Visiting a Toy Store: Playtime on the Gender Agenda

The role of toys in propagating divisive gender binaries is definitely on the agenda. Laura Bates in ‘Everyday Sexism’ highlights the way in which toys encourage boys and girls to grow up, pursue certain career paths and subsequently avoid those of the opposite sex. In addition to this, British retailer Tesco recently apologised after a 7 year old girl complained that science toys were merchandised as ‘boy’s toys’, while the work of the ‘Let Toys Be Toys’ campaign seeks to encourage manufacturers and retailers to label toys based upon theme or function alone.

Considering this, I decided to do some investigative work of my own. I visited a major toy retailer’s store with ‘gender eyes’ in order to establish how this looks in practice. There are two important differences to note here: store merchandising and manufacturer branding/marketing. This is important since a toy store/retailer could refuse to merchandise on the basis of gender, yet the packaging and the marketing of a toy may still be gendered. Considering this, my findings were as follows:

• Sections that the store had merchandised for girls were almost overwhelmingly pink and focused on childcare toys (dolls, toy prams), and for older girls, the inclusion of boy-band paraphernalia.
• There was no section that was sign-posted as ‘boys’, yet sections that were merchandised by brand contained images of children exclusively of one sex for either brand or type of product. For example: Thomas the Tank Engine toys used images of boys only on the packaging; within another brand, all toys relating to battle (castles, forts) and car sets used boys only. Toys relating to girls focused on domestication (dolls, dolls' houses, etc.).
• The lines of gender appeared to be blurred when it came to kitchen sets. Pink sets featured girls only on the packaging, whereas some sets featured boys and girls on the same packaging. This is perhaps the most interesting point. There are several celebrity male chefs on British TV – the absence of boy only imagery on kitchen sets may serve to reinforce the notion of cooking as a domestic duty for girls and a hobby/career for boys.

Considering these findings, I think it is essential to support the work of organisations like Let Toys Be Toys. If toys continue to promote outdated notions of gender, this will only serve to limit and restrict individuals along gendered lines in later life and hinder the move towards equality. You can visit their website here: http://www.lettoysbetoys.org.uk/.

The Problem with anti-Feminists

I never thought that I would be writing about misandry. I thought it would be crystal clear that anyone who cares about gender equality that feminism is clearly opposed to it. I’ve recently ventured into territory where people argue otherwise; that it fights for female supremacy and is grounded in a hatred of men. It’s time to challenge this notion.

Why don’t feminists call themselves ‘egalitarianists’, or to gender the issue ‘gender egalitarianists’? While it may seem a mute point that detracts from the aim of feminism, there’s a reason why the word is important. Feminism is about acknowledging that gender inequality exists, and that the existence of this inequality is rooted in socially constructed notions that automatically prize characteristics associated with masculinity. Implicit in this, is the acceptance that men can be, and often are, disadvantaged by these notions of masculinity where they are upheld – but to move to the term egalitarianism ignores the way in which such structures are implicitly constructed in favour of men and rest upon the subjugation of women.

There are men and (gasp!) women who fight feminism by cherry picking a few self-proclaimed feminists who appear to be man-haters. They talk about misandry and ‘feminists’ who ‘bathe in male tears’. The anti-feminist movement is sinister at best, and perhaps even indicates that feminism is effective. After all, if we are progressing towards a gender equal society rather than regressing, then what is the fuss? There is no evidence of any structural discrimination against men (in comparison to women), and it is pertinent to remember that the norms of gender are propagated by powerful men. It is therefore those anti-feminists who should be looking towards men, allowing them to challenge the disadvantages of masculinity that affect (often the poorest) men rather than cherry picking self-proclaimed anti-men ‘feminists’ in order to tarnish the grassroots movement of feminism.

Even if for one second misandrist women were to be considered feminists (an oxymoron, in my book), should they be the focus of concern for feminists? Misandry is a residual product of structural prejudice, and by virtue of being a product from this subjugation, it cannot be compared to misogyny in anyway. It is a form of anger; it does not perpetuate an existing structure that marginalises a group. Feminism can be muscular, inclusive and intersectional (and inclusive of men) while recognising this structure and the need to dismantle it. In essence; let’s not worry about the disenfranchised extremes and get back to fighting for equality.

Survey on Gender Equality - UK Residents Only

While I prepare my next blog post, I wanted to share a survey being carried out by the British government. They're looking at how their policies have affected women and girls and what their priorities should be for improving the lives of women and girls in the UK. Only for those living in the UK, fill out the 5 minute survey here. The page doesn't say when the survey closes.

