“Yes,I’m Doing It”: Conflict-Induced Internally Displaced Filipino Men’s Enactments of Masculinity

Abstract

Despite the Philippines’ history of five decades of prolonged violent conflicts and internal displacements, majority of which are in its southern island of Mindanao, studies exploring the enactments of masculinities of noncombatant men are few. Using 31 life stories of Filipino men who experienced conflict-induced internal displacement, complemented by in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, and community profiles, the present article demonstrates how these Filipino men constructed an ideal masculinity compounded by imprints of a colonial history, especially the resistance towards integration into colonial Philippines by Muslims in Mindanao. Additionally, their constructions of idealized masculinities are reflective of their negotiation between context and adherence to local hegemonic masculinities in Philippine society that legitimizes unequal gender relations. We argue that Filipino men’s accounts of ideal masculinity and their aspirations to this model reflect ongoing negotiation between immediate circumstances and persistent adherence to local hegemonic masculinities.

Keywords

Philippines conflict internal displacement hegemonic masculinity noncombatant men

Introduction

At the end of 2020, 48 million people were Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) due to violent conflicts (Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) 2020). Yet, there have been few studies on the impact of internal displacement since mid-2000, and even fewer with a focus within the Asia-Pacific Region (Al-Mahaidi, Gross, and Cantor 2019, 1). Although episodes of conflict and displacement have consequences for both men and women (Hewamanne 2009), responses to these events vary significantly (Cockburn 2004). Most research on IDPs focuses on women and children. While attention to the latter cannot be overstated, critical analysis of men and masculinities in these contexts is crucial to understanding gendered power relations between men and women, as well as between men.

To this end, this paper will explore the experiences of 31 Filipino men who underwent conflict-induced internal displacement in a city in the southern island of the Philippines. This article explores how men’s experiences of conflict-induced internal displacement shaped their perceptions of “ideal” masculinity. There are few studies on Filipino men living in conflict settings, most of which focus on armed men, presented as either casualties or perpetrators (e.g., Dwyer and Cagoco-Guiam 2012). Unlike previous related research, our study focuses on noncombatant men and begins with their definitions of pagkalalaki (masculinity) before engaging in discussions about ideal masculinity. We argue that Filipino men’s accounts of ideal masculinity and their aspirations to this model reflect an ongoing negotiation between their immediate circumstances and persistent adherence to local hegemonic masculinities. Understanding this process offers insights into gender inequality in the Philippines in the context of conflict-induced displacement and other countries with similar conditions.

While our findings support previous scholarly works on men who experienced conflict-induced displacements (e.g., Abrams 2010), we add to this work in significant ways as well. First, men interviewed for this study “localized” their descriptions of ideal masculinity, implying a distinct non-Western model of masculinity. Second, men’s constructions of ideal masculinity included attributes that downplayed violence, including domestic violence. Finally, there was a disjuncture between the men’s accounts of their performances of ideal masculinity and their perceived enactments of masculinities. Their process of defining ideal masculinity and their narratives of embodied enactment of masculinity, emphasizes the men’s agency within seemingly nonhegemonic masculinities, and disrupts portrayals of men in this context as either victims or perpetrators.

The discussion that follows begins with a brief commentary on colonial Philippines as context for the prolonged conflicts and internal displacements specific to Mindanao. We then draw on Connell’s conceptualization of “hegemonic masculinity” to explore how economically marginalized noncombatant Filipino men negotiate their enactments of masculinities within their families and communities. Noncombatant men in this study are defined as unarmed civilians, which distinguishes them from noncombatant men who are part of the military structure. Our findings are informed by interviews with 62 women and men former IDPs conducted in 2018 over a period of 8 months in one of the major cities in Mindanao that experienced urban warfare.

Background

The Philippines is an archipelago composed of three main island groups: Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. The country was colonized and occupied by Spain for 300 years (1565–1898), the United States for 48 years (1898–1946) (Gloria 2014), and Japan for 3 years (1942–1945) (Kratoska 2013). However, Mindanao’s colonial history differs from the rest of the country primarily due to ongoing resistance to the integration of Muslims dating back to colonial times (Gamas et al. 2017). This resistance to integration is regarded as one of the root causes of the insurgence that led to five decades of conflict-induced internal displacements on the island (e.g., Magdalena 1977). The colonial state also prompted events that substantially oppressed people in the Southern Philippines, especially Muslims. Of particular note are disputes regarding land ownership between Muslim and Christian settlers. The latter resettled on the island after being promised financial assistance by the Commonwealth government in 1935 as an incentive to migrate to Mindanao (Gloria 2014). Moreover, the comparatively poorer economic and social conditions of the Muslim population, characterized by “relative deprivation, Muslim displacement, size of Muslim population, rate of uneducated population, and tenancy” (Magdalena 1977, 299), further inflamed the Muslim insurgency (Hull and Echavez 2010). The postcolonial government of the Philippines, centered among the elites in Luzon, also marginalized Muslims in Mindanao (Cagoco-Guiam 2013) as the administration failed to improve the lives of ordinary Muslims, thereby perpetuating social injustice and political alienation (Magdalena 1977). The historical oppression faced by Muslims is well documented and recognised as a factor that exacerbated the protracted conflict and displacements in Mindanao (i.e., Caballero-Anthony 2007; Tuminez 2007).

Masculinities in Conflict-induced Displacement Contexts

The global literature on men who experienced conflict-induced displacements noted that men adhere to certain features of local hegemonic masculinities (e.g., Myrttinen, Khattab & Naujoks, 2017). Hegemonic masculinities are forms of masculinities that are relational and legitimize gender inequality between men and women and between men (Connell 2000). In the hierarchy of masculinities, hegemonic masculinities are positioned as superior to “complicit,” “subordinated,” “marginalized,” and “protest” masculinities (Connell and Messerschmidt 2005), sometimes collectively referred to as “nonhegemonic masculinities” (Hirsch and Kachtan, 2017). Of particular relevance to this work are enactments of marginalized masculinities common among “exploited or oppressed groups … which may share many features with hegemonic masculinity but are socially de-authorised” (Connell 2000, 30–31). Men who enact marginalized masculinities are often disadvantaged as a result of class, race or religion, but find power in performances of ‘manliness’ or machismo (Connell 2005).

