General evaluation

Religio-cultural portrayals of masculinity/ies are undergirded by patriarchy, a social system that disadvantages women and advantages men. Through this social system men have a sense of entitlement and a sense of authority. Within the South African context, as I have expressed through the work of Ratele (2016), loss of this sense of power and authority results in a sense of disorientation for men. The South African Constitution of 1996 gives equal rights and opportunities to both men and women, and it is through this that the traditional way in which women and men have been socialized is challenged and men who subscribe to the hegemonic masculinity/ies which is shaped or informed by religion and culture fell emasculated, and as a result they act out violently to reassert their sense of dignity as men. My study has engaged with masculinity/ies as it relates to women’s SRHR as represented in the film Yesterday. Keeping that in mind and with a consideration of the South African context, there is a need to come to the root of unhealthy articulations of masculinity in order to address them better through media. Understanding that men are indeed privileged and acknowledging that religion and culture instils inequality can serve to overcome oppressive and life-threatening behaviours (Phiri, 2002; Dube, 2001). Films in their production are informed by social phenomena; as with the case of the film Yesterday’s depiction of the result of men’s sexual behaviour on their partners. Religion and culture place women lower than men in the social hierarchy and this puts women at risk where sexuality is involved in the context of HIV and AIDS.

The kind of masculinity/ies presented in the film is the kind that conforms to Connell’s hegemonic masculinity/ies, which is undergirded by patriarchy (Phiri 2002; Van Klinkan 2013b). Chitando speaks to this when he argues that it is possible to find ways of redeeming masculinity/ies within an African context. The film presents a community where women are oppressed or marginalized by men in relation to HIV and AIDS, and intimate partner violence

or GBV. Understanding how power relations, as they relate to gender and sexuality to be informed by patriarchy, and as presented in the film, offers and entry point to engage with the impact of behaviours encouraged by religion and culture: men being untrustworthy and unreliable and that where men don’t acknowledge the link between their sexual conduct and the health and wellbeing of their partners.

Engagement with religio-cultural portrayals of masculinity/ies in the film brings out and shows that there is a need to engage with masculinity/ies from the root or from how they are informed. Represented masculinity/ies in the film are not positive as they result in death and sickness for women. It is easy to present men as villains, but it seems to be, in most South African films, to represent men as doing their part in transforming that which has been a common knowledge about men – that men are not to be trusted and that men can sexually behave as they want. The phallocentric and hegemonic masculinity/ies image presented in the film Yesterday calls for egagement with Chitando, Van Klinken, and West’s calls for redemptive masculinities. Protecting and respecting women’s SRHR demands a different kind of articulation and embodiment of masculinity/ies. While Chitando speaks to the urgency of the need to transform represented unhealthy masculinity/ies, Van Klinken calls for an interrogation of the approaches used to reform masculinity/ies, and West shows that men can change if only they can embrace and integrate ways of articulating healthier forms of masculinity.

Through redemptive masculinities Chitando, Van Klinken and West show that religio-cultural portrayals of masculinity/ies, as much as through the film, can be used as a resource to transform represented kinds of masculinity/ies, including those that are presented in the film Yesterday. Chitando sees the Bible as an important tool in transforming masculinity/ies. It is interesting for him to advocate for that as the Bible have been used to disadvantage women. Van Klinken on his part, to speak to the Bible as a resource, holds that it is important to consider who interprets the Bible and to him religious figure like Joseph the husband of Mary can inspire alternative masculinity/ies expression and articulation. Moreover, West shows through one single story from the Bible of Tamar can be used together with cultural and religious resources to transform unhealthy masculinity/ies. The three scholars do not deny patriarchy but uses it to what I can say is advocated by the South African Constitution; that men and women are equal and deserve to be allowed to fully express their autonomy and sexual rights even with marriage setups. These three scholars encourage those who are involved in engaging with masculinity/ies on different levels to also think and seek alternative articulations of unhealthy masculinity/ies

and not just highlight how men are a mess. They have also emphasized the need for thinkers on masculinities to also think in terms of alternatives. The relevance of this is captured by Capraro (2004) in “Men's Studies as a Foundation for Student Development Work with College Men”, which argues that this will be in a way maintaining the activist agenda masculinities discourse which hold men as agents. These scholars speak to transformation of men, and equality of women. Chitando takes it further by acknowledging that the African context needs contextual solutions.