Dear Manisha,
Thank you much for responding to MAVA’s profile.
For historical reasons, over the years, the women’s movement has had no gender agenda to address men as a group. Issues of gender-based violence and the like have been largely viewed by women’s groups, governmental bodies and others concerned as ‘women’s issues’, thus insulating men from the process of liberating from shackles of stereotypes.
One of the most hopeful of current trends across the globe is the emerging number of men’s groups (although still in small numbers and relatively disorganized) who reject the system that creates patriarchal values. Established in response to the women’s movement worldwide, most of them have been actively working for the past decade or two. They intend to go to the roots of the reasons why the concept of masculinity got so perverted. Interrogating the dominant constructs of masculinity, they are engaged in critiques of male socialization and gender roles and, in the process, redefining masculinity. The ‘White Ribbon Campaign’ which began in Canada and later has been spread to several countries, the ‘Fathers’ Incorporated’ in Jamaica, Institute Promuondo in Brazil, ‘Men Can Stop Rape’ in the U.S. and the ‘No to Violence’ group in Australia are examples of such men’s initiatives involved in various interventions with men to stop and prevent gender-based violence.
However, the reconstruction of masculinity along emancipatory lines must proceed in tandem with women’s efforts on similar lines. There needs to be an on-going dialogue with women’s groups on the role of men’s involvement on gender and sexuality issues. The International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) held in 1994 and the World Women’s Conference, Beijing held in 1995 both had stressed the role of men’s involvement in improving women’s reproductive health, calling for specific action-plans by respective governments. There have been, however, no major / significant programs involving men’s participation apart from promoting condoms and vasectomies and prevention of HIV/AIDS.
The initiatives of men have to be seen not only as complementary to the women’s movement, but as crucial for the goals that it has set for itself. As on date, there is a woeful dearth of forums (physical and psychological) for men – esp. adolescent boys and young men -- in which new ideas about masculinity including gender, violence and sexuality can be imparted and opportunities provided to comfortably unwind, communicate, share their fears, thoughts and concerns on sexual health and gender matters. There is also a need for studies on construction of masculinities and the factors contributing towards shaping various models of masculinity.
All this calls for long-term, focused interventions by and with men on a pro-active level. This requires on-going support and collaboration by donor agencies, governmental bodies and women’s groups. But for this, a paradigm shift from women’s issues to gender issues (which is equally men’s issues) has to be facilitated at various levels.
For the last 2-3 years, international bodies, donor agencies, development groups, and few women’s groups in India have started talking of ‘male involvement’, ‘engendering the male change agents’ and ‘reaching out and communicating with men.’ Seminars, Conferences are being organized and resource material is being generated on the subject. However, there needs to be more widening of perspective on men’s involvement through debate and sharing of concerns not only among voluntary developmental professionals, women’s activists and academicians but also among government functionaries at national level. Funding has to be provided by Central Social Welfare Board and other governmental bodies for supporting such intiatives on gender issues (which is not happening at the moment).
Men Against Violence & Abuse (MAVA) has been attempting to promote a dialogue through networking with and organizing joint action programs with women’s groups for past many years. This is largely at inter-city level. It needs to be done at a wider level. With 2-3 other initiatives involving men being shaping up for past 3-4 years, efforts towards engaging a national dialogue has begun through interested individuals and organizations.
Men’s studies should not be independent, but rather be an integral part of Gender Studies promoted by women’s movement.
On your point about leadership in the movement. While men’s movement is complementing and supplementing the cause of women’s liberation, it calls for ownership of gender issues by men (equally with women) and hence a pro-active role taking specific stands at personal, professional and societal levels. The leadership, set by example, by significant number of men would in no way co-opt the leadership and spaces of women’s movement but would rather strengthen them.
However, apart from issues of leadership, integration within feminist (women’s?) movement(s), the most important issue has remained untouched at all discussions from local to global levels. It is of looking at men as men, as human beings (and not just gendered entities), as someone who are also victims of patriarchy. Such a discourse calls for a paradigm shift from the domain of “Violence against women” (VAW) to the redefinition of gender roles of both men and women to make them better human beings. We need to deconstruct the myth of masculinity as a monolith and understand its “million mutations resulting from the interaction of patriarchy with other social/cultural constructs like class, race/caste, religion and with dynamic forces like globalization.” Changing the role of men from the perpetrators to resistors of VAW is necessary but not sufficient. Because we can’t restrict our understanding and analysis of men’s psyche to violence of only one kind; we need to understand the ethos that breeds violence, makes it a way of life. For this we need to realize that men feel trapped in their gender roles shaped by the prevalent socio-economic structures. We need to empathize and understand (rather than accusing) them, build a rapport with them. Without these prerequisites, how can we change them; and without changing men, how do we go about solving the “women’s ” problems? We, at MAVA, are trying to develop such a wide perspective. While there are very few men’s groups who are ready for such a wide view, one can understand the apprehensions/resistance of most women’s groups. While women’s groups have historical and ideological reasons to look at men and their discourse with suspicion, we feel enriched and strengthened by several feminist friends who are ready to confront the gender issue in a fresh light.