Studies show that men in these contexts remain committed to the role of provider (e.g., Kabachnik et al. 2013), and protector (e.g., Abrams 2010). These roles align with common attributes of local hegemonic masculinities and reproduce normative positions assigned to men that complement the traditional roles ascribed to women, thus legitimizing women’s subordination and maintaining gender inequality. In the Philippines, the provider role is also connected to being the “head of the family” (Medina 2015).

However, adherence to enacting local hegemonic masculinities during and after conflict and displacement are challenging at best and impossible at worst (Myrttinen, Khattab, and Naujoks 2017). Dolan (2002) used the term “thwarted masculinities” to refer to enactments of masculinities by noncombatant men due to their struggles to perform the local hegemonic forms of masculinity because of their marginalized positions. The inability of men to align with local hegemonic masculinities led to “frustration and at times various forms of violence, against both others and oneself” (Myrttinen, Khattab, and Naujoks 2017, 108).

Masculinity, Colonialism, and Idealized Masculinities

Gendered hierarchies, patriarchal social norms, and intersectional power inequalities were central to the colonial project (Morrell and Swart 2005, 91). Thus, the process of colonization produced a particular gender order and hierarchy that promotes “… masculine authority founded and embodied in the patriarchal family, compulsory heterosexuality, and the exchange of women— all articulated in the crucible of imperial masculinity” (Morrell and Swart 2005, 92). In most of the colonies, the gender hierarchy constructs imperial masculinities as superior to those of the colonized (Banarjee and Connell 2018).

The supremacy of the colonizers’ masculinity was, in general, imposed, ascertained, and maintained by devaluing indigenous men’s masculinities. This was done through various forms of rhetoric and imagery that dehumanized and/or demonized indigenous men, often in relation to indigenous women (Hall 2011). The latter was generally framed as vulnerable and in need of protection or saving from their own ignorance, but more importantly from indigenous men. Subduing indigenous men’s masculinities was used as a means to justify colonialism (Jackson and Balaji 2011, 22), where “European writing on men and masculinity created an ideal type man” (emphasis in the original), who embodied an “idealized white masculinity” (Hall 2011, 35).

Masculinities modelled on idealized white masculinity were challenged in the colonies. Resistance was expressed through alternate or reconfigured enactments of what could be considered local hegemonic masculinities. For example, in Southeast Asia, including the Philippines, Andaya (2006) referred to “localization” or “the ways in which imported beliefs and practices” including those relative to gender constructions, “[are] both adopted by local societies and adapted to indigenous customs” (327). Jamaican men in Hall’s (2011) study negotiated their masculinities through “Africanized thematics” (46) expressed via “oral discourses linked to transgressive bodily performances” (37). These examples, interpreted in different contexts, articulate hegemonic masculinities’ dynamic, pervasive, and ubiquitous nature (Connell and Messerschmidt 2005).

Nevertheless, traces of idealized white masculinities prevalent during the colonial period have been carried over in contemporary hegemonic masculinities. These characteristics or attributes have been retained through socio-cultural practices and structures (e.g., Kasim 2020) that sustain the collective expectations of all men regardless of gender, class, and race. Some of the key attributes include heterosexuality (Grabska and Fanjoy 2015) and maintaining a patriarchal family by enacting the provider (Jaji 2009) and protector roles (Abrams 2010). Noncombatant Filipino men in this study described an ideal masculinity that has attributes of local hegemonic masculinities that reflected some traits of idealized white masculinities. However, experiences of conflict-induced internal displacement and their marginalized position in the hierarchy of masculinities also constituted the ideal masculinity, making it possible for these men to valorize and dignify their enactments of masculinity.

Filipino Masculinities

Given the limited literature on Filipino men and masculinities in conflicts and displacement settings, we drew insights from other relevant fields such as masculinities from colonial Philippines, Filipino labor migration and seafaring, and economically marginalized communities.

Gender relations in the Philippines during the pre-Hispanic period consisted of a “complex set of gender-differentiated and autonomous spheres” where either men or women could dominate. Women were not necessarily dependent on men for survival (Eviota 1992, 36). Through the process of colonization, the Philippines’ gender order took in the “varied, discontinuous, at times overlapping, and often conflicting or ambiguous symbolic formulations and reformulations of gender and sexuality of the Spanish and American colonizers” (Blanc-Szanton 1990, 347). Establishing and upholding unequal gender roles, especially during Spanish colonial period, supports the “colonial gender ideology of women’s inherent inferiority” relative to men (Eviota 1992, 4). Specific to the depiction of Filipino men, there was a marked difference between how men from the North and South, particularly Muslim men, were “abjectified” (Kasim 2020, 543). While all Filipino men were presented as inferior to the colonizers, men from the North were not demonized. Instead, they were viewed by the colonizers as needing “enlightenment” or “civilizing” based on the colonizers’ standards (Angeles 2010; España-Maram 2006). Muslim men, on the other hand, were not only dehumanized, but also described as treacherous, conflict-hungry (Gamas et al. 2017) and “uncontrolled” (Hawkins 2013, 96). The differences in the way that Filipino Muslim and Christian men’s masculinity was represented by colonial officials suggests that these differences might also impact contemporary men’s construction of their masculinity. However, and bearing in mind that “Muslim societies are never monolithic” (Bayat 2003, 5) including Muslim men, our data did not reveal any differences in their response to induced internal displacement compared to their Christian counterparts. While this result is surprising, we suggest explanations in our findings section.

In contemporary Philippines, the provider role is central to the performances of local hegemonic masculinities regardless of religious affiliation. This role entails breadwinning (Alipio 2013; Yea 2015), being a father (McKay and Lucero-Prisno 2012; Pingol 2001) and acting as the padre de pamilya (head of the family) (Hill 2011; Parreñas 2008). Heterosexuality is seen as an integral aspect of enacting a local hegemonic masculinity (Angeles 2001; Cañete 2014). A “sense of community” or a collectivist mindset is also integrated into the performance of Filipino hegemonic masculinities, such as Filipino seafarers’ demonstration of community by hosting celebrations during their return home (McKay and Lucero-Prisno 2012). Nonetheless, the studies above indicate that Filipino men, especially economically marginalized men, approximate hegemonic masculinity by redefining roles such as breadwinner to preserve patriarchal privilege (Turgo 2014; Yea 2015).

