Redefining masculinity for the HIV/AIDS fight in southern Africa
2009 22 Nov
I can’t speak for all of Southern Africa, but certainly, the area where I’m currently doing HIV/AIDS work is inundated in HIV/AIDS ad campaigns. There are ten million taglines, ten billion posters and stickers and t-shirts and events and commercials and shoutouts on the radio and and and …. Every other billboard is HIV-related. Every khumbi (van in the public transit system) has at least one sticker. Every class in school incorporates AIDS into the curriculum; even kids studying math draw graphs of HIV prevalence. I have never seen anything like this level of media coverage for anything in America, anything at all.
I was recently intrigued to note a new permutation on the back of a sports magazine. (Sorry, these images aren’t great — there ain’t no scanners here, so I had to use my digital camera.)
One of the hardest things to do here is get southern African men to test and to talk. Women are perfectly willing to speak about how multiple partners contributes to the disease’s spread, for instance; women are, indeed, usually eager to discuss some of the problems of abuse and male entitlement that are contributing to HIV/AIDS. (Warning: that link is really depressing.) Men, not so much.
Here’s an article describing the campaign whose ad I’m highlighting here. Excerpt:
Until now, most AIDS schemes have centred on health centres, which are used mainly by women.
“It is hard to go to a clinic and acknowledge your vulnerability as a man,” said Dean Peacock, coordinator at Sonke Gender Justice Network, one of the groups working to engage men.
But men still hold the upper hand in sexual relations, so the “Brothers for Life” campaign aims to convince men to use condoms while also improving their access to treatment.
Currently, women account for three quarters of the HIV tests conducted in South Africa, and two thirds of the anti-retroviral drugs dispensed. What’s more, men tend to seek treatment later than women, when their immune systems are already weakened.
“There is nothing especially made for men. We need to do something to talk to men,” said Mzi Lwana, head of the Men and Aids program at the HIV research unit at Witwatersrand University.
The “Brothers for Life” icon, in the ad’s lower right corner, looks like this:
Which sure looks manly to me. But the most interesting and culturally revealing part is the text, which I’ll close-up on:
“There is a new man in South Africa. A man who takes responsibility for his actions. A man who chooses a single partner over multiple chances with HIV. A man whose self-worth is not determined by the number of women he can have. A man who makes no excuses for unprotected sex, even after drinking. A man who supports his partner and protects his children. A man who respects his woman and never lifts a hand to her. A man who knows that the choices we make today will determine whether we see tomorrow. I am that man. And you are my brother. Yenza kahle — do the right thing.”
This reminds me of a presentation I saw at the 2009 Alternative Sexualities conference at the Center on Halsted; I was on a panel about BDSM communities, but secretly I was most excited about the chance to sit in on the other panels and lectures. One of my favorites was a gent named David Moskowitz from the Center for Disease Control, who told us that a whopping 25% of leathermen surveyed at International Mr. Leather tested HIV-positive, and correlated the risk of unsafe sex with a host of interesting factors such as whether the person in question was dominant, submissive, a switch, etc. (Moskowitz planned to publish his data in an upcoming issue of “Journal of AIDS and Behavior”, but I don’t know whether that happened or not.)
After describing the statistics, he started to talk about possible interventions. The gay leather subculture is very focused on ideals of masculinity; I asked whether he’d considered a “masculinity campaign” around condom usage.
“Yeah, that would be interesting, wouldn’t it?” he said. “Be a man, use a condom …. Right now we’re focusing on recruiting community leaders to talk about safer sex, though. We’ve found allying with such figures to be the most effective strategy.”
I wish I could ask David Moskowitz about this South Africa campaign. Is this really going to work — even a little? Is it possible to influence, to remake, something as deep-rooted as gender conceptions with a publicity campaign? Does it make sense to try and redefine manliness to a purpose? Isn’t that kind of patronizing to men? The two questions I find myself caught between most are, firstly, is it a useful campaign — and secondly, is it a morally good one?
One interesting point that came up in the fracas that resulted from my three masculinity posts (followup coming soon, really! I’ve been busy with a conference) was that many men who are genuinely willing to talk about gender are frustrated and alienated by discussions of masculinity because those discussions are not male-centered. Is the Brothers for Life campaign focused on men’s needs, or is it attempting to redefine masculinity in a way that men will perceive as serving an agenda that doesn’t work for them?
