elpais.com
Gender anxieties fuel global belligerence
The article explores the link between rising global belligerence and anxieties surrounding traditional gender roles, citing a resurgence of far-right ideologies and toxic masculinity, while highlighting the need for a redefined concept of masculinity promoting gender equality to prevent future conflicts.
- What is the connection between the current rise in belligerent tendencies and societal anxieties surrounding gender roles?
- The article links the rise of belligerent tendencies in society to a deeper societal yearning to rigidly define gender roles. A surge in far-right ideologies and young men's fascination with authoritarianism and violence against women, supported by surveys and observations in multiple countries, fuels this trend. While alternative masculinity figures exist, they remain a minority, countered by the growing influence of toxic masculinity advocates on social media.
- What specific steps are proposed to counter the potential for future antifeminist backlash and its potential for escalating conflict?
- The article predicts that without addressing the root causes—societal anxieties surrounding gender roles and the ongoing struggle for gender equality—future escalations of conflict and antifeminist backlash are likely. A critical shift towards a new ideal of masculinity, embracing aspects traditionally seen as feminine and compatible with gender equality, is presented as essential to preventing further belligerent responses. The need for political solutions beyond war and confrontation—negotiation and peaceful resistance—is emphasized.
- How does the article's historical analysis of Rousseau's views on gender and societal order contribute to understanding contemporary anxieties?
- This societal trend connects to historical patterns of associating masculinity with war and dominance. The article cites Rousseau's preference for Sparta over Athens, highlighting the philosopher's belief in a natural order where men dominate public life and women focus on domesticity. This view mirrors current anxieties around 'feminization' and calls for a return to traditional masculine virtues in response to shifts in gender roles.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The narrative frames the current geopolitical climate as a direct consequence of anxieties surrounding gender roles and the perceived feminization of society. This framing, while thought-provoking, risks oversimplifying complex geopolitical issues. The focus on the historical context of Rousseau's views on gender and the subsequent societal reactions to feminist movements shapes the interpretation of contemporary events, potentially downplaying other crucial factors. The emphasis on the threat of 'afeminization' and the need to restore 'virile virtues' biases the analysis towards a specific interpretation.
Language Bias
The author uses loaded language such as 'toxic masculinity,' 'dark hatred,' and 'pusilanimous,' which carry strong negative connotations and reinforce a specific perspective. The repeated use of terms like 'afeminization' contributes to a framing that positions femininity as a weakness or threat. Neutral alternatives could include 'certain expressions of masculinity,' 'negative attitudes toward women,' and 'characteristics associated with traditional gender roles.' The choice of words subtly influences the reader's perception of the issue.
Bias by Omission
The analysis focuses heavily on the connection between societal anxieties about gender roles and the resurgence of bellicist tendencies. However, it omits discussion of other potential contributing factors to the current geopolitical climate, such as economic pressures, historical grievances, or power vacuums. While the author acknowledges the existence of alternative masculinities, a more in-depth exploration of diverse perspectives on masculinity beyond the binary of 'toxic' versus 'feminine' would strengthen the analysis. The omission of specific geopolitical events or actors also limits the scope of the analysis, making it difficult to assess the argument's applicability to specific real-world situations.
False Dichotomy
The text presents a false dichotomy between 'masculine' traits (competitiveness, aggression) and 'feminine' traits (collaboration, empathy), suggesting that these are mutually exclusive and inherently linked to gender. This oversimplification ignores the complexity of human behavior and the fact that individuals can possess a range of traits regardless of gender. The author implies that embracing negotiation and cooperation is antithetical to being a man, which is a limiting and potentially misleading assertion.
Gender Bias
While the analysis critiques traditional gender roles and explores the anxieties surrounding masculinity, it still relies on gender binaries to a significant degree. The author uses terms like 'afeminization' and 'virile virtues,' which reinforce traditional gender stereotypes. While acknowledging the existence of women in the military, the piece centers the discussion on men and their relationship to violence and war. A more nuanced approach would analyze how gender impacts various roles within conflict and power structures, avoiding generalizations based on gender binaries.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights a concerning trend of rising authoritarianism and violence, particularly against women, among young men. This is linked to the promotion of "toxic masculinity" online, which fuels hatred towards women and reinforces traditional gender roles. The article argues that this contributes to a resurgence of war as a means of asserting masculinity and suppressing perceived feminine traits. The author suggests that the preference for war over negotiation stems from a narrow definition of masculinity that excludes empathy, cooperation, and other traditionally feminine traits. This directly hinders progress towards gender equality by perpetuating harmful stereotypes and violence against women.