 |
Straipsnis bus iðspaudintas leidinyje "Socialiniai mokslai" As to the problems analysed by gender sociology, changes of roles of women and men is one of the most interesting and topical areas of scientific investigation. With alterations in political, economical, and socio-cultural context, formerly established stereotypes of gender definitions are transforming and being reviewed. We have to admit that the analysis of the position and the role of women receives the most attention. This is mainly determined by the feminist movement and theoretical perception, i.e. that women themselves, denying a traditional and patriarchy-based male dominance, started revising the status and the role which had been traditionally assigned upon them. Gender relations, however, not only cover issues related with the position of both genders, but also tightly link them. Therefore, accomplished and ongoing changes of the position and consciousness of women do bring some confusion into the men’s life. Quite often men perceive attempts of women to expand the margins of traditionally established roles as a direct threat and attack, which have to be struggled against. The following can be referred to as noticed forms of such defence: disregard, scepticism or mockery towards emancipated and feministically orientated women. With the development of democracy, however, tolerance increases, and it even becomes improper for a modern and progressive man to propose patriarchal ideals. Still, there is some tension between the two genders, and the wish to reduce feminine reproaches addressed against men remains, which in turn determines the need to consider the modern existence of men as well as the particularity of their new identity. In Western countries, the importance of male studies is now being emphasised in particular. In order to orientate in the field of masculine studies, it is important to be familiar with the general context of modern masculinism which is best reflected by ideological trends of masculine studies. Three basic conceptual directions of investigation, which could be found in scientific sociological literature devoted for men and masculinism, could be pointed out [10]: Institutionalised privileges. Within the scope of this topic, it is referred to institutionalised privileges of men, and it is emphasised that the female movement and considerable changes that it had achieved in various spheres of social life of women have not reached the objectives of complete equality of genders yet [12]. This is proved by a lower number of women in the politics and top governing positions, lower average salaries, the fact that the work load of women in the household and child - care remains bigger even in those cases when they have full-time employment, and etc. The above arguments ground the underlying idea – men, as a group, enjoy institutional privileges for the account of women as a group. This does not mean that the institutional power of men over women is all-embracing or steady, however, within the limits of this subject it is being referred to the system of unequal power in relations between men and women. Price of masculinity. This is a particularly popular topic of masculine texts [2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11]; it emphasises the idea that the social status and masculine privileges can be achieved for a considerably high price: poorer health, shorter lifetime, more superficial emotional relations, a smaller amount of time that could be devoted to relatives or oneself, etc. It is stressed that men themselves do suffer from the existing stereotypes of male roles because attempts to adjust to the masculine ideal cause lots of difficulties. Men constantly feel pressure, stress and a continuous need to prove their masculinity for others and themselves, develop their individuality, and initiate them-self in the world of men. These socially approved forms of “male” expression set out various restrictions and draw a certain profile, i.e. determine peculiarities of a man’s lifestyle, thus, of behaviour and character. A difficult task to meet requirements of traditional patriarchal roles became one the most fundamental bases of most masculine movements. However, further interpretation of this subject and the general context of examination in various orientations of masculine movement is not the same, and sometimes even diametrically opposite. The “price” of masculinity is often highlighted when grounding antifeminist ideas [1, 6, 9]. This subject is also analysed by representatives of other branches [7], who, pointing out the harm of patriarchal male ideal. They articulate ideas reducing the opposition between the genders and claim that the values referred to as feminine (such as sympathy, tenderness, forgiveness, and other) are more moral and that the masculinity would be less harmful for the men’s health if we stopped defining it as an opposition to femininity. With a view to reducing animosity between the genders, these theorists of masculinism state that not only women but also men, who often actually fail to meet those traditional standards of success, power, and control, are not satisfied with the roles traditionally assigned to them.
Differences and inequality among men. This means that privileges of patriarchal dominance are not distributed equally among men themselves. Hegemonic masculinity or a prevailing form of masculinity (i.e. white, heterosexual men of the middle or upper class) is placed in a dominant relation not only to femininity, but also to other marginalised and subordinated masculinities (e.g. black people, homosexuals, representatives of workers, etc.).
