Transforming masculinities: Engaging with men in post-conflict settings

Whilst we’ve seen progress made on Women Peace and Security in the last 20, specifically engaging and empowering women in conflict-settings and peace-building efforts, less focus has been given to men, in terms of the role their genders play in fragile and conflict-affected situations. While many of the perpetrators of violence are men and boys, they can also be victims of violence, and face particular gendered vulnerabilities.

We also need to look beyond individual gendered behaviours, to focus on how security and political institutions and activities such as the UN and World Bank understand war and operate in masculine ways. Given their association with male-ness and the fact they are heavily male-dominated, there’s a risk they obscure or ignore the gendered impacts of their operations and policies.

So if masculinities at individual and institutional levels are often the problem or barrier to peace, how can these masculinities be transformed into a strategy for building more peaceful, inclusive societies? Preventing and overcoming violence both in the public and private spheres as well as building more equal societies requires engaging with men and boys, as well as transforming expectations and practices of what it means to ‘be a man’. Whilst we need to understand and address what underlines potentially damaging forms of masculinity – including responding to the needs and vulnerabilities of men and boys, we also need to address the structural privileges they hold in comparison to women, girls and people with other gender identities.

I’m very pleased to highlight these important aspects of gendered war. My name is Dr Amanda Chisholm and I am a Senior Lecturer in the School of Security Studies. In this interview, I’m speaking with one of the leading experts on men and masculinities in the context of conflict and peacebuilding, Dr Henri Myrttinen. Dr Myrttinen is currently a Co-Investigator in the Masculinities and Sexualities research stream of the Gender, Justice and Security Hub of the LSE WPS Centre. He has worked extensively on gender, conflict and peacebuilding for a number of NGOs and his prolific can be found in international journals and state of the art edited book volumes. He joins us from Yangon, Myanmar to discuss his research.

Q: Henri, you’ve said that whilst engaging with men and boys in fragile and conflict-affected situations is not new, the vast majority of these interventions don’t consider the role masculinities play in influencing and directing male behaviour. What do we mean by ‘masculinities’?

Masculinities are the various ways of being and acting, values and expectations associated with being and becoming a man in a given society, location and time period.

Around the world most of the people carrying weapons – soldiers, guerrilla fighters, terrorists etc, are men, and those involved in brokering and keeping the peace in countries are also predominantly men. Yet we seldom think about the way in which their gender – the way they are expected to be men – influences their attitudes, behaviours and their choices, which I term the ‘invisibility of masculinities’ in conflict settings.

We need to further interrogate how gender influences the way soldiers and peacekeepers see the world, and, as a consequence, the way masculinities and the expectations on men shape our world.

Q: We hear the term ‘toxic masculinity’ bandied around a lot, often to describe misogynistic, abusive and sexist behaviour, although there’s no universally accepted definition for this term. Do you think using this label does more harm than good?

Whilst it’s a simple and easy term to use, because there is no accepted definition it encompasses lots of different types of masculinities and papers over the differences and nuances.

Furthermore, a key difficulty with using the term is that the acceptability of certain behaviours changes over time, both historically and situationally, and depending on whose perspective is examined. For example, young men and boys in gangs may see their violence as acceptable and as a protest against oppression, while broader society may see their masculinities as antisocial. Broader society may laud hard policing masculinities as the right answer to these gangs, while the communities the gang members come from may see this as oppressive and representative of historical biases.

Whilst the term is a good entry point, we need to unpack the individual masculinities it describes and analyse the historical and economic contexts in which they’re produced, so we can be more nuanced and understanding in what we’re talking about in a particular context.

Q: Why should we pay attention to men/masculinities in particular when seeking to understand war and violence in particular? What can we gain from interventions in terms of shoring up and reinforcing peace-building efforts?

In spaces of conflict the vast majority of people who are in uniform – be they peacekeepers or perpetrators of violence, are men. And societies across the planet impose expectations on men to be protectors of communities, whether through films, books or toys young boys play with. There is therefore a clear link between men and armed violence, so unpacking this link is essential towards ending that violence, and the impacts it has on society more broadly.

For example, if you look at gender-based violence, the research shows that men who have been in conflict as civilians or combatants have a higher propensity to violence, including in domestic settings, even for many decades after the conflict. As men, we’re taught to not engage with our emotions or trauma, so often this results in repression which then leads frustration, anger and sometimes violence or destructive behaviours such as substance abuse.

Whilst men are the perpetrators of armed violence, the vast majority of victims of armed violence are also men. We need to understand how men are central to issues of violence and how this is intimately and intricately linked to notions of masculinity.

 Q: Is there a risk that by focusing on men and their needs and aspirations, that we deprioritise the unmet needs of women and girls in the quest for gender equality or that we further entrench patriarchy by making it more palatable? How do we mitigate against this?

There is absolutely a risk and this is a valid critique. A lot of my work is in the policy sector with NGOs, and there can be a bit of a sense of putting aside fighting for the equality of women and girls and looking at the new ‘shiny thing’ which is men.

We need to be very aware of this danger, and in terms of the work I do, try to ensure we are constantly in touch with women’s rights activists, and acknowledge all of the hard work carried out and knowledge accumulated over decades by these organisations. In so doing, we have to listen to them as critical allies, being ready to take on board criticism from women’s rights activists and scholars.

