But the threat of sexual violence can also be enough to subdue populations, as shown by the numerous cases where sexual torture in prison includes threats of rape or of castration as part of a well-established repertoire (see, for instance, in the case of El Salvador, Leiby 2012). As Hooper (2001, 70) explains, “The threat of feminization is a tool with which male conformity to hegemonic ideals is policed. This threat works when subordinate masculinities are successfully feminized and then demonized”. In the case of conflict-related sexual violence against men, however, it is not so much hegemonic ideals that are enforced, but rather violent and ultra militarized masculinities that seek to establish their control over economic, social and political resources. And this is effected by making it impossible for survivors to henceforth abide by the traditional key elements that are often used as a standard for measuring masculinity, for instance, being the breadwinner, being able to protect oneself and one’s family, and so on. So if the twin processes of feminization and of masculinization are successfully performed, it is mostly because, as I will further analyze in chapter 4, the great majority of survivors feel deprived of their capacity to fulfill social expectations vis-à-vis men, not to mention hegemonic models of masculinity.
Male sexual victimization is often staged and choreographed in order to convey absolute domination: gang rapes, castrations, public humiliation, men turned into “bush wives”, etc., are all meant as unquestionable statements of domination. They are part of a larger repertoire, including, for instance, enslavement, which aims at humiliating and feminizing the victims, and at designating more or less masculine and powerful men. Buss (2009, 159) notes, for instance, that “there is evidence that sexual violence including rape and forms of sexual slavery against men was a feature of the genocide” in Rwanda. Since most of the literature on the Rwandan genocide has so far focused on those men and women who were killed as well as on those who were raped, assumed to be mostly if not only women, this statement calls for renewed attempts to better articulate an understanding of sexual violence with other types of conflict-related violence. Male sexual brutalization in particular is a powerful instrument that, used together with military coercion, sanctions the domination of a certain type of individuals—mostly male—who embody an all-powerful masculinity. They enact a specific model of hyper violent militarized masculinity that uses violence and coercion to establish its dominance. In other words, they participate in the hierarchical (re-)organization of masculinities in a given society and as such play a key role in the gender order (Hooper 2001, 69). Patterns of wartime sexual violence against men thus underscore the malleability and fluidity of models of masculinity, especially in conflict contexts, and demonstrate how they can become part and parcel of war patterns.
It is important to stress the fact that this does not entail that sexual violence against men is necessarily a strategy or a “weapon of war”. Empirical evidence suggests that, with a few exceptions mostly related to sexual torture in detention, it is not spelled out as such. Rather, the performativity of male sexual victimization is a consequence of how gender norms and roles support and underpin societal relations of power. And because patterns of masculinities have their own historicity and are inscribed in local cultures, conflict-related sexual violence against men always displays contextual specificities. What is important is thus not so much the specific shapes that male sexual brutalization can take, than the contextualized performativity of such acts. Although it would require more systematic and precise empirical records than what is currently available, existing data suggests that the perpetration of sexual violence against men varies according to what is considered, or not, as “proper” or “degrading” for a man to do in a specific setting. In the Great Lakes region of Africa, for instance, many male survivors I spoke with seemed more distressed of having been forced to perform the cooking, washing and cleaning duties “of a woman”, than of having had their genitals beaten.
Similarly, and as we will further explore in the following sections, what the conflict is about, who it involves, and what shapes it takes, all impact on the characteristics of male sexual brutalization. In nationalist and ethnic conflicts, for instance, the nexus between ethnicity or nationhood and manhood underpins logics of domination and subjugation, in terms of masculinization and feminization. So while the appropriation and desecration of the other group’s women are meant to humiliate them, the subjugation of male bodies via military victory and practices of male rape, sexual humiliation and castration underscore the dominated status of the vanquished. These processes are even more obvious during genocides, where the extermination of the other group entails the total annihilation of both its masculinities and femininities—hence cases where “enemy” men are first castrated before (or after) being killed. In detention settings, male sexual torture constructs a patriarchal, masculine authority, and reflects attempts to dominate and control those who are seen as challenging the existing power structure. And the performativity of sexual violence seems effective at the international level too, as it emphasizes an international security order, and buttresses an international political and military hierarchy.
Looking at the gender performativity of wartime sexual violence against men thus provides a general framework for understanding its occurrence. It demonstrates how patriarchal principles of social organization constantly adapt to tensions over power, and structure the position of individuals, both male and female, in relation to the violence that is perpetrated. However, in order to understand variations in prevalence, in types of violence, and of perpetrators, one has to dig deeper into specific models of masculinity, and into local configurations of power. In other words, feminization/masculinization and super/subordination processes entailed in sexual violence against men derive from, and in turn take on, different meanings in different settings and configurations.
As the cases listed in the previous chapter suggest, wartime sexual violence against men is a regular—though by no means universal—occurrence in conflicts where ethnicity constitutes a major line of division between combatants. A closer look at this type of conflicts reveals that they share two interesting and interrelated common features that play an important role for explaining male sexual brutalization: patriarchy and patrilineality. Patriarchy, a system whereby men hold power at all societal levels, including within the familial cell, is usually described as a system that enhances male power and female subordination. In conflict contexts, this central role granted to men, however, turns them into primary targets for the “other” side, which explains that men are often singled out for killing in genocidal contexts, as the example of Srebrenica, among many others, shows. When men are targeted or weakened, it is the very backbone of the community that is sapped. This is why sexual violence against men is a very effective strategy for destroying family and community linkages. In the Great Lakes region of Africa, for instance, just like in most patriarchal societies (Sivakumaran 2007, 268), one of the key roles of men—and indeed, one of the key markers of masculinity—is to protect their wives, their children and their ageing parents but also the wider community. They are responsible for the security of the whole group. If they cannot protect themselves, if they are turned into victims, then their ability to protect the rest of the group will be questioned. The very same reasoning obviously lies at the core of sexual violence against women, as suggested by MacKenzie (2010, 206): “The act of rape becomes an effective strategy because it creates dis-order by desecrating the authority and property assured to males, as well as violating established norms relating to the family”. One of the effects of sexual violence is thus to deeply undermine the concerned group’s cohesion by attacking its patriarchal foundations. Men belonging to the subjugated group can no longer uphold the system, either because they have not been able to perform their protective function—when “their” women have been sexually assaulted—or because they have directly lost their masculine status—by being themselves sexually brutalized.