(This is one of a series of weekly columns from Guyanese in the diaspora and others with an interest in issues related to Guyana and the Caribbean)
Linden Lewis is Professor of Sociology at Bucknell University in Pennsylvania. He is currently the President of the Caribbean Studies Association.
By Linden Lewis
Two Sundays ago, President Bharrat Jagdeo addressed the reported two thousand men who attended the National Men’s Week rally at the National Park. His presence no doubt would have guaranteed additional coverage of this event; after all, not many regional heads of government have attempted to address these thorny issues of the construction of masculinity in any more than the usual off the cuff remarks about boys’ failing academic performances. The president touched on this perplexing topic in his remarks, but he also had much more to say. When a political leader speaks on an important and timely topic, it is a fairly good indication that, in this case, his remarks represent an expansion of the discourse to a broader audience.
Based on the report of his remarks, carried by the Stabroek News, Mr. Jagdeo charged that women harshly judge men in these modern times. It was not clear from the news item whether it was men’s personalities, behavior, or philosophy of life that come in for such severe scrutiny from women. One wonders if it is that women are such callous judges of men, or is it that more rigorous appraisals of men become necessary because they need to hold men to standards that are higher than currently being met by today’s Guyanese man? One wonders further, if the business of unsympathetic judgment is peculiar to women, or is it that men evaluate women in equally harsh ways? Answers to such ponderings might better allow us to understand the President’s concern in this regard.
President Jagdeo, however, went further by stating that women judge men by “how much money they make”. What are we to make of such an intrepid claim? In assessing the suitability of a potential mate, once one has moved past the initial attraction, does one not seek to ascertain more about the other individual’s background, their economic standing, their moral compass? If according to the International Trade Union Council, the unemployment of women in Guyana is double that of men, does it not seem reasonable for women to be concerned about men’s economic standing, their ability to contribute to the reproduction of the household; or should they simply continue to provide for themselves and their children on their own? One gets the impression however, that the President might have been saying something different. He seemed to be implying that according to the behavior and practices of women, men’s economic standing is the only criterion of eligibility for a relationship. Does the President truly believe this to be the case, not merely for some women but for all women, especially since he did not qualify his statement? Does this not make women appear decidedly calculating and manipulative? Why then would women not view this remark as hostile to them?
We must applaud the President for making the argument that men must be engaged. Engagement and dialogue are crucial to any attempt to foster better relationships between men and women. That we should reawaken important values of men is perhaps a different call. It seems as though this call has to do with restoring men to a position of leadership in the family. In this society where women are mothers and fathers to their children, the notion of leadership of the family falls in the realm of a retrospective illusion. What automatically makes men leaders of the family? In Caribbean societies, where many men are often not living in the same households as the families they have created, where they are in visiting relationships, or still living in their family of origin, can we really insist that men be assigned this responsibility of leadership? Should we not concentrate on the bigger problem of fatherhood in absentia? What exactly does headship of the family entail? Does the head of the family get to make unilateral decisions concerning the affairs of the family, does the head speak on behalf of the family without consulting any other family member, or is this a ceremonial position which has no real substance to it? These are times that call for greater understanding of democratic principles, not just in government and politics but also in the home. Reproducing a household should not be about asserting the power of one partner over the other, but about building a democratic relationship between the adults and children who live in that household. A strong family does not require a single head, but joint leadership between adult partners to provide direction for dependent children in the household. Let us not awaken or introduce a sense of rule in the family that underscores domination and inequality, but one that understands the advantages of collaboration and democratic participation.
President Jagdeo also expressed concern over men falling behind women academically. It is this concern that fuels a lot of debate about the role of men in Caribbean society. It is a comment that is unmindful of the growing access of women to higher levels of education and consequently their increased participation in this regard. The anxiety reveals an expectation that men and boys should excel academically, but no corresponding concern that women and girls should do well educationally. When the academic performance of women and girls lagged behind that of men and boys in Guyana and across the Caribbean, there was no public angst about this state of affairs. Academic mediocrity among women occasions no public shame, according to this way of thinking. There is something very troubling and blatantly undemocratic about this formulation of the problem. It is no wonder then that the academic performance of boys and men has become a lightning rod for all manner of anti-feminist backlash throughout the region.
Though from this distance it is difficult to tell all that transpired at the men’s rally, it would seem as though the President had an excellent opportunity to address some pressing challenges facing men in Guyana and the region. We are witnessing an explosion of violence of all sorts, particularly gender-based violence directed at women, but the level of homicide in the region is alarming. The 2007 Joint Report of the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, and the Latin American and Caribbean Region of the World Bank, revealed daunting statistical information about regional levels of crime and violence. According to the report, with murder rates of 30 per 100, 000, the Caribbean enjoys the dubious distinction of having one of the highest incidences of murder. Assault rates are also very high, making the Caribbean responsible for three of the top ten rape rates recorded in the world. Men are central to these activities, both as perpetrators and as homicide victims. This rally would have provided a space to prevail upon men to break this cycle of violence and destruction of life, and to find new modalities of resolving conflict. It would have been an excellent place to minister against the evil of drug abuse and the drug trade, and the expansion of a gang and thug culture, which are seen as attractive alternatives to economic privation for many men who are feeling the stresses of harsh economic conditions. This rally should have been a pivotal point to address the HIV/AIDS pandemic in the Caribbean that is the biggest killer of our young men, unable to contribute to nation-building because they hold fast to notions of masculinity that authenticate their manhood through their sexuality and in terms of how many children they are able to produce. In all fairness to the President, these issues might very well have been covered, but it is the other remarks that capture the headlines. Knowing that such a situation might occur, public discourse would dictate that the more important issues be placed on the table upfront, to avoid accusations of misplaced emphasis. Yet there is hope that the real challenges facing men can be discussed more broadly from this point going forth. The topic of the role of men in society requires much studied reflection.
