How Does Hegemonic Masculinity Influence Sexual Violence During Wartime?

by Ava Thomas Content Creator

Sexual violence is believed to be a by-product of the war. Although women are often presumed as the only victims and men are assigned the perpetrator’s role, that’s not always the case. Scholars explain the perpetration of sexual violence during wars by drawing upon the traditionally presumed biological needs of men, stating that the victims act as a substitute for their partners back home whenever they need a sexual release (Wood, 2010). While this may be true to some extent, it’s important that, instead of seeing this male perpetration with the spectacle of biological determinism, it’s viewed as socially determined.

Society has constructed a particular masculine identity based upon the perpetually accepted discourses that men in the military participate in to construct or maintain hegemonic masculinity. Since the masculine hegemony is exhibited as an ‘ideal’ version of what it means to be a ‘man,’ the destruction of this hegemony in this scenario offers strategic benefits during wars. It’s a tactic that can annihilate the masculine identity of male enemy civilians and combatants.

Social practices and international institutions tend to enhance the dominance of masculine ideals by prioritizing those who display “height, body hair, and muscular strength” (Meysman, 2017). Connell (2005) claims that defining these predominant ‘male’ features not only assists in the construction as well as the institutionalization of the hierarchal gender system but also hegemonic masculinity. It “embodies an honored way to ‘be a man’ and demands that all other male actors reposition themselves in relation to it” (Messerschmidt and Connell, 2005). To maintain this hegemonic masculinity, the male actors need to take part in discourses that’ll affirm and assert their dominance within the society. The discourses invariably juxtapose them with a passive and weak feminine identity; “aggressive, risk-takers, self-disciple, physically tough, overtly sexual, and violent” (Hinjosa, 2010).

Jefferson argues that many hegemonic masculinity researchers tend to homogenize men. In doing so, they deny their agency, as men are expected to idealize or at least participate in the hegemonic masculinity without questioning. They’re supposed to conform to practices and standards demanded by masculine hegemony. However, Jefferson inherently fails to realize that these discourses have now become a bedrock of society; they contribute to the construction of ‘nationalism.’

This means that hegemony then converts into more than the identity of an individual male, especially when these discourses that construct hegemony illustrate the ones practiced by the militaries. The military training requires the personnel to “undergo a particular form of such indoctrination which intends to break down the ‘civilians’ identity’” (Stern and Baaz, 2013). Failing to adapt to such norms and practices means being excluded from the hegemony because the military practices intend to create units based on “cohesion, loyalty, and conformity” (Stern and Baaz, 2013).

Therefore, by partaking in such acts of strength or exerting power, the masculine hegemonic males translate their masculinity into an international realm through war, ultimately exerting their dominance and power over other ethnicities, religious or racial groups, and nations. Perpetrating extreme violence upon enemy citizens or combats helps dehumanize the enemy. It helps ensure that the enemy understands the perpetrator possesses all the power and that the victim is their subordinate. For military units, violent behavior works to create loyalty with their comrades along with unit cohesion. Therefore, extreme violence, especially sexual violence, reinforces the individual’s hegemonic identity as they participate in acts identified by society as traits of masculine hegemony.

For male victims, the same method that establishes the masculine hegemony in the perpetrator rather decimates the identity of the victim. Sexually victimizing the enemy, male civilians, and combatants don’t solely deconstruct an individual’s singular identity but also of the society as a whole. Striking at the very identity of those deemed as the protectors and controllers contributes to the deconstruction of their social identity and cohesion. It’s through the wider societal decimation that makes such sexual victimization acts of men so appealing while guarantying its recurrence during wartime.

About The Author

The author is an International Relations and political sciences specialist who has written for various blogs and co-edited several books. She teaches at a reputable educational institution and has extensive experience writing research-based articles pertaining to socially constructed identities, hegemony, and wartime.