Father’s Day offers an opportunity to reflect on what, in the year 2004, it means to be a good father and a good man. Masculinity and fatherhood are social constructs that have changed dramatically in the past 50 years, under the impact of shifts in technology, patterns of employment and family structure. By setting out to redefine women’s identity, exponents of the new feminism have also challenged men to redefine themselves.
How, in the middle of the 20th century, did society see men, and men see themselves? Part of their masculine identity was their role as sole breadwinners, who left most aspects of child-rearing to their wives. Men devolved the menial housekeeping chores to their wives, while retaining overall control of finances and other key aspects of the domestic economy. Displays of love or physical affection towards wives and children were frowned on as “unmanly”, and emotional engagement with women was shunned in favour of sexual contact of a coarse and unfeeling kind. Men were expected never to cry, never to admit weakness, to avoid displays of compassion for the weak and vulnerable, to befriend only other men, to scorn and bully homosexuals, to shun “women’s work”, to resist the intrusion of women into “men’s work”, to keep their wives and children in order, if necessary using physical intimidation and violence, and to value physical strength and courage above all other qualities. In their relationship with the outside world, they were expected to be mercilessly competitive and to rejoice in dominance in every field, whether business, love or sport. Generally keeping his daughters at arm’s length, a man’s job was to transmit these “values” to his sons.
It is obvious how such a masculine code has twisted our world. At a socio-economic level, it has meant loveless families and unhappy children. It has spurred the kind of personal aggression that vents itself in school bullying, cruelty to animals, sexual and other criminal violence, and a preference for possessive individualism over more cooperative economic forms. Writ large into foreign policy, it has meant idealisation of the warrior and warfare, the forcing of one’s own cultural norms on others, and a taste for imperial expansion and the bullying of smaller nations. The national values of the United States have their roots in the American family and the American male ethic.
Raising boys differently does not mean making them weak, unadventurous, humourless or dull. What it does mean is encouraging them not to construe “success” as wealth, social status and power. It means encouraging them to value cooperation over competition, to be kind and generous, to be able to show love and other emotions, and to stand up for their beliefs. It means instilling tolerance and understanding of racial, cultural and other superficial forms of human diversity. It means holding up as role models strong men of a different kind — such as Nelson Mandela, Aids activist Zackie Achmat and Israeli whistle-blower Mordecai Vanunu.
“There are two ways to make this preparation [for manhood]: by accepting the rules of the game, and so perpetuating it, or by teaching sons that there is a better way of being male,” writes author Dave Hill. The remaking of masculinity must start at the bottom, with fathers and their sons.
Africa, you’re on your own
“Daar’s fok-all, daar’s niks” is a popular South African ditty that aptly describes the outcome, for our continent, of last week’s G8 meeting in Sea Island, Georgia.
Over the past three years the annual shindig of the world’s wealthiest countries has included a select group of African leaders. It was with high hopes that President Thabo Mbeki and others trooped to Kananaskis in Canada, Evian in France and Georgia in the United States to secure the partnership envisaged by the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (Nepad). They want debt relief, funding and management expertise for the infrastructure projects at the heart of Nepad, and the rich countries’ commitment to honour the pledge of 0,7% of GDP in aid to the developing world, most of which should come Africa’s way.
What did they get? Five army brigades to help with regional security, according to ThisDay. This is a step towards an African peacekeeping force. But it also suits the leading G8 member, the United States, if Africa buys into its securocratic stance. And it chimes with the US’s new imperatives in Africa: to drag the continent into its war on terror by tying aid and trade to the enactment of anti-terrorism legislation or, in strategic regions such as West Africa, to the hosting of a US army base.
Peace and development must go in tandem to secure a decent African future. The outcome of the G8 meetings means the continent must increasingly look inwards to secure itself. It must look to encourage intra-African trade and open borders to spur the flow of skills and capital. Foreign investment is not the panacea Mbeki believed it would be. Budgets must be aligned away from defence toward development.
It would be a political mistake to decline the annual lunch with the G8. But the forum’s message is clear: Africa, you are on your own.