The Male Feminists and The Contestation of Masculinities

in Contemporary Indonesia

Farid Muttaqin
The New Mens Alliance of Indonesia; Depertment of Anthropology, SUNY-Binghamton

Introduction: The Histories that Matter

Since the down-fall of the President Soeharto regime in 1998 celebrated as the freedom and

reform era, there has been an emerging phenomenon of the increasing male involvements in

feminist movements. In the earlier period, some feminist organizations have initiated an attempt to

approach mens groups who actively participated in social activisms. Kalyanamitra, among the first

feminist organizations in the country, for instance, approached some male figures especially from

Muslim communities who actively involved in social justices issues; one of them was Masdar

Masudi who led an NGO, The Union for Society and Pesantren Development. Masudi was

popular as a progressive Muslim thinker who attempted to renew understanding of Islamic

teachings by carrying out gender analysis. This approach was viewed as a strategic way to respond

to the challenge against feminist movements within the society based on the assumption that

feminism was both anti-men and anti-Islam (Muttaqin 2008).

After an influential achievement of the acceptance of feminist issues by some Muslim

communities, this collaboration was broke up when the feminist groups excluded Masudi from the

feminist circles after his taking a second wife. While this attempt significantly contributed to both

popularizing feminist issues among Muslim communities and strengthening mens participation in

womens rights movements, in the eyes of the feminist groups the story of Masudi reflects that

mens participations do not really echo their politics against patriarchy and other source of womens
1
oppressions. In other words, as some feminists articulate, it is not easy for men to transform into a

feminist personhood.

The post-Soeharto period provides a social and political space for different social-political

groups to express their political interests, including religious groups characterized as

fundamentalists, conservatives, and radicals who often apply political violence against the

different others. It can be said, while this period is highly celebrated as social-political era of civil

freedoms, this is marked by the emergence of religious violence. The Defenders of Islam Front

violently attacked non-mainstream Muslim groups such as the Ahmadiyah and the Shiah

communities (Pasandaran 2013); another group, The Muslim Congregation Forum (FUI) attacked

and terrorized LGBT groups (Jazeli 2010).

In the same period, the contra-feminist efforts are greatly articulated. In addition to the

attacks against LGBT groups, the politics of contra-feminism are found in the case of the

Polygamy Award to successful male polygamists and in the increasing political interests of the

implementation of Islamic law that glorify womens body and non-normative sexuality and gender

as the sources of moral decadence within the society.

The first organized initiative of male participation in the freedom era was built when

UNIFEM (now UN Women) and a feminist NGO, the Foundation of Womens Journal facilitated a

one-day seminar of The Roles of Men in the Elimination of Violence against Women, in Jakarta,

November 25th 2000. In this seminar, a number of men declared an informal group called Cowok-

cowok Anti-Kekerasan terhadap Perempuan (Cantik, literally beautiful), Men of Anti-Violence

against Women (Subono 2001). As a declaration, this forum was not consolidated into a formal

organization; though, the ideas continued through various occasions, including seminar and

publication (Hasyim 2007, Hasyim 2007, Subono 2007).

In 2009, a number of womens rights activists, both women and men formed a more formal

organization called Aliansi Laki-laki Baru (the New Mens Alliance). I myself have been involved
2
in this alliance since the initial discussion and was among the initiators. How the histories matter

in the establishment of this organization? The first refers to the story of Masudi viewed as a

feminist disaster when a feminist attempt to create a space for mens participation resulted in an

expected problem. A number of reflective questions emerged and were discussed: can men really

transform into a feminist being? If so, how? If not, why? What biological and social troubles to

feminism of being men? What are problems of masculinity in the country and in religious context?

What strategies should be done to control male activists from being a feminist betrayer?

The second was related to the history of the rise of religious violence that inspired various

reflective questions: how does mens involvement challenge this religious politics? What

ideological foundation can be applied to respond to this religious fundamentalism? How finally the

New Mens Alliance came up with the idea of transforming masculinity as a an ideological and

strategic answer of this issue? This historical reflection gave an important impact in shaping

ideological and strategic agendas and ideas of the alliance, especially in the issue of masculinities.

I will analyze how the formation of the New Mens Alliance contributes to the development of

new discourse in masculinities and how this discourse createas particular contestation among the

pros and the contras. I will also examine how this contestation indeed indicates the multiplicity and

the dynamic construction of masculinities.

