Section
One: Overview
______________________________________________________
1.1:
Why Involve Men in Gender and Development Work?
There has
been much resistance on the part of some women to involving men in gender and
development work – driven by fears about the dilution of the feminist agenda,
and by anxieties over the diversion of limited resources away from women’s
empowerment initiatives and back into the hands of men. Yet not engaging
with men and boys may limit the effectiveness of development interventions, and
may actually intensi
Development
interventions which aim to improve women’s employment and income generating
opportunities, for example, are likely to compound women’s heavy work burdens
unless efforts are made to encourage men to take greater responsibility for
child
care and domestic chores. Projects
that focus solely on women may also reinforce existing gender stereotypes (women
as carers, men as breadwinners, and so on). Involving men, by contrast, can
generate a broader consensus on issues which have previously been marginalised
as being of interest to women only – sexual and reproductive health, for example
(Kaufman, in Ruxton, 2004).
The inherent
weakness of ‘women-only’ approaches has become most devastatingly apparent in
the light of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Programmes that focus on empowering women to
negotiate safer sex have minimal impact in societies where it is men who decide
when and with whom to have sex, and when and if to use
condoms.
The
conceptual shift from Women in Development (WID) to Gender and Development
(GAD), which has been underway since the 1980s, was partly borne out of
recognition of the inadequacies of focusing on women in isolation. GAD
approaches promised a new focus, beyond the narrow preoccupation with women
alone. Instead, they emphasised the socially and historically constructed
relations between women and men (Moser, 1993), which allowed for a more nuanced
understanding of the relational nature of gendered power, and of the
interdependency of women and men.
The
emphasis of GAD on gender relations necessitates a focus on men as well
as women – at least in theory. The extent to which this conceptual shift has
been translated into practice is questionable however, and many initiatives
continue to focus on women rather than trying to transform the unequal gender
relations which drive and maintain women’s subordination. There has also been
limited acknowledgement of the powerlessness experienced by some men – in
relation to women as well as to other men (
This
limits the possibilities for alliances between women and men, and closes off
important spaces for change. Rather than perceiving gender as a ‘women’s issue’,
we need to think in terms of relations of power and powerlessness, in which both
women and men may experience vulnerability, rather than treating ‘maleness’ as
powerful and problematic in itself (Cornwall, 2000:23).
1.2:
Why is it in Men’s Own Interests to Change?
There is also
resistance from some men to attempts to challenge the power they hold,
especially from men in dominant social groups. These men perceive gender
equality as a threat to their privileges and an attack on their way of life.
This begs the question: if men and boys are privileged by existing gender
hierarchies, where is the incentive for them to work towards gender
equality?
While men as
a group do exercise power over women and other men, at the individual level many
men feel powerless. The abundant ways in which men experience coercion in their
sexual lives, irrespective of their sexual orientation or identity, suggests
that men are not always the ‘winners’. Men may be orphans or refugees, they may
be unemployed or homeless or they may be dying of AIDS.
Men are also
vulnerable in other, more subtle, ways. There are many potential costs for men
who conform to, or try to conform to, rigid social expectations of ‘masculinity’
(the culture-specific ideas, roles and behaviours that men are supposed to live
up to in order to become accepted members of their own communities). Making men
more aware of the costs of
conventional forms of masculinity, both for themselves and for women and
children, is an important step towards challenging gender
inequalities.
In most
cultures, men are expected to be physically strong and sexually successful, to
be risk-takers and decision-makers, to provide financially for their wives and
children. These characteristics are referred to as ‘gender norms’ – the
culturally accepted ideas about being a man or woman in a particular society.
Conventional
gender norms for men and boys, such as those listed above, are often described
as ‘dominant’ (or ‘hegemonic’) masculinities. Internalising these ideals is not
enough, however; rather they must be repeatedly acted-out by men (Harris 2004)
to demonstrate and prove their masculinity.
Yet dominant
masculinities are not achievable for all men at all times. For many men there is
a significant gap between the dominant model of masculinity in society, and the
reality of what they themselves can achieve. This is particularly true in the
case of young or low income men, or men who have sex with men rather than women.
In fact, no man can fully live up to all these ideals throughout his entire
lifetime. Like women, a man’s experience of power fluctuates across his
lifecycle, and also depends on his class or caste, his sexual orientation, his
ethnicity and race. Men may experience power and powerlessness at the same time
– being powerless in relation to an employer but powerful in relation to a
sister, for example (Karkara et al. 2005). The range of different positions that
men occupy in their relationships with women and men need to be brought into the
frame: “While it is unquestionably the case that many men do occupy positions of
power, it is one thing to name those subject positions and another to go on to
presume that all men have access to these positions or indeed want to take them
up” (Cornwall, 2000:23).
Still, the
social pressure to conform to dominant versions of masculinity is often intense
and the consequences of not conforming can be severe. A study in
Prescribed
masculine traits, such as the notion that men’s sexual needs are uncontrollable
or that men should have multiple sexual partners, also have serious consequences
for men’s health, placing them – and thus their partners – at high risk of HIV
infection. The prevalent assumption in many cultures that ‘real men’ do not get
sick, combined with the perception that health clinics are ‘women’s spaces’,
means that men tend not to get tested for HIV. This has devastating consequences
both for men themselves and for their wives or partners. Men who do not conform
to dominant masculine norms around sexuality, such as men who have sex with men
(MSM) are also at particularly high risk of HIV infection, either because they
are overlooked in national HIV prevention strategies, or because legal and
social sanctions prohibit them from asking for help or information. This is exacerbated by the fact that
there has been very little research carried out to establish how many MSM are at
risk and how best to provide them with the information they need to protect
themselves and their sexual partners, who may be both male and female
(International HIV/AIDS Alliance, 2003).
Dominant
masculine norms are also one of the main factors driving gender inequality. For
instance, the assumption that men are primary breadwinners means that women are
generally expected to take care of the majority of domestic or care work, which
is less socially valued and thereby contributes to women’s lower status in
society. Another example is domestic violence, which has been repeatedly linked
to men’s inability (real or perceived) to live up to society’s expectations of
what it means to be a ‘real man’ – being the breadwinner and household
decision-maker, for example. In
If we are to
make real progress towards achieving gender equality we must support men to
challenge these strict gender divisions – at home, at work, in the community
(Stocking in Ruxton, 2004). Insufficient attention has been paid so far to
‘liberating’ men, as well as women, from the constraints of gender roles and
expectations: “Why can’t men cry? Why must they be strong and silent? Why can’t
boys love the smell of flowers or the smell that little babies carry with them?
[U]ntil we break this idea of ‘girls should be like that’ and ‘boys like this’ a
harmonious world will remain out of reach” (Karkara et al.
2005:5).
Recognising
this does not mean that we can simply gloss over men’s personal accountability
for the ways in which they choose to act out their male privilege. While
masculinities are socially constructed identities, men must nonetheless be held
responsible for the choices and actions they take: “Accountability confronts the
danger of men simply excusing their attitudes and behaviours as products of
gender pressures and norms, rather than examining their attitudes and behaviours
in light of gender pressures and norms” (Greig, 2005:6). Programmes should help
men both to understand the oppressive effects of gender inequality on women and
men, while also talking to them about the responsibilities they have because of
their privileges to take actions in ways that women usually cannot (ibid).