It is important to note that currently scientific masculine researches that avoid one - sided ideological interpretation are more common. The concept of masculine studies could be defined as a very wide scope of investigations which covers problems both caused and experienced by men. The principal areas of male investigations and problems are the following: “home and work” – privileges and the price of positions of men in a professional sphere, social life (unemployment, work-holism, etc.), career, pursuit of financial well-being, peculiarities of the role and participation in the family life (distribution of household tasks, responsibilities, problems of fatherhood, etc.); “problems of social exclusion” – men experiencing poverty (e.g. homeless people, of which 91 per cent, according to the Polish data, are men), prisoners, homosexuals; ethnic minorities, etc.; “violence – aggression” – violence of men against women, children, other men, violence experienced by boys, etc.; “health” – duration of men’s life and factors determining it (on average, men live by 8.1 years less than women), accidents, alcohol and drug abuse, suicides, attitude of men towards health and taking care of it, etc.; psychological problems related to construction and maintenance of masculine identity – requirements of “true man”, conception of a “modern man”, perception of changed status and role of women, etc. Some aspects of analysing male problems are partly found in female studies or outside the scope of gender research (medicine, law, etc.). Still, systemic masculine studies are not numerous, and the need for them remains urgent. Filling of the present gap in the masculine studies would help to restore equality in the field of knowledge about both genders, which is particularly important in order to be better aware of specific problems of each gender and to initiate a constructive dialogue. In Lithuania, the issue of coexistence of genders does not seem to be evidently problematic or widely discussed. This, first of all, could be related with poor traditions of feminist movement and the spreading of feminist ideas on the state and academic level. Thus, the masculine response is not topical. This might explain why studies devoted for men are so scarce in Lithuania. Therefore, the data of the sociological research “Crisis of Male Roles in Lithuania”, which was initiated by Men Crises and Information Centre and conducted by the sociological information centre (SIC), are important for reflecting particularities of mutual relations between the genders as well topical issues of the stereotypical men’s roles in Lithuania. During this study, empirical material about attitudes of Lithuanian people towards differences of the position of women and men depending on conditions created by current rules and laws, favour-ability of privileges, state care for one of the genders, was collected. According to the general data of the survey, most respondents stated that none of the genders had any privileges, and that the state’s approach to both genders was the same. However, if comparing answers of those who see the gender related differences, it can be stated that the prevailing opinion in Lithuania was as the following: current rules and laws create more favourable conditions for men than for women (14 per cent and 4 per cent), yet women have more privileges than men do (24 per cent and 18 per cent). In the opinion of most respondents, the state cares for both men and women nearly the same (see tables 1, 2, 3). Table 1. Distribution of opinions concerning favour-ability of rules and laws for men/ women
Are there, in your opinion, any rules and laws in Lithuania that create more favourable conditions for women or men? | % of all respondents | Men (% of all male respondents) | Women (% of all female respondents) | Yes, there are ones that create more favourable conditions for women | 4.0 | 5.2 | 3.0 | Yes, there are ones that create more favourable conditions for men | 14.2 | 9.9 | 18.0 | Yes, there are ones that create more favourable conditions for men and there are ones that create more favourable conditions for women | 19.0 | 20.8 | 17.6 | No, there are no such rules and laws in Lithuania | 29.9 | 32.3 | 27.7 | It is difficult to say/ I don’t know | 32.8 | 31.9 | 33.7 |
Table 2. Distribution of opinions concerning privileges for men/ women Does any gender, in your opinion, have more privileges in Lithuania? | % of all respondents | Men (% of all male respondents) | Women (% of all female respondents) | | Women have more privileges | 23.7 | 24.9 | 22.5 | | Men have more privileges | 17.5 | 9.4 | 24.6 | | No one gender have privileges | 34.7 | 38.2 | 31.7 | | It is difficult to say/ I don’t know | 24.2 | 27.5 | 21.2 | | | | | |
