Outcomes from the workshop series: “Role and responsibilities of the man in creating a democratic family and free society”

Prepared by the Jineolojî Research Centre of Afrin & Shehba, and Kongra Star.

The dominant male mentality has evolved into the source of all humanitarian crises: of the lethal attacks inflicted on women, nature, society and all peoples. Though resistance against this brutality, and the struggle for women’s freedom, have not faltered, still today we feel the impact of the tensions between the oppressor man and the oppressed woman in every moment and every part of our lives. As the 21st century begins, gendered violence, rape, occupation, and mass killings are weaponised in the 3rd World War and in the politics of capitalist modernity. But, in stark contrast to this, ever more movements and people seeking freedom across the world are coming to the realisation that without women’s freedom there’s no freedom for society. This means that women’s freedom struggle across the globe is renewing and redoubling its efforts. Women are raising their voices in defence of life, society and nature.

As a women’s revolution, the Rojava revolution is one such area, where women have shouldered the role of the vanguard. Women’s voices and women’s colours are expressed in every area of life – from the military and self defence forces to political representation; from education, science and languages to health; from building up the system of democratic autonomy of North and East Syria to the women’s independent structures themselves. Important steps have been taken to recognise women’s collective will and power: creation of women’s institutions and councils, development of the laws to defend women’s rights, and the enfranchisement of the co-chair [one man and one woman] system of governance. At the same time, various different educational projects have been run, aimed at overcoming patriarchal mentalities and sexism within society. Investigating male dominance, and the relationships between families and partners, is key.

It is beyond a doubt that overall changes in social circumstances – particularly in times of war and revolution – leave their mark on the mode of family life and partnerships. In different places and times, revolutionary women have lived in hope that with the flourishing of the revolution, these changes will herald a new era for women and society. For example, in the early years of the Soviet Revolution, revolutionary Alexandra Kollontai saw the need to redefine the institution of the family in order to achieve a communist society. She explains:

“There is no point in not facing up to the truth: the old family in which the man was everything and the woman nothing, the typical family where the woman had no will of her own, no time of her own and no money of her own, is changing before our very eyes. But there is no need for alarm. It is only our ignorance that leads us to think that the things we are used to can never change. Nothing could be less true than the saying “as it was, so it shall be”. We have only to read how people lived in the past to see that everything is subject to change and that no customs, political organisations or moral principles are fixed and inviolable. In the course of history, the structure of the family has changed many times; it was once quite different from the family of today. (…) There is, therefore, no reason to be frightened of the fact that the family is in the process of change, and that outdated and unnecessary things are being discarded and new relations between men and women developing our job is to decide which aspects of our family system are outdated and to determine what relations, between the men and women of the working and peasant classes and which rights and duties would best harmonise with the conditions of life in the new workers’ Russia.“

But the experiences of Alexandra Kollontai and other women in revolutions past and present across the world show us that it’s not easy to overcome male oppression and democratically transform attitudes and relationships within the family. The topic is a huge stumbling block in the road to freedom for women and for society.

Looking at the failings of revolutions and struggles of the 20^th century, Abdullah Öcalan assessed the need for women’s revolution in the 21st century. With his analyses of the reality of women and the family in Kurdistan, made in the late 1980s, he has emphasised that male dominance will not release its grip on women and society by itself. In his speech for the 8^th of March 1998, he analysed patriarchal mentality and the meaning of the institution of family:

‘If we want women’s liberation, we have to criticise in the strongest terms our social structures that are based on the ideology of male supremacy. An important element of this is the family. It too is an institution of male dominance. (…) In particular from the perspective of Kurdish society, it is clearly imperative that this structure is overcome. In my view, the family is the most dangerous trap men and women can fall into. Neither is fully aware of the darkness and depth as it closes around them. The family is the soil in which imperialist colonial systems, and all forms of special warfare, find root. We must confront this head on, and criticise it. This concept doesn’t mean we reject the family outright. We reject the current state of the family, or discuss overcoming it. This understanding is vital.”

Expanding on these evaluations, Abdullah Öcalan illustrated that the ‘women’s issue’ is in fact a problem of men. In order to unravel the web of violence and oppression that stems from it, he has proposed the concept of “Killing the dominant male” as his own philosophy and ideology, and indeed as a guiding principle of socialism. This has meant that first and foremost, he has been liberating his own personality from the mental imprint of dominant masculinity. He also demanded that other men unearth and make a radical investigation of the patriarchal habits embedded in their own personalities and mindsets.