Scholarly works mentioning noncombatant Filipino men noted that in their attempt to enact local hegemonic masculinities, they experience distress when these attempts fail (Cagoco-Guiam 2013; Dwyer and Cagoco-Guiam 2012). In some instances, men’s frustrations with their failure to perform culturally acceptable masculinities led them to assert their masculinities in violent ways, the most common being domestic violence (Tigno 2006).

The Study Sites

There is more than physical dislocation and relocation to consider during events of conflict and displacements as “it destroys people’s lives … economically, socially and culturally … [it] shatter[s] communities’ social structure and leaves those displaced increasingly vulnerable to impoverishment for generations to come” (Maldonado 2012, 193–194). Moreover, when writing about IDPs’ response strategies, Vincent (2001, 10) stated that alongside losing a house, “men seemed to suffer more from losing … employment because that loss has a direct consequence on their sense of identity and dignity.” In relation to women, studies show that domestic violence is common and is consistent with a marginalized masculinity as men assert their authority over women to regain a sense of power and control during unsettling times (Echavez, Mosawi, and Pilongo 2016).

The men interviewed for this study lived in two of the five barangays (villages) caught between a one-off armed battle between the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF). More recently, two major armed conflicts erupted in Southern Philippines—one in 2013 and another in 2017. To observe anonymity and confidentiality, we deliberately decided not to specify the timeframe of the conflict that affected the interviewees. Noteworthy, and relevant to men’s marginalized masculinities, is their environment—urban poor barangays. This type of barangay typically lacks proper road networks, has high levels of crime, and is mostly occupied by informal settlers who generally engage in meagre economic activities (Malaque, Bartsch, and Scriver 2018).

Many of the interviewees said that the siege brought both negative and positive transformations to the barangays. Negative changes included the lack of formal sources of income, inadequate income to attend to their families’ needs, and the addition of “new faces” in the barangays. The effects of conflict and displacement on sources of income is addressed in both Philippine (e.g., Cagoco-Guiam 2013) and international literature (e.g., Abdelmoneium 2016). While some interviewees expressed relief that former “bad people” (i.e., rebels and neighbors who were engaged in illicit activities such as the use and selling of illegal drugs) had left the barangays, many interviewees were concerned about the “new faces.” For most interviewees from Study Site A (a barangay composed of Muslim and Christian residents) new faces referred to new Muslim residents, while interviewees from Study Site B (primarily Muslim-dominated) noted an increased presence of the AFP. Muslim interviewees feared being accused of being members or supporters of the secessionist groups by the AFP and feared accusations by the rebels of spying for the AFP (Hull and Echavez 2010).

Some men referred to positive transformations in the barangays, mainly noting improved infrastructure, such as housing and roads. Before the siege, houses were built close to each other and were constructed from light materials. There were no proper roads prior to the siege, mostly narrow pathways, with some areas using wooden planks as walkways restricting vehicle access. After the siege, and with housing assistance from the government, houses were organised into rows and were built using durable materials. The roads were paved and widened allowing travel between barangays as well as adequate vehicle access within the barangays.

Methods and Data

The life story interview was the main data collection technique utilized, with focus group discussions (FGD), in-depth interviews (IDI), and community profiling conducted as complementary data collection methods. Interviewees for life stories were men who experienced conflict-induced internal displacement and were (a) residents of the study sites at the time of fieldwork; (b) aged 20–50 years; (c) lived in the study areas prior and during the siege; (d) lived in the study areas for a minimum of 5 years; and (e) spoke either Cebuano or Tagalog. These criteria were also employed in the recruitment of women for FGDs and IDIs, and local officials who were interviewed for the community profile.

Both snowball and volunteer sampling were used in the recruitment of interviewees. With snowball sampling, potential interviewees were visited after being referred by the local officials or other participants. Volunteers were recruited by joining “chit-chats” among barangay residents in places where they often gathered, such as mini variety stores, basketball courts, and the barangay hall.

A total of 31 Filipino men were interviewed. The following provides a description of the general demographic characteristics of these men: (a) 20–35 age range (17); (b) attained an education beyond elementary school (6th grade) (22); (c) Muslim (21);¹ (d) married (21); (e) worked in the service and sales sector (9) with elementary occupations, such as daily waged labor (9); and (f) lived in the study sites for 25 years or less, but not below 5 years (18). The number of interviewees who underwent internal displacement for a year or less (16) and more than a year (15) were almost equal. The 26 women in the study were: (a) predominantly aged between 36–50 years (17); (b) attained an education beyond elementary school (6th grade) (15); (c) Muslim (15); (d) married (18); (e) lived in the study sites for 25 years or less, but not below 5 years (15); and (f) experienced conflict-induced internal displacement for a year or less (18). Additionally, five barangay officials were asked community profile questions.

Data analysis comprised an iterative process of transcribing, editing, and thematic and comparative analyses. In both analyses, data matrices were used. Ethics in doing research were observed pre, during, and post fieldwork, including the use of pseudonyms for all interviewees.

The lead author is a woman social science researcher from Southern Philippines, who, in terms of positionality employs both an outsider and insider perspective. She is an outsider in terms of her gender given that most interviewees are men, but an insider being from the region and having engaged in previous studies that examine the lived experiences of people who have undergone conflict-induced internal displacements. The co-author is an Australian feminist sociologist who is interested in examining constructions of masculinity—especially the way gender norms operate in practice in different social and cultural contexts. Furthermore, the lead author, conducted the interviews with the aid of two men who served as research assistants, who are fluent in both Cebuano and Tagalog. The research assistants were recruited through the local research institute in Mindanao where the lead author previously worked. Besides having worked with the lead author on similar studies, having men as research assistants ensured that interviewees’ preferences were accommodated.

Findings

Several themes emerged on how men in Mindanao, who experienced conflict-induced internal displacement, construct masculinities with the most notable being the interviewees’ definitions of pagkalalaki (masculinity) and how this “ideal” masculinity related to their own beliefs and practices. Their insights into Filipino masculinity are important given the limited studies on Filipino masculinities in general, and men in Mindanao who experienced conflicts and internal displacements, in particular. The following section outlines interviewees’ conceptualizations of pagkalalaki, and their understandings of the “ideal man.”

