ADVOCACY & POLICY | VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Men, War-Men and Women: A Crisis of Masculinity
WORDS BY ELSPETH BRIMACOMBE | BRIMACOMBE@PROXYBYIWI.COM | 13 DECEMBER 2023
When we know the fateful endpoint (an increase in gender-based violence in crises), we cannot take this as the starting point for humanitarian response. Instead, we must look to the frequent perpetrators and recognise the broader, repeated, hyper-masculine structures that lead to this recurrent situation. By doing this, we can hope to move from delayed response to effective mitigation and preparation.
In my previous article, 'hu(MAN)itarian aid: a pattern of fateful mistakes', I wrote that 'humanitarian aid is borne out of a highly masculine environment'. Whilst this is a loaded statement, the complex relationship between masculinity and war is broadly accepted. Unpacking the masculinity-crises nexus is crucial in the development of humanitarian response, particularly in terms of the protection of women and the mitigation of gender-based violence (GBV). Two key questions come to mind: how does the construction of war-men engender the inevitable vulnerability of women? And how can a deeper understanding of this relationship help humanitarian programming?
1. War and the hyper-masculine
Connell (2005) defines 'hegemonic masculinity' as the embodiment of what is 'currently [the] most honored way of being a man'; a dynamic concept that could see a 'struggle for hegemony' between old and new forms of masculinity. Masculinity is associated with dominance; a power relation that is maintained through the subordination of the other. During war, such associations with dominance and hierarchies become intensified towards what is broadly referred to as the "hyper-masculine". Hyper-masculinity in war refers to the inflation of what is stereotypically "masculine": power and authority. Tanyag (2022) proposes that these exaggerations of gender are a 'reactionary stance' that arise 'when agents of hegemonic masculinity feel threatened or undermined'. So, the context of war threatens the status quo and forces a hyperbolic reaction to maintain and control.
The hypermasculine urge for power is complex. War is simultaneously associated with both violence towards the enemy and the protection of one's own. It is this dichotomous expectation of masculinity, as both the aggressor and the protector, that exemplifies the complexity of the gendered masculine identity of war. In fact, it is this very dichotomy that is used to maintain the hypermasculine stronghold and expectations of men as it is the latter that is used to justify the former (and all the atrocities it ensues). By this I mean violence is committed and necessitated in the name of protection and maintaining authority.
Another clear dichotomy that emerges is between the masculine and feminine. Goldstein (2001) marks this as the 'masculine aggressor' and 'feminine peacemaker', a concept that influenced Ahmed (2014) and their 'dichotomy of masculine/aggressive [versus] feminine/passive'. The stereotypes differentiating the gendered norms become exaggerated and deepened within war; a dichotomy that is only furthered and sealed by the aggressive dominance of the masculine.
2. War-men and Men
Viewing war as a 'test of manhood' (Goldstein, 2001), makes the active role of men an expectation, rather than one of choice. From the "cowardice" white flowers handed to men in World War 1 to the recent reports of Ukrainian men fleeing the country to avoid conscription, joining the conflict is marked as the "preferred" and "honourable" decision for men. Many have commented on how popular culture has helped endorse these very gendered expectations, resulting in men imitating the stories and images they have seen and heard; a concept that the late war photojournalist Hetherington called the 'feedback loop'.
3. War-men and Women
Returning more closely to my previous article, it must be re-emphasised the atrocities that women experience during war. Over 70% of women experience GBV. In their article on women and vulnerability in humanitarian emergencies, Ni Aolain (2011) makes an interesting proposition that vulnerability is 'universal and constant, inherent in the human condition'. Moreover, crisis, Ni Aolain adds, should 'then be viewed as inevitable and not episodic'. In light of my discussion of the exaggeration of masculine traits, and the inescapable roles demanded of men, how does this connect more specifically to women and GBV? Just as crisis and its hyper-masculine structure is broadly accepted to be inevitable, so too are the repercussions it spawns on women.
Moreover, during war societal responsibilities shift, with women often taking on more responsibilities and men being unable to fulfil their established roles. This loss of control - an experience that is heightened within a hyper-masculine atmosphere that demands dominance - is a key instigation of violence towards women. Returning to the hyper-masculine authority and control, the female body becomes another mode of this; a further means to exert control and power. What becomes clear in relating the violation of women directly to the hypermasculine structure is the myriad of ways in which the context of war leads to the increased vulnerability of - and violence against - women. Sadly, the inevitable becomes even more explicit.