Alongside women’s organised revolutionary struggle, the efforts, reflections and stances of male revolutionaries stand as examples of the search for the truth of a free life within the Kurdistan revolution. These include Mahsum Korkmaz, Fikrî Baygeldî, Engîn Sincar, Qadir Usta and Atakan Mahir. Men who are in search of freedom are steadily becoming more and more aware of the need to transform patriarchal mentalities and approaches. They are realising the patriarchal system is the at the root of all the crises humanity is facing, of the myriad risks of annihilation. Beyond that, the system of male supremacy isn’t just a threat to women alone. The deep crisis masculinity itself is in can be seen in rising suicide rates, the huge percentage of men who take their own lives. According to WHO data, male suicide is twice the rate of female. After car accidents, suicide is the highest cause of death for young men of 15 – 29 years globally.

This tragic reality of masculinity shows that this system, in which the man is dominant and the woman is oppressed and made into the man’s ‘honour’, is a road towards death. In particular, this twisted definition of honour is the root of many tragedies and inhumane crimes. The true meaning of honour can be defined as the defence of a deep sense of dignity, truth and freedom for all humanity- men and women alike. But the patriarchal mentality has corrupted this understanding and turned ‘honour’ into man’s supremacy over women’s bodies, lives, and being. Along with this physical and spiritual femicide, men are also deep in an identity and existential crisis for themselves.

Abdullah Öcalan has laid out his proposal for a solution. According to his paradigm based on social democracy, ecology and women’s freedom, achieving a democratic family and a free, equal life together is a pillar of the democratic nation. Rooted in this paradigm, the freedom struggle and efforts to build equal and respectful relationships between men and women march on in all four parts of Kurdistan. For these same goals, the Jineolojî Academy is working in research and education in many different regions.

What is a man?

In many educations run by Jineolojî, we ask the questions: “What is a woman?” “What is a man?”. This is to get to the bottom of the meaning of gender, and in order to recognise the characteristics and definitions imposed on society by sexism. Interestingly, participants don’t have too many problems describing women’s identity and being. From ‘mother goddess’ and ‘freedom fighter’ all the way until ‘a dry well’, many different types of definitions come up. But when we turn to the question “What is a man? What is masculinity?”, a lot of the time the room goes quiet. It’s clear that men struggle to define their own gender. They’ve never learnt that their own being or identity is a subject of investigation or up for discussion, because according to a sexist social understanding, man is ‘everything’.

But as a result of educations in Kurdish society on the paradigm and defence writings of Abdullah Öcalan, many men have learnt about women’s role in the history of humanity: in the establishment of the social fabric, in the origins of crafts and sciences. The male oppressor took women herself and what she had produced for his own gains: turning her into his property and his ‘honour’. Thanks to Abdullah Öcalan’s analyses on women’s history in Kurdish society, understanding has spread widely of the historical moments that shattered women’s position, and upon which the patriarchal institutions of the family and the state have been built.

Understanding this truth is why so many men participating in educations associate words like ‘oppressor’, ‘cruel’, ‘violence’, ‘rape culture’ or ‘irredeemable’ with men’s reality. It isn’t easy to look deeply into your own reality and the impact of oppressive systems on your personality, and to commit to really working on it. Sometimes, men who make the link between the word for man [zilam] and the word for ‘oppressive’ [zilmkar, from the same root], suddenly take a reactive position to this definition, saying: “We’re not like the men of before. Our values are about equality between men and women.” Some even want to use ‘mer’ or ‘camer’ [older words for man with different roots, linked also to women/the mother] instead of ‘zilam’, because of those words’ alternative associations, putting generosity as the defining feature of the male gender.

So really, what is the reality of a man in today’s world? How can we arrive at an understanding of masculinity, of the role of the man in family life and in society? In particular in the ten years of revolutionary progress in Rojava, what changes have taken root in men’s character, in their relationships with women, family, and society? What has to be done to create relationships that get us closer to a free, equal life together? To achieve victory for women’s revolution as a revolution for all society?

These questions have been the basis of many discussions, educations and research of the Jineolojî Academy in North and East Syria. The Jineolojî research centre of Afrin and Shehba (opened in early 2021) identified a need to progress the discussion and analyses around these questions in the social context of their own region. And so, between the 25^th November 2021 and the 8^th of March 2022, a series of workshops and discussions were held in collaboration with Kongra Star women’s movement under the heading: “Role and responsibilities of the man in the creation of a democratic family and a free society”.

Why and how did this project in Shehba progress?