Full link address: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/your-chance-to-shape-uk-priorities-on-gender-equality

Masculinities in Britain - Some Thoughts

Recently a relative of mine was referring to her son's status as being single, stating that she would like him to have a girlfriend again and that she might start to think he's gay. The relative in question knows that her son is not gay and would have no issue if he was, but the comment raises several important gendered notions from my local context. Of course, hegemonic masculinity is interlinked with heterosexuality in practically all societies, but the acting out of heterosexuality by men is particularly encouraged by men and women in Britain. In lad culture, this manifests itself as men encouraging other men to engage in casual sex. 

At the same time, there is a shame-culture in Britain that refers to women/young girls that engage in such relations as 'slags', 'sluts' etc. This is somewhat problematic as for men to act out this masculinity, women need to also adhere to this norm, yet are placed in a position where they are considered immoral and dirty for doing so. The burden of immorality does not fall on young men in the same way and so while men feel pressure to act out heterosexuality either through casual sex or having a girlfriend, women are encouraged to maintain morality while also being sexually available to men.

This essentially places women's sexuality under male control, and men's sexuality under general societal control. Women who are not sexually available are often given greater worth by women and in lad culture be seen as more suitable as a wife, while girls that have engaged in promiscuity (read: taking on the role of allowing men to fulfill lad culture's masculinity) are treated as disposable and of less value. Whatever value society chooses to place upon sex, this value must be consistent across the gender spectrum so that women are not faced with conflicting expectations and men do not feel the need to dichotomise women in order to fulfill varying roles of masculinity.

Female Foeticide/Infanticide in India: Considering Relations - Moving towards 'Daughter and Granddaughter Foeticide/Infanticide'

Having just completed my dissertation on female foeticide and infanticide in India, my research uncovered a key area of neglect in trajectories concerning the practice. My provided an exegesis of  the several structures which exacerbate the practice today: son-preference, dowry, capitalism and 'social engineering' by the British Colonial Authorities in tandem with upper-caste elites to encourage 'Sanskritisation' thereby absolving many lower-caste practices (i.e. bride-price, other marriage types [asura marriage]). 

It also considered a power analysis and the role of gerontocracy and gender within the family and the way in which agreement by women with female foeticide and infanticide often increases with age. Men have often been excluded from research where women tend to be key agents encouraging the foeticide and infanticide. It considered the way in which masculinity plays a role in the practice: where men are economic pillars of a family and often a woman, women need to ensure that their menfolk retain their wealth from which they benefit (as a kind of patriarchal bargain), and a female child (because of dowry) indicates a loss of wealth. A male child also ensures future wellbeing for elderly women and men when men stop working, a woman is therefore in the process of changing her dependence from one male to another. Combined with poorer sex ratios among higher-classes/castes, it may be that greater wealth means women experience this fear of loss more acutely, especially considering that upper-caste norms of Sanskritisation encourage women not to work (lower-caste/class women are more likely to work - a non-working woman is seen with prestige). There are also spiritual reasons emanating from the idea that a male child must light his parent's funeral pyre etc.

While the term 'daughter dis-preference' is being increasingly used in trajectories of female foeticide and infanticide, I suggest this should be used in tandem with 'son-preference' as this is a consequence of the latter. Thus they are both relational to one another in reproducing the practice. Considering the relation of gerontocracy in the family unit to the practice and the way in which some identity is already prescribed to the terms (a gender identity 'female' foeticide/infanticide), the relation of the foetus/child to her family members that reproduce the practice is crucial. Considering relations in a gerontocratic way, the paper argued this represents a case to move towards 'Daughter and Grandaughter Female Foeticide/Infanticide' and to recognise this relations in abolishing the practice -it is too simplistic to focus on gender alone when the practice is discussed and solutions to overcome this practice are presented.

