Gender and work are social institutions that have permeated every sphere of our lives, and define the way we interact with others. While the problems related to females are discussed more frequently and on a larger scale, we must also take toxic masculinity into account and understand its implications that affect individuals of all genders. Specifically in the context of work, while female participation is on the rise, the prevalence of toxic masculinity contests has rendered the workplace a battleground for proving one’s masculinity rather than collaborating with others for greater productivity.
Our conventional understanding of masculinity revolves around the central traits of aggression, domination, power, control, leadership and breadwinner. Gender is a social system that primarily operates on differentiation between what is masculine or feminine. Upon taking a closer look at gender, we come to realise that masculinity and femininity are subsystems within themselves, and it is via the aforementioned central traits that we come to value and hence place the masculine above the feminine in the gender hierarchy. These traits serve as labels for self-identification, as well as labels that other people use to perceive us in the social world.
Masculinity and the expectation of living up to it is subject to far more scrutiny than its feminine counterpart, and these masculine pressures are what drive men to act in ‘bold but bad’ ways that keep their image in place. The perceived need to work for longer hours, out-earn others and hence prove one’s strength and stamina at the workplace, are reflective of masculine contest cultures. Masculinity can be further broken down into its various forms — hegemonic subordinate and complicit masculinity.
Hegemonic masculinity occupies the topmost position in the masculinity system, as well as the entire gender framework. It is the ideal image of what a man ‘ought’ to be like, while subordinate and complicit masculinities include those who do not fit into the stereotypical macho category. Those who are not considered manly enough in relation to the idealised hegemonic male are pushed down to the subordinate and complicit categories. What is noteworthy here is that because a subordinate masculinity framework exists, that is why the hegemonic one can be maintained and continues to dominate as the most desired category to belong to.
This build-up serves to further my point on the precarity of manhood, and how it proves to be one of the Flintstones that ultimately sparks gender inequality. Manhood is precarious; it is as easily lost as it is gained. As unfortunate as it gets, it must be constantly proved to others by some way or another, in order to continue to secure a social position closest to the ideal hegemonic male. As the world of work increasingly welcomes and accepts women, the masculinity contest becomes fiercer, with more contenders fighting for the same position of authority. One of the Flintstones mentioned earlier is the precarity of one’s masculinity, and when it collides with that of the perceived threat brought about by women taking over their positions, the sparks begin to fly. When a woman demonstrates the ability to surpass and potentially take a position of power and authority for herself, the male ideal is threatened, which evokes retaliation that manifests as sabotage, aggression and opportune gatekeeping.
An interesting psychological behaviour that might also be observed in situations where a female occupies a higher managerial position in comparison to her male subordinates at the workplace, is psychological reactance. Psychological reactance is a kind of retaliation wherein when a person feels like their freedom is being constrained or threatened, they engage in behaviours that are opposite, and sometimes more extreme than the ones that are being imposed upon them, in an attempt to reclaim their freedom. Although psychological reactance is subtle, when given a conducive environment and a prolonged duration to continue, the entire organisational climate gets clouded with toxic masculinity and masculine contest cultures, that slowly rust the organisation’s performance and productivity from the inside.
Not only do women pose a threat to precarious masculinity, but also individuals of colour, of different ethnic, racial and class backgrounds and particularly those of a different caste when it comes to India. To overcome these threats, toxic masculinity warrants that the men in question dominate the others so that a ‘winner’ can be chosen from the in-group. This dominance over other genders or social groups is achieved via three processes. The first is the authority gap, wherein the gap between a male and a female exceeds that between two males. Similarly, the Teddy Bear effect pertains to the dimension of colour, where for instance, a black man must engage in more ‘identity work’ and actively perform the role of a black individual, just so that his white colleagues do not feel threatened. Lastly, we must also turn our attention to what is called the ‘Queen Bee Phenomenon’ wherein a male not only performs his masculinity and attempts to reach the hegemonic ideal but also strategically distances himself from other groups such as persons of colour or other genders.
Sexual harassment in the workplace is one of the most pressing issues that needs to be dealt with, despite changing laws and policies. Changing laws and establishment of women cells in organisations have come a long way, and continue to evolve alongside the understanding of gender at the workplace. What must be of more importance than setting up women’s inclusion cells at offices is the understanding of where sexual harassment stems from in the first place. Speaking in a sociological sense, it could be said that heteronormativity is yet another feature of hegemonic masculinity, where controlling the narrative and expression of one’s gender and sexual identity becomes important in order to hold onto the masculinity throne. Sexual harassment most definitely affects women the most, but we must stretch our imaginative boundaries to also include gay, lesbian and other gender and sexual identities.
Patriarchy as a macro-social structure that governs the ways in which we behave and hold attitudes towards those of others as well as our own gender, is what trickles down to organisational levels and affects those at the workplace. It is incredibly hard to change an entire social structure that has existed for centuries even before we were born, but what we can do about it is make small changes in our attitudes and behaviours by being aware of how our actions have a domino effect on a larger scale. It might take time, but we can surely make a difference step by step, and eventually achieve true gender equality as we desire it.
Yashee Jha, a multi-faceted student, is an avid commentator on various topical issues. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18’s views.
Comments
0 comment