Dissecting toxic masculinity

What a strange world we are living in! Think of the recent observation made by the Supreme Court. A minor was sexually assaulted for years; but then, the accused was asked whether he would marry the woman. ‘If you want to marry, we can help you. If not, you lose your job and go to jail.’ What is the hidden meaning of the ambiguous advice to the accused? Is it that we are led to believe that rape is no rape if the rapist is ‘kind’ enough to marry the victim? It seems we—including the ‘moral guardians’ of our society—have not yet come out of the psychology of oppressive duality patriarchy has created: men as ‘active doers’ vs women as ‘passive receivers’; or men as ‘masters’ having absolute control over ‘docile/subjugated’ women.

Well, feminists all over the world have been reminding us of the damage that patriarchy has caused to the construction of gender identities, the dynamics of interpersonal relationships, and modes of engagement with the world. And the kind of reflexivity, critical consciousness and humane sensibilities that feminist thinking arouses is not just about women. Possibly, feminism is also a reminder; it is an important lesson that men ought to learn to see and feel the discontents of a culture that values hyper-masculine aggression, and privileges the principle of domination and control over the rhythm of love, reciprocity and relatedness. In other words, while feminism as a politico-cultural resistance seeks to arouse the creative agency of women, it also reminds men that they need to liberate themselves from the egotistic burden of a terribly pathological notion of being ‘saviors’ of women. It is in this context that the anatomy of the mindset implicit in the court’s pronouncement needs to be explored.

To begin with, let us reflect on the discourse of power. Quite often, a hyper-masculine culture equates power with some sort of instrumental reasoning—the power to dominate and control, or the power to objectify and establish one’s superiority over others. In other words, the attributes like aggression, possessiveness and mob are seen as necessary ‘virtues’ to be internalised for existing like ‘real’ men. In a way, be it the Baconian dictum that knowledge is power, or the Cartesian duality of ‘reason’ vs. ‘emotion’, or the celebration of militarism and aggressive hyper-competitive sports carnivals: we see the manifestations of environmental, cultural and psychic violence. In fact, patriarchy is about division and fragmentation; it separates the masculine from the feminine; it robs men of the healing touch of nature; and it deprives men of the ability to care and surrender. No wonder, bravery is equated with aggression—a visible demonstration of ‘manliness’! And patriarchal men become incapable of relating to women as thoughtful and autonomous subjects. Women, they think, have to be possessed, conquered or protected. And men as warriors (or militant nationalists) will decide how to preserve the ‘honour’ of women—our ‘virtuous’ mothers, daughters and sisters. Moreover, women are objects of desire. The violent male gaze consumes ‘femininity’ and sexuality in diverse ways—from what the ‘Me Too’ phenomenon has revealed so clearly to the market-driven spectacle called the ‘beauty contest’.

Is it, therefore, surprising that it becomes difficult for men to love—the way poets and mystics see love as the death of ego, or the joy of ultimate surrender, or the ecstasy of the confluence of the material and the spiritual—body and soul? How is love possible if women are seen as weak, submissive and passive? How is love possible if women are led to think that marriage, for them, is nothing but compulsion—a passport to ‘economic security’? And how is love possible if men continue to see women as obedient servants or attractive dolls? A hyper-masculine culture is the negation of love. In fact, what goes on in the name of love is lust or possession or a purely economic contract. Only in a society of this kind can we think of marital rape. And only in a society of this kind can the Chief Justice suggest a rapist to marry the victim.

At this juncture, we need to ask a pertinent question: How do we educate and socialise our boys as they grow up? Yes, society around them is terribly sexist and violent. Gandhi’s ahimsa is laughed at; Jesus’s ‘Sermon on the Mount’ has no value; Buddha’s contemplative eyes are hardly seen. Instead, they grow up amid toy guns and violent video games, reckless speed and instinctive thrill, and hyper-competitiveness and selfishness. They find themselves amid a culture industry that tends to normalise the pornographic mindset, and activates the desire to win, consume and possess. Is it possible for the parents and teachers to sensitise them, and tell them a different story?

Let them learn that to be humane is to cultivate the ethics of care. Let them learn that the real courage is the courage to be tender and affectionate. Let them learn that to love is not to dominate, but to elevate oneself to a higher stage of consciousness. Let them sharpen the aesthetic sensibility to appreciate an amazing sunset rather than a suspense thriller. And let them realise that the flowering of the ‘self’ is possible only through the union of the masculine and the feminine. And let them see the destructiveness implicit in the dominant notion of masculinity—a toxic mind that is spiritually impoverished, psychologically insecure and neurotically restless. Believe it, it is not the Supreme Court, but you and I, as parents and teachers, have to make it possible.