Gender and Meat: Making the Connection

‘So the cultural myth of the hamburger is buttressed by masculinity and affirms, in turn, the recurring connection between meat and masculinity.' – Reeser
  

‘The word vegetable acts as a synonym for women’s passivity because women are supposedly like plants.’ – Adams

‘According to the mythology of patriarchal culture, meat promotes strength; the attributes of masculinity are achieved through eating these masculine foods.’ – Adams

‘Forbidding meat to women in non-technological cultures increases its prestige.’ – Adams

Meat eating is a very personal topic to me and hence writing on this topic requires a lot of self-restraint; I've therefore decided to touch on a few key issues surrounding gender and meat. The connection between diet and gender without any ethnographic or qualitative research yields some interesting trends: in all societies, even where meat consumption is low, men consume more meat than women and more women are vegetarians. Behind this then, a gender analysis would consider the way in which there is a connection between meat and constructs of gender. As Adam in 'The Sexual Politics of Meat' posits, vegetables become associated with women and passivity; forbidding meat to women increases its prestige as a masculine food that promotes strength. This is important since Hutchings argues that masculinity is based upon a hierarchical logic of exclusion and associated with degradation of the feminine. If animals are included in this hierarchy, they would be placed at the bottom as the most feminine, the most passive in this structure. Their degradation is the most extreme in form in that they are commodified to the extent that they become non-entities, reflected a) in the way that language transforms them from beings (pig) to objects/commodities (bacon) and; b) in the way in which the vast majority of animal protein we consume is feminine (eggs, milk, beef).

It is important to consider the way in which masculinity is not always tied to men. Where masculinity appears at the top of this hierarchy, all values, practices and customs associated with it become desirable and therefore those who are feminised within this hierarchy (for example, lower-castes/classes could be considered feminised/emasculated relative to upper-caste/class groups) seek to emulate and attain such a status; it must not be assumed that they agree with such an exclusionary and oppressive structure, rather it may be seen that this is the model that society is predicated upon and that they are working within this structure to increase their status. It then may be seen that the increase in meat consumption world wide, particularly in countries like India where upper-caste Brahmins have often been vegetarian, is the result of transnational, globalised masculinities and the way in which people seek to emulate them. The increase in meat consumption can not only be connected to the masculine nature of capitalism and how it cares only for the quantitative (and therefore commodification and profit), but also the way in which society at the local level becomes masculinised and even women adopt these 'masculine' traits in order to improve their status/position within this heirarchy. The problem of using this methodology points to some larger issues that will not be discussed in detail here, but simply: it is important to consider the extent to which using this structure, which requires degradation in order to maintain and reproduce itself, creates greater polarisation and oppression of those at the bottom, squeezing them further and creating greater polarisation within this heirarchy.

Ethical vegetarian/vegan movements in the west present a challenge to the hegemonic connection between meat and masculinity. There are several vegan sportsmen such as strongman Patrik Baboumian, Boxer Mike Tyson, Noel vegan fitness star which attempt to subvert the notion that meat is connected to masculinity. It is then pertinent to note the sensationalist reports that claim that vegetarianism (which is perceived to be a soy-heavy diet in the west) 'turns children gay'. As discussed in previous posts, heterosexuality is the pinnacle of hegemonic masculinity, and thus associating homosexuality with a food that is perceived to be a staple of vegetarian diets implies that 'meat is not masculine'. The attempts by vegan male sport stars then is interesting: it uses various forms of hegemonic masculinity such as physical strength (which is associated with meat) to masculinise vegetarian/vegan-ism and to some extent feminise meat-eating through slogans like 'real men don't eat animals'. The problem here is that rather than rejecting the notion of masculinity all together, they wish to retain the concept and reinvent it in a vegan form. Since masculinity is a real construct in society, the attempt to challenge its definitions and reinvent in this it may serve to subvert the way in which hegemonic masculinity can facilitate violence and risk taking behaviour. However this does not address other forms of subordination that the structure may encourage, and therefore it is pertinent to consider the way in which this approach serves simply to improve conditions for those lower in the structure without addressing the structure that leads to such degradation in the first place.

‘People with power have always eaten meat… Dietary habits proclaim class distinctions, but they proclaim patriarchal distinctions as well. Women, second-class citizens, are more likely to eat what are considered to be second-class foods in a patriarchal culture: vegetables, fruits, and grains rather than meat.’ – Adams

Globalised Homosexual Identities: The Pros and Cons of Uncompromised Homosexuality

Within academic debates regarding subalternity and homosexuality there are two broad arguments: a) ‘modern’ homosexual identities are the product of ‘gay imperialism’ from the ‘west’ and therefore unsuitable for non-western climates; and b) ‘modern’ homosexual identities are rooted in a rights-based initiative for legal and cultural change. Yet both arguments are simplistic and require greater nuance for LGBT equality worldwide.

