Ubudoda Benyani: Rethinking Masculinity, Responsibility and Belonging at Rhodes University

By: Junior Nobaza

The transition from high school to university is often imagined as a moment of freedom, independence, and self-discovery. For many students, however, this transition is equally marked by anxiety, uncertainty and external pressure. First-year students are still negotiating identity, belonging and intellectual confidence within an unfamiliar institutional culture. Such a novel experience requires patience, reflexivity and an openness to growth.

It is within this context that Ubudoda Benyani: A Dialogue on Masculine Identity with First Years was hosted at Rhodes University. Presented by Larona Matee as Master of Ceremonies and co-hosted by Liseko Mawonga and Luyolo Gqezengele, the session created a reflective and accessible platform for male students to interrogate masculinity, responsibility, pleasure and relationality within university life. The dialogue sought to reintroduce and critically examine the social construction of masculine identity across varying cultural contexts, emphasising that masculinity is performed, learned and reproduced rather than biologically fixed.

A central theme explored was the social terrain of university life, particularly the prevalence of hook-up culture. Informal spaces such as residences, clubs, and off-campus gatherings frequently serve as sites of pleasure, release, and social belonging. Alcohol consumption often accompanies these spaces, shaping interaction and lowering inhibitions. While such spaces are not inherently harmful, the dialogue highlighted how hook-up culture can generate conditions conducive to non-consensual intimate relations.

A critical intervention made was the rejection of the idea that intoxication excuses harmful behaviour. Alcohol does not absolve individuals of accountability. Within legal and institutional frameworks, students are judged according to their rational decision to consume alcohol in the first place. Responsibility, therefore, precedes intoxication. For first-year students navigating social freedom for the first time, this framing was crucial. Responsibility was redefined not as restriction but as ethical care for oneself and others within shared spaces. University life is collective life, and one’s liberty cannot infringe upon the bodily autonomy, dignity or privacy of another. Social cohesion within a diverse institutional environment depends upon disciplined freedom and mutual respect.

The discussion further unpacked consent as informed, enthusiastic and ongoing. Consent is not a nuisance nor a disruption of pleasure; it is the ethical foundation of intimacy. Behaviour that induces discomfort, fear, or pressure constitutes coercion and is recognised within university and legal frameworks as sexual misconduct. The dialogue confronted a pervasive cultural narrative that frames persistent pursuit as an admirable form of masculinity. Within certain patriarchal traditions, insistence is normalised as romantic determination. In a university setting, however, such practices are harmful and outdated. By naming persistent pressure as coercive, the session disrupted the conflation of discomfort with flirtation and exposed how entitlement is often masked as charm.

Men were encouraged to critically reflect on how masculine socialisation frequently equates manhood with conquest, dominance and validation through women’s bodies. Such norms not only endanger others but also entrench fragile and externally dependent identities.

One of the most transformative ideas introduced was the call to decentre women from male social validation. This does not imply disengagement or disrespect. Instead, it challenges the assumption that women must serve as the primary source of masculine affirmation. Dependency on female validation often fuels competitive, risky and performative behaviours among men. Many male social activities are structured around heteronormative performance: impressing women, competing for attention and equating masculinity with sexual access. This dynamic normalises excessive alcohol consumption, reckless behaviour and disrespectful interaction, while exposing students to serious disciplinary consequences within institutional regulations.

By decentring women, men are invited to cultivate alternative forms of meaning and enjoyment: friendship, creativity, sport, intellectual exchange and collective reflection. Positive masculinity is not defined by proximity to women but by the cultivation of independent character, accountability and self-respect. Spending time in a meaningful male community does not diminish masculinity; it strengthens ethical relationality.

A recurring emphasis throughout the dialogue was the need for sustained conversations about positive masculinity. Toxic masculinity privileges dominance, emotional suppression and aggression. Positive masculinity, by contrast, centres accountability, emotional literacy and mutual respect. Vulnerability was reframed as strength rather than weakness. Healthy manhood is not innate; it is learned, practised and reinforced through institutional culture and peer interaction. Initiatives such as Ubudoda Benyani offer counter-narratives that affirm care, reflexivity and ethical responsibility. Masculinity was presented as relational rather than hierarchical: not power over others, but responsibility toward others.

The dialogue situated masculinity within a broader social crisis marked by persistent male-on-male violence. Such violence was understood not merely as individual pathology but as symptomatic of silenced pain, unexamined trauma, and the absence of constructive spaces for reflection, in environments where men lack forums to articulate vulnerability, harmful behaviours—including misogyny and homophobia—become normalised. Cultural diversity, when uncritically invoked, can shield exclusionary practices from scrutiny. The session, therefore, called for intentional spaces that cultivate ethical male relationality: spaces where men learn to relate without domination, fear, or silence. Healing the inner boy was invoked as a metaphor for confronting unresolved wounds that often manifest as aggression.

A significant theoretical intervention was the rejection of phallocentric understandings of manhood. Phallocentrism reduces masculinity to anatomy and sexual dominance, erasing emotional, social and ethical dimensions of identity. Such a narrow framing impoverishes male self-understanding and legitimises harmful hierarchies. By destabilising this paradigm, Ubudoda Benyani reframed manhood as praxis rather than essence—something constituted through choices, values and relationships. Academic concepts were introduced in accessible language, balancing intellectual rigour with readability.

Ubudoda Benyani demonstrated the necessity of intentional, reflective platforms within university spaces. By addressing hook-up culture, consent, alcohol responsibility, coercion, violence and the redefinition of masculinity, the session contributed meaningfully to a safer and more inclusive campus culture. Most importantly, it affirmed that masculinity need not be rooted in dominance or harm, but can be reimagined through care, accountability and collective growth.