The thing that makes me feel less uneasy about that is that it’s men running the campaign, and so I don’t feel quite as much as if values are being imposed. Additionally, the campaign seems quite concerned about — not just stopping abuses by men — but creating space for men to get testing, counseling, et cetera. I think the idea of having a male-centered clinic is smart, for instance, because I see so very many clinics and testing facilities staffed almost entirely (if not entirely) by women. I suppose one could make the argument that this is “men’s fault” for not stepping up as much as women do, but perhaps this is due less to social irresponsibility than to general male discomfort in relevant spaces.
Tags: Africa, education, HIV/AIDS, masculinity
That does look like a good campaign, and you’re right, I’m not sure how useful it would be. But it certainly seems to be coming from the right place. And I think that this sort of holistic approach to health & behaviour change is a great thing to work towards.
Clarisse,
“Is it possible to influence, to remake, something as deep-rooted as gender conceptions with a publicity campaign? Does it make sense to try and redefine manliness to a purpose? Isn’t that kind of patronizing to men? The two questions I find myself caught between most are, firstly, is it a useful campaign — and secondly, is it a morally good one?”
I think it depends on the salience of an issue whether a PR campaign can have a lasting effect, if it is not drowned out by the PR noise you mention. If every second advertising is about HIV, chances are specific messages won’t get through.
As for the campaign itself, I obviously can’t speak for all men, certainly not South African men, but I’d say it speaks to me. Responsibility and strength to overcome *are* traits of “good masculinity”, in any sense. So I don’t think it’s patronizing to say “look, this is what a decent man would do. You want to be a decent man? Do that”.
The only issue I have with this is part about “whose self-worth is not defined by the number of women he can get”. Being a true late comer to all things physical I may overrate this matter a little, but in my experience, most men’s self-worth is at least to a non-trivial degree, determined by his ability to be attractive to the opposite sex (if heterosexual). I had a big depression because I had two graduate degrees, but I had never “pulled”. I just hadn’t realised before how important it was for me to know that I am not just a brain, but also a body. So, I understand why it’s a good point to market monogamy in a country affected by HIV to the extent South Africa is, but I find it hard to imagine anything as important to one’s self-worth as the (particularly sexual) attraction of someone you’re interested in yourself. I’m still not particularly sexually active, due to, in part, a condition of HIV overanxiety, but I can still say that nothing ever gives me the feeling of being a man as a woman who seems to like me to the extent of being sexually interested in me.
I really can’t think of anything.
@Sam: I think it depends on the salience of an issue whether a PR campaign can have a lasting effect, if it is not drowned out by the PR noise you mention. If every second advertising is about HIV, chances are specific messages won’t get through.
Yeah, this is a real problem, and one I’ve thought about a lot. My job is HIV/AIDS education, but there are already so many educators out there — what makes me think I’ll do any better? And how in the world do I harmonize my messages with the massive numbers of other separate messages? And in this case, it’s hard enough to try and get an ad campaign to stick when it’s going up against the white noise of a really broad, somewhat unclear value ….
I’m still not particularly sexually active, due to, in part, a condition of HIV overanxiety,
If you’re willing to talk about it, I’m interested in knowing more about this.
I can still say that nothing ever gives me the feeling of being a man as a woman who seems to like me to the extent of being sexually interested in me.
Hmm, well, okay. But do you think this is something positive? Or is it worth it for the ad campaign to try and work against this conception? I’m a little confused by your paragraph here, because it seems like you say that you have an issue with the “whose self-worth is not defined by the number of women he can get” — in other words, you oppose that segment of the ad — and yet you simultaneously say that the constructions it’s trying to dismantle have made life really hard for you — so why oppose it?
Clarisse,
“If you’re willing to talk about it, I’m interested in knowing more about this.”
Sure, I’m a hypochondriac due to some sort of OCD that runs in my family. This isn’t that rare, if you look at forums like aidsmeds.com, there’s a lot of people with HIV overanxiety, worrying about contracting HIV through the literal or proverbial needle in the haystack. In my case that OCD tendency is compounded by lack of exposure to actual sexual experience and a previous, ridiculous, phase in which I was literally paralysed by HIV fear for three months without any actual reason, and this experience alone is something I’m afraid to repeat in itself – let’s put it that way: While I have a lot of opportunity, I’m usually to scared to take it up – scared becasue of possible HIV, scared also because of my feminist education, about unleashing something violent I don’t want to be. It’s an irrational fear, and one that I have worked to control rationally, but it’s a fear none the less. So women usually have to work a lot harder for me than they are used to, because my “condition” means that my fear may make me stop escalating when they expect me to. In turn, they may misinterpret my sudden lack of escalation as lack of interest when it’s really a combination of lack of experience and irrational fear.