The search for (and proof of) a native homosexual identity is important for the most conservative elements of a subaltern society that may reject homosexuality on the basis that it is foreign to their culture and society. The ‘modern’ homosexual identity that has developed is somewhat problematic for these cultures where it is viewed as the only definition of homosexuality, but so are the ‘native' definitions that appear in academic debate. Hijras in India can be divided into kothi and panthi: the former takes the passive position in intercourse where the latter takes the active position and marries a female. The kothi will dress and behave as a female and live among other kothis, and those kothis that castrate themselves refer to themselves as ‘asli’ (authentic), and the un-castrated as ‘nakli’ (fake/inauthentic). While there is a case to be argued that this represents a greater tolerance in Indian society (historically) towards homosexuality, this should not be the form of homosexuality that is upheld in Indian society in the search of a native homosexual identity. It is rooted in compromise, it reduces homosexual relationships to sexual transactions and puts kothis, panthis and their wives at risk; it is predicated on the imitation of heterosexuality via the aforementioned binaries; it denies the right, particularly to kothis, of a stable loving relationship. This is particularly interesting as it seems that the more feminine of the kothi-panthi relationship has more to loose: they are not able to fulfil notions of hegemonic masculinity and be accepted as a part of wider society by hiding their sexuality and having a married life. Perhaps most importantly, this native form of homosexuality is silent on female homosexuality: implying that females should not, or do not deserve the right to sexuality.

Conversely, the example of Polari, a subdialect used in Britain by predominantly by gay men before the decriminalisation of homosexuality in Europe reveals the way in which a subculture and a native gay identity existed in Europe. It can thus be understood that with greater legal rights and social recognition as an acceptable orientation, native homosexual identities erode with the development of LGBT rights and equality on the basis of individualism and freedom. Conversely, the LGBT rights movement and this ‘modern’ globalised homosexual identity is rooted in rejection of compromise, and while geographically ‘western’ in origin, is not a ‘western’ gay cultural identity.

The context of this globalised homosexual identity is then problematic, not because it seeks to achieve parity with heterosexuality socially, but because it is rooted in the concept of individualism. In Indian society which is collective rather than individualistic, an uncompromised homosexual identity is somewhat problematic where heterosexuals often have to compromise on relationships regularly: marriage to someone within the same caste and religious group is likely to be expected, and a pre-marital boyfriend/girlfriend may not be a suitable marriage partner. Any analysis of gay liberation in India and the search for equality and parity both socially and legally must not be predicated on the rhetoric of individual liberty and rights alone. This is not to imply that India is not worthy of these concepts, but to deny the collective nature of many subaltern cultures is to do great damage to the search for LGBT liberation in those societies.

There is a risk then that the wealthiest in those societies are able to adopt this ‘globalised’ homosexual identity where they have little economic dependence on their families and do not have to worry about destitution if they are rejected and disowned. This leaves the poorest in society alienated from the LGBT rights movement and serves to fragment and dichotomise the LGBT community from within on class (and caste) lines: moving forward thus means the careful navigation between the ‘no-compromise’ principle and the nature of a collective society which expects compromise.

The Masculinisation of Jainism in India: Hinsa Paramo Dharma?

Those familiar with Indian religions will know the famous statement ‘ahinsa paramo dharma’ (the highest religion/duty is non-violence) is usually connected with Jainism, a small religion originating in the 5^th century BCE. Jains are less than 0.5% of India, but boast the highest literacy rates, the highest number of working females compared to all other religious groups, and contribute towards 25% of India’s GDP.

Ahinsa (non-violence, as opposed to hinsa, violence) in practice requires vegetarianism with the additional exclusion of egg, root vegetables (to avoid harm to bugs when removing from the ground), sweeping the ground by monks/nuns to avoid harming life and wearing a face covering to avoid breathing in organisms.

Jainism is far from a gender equal religion. It places restrictions on women’s movement in religious spaces during their menses, while the Digambara sect believes they must be reincarnated as a male before in order to obtain moksha (liberation). The doctrine of ahinsa strictly forbids abortion and all types of physical/emotional violence which may seem to be hugely in favour of the development of girls and women, especially when it comes to the issue of female foeticide in India. Yet after Sikhs, Jains have the second highest sex-ratio imbalance. The economic success of the Jains cannot be divorced from this, and ideological masculinity is an important unit of analysis. Sikhs are also one of the wealthiest religious groups in India. Trajectories that consider economic success as of primary importance in advancement and development are masculine in nature: it relies on the quantitative binary. This is in contrast to the principle of ahinsa which is qualitative and therefore feminine: focused on caring and emotions. While India is famous for its high vegetarian population and cuisine, the reality is that even in India as a whole, more women are vegetarian than men, reflective of world-wide gendered patterns of vegetarianism. It is therefore to consider the extent to which the increasing sex-ratio imbalance, violence and ideological masculinity are interrelated, with the Jains being a microcosm of trends developing in wider Indian society. If a religious community such as Jainism is not able to maintain a balanced gender ratio with economic success then what does this say about India's development as a whole?