Masculinities: A Conceptual Framework

Turner (2007[1982]) analyses the production of social skin as a result of social processes of

biological skin, or the physiological body. This social construction creates a cultural meaning and

social identity, the social skin of the biological body. This process also leads to the adaptation

of the physical body to specific social norms. Turner points out that by conforming to these norms,

an individual will define his/herself as man of sense, a normal being. Turner comes up with a

more integrated and holistic approach that emphasizes the dynamic correlations of nature and

culture in the production of manhood or male personhood.

3
 Butler (1993) extensively discusses the dynamic juxtaposition of the materiality of the

biological body often referred as sex and the performativity of the social body often referred as

gender. She argues against the dualistic perspective that strictly separates and divides the two and

challenges the notion of separation between nature and culture that appears in the constructivist

conceptualization of gender as a product of social construction. It is problematic, Butler argues,

since this conceptual framework indicates the existence of specific agency that actively constructs

gender, the materiality of sex often is positioned as the passive surface, beyond social:

constructivists power of subject is criticized as displacing human agency.

Connell (1995) addresses the the inescapabilty of (mens) body in the social and political

construction of masculinities in which the physical sense of maleness and femaleness is central to

the cultural interpretation of gender [and masculinity] (52). She points out the multiplicity of

masculinities instead of a single form of masculinity. However, she asserts that there is a single

form of masculinity that is idealized the most in a society; this is a hegemonic masculinity. She

underlines that hegemonic masculinity is not created naturally; rather, this is a product of the

specific gender and sexuality regime applying the patriarchal politics and heteronormativism.

Transexed body and other non-mainstream bodies, therefore, are considered an important challenge

against the hegemonic form of masculinity.

Based on these conceptual analyses, I argue that the physiological and biological aspect of the

body matters in producing social meanings of being a man. In other words, the biological body is

central in the social construction of masculinities. The process of being (and becoming) a man

within a society therefore contains both bodily appearances and their social, political, and cultural

interpretations; this includes personal and social experiences. While it centers in the materiality of

physical body in which masculinity can be embodied physiologically, its social, cultural and

political interpretations lead to the development of masculinities as a non-static product. As a

product of specific social and political contexts, masculinities are dynamic and changing. In
4
addition, the analysis of the centrality of the body in the construction of masculinity demonstrates

the central role the human bodies play in the construction of social, cultural, and political systems

vice versa.

Mohanty (1992) criticizes the naturalization and essentialization of womens body and

experience as a natural source of being feminists among women in which [f]eminism is not

defined as highly contested political terrain; it is the mere effect of being female (77). Using this

critical approach, I argue that the (new) masculinities as produced and circulated through the

emergence of male engagements in feminist movements significantly challenge the essentialization

and naturalization in the way of thinking about the making, becoming and being of feminists.

New Masculinities and Their Contestation

The New Mens Alliance was formally declared as an organization after a series of intensive

discussions on various issues related to the involvement of men in feminist movements. The micro

history of mens participation in feminist struggle as found on the case of Masudi was often

referred as a unit of analysis of how ideologically and strategically mens participation in a

feminist movement should be built. At the level of macro history of the increasing politics of

religious fundamentalism with its massive articulation of violence, some questions of violence were

taken into consideration including how mens groups consolidated and organized as male

feminists contribute to challenging this social, political and religious phenomenon. Masculinity

was viewed as a key conceptual and analytical framework to respond to these ideological and

strategic questions. Working on the reconstruction of masculinity is viewed as ideologically and

strategically significant to handle the feminist disaster in the micro-history when mens

involvements latter possibly turn to be contra-feminism and challenge religious fundamentalism

(The Alliance 2011a, 2011b, 2013).

The members of the alliance analytically understand the fundamental politics of patriarchal

masculinity underlying the problems in both micro and macro histories. The members paid a high
5
attention to the case of Masudi since he appeared to display contradictions and anomalies; on the

one hand, he had undeniable contributions to feminist movements in the country, especially in

Muslim contexts. In addition to introducing gender training to Muslim communities, Masudi

pioneered an important attempt of reinterpreting and rethinking Islamic teachings by applying

gender and womens rights analysis. By doing so, at that time, Masdar also challenged a hegemonic

form of masculinity idealizing anti-feminist men. Yet, on the other hand, he practiced patriarchal

masculinity when he decided to taking a second wife; the feminist groups viewed polygamy as a

form of violence. Masdar played with religious understanding by saying that there is no even single

Quranic teaching that restricts men from doing a polygamous marriage. The feminist groups saw

that Masdar has applied an approach of religion as a legitimacy of his abusive and unequal

perspective and attitude toward women. While following this feminist argument, the members of

the alliance point out Masdars failure in challenging patriarchal masculinity; the use of religion as

legitimacy of gender inequality is widespread among male religious leaders. Transformation of

masculinities is therefore voiced as an agenda of mens engagement in feminist movements.