Table 3. Distribution of opinions concerning state care of welfare of men/ women Does the state, in your opinion, take care of improving welfare of women or men more? | % of all respondents | Men (% of all male respondents) | Women (% of all female respondents) | The state takes more care of improving women’s welfare | 10.0 | 11.1 | 9.0 | The state takes more care of improving men’s welfare | 9.0 | 5.0 | 12.6 | The state takes equal care of improving women’s and men’s welfare | 51.1 | 54.5 | 48.0 | It is difficult to say/ I don’t know | 29.9 | 29.4 | 30.4 |
With deeper analysis of the presented data, it is possible to notice consistent pattern which enables to discover some problematic “points” of gender relation or, figuratively speaking, points towards some gender “conflict”. Both men and women believe that representatives of the opposite gender live a better and easier life. A percentage of men who think that laws are more favourable for women, that the state pays more attention to women, etc. is higher than that of women, and vice versa, the number of women claiming that men are more privileged in these areas is bigger (in per cents) than the number of man who share this opinion. It is also interesting to note that discrepancies between opinions of men and women are more evident when evaluating a position of men. The number of men who state advantages of feminine being is only by 2-3 per cent higher than the number of women, yet, with reference to the position of men, the difference in opinions of women and men is significant - women twice as often as men state that laws are more favourable towards men, that the state takes more care to increase well-being of men. The number of women who think that men in general have more privileges is almost three times higher than that of men sharing this view. Such results could be interpreted in a different ways; yet, they give some food for thought. It may happen that having started talking about men, i.e. having identified and named current difficulties of male expression and problems of their identity, we may succeed in reducing confrontation between genders and avoid, or at least mitigate, accusations traditionally addressed to men. In our society it is not common to perceive or evaluate men’s life from the same perspective as that of women, i.e. to understand that men also face considerably serious difficulties, which, of course, are specific to men only. One of the most complicated problem is that now it is no longer clear what men should be like since the range of requirements set for modern man is very wide and at the same time rather controversial. It is said that they should be competitive and tender, ruthless and sensitive at the same time, they should take care of women and treat them as equal. Modernisation of social life denies the old patriarchal definition of a man, but new one, however, is not formulated that easily and clearly. It is paradoxical, yet, one has to admit that at the moment it is men who are facing the problem of self definition and construction of their new identity. It might be the reason why a question of “a true/ normal man”, which is equally important to both men and women, is raised so often. The results gathered in sociological research “Crisis of Male Roles in Lithuania” enable to answer the most topical questions concerning male existence, such as: what, in the opinion of Lithuanian residents, a “normal man” should be like; to what extent Lithuanian men feel they meet the image of “a normal man”, as they understand it. In other words, sociological data define dominant stereotypes of masculine roles in Lithuania and show haw Lithuanian men are able to meet those requirements. The results revealed that basically a traditional male image confirming the patriarchal ideology prevails in Lithuania. The main traits describing a “normal” man, in the opinion of both men and women, is his ability to earn money, as well as his skills/ knowledge how to do “manly” household and technical tasks. This is followed by maintaining and upbringing children, and taking care of one’s woman (see table 4). It can be concluded that a greater conservativeness of men as well as their inclination to support a traditional patriarchal image is evident from the comparison of responses of women and men. From the female perspective, the fifth male characteristics in terms of importance is sensitiveness and understanding, whereas men rank the ability to protect himself and others fifth. The same tendency persists with reference to the points where opinions of men and women regarding male character traits differed most. The biggest differences between surveyed men and women in evaluating traits of a “normal” man highlighted two