Definitions of pagkalalaki

In defining pagkalalaki, many interviewees initially referred to a heterosexual man who acts “as a man” or “is a man,” in contrast or in relation to acting as a woman. For Malik (35, Study Site B) pagkalalaki means “you are a man. If you do not act like a man, then you act like a woman.” For Daaim (25, Study Site A), pagkalalaki means, “you do the things that men do. Of course, you do not do what women do. Things that men do are, have [sex with] women ….” These conceptions of pagkalalaki suggest that their understanding of masculinity aligns with and reinforces normative gender practices and heterosexual identification.

Second, pagkalalaki was tightly connected to the breadwinner role and serving as padre de pamilya. Bryan (36, Study Site A) said, “[Pagkalalaki] means that a man can stand on his own. The one who heads the family. The one who works for the family.” For the 37-year-old Ebadaah (Study Site B), pagkalalaki means “that as a man, you should fight against poverty. You should find work in order for your wife and children to be happy. We [men] should raise our families.”

Lastly, interviewees defined pagkalalaki as a man who cares for his wife. Though this definition is consistent with some of the literature on Filipino masculinities (e.g., Aguilar 2006), it is not a general attribute of local hegemonic masculinities in the Philippines. Economic frustrations sometimes caused men to act aggressively towards their wives via “dominating decision-making, drinking, and perhaps even engaging in aggressive sexual behaviour” (Hill 2011, 241). Discussions about men being caring is missing from the conflict and internal displacement literature. While some interviewees related caring with their ability to provide for their family, for others, caring for one’s wife meant “not beating her,”² “loving her beyond physical and material reasons,” and “assisting her with household chores.”

[Pagkalalaki] is a man’s love [for] his wife. He should love her with all his life. He should not love his wife for [reasons] such as her wealth or her looks. He should take her for all that she is. [Men] who fight with women are not real [men]. I say this because if you are a real man, you fight for your family. Many men would say, “It’s just my wife …” and so they neglect them. That is one reason why they hit their wives. (Ubaid, 38, Study Site A)

With pagkalalaki, if it is real pagkalalaki, you have to be caring first and foremost with your family. You also have to be helpful. (Malik, 35, Study Site B)

Two essential ideas are conveyed from these findings. First, interviewees assumed that their definitions of pagkalalaki are universal and thus shared by the interviewer, especially their attitudes towards homosexuality.³ Second, interviewees’ definitions of pagkalalaki strongly reinforced conventional gender roles of men and women in the Philippines.

Constructions of the “Ideal Man”

The interviewees’ description of the ideal man primarily derives from normative gender roles assigned to heterosexual men and women in Philippine society. Nevertheless, interviewees’ descriptions suggest a convergence between normative gender roles, situated within a colonial legacy, and specific localized features. When interviewees were asked about the characteristics of an ideal man, they were not specifically asked for the traits of an ideal Filipino man. The general phrasing of the question avoided limiting interviewees’ descriptions to the Philippine context or the Filipino culture, including pre-empting any differences resulting from religious affiliation. This approach considers the impact of exposure to many and varied enactments of masculinities through different platforms, such as mainstream and social media. Moreover, like Turner (2000), we expected interviewees’ exposure to national and international humanitarian and development agencies during and post-displacement to introduce them to other performances of masculinities, such as those of aid agency workers.⁴

Despite the generic phrasing of the inquiry, interviewees often began by saying “an ideal Filipino man is […]” and their examples were local. Our data also showed that there where similarities rather than differences in the men’s definitions of the “ideal man” regardless of their religion. Indeed, it is noteworthy that none of the interviewees included their respective religion to the phrase above (e.g., an ideal Muslim/Christian Filipino man). We suggest several reasons for this omission, the most important being that class, rather than religion, may have shaped the men’s experience of conflict and internal displacement. In writing about Islamist and Muslim masculinities, Gerami (2005, 456) also noted the importance of class and its associated circumstances to men’s identity construction. Furthermore, “Muslim societies are never religious by definition, nor are their cultures simply reducible to mere religion.” (Bayat 2003, 5). On the other hand, if the concept of ideal masculinity is analyzed in relation to Muslims’ resistance towards integration during colonial Philippines, then Muslim men’s conception of an ideal man as Filipino may indicate a change in this perspective. It is also possible that identifying as Filipino may well be used as a strategic act of caution among Muslim men interviewees to avoid association with the Muslim secessionist group.

Men in this study identified six dominant attributes that inform and influence the way that they, and by inference all Filipino men, ought to think and act as men who underwent conflict-induced internal displacement, even though men’s actual enactments of masculinities might not align with these views. Interviewees believed that men who experienced conflict-induced displacement ought to have a strong connection to heterosexuality, maintain the breadwinner role, act as padre de pamilya, care for their wives and children, and project a good-natured social persona.

Heterosexuality and the breadwinner role

Some interviewees described the ideal Filipino man in opposition to stereotypical characteristics or roles attributed to women or gay men. For example,

[He] is not tender … as others would look at [him] differently … and they would ask, “[Is he] gay?” [If] you move gently, [you would be asked], “Are you gay?” He must act like a man or a gentleman … and prefer women. (Yael, 23, Study Site A)

He has a stable job. For me, it does not look good that it is the other way around where the woman is working, and the man is doing the household chores. It should be the man who is working, and not the woman … It is good to look at [a couple where the] man is working, while the woman is at home. (Nageenah, 28, Study Site A)

Taking on the breadwinner role in the family featured in most men’s construction of the ideal Filipino man because they claimed that providing for the family is a man’s primary duty. There is also societal pressure for a man to perform the breadwinner role irrespective of circumstances, as a man is not worthy of respect if he is unable to support his family financially. Fred (46, Study Site A) said, “Right after the siege, work was difficult. However, [as a man], you should work hard to earn, because [you] ought to raise [your] children and provide for [your] wife. It is okay even if [a man] only earns a little. A man is not respected if he gets married but cannot raise his family.” What is significant for Fred and others is that men participate in paid work and that men are acknowledged as the family’s breadwinner regardless of who earns the most in the household. The level of income or the type of work undertaken is often inconsequential. The interviewees’ attachment to the breadwinner role indicates the persistence of a gendered division of labor in modern Philippine society regardless of shifting or changing patterns of employment between men and women (Hill 2011; Medina 2015).