It is the masculine emphasis on capitalism and a quantitative approach to improving livelihood that leads to the masculinisation of such communities. The Svetambara sect of Jainism has around 4 nuns to every 1 monk, revealing the way in which women are generally more committed to this most essential principle of Jainism. The decline of Jainism’s influence can be seen in India as a whole: its leather industry recorded a cumulative annual growth rate of about 8.22% in 2011-12 and enjoys an annual turnover of $7.5 billion, non-vegetarianism is on the rise as incomes increase.

Jains are somewhat unique in their practice of sex-selection when compared to other communities. Where others detect the sex of a foetus after conception, Jains practice pre-conception sex selection, seemingly allowing them to adhere to the feminine principle of ahinsa by avoiding abortion. It is simplistic to consider the other gender inequalities in Jainism as a factor contributing to the practice; Sikhism is practically the most gender equal religion in the world, yet this has not influenced Sikhs being the group with the worst sex-ratios in India. Ideological masculinity remains at the heart of such issues, whether it is the affect on economics and the state, or at the local level. It is therefore pertinent to consider whether there has been as masculinisation of the doctrine of ahinsa in Jainism – focusing on abortion (rather than pre-conception sex-selection) as a form of hinsa (violence) involves a simplistic, quantitative approach to the doctrine in theory in practice. It does not consider the interrelatedness of all beings and the impact of pre-conception sex-selection on society, which could contribute towards greater creation of hinsa as a whole. It does not consider how this causes problems for men of a lower economic standing, who are unable find a wife, possibly causing social and emotional problems through being unable to act out the greatest requirement of hegemonic masculinity: heterosexual marriage (since where women are fewer in number they may choose wealthier spouses, placing considerable pressure on men); it does not consider how the practice leads to trafficking of women for marriage and prostitution, placing them in great danger and situations of vulnerability.

Finally, it is essential to draw in the masculine nature of capitalism as an ideology which focuses on the quantitative and how this facilitates (hyper-)masculinisation of wider society. This leads to the reduction of ideologies like ahinsa that may be considered feminine, and the effect this has on gender relations at the local level must be considered. In this in the Indian context this has clearly allowed female infanticide to take on a new form of female foeticide and exacerbate it as a practice by making it quantitative and clinical: one might argue that the rise in access to such technologies makes it easier people to exterminate a girl child, since drowning a girl child in milk after birth requires physical (and emotional) interaction with a child before the murder. Acknowledging this should not be divorced from the hyper-masculinsation of dowries which girl children a greater burden where capitalism creates greater demand for goods, thus producing quantitative increases in dowry demands. 

Transferred Masculinity and Compensation: ‘Gay Sub-Cultural Hegemony’ and ‘Acting Straight’

‘Homosexual desire is not the product of a different kind of body but it is a bodily fact that disrupts hegemonic masculinity.’ – Hocquenghem.

Considering the binaries of gender theory, a key component of hegemonic masculinity is heterosexuality; in desire, action and in most cases ability to reproduce. Homosexual men are automatically unable to completely fulfil this aspect of hegemonic masculinity, which is perhaps the pinnacle of masculine identity. It is quite revealing then, that the term ‘straight-acting’ as a requirement for a potential partner is a widely used term in gay men’s lexicon: it becomes a synonym for masculinity. It can be considered to have a double meaning: ‘strive for all other forms of hegemonic masculinity, apart from the pinnacle (heterosexuality) which not possible for us’. This is somewhat problematic, since even most heterosexual men cannot live up to hegemonic masculinity. It encourages a ‘masculinity complex’ in gay men: simultaneously reifying the notion that gay men will never be 'real men', while encouraging them to live up to every other aspect of hegemonic masculinity as far as possible - this can be seen as a form of compensating for a perceived 'deficiency'. It reveals the extent to which gender binaries are internalised and how even those who are unable to reproduce them in (what is arguably) their most hegemonic form seek to reproduce them. (This also explains why homosexual men in the vast majority of cultures marry women and conceal their sexual orientation.)