Similar analysis is applied in understanding the macro history of the rise of religious violence.

It is hegemonic masculinity ideology that leads these radical Muslims to engage in violent

attacks. In the case of the Defenders of Islam Fronts attacks against LGBT groups, the alliance

acknowledges the application of patriarchal masculinity. They also consider the needs of the

transformation of masculinity as an agenda of male feminists to respond to this issue. The alliance

takes into account another dimension of patriarchal masculinity in the emerging public celebration

of polygamy. The emerging interests in political Islam leading to the implementation of Islamic law

are also viewed as the articulation of patriarchal masculinity (The Alliance 2011a, 2011b, 2013).

Considering the fact that male Muslims are the major groups in religious violence and the call

of the transformation of masculinity, it can be said that the alliance attempts to challenge the

naturalization and homogenization of masculinity within Muslim community that believes that there
6
is only a single way of articulating Islamic manhood: domination, violence, attack. The alliance

also considers patriarchal understandings of Islamic teachings as a key source of hegemonic and

patriarchal masculinity (The Alliance 2011a, 2011b, 2013).

The agendas of the transformation of masculinities are reflected through several ideas that

touch upon both the materiality and the performativity. At the aspect of materiality the

alliance promotes a rethinking of diversifying masculinities; they suggest not to idealize and idolize

muscular body and not to decentralize non-muscular body. An important consequence of this

approach is the acknowledgment of non-normative material bodies such the transgendered and

homosexualized bodies. In Indonesia, transgenders do not refer only to the performativity of gender

considered feminine behaviors, but also to the materiality of physical appearance. Men with no

muscular body are often stereotyped as banci or bencong, the transgenders, that also means

coward.

At the dimension of performativity, the alliance promotes the transformation of masculinities

through various campaign and education programs. They facilitate a counseling service for men

involving in sexual and gender violence, especially in intimate relationships. The program aims to

help male abusers change their violent attitudes. The alliance promotes the so called caring and

sharing masculinities through a new fathering and fatherhood when men are actively engaged in

reproductive roles and domestic tasks (The Alliance 2011a, 2011b, 2013).

They also campaign for what they call non-violent masculinities that refer to both feminist and

non-feminist contexts. The first is a call of strengthening mens support feminists struggle against

any forms of gender and sexual violence and the second is the call to stop any forms of violence

beyond gender and sexual dimension including street violence that often involve men and boys.

The alliance views that male participation in violence is a direct consequence of the patriarchal and

hegemonic masculinity that constructs men as the natural actors of violence instead of the

problem solvers. Within the feminist context, this agenda seems to challenge the naturalization of
7
being and becoming feminists that, as Mohanty (1992) examines, centralizes female body and

experiences as the inherent and non-political source of being feminists that results to the

feminization of feminist movement.

The alliance often combines the agendas at the level of materiality and performativity at

the same time. These usually occur in street protests and advocacies against sexual and gender

violence. Recently, in responding to the cases of rape against women that appear to be increasing, a

number of male members of the alliance initiated a street activism in the center of business in

Jakarta by wearing clothes traditionally worn by women such as miniskirts and short sleeve dress

(Krismantari 2013).

These campaigns influence to the development of hyper-visibility of the differently non-

normative masculinity. As Turner points out, men need to conform to certain social norms of being

men to be acknowledged as men of sense; otherwise, they are considered otherwise. However, in

the case of the alliances agendas, two competing responses come from two different groups. The

religious groups mainly characterized as fundamentalists and conservatives actively challenge the

alliances agendas of the transformation of masculinities. At the materiality level, the religious

groups respond to the calls of diversifying masculinities by acknowledging non-normative

physiological manhood by reproducing transgendered and homosexualized body. A response to

the way the alliances members dress-coded in the street protest was whether these men have or

have no penis (Kaskus 2013). While ideologically, I argue, this kind of response reflects the success

of the alliance in promoting non-normative bodies, the construction also creates a risk of being

the target of various form of discrimination to the male members of the alliance and those with non-

normative bodies, like transgendered bodies that are already under social scrutiny and surveillance.

