Why It Is Essential To Address Harmful Notions Of Masculinity When Creating Sustainable Peace

In most cultures, men are associated with violence in a way that is not associated with women. One of the central tenets of feminist theory is that the reproduction of male domination across multiple societies hinders the goal of full equality between genders. However, conceptualising gender violence this way can mislead one to think that ‘men’ as a unified category subjugate the other uniform category of ‘women.’ As we know, there are numerous forms of masculinities, like hegemonic masculinity, that lead to domination not only between but also within genders. Although links between patriarchy and gender-based violence are increasingly recognised, the role of masculinities in conflict dynamics are rarely discussed by policymakers, organisations, international donors and peacebuilding practitioners

In recent years, there has been an increasing need to incorporate a gender perspective, with the United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1325 and 1889 urging member states to ensure gender mainstreaming. However, gender mainstreaming and gender perspectives have only resulted in looking at the roles, rights and needs of women. A large part of peacebuilding is focused on increasing women’s meaningful participation in peacebuilding processes that are dominated by men, which is extremely important. However, there is another side of gender equality focusing on the experiences of men and boys that is often less understood and overlooked by peacebuilding professionals. Understanding masculinities is important in bringing sustainable peace because, in conflict settings, social expectations around masculine norms can exacerbate violence and pose different types of vulnerabilities for men and boys.

Gendered Drivers of Conflict

Integrating the perspectives of masculinity as a complementary stream can also strengthen peacebuilding processes. Notions of masculinity that call upon men to create violence in order to protect their families and communities are used to encourage men to take up arms. This is commonly used by state militaries and non-state armed groups to manipulate men into violence. Another form of masculinity is ‘thwarted’ masculinity, which is when men are unable to conform to the idealised or accepted standards of manhood as imposed by the society. Lwambo states that many men are not able to fulfil their supposed prerequisites for being a ‘real man’, with economic and social stresses prevalent in the society. This leads to men losing their male identity, which results in conflict. Violence can thus provide a means for these men to attain manhood. In the case of Uganda, men are unable to achieve the traditional means of masculinity like marriage, fatherhood, protecting the family and paying bride price, which has left more men joining the military and other non-state armed groups to “recover their masculinity,” thereby using violence as an accepted means of obtaining other markers of masculinity.

Gender norms and expectations around masculinity have also rendered men and boys vulnerable to violence. Men from lower socio-economic backgrounds are vulnerable to forced recruitment in non-state armed groups and militaries. Men were systematically killed by armed groups while women were spared in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. Even in the current crisis of Syria, more boys are being killed. Additionally, in northern Uganda, young boys are targeted because of the perceived belief that they could be future cattle raiders. Men are also sexually violated through rape and castration as a way to feminise them and strip away their masculinity. Many men are disciplined and punished for failing to meet expectations of the heteronormative hegemonic masculinity, putting openly homosexual men and boys at risk of vicious assaults and killings. Any programming, including peacebuilding initiatives, that challenge forms of masculinity must take into account how harmful masculinities demonise and attack some groups of men and boys more than others.

Positive Masculinities as Drivers of Change

Although there is limited evidence on the effectiveness of masculinities approach in peacebuilding, there are some organisations and small-scale projects that are already implementing positive masculinities to tackle violence and achieve gender equality. Some organisations use group education strategies by rationally and emotionally engaging men to examine how their beliefs, attitudes and behaviours uphold patriarchal and harmful masculinity norms. This helps them to know that masculinity is not innate but socially learnt. Issues of power are also discussed by organisations like REDMAS that work to deconstruct how boys are raised to regard power as a way to control and dominate others. They also use alternative notions of interpersonal relationships that are based on cooperation, collaboration and mutual respect. Emphasizing shared responsibility and engaging men in the promotion of gender equality, instead of blaming them, is found to be most effective.

Addressing sexual orientation and homophobia in group activities helps to remove the fear of being perceived as ‘unmasculine’”. It also works to implicitly devaluate certain feminine behaviours, which have been linked to other oppressive ideologies like misogyny and transphobia. Women also engage with men in these activities to remove internalised gender norms. Organisations like Instuto Promundo have programs that allow women in group activities to construct and reinforce positive ideals of masculinity among men in their lives and communities and to engage them as allies in the promotion of women’s empowerment and gender equality.

Programming Agenda on Masculinities in Peacebuilding

These approaches can be adapted in peacebuilding programming to address harmful masculinities as drivers of conflict. Overcoming Violence: Exploring Masculinities, Violence, and Peace by the Women Peacemakers Program was the only program that addressed the role of masculinities in driving conflict. Men were given training on the theory and practice of gender-sensitive non-violence, masculinities, and gender-sensitive and participatory facilitation. Women were also involved in helping them build community projects in every stage of the program. After the training, those men went on to implement many initiatives to promote positive masculinities in their own countries. Men who are or have been combatants, and those whose situations make them vulnerable to engage in violence, must be key targets in peacebuilding programs that address harmful masculinities. Strong correlation between gender equality and peace means that peacebuilders should promote non-violent masculinities instead of only focusing on the security sector and armed groups.

In addition to these previously mentions areas, there also needs to be engagement in areas that do not already exist, for example, having women critically examine how they relate to their husbands and partners. This would include addressing what gender norms or beliefs they pass down to their children. It is also important to note that it is not only the local and national structures that can enforce harmful masculinities. The role of international organisations and multilateral corporations should also be examined. International donors and organisations have the tendency to export the same organisational cultures and working practices that promote harmful masculinities, which are found in their own security sectors when providing support to conflict-affected recipient states. These organisations can bring militarised forms of masculinity that already exist in their security sector to the affected states with a stamp of international legitimacy. Therefore, international actors must change their assumptions about gender because doing so will help states and other actors when instilling masculinity and femininity perspectives in their peacebuilding efforts.