In turn, this signifies a push towards a subcultural hegemony: a gay subcultural hegemony. The way in which language is used not only seeks to encourage gender binaries but also serves as a reminder: you’re unable to fulfill the most exalted aspect of hegemonic masculinity (heterosexuality) but to remain a 'man' one should force themselves into upholding every other hegemonic masculinity. It may seem that this is a means of subversion; redefining masculinity to include homosexuality while retaining all other aspects, yet this is a problematic approach. The non-sexual binaries of hegemonic masculinity directly relate to the necessity of feminine binaries being adhered to for such relationships to work. For example, where hegemonic masculinity requires a breadwinner, it assumes the necessity of a non-breadwinner partner to be provided for, which is not possible where two homosexual partnered men seek to uphold hegemonic masculinities such as this.

Most controversially, the question shores up a pertinent question about both homosexuality and heterosexuality: are gender binaries simultaneously based upon ‘unequal complementarity’? Should (male) homosexual relationships therefore be based upon the imitation of heterosexuality where one male takes up the ‘feminine’ binary and one takes up the masculine? There are no simple answers to these questions. Within gay subcultural hegemony, binaries appear to exist. Sexual mechanics mean that gay men often have a preference to be either the 'passive' or 'active' participant in sexual intercourse, and identify as such. This is very entrenched within gay culture and could be considered as a form of 'heterosexualisation' of homosexual relations: a way to ‘imitate’ heterosexuality and the masculine-feminine binary. It is also somewhat problematic to adhere to this model when there are so few partners for gay men to choose from, thus reducing potential spouse choices further – making these binaries somewhat damaging for homosexual male relationships. The existence of 'versatile' homosexual men simultaneously can be considered to a) be upholding this binary because they acknowledge this binary exists within gay subcultural hegemony and thus need to use such a label (rather than rejecting such labels altogether); or b) be considered to be subverting this imitation of heterosexuality by refusing to place themselves within this binary. The answer to this is not so clear cut since the term refers specifically to penetrative intercourse, meaning that such a 'versatile' man will take either the feminine binary (passive) or the masculine binary (active) within each sexual act.

The concept of binaries and the issues raised here somewhat allows for an explanation of homophobia. Where heterosexuality is essential to hegemonic masculinity, the notion of ‘unequal complementarity’ implies male dominance over females in most cultures. By being a homosexual, men a) may be seen to be adopting the feminine inferior binary and are thus freely choosing to be like women (inferior, submissive to men); and b) are by their very existence, directly challenging these gender binaries.

‘Masculinity appears to have no stable ingredients and therefore its power depends entirely on certain qualities constantly being associated with men. Masculine spaces are precisely the places where such associations are cemented and naturalised. Therefore, even the marginal appearance of women… together with feminist ideas, and/or other self-conscious references to gender issues, may sufficiently alter the overall ambiance of such spaces that their masculine associations become weakened.’ - Hooper

Below is a video on hegemonic masculinity and ‘gay window advertising’ which serves to highlight the role of the media in encouraging hegemonic masculinities among gay men and also seeks to homogenise gay subculture for capitalist benefit:

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji3cxTidTxs

Globalisation and Imported Misogyny: A Focus on India

'The word on the street is that you have been with everybody in all the villages

I’ve grown hard (erect) in anticipation

I’m definitely going to sleep with you today
If I don’t then I’m not worthy of being called a jaat'

- Artist: Honey Singh, Song: Choot (an explicit word for vagina)

If it wasn't for the last word from the quote above above, you might never realise that the lyrics are translated from Punjabi and sung by popular Punjabi rap artist, Honey Singh. Globalisation facilitates the transportation of trends: music types, dress, food, cinema and so on. These trends are not neutral; globalised subcultures become localised, facilitating the transportation of attitudes within those subcultures. The video shared in my first ‘Why Masculinity is Destructive’ post referred to the way in which rap culture essentialises females into roles of submission, as tools of sexual gratification and objectification. The Honey Singh song cited above is one example of the way in which globalisation can penetrate into the local level and become infused with local gender identities.

The reality is, women are disadvantaged in much of the world, and India is no stranger to this. Cultural attitudes such as son preference persist today, meaning a skewed sex ratio and dowry violence, the notion of pardah restricts women’s movement and behaviour, constructs such as izzat (honour) seek to place women in a position where the reputation of a family relies upon a woman’s chastity, movement and spaces she occupies – particularly in north India.

