to protect women’s honour and safety but ended up creating more victims rather than helping the existing ones.
Masculinity And Its Discontents
Posted: March 9, 2010 Filed under: Political | Tags: Feminism, Men, SexGenderBody 7 Comments »Telling people I’m a feminist at times evokes a complaint that ‘overrated’ feminism has marginalized the concerns of men and that in recent history the achievements of feminism have actually been hurtful to men. While this isn’t always intelligently framed, it is a legitimate question that warrants further probing.
A few weeks ago there was a post on the Dawn blog titled ‘It’s Hard Being A Man’ that ended up being ridiculed on the interwebs, mostly deservedly so. The writer may not have handled his subject intelligently but the subject in itself is not without merit.
Women’s increased emancipation is then perhaps one source of a threat to the grip of a dominant masculinity, but other threats can exist externally for the male collective.
I spent too many years examining the plights of women and the plights of queers and the plights of people of color and the plights of all sorts of other socio-economically degraded and marginalized groups—it takes some work for me to be convinced that men have the short end of the stick in this system that has set up masculinity to be superior. But I know there’s something wrong with masculinity, and I know it’s hard to express one’s self as masculine without falling into the many, many harmful trappings of the limitations of a masculine gender. This might seem like anti-feminist rhetoric, but I agree with it—at least in part. I agree that masculinity is changing, for some in dramatic, drastic ways. Masculine and male gender roles are shifting as a direct result of the recent feminist and other gendered social change movements.
Every day we are bombarded with messages on the internet and TV that tell us that in order to be acceptable as ‘real’ men, men cannot show emotions. They cannot cry in public, have to be aggressive about what they want and have to always defend their masculinity. This socially constructed definition of what it means to be a man is problematic on many levels. Besides being a constant pressure to be and act a certain way, men are internalizing values that are damaging and painful for them. It’s probably really awful having to live to the set ideal of how manly, aggressive, in control and strong one needs to be just as it is awful for women to be told how subservient, sensitive, delicate they need to be. Any man who does not conform to this ideal of a ‘manly’ man is relegated to the insulting realm of being not man enough or not having balls. It is homophobic and terribly offensive to call a man gay if he is sensitive, dresses in an unconventional way, does not respond aggressively, does not compete with other men to get women, does not like sports, or if he is not just interested in being manly. Phrases like ‘grow a pair’ and ‘be a man’ are examples of how this oppression that tries to instil certain behaviours in all men propagates itself.
Whether or not these boys are actually gay, using homophobia to police masculinity is practically the oldest trick in the book… The inevitable complaint that boys have it so hard, that feminism has stripped men of their manliness, that men don’t know how to be men anymore, that we’ve got a Crisis In Masculinity.
It is essential to confront a masculine identity that affirms sex as a conquest and an entitlement. The [competitive] culture of “scoring” [with women] must be ended, and to be most effective, that effort would come from men. Men willing to collectively reject attitudes that condone violence and misogyny and challenge their peers to rethink their views of sexuality are a critical part of this puzzle.
The prescriptive roles are limiting and restricting, and predetermine too much of masculine personality. I don’t believe hobbies and interests should ever be determined by your particular gender identity—if you’re into fashion or ballet or football or baking or knitting or home repair or cars or video games, why should it matter what your gender is? Your hobbies might interact with your gender—they might tickle your gender in just the right ways, which may or may not align with the prescribed gender role, but they should never restrict or determine what you do or do not like.
Feminist movements should recognize and address these concerns because feminism is not just about advancing women’s rights alone; it should aim to break down all oppressive systems and improve lives for all people of all races, genders and sexual orientation. Feminism can in fact be a foundation to build a discourse on radical masculinity which attempts to remove all expectations based on gender and make it acceptable for people to express themselves however they would like to.
Popular conception of masculinity and the demands it makes on men hurts men physically and emotionally. Radical masculinity, on the other hand, does not hurt.
Radical masculinity is strong enough to be vulnerable and receptive enough to put his foot down. Radical masculinity is trans men and fairy fags and butches who do girly drag. Radical masculinity is a new form of fatherhood, of manhood, of adulthood, of humanhood. Radical masculinity is feminist men doing real work for equality and liberation for everyone. Radical masculinity is football games with your daughter’s ballet class and ice cream sundaes with your high school son’s best friends. Radical masculinity is a way to present, perform, play with, celebrate, and liberate masculinity, in thousands of multi-dimensional expressions.
A good man not only does the good he can, but looks at his own circumstances and does the good that he is uniquely positioned to do. He is responsible, honest, compassionate, and committed, yes, but he brings these virtues to bear on the trappings of his own identity, by shaping his own behaviour or raising his voice in areas where it can be especially powerful. In a sense, that’s the ultimate form of self-responsibility. All that remains is for good men to determine what, exactly, it demands of them.
That starting point is no simple matter, but its understanding begins with honest reflection, and openness to dialogue. Just as all virtue begins with a moral inventory, men need to engage with conversations about privilege, gendered experiences, heterosexism, transphobia, and sexual violence. We need to listen with an open, introspective mind to the chorus of voices saying that certain aspects of our culture of masculinity are destructive and hurtful, both to women and to other men. This is hardly a new idea, but it bears repeating—for if the term ‘good’ has any meaning whatsoever, surely it includes taking responsibility for the culture that we create every day.
A world where a man crying is not associated with homosexuality and the words ‘real man’ don’t exist is a world we want our children to grow up in. A world that recognizes that masculine insecurities exist and that society imposes diabolical expectations on men as well as women is a world where we all can feel safe in. A world where one is not expected to behave or act in a certain way based on one’s assumed gender is a world where we can finally break away from the oppressive chains of a strict gender binary. A world where we recognize that ‘male’ and ‘female’ are only two extremes of a spectrum and we are all allowed to be anywhere in between is a world that will be truly free.
That is the world I want.
[The italicised parts are from here, here and here.]
[P.S: I know 'Discontents' isn't an actual word; it is a nod to Stiglitz and Freud]