To answer this question, first of all we need to understand the nature of the region itself. In the Shehba region Kurdish, Arab and Turkmen ethnicities have lived side by side for hundreds of years. But the racist and fundamentalist politics of the Syrian and Turkish states have also left their mark on society. Since 2011 in particular, the region has suffered attacks and occupation from jihadist gangs such as the FSA, Al Nusra and ISIS. Each of these groups has deeper cemented sexism in society and wrought brutal femicides and massacres. But since 2016 a new chapter has begun for women and all of Shehba society. The liberation of the region by the Syrian Democratic Forces and the creation of the autonomous democratic administration is the first time the region has seen a system of self government, with women’s participation.

Due to the genocidal war and occupation from the Turkish state inflicted on the Afrin region in 2018, nearly half a million people were displaced from Afrin to Shehba. Until today, thousands of women, men and children remain in refugee camps in the Shehba region, refusing to accept their displacement and in hope of return. They have at the same time set up their own systems for self government and organisation of economy, education, self defence and social justice. In every institution, council and commune the people of both Shehba and Afrin adhere to the ‘co-chair’ system of gender equal representation. Further, the women of Shehba and Afrin have also built up autonomous institutions and councils for all areas of life. This is to protect women’s lives and free will, and to weave the freedom of women and society from the threads of a free life together and a democratic family. Despite the harsh conditions of all the impacts of war, displacement, the economic and military sanctions of the Syrian state and daily attacks from the Turkish state, the women of Shehba and Afrin have stepped into a leading role in resistance, in society, in culture and in politics.

However, In Shehba, just like across the world, and particularly in war zones, gendered violence and myriad issues of women, family and society persist to this day. In 2021, deeply harmful issues such as violence against women, underage marriage, rape, femicide and female suicide came up in the Women’s Council of Shehba and Afrin every single month. No such event has been left uninvestigated, on the principle that ‘an attack or injustice to any woman is an attack on the life and freedom of all’. The torment created by every instance of gendered violence is a call-out to really expose the root causes and struggle against them ever harder. This is why the Jineolojî Research Centre of Afrin and Shehba sees as some of its primary duties the promotion of education, discussions and actions that develop women’s empowerment, collective memory, organisation, co-operation and self defence. But on the other hand, women and men, young and old- every part of society- all need to take a stance and work together in order to stamp out every kind of physical or mental gendered violence, and instead build relationships of respect and love among partners, families, and society. The Jineolojî Research Centre and the Kongra Star Council of Shehba and Afrin could see the need to run a specific agenda of questions, discussions and analyses on men’s reality with the men of the region. This is so that men also see themselves as responsible for the transformation of sexist mentalities, and for the eradication of gendered oppression. This was the method underlying the social research and education that has been undertaken.

The first ‘Role and responsibilities of the man in creating a democratic family and a free society’ workshop began on the 9^th of December in Ehdas. Men had been invited as representatives of many different institutions: from the people’s councils of Afrin and Shehba, refugee camps, the youth movement, the self defence forces, the Association of Martyr’s Families, Civil Justice committees, and the Ezidi Association to the committees for economy, education, intellectuals, students, and all social works and duties. In the end nearly 100 men from all different walks of life joined the first working group. It was led by representatives of the Jineolojî Research Centre and Kongra Star, working together, in Kurdish and Arabic languages. Afterward, this organising committee analysed what came out of the group work and prepared a summary based on the discussions. Based on this, the Jineolojî Research Centre and Kongra Star brought more groups together at the regional level in Fefine, Til Rifat, Sherawa, Ehra, and Serdem and Berxwedan refugee camps. Following this pattern, in February and March the topics of changing mentalities, and men’s duties in regard to social problems were placed on the agenda. They were spread widely in the society of Shehba and Afrin, via solution-focussed discussions. In total, 350 men from the region and the refugee camps took part. Their opinions and suggestions were gathered through discussion. The organising committee used the outcome of the discussions to produce a summary and perspective, which they presented to members of the Canton [wider region level] Council.

The new perspectives, commitments and plans that have emerged aim to enable a leap forward. A leap toward solving the problems of women, society and family, with full participation and shared responsibility of women and men- across the communes, councils, and all the autonomous and mixed gender institutions of the region.

What was the method, content and program of the group work?

To start with, every group read Fikrî Baygeldî’s letter. The organising committee pointed out how, with his writings and action in Çanakkale prison in 1998, Fikrî Baygeldî displayed his allegiance to and belief in the revolutionary example of his women comrades. In doing so, he took a leading role in the transformation of men’s mentality and attitude towards women.