Harish Sadani and Dr. Ravindra R.P.
on behalf of MAVA
Thank you for your detailed description of what your “small, lean organization believing in democratic leadership” has been able to accomplish over the past thirteen years in terms of critical thinking, creative and varied activities, and extraordinary changes in the attitudes and practices of the thousands of people whose lives you have touched!
We all can learn a great from you.
A fundamental issue comes immediately to mind, about which my colleagues and I seek comments from others whenever we can create the opportunity to do so. This issue may be as relevant to the thoughtful questions posed by Manisha Gupta (March 3, 2007) as it is to the daily activities of Men Against Violence and Abuse:
In your work as a teacher, how do you deal with the central question that faces all of us who are committed to ending violence and changing the world by working with people in non-violent ways: How shall we be directive in our work without being authoritarian or manipulative? To put it in other terms, in the intersection between theory and practice, if we want to help people develop a commitment to interacting in collaborative rather than authoritarian ways, how shall we structure our learning groups so that everyone understands our goals and no one is dominated, demeaned, or domesticated by our practice? What guidelines do you propose in your learning groups, for example, for dealing with a situation in which one member interrupts another? In dealing with an instance of domination by one group member over another, how shall we model the precept to do naught unto others that we would not have them do unto us (Mahabharata 5, 15, 17), or the teaching that we must be the change that we wish to see in the world (M.K. Gandhi)?
Again, please accept my expression of appreciation for what you are doing and for sharing what you are doing. I shall be grateful for the opportunity to continue learning from you.
Warmly,
Herman M. Frankel, M.D.
Building Caring Families
www.changemakers.net/en-us/node/167
frankelh@earthlink.net
Dear Dr. Frankel,
Thank you very much for your words of appreciation of MAVA’s work and sharing your concerns.
The concerns raised by you are also ours, too, which we have been grappling with over the past many years. The issues raised in the context of the women’s movement, could very well be applied to all progressive movements in India - whether related to caste, class or gender.
Refusal to self-critique, ghettoization based on caste/ class/ gender, lack of democratic space for frank interchange of ideas, refusal to accept fresh perspectives of others on a contemporary issue are common in most progressive groups. We find many developmental professionals so rigid even in the rapidly changing world order that their cause cannot attract and retain young minds.
It is and would indeed be a major challenge, in coming years, to convincingly put forth our ideas, thoughts and views on the varied gender and sexuality issues before various stakeholders : within the organization and outside.
We have had differences of opinion with many partners in the field on contentious issues like banning of dance bars in our state last year. There was no consensus among women’s groups on the issue : There were some who felt it was the right to livelihood of bargirls being violated hence vociferous in their claims to remove the ban, there were others who felt that a ban was necessary in view of the criminal and corruptive influences of bars on youths. There was a significant number of women’s groups who were not taking any stands nor engaging in any dialogue on the issue. MAVA advocated for a ban on dance bars as there have been lakhs of poor and vulnerable girls from different parts of India, who are being trafficked and subjected to commercial sexual exploitation through dance bars that were mushrooming in towns and villages apart from cities in the state. 35% of these girls, during various police raids, have found to be minors. Many of the stakeholders, who disagreed and were angered by MAVA’s decision to support the ban, did not took the effort to understand our viewpoint. Several leading and veteran women’s activists who joined MAVA were also decried by other bodies, without understanding their perspective on the issue.
In one of the study circle meets initiated by MAVA last year, there was disagreement by one member on the role of religion in reinforcing dominant attitudes among men in society. MAVA key members tried to convince the organisation’s viewpoint with various examples. Yet, the lone member was not satisfied.
Despite the adverse environment at various levels, we - at MAVA strongly feel that the men, in minority, who are pro-actively and focusedly working on gender matters as a process-oriented work (rather than task / project-oriented work) ‘walk the talk’ and demonstrate through personal example their effort in redefining masculinity, they would, in the long run, effectively be able to communicate with other men and engage them in tackling gender issues collectively.
Harish Sadani and Dr. Ravindra R.P.
on behalf of MAVA
Thank you for the comprehensive profile of MAVA's work . I have two questions:
First, how accepting have gender rights movements of men? What is your assessment of the spaces available to men in participating and leading the gender-rights movement - in India and globally?
I was specially struck by the fact that the 7th National Conference of Women's Movements organized in Kolkata in 2006, categorically ruled out the participation of men, except for some general sessions which were open to the public. In a 3-day conference which saw the participation of 2000 women, men (specially those who have been active in women's rights issues) were not allowed into any plenary.