different positions. Women more often than men assume that man should reject the traditional image and be able to be sensitive and understanding as well as to know how to ask for and accept help. Men are more inclined than women to choose traits backed by patriarchal ideals according to which a man has to be free, does not have to explain himself or make excuses, be capable of using physical power, also dominate in the family/ relationship with a woman. Nevertheless, results of the survey give grounds to state that the traditional patriarchal ideals preferred by men quite often backfire on them. As it was ascertained, at present in Lithuania the most important and the decisive trait of a “normal” man, highlighted by both men and women, is related with his ability to earn money (72 per cent of respondents fully agree with this statement). Table 4. Differences between the choices of character traits attributed to men between female and male groups A “normal” man has to ... | Responses of men (average in a 4-point scale) | Responses of women (average in a 4-point scale) | Difference | 1. Be able to earn money | 3.64 | 3.72 | 8 | 2. Be skilful, able to do “manly” household and technical tasks | 3.57 | 3.71 | 14 | 3. Not only maintain, but also bring up his children | 3.57 | 3.71 | 14 | 4. Take care of his own woman, help her to solve problems | 3.58 | 3.69 | 11 | 5. Be sensitive and understanding | 3.52 | 3.71 | 19 | 6. Never lay his hand on the weaker | 3.52 | 3.64 | 12 | 7. Be able to protect himself and others | 3.54 | 3.61 | 7 | 8. Maintain good relations with father | 3.51 | 3.59 | 8 | 9. Take care of his mother, take into account her wishes | 3.47 | 3.49 | 2 | 10. Be intelligent, sophisticated in many fields, well-read | 3.42 | 3.54 | 12 | 11. Be able to ask for and to accept help | 3.28 | 3.46 | 18 | 12. Not to lose his head for love | 3.19 | 3.25 | 6 | 13. Pursue career, earn recognition | 3.14 | 3.19 | 5 | 14. Satisfy a woman sexually anytime, if she wants it | 3.24 | 3.11 | 13 | 15. Yield to woman, do what she asks to | 2.73 | 2.86 | 13 | 16. Be free, not to explain himself or make excuses | 2.89 | 2.37 | 52 | 17. Use physical power – smash somebody’s face, if it is necessary | 2.78 | 2.30 | 48 | 18. Be head of the family/ leader in the relations with woman, have a deciding word | 2.67 | 2.16 | 51 |
On the other hand, survey results show that just a little bit more than half of respondents (55 per cent) think that in the majority of Lithuanian families men earn more than women. Whereas in reality even fewer people (44 per cent) said that in their family a man was financially more superior. Having related these figures, it might be assumed that approximately one third of men in Lithuania are facing the threat of feeling or being treated as actually failing to fall under the definition of a “normal” man prevailing in our society by one of the most important defining criterion. This implication is further supported by the responses to the question “To what extent you yourself match the image of a “normal” man?”, where just 12 per cent of men could answer that they matched this image entirely. Therefore, this information alone gives arguments to claim that a need to search for new basics forming the male identity arises in Lithuania as well. Revision of patriarchal and stereotypically perceived male roles would give a wider choice of male identity, thus, it would facilitate men’s adaptation to ongoing social - economic changes and, possibly, would improve mutual understanding between men and women. References 1. Adams, M. (1985). Child of the glacier. Men Freeing Men: Exploding the myth of the traditional male (ed. F. Baumli). New York: New Atlantis. 2. Blay, R. (1990). Iron John. A Book About Men. New York: Addison-Wesley. 3. Farrell, W. (1974). The Liberated Men. New York: Random House. 4. Fasteau, M. F. (1974). The male machine. New York: McGraw-Hill. 5. Goldberg, H. (1976). The hazards of being male: Surviving the myth of masculine privilege. New York: Signet. 6. Goldberg, H. (1979). The new male: From macho to sensitive but still all male. New York: Signet. 7. Jourard, S. M. (1971). Some lethal aspects of the male role. The transparent self (ed. S. M. .Jourard). New York: Van Nostrand. 8. Keen, S. (1992). Fire in the Belly. On Being a Men. New York: Bantam. 9. Logan, D. (1985). Men abused by women. Men freeing men: Exploding the myth of the traditional male (ed. F. Baumli). New York: New Atlantis. 10. Messner, M. A. (1997). Politiks of masculinities: men in movements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 11. Nicols, J. (1975). Men’s liberation: A new definition of masculinity. New York: Penguin. 12. Snodgrass, J. (1977). For men against sexism. Albion. |
 |
