gender

Men, Masculinity and Development in the Pacific

A new briefing note from Richard Eves and the State Society and Governance program at the ANU addresses Men, Masculinity, and Development in the Pacific. This is an important and accessible piece on the issue of looking at gender beyond the lens of the woman, and also away from the concept of mainstreaming gender so that it loses all meaning. The paper is an accessible summary of the key issues that need to be addressed in programming and complements Eves’ earlier work for Caritas, Exploring the Role off Men and Masculinities in PNG.

While it is important to have gender programming aimed at men and these programs should be looking at different ‘masculinities’ (if this is the best term), which are less related to power and aggression, and more related to what is common between men and women, the question still remains: what is the relationship with gender programs that address the specific needs of women? Eves is a little critical of gender programs aimed at women suggesting they imply an oppositionist approach, and that the empowerment is in relation to men. There is an element of that in many women’s empowerment programs, but most are about increasing women’s agency in number of domains of which the domestic domain is but one. The argument being that improving agency in broader domains may improve the domestic one. Of course the jury is out on this with as many empowerment stories increasing domestic violence as reducing it.

While it is strategic to approach men’s programs from a positive outlook, offering differing modes of pro-feminist, non-violent and gender sensitive masculine identities, it is also crucial to make men and boys aware of the harmful impact of patriarchy in the lives of women and girls. So having programs specifically targeting men is important, but they can also be problematic unless they are closely linked to strategies that engages with women, and that such programs are designed in close consultation with feminists and women’s organisations at the same time. There can be a real danger of development agencies ending up with specific men’s program and women programs, with the necessary resource (read funding) competition that follows, as men’s program become a new development ‘fashion’. Even though gender programs aimed at engaging women have been around for thirty years, nevertheless, they are still in their infancy in many ways, and could be vulnerable as men’s programs become the latest approach to ‘gender’.

The only meaningful approach to dealing with gender inequalities is an approach that primarily is about giving greater access and agency to the disempowered (the women) with complementary activities to ensure that men are included to ensure their acknowledgement and acceptance of the importance of these changes. In specific cases such as family violence and HIV/AID in which aggressive ‘masculinities’ come to the fore then specific programs to address would be in order. Richard Eves’ contribution is important, but we should be careful to address in any gender program the issues of inequality, exclusion and structural patriarchy, as much as aggressive masculinities.

© 2009 People and Development.