In terms of performativity, Hizbut-Tahrir Indonesia (HTI, The Liberation Party of Indonesia)

criticizes the concept of new fatherhood voiced by the alliance, especially through a campaign

project called Mens Care by saying that Islam grants the authority of leadership to men as the head
8
of family and the bread-winner, and women as housewives and educators of children. The group

also challenges the idea of increasing the access to contraceptive as a strategy of increasing mens

participation in reproductive roles by saying that this attempt will lead to the emergence of free

sex among teenagers and non- marriage couples. Instead of calling it non-hegemonic masculinity,

the group stigmatizes the agenda as promoting liberal and Western masculinities, gender and

sexuality (Harjanti 2013). To some extent, in this critical response, the group reproduces the

political assumption of anti-Islam of the agendas of the transformation of masculinities.

Within the feminist circles, despite some dynamics, the major response show the feminists

celebration and support to the alliances agendas. The support does not only consider the agendas of

the transformation of masculinities, but also historical fact that the alliance was born from the

feminist political womb. The alliances active involvement in the struggles against sexual and

gender violence significantly contributes to rebuilding feminist trust after it was destroyed by the

feminist disasters when some male activists viewed as partners of movements, like Masudi,

betrayed the feminist agendas. The agendas of the transformation of masculinity that highly

consider both ideological and strategic dimension of mens engagement in feminist movements is a

new political and personal control. The fundamental ideology of mens participation in feminist

movements is not in their appearance in various feminist activities but in their engagement to

follow the agenda of the transformation of masculinities.

Another response of the feminist groups articulates how the emergence of a male feminist

movement its intersection with the rise of religious fundamentalism is encouraging Indonesian

feminist movements to embrace a feminism that is cognizant (albeit critical) of the contextual frame

imposed by Indonesian masculinity and thereby more understanding of men and of male abusers. I

argue that the discourse of non-violent and non-patriarchal masculinities created by the alliance is

playing an important role in shaping gender understandings and is encouraging the development of

this a new feminism in Indonesia.

9
Conclusion

The New Mens Alliances new discourses of masculinity show how masculinities both in the

forms of materiality of physical body and in the level of performativity of social skin are applied

as a conceptual framework and ideological foundation. However, the fact that these agendas are

highly contested by different groups indicates the central role the human bodies especially male

body in the context of masculinity play in the construction of social, cultural, and political systems

vice versa. This contestation in fact crucially contributes to developing public understanding about

multiplicity and changeability of masculinities despite certain mainstream forms considered as

hegemonic and the most idealized dimensions.

Bibliography
Anonymous. 2013. Wearing Miniskirts in the Center of Jakarta, 5 Men Protested against Violence
against Women.Kaskus April 7th
Butler, Judith. 1993. Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of Sex. New York: Routledge.
Connell, R.W. 1995. Masculinities. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Harjanti, Arum. 2013. Gender Agendas behind the Men Care Campaign. Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia
July 24th.
Hasyim, Syafiq. 2007. Men as Partners of the Struggles against Violence against Women.
Kompas September 24th
Hasyim, Nur. 2007. Anti-Violence Men Movement. Kompas October 7th
Jazeli, Rois. 2010. The Muslim Congregation Forum was Sweeping ILGA Participants at Hotel
Mercure. Detik March 25th.
Krismantari, Ika. 2011. New Men on the Block. The Jakarta Post April 6th.
Mohanty, Chandra Talpade. 1987. Feminist Encounters: Locating the Politics of Experience.
Copyright 1:30-44. Reprinted in Destabilizing Theory: Contemporary Feminist Debates, eds.
Michle Barrett and Anne Phillips (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992), pp. 74-92.
Muttaqin, Farid. 2008. Progressive Muslim Feminists in Indonesia from Pioneering to the Next
Agendas. Masters Thesis. Athens: International Studies (Southeast Asian Studies) at Ohio
University.
Pasandaran, Camelia. 2013. FPI Forces Ahmadiyah Mosque to Close in West Java. Jakarta Globe
October 10th.
Subono, Nur Iman (eds). 2001. Male Feminists: Solution or Problem? Jakarta: Jurnal Perempuan.
_____________. 2007. Men as Partners in the Elimination of Violence. Kompas November 5th
10
The New Mens Alliance. 2013. Press Conference: the 2013 Celebration of 16 Days of Anti-
Violence against Women (Men Against Sexual Violence), Jakarta, December 4th.
______________. 2011b. Proceeding: 2011 Annual Report. Unpublished document.
______________. 2011a. Outline of the Curriculum of Collective Learning Program (Individual
Change and Social Transformation for Gender Equality). Unpublished document.
Turner, Terence S. 2007 [1982]. The Social Skin. Excerpted in Beyond the Body Proper, eds.
Lock and Farquhar (Durham: Duke University Press), pp. 83-103.

11