This too, means that men are required to play certain roles. As indicated by the quote above, masculinity may also pressure men into certain roles, be this in the family (as the breadwinner, controller of women) or in wider society (undertaking certain jobs, avoidance of ‘feminine’ activities such as cooking). The message from Honey Singh’s song is clear: hegemonic jaat (a caste group) masculinity means to be a womaniser, and you’re not a real jaat man if you don’t sexualise women. This is particularly dangerous for women; the importation of sexualisation as an expectation upon young women growing up in India positions them between two essentialist expectations and misogynies. Adherence to one means they risk dishonouring their family, adherence to the other means emasculation of young (jaat) men, creating a volatile mix that spells danger for youth growing up in India.

The video below, 'muh me le' ('take it in your mouth') is pretty self explanatory and illustrates the above points well:

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zPjWtvq3Ns

The Burqa Debate – A Fresh Perspective

As someone who is concerned with the construct of gender, the burqa is an interesting phenomena. With such issues, it is essential to consider the context in which the debate occurs. A women wearing a burqa or an abaya-shayla-niqab combination in a ‘western’ society is very different from a woman in the Middle East doing so. There are various reasons for wearing such clothing; women may see this as an act of worship, an emulation of the wives of the Prophet Muhammad, an act of modesty and or piety, but a particularly interesting rationale is highly relevant to the context of living in a ‘western society’: the desire not to be objectified. Muslim women use the existence of such clothing within the Islamic faith to subvert the extreme pressure placed upon women to dress and appear in a certain way. They’re saying: ‘I am covering my clothes – don’t judge me on how I dress’, ‘I am covering my face and my hair, don’t judge me on how I look’.

In a ‘western’ context, such a rationale seems noble. Critics of this dress may point to other countries where such a dress is not so much of a free choice (culturally, socially and/or legally) and consider it insulting that women would take this up willingly. Perhaps both sides are guilty: one side of divorcing their argument from the global, and one from divorcing their argument from the local.

However the question that needs to be asked is: to what extent does adoption of this dress mean acceptance and internalisation of other misogynistic aspects of Islam? It is important to remember that very similar forms of dress have been worn by women of other faiths (for example; the ‘frumka’ Jewish burqa ‘cult’ in Israel and the veiling of Carmalite Nuns). Yet given arguments for the veil cannot be divorced from Islamic Orthodoxy, especially where the burqa appears from the narrative of hijab (which [may] also include[s]; lowering one’s voice, not leaving home without a mahram – male chapparone) – such women are likely to believe that all solutions for women are within Islam, which does not stipulate such extensive covering for men whom are also increasingly sexualised and commodified in ‘western’ societies. This also ignores the way in which women can be creative in subverting this grotesque sexualisation of women with all its worrying consequences (eating disorders, cosmetic surgery etc.).

Kandiyoti spoke of a ‘patriarchal bargain’, which wikipedia describes as ‘a tactic in which a woman chooses to accommodate and uphold patriarchal norms, accepting gender roles that disadvantage women overall but maximizing her own power and options’. This may be useful to explain why women may adopt such modes of dress and behaviour, especially in contexts where they enjoy greater autonomy. Where we see increasing destabilisation of families in ‘western’ societies and heavy sexualisation of both sexes, adopting the burqa as part of a wider patriarchal ideology in contrast to secular ‘western’ patriarchy, women may find the Islamic model appealing with practices like mahr and the principle of a man being the provider for the family.

I also believe we need to analyse the meaning of the burqa as a garment mandated for women. What does it say about the nature of women’s bodies and their self expression, that their clothing and face should be covered? The burqa can be seen as a form of sexualisation akin to miniskirts and bikinis in so far that they place a heavy emphasis on the physical form – yet if we accept the arguments offered by burqa-supporters, what does it say about chaste women from within and from outside Islam who don’t dress in this manner? What about tribal communities where women expose their breasts and breasts are not considered sexual by local communities? The burqa divorces such nuance and subjectivity from the debate and seeks to homogenise women’s bodies and heterosexual male desire, and furthermore relies on a simplistic, essentialist view of all ‘western’ women.

Divorced from Islamic narrative, is there a Gramsci-inspired 'counter-hegemony' case for a universal genderless burqa? Not only to subvert and challenge the obsession with perfect bodies and appearance that pervades ‘western’ society, but as a rejection of the excesses of capitalism which seeks to command our bodies in its image, to drive away individuality and development of personality in pursuit of profit?