Padre de pamilya

These men also defined the ideal Filipino man as the padre de pamilya, another conventional role ascribed to Filipino men in previous scholarly works. According to Medina (2015, 154), “[t]he husband encroaches into the female domain but remains the man of the house and head of the family by being in control. The wife continues respecting the husband and maintaining a submissive stance in dealing with them.” Our findings also demonstrate the continuity of unequal gender relations between husbands and wives in Filipino families. These were articulated in men’s accounts of bravery and independence, including being the family’s main decision-maker.

Men in this study also conveyed that bravery is an integral part of performing the padre de pamilya role. Being brave means being decisive and acting in difficult circumstances. Emman’s statement below articulates that bravery also entails critical thinking and high-level problem-solving skills. Based on strong expectations placed on men to exhibit bravery, a man who is unable to embody these traits is not an ideal man. Thus, it is not surprising that men engage in hazardous activities to ensure their masculinities (Yea 2015).

A man is someone who does not cower from any circumstances or problems. He finds solutions to it and is not afraid of it […] there are men who, with just a small problem, would say, “I’m not doing this!” They would run from it; run from the problem … A man should be brave. If you have a problem, you do not hide from it. You really face your problem. [You] come up with a solution or what you need to do in order to surpass it. (Emman, 44, Study Site A)

Furthermore, the performance of the padre de pamilya role requires being regarded as independent and autonomous. Interviewees articulated that if a man can make decisions on his own, or if he is his family’s primary decision-maker, then he can be regarded as independent. As Zeus (45, Study Site A) articulated, “An ideal man decides on his own … as a padre de pamilya, you stand by your decision to raise your family. You do not depend on others. As you are the man, your decision should be followed.” Zeus’ statement suggests that being the padre de pamilya, means being decisive and unquestioningly obeyed by everyone in the household. Men’s performance of the padre de pamilya role as the primary, if not exclusive, decision-maker cultivates unequal gender relations between the husband/father and his family. Associating decision-making with a man’s independence is commonplace in the international literature on masculinities (Flood 2019).

Men caring for their wives and children

As stated previously, caring is an attribute that interviewees discussed in their definitions of pagkalalaki. They also associated it with the padre de pamilya role. This characteristic is not commonly associated with men (Olivius 2016) outside of providing for the needs of the family and as such, is not often discussed in studies of Filipino masculinities. However, interviewees stressed caring as an important trait associated with the ideal Filipino masculinity. In Faa’s (28, Study Site B) words, “[One] attribute of an ideal man is perhaps to love the woman […] She should not be physically hurt. The man should love her, because for me, the reason you married her is because you love her. Think about it, why would you hurt her if you love her?”

Daamin’s (20, Study Site B) description of caring involves “helping his wife,” particularly with the “heavy household chores.” His statement implies a classification of household chores into light and heavy, with men doing the latter. This resonates with the small-scale farmers in Hill’s (2011, 241) study, who considered physical strength a part of their masculine identity, hence refusing to engage in “lighter, less manly work,” including any household chores. It seems that even if the ideal Filipino man assists with the household chores, this only includes chores that stress or require physical strength. Thus, their contribution to the chores is an act of caring (i.e., perpetuating gender stereotypes) rather than a belief in shared responsibility for unpaid labour.

Many interviewees also discussed care in relation to their children. A common way that interviewees claimed they showed care was by refusing to use corporal punishment when reprimanding their children. Larry (36, Study Site A) said that it pains him to see other men in his barangay “spanking their children like dogs,” when children “can be disciplined by talking to them appropriately.”

Befriending one’s children is another way of displaying care for them. It means that children are not raised with fear, but with affection. According to Idrak (42, Study Site B), “If you do not befriend your children, they will not feel that you love them. With that, you would not also feel that they love you.” Therefore, the interviewees’ model of an ideal Filipino man is someone who cares for his children by avoiding physical violence and developing a close loving relationship with them.

Most Filipino fathers, especially in urban poor populations like our study sites, are characterised by Tan (1994, 28) as either “procreators or dilettantes.” The procreator is concerned with family tradition, continuity of the family name, and economic provision, while the dilettante is less concerned with these roles, but is more emotionally available to his children, and acts like a friend (Tan 1994). In the interviewees’ descriptions of an ideal Filipino man, it appears that their version of masculinity incorporates mixed traits of both procreator and dilettante fathers. The ideal Filipino man enacts a procreator fatherhood through breadwinning and being the padre de pamilya and performs a dilettante fatherhood by being emotionally involved with and befriending his children.

A good-natured social persona

The ideal Filipino man has a particular social persona; he is good natured, with qualities including being kind, respectful, and “avoiding fights.” Interviewees stated that when a man is kind, people can easily approach or talk to him, is respected by, and avoids conflict with others, and is generous and helpful. Likewise, interviewees said that when a man is respectful, especially towards women and his in-laws, he gains respect in return and avoids having enemies. Finally, when a man is unaggressive, he “avoids fights and problematic situations” (Camil, 41 & Yaamir, 46, Study Site B). In turn, a good-natured man is respected in his community (Yaamir, 46, Study Site B) and leaves a good impression of himself wherever he goes “until he dies” (Ubaid, 38, Study Site A). Cultivating a good natured-social persona appears to refute the demonisation of Muslim men evoked in colonial times. Interestingly, there is less mention of these attributes in past studies on Filipino men’s masculinities, which suggests that the precarity of displaced men’s circumstances might influence their enactments of masculinities.

In sum, Filipino men’s construction of ideal masculinity draws on their experience of conflict-induced internal displacement and their commitment to some characteristics of local hegemonic masculinities. Moreover, while these men stressed the importance of caring, their construction of an ideal man continues to conform to local hegemonic masculinities that legitimize unequal gender relations.