So, well, take last Friday. A girl whom I had met about a month ago is back in town and calls three times to make sure we meet up at a party that evening. The night we met intially, her male friend had asked me if I wanted to take her home (apparently on her request). I couldn’t. She implicitly complained about this in her subsequent emails on fb. So, after her calling three times I knew she was interested before we met. And the evening was fun enough, but knowing that the next step would be physical (beyond mere touching of hands and embracing) I wasn’t able to properly escalate and she apparently expected me to do that after she had openly communicated her interest by making sure we meet up.
But to overcome my fears I usually need more than standard signs. On the other hand, I also managed to run away when a girl, while kissing another one at a party, put my hands on her thigh “so I don’t feel uncomfortable”.
As you can see, I don’t have problems with talking about sexuality, I have no problem attracting girls (luckily anymore :)) I like, but I do have problems “doing it” due to my psychological condition – even though it was heavenly the very few times I have been sexual so far.
So, well, yeah, the HIV overanxiety is an issue, but it’s not the only issue I have.
“Hmm, well, okay. But do you think this is something positive? Or is it worth it for the ad campaign to try and work against this conception? I’m a little confused by your paragraph here, because it seems like you say that you have an issue with the “whose self-worth is not defined by the number of women he can get” — in other words, you oppose that segment of the ad — and yet you simultaneously say that the constructions it’s trying to dismantle have made life really hard for you — so why oppose it?
Yeah, you’re right, my feelings aren’t clear on this matter. Well, let me put it this way – if there *was* something that allowed me to feel as a man that was entirely unrelated to sexual success (or, well, rather, in my case, as per above, attracting women, then I think it would be great if there was a way to leave success with women out of the picture.
But the problem is – what could that be? It is my experience that success with women is what allows men to feel like men given that there is hardly anything that is decidedly masculine anymore. That’s a reformulation of your masculinity question. In the end, I’ve never really felt like a man before I was successful with women. I was neutered. I was a good and intelligent neutered human with a penis, but I never felt *like a man*, which I wanted to be, to feel like. Does that make more sense? And I really wonder – unrelated to sexuality/sexual success – could give me that feeling.
So that’s why I’m conflicted about the message. Being physically desired by women is giving me the feeling of being a man, much more than anything else, any cultural ritual of masculinity. So that’s the problem I have with this element. To me it’s saying – a real man is overcoming even the only thing that is giving him the feeling of being a man. Feeling like less of a man will actually make you more of one.
Again, my rational analysis is likely tainted by my personal experience…
Clarisse,
taking this -
“I’ve been dating a guy here in Africa whom I will henceforth refer to as Chastity Boy.*”
from your other post. I couldn’t help but wonder about this in context with what I have written about the self-confidence coming from the knowledge of being able to attract women.
I understand if you cannot or do not want to write about this, but I would really be interested in your perception of and your attraction to his masculinity given his chastity vow and the fact that you are dating him – as you say. Maybe your experience is sufficient to reconcile my position with your question in that respect.
@Sam — Interesting question. I honestly hadn’t given the matter of his masculinity much thought. I’ll consider the question more and get back to you.
@Sam — Well, I have to start by saying that the question of his masculinity didn’t even enter my head before now. I recognize that the beginning of this post implies that I think about manliness a lot in terms of who I consider hot, but I actually don’t in practice. In practice, I’m attracted to guys based on their scrawniness first and their intelligence second :P
Okay, that was kind of a joke. But seriously, I was first attracted to Chastity Boy due to similar interests — he’s a gamer, like me, and he reads an enormous amount of assorted literature, like me, and he came to sub-Saharan Africa to do HIV/AIDS mitigation, like me …. I didn’t actually know about the chastity vow until I was already pretty into him. It has been a long time since I dated someone who doesn’t have an attitude towards sex, and an amount of sexual experience, more like mine than his … so it’s been a little confusing and sometimes difficult to communicate sexually. But none of these difficulties or other issues bring his masculinity into the picture at all.
