No abstract

The concept of masculinity does not sit alone but is understood in relation to notions of femininity within the broader concept of "gender" or the structure of gender relations. This is the way in which the social environment constructs men and women's social positioning with reference to assumptions around embedded gender defined roles and traits and attaches specific values and ideas to frequently unquestioned, societal gender hierarchies, or socially accepted gendered norms (Connell 2005; Kimmel 2000). Masculinity, although affiliated to the male body, is therefore interlinked with idealized beliefs and discourses around what "men should be like" or what men naturally are like (Duriesmith 2016, p. 27; Flood 2002). Relationally, this is supported by theories of what women naturally are and should be and typically built around gender binaries such as men as active, public, and strong and women as passive, private, and weak (Cohn 2013). These beliefs and assumptions about the natural condition of men and masculinity impact upon the male sense of identity, which is then reproduced in gendered social action. The association of masculinity with conflict is complex. Cultural and social understandings of masculinity typically place men as more violent and with a greater affiliation to war-making institutions such as the military. Although it is recognized that there is not one type of masculinity and that masculinities are changeable and contested, assumption around what it means to be a man have very real consequences for the practices of conflict. Taking masculinity seriously helps us understand better why conflict takes place, how conflict is fought, who is impacted, and in what way. This entry covers areas of subtopics in the masculinity and conflict literature such as hegemonic masculinity, military masculinities, and the role of masculinity in wartime violence and sexual violence. Also covered are some areas of newer research that examines alternative masculinities in non-state armed groups, peacebuilder masculinities and the notion of the "new man" masculinity.

This article examines the construction of gender agendas in left-wing populist movements that mobilise for armed struggle, by focusing on the case of the Maoist movement in Nepal. Feminist scholarship has highlighted how left-wing populism, when appealing to a generalized "people", tend to produce homogenizing discourses that erase inequalities and difference, even when such movements integrate a gender dimension. Examining the trajectory of the Maoist movement over time, we argue that this 'sameness' may become contested and utilized by women participating in the lower echelons of the movement, as the political reality shifts from conflict to post-conflict context. As our main contribution, we develop a bi-directional approach that employs the concept of collective identity and allows us to examine the construction of populist agendas as a two-way interaction between the leadership of a movement and its grass roots supporters. Through this approach we show how the gender dimension was not merely a bi-product but central to both the construction of the Maoist movement's war time 'progressive' identity, and the fragmentation of this identity and the movement's populist appeal in the post-conflict context.

No abstract

No abstract