What Stands in the Way of Gender Equality?

Fifty years ago, Pope Paul VI made a landmark contribution by linking Catholic social teaching and peace with development. COLLEEN CONSTABLE examines the roles of gender in our society.

In his encyclical Populorum Progressio Paul VI introduced the concept of “integral human development”, called for an equitable distribution of world resources and spoke against global inequality and poverty, emphasising the need for solidarity and cooperation at international levels.

Two years earlier, the Vatican II constitution Gaudium et Spes (Joy and Hope) called for a social transformation in society when it noted that: “Women now work in almost all spheres. It is fitting that they are able to assume their proper role in accordance with their own nature.”

The document taught further that “with respect to the fundamental rights of the person, every type of discrimination, whether social or cultural, whether based on sex, race, colour, social condition, language or religion, is to be overcome and eradicated as contrary to God’s intent”.

Pope John Paul II took this seriously. In 1988 he noted: “The Synod Fathers, when confronted with the various forms of discrimination and marginalisation to which women are subjected simply because they are women, time and again strongly affirmed the urgency to defend and promote the personal dignity of woman, and consequently, her equality with man” (Christifidelis Laici).

And in his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae the saintly pope said: “In transforming culture so that it supports life, women occupy a place, in thought and action, which is unique and decisive. It depends on them to promote a ‘new feminism’…to acknowledge and affirm the true genius of women in every aspect of the life of society, and overcome all discrimination, violence and exploitation.”

St John Paul supported feminism, as does Pope Francis: “There are those who believe that many of today’s problems have arisen because of feminine emancipation. This argument…is not valid, it is false…it is a form of male chauvinism,” he wrote in last year’s Amoris Laetitia.

“Families have come to enjoy greater freedom through an equitable distribution of duties, responsibilities and tasks,” Pope Francis wrote. “Neither today’s society nor that to which we are progressing allow an uncritical survival of older forms and models. History is burdened by the excesses of patriarchal culture that considered women inferior.”

Inspired by Church teaching, I reflected about the perspectives of social transformation held by two influential South African faith leaders: Cardinal Wilfrid Napier and Angus Buchan, the “Mighty Men Conferences” evangelist.

Mr Buchan draws more than 200000 men (mostly white) to his “Mighty Men” conferences annually. A few years ago, in a Carte Blanche television interview, he explained his analogy of masculinity: “Men’s masculinity in the world today, in this 21st century, is being eroded and broken down…some young men don’t know what a man is supposed to be!”

He said that men “have got to represent your family, your business, your company”.

Mr Buchan is known to promote submissiveness of women: man leads, woman follows. He associates leadership roles in the private and public space as a privilege of men only.

Cardinal Napier has on several occasions emphasised a need for men’s ministries. Last year he shared his vision in the newsletter of the archdiocese of Durban.

In a reflection titled “Rooting out violence from the home and society”, he asked: “What about the man…who is filled with resentment at being deposed from his traditional position in the family and in society, so much so that he does not dare to talk any more about being the head of his family, or of the community in which he lives?”

The cardinal argued that “to regain those three core components of his self-image, [‘sense of self-worth, self-esteem and self-respect’], man must be given back his position as leader in the relationship that his family and community have lived and passed on from generation to generation for centuries…that pattern has its origins in the early chapters of Genesis.”

Crisis in masculinity?

Both Cardinal Napier and Mr Buchan perceive “a crisis in masculinity”. They hold a dominant view: restoration of male identity through male power, ownership and roles within a system that favours men only.

Both draw their perspectives from a Higher Authority, using the Old Testament as reference. Their reasoning suggests that women’s emancipation has negatively affected men’s social status. And that efficacy of social transformation and economic sustainability is associated with male power: men’s advancement and social status.

This analogy constitutes a hierarchical model of power and control through male supremacy

and dominance: masculinism. Through inequality based on male dominance and discrimination, men sustain power “from generation to generation”.

Patriarchy is packaged as a spirituality that appeals to disillusioned men. It holds consequences for the quality of life of women, children and marginalised groups.

According to the Buchan-Napier analogy, revolutionary transformation and rapid social change holds men back. Both leaders associate social and economic transformation and gender equality with patriarchal, hierarchical leadership: power and authority invested in the hands of men only.

In reality, research evidence suggests women who are active in the economy, are more inclined to use their earnings to benefit their families and communities, thereby facilitating social change.

Inspired by Church teaching, the example set by Jesus during his earthly mission and his commandment to love and our secular constitutional values, I share some alternative thoughts.

