“Among American Indians, gender has always been viewed as a spiritual calling and not determined by a person’s anatomy”, argues Lester B. Brown in a recent paper on not-men and not-woman roles in US tribes including the Santee Dakota and Lakota.

See Brown, Lester B. 1997: Women and Men, Not-Men and Not-Women, Lesbians and Gays: American Indian Gender Style Alternatives. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services 6, 2, 5-20. For a similar critique of modern gender conceptions regarding Aztec culture, cf. Clendinnen, Inga 1995: Aztecs: An Interpretation. Canto, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Norway: Racism and sexism together

In a coming book (Fremmed i det norske hus), professor Asle Høgmo documents "daily life racism in Norway". In an interview, the author says:

"Every day racism ... is usually not visible in the Norwegian eye, yet those who are victimized by it are hit in all kinds of contexts and when they least expect it. (..) Racism is usually gendered. The person who voices racist notions is usually a man who feels like a loser on the gender market - the sore loser who lets his inner aggression and feeling of inferiority hit a weaker party." Also, every day racism is accompanied by myths. Høgmo finds these tendencies studying the treatment of Filipino women in Norway. "Most Asian women who come here are well educated, resourceful women. They have met their Norwegian men in their home countries, fallen in love, and eventually married - just like American wives in Norway." Yet the Asiatic women are hit by a "prostitute/mail order wife myth", while American women are not. Even well-meaning Norwegians "conjure up an image of the poor, dominated Asian woman who has been bought and paid for, which is not only wrong, but experienced as discriminating by the women hit by it.”

Australia: Male violence against immigrant women

Recent research supports Høgmo’s contention that every day racism, though usually in visible, hit its victims “ in all kinds of contexts and when they least expect it.” An example: “Domestic violence against women in immigrant communities in Australia is examined based on data drawn from surveys of foreign- & Australian-born female survivors of domestic violence (N = 804) & of legal & welfare practitioners (N = 400). Results indicate that victims and abusers are most often from the same ethnic group; Asian women sponsored for immigration by non-Asian partners are the most notable exception.” (our emphasis).

See Easteal, Patricia 1996: Double Jeopardy: Violence against Immigrant Women in the Home. Family Matters 45, 26-30

Some recent dissertations

Norway

Øystein Gullvåg Holter: Gender, Patriarchy and Capitalism - A Social Forms Analysis. Dr. philos dissertation, University of Oslo 1997. Published by The Work Research Institute, Oslo (in English). Opponents at disputation: Craig Calhoun, Rita Liljestrøm. Outlines a social forms perspective as antidote to gender reification and explores possibilities for independent theoretization of patriarchal social structures by combining men and masculinity studies, sociohistorical perspectives, critical and institutional approaches and feminist reinterpretations of political economy.

Also, Jørgen Lorentzen’s 1996 dr. polit. dissertation: The Possibilities of Manhood. On Masculine Wo nder, Experience and Ethics in the Literature of the Breakthrough of the Modern (in Norwegian) has been published by Aschehoug, Oslo 1998.

Sweden

Helena Eriksson: Husband, Lovers and Dreamlovers. Masculinity and Female Desire in Women’s Novels of the 1970s (in English). Dept. Of English, Uppsala University. Explores women’s contributions to creating masculinities through masculine images, arguing that whereas the husband image is constructed as limiting and restrictive, with the image of the lover as “an opening outwards”, it is the dreamlover image which is given the real weight - here, “feminist authors create a new image of men”.

Ingólfur V. Gíslason: Changes among Icelandic men

Last year I published a book that is mainly based on semi-open interviews that I conducted with 25 young (20-35) Icelandic men. The men were randomlychosen from the membership files of a number of unions ranging from thoserepresenting manual labourers to university educated.   Among the topics discussed were their views on gender equality and the changes that have taken place over the last few decades, their relationshipand involvement with their children, participation in the daily householdchores, relations with their father, friendship with other men,relationship with the larger family and their views on what characterisesmasculinity.

