Articles published in this space do not necessarily reflect Nawaat's opinions.

The Man Box: Homophobia and Toxic Masculinity in Tunisian Schools

22 February 2025 / Chawki Mhadhab

In the context of a Muslim and conservative culture, Tunisian male students, of all sexual orientations, experience bullying, ostracism, and social pressure to conform to the rigid image of masculinity. This qualitative study explores how men experience homophobia and toxic masculinity mainly in high school and middle school through a literature review and personal narratives interpreted together within the Tunisian and educational context.

Introduction

Every year, many Tunisians are persecuted legally or culturally for being homosexuals. In this Muslim society, the mere existence of men who defy traditional notions of masculinity, through their homosexuality or unusual performance of their gender, is extremely taboo, leading to their criminalization and societal ostracism: they are sent to prison, exposed to violence, or excluded from their communities (Salih). This normalized hostility against certain men makes their harassment and mistreatment justified in schools. Across cultures, in middle schools and high schools, bullying and violence are ubiquitous and part of the social interactions among students on the basis of differences. In the Tunisian context, laws, religion, and culture legitimize for students the discrimination against gay or more effeminate men. Numerous studies and inexhaustible literature explore this topic in Western countries; however, no studies have been done in Tunisia that address homophobia and toxic masculinity in schools.

While this topic remains censored, students, particularly men, suffer the repercussions of these issues in and outside the classroom in silence. The findings and theories revealed in other Western societies prove the urgency to address this issue. Because while some groups of men are direct victims of homophobia and masculinity, all men are harmed by them (Blumenfeld). Moreover, Tunisian culture is going through a transitional phase as part of the social process in which erased homophobia slowly becomes hysteric (Hamdi, et al). By extension, toxic masculinity evolves as well, for it is interrelated to homophobia (Rotundi).

In the context of a Muslim and conservative culture, Tunisian male students, of all sexual orientations, experience bullying, ostracism, and social pressure to conform to the rigid image of masculinity.

This qualitative study explores how men experience homophobia and toxic masculinity mainly in high school and middle school through a literature review and personal narratives interpreted together within the Tunisian and educational context.

Background

In article 230 of Tunisia’s Penal Code published in 2011, it clearly states that sodomy, the act of homosexual activity, is punished by an imprisonment of three years (Tunisian Republic). In addition, articles 226 and 227, which cover the crimes of public indecency and the harm of public morality, also threaten LGBTQ people. Basically, Tunisian law criminalizes not only consensual sex between men but also expressions of homosexuality or gender nonconformity. In an article by Dawn, Dario Sabaghi quotes Mounir Baatour, Lawyer and president of the first LGBTQ NGO in Tunisia, who states that “120 cases relate to these articles each year” (Sabaghi). In recent years, there have been many public prosecutions of gay men throughout the country. Most infamously, six university students from Kairouan were sent to prison and exiled for five years from their region for being gay (Guellali).

Tunisia is an Islamic nation, as clearly stated in article 5 of the first chapter of the constitution. According to a recent report by the U.S. government, 99% of Tunisians are Sunni Muslims (2022 report). Thus, it goes without saying that Tunisian society reflects Muslim values and cement them in all aspects, including how homosexuality and masculinity are perceived. In a study titled “Masculinity, Homosexuality and Sport in an Islamic State of Increasing Homohysteria” published in The Journal of Gender Studies, the authors argue that, in Islam, men must be dominant, virile, heterosexual and that “Departing from any of these prescriptions is considered a transgression of both cultural norms and religious requirements in every Islamic culture”(Hamdi, et al). Tunisians explain their hostility towards men who don’t fit society’s expectations of masculinity with the universal Islamic ruling.

Laws and religion are part of a culture; they reflect the values held by the majority of the people of a particular society. Thus, the numbers found by the PEW research center’s survey should not be surprising. In their survey, titled The Global Divide on Homosexuality, on whether or not homosexuality should be accepted, 9% of Tunisians were against it (The Global). However, while the written laws and the clear religious ruling remain unchanged by nature, cultural homophobia is more complex. Eric Anderson’s explanation of homohysteria, homoerasure, and the difference between them is crucial to understanding homophobia within the Tunisian context. Anderson believes that homerasure and homohysteria are part of a “social process.” For the former to become the latter, three conditions must be met. First, people within the society need to acknowledge that “homosexuality exists as a static and sizable portion of the population.” Secondly, homophobia must be deeply embedded in the culture. The confusion between gender-related affinities or tendencies with homosexual behavior constitutes the final condition. According to the authors, Tunisian society not only is deeply and undeniably homophobic but also associates men’s femininity with homosexuality, thus meeting two conditions for homohysteria (Hamdi, et al.).

