Celebrating 30 years of masculinities scholarship in the South African Journal of Psychology

Gender, sexuality, and violence

The discourses of gender, sexuality, and violence were extensively explored in the analysed articles, focusing on the interplay between masculinities, gender roles, sexuality, and men’s societal positions relative to women. Drawing from the principles of FDA, gender should not be viewed as an intrinsic, essential characteristic of individuals but rather as a complex, socially constructed discourse (Edley & Wetherell, 2008).

Gender and sexuality, while often related, are distinct concepts. While we discuss them separately here, it is crucial to recognize that these constructs frequently intersect, along with race, to shape individuals’ experiences and identities (Pillay, 2023). For example, Pillay (2023) defined an intersection as ‘the ways that race, gender, disability, sexuality, class, age, and other social categories are mutually shaped and interrelated’ (p. 78) noting how these categories do not exist in isolation but are constantly shaped and reshaped by the historical, cultural, and institutional contexts in which they are embedded. Intersectionality thus encourages us to consider the complex and overlapping identities that individuals hold, and how these identities may affect their experiences (Victor et al., 2014).

Several studies examined various aspects of sexuality, such as experiences of same-sex gendered families, group therapy experiences for gay men, and lived experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual South Africans of Indian descent (Lubbe, 2007; Nel et al., 2007; Pillay, 2023). Nel et al. (2007) emphasized the exclusionary nature of masculinities in relation to gay men, noting that patriarchy, which rests on idealized concepts of masculinities, ‘is also particularly vicious towards gay males who pose a strong subversive threat to the patriarchal ideals of aggression and dominance’ (p. 288). Similarly, Lubbe (2007) discussed how same-sex families are often positioned as oppositional or incompatible with traditional family models, noting that ‘in Western countries, people fight what they regard as a threat to the alleged sanctity of nuclear family by opposing the legalisation of gay marriages’ (p. 273). Lubbe (2007) details how even in South Africa ‘the same-gendered couple family challenges the normative conceptions of the traditional model of the two parent (hetero-gender) family’ (p. 274) where there is a mother and father as well as their children. The same-gendered homes are an example of the changing face of families that are non-normative in nature.

The exploratory work done by these authors (Lubbe, 2007; Nel et al., 2007; Pillay, 2023) suggests that the discourses around masculinities in South Africa are still largely traditional and discriminatory towards LGBTQIA+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning (or queer), intersex, asexual, and more) individuals. This perpetuation of heteronormative and patriarchal discourses effectively maintains the oppressive power dynamics that discriminate against and marginalize those who do not conform to traditional gender roles and sexual identities. Thus, the maintenance of patriarchal systems through homophobic and discriminatory discourses serves to uphold the social and political dominance of heterosexual men at the expense of other gender identities and sexual orientations.

Collectively, the sexuality studies in the SAJP primarily concentrated on the challenges faced by LGBTQIA+ individuals, which is important in highlighting these issues. It is important to acknowledge positive experiences associated with LGBTQIA+ identities, as a focus on problems and challenges may overshadow positive experiences associated with these sexual identities, such as care, love, and the defiance of stereotypes related to same-sex relations (Gevisser & Cameron, 1995). However, it remains crucial to address negative experiences and their impacts on LGBTQIA+ individuals. For example, the work by Henderson and Shefer (2008) serves as a crucial step towards recognizing the often-neglected issue of abuse within same-sex relationships that ‘the documentation or even acknowledgement of abuse of gay men [was] a relatively new development’ (Henderson & Shefer, 2008, p. 3). In writing this article, Henderson and Shefer (2008) highlighted that ‘internalised homophobia and uncritical assumption of gender binarisms may facilitate and in some cases exaggerate practices of dominance-submission, abuse, and violence in gay relationships’ (p. 17). By bringing attention to the issue of abuse within same-sex relationships, Henderson and Shefer (2008) challenged the common misconception that violence in relationships was solely a heterosexual problem.

Several articles in the SAJP also explored the discourses that associate masculinity with violence, specifically in the context of physical assault by male strangers (Njuho & Davids, 2012), women’s experiences with interventions from violent men (de la Harpe & Boonzaier, 2011), and non-offending caregivers’ experiences following child sexual abuse disclosure (Bux et al., 2016). Across these articles, the authors noted that discourses of hegemonic, toxic, and traditional masculinities were routinely employed to explain violent behaviours exhibited by men. Njuho and Davids (2012) noted that ‘the gender-based violence commonly reported in any society is related to power inequalities based on gender roles, which are marked by the domination of men and the subordination of women’ (p. 271). This highlights a common social discourse that men generally control and subjugate women. de la Harpe and Boonzaier (2011) highlighted that women whose male partners were receiving an intervention to reduce violent behaviours feared that their partners might ‘go back to normal’ (p. 151) once the intervention was finished, suggesting that violence was associated with ‘normal’ maleness. Bux et al. (2016) took this view further when examining cases of men who had sexually abused children, noting that some non-offending parents would ‘appear to display hatred and mistrust towards all male figures’ (p. 92) thereby linking all men with perpetration of violence. This view contributes to the perpetuation of harmful stereotypes about men as violent.