With this setting the scene, the committee drew the group’s attention to the role that mentalities play in social and personal development, and to the goals of the working group. They asked: “Why are we talking about changing, or transforming, the male mentality? What’s the relationship between this mentality and the ‘role and responsibilities of the man in creating a democratic family and a free society’?” and came to these conclusions:

• Human mentalities are shaped by culture, life, education, historical habits and socialisation. Our mentalities dictate our views, the principles of what we accept or reject, the way we think and even feel. Further, the dominant mentality of a society makes a huge impact on the personality, thoughts and mindset of an individual. But at the same time our feelings, thoughts, knowledge, life experiences and intuition can all be the springboard for questioning and making deep changes to our mentalities. Groups that synthesise ways of thinking, values, principles and discernment can have an impact on the mentality of their society. Personal transformation can push social transformation, transformation of collective mentalities can in turn open a door for personal change. This shows mentalities are by nature flexible, plural, things that flow and live. Nonetheless, the first and the most intense colonisation is the colonisation of the mind. As the roles of ‘dominant man’ and ‘oppressed woman’ have been imposed in the mind and beliefs of humanity, women, life and society have been ripped apart and colonised. The dogmatisms and rules of sexism, religious fundamentalism, racism, the patriarchal family model, nepotism, and the dominant western scientific model have sown their seeds in individuals and in society.

• Women have been portrayed as essentially baby making machines, as the property and the ‘honour’ of the man, family, and clan. Every man learns from childhood to take his oppressive rage out on women. To the same extent that women have been cast out of social life, of philosophy, science, politics, economy, leadership and decision making, the male oppressor mentality has spread at every level of society, and the personality and identity of the dominant male has taken shape. Two-way relationships of mutual benefit between men and women in a time of natural society have been corrupted into a one-sided dynamic. Everything dances to the tune of masculine thinking, language, decisions, needs and wants, while women’s are denied. Sexual relationships in particular have been turned into a tool of man’s oppression over women. The crisis of marital relationships is seen in divorce rates, in disrespectful and loveless treatment, violence, femicide, and women getting the blame for not having children, or not having boys. Women’s dignity, and existence itself, is under an onslaught from the man. Yet still, women are sidelined and portrayed as the root of all sin. The crisis of relationships in marriage and the family, and the pressure from the sexist male mentality, sometimes push a woman to a stage of such hopelessness, unable to see a way out, that she takes her own life. But who is really the killer? How much are men really holding themselves and their patriarchal mentalities to account, and interrogating them in connection with these occurrences?

• The crucial sticking point is that men have fully internalised these mentalities but often are unaware of it. The patriarchal mentality is embodied in the family structure, in the temples, in occupying armies and in capitalist businesses. Through violence, exploitation, killings and war the nemesis of nature and humanity is spread. How can we solve these crises imposed on women, society and life itself?

• In order to achieve a life lived in dignity, we need to make visible, analyse and discuss the dominant male mentality, and the forms of oppressive and colonial mentalities connected to our own social reality in the Middle East. To unite the structures of Democratic Autonomy with the actual mindset of Democratic Nation, the only way is a revolution of the heart, mind, and daily life. First and foremost, as women and men, individuals and society, we need to take responsibility for these topics. We need to use our intuition, and step up to our duty to build a democratic family, society, and free and equal life together.

With this intention, different questions were placed in front of the working groups for discussion- all based around the issues, events and contradictions which have emerged from the patriarchal mentality in Shehba society. We wanted to understand: What is men’s attitude towards violence against women and issues between partners? What are their proposals for solutions? With this in mind, the organising committee made the questions relevant to issues women in the region experience. Participants broke into groups to discuss the questions, and then presented the outcomes to the wider group for analysis.

Topic 1: What are the causes of femicide and female suicide? What position do men and society take in relation to this? What can we do to prevent these events?

Most participants in the groups discussing femicide connected it to a patriarchal mentality. If women are considered the man’s ‘honour’, then killing women becomes legitimised in the name of upholding that honour. The same attitude is often what leads women into such hopelessness that they take their own lives. At the same time, it was pointed out that many things influence female and male suicide rates in the region: family problems, conservative views that prevent young people achieving healthy love, the impacts of war, displacement, economic pressures, the politics of assimilation and the capitalist system.

TV series and different types of music and digital media for example can promote unrealistic and damaging images and desires. Discussions highlighted the fact that the threat of murder isn’t just physical. Displacement, assimilation and occupation all bring with them murder of the mind and soul. Some also considered femicide to be ‘a betrayal of your culture’ and suicide a ‘weakness of will’. To prevent femicide in the future, it was seen as important to overcome conservative traditional attitudes about ‘honour’, and more effective legal precautions were suggested. Education of both parents and children to understand their social responsibilities were also raised as solutions. But it was rare that men actually expressed their own thoughts and feelings, and their stance on the increased instances of killings and suicide in Shehba.