Finally, I believe it should be recognised that such debates do not occur in a vacuum considering current affairs, and the disproportionate way in which the media obsesses over Islam. Any frank and honest discussion about the place of women and men in any society other than our own must also be accompanied by a critique of the problems within our own society, lest such debates become about ego.

Why Masculinity is Destructive

The extent to which the construct of gender is socialised into us means that seldom do we question it conceptually. Some people may subvert various aspects of what scholars call ‘hegemonic masculinity’ – the culturally exalted form of masculinity. Most men cannot live up to this hegemonic masculinity in its entirety, but men generally tend to strive to act out this masculinity in-so-far as they possibly can.

In gender theory, the binaries of masculinity and femininity share differing qualities, where the masculine qualities are automatically considered by society to have more value over the feminine. These qualities are not just bodily, they are ideological. Some masculine qualities include: quantitative methods of analysis in research, hard sciences and militarism. Some feminine qualities include: caring, qualitative research methods, art and literature.

Understanding these binaries on an ideological level, we can see how belief in the superiority of these masculine binaries is entrenched in our society – from the way governments are run, to the way in which capitalism affects our daily lives.

Capitalism can be considered as being as masculinist project. It seeks to produce a quantitative outcome – money; it seeks to commodify various aspects of our daily lives and create problems to which it can sell us solutions in order to obtain ever greater gains in capital.

In order for this to take place, various ideological shifts are required. It is not my intention to speak of cultures in a monolithic way or to assume that all cultures are static, but the aim of capitalism to make money requires an artificial adaptation of culture in order for capitalists to achieve their goals. This is diametrically in opposition to a qualitative, grassroots change that seeks to change society for the good of all peoples. In short, the masculine capitalist valuing of quantitative outcomes attempts to influence people culturally in order to achieve an outcome solely for its favour - the creation of capital.

One way in which we can see this happening is the commodification of human relationships. The media incessantly promotes the concept of a hegemonic man as being toned in physique – which will require a gym membership and various supplements while needing to smell and dress in a certain way – requiring ever more purchases. The capitalists then promote the idea of safe-sex in order to sell condoms. This is not because they are concerned about the health of society, but because they wish to encourage hyper-sexuality in order to sell more. It goes without saying that women and men have been sexualised to an insane degree in our societies. Condoms, for example, are simply one purchase that has been encouraged by other mechanisms further up the chain – the promotion of various goods to encourage sexual desirability in order to encourage more sexual partners – and at the bottom of the chain, to sell more condoms. At every part of this chain, the capitalist wins – and we loose. It is in no way beneficial for the masculine project of capitalism to encourage critical thinking, to challenge culture, to encourage development of personality in order to build emotional relationships. It is completely within their benefit to reduce relationships to rigid, transactionary fleeting moments rather than encouraging meaning and the development of bonds between people.

One might argue that men whom are unable to obtain this hegemonic masculine desirability and thus have adequate sexual partners may resort towards prostitution – thus further entrenching the objectification of men and women.

There are other ways in the masculine project of capitalism is destructive. Aside from the damage to meaningful human relationships, there is great damage to our health through consumption of various food items, alcohol & other intoxicants, obesity rates that come from an increase in income and this not only affects our health negatively, but also facilitates the creation and propagation of ‘healthy living’ industries (‘superfoods’, whole foods etc.) and medicinal ‘cures’ for problems caused by the food industry. All of these industries are heavily interrelated and rely on the social engineering of humans into consumers and commodities. All of these rely on a quantitative economy (a masculine economy), rather than a caring economy concerned with social justice (a feminine economy).

The most blatant form of destructive masculinity is the way in which war, violence and militarisation are normalised and seen as acceptable means for states to resolve conflicts - and also revealing the way in which overcoming masculinity must be a collective effort - an instigator of war will not defend themselves with words (a feminine response) but with physical retaliation - it is thus within the interest of a state to promote masculinity and militarism to achieve its ends.

Below is a short YouTube video outlining how ‘bro culture’ encourages the sexualisation of women via mechanisms such as the media and social reinforcement:

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKmn2OY7AMI

Welcome!

This is pretty much a generic introductory post to my blog. I'm a cis-male in his late 20s living in London with an MSc in Development Studies and an interest in gender issues and feminism. The purpose of this blog is to serve as a platform for me to express my thoughts on various issues in this area. I look forward to critical feedback from my readers on both my arguments and writing style

Enjoy!

John