Man enough to change?

What does it actually mean to be a man? My job in the publishing industry often bumps up against this question since a lot of what we do is about creating content for men. What I find most interesting is how so much of what we create is informed by a particular idea of masculinity or manhood — and how very meticulously that idea has been mapped-out and maintained. Think man, think six-pack abs, think career-orientated, think sex-six-times-a-day if he could find a woman willing enough. Think sports fanatic, think style, not fashion; think grooming, not beauty. There is an entire checklist of what it is to be a man in South Africa; a rigorous thought process of “what guys would do” or “what guys would want to read”. So much so that on one occasion I was informed that “men wouldn’t use the word ‘beautiful’, they’d use ‘stylish’ instead”.

However this checklist is not based on anything concrete. There is no DNA analysis behind it, nor does it relate to some masculine essence somewhere. It is simply an idea we have of what “being one of the guys” means. But what’s important is how what starts out as an idea soon becomes something more prescriptive: an article on “Getting Big Fast” assumes that guys want to be muscular, but in being flagged for men, the article also creates an association between men and muscles. So in essence it’s not simply about reflecting on what it means to be masculine, so much as actively creating that meaning.

Now I’m simplifying things here somewhat. Obviously our ideas of manhood are initially drawn from the very society that we then address through our publications. In this way, part of what we are doing is recycling and reaffirming those ideas of manhood. But again, regardless of this, the point is that all those ideas we have about “a real man” are all completely constructed. What I’m saying is that often men behave the way they do not because of genetics or biology, but because of social prescriptions of how a man ought to act. We have a made-up image of what being a man is about, and we base a lot of what we do, and how we act, around that image, regardless of whether or not it actually exists.

But I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing. It means that what constitutes manhood is variable, and that we can change what exactly it means to be a man in South Africa. A good example of this change taking place is how the whole idea of male grooming is slowly becoming more mainstream. Even five years ago the idea of men using cosmetics would have been unthinkable, yet now it’s gradually becoming more acceptable over time (and with some well-placed advertising).

The possibility for change is a good thing because, let’s face it, our current notions of masculinity are often what drive a lot of violent and destructive behaviour in men. Take for example the strong link between manhood and a virile (hetero)sexuality. To my mind this linking can have very negative consequences in a country with such a high HIV/Aids rate, not to mention the country’s high rape rate. Similarly I would argue that violence against women (and just in general) is an unsurprising outcome when dominance, “not backing down”, and a willingness to use violence, are all key markers of an esteemed manhood.

So what am I saying? Well it’s time we looked more closely at the narratives we construct about being a man. The Brothers for Life campaign currently on TV is doing this by re-negotiating the links between manliness and sexual behaviour (being man enough to wear a condom). We need more projects like this which question more, because I think that many aspects of how we define manhood are no longer applicable in South Africa today. Is a masculinity which values male dominance in the home still OK in a country that aims for sexual equality? Is it responsible to encourage an association between “real men” and diesel-guzzling 4X4s at a time when we need to be thinking more about our impact on the planet?