Reflexive,Ambivalent and Inclusive. Masculinities Among Young University Students in Lima,Peru

Introduction

Since the emergence of studies on masculine identities with a gender perspective in the eighties of the last century, it has been claimed that masculinity is in crisis (Connell 1997; Olavarría 2014, 2013, 2017). Indeed, the 20th century witnessed drastic changes in women’s rights, which undermined the place of the male as head of the family and breadwinner. Nevertheless, the basic foundations of male identity, its rejection of homosexuality (Kaufman 1987, 1999; Kimmel 2005) and its identification with strength and active sexuality (Fuller 1997, 2002, 2005) remained stable.

This landscape seems to have somewhat changed during the last two decades, during which we have witnessed the boisterous emergence of collectives that question the very foundations of the gender order (Butler 2002, 2006; Bourdieu 1998; Fausto Sterling 2006). In the countries of the Western orbit, TLGBIQ collectives are gaining rights and no longer represent marginalized identities but rather emerging groups that occupy a place in public and cultural life (Cáceres and Rosasco 2000; Cáceres 2002; Pecheny 2004; Motta 2014). In fact, in recent decades there has been a decrease in homophobia and the possibility of performing less orthodox masculinities, which some authors call inclusive masculinities, seems to be opening up (Anderson and McGuire 2010, 2018; Morris 2017).

Several researches in Latin America, Australia and the United Kingdom find that young millennials display a critical attitude towards sexism and homophobia (Camozzi et al., 2018; Cano et al., 2017; Connell, 2015; Connell and Messerschmidt, 2005; Manzelli, 2006; Sanfélix Albelda, 2011). Nevertheless, they do not want to stop being masculine and are concerned about finding new ways to assume their identity (Boscán Leal, 2008; Mardones and Vizcarra, 2017). Moreover, some feel challenged and treated as guilty (Sanfélix Albelda 2011). In sum, young men would find themselves at a crossroads, torn between opening up to new masculinities or taking refuge in old certainties.

At the same time, there has been a resurgence of feminist groups among new generations of women. Movements that question gender violence (Segato 2003, Zeran 2018), are a global trend. This phenomenon has great resonance in student movements, where denunciations against abuses and questioning of male behaviors previously considered as natural have proliferated. In Peru, the most important public and private universities have seen the emergence of protest movements that have forced them to create investigation commissions, to take measures to sanction aggressors and to address the demands of the TLGBIQ population.

This research aims to identify possible changes in the way young university students in the city of Lima define certain aspects of masculinity, such as the mandate to be heterosexual and the claim of preeminence over women.

In order to detect whether changes have occurred in the representations of young men, we contrast the representations of masculinity predominant in the 1990s with those emerging during the current decade. We will call the group of those born in the late 1970s and early 1980s the “1990s generation” and those born in the late 1990s “Z generation”.

The material from the 1990s was collected in research conducted in 1996-97. The data on youngsters of the Z generation were collected in 2019. All of them followed or were pursuing university studies and resided in the city of Lima.

Masculinity and feminism

The young people of the 1990s generation received information about the proposals of feminism, and define it as a movement seeking the vindication of women and fighting to obtain the same rights as men. This struggle would have a positive side, insofar that it seeks equality between the sexes. However, they also thought that there were extreme versions that would be absurd because they denied anatomical evidence and, above all, called into question their certainties regarding the feminine and masculine roles. Their second and most common objection was that feminism could be regarded as an inverted version of machismo. In that regard, women involved in this movement would seek to take the place of men, not to achieve greater equality, but to be the ones to prevail.

However, what is most striking among young people of the 1990s is that only a few (2 over 20) accepted that women were entitled to fight for equality and sympathized with feminist demands, while the great majority was split between those who thought that it wasn’t an issue that concerned them and those who expressed outright rejection. reject it outright.

The contrast between the 1990s and the Z generation is quite stark in terms of their appreciation of the importance of feminism and their familiarity with it. Unlike their peers from the 1990s generation, who did not regard themselves as concerned with this movement, for the Zs, feminism is a highly topical issue, they are aware of current struggles, relate to or know young feminists, and are aware that feminist demands involve revising traditional masculinity and many of their daily habits.

The terms “ambivalent” or “contradictory” would be the ones that best define the position of Zs vis-à-vis the women’s rights movement. They agree with their demands but their discourse is, at the same time, impregnated with fear and rejection of what they regard as hembrismo, ¹ a movement that would seek to impose itself on men. But, above all, they feel threatened by those currents that, by reacting against machismo, question practices that were once acceptable and that they have internalized in their early socialization as characteristic of masculinity.

TLGBIQ struggles and masculinity

Already by the 1990s, homophobia had lost some ground among the educated sectors of Peruvian society (Fuller 2002). By then it was no longer seen as a nefarious sin but as a psychological problem that had to be tolerated. In that regard, two opposing views were displayed. The one I will call “traditional” defined homosexuality as a deviation, while the one I will call “open” described it as a personal option. In the first case it was argued that it was a mental illness which would lead to ignore the existence of two clearly defined sexes. In the second case homosexuality was defined as a possible variety of sexual identity development. However, everyone agreed that the ideal masculinity was heterosexual and that close contact with those who broke away from this model should be avoided, because it exposed them to the suspicion by people around them that there might be some kind of intimacy or complicity with them and that their masculinity would be called into question.

Unlike the 1990s generation, the Zs exhibit a growing familiarity with people who belong to TLGBTIQ = groups. Movements that seek to assert the rights of these collectives are seen as legitimate initiatives, claiming some recognition by the justice system and the State. According to them, their perspective on this population has changed: they were brought up fearing that they were a threat, but dealing with them at the university and other settings has shown them that this is not the case. Even more, some of them are willing to acknowledge that they may be attracted to people of the same sex.

In sum, it would seem that the aspect in which youngsters of the Z generation are more flexible is the acceptance that being male does not imply being heterosexual and they would seem to recognize the possibility of experiencing other sexual versions.

Conclusions

The contrast between the representations of feminism and sexual and gender identities of the two generations under study shows notable changes as well as persistent continuities. It could be said that, rather than inclusive masculinities, they would be reflexive and ambivalent masculinities.

The most important changes can be seen in the critical attitude towards the assumptions of hegemonic masculinity and a certain willingness to review the practices that reproduce them. In other words, they adopt a reflective posture with respect to certain aspects of masculinity such as the right to impose themselves on women and homophobia.

The relationship with their feminist peers is, however, tinged with ambivalence. They accept the justice of their position, but feel that they constitute a threat because being consistent with feminist demands implies the dismantling of the assumptions about the feminine and the masculine that they internalized in their early socialization. This is a painful process, insofar as it removes their certainties without offering them a horizon of hope.

In line with changes observed in youth culture globally (Anderson and McGuire 2010 and 2018), the rule of avoidance vis-à-vis non-heterosexual people seems to have relaxed among the Z generation. TLGBIQ people are starting to become part of their environment, and this implies the possibility of questioning some of the foundations of hegemonic masculinity and the opening towards inclusive masculinities.

These changes are restricted to small groups of young men exposed to the influence of social movements that are very active in the university environment. In contrast, both in their family life and in homosocial settings, traditional definitions and practices of masculinity remain in place.

The question that arises is whether these new ways of living masculinity will be restricted to experimentations among groups of young men, which will be abandoned when they are inserted into the social structure, or whether they are heralding new airs.