Aspiring towards the Ideal Filipino Masculinity

The profile of the study sites and the characteristics of the men interviewed indicate that they embody marginalized masculinities. As noted earlier, the concept of marginalized masculinities is relevant to this study as it is present in “dominant or subordinated classes in ethnic groups” and “[m]arginalization is always relative to the authorization of the hegemonic masculinity of the dominant group” (Connell 2005, 80). Yet, these men’s descriptions of the ideal Filipino man also reflected or incorporated their experiences of conflict and internal displacement, making it possible for them to approximate the masculinity of the dominant group. It is not surprising that many perceived themselves as enacting the ideal Filipino masculinity, as it exemplifies an intervention into identity practices “through the particularization of dominant identity practices, by an ethic of difference that stresses the negotiation of differences and sameness, by representing non-dominant identity practices without reaffirming their marginality” (Tillner 2000, 58–59). In turn, they can legitimize their marginalized masculinities to some extent and also view themselves as performing either all or most of the attributes of the ideal Filipino man. Where men struggled to match their current circumstances with their descriptions of an ideal man, they referred to their experiences before the siege as evidence of their capacity to perform this ideal masculinity. Some men cited certain life events as a trigger, while others implied continually enacting an ideal Filipino masculinity. One example of this is Yaamir (46, Study Site B), who stated,

I have done these [idealized masculine traits] … Of course, I am confident [in saying that] because I have experiences where I applied those [traits of the ideal Filipino-man]. [For instance], even if [once] someone wanted to kill me ... I did not retaliate. I did not do it, as it will only result to conflict … I do not want conflict … As for standing on my own two feet to raise my family, ... I did that too. I raised my family on my own and worked hard [to support] my parents. I did not depend on my siblings […] Also, I do not hit family members and my children.

Some men in the study articulated that their desire to perform an ideal Filipino masculinity occurred in response to a particular event in their lives, such as marriage, a self-realization that altered their lives’ direction, or after going through conflict-induced internal displacement. Xander (36, Study Site A) is one of those who articulated that he made the change, after realising that his old self would not “lead him anywhere good.”

I now have the attributes of an ideal man because I realised that during those times that I was a bum, nothing good was going to happen to me. That is why [I changed]. I was undisciplined back then (laughed). I had women other than my wife [and] there were times that I would not come home [until] the following morning. Now, I am enacting the [traits] of the ideal man.

Furthermore, Zaabit (20, Study Site B) said that he embodied the ideal Filipino masculinity after his father’s death and during displacement through the work he engaged in to provide for his family.

I also have the traits of the ideal man. I work and when I come home after work, I help in the house. If there is no [construction work] to be done, like today, and there are some jobs from the Barangay Chairperson, I would work on those, albeit temporarily. Once there is [construction] work to do, I go back to it.

In the context of conflicts and displacements, men experienced disjointedness between what is expected of them as husbands, fathers, and siblings and their everyday realities (Cagoco-Guiam 2013; Dwyer and Cagoco-Guiam 2012). Such thwarted masculinities are evident in the disconnect between men’s desire to conform to conventional gender roles and what was possible in their actual lives. To some degree, the acceptance and perpetuation of traditional gender roles for men and women in the Philippines are reflected in the breadwinner role, which is not challenged even in untenable or distressing situations, leaving men vulnerable to feelings of inadequacy and failure (Cagoco-Guiam 2013). Larry (36, Study Site A), a single parent of two, conveyed that he was in a difficult position because of insufficient income due to the lack of regular and reliable work. Baashir (42, Study Site B) expressed the same frustration as he struggled to find permanent work and hence relied on his wife’s income as a teacher in the barangay’s day care center. Ebadaah (37, Study Site B) said that although he has recovered from the effects of the siege, he does not have a house of his own, which in the Philippines is symbolic of the head of the family role (Parreñas 2008).

Nonetheless, Larry, Baashir, and Ebadaah perceived themselves to be enacting the ideal Filipino masculinity despite the disjuncture between expectation and reality. This requires transforming or re-framing ideal masculinity into a version that becomes possible for them to perform. Furthermore, a good-natured persona was identified as integral to an ideal Filipino masculinity, which contradicted many of their reactions to the “new faces” in their barangays. By attempting to enact the ideal masculinity, Filipino men who experienced conflict-induced internal displacement display a commitment towards many attributes of local hegemonic masculinities, despite their inability to enact them.

Conclusion

The Filipino men in this study inhabit a marginalized masculinity given their locations and difficult conditions resulting from conflict and internal displacement. Nevertheless, the men’s definition of pagkalalaki and their descriptions of ideal masculinity, while undergoing “localization” and shaped by their experience of conflict-induced internal displacement, illustrates an adherence to local hegemonic masculinities in the Philippines. Although showing care for their wives and children appear distinct to these Filipino men, enacting the ideal Filipino masculinity also entailed breadwinning, being the padre de pamilya, and having a good-natured social persona – attributes that have been identified in the literature as constitutive of performing local hegemonic masculinities.

Nonetheless, men’s accounts of personal situations and the condition of their barangays at the time of fieldwork, suggest disjuncture between expectations and realities. There were numerous indications in these men’s narratives that their attempt to perform the breadwinner and padre de pamilya roles failed or were compromised. Despite of their precarious circumstances, Filipino men claimed that they are adequately, if not comprehensively, performing the ideal Filipino masculinity, which further demonstrates their commitment to local hegemonic masculinities.

Overall, we have shown that Filipino men’s descriptions of ideal masculinity, including their committed aspiration towards enacting this model, articulates men’s agency and negotiation between context and adherence to local hegemonic masculinities that legitimizes gender inequalities. There are however some limitations to our findings. We are aware that many past conflict-induced internal displacements in the Philippines occurred in rural communities, so our findings might not necessarily reflect these men’s experiences. We recommend further inquiry into the ways that men enact masculinities in those contexts. Moreover, the relatively small sample means that our findings, while providing rich accounts of Filipino men’s constructions of masculinity, are also bounded. For instance, religious differences in idealized masculinity did not surface from interviewees’ narratives but could with a larger sample.

Lastly, fieldwork was conducted when the Bangsamoro government was “under the general supervision of the President of the Philippines” but is now a “Bangsamoro government [that] will have an asymmetrical relationship with the national government” and “will have more autonomy than other regions in the country” (Gutierrez 2019). This is a major historical and political change in the Philippines, and in Mindanao in particular, which might require further inquiry relative to the enactments of masculinities among noncombatant Filipino men.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the The Karen Halley Trust Fund, The Hugh Martin Weir Prize, Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship International, Global Learning Travel Grant, Research Abroad Scholarship, School of Social Sciences Postgraduate Research Travel and Conference Support Scheme.