As Tunisians become more exposed to Western societies, they consequently become more aware of homosexuality. At this stage, Tunisia is considered “[moving] from a culture of erasure of homosexuality to that of homohysteria” (Hamdi, et al.). This is an extension of homophobia in a society. They point out that while homophobia is the exclusion and intolerance of the LGBTQ community in a society and is expressed through violence and alienation of gay people, homohysteria even inflicts harm upon heterosexuals through the constant scrutiny, investigation, and categorization of their behavior within limiting and ever-narrowing boxes of  gender and sexual identities (Hamdi, et al.).

In his book titled Homophobia, Warren J. Blumenfeld agrees with Zoloth and Thompson’s theory of the levels of Homophobia within a society. He claims that homophobia can be manifested on four different levels: personal, interpersonal, institutional, and cultural. According to Blumenfeld, personal homophobia is the “belief system” that homosexuals are inferior, and that heterosexuality is the norm that needs to be enforced. However, it is considered interpersonal when it “[transforms] prejudice into its active component—discrimination” (Blumenfeld). He claims not only that it can be displayed verbally, physically, or attitudinally, but also that it is ubiquitous in our society. Moreover, institutional homophobia is showcased in how different types of organization in society “systematically discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation” (Blumenfeld). The author provides the U.S military as an example: in the 1990s, it had a long-standing policy that “excludes lesbians, gays, and bisexuals from service” (Blumenfeld). Last but definitely not least, there is cultural homophobia. Blumenfeld says, “[it is] social norms or codes of behaviors that […] work within a society to legitimize oppression.” This either to a complete erasure of LGBT people from culture or demonization of and discrimination against this same group. This distinction matters because schools are micro-societies.

Methodology

Two Tunisian men, who went through the Tunisian education system, were interviewed separately as part of this study. They were selected via social media at random. The two men were given pseudonyms to protect their identity: Rami is 23 years old and straight; Ahmed is 26 years old and homosexual. The online interviews were unstructured, which is to say broad questions were asked, and the interviewees told their stories with little guidance. The meetings lasted approximately two hours for both participants. The research question was shared with them; they were asked for their consent to discuss their religious beliefs, sexual orientation, academic history, and mental health. The entire conversation was recorded and then transcribed. Throughout each interview, participants were asked to share their education journey starting from middle school, their relationships with their classmates inside and outside the classroom, their extracurricular activities, their interactions with their teachers and school staff, as well as their overall performance and their mental health during those years.

Results

Rami shared his relationship with two distinct groups, which he labeled “the cool guys” and “the gays.” On the other hand, Ahmed expressed his exclusion from social groups in schools, except for a few female friends. They both shared their stories, their feelings, and their retrospective opinions on how they navigated their adolescent years in Tunisian schools as men.

Discussion

In order to understand and discern toxic masculinity, it is indispensable to define hegemony and masculinity in a neutral context and explicate the concept of hegemonic masculinity.

In her dissertation, titled “Masculinities, Gendered Expression, and The Social, Emotional, and Academic Well Being of High School Boys,” Cynthia Bazinet refers to Raewyn Connell’s definition: “the practices, processes, and relationships through which men conduct their gendered lives and the effects of these practices, processes, and relationships in bodily experience, personality, and culture.” In other words, masculinity transcends beyond merely having, in James Baldwin’s words, “the male sexual equipment” to include the acts that men perform with themselves as well as with others (Baldwin). It also entails the repercussions and interpretations of these acts on men’s perception of their bodies, on their emotional expressions or demeanors, and on cultural norms. Similarly, to clarify the concept of hegemony, in her academic work titled “Issues of Toxic Masculinity” and published as part of the Department of Political Science of the Free International University of Social Studies, Latvia Rotundi refers to Antonio Grasmsci who classifies it as a “cultural dynamic” where one group dominates over another, and the dominant group’s values become the norms while the other group is denigrated and its values are erased.

