Transforming our interventions for gender equality by addressing and involving men and boys: a framework for analysis and action

Michael Kaufman

Among NGOs, governments, and international institutions such as the United Nations, there has been a tremendous surge of interest in the last few years in the subject of men and boys. This interest reflects several overlapping perspectives. There are those who understand we must reach men so that interventions for women and girls are not derailed by male resistance. There are those who see the quest for gender equality as being enhanced by specific initiatives aimed at men and boys, such as awareness campaigns to end gender-based violence. And there are those who realise that meeting certain needs of men and boys will actually enhance an equity and equality agenda (and vice versa). This chapter endorses all these approaches, and therefore rejects the competing view that the rush to improve the lives of women has resulted in males being ignored or even harmed – this assertion simply doesn't bear scrutiny.

My concern in writing this chapter is two-fold, firstly that this new-found interest in the lives of men and boys doesn't become a passing fad, and secondly that we analyse the lives of men and boys and develop appropriate programmes in the context of achieving gender equality, equity, and social transformation. I believe it is only the latter approaches that will ensure that the focus on men and boys is an enduring one. Only if organisations see the productive results of men and boys taking co-responsibility for gender transformation will new approaches for men not only gain a lasting place in the development world, but also maintain a transformatory edge.

This chapter will discuss a framework for such approaches, drawing on some examples from the White Ribbon Campaign, a campaign that aims to engage men and boys in the struggle to end men's violence against women.

Leaving out boys and men: a recipe for failure

This interest in masculinities, in the lived realities of men and boys and in the capacity of men to play a positive role in challenging sexism and patriarchy, has been cultivated by over two decades of work by a small number of individuals and organisations around the world. We have seen ourselves as allies with the women's movement and the struggles led by women. It is not surprising, however, that a widespread acceptance of our approach has been slow in coming. After all, our work has developed within a critique of patriarchy, the very system that has given undue power and privileges to men. As a result, many women have been concerned that any attempt to include men and boys in working for gender equality would not only redirect scarce resources back to men (who, worldwide, already monopolise resources), but would also rob women of hard-fought social and political spaces. Meanwhile, many men and male-dominated institutions resist our initiatives for the same reasons that they resist equality work led by women: many men feel threatened by direct challenges to their own definitions of manhood, and some share the concerns raised by some women.

There is validity to such concerns. However, these fears arise from an assumption which is, at least partially, false. The goal of our work to promote women's empowerment is not only a matter of directing resources to women and girls but, in a broader sense, is also aimed at meeting the needs of women and girls. By this I mean not only immediate needs, but also what we might think of as women's transformatory and strategic needs within a framework of their empowerment. This is one place where men and boys fit in. To cite but two examples: programmes aimed at men in order to increase fathers' involvement in day-today parenting and domestic tasks may be money spent on men, but it is part of the process of gender transformation to the benefit of women and girls. Similarly, money supporting a men's organisation to carry out awareness programmes with men and boys to end men's violence against women and girls, is not money spent on women and girls, but is money spent to meet the needs of women and girls.

Another way to approach this issue is to ask what will be the consequences of not addressing and involving men and boys. There are a number of reasons for such an omission being a recipe for failure. Most obvious is the fact that men are the gatekeepers of current gender orders and are potential resistors of change. If we do not effectively reach men and boys, many of our efforts will be either thwarted or simply ignored. At best, male leaders will pay lip service to the goals of women's rights, but these goals will not be fully integrated into local, national, and international priorities. In addition, if we don't involve men we are de facto removing men from the gender equation. In doing so, we effectively marginalise women and women's struggles. It should be no surprise, then, that our best efforts are thwarted in moments of national or international crisis or in the midst of economic cutbacks, or that they are virtually ignored at the highest levels of social, economic, and political decision making.

Ultimately, gender is about relations of power between the sexes and among different groups of women and men. Although practical programmes to empower women are one part of changing these relations of power, there also need to be systematic and systemic efforts to change the lives of men and boys if we are to change power relations at their root.

In contrast to these negative consequences, there are potential positive outcomes of addressing and involving men and boys. Such efforts could:

• create a large-scale and broad social consensus on a range of issues that has been previously marginalised as issues of importance only to women, when in fact they are often also issues for men;

• mobilise resources controlled by men and mobilise the social and economic institutions controlled by men. In other words, such efforts could result in a net gain in resources available to meet the needs of women and girls;

• develop effective partnerships not only between women and men, but also between a range of institutions and organisations, some representing the interests of women and girls, and others de facto representing the traditional interests of men and boys;

• increasingly and patiently isolate those men working to preserve men's power and privilege and the denial of rights to women and children;

• contribute to raising the next generation of boys and girls in a framework of gender equity and equality and respect for the human rights of all;

• by changing the attitudes and behaviour of men and boys, improve the lives of women and girls in the home, the workplace, and the community;

• result in new and perhaps unexpected insights into current gender relations and the complex forces that promote discrimination against women and prevent gender equality;

• result in new insights into other social, cultural, and political issues. For example, we can deepen our understanding of fundamentalist religious movements by understanding the insecurities of men within societies which have defined men as powerful.

These, however, are only potential gains. I will return in a moment to the question of how to turn this potential into reality.

