Dealing with toxic masculinity during National Service?
Perhaps it is about how we deal with one’s failures and weaknesses
Just over a week ago, Ms Corina Lim, the executive director of the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware), spoke about toxic masculinity in National Service (NS) during the third lecture of the Institute of Policy Studies-Nathan Lecture Series.
For the uninitiated, all male Singapore citizens and permanent residents have to serve for a period of 22–24 months in the uniformed services (Singapore Armed Forces, Singapore Police Force or Singapore Civil Defence Force)upon attaining the age of 18. Similar to South Korea, and unlike Israel, only males are required to serve as part of the mandatory conscription, females are not required to do so.
Ms Lim’s statement caught many’s attention, including mine. I had just completed my Full-time National Service and while the topic of toxic masculinity had never surfaced, it was certainly something that I thought about before for a few fleeting moments.
To be honest, I had never been adversely affected by any stereotypical comments relating to masculinity during NS. It is a combination of how rare such comments were (fortunately, for me) and how, my peers and I took them in stride, treating them as passing remarks. Without a doubt, the former is a larger factor. However, the fact that it has been brought up on numerous occasions warrants a slightly deeper dive into what this is all about.
Before we go any further, allow me to emphasise that whatever is written here are my own views and not a representation of anyone who is associated with me.
Days after reading about Ms Lim’s speech on an article published in the Straits Times, I had a conversation with my friend — both of us had finished our 22 months of NS and wondered about the idea of toxic masculinity in NS. Perhaps the first question anyone might have is what exactly is toxic masculinity all about? A quick Google search revealed this:
Toxic Masculinity: Ideas about the way that men should behave that are seen as harmful — Cambridge Dictionary
It seems pretty straightforward — it is the idea that society (or the community) assumes that men are supposed to behave in a certain manner and pressures men to do so. The supposed need to conform to such ideals may lead some to develop emotional or mental health issues. These may, in some instances, lead to violent behaviours among men, contributing to domestic violence. One common example is that men should not cry or reveal their emotions publicly. The public discourse usually delves into whether these stereotypes are actually harmful and what it really means to impose certain characteristics on a gender i.e. male and etc.
However, it is the discussion about its presence in NS that makes it complicated. Regardless if you had served NS or not, most of us would have seen portrayals of NS on television dramas. In these dramatic portrayals (which are accurate to a large extent), we tend to hear commanders using terms such as “ku niang” (which means “lady-like” in Mandarin) or “sissy” as derogative remarks against weaker soldiers. Basically, the idea is to compare them to females as an insult.
Of course, if anyone can link one thing to another, these remarks insinuate something deeper and darker — aside from the fact that no males will want to be identified as a female, it seems to also degrade what it means to be a female. It portrays females as weaker, slower and not as fit as their male counterparts. This seems to be a reason why Ms Lim brought this issue of toxic masculinity in a speech about gender equality. So, in the grand scheme of things, if one wants to achieve gender equality in Singapore, one may need to tackle toxic masculinity and the misogynistic views that come with it first.
Yet, how should we dissect this? Before I go on, while NS consists of different services, as I came from the Army, it will be much easier for me to refer to that. Anyways, as I conversed with my friend, I came to this conclusion —
If we want to tackle toxic masculinity, we will have to stop associating traits of being a good soldier with traits of being a male.
(Heck, some may even say that we should abandon gender characteristics altogether.)
When we think of a capable soldier, a caricature of a strong and tall man will surface in most of our minds. It is not necessarily a wrong thing — after all, throughout human history, most of our armies are populated by men only and being strong and tall comes with a natural advantage over the enemies. However, as Ms Lim mentioned, we need to see NS as gender-neutral, that the different services that male Singapore citizens and permanent residents serve in are not male-exclusive organisations. While they may be male-dominated, there is also a sizeable female population in each of the services. Hence, regardless of what kind of caricature appears in our minds when we think of a strong soldier, police officer or firefighter, we should not use these as a rubric to judge how “manly” someone is.
These characteristics should only be confined to determining how well someone performs in the role they are in. For example, if a soldier has a fear of heights and struggles with high elements, the only conclusion that we should draw from it is that the soldier may be lacking the qualities required of being a capable soldier. We should not throw in criticisms of how the soldier is not manly or is too girly — that does not seem constructive anyways. This applies even when we compare between peers. After all, the conclusions we draw also shape how we guide the weaker soldiers and if our focus is not on how to inculcate the proper skills and attitudes required of a soldier, then we may never meet our goal.
Furthermore, being a man with traits that society deems as not “manly” does not equate to being incapable of combat skills. Similarly, female soldiers with traits that society deemed as “manly” should not be seen as that. Rather, these should only be an affirmation of their capabilities as good soldiers.
Here comes the tricky issue — What about typical gender traits? Should society be attributing a gender with certain characteristics or a manual on how to behave?
It is difficult to come to a conclusion in this day and age when labels can be easily misconstrued. One thing is clear though — masculinity is a combination of biological and cultural factors while toxic masculinity is purely influenced by culture. In mainstream media, men are frequently portrayed as fearless, domineering and apathetic towards others. Needless to say, many of these portrayals shape what most of us imagine men to be.
Masculinity: The characteristics that are traditionally thought to be typical of or suitable for men — Cambridge Dictionary
Failure to meet these expectations has led to emotional issues as mentioned above. Domestic violence and other forms of assaults have also been linked to individuals’ belief that being violent is part and parcel of being a masculine man.
So, to answer the question, labels and characteristics are not the problems. This is a social fact. The issue is how we view them and how we “enforce” them. One could accuse others of being short-sighted but the truth is that society has long attributed a certain set of characteristics to the genders and to remove them completely is a mammoth task. The line is extremely fine between masculinity and toxic masculinity. It seems rather easy for one to thread over the line or confuse one for the other. Yet, if one were to endeavour to remove the unnecessary stresses that society places on man, then all we have to do is to reduce the importance of these traits and their absoluteness.
“A social fact is every way of acting, fixed or not, capable of exercising on the individual an external constraint; or again, every way of acting which is general throughout a given society, while at the same time existing in its own right independent of its individual manifestations.” — Émile Durkheim, The Rules of Sociological Method (1895)
Hence, I believe it will be simpler if we change our perceptions just slightly — or in other words, it will be much better if we do not hold anyone up to any sort of standards or traits, especially ones that are with a doubt, unachievable for the average joe. There is no need for a man to be the bravest, the strongest or the most emotionally stable person in a room. Everyone has the ability and right to decide how they want to behave or present themselves.
Live and let live.