Topic 2: What are the causes of divorce? Why is there an increase in underage marriages?

Out of the social transformations happening in the revolution, one of the most talked-about is the increase in cases of divorce. It’s said: ‘It was so taboo before, now it’s normal.’ Most men consider this as ‘degradation of society’ or ‘corruption of ethical principles’. On the one hand, this situation can be ascribed to the impact of capitalist modernity, digital media, individualism, and aspirations to a bourgeois life. But beyond all this, divorce is often also traceable to violence against women, jealousy and a breakdown of trust between partners, psychological problems, displacement, and economic pressures. And on the other hand, an increase in divorce rates is in some ways a result of women’s struggle and the defence of women’s rights. Some men understand the democratic system’s equal rights for men and women in a positive sense. But some still see them negatively and claim that the women’s laws have just opened the floodgates for divorce.

In the discussions about divorce, it emerged that most problems between partners that get to the point of divorce are rooted in issues with the process around marriage itself. Multiple examples were brought of cases of divorce in a situation of underage or forced marriage. It was repeated that a lot of divorce happens when the bride and groom barely knew each other. Before marriage, a different image was presented. Or perhaps the mother of the groom treats the bride badly. No shared understanding and purpose, or a lack of respect and love between partners were also named as reasons for divorce. It’s interesting that a lot of people who readily condemn an increase in divorce rates don’t show the same reaction to underage marriage. Many people even consider not having children to be a woman’s fault, and a legitimate reason for divorce.

Underage marriage is generally cast as ‘our ancient custom to safeguard our girls’. So many families live in fear of their daughters losing their innocence before marriage, because this is seen as the whole family losing its honour and reputation. Nonetheless, some men speak out against underage marriage. They see it as wrong and dangerous to not let girls reach the proper adult age for marriage, or to take them out of school for it. It’s worth emphasising that in the last ten years of war and upheaval, the tendency of Syrian families to marry their daughters early has increased. On the one hand, a girl’s position in her father’s family makes her considered an ‘economic burden’ or ‘danger to the family’s honour’. On the other, families hope that by marrying off their daughters they can protect them from the conditions of war, chaos and displacement.

In general, men also see underage marriage, or issues with marriage in general, as the business of the girl’s mother. But in the discussions some youths and young men pointed out that their fathers actually don’t really follow through on this, as they still tend to have the final word. At the same time, it was assessed that many young men and women can’t really come to understand the meaning of love and marriage, due to traditional views in the family and society, Many women from the new generation get to the age for marriage and don’t fully understand what it means to be in a marital relationship, have a family, or take on responsibilities. There were critiques of how mothers and fathers are letting their kids down when they should be educating them. A need was expressed for more social education that really addresses the realities of the younger generations and their parents.

Topic 3: What causes men to become so alienated from their essence and nature? What causes polygamy? Why is this custom still defended, and how can we overcome it?

In the discussions around language, some men rejected the word ‘zilam’ [man, from the same root as ‘violence’ and ‘oppressor’] as not defining their gender, and not representing Kurdish culture, especially in Afrin. But at the same time they really struggled to define their true essence and nature, and to look closely at the reality of masculinity imposed by the patriarchal system. They were evasive when it came to real self-analysis and questioning of the dominant male personality. The impact of patriarchal and religious dogma on the male mentality is clear. He sees women and children as his property. This shows its face in the excuses that legitimise polygamy.

Many people are convinced that polygamy has been made permissible by Islam, and that a man’s status is society and the clan is measured by the number of ‘his’ women and children. The negative impact this has on the life and spirit of women and children is rarely up for discussion. Besides, the Qur’an, as the original source of Islam, is often misinterpreted. For example, the warnings of the Prophet Mohammed about the difficulties of establishing justice in polygamous relationships are often unknown, or dismissed. The fundamentalist Islamic teachings spread by the Muslim Brotherhood, AKP, and the occupying forces such as Al Nusra or ISIS, have influenced the position of this custom; as have patriarchal attitudes and traditions of the clans. Because the influence of the clans has been weak in Afrin for a long time, and because there has been intense social resistance to the attacks of Al Nusra and ISIS, polygamy is not widespread. But some men see polygamy as a legitimate defence of their culture in times of war and social disintegration. Participants of this part of the workshop saw the need to counter this through education, and free society from this mentality and conservative custom.

Topic 4: What does it mean to be a democratic family? Do you consider it the woman’s choice if she has children? Do you treat the mother and child differently depending on if it’s a girl or a boy?

