Food For Thoughts: A Women's Studies Blog Project

CNN Article | OnIslam's Article
The recurring message we’re getting is that there is something inherently wrong with femininity. It’s a specter that haunts women by placing women into oppressive roles in society. It’s a specter that haunts men as an image of what not to be in fear of being labeled as a homosexual. We are socialized with the idea that femininity is “something that is evil and that should be purged,” (WAO). From the internalization of this type of thinking comes “masculinity camps” in Malaysia to re-socialize effeminate boys into dropping their feminine traits. The obvious analysis using our authors’ ideas is the binary gender opposition and notions of sexuality that Anne Fausto-Sterling elaborates in Sexing the Body. The appropriate image of femininity and masculinity are so narrow and strict that young Malaysian boys are being singled out as threats to this image. However, there is another analysis that can be made drawing from our more current readings about militarization where our authors like Enloe and Myers frame militarization as a masculinization process. These Malaysian boot camps are essentially total institutions that attempt to indoctrinate a need of being masculine into these stigmatized boys, a pressure that Enloe’s Borislav Herak experienced in the Serbian militia. By using these authors, we can explore the ways these Malaysian boot camps reinforce the binary gender system, heteronormativity and the role of masculinity and femininity in the nation building process.

The rhetoric behind these camps is primarily based on our two-gender system and what we have socially constructed them to look like. Malaysian boys are singled out for “effeminate tendencies” that do not fall under the stereotypes attached to the male gender whether it be liking a certain color or toy or the act of crying. This state is so plagued by the idea of gender ambiguity that even boys “surrounded by female siblings” are snatched up and placed into masculinity boot camps. By taking action to punish and re-socialize these young males, the Malaysian state department that is funding these boot camps is showing how intolerant they are of anyone that doesn’t categorize perfectly into the gender binaries. Fausto-Sterling’s criticism of the oversimplification of sex and anything that associates with it applies here perfectly; instead of having our label describe and work for us, we are defined and restrained by the label itself (54). Just as intersex newborns have to cope with the psychological pain afterwards for the decision someone had made for them, these Malaysian boys have to cope from being targeted and discriminated against by their own government at an age where many are already insecure and still developing. These psychological damages are all done in the name of reinforcing stereotypes and the two check box system: M or F.

With gender stereotypes come questions about sexuality. Though the camp authorities deny criticisms of the camp missions being homophobic and sexist, we cannot isolate the camp’s activities from the political and social context it’s in. Not only is homosexuality illegal in Malaysia, but Islam is also the official state religion in Malaysia, which “considers homosexuality unnatural and destructive to the social fabric” according to another article. Despite the adamant voices of denial from camp authorities, these camps are profiling and targeting homosexuals in order to “fix” them as if something is utterly wrong and needs to be “fixed.”

Though I struggled with this topic initially because on the surface it seemed like a men’s issue, I realized that it had everything to do and say about women as well. Enloe pointed out in her chapter mainly focused on men in militias that “constructing ideals of masculine behavior in any culture cannot be accomplished without constructing ideals of femininity that are supportive and complementary,” (Enloe, 107). So when these masculinizing camps say that they will make sure their boys leave with messages of physical strength, power, confidence, character, and national pride in their heads, what are they saying about femininity, about women? If they’re trying to cure these boys of femininity, these camps are also sending the reverse message that female qualities are characterized by weakness, fragility, subservience, and ill character. These boys are plagued with the disease of femininity and these camps are attempting to cure it and save them from qualities of the other gender. To actually go about indoctrinating these “masculine” qualities, the camps adopt ideas from a highly masculinized institution – the military.

Although the article states “the minister denied that the camp was a military-style…the students only march in unison every morning,” we have to look at the activities he didn’t think were “military-like.” Daud, the minister and authority figure of these camps tells readers that the boys participate in intensive activities that are fun. These fun activities that Daud describes are jungle-trekking, paintballing, aerobic workouts, lengthy visits to the mosque and “hoisting the national flag and reciting the Rukun Negara.” Despite Daud’s insistence of the militarial aspect of his camp, these activities have strong connections to militarial ones. Though it might not be able to pierce a skull, paintballing is an aggressive activity that gets the boys holding and using guns. Like we had discussed in class, masculinity seems to be tied closely with violence and aggression, traits the military cultivates. Though jungle-trekking may not ring a bell in terms of strategic militarization for Westerners, it is not merely a camping trip but relates to how wars are fought in Southeast Asia. If we look at militarization as a masculinization process, we can understand why these camps utilize military activities and techniques in working with these boys. The total institution aspect of the military helps Daud and his supporters break down the existing identity of these boys and to re-socialize “good” qualities into them. The point isn’t to merely teach the boys how to be masculine, but what’s even more vital is to raise these boys to “think of [themselves] as needing to be masculine,” a transformation of thinking Borislav Herak went through (Enloe, 101). After analyzing how these camps operate and institutionalize masculinity into these “effeminate boys,” we have to look at whom it benefits.

After the familiar ring of masculinity from the physical activities, the remaining activities stand at an interesting place. Whereas the physical portion of camp activities focused more on making the boys look and act like men, the patriotic and religious activities focused on the mindset of these boys and encouraged a very specific set of values and way of thinking. The mosque visits, marching, hoisting of flags, and the unison national chants is precisely the process of indoctrination and repetition of ideology and not just any ideology but the ideology of the state and the majority. The hegemonic aspect of these activities brings up questions about nation building and who plays a part in the process. Traditionally and historically, men are active participants of nation-building and these camps can be seen as a way to target young boys who have traits that threaten this male dominance in the construction of nationalism. Enloe brings up the interesting relationship between male patriotism and female patriotism and these camps are actively defining and solidifying the chasm between the two. Enloe notes that in “cultural constructions of masculinity…men [are] celebrated as soldiers…and women as chiefly [as] maternal sacrifices for the nation,” (Enloe, 107). The boys in these camps are learning how to be soldiers, learning how to cure themselves of a disease that might lead them to be a passive participant in the nation-building process, to prevent them from being the sacrificed. The role of the female patriot, as Enloe suggests, is to reinforce a brother, a father, an uncle – that is the role of feminism in the construction of nationalism and these “effeminate boys” not only blur gender lines, but also patriotic and nationalistic roles. These sprouting new boot camps attempt to reverse this by strengthening the militarization of masculinity. These boys need to not only feel like it’s their social duty to “man-up,” but a national duty as well.

After making the connection between militarization and masculinization, we can bring the discussion back to home and understand why the women in Myers’ article had such a rough time in the military. The military has traditionally been a field to cultivate and exercise dominance and power, traits labeled as masculine. With this come problems of sexual harassment and violence as men attempt to exercise their power and dominance over their female peers in the military.

Now the ultimate question: so what? Abu-Lughod brought up a good point; we tend to care about issues because they’re trendy. Instead, she challenges us to think about human rights. The profiling and targeting of these young, innocent Malaysian boys because they’re not expressing gender “correctly” is all due to our tendency to look at differences instead of commonalities. I think we’re taking the easy way out here, the path of least resistance. Instead of changing the way we think to make room for others in society, we turn them into problems with our rhetoric and try to change them. These corrective masculinity camps are easy because we don’t have to change ourselves; we’re not the problem, or are we?