Notes

Author Biographies

Jennefer Lyn L. Bagaporo is a researcher in the Department of Sociology, Criminology and Gender Studies at the University of Adelaide. She is a research affiliate with the Research Institute for Mindanao Culture (RIMCU) in the Philippines and the Internal Displacement Research Programme of the Refugee Law Initiative at the University of London. Jennefer’s research interests are in gender, health, and poverty, especially in the context of violent conflicts and forced displacements.

Pam Papadelos is a senior lecturer in the Department of Sociology, Criminology and Gender Studies and the deputy director of the Fay Gale Centre for Research on Gender at the University of Adelaide. Her teaching and research focus on the ways gender intersects with race, class, and sexuality. She is the author of From Revolution to Deconstruction: Exploring Feminist Theory and Practice in Australia (2010) and has published on the sociology of gender and migration in the journals, Ethnic and Racial Studies, Social Identities, and Journal of Sociology.

References

Abdelmoneium

2016. “Internally Displaced Families in Khartoum-Sudan: Challenges and Policy Implications.” International Journal of Migration, Health and Social Care 12, no. 4: 252–63.

Abrams

J. R.

2010. “The Collateral Consequences of Masculinizing Violence.” William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law 16, no. 3: 703–752.

Aguilar

E. J. T.

2006. Rethinking Pagkalalaki Among Married Cebuanos Choosing Non-Scalpel Vasectomy. PhD Dissertation, University of San Carlos.

Alipio

2013. “Young Men in the Philippines: Mapping the Costs and Debts of Work, Marriage and Family Life.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 646, no. 1: 214–232.

Al-Mahaidi

Gross

Cantor

. 2019. Revitalising IDP Research A ‘State of the Art’ Review Workshop Report. London, UK: Refugee Law Initiative, School of Advanced Study, University of London.

Andaya

B. W.

2006. “Gender History, Southeast Asia, and the “World Regions” Framework.” In A Companion to Gender History, edited by Meade

T. A.

Weiser-Hanks

M. E.

, 323–539. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Angeles

L. C.

2001. “The Filipino Male as “macho-machunurin”: Bringing Men and Masculinities in Gender and Development Studies.” Kasarinlan Journal of Third World Issues 16, no. 1: 9–30.

Angeles

V. S. M.

2010. “Moros in the Media and Beyond: Representations of Philippine Muslims.” Contemporary Islam 4, no. 1: 29–53.

Banarjee

Connell

. 2018. “Gender Theory as Southern Theory.” In Handbook of the Sociology of Gender Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research, edited by Risman

B. J.

Froyum

C. M.

Scarborough

W. J.

, 2nd ed., 57–68. Chicago: Springer.

10.

Bayat

2003. “The Use and Abuse of 'Muslim Societies.” Isim Newsletter 13, no. 1: 5.

11.

Blanc-Szanton

1990. “Collisions of Culture Historical Reformulations of Gender in the Lowland Visayas, Philippines.” In Power and Difference Gender in Island Southeast Asia, edited by Atkinson

J. M.

Errington

, 345–383. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

12.

Caballero-Anthony

2007. “Revisiting the Bangsamoro Struggle: Contested Identities and Elusive Peace.” Asian Security 3, no. 2: 141–61.

13.

Cagoco-Guiam

2013. Gender and Livelihoods among Internally Displaced Persons in Mindanao, Philippines. London, UK: The Brookings Institution – London School of Economics Project on Internal Displacement. http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2013/07/gender-livelihoods-philippines-idps

14.

Cañete

R. R.

2014. Masculinity, Media, and Their Publics in the Philippines. Quezon City, Philippines: University of the Philippine Press.

15.

Cockburn

. 2004. “The Continuum of Violence A Gender Perspective on War and Peace.” Sites of Violence: Gender and Conflict Zones, edited by Giles

Hyndman

, 24–44. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.

16.

Connell

2000. The Men and the Boys. St. Leonards, NSW: Allen and Unwin.

17.

Connell

2005. Masculinities. 2nd ed. St. Leonards, NSW: Allen and Unwin.

18.

Connell

Messerschmidt

J. W.

. 2005. “Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept.” Gender & Society 19, no. 6: 829–59.

19.

Dolan

2002. “Collapsing Masculinities and Weak States: A Case Study of Northern Uganda.” In Masculinities matter, edited by Cleaver

, 57–83. London and New York: Zed Books.

20.

Dwyer

Cagoco-Guiam

. 2012. Gender and Conflict in Mindanao. The Asia Foundation. https://www.ndi.org/sites/default/files/GenderandConflictinMindanao.pdf

21.

Echavez

C. R.

Mosawi

S. M.

Wilfreda

Pilongo

R. E.

. 2016. The Other Side of Gender Inequality: Men and Masculinities in Afghanistan. Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit.https://areu.org.af/publication/1601/

22.

España-Maram

2006. Creating Masculinity in Los Angeles's Little Manila: Working-Class Filipinos and Popular Culture, 1920s-1950s. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

23.

Eviota

E. U.

1992. The Political Economy of Gender: Women and the Sexual Division of Labour in the Philippines. London: Zed Books.

24.

Flood

Michael

. 2019. Global Masculinities Engaging Men and Boys in Violence Prevention. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

25.

Gamas

J. H. D.

Limba

M. L.

Villa

A. V.

Balo

J. C.

Cunanan

M. J. P.

Gloria

H. K.

Beleno

R. B.

III . 2017. Mindanao Muslim History Documentary Sources from the Advent of Islam to the 1800s. Quezon City, Philippines: New Day Publishers and Ateneo de Davao University.

26.

Gerami

2005. “Islamist Masculinity and Muslim Masculinities.” In Handbook of Studies on Men & Masculinities, edited by Kimmel

M. S.

Hearn

Connell

, 448–457. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

27.

Gloria

2014. History from Below: A View from the Philippine South. Davao City, Philippines: University Publication Office Ateneo de Davao University.

28.

Grabska

Fanjoy

. 2015. “And When I Become a Man: Translocal Coping with Precariousness and Uncertainty Among Returnee Men in South Sudan.” Social Analysis 59, no. 1: 76–95.

29.

Gutierrez

B. J.

2019. “Fast Facts on the Bangsamoro Organic Law.” Republic of the Philippines Philippine Information Agency. Accessed 30 May 2020. https://pia.gov.ph/features/articles/1018364

30.