In general, participants put the concept of a democratic family as a central principle of loving and defending your land and culture, and of the Kurdish people’s freedom struggle. We saw that the democratic family can be the key to solving all social problems. With the revolution, many families and individuals within them have entered a new phase of questioning. Many parents have taken on new responsibilities and duties in social, political and family life. Many fathers who were part of the working group said they would be taking the free will of women and children more into account.

But at the same time they expressed that the generation of parents who grew up under the shadow of the state and the supremacist mindset really struggle to grasp and to enact the principles of a democratic family. In fact, there was a strong desire for more and established education around the theory and practice of a democratic family. Questions repeatedly arose that we need a shared understanding of: What is a democratic family and how do we get there? What are the relationships between and roles of family members? How do we express familial duties and responsibilities? Intergenerational miscommunication, the suffocating grip of capitalist modernity, the wasting away of the ethical fabric of communal society, and attempts to defend feudal, religious and clan traditions all exacerbate the crisis of the family.

In these circumstances, the urge to reproduce and have more children is presented as defence of life and family. Some men stood up and said: “As the Kurds, as a people under threat of genocide, we need every family to have five or six children at least!” But this approach fails to take into account either the question of actually raising and educating the kids, or the woman’s choice in the matter. A patriarchal perspective still triumphs. It takes the measure of a family by how many children they have- especially sons. The woman is blamed if she doesn’t have kids, or doesn’t have boys. There’s never any question that the issue might be with the man. This alone shows us that we still have a way to go to reach a democratic family. First and foremost, it has to mean valuing the agency, voices, responsibilities and efforts of every member of the family. From there you can start to build relationships of respect, trust and love.

Topic 5: How do you understand equality in leadership? What’s your opinion on the co-chair system? What’s the attitude towards the women’s movement and autonomous organising?

Most of the participants were accepting of the model of shared leadership and the co-chair system [one man and one woman in each position of responsibility], as common sense and equality in the management of society. But at the same time, they said that supremacist thinking and superficial approaches create obstacles to actually putting it into practice. When discussing how the supremacist mentality rears its head, the men mostly gave examples of women co-chairs and representatives. They didn’t look at themselves or other men. Some men even complained that women create an imbalance between women’s autonomous work and the mixed gender structures, and always prioritise the women’s agenda.

It was clear that when it comes to the topic of how to work together in politics and management of society, once again just as in other topics, men would much sooner criticise women than take a look at their own attitudes. To ask if they’re putting in the work, and if they really respect women’s agency. Some even expressed their discomfort with women’s organising with statements like “If this is a women’s revolution, then let the women save us!” or “If they don’t like the way we are, they can change us!” This all shows that men are still struggling to grasp their own responsibilities to the family and society, or indeed to question and change their self-centred approaches. Many men already accept the women’s movement in its form as a political or military force, or one that takes action. But when it comes to women’s autonomous organising for a social revolution, they have such a superficial analysis that they don’t even see it as necessary. This is how the dominant male mentality divides women’s autonomous organising.

What results did we arrive at through the working groups? What’s next?

One goal of the workshops was to gather some data and make some analyses in answer to the questions: Since the Rojava Revolution, what changes are happening in the dominant male mentality and the family as a site of male dominance? How much do men see issues of women, family and society as their responsibility, and it as their job to search for solutions?

Of course, to really answer these questions in a broad way, much wider research is needed across the different regions of North and East Syria. But the observations and results of discussions with more than 450 men from different ethnic groups across the Shehba and Afrin regions are still significant both in and of themselves, and how they indicate general trends. In general, most participants had a good awareness of and positive response to the perspectives brought by Jineolojî and to the collective discussions about family and social issues. It was clear that men see finding solutions to problems in the family and society as a key issue of our times.

Participants drew on different things in their perspectives on the questions. Some tried to identify the causes of issues and look for solutions through a religious lens. Others looked to philosophy, or the wisdom of their elders. Some saw a solution in strengthening social values, others with the enactment of universal rights and laws. Still others took a scientific approach. All these approaches have something to offer. Nonetheless, across all the different approaches something interesting stood out in common: Men would always rather express their opinions, criticisms, complaints and experiences of women and the women’s movement than interrogate their own realities, feelings and attitudes in relation to the questions. The lack of self critic and criticism between men stood out starkly. It’s as if there’s a defensive wall in the way. As if they would lose something if they actually connected with and expressed their feelings, or internal thoughts. This is where the imprint of sexist mentalities and religious constructs of masculinity are clearest. They’ve created a conservative model of manhood and it has become an identity. Then there are some men who talk the talk of being ‘democratic men’ in their society, but are dictators at home with their family. There’s double standards in their approach to women- one way for women they work with, another for their mothers and another for their partners.

