Patriarchy has put in decades worth of work when it comes to compartmentalizing the sexes and gender roles. It successfully managed to justify the hegemony of heterosexual cis-gendered men as the law of nature and dictate the lives of the people subordinate to them, mainly women. However, in this process, while determining what femininity is and how women should behave, patriarchy also laid down the rules of existence for men. Anything outside the predetermined rules of masculinity is shameful for a ‘man’. The gender role associated with masculinity is very rigid with nearly no space for fluidity outside traits such as strength, materialism, selfishness, perversion, competitiveness, practicality, detachment and much more. Along with these traits, the most important umbrella of existence under masculinity is being a heterosexual male. These gender norms breed toxicity that often cripples men when it comes to emotional expression and also normalizes a culture of misogyny. However, an interesting fact to note here: patriarchy never made itself an inclusive space for men who are disabled.
Disability and masculinity present an incongruence where disabled men are not strong enough to be masculine. Disability unfortunately is associated and viewed as a state of pity and despair and that means it has no place in masculinity. Overlooking the problematic foundation of masculinity, it’s important to notice how it strips men of an identity associated with their gender without which they are inferior or rather not even a part of the identity itself. They do not have anywhere to go.
US sociologists Thomas Gerschick and Adam Miller (1994) conducted one of the most important studies on disability and masculinity. They conceptualized three types of relational responses by disabled men in their study to masculinity- reliance, reformulation, and rejection. They can either rely on masculinity and make themselves fit in it, reform it according to their requirements or completely reject it and develop a sense of masculinity suitable to their own selves. Although as pointed out by the researcher's observation it’s not possible to fit all disabled men in one of these three categories, you can see how different types of reactions would affect them. Reliance led to the most amount of internalization of insecurities that came with their limitations of not being masculine enough. While rejection gives a lot of hope for a positive sense of self and gender.
Masculine hegemony extends beyond disability. Race, sexual orientation and class are other factors according to which men will be placed on the hegemony where the white heterosexual cis-gendered male is placed at the topmost position. Hence the discrimination persists when it comes to disability where they can be a victim of not only ableism but also racism, classism, casteism or homophobia.
Infrastructure or societal construction is hardly ever accessible for the disabled. Due to this many people succumb to proving themselves as not being ‘helpless’. They may even engage in competitive sports that can be empowering for them. However, a principle understanding that can be derived out of this is that masculinity continually fails to provide them with an empowering or safe space. It would much rather encourage them to exert energy and prove themselves to be equal. It compels people outside established masculinity to spend their lives defending or fighting for their identity instead of a life with dignity which is their birth right.
Thus, men upholding patriarchal standards of masculinity remain in a highly idealized and reserved group that doesn’t allow humanity to understand people outside their group. In fact, it is doubtful those men themselves are able to uphold the masculine standards. Disabled men have to go through a tough time realizing how ableist the traditionally masculine space is and strives to label them as weak and asexual or rather not ‘man enough’.
Comments