themoscowtimes.com
Militarized Masculinity Fuels Violence in Russia's War
Russia's wartime propaganda promotes a militarized masculinity, glorifying soldiers and shaming those who flee, leading to a recalibration of societal values and a surge in sexual violence against women and men in Ukraine and domestic abuse among returning soldiers.
- How does the Russian government's propaganda surrounding masculinity impact the ongoing war in Ukraine?
- The Russian government's propaganda promotes a militarized masculinity, glorifying soldiers and shaming those who flee the war. This is evident in a Telegram video contrasting two young men who stayed with a fleeing banker, portraying the former as 'real men' and the latter as cowardly. The invasion has led to a recalibration of masculinity, with figures like Wagner mercenaries embodying aggressive, unfiltered masculinity.
- What are the broader societal consequences of the Russian regime's promotion of militarized masculinity?
- This propaganda connects to broader patterns of societal reshaping, where prisoners are welcomed into the nation while anti-war elites are marginalized. The 2024 FSB veterans' calendar further illustrates this by juxtaposing faceless soldiers with feminized, vulnerable figures. This reinforces the idea that military service equates to true masculinity and national loyalty.
- How does the Russian government's approach to conscription and the treatment of returning soldiers contribute to the perpetuation of violence?
- The consequences of this ideology are severe. The normalization of violence, fueled by the glorification of aggressive masculinity, contributes to the high prevalence of sexual violence in the war and domestic abuse when soldiers return home. The impunity granted to soldiers who commit crimes perpetuates a vicious cycle of violence and oppression, particularly against women.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing emphasizes the negative consequences of the militarized masculinity promoted by the Russian regime. While this is important, the article could benefit from a more balanced presentation by also exploring potential positive aspects or unintended consequences, if any exist. The headline (if one existed) and introduction likely contribute to this emphasis.
Language Bias
The language used is generally strong and evocative, effectively conveying the severity of the situation. However, some terms like "muzhik" masculinity might require further explanation for a broader audience. The overall tone is critical but avoids overtly inflammatory language.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the militarization of masculinity in Russia and its consequences, but it could benefit from including perspectives from women in the Russian military or women involved in anti-war movements. Additionally, while the impact on LGBTQ+ individuals is mentioned, a more in-depth analysis of their experiences would enrich the narrative. The article also doesn't explore the potential for resistance or alternative masculinities within Russian society.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic dichotomy between 'true' militarized masculinity and other forms of masculinity, potentially overlooking the complexities and nuances within Russian society. While it acknowledges some exceptions, the framing risks oversimplifying a multifaceted issue.
Gender Bias
The article explicitly analyzes gender roles and biases, particularly regarding the militarization of masculinity and its impact on women and LGBTQ+ individuals. However, more specific examples of language used to reinforce these biases and a more detailed exploration of the experiences of women in the Russian military could strengthen the analysis.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article details how the war in Ukraine has led to a militarized masculinity in Russia, resulting in increased violence against women and girls. The promotion of aggressive masculinity, coupled with impunity for perpetrators, creates a permissive environment for sexual violence and domestic abuse. The conscription of men, including those from marginalized groups, exacerbates this issue. The normalization of violence through propaganda and the glorification of soldiers further perpetuates this cycle of gender-based violence. The article directly connects the rise in sexual violence and domestic abuse with the promotion of a specific, aggressive form of masculinity.