What men and boys will gain from gender equality and equity

Talk of the potential for men to gain from women's equality has often been mired in generalities about men's lot in life and, in some cases, from faulty analyses that men are the real victims and losers in our current systems of gender relations – faulty for the simple reason that such analyses play down the real benefits men enjoy from patriarchy. I believe, though, that we can develop a cogent understanding of these issues by rooting our analysis in the notion of men's contradictory experiences of power; that is, the relationship of men's power and what, in shorthand, we can call 'men's pain'. It is not simply a matter of saying that men experience both power and pain as a result of gender relations. Rather, it is about the link between the two. Specifically, it is the ways in which we have constructed our dominant definitions of masculinity, the institutions of patriarchy, and the relations of power among men and with women which are, paradoxically, the sources of disquietude, pain, fear, insecurity, and alienation for many men.

Let me give an example. Men have defined childcare as 'women's work'; they have devalued such work, and have made sure that they do not have to spend much time doing it. In a sense this is a privilege, because it means that most men have only one job compared with most women, for whom work never seems to stop. It means fathers are able to relax at night, or pursue work or sports. And yet, how often do we hear older men talking about having worked their whole lives for their families, but that now they are retired, with their children gone, they don't even know them. The very thing that was a source of privilege has become a source of alienation and emotional pain.

Although men will actually benefit from a world of gender equality and fairness, this should be seen only as an outcome, and not necessarily a motivation to gain men's support. In societies where men's power and social hegemony remains largely uncontested, or where the day-to-day privileges that men enjoy far outstrip those of women, we are unlikely to convince many men that they will gain from sexual equity. In such societies, the balance between men's power and men's pain is decidedly tipped in the direction of men's power.

On the other hand, in societies where there has been an ongoing challenge from women to the domination of men, or where economic or social changes have eroded traditional forms of men's privilege and control, then the balance begins to tip the other way, so that the experiences of personal loss occupy an ever-greater place in men's experiences. In itself, this doesn't automatically lead to a pro-feminist consciousness. In fact, as men grasp the straws of religious fundamentalism and conservative political ideologies, a backlash against feminism is more often the case. My point is that the challenge to men's power opens a huge new space for an anti-sexist discourse among men. Finding ways to enter and exploit that space successfully must be one of our objectives.

The White Ribbon Campaign

In 1991 in Canada, a small group of men started the White Ribbon Campaign (WRC). The campaign engages in public education in order to end men's silence about men's violence against women, to raise awareness among men and boys, and to mobilise them to work for change through their schools, workplaces, and communities. To our surprise, the WRC received tremendous attention in the media. This was, in part, because of our strategy of asking prominent Canadian men from across the social and political spectrum to add their name to the founding statement. WRC quickly became a national institution and has spread to over thirty countries around the world.

Various features, some of them unique, define the approach of the WRC. The campaign focuses on men's violence against women. In some countries, it does this in the context of using explicit language about supporting women's equality; in others where a belief in gender equality is widespread among men, its messages focus on ending physical and sexual violence. WRC embodies the belief that, in most countries, the majority of men do not use physical or sexual violence; that we have been silent about that violence, and through the silence have allowed the violence to continue. The campaign uses the white ribbon as a symbol of ending this silence and as a public promise by a man never to commit, condone, or remain silent about violence against women.

The campaign is politically non-partisan, including and reaching out to men across the political spectrum. Working together, we agree to disagree on many important issues, including some issues relating to feminism. We work closely with women's organisations (and, in some cases, white ribbon campaigns have been started by women's groups). In many countries, WRC campaigns raise money for women's programmes.

Organisationally, WRC is very small – we see our role as being catalysts for action. We strive to encourage schools, corporations, trade unions, religious institutions, sports clubs, youth groups, governments, and non-government organisations to hold their own white ribbon activities. That way we know we can reach hundreds of millions of men.

In most countries, the annual focus of the campaign is between November 25, the international day for the elimination of violence against women, and early December, although educational activities take place throughout the year. Groups distribute ribbons and leaflets in schools, workplaces, and markets. Some groups sponsor advertisements in newspapers or on television and radio, using donations from advertising agencies and the media. They distribute posters and hold public meetings. In some countries, they also hold events around Father's Day to highlight more nurturing roles for men as part of the long-term solution to ending men's violence.

WRC is a decentralised campaign, choosing to act as a catalyst and example to other men and boys. While such a decentralised approach could create problems, it is also the factor that is responsible for the rapid spread of the campaign.

The AIM framework

As noted above, the gains from addressing and involving men remain only potential. There still lurks the problem that programming for men and boys could cause a net drain of resources away from the needs of women and girls. I have suggested that we need a strategic approach, with a goal that goes beyond working with males per se. Rather, we need to envision new initiatives, or develop new components of existing programmes to mobilise men and boys to work in partnership with women and girls in order to transform destructive masculinities, end oppressive gender relations, and to promote gender equity and equality and human rights.

The framework I have suggested for this approach is based on a number of conceptual tools, and a series of principles to guide the development of programmes and interventions involving men and boys. These principles, with some examples from the White Ribbon Campaign, are:

1 Whatever we do, the primary aim should be to work to end discrimination against women and girls, to achieve gender equality and equity, and to promote the human rights of women and girls. Otherwise, we risk undermining the efforts of women, and we fail to transform the very system of patriarchy that is at the root of the problems we address. For example, in some countries the messages of the White Ribbon Campaign focus on the links between men's violence and the discrimination women suffer. Campaigns work to establish links with women's organisations, to support those groups, to develop joint initiatives, and to encourage men to listen to the voices of women.

2 Successfully reaching men requires constantly navigating through men's fear. We should never underestimate the huge individual investment some men can make in maintaining power and control. Our approaches must find ways to appeal to some of the very values we are ultimately challenging. An example is reaching men and boys with the message, 'You have the power to end violence against women in your community'. White Ribbon posters attempt to affirm the positive.