All together now ... Addressing men and masculinities in gender policy and planning

How should men and masculinities be addressed in attempting to mainstream gender in planning and policy? To what extent has the shift from a Women in Development (WID) to a Gender and Development (GAD) approach helped unravel the complexities of gender and identity and their implications for implementing gender-aware development policy? In the training and advisory work undertaken at the Development Planning Unit (DPU), University College London, the experience of gender training has greatly contributed to the ways in which issues of men and masculinities, as well as women and femininities, have gradually been incorporated into the DPU’s methodology and training practice.

The incorporation of men and masculinities in the methodology is reflected in several ways:

• The analytical framework is based on the recognition that women and men have different and overlapping gender roles and access and control over resources and needs. Women and men may experience different inequalities (based also on age, class, ethnicity, race, religion, ability etc) and hold different views of femininities/masculinities.
• The diagnosis tools do not focus on men or women separately but on the relationships between them and how gender roles and relations are experienced and valued by men and women. This includes women's and men’s views on aspects of masculinities and femininities.
• Involving men (at many different levels) is crucial to changing gender relations and improving women's lives. The strategy development tools of the methodology help organisations and planners to make strategic decisions as to whether and how to address women and/or men in transformative development policy.

There is increasing realisation that gender mainstreaming cannot be addressed by female development professionals only - as was largely the case under WID. However, men are still in a minority in most training sessions even though sponsors are encouraged to send men and women. A number of observations and factors can be made on the treatment of men and masculinities in the training context:

• Women and men appreciate mixed groups: the can explore each other’s views, opinions and experiences of femininities and masculinities and provides a safeguard from stereotyping. Most women see a gender course as a safe environment in which to challenge men, whilst some men see it as a challenge to hear 'how women perceive us'.
• Having a critical mass of men allows for the expression and exploration of the many types and facets of masculinities. When in a minority, some men may feel 'under attack' and resent 'all men' being presented as 'the problem'. Some may defend views of masculinities they may not necessarily adhere to or they may find it difficult to articulate their feelings regarding masculinity.
• The training approach is critical. The DPU focuses on participants' professional experience, making gender policy and planning a reflexive process, involving women and men as planners to reflect on personal biases that influence their work and to address masculinities (and femininities) as opportunities and/or constraints to mainstreaming. This approach makes the training less likely to be immediately resisted by men.
• Involving male trainers is a strategy that has proved useful in some contexts to facilitate discussions on some aspects of masculinities and to demonstrate to men trainees that gender is 'not a women-only' preoccupation.
• Being a male trainer is not enough to deal with men and masculinities. A female trainer working with a sound and clear methodology that addresses men and masculinities alongside women and femininities and connects these to issues of gender inequalities should be able to deal with men and masculinities in GAD as efficiently as a male trainer.

Source(s):
'Addressing Men and Masculinities in GAD', IDS Bulletin 31/2 by Caren Levy, Nadia Taher and Claudy Vouhé (April 2000)