Based on these foundational definitions, it is easy to infer that hegemonic masculinity is the dominance of men over women. While this is partially true, it does not paint the full picture. In fact, there are various masculinities that exist in a hierarchy (Connell). Raewyn Connell, an Australian sociologist, says, “some masculinities are more honored than others.” The highest masculinity in this hierarchy is the hegemonic one. Thus, it is not only the dominance of men over women but also the dominance of some men over other men. Accordingly, in the social hierarchies of Tunisian schools, men who fit the expectations of hegemonic masculinity are considered superior to other male and female students. This hegemonic masculinity is not innate; it is socially constructed (Kimmel). Therefore, its ideals need to be actively and perpetually asserted, through either the exclusion or the condemnation of other forms of masculinities. Everyone tries to fit into this ever-narrowing “man box,” mostly to no avail (Rotundi). Hegemonic masculinity becomes harmful; hegemonic masculinity becomes toxic masculinity.

Ahmed and Rami portray an extremely specific picture of Tunisian masculinity in schools. To be masculine is to perform these acts: to be sexual, to smoke, to be good at sports, to speak a certain way, to hang out with boys during breaks, to use profanity, to be interesting to girls, to be physically strong, violent, and aggressive, to not be too polite or too religious, to not excel academically. This clear image of masculinity aligns with Rotundi’s “man box” paradigm that includes seven thematic pillars: self-sufficiency, acting tough, physical attractiveness, rigid masculine gender roles, heterosexuality and homophobia, hypersexuality, as well as aggression and control (Rotundi).

Men who fall short even in one area must overcompensate for it, or else they will be discriminated against. This was the case for Rami who didn’t smoke cigarettes in high school; however, other male students didn’t care as much that he didn’t smoke because they knew he was out-drinking them.

One of the aforementioned pillars to affirming masculinity is heterosexuality and homophobia. In a way, most students tend to associate homosexuality with men who exist outside of this “man box.” They are disparaging these men, because, according to Oscar Wolfman’s article titled “Homophobia in/as education,” by “subordinating the feminine” and by “associating homosexuality with effeminacy,” men outside the box go down the social hierarchy in schools. Ahmed describes being studious and religious as “a recipe for disaster.” He believes he was a complete social outcast. “It was so miserable,” he exclaims. Alienation and exclusion are not the only ways students like Ahmed suffer in schools. Other male students go as far as inflicting harm on them through physical and verbal abuse. Rami shared a horrifying scene that took place routinely at his school.

He claims that the “cool guys” would bully their victims by hanging them on a wall from which it is hard to get off without any injuries. Ahmed’s experience confirms this as well. He recalls being called Arabic terms with a feminine conjugation.

These violent acts are punishments for those who are, even inadvertently, challenging the prominent idea of masculinity and a cautionary tale for others to abide by these unwritten rules.

Lavinia Rotundi sheds light upon the repercussions of toxic masculinity in different parts of society. She emphasizes the relationship between toxic masculinity and homophobia. She argues that a strictly “gender binary system” carries with it homophobia and cements the idea that heterosexuality is the sole natural attraction (Rotundi). She supports her point of view through the clear display of homophobia in our culture and through people’s heteronormative interpretation of homosexual couples by associating each person in a queer couple with either the female or male role, even though they are a same-sex couple (Rotundi). I believe that the relationship is a vicious cycle: homophobia is simultaneously an effect and a cause of toxic masculinity. While it is true that toxic masculinity does not consider homosexuality as a manly behavior leading to homophobia, male students adhere to the rules of toxic masculinity to avoid being considered homosexual and being subject to homophobia.

Homophobia is the exclusion and intolerance of the LGBTQ community in a society and is expressed in schools through violence and alienation of students. The transitional state of Tunisia towards homohysteria even inflicts harm upon heterosexuals through the constant scrutiny, investigation, and categorization of their behavior within limiting and ever-narrowing boxes of gender and sexual identities (Hamdi, et al.). While homohysteria is a difficult phase to go through especially for members of the LGBTQ+ communities, Anderson’s explanation reshapes how we view it: it is a blessing in disguise. Change is consuming and grueling, but it is always better than stagnation and denial.

Conclusion

It is undeniable that Tunisian male students face the repercussions of toxic masculinity and homophobia through physical and verbal abuse, alienation, and peer pressure. This paper only scratches the surface of a complex issue that runs deep in Tunisia. Therefore, researchers need to unearth and address this topic to urge government officials to pay more attention to what is happening in schools. Tunisians should also play their individual parts by raising awareness about the dangers of homophobia and toxic masculinity in Tunisian schools. While only a few people may have the power to challenge the law and reverse court sentences to release homosexuals from jail, many others are capable of and should stand up for what is right. They must help deconstruct these preconceived and fallacious views on masculinity and homophobia to prevent students like Ahmed from experiencing trauma and abuse in a place where they should instead be expanding their knowledge and enjoying their youth.

Works Cited

Homophobie LGBT