I guess if I had to evaluate his masculinity on a scale, I’d say he’s not very typically masculine at all. But most of the guys I’ve dated haven’t been, really.
Clarisse,
thanks for your reply. I have to admit that I am slightly confused by your reply as it implies that you *do* have an ordinally scalable concept of masculinity. So, I wonder, and this may go back to the original point I made – that masculinity is largely defined by female sexual interest (for heterosexuals) – if you aren’t generally attracted to people who score high on what you consider your masculinity scale, couldn’t that mean that, for you, masculinity actually does mean something not really captured by the scale you’re applying? And if so, what would that comprise that is unrelated to sexuality?
I’ve been thinking about this whole thing a lot for a while now, and I sort of had an epiphany about the actual nature of inter sex/gender relations while reading #28 of David Foster Wallace’s Brief Interviews with Hideous men. Will think about it some more and probably reply in the other thread.
@Sam — I guess I just don’t agree that female heterosexual interest is a good measurement of masculinity. Most importantly, such an assertion makes no space for different women to have different preferences. If you subscribe to the Kinsey scale (who doesn’t?), then you acknowledge that women are attracted to men/other women in varying degrees, so doesn’t that imply that we must be attracted to “levels of masculinity” in varying degrees?
Clarisse,
“I guess I just don’t agree that female heterosexual interest is a good measurement of masculinity. Most importantly, such an assertion makes no space for different women to have different preferences.”
I don’t know… I think varying preferences could be incorporated rather easily – simple bell curve, meaning that, say, masculinity “type” a has a lot of women who like it and other types (mixes of types, b,c,d…) thereof have smaller pools of women who prefer them. It’s like genetic variety – not less valuable, just different, potentially a bit rare. Of course, there would be the question of whether any particular expression of masculinity is a less pronounced, possible less masculine, version of a specific tpye, or a different type. But taxonomies are never easy…
But taking female sexual interest out of the picture entirely? I don’t know if that’s possible. That’s why I asked what would be part of masculinity that is unrelated to sexuality *and* not at least possibly part of feminity?
“It is hard to go to a clinic and acknowledge your vulnerability as a man”.
Geez, what a textbook example of lip service paid to the questioning of men’s cultural situation, followed by yet another pile of “if you don’t do as we say, you are not a Real Man”.
The slave gender is dying out so somebody finally got the idea… no, not to HELP men, but to SHAME them into not dying out.
ROTFP.
@BASTA!
Shame them? That’s a pretty crazy interpretation, as it assumes that your opponents are incapable of thinking: “What lumpish oaf needs to be shamed into not dying out? What kind of rube *can* be shamed into it?”
No. The problem in Southern Africa is the same as the problem everywhere else: Masculinity is inflexible, and it’s inflexible because it’s bloody well impossible to talk about with Joe Schmoe on the street. It’s a truism that it’s not masculine to have an interest in what the fuck masculinity is.
The only difference I think worth noting (between my own American masculinity and this situation) is that being too manly to wear a condom has a huge risk of killing you in Africa. It’s not a question of “shaming,” except on the most superficial level. It’s a kind of moral economics: Men fear to lose or love to have masculinity so much that the opportunity cost seems worth it. The ideas of “shame” and “help” miss the point: Psychologically, masculinity appears to be valuable enough to run a continuing small risk of death that eventually builds up to a big one.
This masculinity is contributing to men getting HIV, and thereby killing them.
There are choices as to what to do about this. They can try to move masculinity so that it’s good to use a condom, or so that it’s bad not to use a condom, or they can stigmatize masculinity so that no-body cares enough about being male to want unprotected sex. A self-aware process to build a non-lethal masculinity is probably out of the question at this moment: Existing masculine norms forbid and hamper it at every turn.
The first (make condoms seem good) is best. They’re not doing that, so a point for you. However, I think this is no more a shame campaign than any other culture that holds up prescriptive norms and values as belonging to a good or real man (a concept which is itself fraught with shame and anxiety for all). It’s not a new shame, though I will concede that it’s complicit with an old one.
The difference, to me, is that this message explicitly addresses masculinity. It is framed in a way that can be the subject of conversation (“Did you see that billboard?”), unlike my own masculinity and so many of the others I have encountered.
If we want everybody in on the discussion about what masculinity should be, *we* have to get it rolling. This is one man’s effort, still entrapped in a shameful paradigm, but I say at least we can talk about it.