However, these articles did not offer sufficient attention to the contextual factors that may be contributing to these men behaving violently. In other words, violence was seen as an inherent aspect of maleness, rather than considering the ways in which social, cultural, and economic factors shape men’s violent actions. As a result, these studies may have missed opportunities to highlight the ways in which historical oppression and marginalization continue to shape particular discourses of masculinities.

Health and wellness

SAJP articles addressing health and wellness topics related to men covered various discourses, including suicide and health, alcohol, therapy, life satisfaction and well-being, attachment, grief and loss, physical sickness, coping, and psychopathology.

Discussions on suicide revolved around its prevalence among youth, with some studies suggesting that girls cope better with suicide-related issues compared to boys (Meehan et al., 2007). Meissner et al. (2016) highlighted the role of traditional gender norms in shaping how young men discuss suicide and seek help, noting that pressure to perform stoicism often makes it difficult for them to admit mental health struggles and seek support. This reveals the influence of problematic masculinities notions on young boys’ ability to disclose their struggles and access help. In a similar way, Bantjes et al. (2017) critically examined the role of masculinities in shaping young men’s attitudes and behaviours around suicide and help-seeking. The common theme out of these articles is the way idealized constructions of masculinities can limit or impede health-seeking behaviours in men, underscoring the importance of alternative conceptions of masculinities and health (Bantjes et al., 2017; Gibbs & Jobson, 2011; Jansen, 2020).

Other articles on health and wellness focused on the prevalence of conditions such as eating disorders among men and depression among gay men and lesbian women (Freeman & Szabo, 2005; Polders et al., 2008), reflecting efforts to raise awareness of psychological issues among diverse genders in South Africa (Victor et al., 2014). A significant observation is that women in South Africa and globally are diagnosed with psychological disorders at higher rates than men. However, male-dominated discourses and norms discourage men from seeking mental health support, as doing so would be ‘admitting a loss of control and inability to solve problems on their own’ that threatened their status as ‘real’ men (Bantjes et al., 2017, p. 238). This dynamic perpetuates harmful attitudes towards men’s mental health, creating a culture that stigmatizes vulnerability and emotionality in men.

However, other articles in the SAJP negated this view of men not seeking mental health help. For example, Freeman and Szabo (2005) focused on men diagnosed with eating disorders, while Nel et al. (2007) offered insights into the experiences of gay men in group therapy. These articles, along with Jansen’s (2020) research, which argues that ‘adult males can be as vulnerable as any human beings’ (p. 155), challenge the dominant discourse by illuminating the vulnerability and emotional expressiveness of men in safe and supportive settings. Through these articles, we observed a departure from the prevailing notion of men as stoic, emotionally detached beings which suggest that seeking help, far from being a sign of weakness, can be a protective factor in men’s mental health, potentially mitigating the negative effects of toxic, hegemonic, or traditional masculinities.

The evolving narrative around men’s emotional expressiveness is further supported by the research of Corbet-Owen (2003) and Blackbeard and Aldous (2023), as published in the SAJP. Their studies examined men’s roles in supporting their partners during stillbirths and navigating physical disability, respectively, revealing men’s capacity for emotional depth and vulnerability. Corbet-Owen (2003) argued that men’s grieving processes may be influenced by societal expectations of masculine behaviour, leading to a possible misinterpretation of their attempts to support their partners. By highlighting men’s emotional depth and vulnerability, this SAJP scholarship aligns with Critical Masculinities Studies (CSM), which posits that men are capable of rejecting rigid, dominant conceptions of masculinity and developing more nuanced and emotionally expressive identities.

Other SAJP articles on health focused on the construction of masculinities and HIV/AIDS (Gibbs & Jobson, 2011; Macheke & Campbell, 1998). Gibbs and Jobson (2011) noted that with regard to HIV/AIDS ‘there remained a dominant focus on men as actors on HIV, and women at risk of infection’ (p. 182) arguing that this obscured the realities of men living with HIV/AIDS, and did not take into sufficient account institutional factors affecting men’s health behaviours. This echoes the earlier work by Macheke and Campbell (1998) arguing that ‘a range of normative and social parameters’ (p. 4) influence men’s decision-making. Fundamentally, these studies promoted more ‘progressive’ discourses that considered the role of context in shaping men’s behaviour, questioned problematic media narratives about men and HIV/AIDS, and challenged the assumption that HIV/AIDS knowledge guarantees behavioural change (Gibbs & Jobson, 2011; Macheke & Campbell, 1998).