Hall

2011. “Negotiating Jamaican Masculinities.” In Global Masculinities and Manhood, edited by JacksonII

Ronald L.

Balaji

Murali

, 31–51. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.

31.

Hawkins

M. C.

2013. “Masculinity Reborn: Chivalry, Misogyny, Potency and Violence in the Philippines’ Muslim South, 1899-1913.” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 44, no. 22: 250–265.

32.

Hewamanne

2009. “Gendering the Internally Displaced: Problem Bodies, Fluid Boundaries and Politics of Civil Society Participation in Sri Lanka.” Journal of International Women’s Studies 11, no. 1: 157–172.

33.

Hill

2011. “Male Providers” and “Responsible Mothers”: Gender and Livelihood Politics in the Rural Philippines.” Gender, Technology and Development 15, no. 2: 223–247.

34.

Hirsch

Kachtan

D. G.

. 2017. “Is ‘Hegemonic Masculinity’ Hegemonic as Masculinity? Two Israeli Case Studies.” Men and Masculinities 1 (5): 687–708.

35.

Hull

Echavez

. 2010. “From Milkless Cows to Coconut Trees: Recovery from All-Out War in Mindanao, Philippines.” In Moving out of poverty Rising from the ashes of conflict, edited by Narayan

Deepa

Petesch

Patti

, Vol. 4, 248–289. Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/11837

36.

Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) . 2020. GRID 2020 Global Report on Internal Displacement. Geneva: IDMC. (Executive summary). https://www.internal-displacement.org/global-report/grid2020/

37.

Jackson

II Balaji

. 2011. “Introduction Conceptualizing Current Discourses and Writing New Ones.” In Global Masculinities and Manhood, edited by JacksonII

R. L.

Balaji

, 17–30. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.

38.

Jaji

2009. “Masculinity on Unstable Ground: Young Refugee Men in Nairobi, Kenya.” Journal of Refugee Studies 22, no. 2: 177–194.

39.

Kabachnik

Grabowska

Regulska

Mictchneck

Mayorova

O. V.

. 2013. “Traumatic Masculinities: The Gendered Geographies of Georgian IDPs from Abkhazia.” Gender, Place and Culture 20, no. 6: 773–793.

40.

Kasim

M. P.

2020. “Mappila Muslim Masculinities: A History of Contemporary Abjectification.” Men and Masculinities 23, no. 3–4: 542–57.

41.

Kratoska

P. H.

2013. “Southeast Asia from the Japanese Occupation to Independence.” In Routledge Handbook of Southeast Asian History, edited by Owen

Norman G.

, 65–74. Oxon, Ox and New York, NY: Routledge.

42.

Magdalena

F. V.

1977. “Intergroup Conflict in the Southern Philippines: An Empirical Analysis.” Journal of Peace Research 14, no. 4: 299–313.

43.

Malaque

Bartsch

Scriver

. 2018. “Thriving in the Slums: Progressive Development and Empowerment of the Urban Poor to Achieve Secure Tenure in the Philippines.” Architectural Science Review 61, no. 5: 313–18.

44.

Maldonado

J. K.

2012. “A New Path Forward: Researching and Reflecting on Forced Displacement and Resettlement: Report on the International Resettlement Conference: Economics, Social Justice, and Ethics in Development-Caused Involuntary Migration, the Hague, 4-8 October 2010.” Journal of Refugee Studies 25, no. 2: 193–220.

45.

McKay

Lucero-Prisno

D. E.

. 2012. “Masculinities Afloat Filipino Seafarers and the Situational Performance of Manhood.” In Men and Masculinities in Southeast Asia, edited by Ford

Lyons

, 20–37. London, UK: Routledge.

46.

Medina

B. T.

2015. The Filipino Family. 3rd ed. Quezon City, Philippines: University of the Philippines Press.

47.

Morrell

Swart

. 2005. “Men in the Third World.” In Handbook of Studies on Men and Masculinities, edited by Kimmel

M. S.

Hearn

Connell

, 90–113. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

48.

Myrttinen

Khattab

Naujoks

. 2017. “Re-Thinking Hegemonic Masculinities in Conflict-Affected Contexts.” Critical Military Studies 3, no. 2: 103–119.

49.

Olivius

2016. “Refugee Men as Perpetrators, Allies or Troublemakers? Emerging Discourses on Men and Masculinities in Humanitarian Aid.” Women's Studies International Forum 56: 56–65.

50.

Parreñas

R. S.

2008. “Transnational Fathering: Gendered Conflicts, Distant Disciplining and Emotional Gaps.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 34, no. 7: 1057–1072.

51.

Pingol

2001. Remaking Masculinities: Identity, Power, and Gender Dynamics in Families with Migrant Wives and Househusbands. Quezon City, Philippines: University of the Philippines Center for Women's Studies.

52.

Tan

A. L.

1994. “Four Meanings of Fatherhood.” Philippine Sociological Review 42, no. 1/4: 27–39.

53.

Tigno

J. V.

2006. “Migration and Violent Conflict in Mindanao.” Population Review 45, no. 1: 23–47.

54.

Tillner

2000. “The Identity of Dominance: Masculinity and Xenophobia.” In Male Roles, Masculinities and Violence A Culture of Peace, edited by Breines

Connell

Eide

, 53–59. Paris, France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organizations (UNESCO).

55.

Tuminez

A. S.

2007. “This Land Is Our Land: Moro Ancestral Domain and Its Implications for Peace and Development in the Southern Philippines.” SAIS Review (Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies) 27, no. 2: 77–91.

56.

Turgo

N. N.

2014. “Redefining and Experiencing Masculinity in a Philippine Fishing Community.” Philippine Sociological Review 62: 7–38.

57.

Turner

2000. “Vindicating Masculinity: The Fate of Promoting Gender Equality.” Forced Migration Review, no. 9: 8–9.

58.

Vincent

2001. “Introduction and Background.” In Caught Between Borders: Response Strategies of the Internally Displaced, edited by Vincent

Sørensen

B. R.

, 1–14. Pluto Press in association with Norwegian Refugee Council.

59.

Yea

2015. “Masculinity Under the Knife: Filipino Men, Trafficking and the Black Organ Market in Manila, the Philippines.” Gender, Place, and Culture 22, no. 1: 123–142.