 I found that all the men were in favour of gender equality, regarded the participation of women on the labour market, in politics and education as something quite natural and condemned the discrimination that most of them knew still existed (many spontaneously told me about instances that they knew about where women had been discriminated, particularly in the labour market). Of course I was afraid that the men were not representative on this point but two things make me think that this is not something that I have to worry about. On the one hand the men were critical on some points. They thought that the equality struggle had been conducted on “too negative terms.” And they were very negative regarding what has been termed “positive discrimination.” And on the other hand, more comprehensive surveys show similar views.

For example, a survey by Gallup showed that 98% thought that men and women should have the same opportunities on the labour market but 77% thought that this was not the case today. All the men wanted close relationship with their children and were of the opinion that their duty was not only as providers in the family, they also had emotional duties. No relationship could be seen between this view and their own relationship with their fathers. Those who had been blessed with fathers that were close and involved in their upbringing regarded that as an example to follow while the majority, who had experienced distant fathers, regarded that as something to be avoided.

 They all believed that they were more involved than had been the case with the last generation. The interviews also revealed that men are more involved than the official statistic shows. Even though almost no Icelandic male receives compensation for leave following the birth of a child, almost all do in fact leave the labour market for a period after the child is borne. The length of the leave varies from a few days to a month, two weeks seems to be the norm. But the reason why the do not appear in the official statistics is that they either use their summer holiday for this purpose or take unpaid leave. The general view is that the six months [birth-leave] is too short to be split up; the mother should have that period undivided.

 But in spite of their willingness for greater participation it emerges that the mother is still the main caregiver. The main obstacles for greater involvement among the men seem to be the gender based wage differences, attitudes among employers and the shadow of the past, meaning that women apparently still regard the home and the children as their domain and their responsibility. This also showed when we discussed their involvement in domestic chores. They all said that the division of labour in the home was about equal. But it was also obvious that their women were in control. They were the ones who decided what needed to be done, when it should be done and how it should be done. But the men participated and did their part. In particular they cook and clean. They do not wash the clothes (and it appears that the main reason for that is that the women do not trust them to do that properly), they do not decorate the home and they do not choose clothes for the children (though they often dress them).

  Regarding friendship with other males and relationship with the extended family it is obvious that both diminish as the years go by. The men obviously have fewer friends than the women and those friends are not as close (“you don’t tell everything, though I know that she does”) and the women see to it that birthdays are remembered, relatives visited and invited to the home. This state of affairs is course for concern as other surveys have showed that men experience acute social isolation following divorce or the death of their spouse.

  Lastly I want to mention that the men in question found it very difficult to pinpoint anything particular connected to the word masculinity. The majority gave up after some reflection. The few that mentioned something mainly talked about strength (physical and/or mental).

I believe that the interviews show that there have been deep changes in the Icelandic gender structure and that these changes are mainly due to the great changes in the position of women in Iceland in particular to their increased participation in the labour market, but also a revolution in their educational level and political participation. I also believe that these changes will continue but that it is possible to make changes in the social arrangements that would greatly facilitate these changes. In particular this applies to increased involvement in family life during pregnancy and the possibility of paternal leave during the first months after birth. And the last year has seen some changes in those areas. All in all I believe that the development in the position of women in Iceland and the results of my study show that we are moving fast towards a much more egalitarian society.

Ingólfur V. Gíslason: No masculinity in Icelandic men?

A large survey by Gallup asking about views regarding gender equality and aspects of family policy showed that Icelanders generally found it difficult to name a characteristic that applied better to males than females.

In the survey people were asked to say if a certain characteristic applied better to males or females or was equally applicable to them. The ten characteristics were: Determination, emotionality, talkative, intelligence, bravery, patience, creativity, ambition, calm and considerate. The main result can be said to be that over half of those asked regarded seven of the characteristics as equally applicable to men and women. The three characteristics that over 50% of the respondents thought applied better to one that the other were emotionality, patience and consideration. And there are no prizes for guessing that the majority thought that this applied better to women than men.  The only two characteristics which over one third of the respondents thought applied better to men were bravery (applies better to men 31.3%, better to women 13.9% and applies equally 54.8%) and ambition (applies better to men 37.8%, better to women 13.6% and applies equally 48.6%).