The construct of the dominant male has thrown masculinity into crises and contradictions. Boys learn from a young age they must be strong and always know the answers. From a young age they’re expected to express force; be athletic; protect their sisters and keep an eye on them so no one can say anything against the family’s ‘honour’. Men have to fix everything by themselves, relying on physical strength. The patriarchal consciousness of capitalist modernity takes the measure of a man from his money, possessions, house, women and children. Men buy into this image, where they gain acceptance through material and physical strength.

Human characteristics like accepting help, sharing feelings, crying, doing reproductive labour, and sensitive or empathic ways of thinking are all seen as weaknesses in a man. In a sexist society, a man who expresses any of those isn’t accepted. They’re mocked as ‘effeminate’ or looked down on, and soon realise they have to play the role of male supremacy. This is how masculinity perpetuates itself, and maintains its rigid structure. Many man are trapped, unable to really access their own thoughts, reach their true selves, or show love. They learn the only way they can express feelings, pain or needs is through anger and violence. They’re moulded into a harsh, hard-edged shape. This is what legitimises gendered violence and rape culture. Rape culture means men see women as objects for their sexual use, with no respect for women’s agency. These dominant, sexist social mentalities normalise violence.

These masculinities push men into a crisis of conscience. Men who, knowingly or unknowingly, don’t live up to these harsh standards of masculinity; men suffering in the grip of systems of exploitation; men who for poverty or other reasons can’t be the breadwinner, often turn their anger and despair into violence against themselves. Some try to drown their pain in drink or drugs. For others it comes out as self harm. Some drive recklessly, or find other ways to knowingly endanger themselves. Still others take their own lives.

Above all, dominant masculinity is a threat to women – their free will and their lives. But as we saw by looking at the statistics of male suicide, the same mentality has men in a death grip. If we observe male relationships and communication, we can see they too live in fear of male violence and supremacy. There’s no safe space for men to share if they’ve been faced with male violence, including sexual violence, or anyway to call it to account. The first step to men overcoming their fears and internal obstacles, to self knowledge and understanding, is to realise they are also affected by male supremacy. It’s only then they will seriously try to disentangle themselves from the oppressive system.

As Abdullah Öcalan has analysed, a true comradeship and a life lived together in freedom can only be built on the basis of militant struggle: genders together, working to create free personalities in themselves and their comrades. Male militants who attended education in the Free Women’s Academy saw themselves mirrored in the life and collective work of their female comrades, and learnt how to question themselves and how to change. In this process they realised just how much the dominant male personality was a block to their social connection, and to truly respectful relationships with their own gender. The women comrades also saw the depth of insecurity and pain, hidden by many men behind a mask of strength and confidence. This made it clear that just criticising and shaming dominant masculinity was not enough. Examples of free men and masculinity are also needed to motivate transformation with energy and faith. In fact, focusing on examples of free men, historical and current, is one of the most effective methods. It shows that men’s essential nature is not in fact brutal and domineering. These are characteristics of the hierarchical and state systems. In natural societies past and present “a good man” might have the same characteristics as “a good mother”, or be defined by sensitivity, or respect for all living beings.

Shehid Hêlîn Murat, in her letter of the 26^th March 2016 from Cilo mountain, wrote: ‘Dozens of times I’ve seen something really important emerge in our women’s history seminars, when we look men’s reality in neolithic times and the definitions of egîd/camêr/camerd [older words for man, sharing root with words for woman/mother]. When we bring these to light, we understand men’s character and masculinity on another level. It’s also an interesting point for male comrades. The discussions are always really rich. It also exposes how masculinity has been shaped by conservative patriarchal culture. You see how men have been made slaves of this system. Some male comrades come out with things like: “humanity needs to hear these concepts and definitions of a free man”.’

It’s an important task to research men who have taken a stand against the dominant male mentality and resisted. From Prometheus, to the Basque fishermen who stood up against the Inquisition to defend the lives of women in their community; from Thomas Sankara, who set an example in the Burkina Faso revolution by emphasising the importance of women’s freedom struggle and overcoming sexism in society, to Abdullah Öcalan and the comrades of the Kurdistan revolution, many men have sought freedom in their actions, minds and in themselves, and proved that it’s possible to ‘kill the dominant male’. One such example is Shehid Ilan Kobane (Ehmed El-Elo). He stood up and took a leading role in the historic Afrin resistance against the attacks of the Turkish army, in the name of land and freedom. He always said he was a follower of Arin Mirkan and Avesta Xabur and it was in the spirit of these women shehids that he sacrificed himself in an action on the 8^th of March 2018. In his last letter, he acknowledged the influence his mother had had on his life, and dedicated his action to all the mothers of Kurdistan. With his words and action, Ilan Kobane showed that men in the model of “egîd/camêr/camerd” are still with us in the freedom struggle for freedom.