4. Humanitarian response
To be clear, this line of commentary is not providing an excuse for the heinous acts of violence committed against women and girls during conflict. However, understanding the broader context of the position of men can only help in the development of GBV prevention programming. If we accept the current reality that violence of this nature is near inevitable in crises, it is paramount that the position of the perpetrators is better understood. Myrttinen (2023) writes that in humanitarian settings, men and masculinities 'are both omnipresent and simultaneously under-examined, and at times rendered invisible'. It is crucial that this is unpacked further, but also in relation to women and femininities.
Returning to the UNHCR's report on their response to rape victims in Bosnia and Herzegovina: 'UNHCR's experience clearly underscores the importance of anticipating and reacting to individual and smaller group needs [...]. In several instances, less obvious needs became major issues'. Here, the female victims are distinguished as a separate problem from the majority. However, what we need instead is an understanding of GBV and the violation of women's rights as symptomatic of the majority. This shift in approach should be embraced by the UNHCR in the implementation of their 'UNHCR's Strategic Directions 2022-2026'. More specifically point (3): 'reinforce efforts to strengthen gender-based violence prevention, risk mitigation and response'. In strengthening its ‘victim-centred approach’ and their contributions to the eradication of GBV across the humanitarian sector more broadly, the UNHCR states that it ‘must address root causes’. This is exactly what this article has introduced. To work towards this, the UNHCR must address the hyper-masculinisation of war and the impacts it creates.
It is important to acknowledge that this article is only an initiation of a much larger discussion. The interactions between masculinities and the intersectionality of gender roles more broadly are an incredibly complex and dynamic matter, and one which must be incorporated fully in humanitarian discussions. This article aims not to conclude but to initiate. When we know the fateful endpoint (the violation of women in crises), we must not take this as the start point of humanitarian response. Instead, we must look to the frequent perpetrators and recognise the broader, repeated structures that lead to this recurrent situation. By doing this, we can hope to move from delayed response to effective mitigation and preparation.
i. Elspeth Brimacombe, ‘hu(MAN)itarian aid: a pattern of fateful mistakes’ (2023) https://proxybyiwi.com/hu-man-itarian-aid [accessed 06.12.2023]
ii. R. W. Connell and James W. Messerschmidt, 'Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept', Gender and Society, 19(2005), 829-859 (p. 832)
iii. Nik Linders, 'Sexuality, Masculinity, and Populist Radical Right Leadership' (2022
iv. Maria Tanyag, 'A Murderous Plague: State Hypermasculinity, COVID-19, and Atrocity Prevention in the Philippines', Global Responsibility to Protect, 14 (2022) 432–461 (p. 438).
v. Joshua S. Goldstein, War and Gender: How Gender Shapes the War System and Vice Versa (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).
vi. Ibtisam Ahmed, 'Does Gender Shape the War System and Vice Versa?' (2014)
vii. Goldstein, p. 252.
viii. Shaun Walker, 'Bribes and hiding at home: the Ukrainian men trying to avoid conscription',
ix.
Daniel Cullen, '‘What really draws men to war?’ Masculinity and conflict in the work of Tim Hetherington' (2017)
x. James Kariuki, 'Investing in the health and protection of women and girls in humanitarian crises: UK Statement at UNFPA Humanitarian Action 2023 Overview' (2022)
xi. Fionnuala Ni Aolain, 'Women, Vulnerability, and Humanitarian Emergencies', Michigan Journal of Gender & Law, 18(2011), 1-25 (p. 4).Ibid, p. 5.
xii. Henri Myrttinen, 'Men, Masculinities and Humanitarian Settings: A mapping of the state of research and practice0based evidence', UN Women (2023)
xiii. UNHCR, 'Evaluations: Working in a War Zone: A Review of UNHCR's Operations in Former Yugoslavia'
xiv. EVAL/YUG/14 (2014)
xv. UNHCR, 'UNHCR Strategic Directions 2022-2026' (2022)
xvi. Ibid., p. 22.