This was an international survey and when comparing the proportion of men and women regarding the characteristics as applying equally to men and women we get the following result:

Nation Men Women

Iceland 47.9% 48.0%

Canada 35.3% 37.8%

England 34.9% 36.2%

Germany 32.5% 35.0%

USA 22.8% 22.5%

France 16.4% 18.4%

This is open to a number of interpretations but I think that it shows that the increased participation of women on the labour market (in 1996, 77% of women were active in the Iceland labour market, compared to 86% of men), increased education (more women than men now graduate both as students and from the universities) and a number of more symbolic gains (a woman as president for sixteen years and a woman as mayor in the capital for the last four years and every indication of a re-election) have made it more or less impossible to regard a job or a characteristic as something that does not fit a woman. It would simply be regarded as ridiculous.  The same can not be said about men. There has been very little movement of men into areas traditionally regarded as more fitting for women.

Specifically this applies to care and particularly to care for children. It is still possible to claim that women are in some sense ?"better" caregivers than men or that there is something ?un-manly" about changing diapers. And when someone objects all you have to do is point to facts. Who works in kindergartens and elementary schools and who (mostly) takes care of the children in the homes? The research shows that a major task in the near future is to change those structures in society that put obstacles in the way of men who want to shoulder un-traditional work in the labour market as well as in the homes.

Øystein Gullvåg Holter: On men’s freedom of positive choice

New research directions

“Care is the opposite of violence”, argues psychologist Per Isdal, leader of the Alternatives to Violence center in Oslo, which helps male batterers change their behavior. Lack of caring, mistrusting their partner, jealousy and related phenomena are typical among men who use violence against women.

According to recent studies, men’s potential for caring is marginalised and ignored in today’s society. However, new research in the field also shows how men’s care potential can be better realised helped through institutional and cultural measures, with the probable effect of reducing one main basis of male violence.

Institutional change - does it work?

Although gender arrangements often seem static or only slowly changing, there have been large long-term transitions over the last hundred years, and rapid changes in some periods. In World War II, the gender division of labor was significantly changed in several countries over a couple of years (US, UK, etc.), with a positive impact for industry and a noticeable improvement of women’s status in the first postwar years. Later, gender equality and male dominance issues have been shown to be significantly impacted by a changing societal context. There has been a pattern of development of gender equality connected to democratic development in society in general. Institutional contexts and reform policies have been important for development, and many differences between gender arrangements in different regions today can be accounted for through analysing these.

Through the 20th century, gender equality issues have often been characterised by globalism, similar developments in different forms in different regions. Yet the welfare state model in various forms has clearly been important for developing gender equality, even if this has been a ‘relative’ development within a system still characterised by gender inequality. Although other elements of the welfare model has increasingly been criticized, its contribution to gender equal status is usually acknowledged also by market-oriented analysts.

Gender, politics and choice

Gender is not a political matter in the narrow sense, and gender politics are more dependent on what people want and do for themselves than most other forms of politics. Gender is ‘individuating’ compared for example to class relations, since it has a dyad rather than a category or collective at its centre. Studies of 20th century gender developments - in the family sphere especially - usually emphasise their democratic attachment, linked to the individual character of the gender dyad and the ‘nuclear’ family or at least implicates this character, even when they attack male dominance. Paradoxically, democracy and personalized dominance are connected.

Although the modern gender system is still characterised by imbalance and by more or less dominant and attractive forms of masculinity and femininity, this ‘self-chosen’ gendered system is generally seen as preferable, in terms of reducing the overall amount of discrimination, to more traditional and open forms of patriarchal dominance and sex segregation. Compared to the earlier patriarchal relations between and within the sexes, modern gender brings in more choice, and even if this choice is often distorted by continued dominance in new and more economic forms, creating the basis for essentialist and biologistic views, it still creates larger possibilities for change.

In most or all gender-inegalitarian or patriarchal societies, social organisation related to sex is influenced by patriarchal principles (mainly two sorts of principles, dominance between and within the sexes, especially ranking between men). The sex-related organisation is brought within the influence of a power relationship. From that point on, however, conditions have varied historically and still do in different parts of the world. Some forms of patriarchy do not interfere much with sex organisation, but rather exploits what is there already - while in others, it is bound and restricted by patriarchal premises, and in still others, sex-related organisation becomes a main means of patriarchy, the older and more open parts of patriarchy withering away. The latter is typical of modern forms. Patriarchy, then, halfway disappears, and halfway exists in a new form, as a gendered patriarchy. Here, gender has a double level, not only the male/female relation, but also a context of the ‘gendered’ (mainly feminine) on the one hand, and the ‘neutral’ on the other (‘abstract masculinity’). Patriarchy, in this more liberal and embodied gender version, becomes an ongoing affair due to the imbalance between production and reproduction and other factors, re-creating male-centred culture, politics, economy etc The system tends to hide part of what gender is about and distort or mystify the rest.