Language promotes inequality

First, the Buchan-Napier analogy and language promotes inequality. They draw from the Old Testament, but without integrating the Gospel, the “Signs of the Times”, and science to offer the best pastoral care option.

Theirs is a gender-based socialisation highly dependable on association of social prestige in the home and society with men. It creates a culture of discrimination against women on the basis of religious beliefs and gender, making patriarchy and Christianity compatible. Femininity is then associated with women through submissiveness and roles related to the home.

Women’s roles in the public space become less attractive and their active participation becomes “invisible”. Women’s capacity to influence or effect positive change becomes limited as their decision-making power and authority is diminished.

This analogy promotes male domination and male power over women, using “controlling” and “positional” power as a source for men’s roles and privileges.

Second, the analogy is discriminatory. The association of economic advancement and sustainability in the public space with men only means the distribution of power is controlled by men.

This “revives” a working class system where women are confined to subordinate roles in the public space or no roles at all, on the basis of gender.

In the domestic sphere (private space) women run the risk of being exposed to a sub-culture of “behaviours and habits of male domination in everyday life”. This form of male power has been linked in numerous studies to be at the heart of violence.

This “controlling” and “positional” power-base is carried over from father to son to grandson. It shapes a negative, destructive form of masculinity known as “hegemonic masculinity”.

‘A dangerous philosophy’

Third, according to Sarojini Nadar of the School of Religion and Theology at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, Mr Buchan promotes “a dangerous philosophy that validates and justifies the power to conquer, to rule, to take over possessions and people”.

She further said: “Mighty Men’s Conferences are the emergence of a new version of Afrikaner

hegemonic masculinity…non-Afrikaner men will be attracted by the gender implications of the new hegemonic masculinity.” It is important to understand that masculinity, race, culture and gender are interconnected.

Hegemonic masculinity is formed by a dominant view of own, others’ and external affairs. It is characterised by the tendency towards oppression of the vulnerable and marginalised. It is sustained by negative traditional practices that influence and shape behaviour, attitude and expectations.

The upbringing, family, area, work, sub-cultural influences and socio-economic positioning of individual men further constructs masculinity and shapes men’s identities. The ideology of capitalism based on wealth accumulation, without sharing benefits with those at the bottom of the economy and the reluctance to give up privileges, encourages a network of relations that produces negative masculine behaviours.

The Napier/Buchan perspectives seek to uphold “traditional” or hegemonic masculinity. They also shape the emergence of a “new” hegemonic masculinity that offers resistance towards social transformation in a democracy and embraces modernised patriarchy.

This approach, in reality, holds men back from becoming active and respected participants, building a post-democratic society. It holds men back from developing dignified relationships with women. It destroys positive communication between women and men. It gives men false hope: to live with nostalgia of the past.

A human rights culture

Fourth, the hallmark of our constitutional value system is based on a human rights culture. This is the foundation for transformation from a state of oppression (apartheid) towards a society that unites different religions, cultures, languages and race groups for the sake of justice, freedom and peace.

It aims to encourage people to live together upholding the human dignity of the other; create a culture of tolerance, respect, equality, non-discrimination and a violence-free society.

This transformation affords greater decision-making and participation to women in all spheres of life. More women and black men are now in leadership roles in the public space than ever before in the history of the country.

The emergence of a post-democracy form of hegemonic masculinity seems to be based on characteristics such as vulnerability to transformation, fear, oppressive practices and attitudes. It encourages risk-taking associated with extreme violent behaviour.

A recent example of hegemonic masculinity manifested in the violence against Victor Rethabile Mlotshwa. Two white men (who have now been arrested) allegedly assaulted him and put him into a coffin. They posted the video on YouTube — an indication that they perceived their behaviour as commendable.

In December 2016 a white man allegedly drove over Silence Mabinda, a general worker, in an alleged racist incident. The white male now faces charges of attempted murder and is in custody. He has been on parole since 2008, after having been convicted four years earlier for the murder of a worker whom he threw into a lion enclosure.

If the People of God are committed to eradicate inequality and poverty, eliminate violence and build a peaceful and sustainable society, with a deeper sense of God’s presence, we should navigate with boldness instead of fear, guided by the profound teachings of the Church formulated under the visionary leadership of Popes Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis.

Colleen Constable is co-founder of the South African Institute for Violence Prevention (SAIVP). She is a Catholic feminist and an alumna of Harvard University and Stellenbosch University.