Specifically, Macheke and Campbell (1998) had this to say about the spread of HIV among mineworkers; ‘factual knowledge [about HIV/AIDS] was embedded within a range of potentially contradictory beliefs, which are weighed up against the incoming health educational information within a range of normative and social constraints’ (p. 151), which include the phenomenon of single-sex hostels, an acceptance of high levels of disease and the use of alcohol as the normal way of life. Both Macheke and Campbell (1998) argued that mineworkers’ knowledge and attitudes towards HIV, as well as their behaviours that increase the risk of infection, should not be evaluated in isolation from the broader context of the mining industry in South Africa. This industry has a history of oppressing Black men, which has had a significant impact on the social, economic, and health outcomes for this group of men.

These articles (Gibbs & Jobson, 2011; Macheke & Campbell, 1998) highlighted social discourses, which construct masculinities and their impact on health-related behaviours. Gibbs and Jobson (2011) noted that ‘while such narratives do not over-determine men’s health behaviours [. . .] they provide symbolic tools or frameworks circulating within the public sphere from which men begin to construct individual narratives of masculinity and identity, in turn impacting their health behaviours’ (p. 182). By linking discourses of masculinity and observable behaviour outcomes, the research emphasizes the importance of engaging men in conversations about health, positioning them as part of the solution to the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

Fatherhood

Constructions of masculinities at times overlapped with constructions of fatherhood. While the theme of fatherhood was not initially addressed in many early studies published in the SAJP, this shifted over time, aligning with the increasing attention given to this topic by other researchers in South Africa (Okeke, 2018; Ramatsetse & Ross, 2023; Richter & Morrell, 2006). Other masculinities studies often adopted a limited view of father presence or absence, where presence meant being physically present and absence meant being physically absent (Okeke, 2018; Ramatsetse & Ross, 2023). However, Okeke (2018) highlighted structural issues and relationship dynamics that hinder fathers’ involvement in their children’s early development, noting that in many cases even when fathers desire involvement in their children’s lives, they were often ‘caught in severe crises which crippled any resolve in them to meaningfully support their children’ (p. 485). Okeke (2018) argued that the absence of fathers must be understood within the context of ‘the crises that hindered men from actively participating in the early social development of their children’ (p. 478). While it is evident that some fathers are committed to being present in their children’s lives, there are systemic barriers that prevent them from doing so.

Ratele et al. (2012) presented a critical examination of discourses surrounding fatherhood and fatherlessness, interviewing men about their experiences of being parented or growing up without biological fathers. This study challenged previous narrow, biological definitions of fatherhood by exploring the varied roles played by other male figures in the South African context, such as uncles, grandfathers, and brothers, in providing support and care to children. Building upon this notion of ‘social’ fathers, the researchers cautioned against the view that biological fathers need to be physically present in their children’s lives to prevent childhood behavioural problems, as this view ‘demonize(s) non-nuclear, female-headed households’ (Ratele et al., 2012, p. 553) as a source of childhood pathology. Historically, psychology has been prone to blaming women and female-headed households for childhood issues (Ntoimo & Odimegwu, 2014), and studies of fatherhood may risk reproducing this harmful discourse.

The study by Ratele et al. (2012) broadened the understanding of a ‘good father’, defining it as ‘being always there, which relates to a quality of time and relationship between child and father rather than physical time together’ (p. 553). This expanded definition emphasizes the emotional and psychological bonds between a father (biological or social) and child, highlighting the importance of supportive, responsive father–child relationships in promoting healthy development and well-being.

Other articles focused on non-normative father experiences. For example, Lubbe (2007) discussed the experiences of same-sex gendered families in South Africa, arguing that ‘Eurocentric and patriarchal definitions of the family are being replaced by more inclusive definitions’ (p. 266) and suggesting that the meaning of family in contemporary South Africa has evolved. Furthermore, Lubbe (2007) argued that ‘[g]ender and parenting should be regarded as fluid variables that shift and change to suit different contexts at different times’ (p. 274). This supports an understanding of father roles as capable of being performed differently from historical or traditional performances. It also challenges traditional heteronormative versions of family structures as argued earlier. Despite offering this perspective of nuanced family structures and father roles, Lubbe (2007) acknowledges that ‘South African society still exhibits signs of a culture of discrimination and judgement’ (p. 265) against same-sex parents. The shifts in certain discourses that emerged in published work of the SAJP were significant, yet it is important to consider these shifts in the broader context of traditional notions of fatherhood and masculinities, which still pervade societal narratives and attitudes. Some articles clearly marked a transition from traditional, narrow conceptions of fatherhood that placed primary emphasis on providing financial support and physical presence to a more progressive understanding of fatherhood that encompasses non-biological father figures and emphasizes emotional care and nurturing. Accordingly, ‘there is a need for more historically and contextually informed studies on the meaning of fatherhood and fatherlessness to better understand the impact of colonial and apartheid history and its legacy on family life in contemporary society’ (Ratele et al., 2012, p. 553) in shaping future views of fatherhood in South Africa.