Studies of gender relations require interdisciplinary cooperation since these relations are psychological, political, economic, historical, cultural - multilayered and many-faceted. In the gender system, institutional and cultural change are mixed together in ways that are still not very well understood.

Relational choice

Can gender equal status policies be in men’s interest? According to one common definition of interest: yes, if they increase men’s freedom of choice. Further, if they increase men’s possibilities for learning and development.

Positive choice in this context means choice that increases gender equal status, diminishing discrimination of women and the related ranking and discrimination between and within men. Positive choice is choice that helps integration and balance between feminity and masculinity, women and men. In sociological terms, it widens the possibilities for expressive value-related action, diminishing the dominance of instrumental values.

In the 1970s and 80s, the new literature on men argued that men, also, stood to gain from leaving aspects of the breadwinner role behind, together with other male dominance-related institutions and behaviours. The framework was partly functionalist: instrumentalism had become ‘dysfunctional’ for men themselves, especially in psychological terms. Instead of construing renewed visions of ‘the home as the haven’ of an alienated society, the new men’s studies discussed changes in men’s life contexts across the public/private divide.

In a relational feminist perspective, ‘choice over’ should be changed to ‘choice towards’. We should be more open towards what we chose, recognising more of the consequences of our actions for others, according to this view. Feminist political scientists as well as psychologists and anthropologists have argued that social action should become more open or ‘porous’ especially as regards daily life relations and women and the reproduction sphere, creating more democratic social relations with improved sensing of others, more cognitive and emotional relationality (not just ‘reflexivity’) and generally increase individuals’ ability to relate to their fellow human beings.

Principles of institutional change

Institutional change is a very broad concept. An institution includes culture, psychology, economy, politics etc., even if institutions may be specialised within each of these fields. Institutions change due to actors’ new actions and choices, which in turn rest on past changes, traditions and constraints. Institutional change, in our context, therefore does not only mean policies designed to increase positive choice, but economies able to sustain these policies, cultural inovation, psychological changes, new forms of institutionalisation, and so on.

The analysis presented above can be translated into action terms. We simplify, yet attain a useful starting point, if we distinguish between two kinds of barriers against change - cultural and informal on the one hand, institutional and political on the other hand. Economic barriers are a third factor. From recent men’s studies, it appears that cultural gender change does not make it on its own, nor does institutional measures. When the two are brought together, however, more ‘sustainable’ developments of gender equality and positive choice may appear, especially if economic aspects are addressed also.

The following ‘preliminary but useful’ list of action perspectives and measures can be used to combine these change paths.

Organisation is a way to the institution. Institutional change means organisational change, a rule that applies both in public and private life. Yet organisations may change while the institution remains (male dominance is the famous relevant example). We know that thinking in terms of organisations easily restricts us in gendered ways (predominance of production, predominance of instrumental values, formal organisation, etc.), but organisational change remains important.

Starting from existing tendencies. The organisation is usually not a gender-egalitarian place, yet there are many tendencies towards equality, usually among all ‘parties’ in an organisation. For creating a space and basis for action, this is the place to start. Often, men’s change policies depend on women and sympathetic men in power positions who are both broadminded and patient enough to recognise the importance of changes among men.

Connecting to the on-going processes among men The organisational approach - as currently theorised by e.g. action research - means one has to start with the problems experienced in the organisation, and build from the on-going processes of attempted solutions to these. In the gender context, gender-egalitarian processes among both genders become important, and in the men’s studies context, especially what goes on among men. That men’s choices (and the gender processes associated with different masculinity forms) do indeed vary according to context, has been amply shown by research. The frequency of rape, for example, or the rape-prone proportion among men, is massively impacted by social and cultural context (cf. men in war-like vs. peaceful contexts).