Further, we need to challenge men’s privileges – and highlight the benefits of not adhering to harmful gender norms. The work of transforming masculinities can be central here. Challenging and changing these harmful notions of masculinity not only reduces directly harmful, masculine-coded behaviours, but can also have indirect benefits in terms of women’s empowerment and participation, because it is often men who oppose these changes. One of the challenges in this respect is to shift discourses away from ‘zero-sum game’ understandings of increased gender equality towards highlighting the benefits this has for all persons.

Interventions aimed at improving the lives of women and girls need to also sensitise men and boys to ensure women’s lives can indeed be improved. Involving and sensitising men to women’s empowerment interventions can also reduce the risk of violent backlashes against women who are participating in these activities. 

Q: Through your research, what approaches and interventions have you seen work when it comes to transforming concepts of masculinity in societies and reducing the damage they can inflict on conflict, violence, families, women and gender relations?

There’s a lot of interesting and ground-breaking work being done by small local NGOs across the world on these issues. The keys to success that I’ve observed is - being rooted in the local context, and building on long-term, sustained engagement by very dedicated people, working to break that link between masculinities and violence.

It’s also really important that the work doesn't skirt away from painful or difficult issues such as homophobia and misogyny, and really tackles this head on. There is also a lot of opposition and resistance to change amongst some of the male communities these groups work with, as they are worried about being ridiculed by peers, shunned by family members and communities. We have to take this seriously and engage with this not run away from it.

Another thing I’d say is, ensuring there is a link between this work and looking at ways to reduce the stress factors in men’s lives. There is often immense pressure on men to be breadwinners, and when they feel like they’re failing this can lead to frustrations and then violence. We need to look at ways of reducing economic stress factors, by increasing opportunities and through women’s economic empowerment.

Q: How do we bring more diverse depictions of men and masculinity to include the LGBTQI+ community? 

Looking at diverse perspectives can help us see in a heightened fashion how gender plays a role in underpinning violent ideologies. If you look at who mobilises around misogyny and homophobia around the world, often the two go hand in hand, and we see a broad spectrum of groups, from the religious to the secular, from the far-left to the far-right, rallying around these forms of hate.

We need to examine why it is that when groups feel threatened by individuals and communities that push against or re-interpret what it means to be a man or a woman – this leads to massive violence and counterreaction. What is it about this unsettling of gender norms that provokes such violence?

We need to look into this more deeply and also acknowledge how these forms of violence against members of the LGBTQI+ community as well as against women, are a daily manifestation of conflict and re-assess our ideas of what a ‘peaceful’ or ‘conflict-ridden’ societies look like, blurring the lines between these distinctions. We need to acknowledge for example, that in the case of trans people, they are hugely vulnerable in both times of peace and conflict.

Q: In a recent paper you discussed the concept of new forms of masculinity and whether these actually stabilise rather than challenge patriarchy. You include the label of ‘gender champion’ or ‘gendermen’ attributing it to some high-profile political leaders like Justin Trudeau, who have promoted gender equality and feminism, but do so from a place of power and privilege. Can you share some of your thinking on this and also your own self-reflection as a privileged, white male working in this space?

A lot of the things I have highlighted in my research builds on generations of researchers – feminist researchers who have been critiquing and assessing these concepts for decades. Yet, my privilege as a middle-class, white man, gives me entrance to places and gives me currency and capital to voice these arguments, that a lot of women saying the same thing, haven’t had. This is hugely problematic, we need to, and I need to, be aware of and understand just how much I am building on the work of others and being boosted by patriarchal structures in being given spaces and opportunities to voice it.

As such, we need to be held accountable by others – and hold ourselves accountable. For example, in the case of Justin Trudeau who has been very vocal in saying he is a feminist, he seems very good at talking the talk but does he actually follow through on actions? Is he putting in place policies that go beyond soundbites on feminism, and attempt to undo historical harms against women, including women of colour and indigenous populations in Canada? I fear it’s more the latter, than actually pushing through long-term, structural changes.

Q: How would you advise men, who see themselves as feminists and gender champions and want to help further equality, to act in relation to their privilege and power?

We need to listen more – especially to junior, less privileged colleagues, and take on board criticism and critique of our privilege, which can be quite painful as none of us want to be seen as the oppressor.

We need to broaden the range of literature that we engage with, going out of our comfort zones in terms of whom we reference, – not just citing the male mainstream.

Lastly, we need to know when to step back and give that space to others, to enable women and minorities to take the floor or benefit from opportunities.

Q: Where do you think we need to go as a community of scholars studying gender and conflict/post conflict?

When it comes to conflict studies, there’s relatively little research that takes an intersectional lens as a starting point, looking at gender in a more complex and nuanced way. We also need to examine the changing nature of conflict - breaking up the artificial dichotomy between war and peace, to look hybrid warfare, daily violence and feminist perspectives on war and peace, which discuss how they are not mutually exclusive places for many people.

It’s also interesting and disturbing how discourse around gender itself has become a battlefield - we are working on a topic that has literally become weaponised. For example, states like Russia are mobilising around questions of gender as a battleground in hybrid warfare, using it to provoke violence and disturbance and shake trust in institutions. We need more research on the impact of this and how we mitigate against its effects. 

Dr Henri Myrttinen is a Co-Investigator in the Masculinities and Sexualities research stream of the Gender, Justice and Security Hub of the LSE Women, Peace and Security Centre.

Dr Amanda Chisholm is Senior Lecturer in Security Studies / Researcher in Gender and Security and the Chair of the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Committee in the School of Security Studies.