One thing we saw clearly as a result of the workshops in Shehba is that blaming each other or blaming yourself is not a solution. These tendencies just reinforce defensiveness and dogmatisms of sexism, religious fundamentalism, and nationalism. We’ll never close the distance and disconnections between men and women, or between religious and ethnic groups, with that thinking. Instead, we will take a step forward on the long road to internal transformation with nuanced thinking, sensitivity,and open and deep conversations. This is how we give life to collective wisdom and the problem solving power of a political and ethical society. This is how we strengthen awareness and a sense of responsibility towards issues of family and society in every person. Step by step, men are coming to understand their duties in building a democratic family and a free society, and taking ownership of them.

Just as Alexandra Kollontai saw that to achieve freedom for women and society in the Soviet revolution they would need to redefine the concept and the structure of family, so historic attempts are ongoing within the Kurdistan revolution to redefine the concepts of woman, man, shared life, and family. The old style of family where the man was everything and the woman was nothing is changing before our eyes. But what’s important is how that change plays out, internally in mentality and personality, in the family itself and in relationships between men and women. For this revolution to achieve a free society and democratic family, in the heart of the Middle East, everyone -men and women – have to take responsibility and ask themselves daily: Which teachings and dogmas do we need to shed? Which ethical social traditions do we need to protect? What do we need to reconstruct?

As the Jineolojî Research Centre we have drawn three fundamental findings related to these questions from the discussions and outcomes of the ‘Role and responsibilities of the man in creating a democratic family and free society’ working groups completed in Shehba.

1- Above all, we need to liberate our society and our minds from the outdated concepts of ‘honour’ that condemn women to be the property of men and the family. Further, men need to let go of the idea that violence in natural or a force for development.

2- Instead we need to defend the culture of connecting and sharing everything in life: pain and happiness, the immaterial and the material, without one person putting themselves in the centre of everything. The ethics of communal society and the spirit of collectivity are medicines for many sicknesses of capitalism, sexism, nationalism and patriarchal family structures.

3 – The love that has been weakened and killed off must be reclaimed and brought to life again. For men to learn to truly love, they have to let go of the desire for supremacy and choose life over killing and death. In a place so riddled with deadly attacks on women, society and nature, the most important thing is that we re-empower a true love for life.

The Jineolojî Academy and the Jineolojî research centre takes this as our starting point and these as our goals, and continues our work in Shehba and beyond to make the 21st century the era of freedom for women and society.

Some suggestions that have emerged around planning and working towards a democratic family and a free society:

1. The education committees of the regional councils, Kongra Star, the youth movement and the Jineolojî research centre collaborating on workshops, discussions and educations in neighbourhoods, communes and families on the following topics:

• • The dangers to children, women and families from underage marriage and polygamy

  • The Autonomous Administration’s Women’s Law and the principles of women’s freedom

  • Principles and examples of the personality of a democratic man: what stops men from living those principles? What do they gain when they can?

  • What is a democratic family and how is it created? What are the relationships and roles within the family? E.g, between mother and daughter, mother and son, father and daughter, father and son, sister and brother, bride and groom, and so on. How do we establish what the duties and responsibilities in a family are, and share them? Who decides? How do we educate children?

  • The concept of ‘hevjiyana azad’ [free life together] and what a partnership means

  • The meaning of concepts of ethics, freedom and democratic culture in family and social relationships

  • The co-chair system and women’s autonomous organising

  • Investigations of traditional concepts of ‘honour’ – coming up with a definition of honour in line with the mentality of ‘hevjiyana azad’ and the values of an ethical and political society.

  • The meaning of attachment and love

2. Cultural projects, such as theatre, songs, dance etc, should go along with the educations, in co-operation with Kevana Zerin and TevChand [women’s and mixed gender cultural associations]; films and analyses of Abdullah Öcalan should be shown; day to day language alternative teaching methods used to create truly open conversations.

3. Exploring Abdullah Öcalan’s perspective and approaches on women and family – organising reading groups and open discussions on “Women and Family” in different institutions, councils, and communes.

4. Creation of regional committees to follow, research, document and analyse instances of femicide and female suicide, with representatives from Kongra Star, Women’s Justice centres, the women of the security forces, press and Jineolojî research centres. These committees can report to the regional women’s council (Kongra Star) monthly, to develop a shared politics and struggle against all kinds of gendered violence.

Jineolojî Research Centre of Afrin and Shehba

May 2022