A focus on men as more/other than a dominant gender, while keeping this framework in mind. ‘Process work’ in this context means a new and more gender-egalitarian communication, more integrative dialogue between men and women and more self-consciousness between men. Its goals include culture and institutional change together with psychological change . Process work often starts psychological, widens to the cultural, and today should also include the organisational and institutional. For example, promoting a culture of peace among men means that some old formal or informal organisational practices must now be abandoned.

Changing the economic parameters.The economy may not slap the door in your face, like patriarchal politics, yet it will surely squash your “Positive Men’s Course” or “Network for Profeminist Men” unless analysed and at least neutralised, or better, connected to in a positive manner. For example, the organisation will tell you that they can no longer afford these measures, unless you’ve brought to bear some new economic thinking of how these seeming costs actually help things along and are in fact key investments. Words, however, won’t get you there. Economy requires a practice approach, a look at task interdependencies, processes and value chains, securing that things work out in practice, that the organization gets something back for its outlays.

Recognise ongoing change. Optimalisation of economic parameters unhindered by male dominance or patriarchal restrictions requires a broad shift of thinking and behaviour, a ‘turnover’ of economic dogma. Yet this is a an on-going process in the economy of the world today, if often only in latent form. It does not resemble the ‘critical’ male positions associated with class struggle, at this point. Economic units can no longer use the methods of yesterday; increasingly, business can no longer afford to neglect women and gender equality issues. Tactical patriarchalisms are slowly becoming more dubious as long-term capitalisms or socialisms or mixed-somethings. The economy is bound for change, yet there are also short-term ‘reactive’ movements.

Help positive economic processes. On its side, the institutional approach must develop measures that helps on-going positive market processes along, including trends towards quality and flexibility, for example by creating bonus systems like the Kyoto arrangement to grant new egalitarian ventures a fair chance. We know they’re up against a mixture of patriarchy and capitalism, not capitalism alone, so if the latter is to play fair, some help is needed.

Some stick, but mainly carrot. Consider the taxation system, one means of institutional change. Here as elsewhere, one cannot create positive choice without any negativeness. Something has to be scrapped. There has to be a stick, like greater tax for some than for others. Yet the stick works best if limited to mean an absence of carrot effects. A gender-egalitarian taxation system could build on the principle that those who arrange themselves more equally, in the private or public sphere (families or businesses), should get a premium, while those who do not, don’t. Couples with balanced incomes should be taxed a bit more favourably than those with unequal incomes, perhaps excepting care need situations (young child, sick elderly etc.). Firms that document gender equality standards as part of product information could similarly be saved some tax points. Similar standards could be introduced as part of insurance and banking. - As soon as we combine organisational and institutional change, many possibilities appear.

An example: Changing fathers’ behaviour

In Norway, ‘the daddy’s month’ family reform was introduced in 1993. In this country as elsewhere the late 1970s had seen an emerging debate on men as part of gender equality. In the mid 1980s, the government created a Male Role Committee based on a Swedish model in order to help the discussion along. This was soon successful, although committee members may have been frustrated over the pluralistic approach taken. Although broadly proegalitarian, the committee was not profeminist in a narrow sense. Within a year or so, almost one half of Norwegian men had heard about the committee, according to a survey, and in the following years there was a perceptible change of climate regarding the father role especially, a main theme of the committee. These developments contributed to the increasing emphasis on care and care-related issues documented by surveys in 1990s. The gradual cultural change and debate initiative was important for the reform’s success.

The 1993 daddy’s month reform stated that the family would only get the full premium of paid leave (which Norway had been able to extend to 12 months) if the father took the last 8 percent (1 month) of the leave. If the woman, only, stayed at home, the leave would not be extended from 11 to 12 months. Though the reform was kept small (8 percent) due to expected opposition, which did not appear.

Among men and women, the reform soon became popular, since the extra 8 percent came as a premium over the old arrangement. Also, the model was fairly simple and understandable. Perhaps the couple hadn’t thought about it, but why not? Although fathers sometimes felt they needed help having sole responsibility for a workday period for an almost one-year-old child and sometimes tried to place the dad’s month in the couple’s holiday or looked towards other women (mother, mother-in-law, the wife herself, etc.) for help, there has in fact been a ‘change’ in the sense discussed above. Moreover, this has been a voluntary change. Over the last years, the proportion of parents that use the dad’s month opportunity has grown to over 70 percent.

