Silent sufferers : a sociological exploration of gender-based violence against South African men by women

Abstract

GBV has become an epidemic in Southern Africa. With a growing body of research and policies centred on GBV, the phenomenon is largely understood from the male-inflicting-harm-on-female standpoint. Consider the following quotes regarding the importance ascribed to traditional (read hegemonic) meanings associated with masculinity in African culture: “Mudi wa gwoswi a una malila” (Translated from Tshivenda it means “the house of a weak man does not stand”) (Thobejane et al., 2018). The preceding quote is an example of connotation from an African language and culture that is used to describe or provide an idea of what it means to be a man in a patriarchal society where hegemonic masculinity is promoted and endorsed. Gender-based violence (hereafter GBV) against men in South Africa, has not been as widely or broadly researched as in America or other European Countries. This may be due, in part, to the stereotypical connotations that are attached to men who publicly acknowledge that they have been the victims of GBV. Thus, men tend to conceal the abuse to avoid being labelled as weak or for not being “real” men. This study was conducted to explore GBV against South African men by women. The study’s central theoretical argument was informed by a critical reflection on Raewyn Connell’s (1987, 2005) theory of hegemonic and subordinate masculinities. This reflection involved critically engaging this perspective in a South African context in order to explore its applicability to a South African context (i.e., avoiding a mere monolithic view of masculinity as per Western theorisation). A qualitative research design was used to provide thick descriptions of men’s views on the issues regarding GBV as it relates to male victims in South Africa. Participants were selected using the non-probability sampling methods of purposive and snowball sampling. Participants in this study were selected on the grounds that they met the researcher’s pre-established criteria. In this case, the non-negotiable criteria for inclusion included the following: self-identified biological males who were or had been victims of GBV or intimate partner violence in domestic settings based in any of the nine provinces of South Africa. Their age, social class, nationality, gender identity, sexual orientation and race were not regarded as exhaustive criteria in the selection process. This community was considered a “hidden” and hard-to-reach group, because male victims of GBV were not always visible or

obvious. Thus, I (the researcher) gained access through the identification of and obtaining approval from organisations who worked with participants intended for the study. Participants included an initial target of 10 heterosexual men who were either married or in a cohabiting relationship. Six themes emerged from the data collected, which then guided the analysis. The first theme centred on the conceptualisation of GBV based on the empirical narratives of male participants. The second theme focused on the identification and discussion of factors contributing to South African men’s vulnerability to GBV. The third theme discussed forms of GBV experienced by men. Furthermore, reasons for, and challenges faced by South African male victims’ under-reporting of GBV emerged as the fourth theme. These reasons were associated with the various institutions’ lack of care regarding men as victims of GBV. The fifth theme explored consequences of GBV for the construction and enactment of masculinity by participants. The last theme highlighted the identification and provision of recommendations related to policy formulations to address GBV. Participants reported being negatively affected by such abuse.