Recently, at study by Elin Kvande and co-workers has shown strong positive attitudes among the fathers using the leave month. Very few men regard the dad’s month as either negative or non-voluntary. Instead, the study shows that a majority of the men want more time with their child, 2 to 3 months.

Psychologically, there is no doubt that the attachment period in early life is important for what happens later. According to international experts, these changes in men’s behaviour and attitudes over a comparably brief period of time are of major significance. Even if the proportion of the leave time is small and even if used half-supportedly by women at first, it creates a space for change in men’s relation to children.

As the dad’s month took root, it no longer became unusual to see men with child carriages or fathers discussing, caring for, or nurturing their children in public. The public scenery in a city like Oslo has subtly shifted. Fathers of older children also increasingly show up at health controls, kindergartens and school meetings.

The fact that these changes have been achieved through a fairly small institutional reform, in an interplay with cultural and social trends, has created international attention. The principles of the reform have important implications for applied programmes and action research involving men.

To reiterate: The starting point of the reform was an on-going process among men (rather than a ‘political correctness’ agenda); men’s  increasing wish to ‘be’ a family man rather than the old model where a man ‘has’ a family. The focus of the reform is also the focus of this process. Men’s increasing willingness to participate is due also to the use of the ‘carrot principle’ rather than the ‘whip principle’ or the moralising attitude towards men’s change.

From ‘who ought to...’ to ‘who wants to...’

Most important, perhaps, in the longer run is the improvement of children’s status as a consequence of the reform. The reform has transformed a debate about ‘who ought to’ into a debate about ‘who wants to’. Instead of oughts, it has achieved change through wants. Thereby, the dad’s month illustrates how change can become real and sustainable.

Similar processes can be identified among men in all parts of the world at all levels. The difference in the Norwegian case is that it was helped along by a significant, if minor, institutional reform policy, achieving more impact.

Care can be substituted by peace and other issues or occupations of men beyond the realm of gender-dominant masculinity. The concrete methods may vary, yet the general principles of starting organised, building on positive tendencies, focusing on men’s processes and rewarding positive choice are generally relevant.

Conclusion

Institutional politics are usually associated with equal status and/or state intervention. Today, however, they can also be put forward more broadly as a matter of increasing men’s freedom of choice.

Recently, the daddy’s month reform has been overshadowed by a new proposed cash support reform for parents with infants. Although couched in terms of choice, the reform will probably decrease couples’ choice, especially men’s, due to the still very imbalanced distribution of income in most families. The cash support can substitute for the woman’s one third of the household budget, not for the man’s two thirds. There is a broad concern that the reform will hinder, or stop, more or less temporarily, men’s gradual movement towards a more equal sharing of tasks in the family sphere. A policy that in effect restricts men’s choice to ‘be’ family and pushes them back to the terrain of breadwinners and absent fathers is hardly a policy of increased choice.

Men’s opportunities for family and care participation and for creating a culture of peace are related. Although the daddy’s month model of institutional change puts ‘care’ in the center of attention, it may be relevant for peace issues also, for example to create alternatives to ‘siege mentality’, to help popular processes of delegitimisation of aggressive nationalism, or to reduce possibilities for ‘random’ male violence. In general, this model opens for different forms of organisation, connecting to positive tendencies or possibilities among men, putting men’s own concerns in the middle. Today, men’s studies and gender research need to clarify other main issues besides care, violence and peace, connecting to health, politics, economy, etc., and identify different perspectives, models and development possibilities connected to each of them. Combined, these approaches can help create real choice and changes among men that are no longer, as Bob Connell says in Masculinities, only minority events, individual revolts or private protests against the ruling masculinity order, but participatory changes supported by and involving the majority of men as well as women.

For further information on the background of the daddy’s month reform, see Knut Oftung: Men and gender equality in the Nordic Countries, available in the coming UNESCO report from the Oslo Expert Meeting (Sept. 1997).

Membership appliccation and contact list information

The International Association for Studies of Men (started in 1993) is an independent, interdisciplinary researchers' initiative for developing gender equality studies of men and masculinities on an international level.

You can support the IASOM initiative by registering as a member of our network, and you are also welcome as a contact on our mailing list.