Second, are your strategies for integrating men more integrally into national and international feminist movements? Moving forward, what dialogues do you need to have and concrete collaborations do you need to build with women's groups for greater recognition, inclusion and spaces within the gender rights movement for male leaders?
Dear Manisha,
Thank you much for responding to MAVA’s profile.
For historical reasons, over the years, the women’s movement has had no gender agenda to address men as a group. Issues of gender-based violence and the like have been largely viewed by women’s groups, governmental bodies and others concerned as ‘women’s issues’, thus insulating men from the process of liberating from shackles of stereotypes.
One of the most hopeful of current trends across the globe is the emerging number of men’s groups (although still in small numbers and relatively disorganized) who reject the system that creates patriarchal values. Established in response to the women’s movement worldwide, most of them have been actively working for the past decade or two. They intend to go to the roots of the reasons why the concept of masculinity got so perverted. Interrogating the dominant constructs of masculinity, they are engaged in critiques of male socialization and gender roles and, in the process, redefining masculinity. The ‘White Ribbon Campaign’ which began in Canada and later has been spread to several countries, the ‘Fathers’ Incorporated’ in Jamaica, Institute Promuondo in Brazil, ‘Men Can Stop Rape’ in the U.S. and the ‘No to Violence’ group in Australia are examples of such men’s initiatives involved in various interventions with men to stop and prevent gender-based violence.
However, the reconstruction of masculinity along emancipatory lines must proceed in tandem with women’s efforts on similar lines. There needs to be an on-going dialogue with women’s groups on the role of men’s involvement on gender and sexuality issues. The International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) held in 1994 and the World Women’s Conference, Beijing held in 1995 both had stressed the role of men’s involvement in improving women’s reproductive health, calling for specific action-plans by respective governments. There have been, however, no major / significant programs involving men’s participation apart from promoting condoms and vasectomies and prevention of HIV/AIDS.
The initiatives of men have to be seen not only as complementary to the women’s movement, but as crucial for the goals that it has set for itself. As on date, there is a woeful dearth of forums (physical and psychological) for men – esp. adolescent boys and young men -- in which new ideas about masculinity including gender, violence and sexuality can be imparted and opportunities provided to comfortably unwind, communicate, share their fears, thoughts and concerns on sexual health and gender matters. There is also a need for studies on construction of masculinities and the factors contributing towards shaping various models of masculinity.
All this calls for long-term, focused interventions by and with men on a pro-active level. This requires on-going support and collaboration by donor agencies, governmental bodies and women’s groups. But for this, a paradigm shift from women’s issues to gender issues (which is equally men’s issues) has to be facilitated at various levels.
For the last 2-3 years, international bodies, donor agencies, development groups, and few women’s groups in India have started talking of ‘male involvement’, ‘engendering the male change agents’ and ‘reaching out and communicating with men.’ Seminars, Conferences are being organized and resource material is being generated on the subject. However, there needs to be more widening of perspective on men’s involvement through debate and sharing of concerns not only among voluntary developmental professionals, women’s activists and academicians but also among government functionaries at national level. Funding has to be provided by Central Social Welfare Board and other governmental bodies for supporting such intiatives on gender issues (which is not happening at the moment).
Men Against Violence & Abuse (MAVA) has been attempting to promote a dialogue through networking with and organizing joint action programs with women’s groups for past many years. This is largely at inter-city level. It needs to be done at a wider level. With 2-3 other initiatives involving men being shaping up for past 3-4 years, efforts towards engaging a national dialogue has begun through interested individuals and organizations.
Men’s studies should not be independent, but rather be an integral part of Gender Studies promoted by women’s movement.
Lastly,on your point about leadership in the movement. While men’s movement is complementing and supplementing the cause of women’s liberation, it calls for ownership of gender issues by men (equally with women) and hence a pro-active role taking specific stands at personal, professional and societal levels. The leadership, set by example, by significant number of men would in no way co-opt the leadership and spaces of women’s movement but would rather strengthen them.
However, apart from issues of leadership, integration within feminist (women’s?) movement(s), the most important issue has remained untouched at all discussions from local to global levels. It is of looking at men as men, as human beings (and not just gendered entities), as someone who are also victims of patriarchy. Such a discourse calls for a paradigm shift from the domain of “Violence against women” (VAW) to the redefinition of gender roles of both men and women to make them better human beings. We need to deconstruct the myth of masculinity as a monolith and understand its “million mutations resulting from the interaction of patriarchy with other social/cultural constructs like class, race/caste, religion and with dynamic forces like globalization.” Changing the role of men from the perpetrators to resistors of VAW is necessary but not sufficient. Because we can’t restrict our understanding and analysis of men’s psyche to violence of only one kind; we need to understand the ethos that breeds violence, makes it a way of life. For this we need to realize that men feel trapped in their gender roles shaped by the prevalent socio-economic structures. We need to empathize and understand (rather than accusing) them, build a rapport with them. Without these prerequisites, how can we change them; and without changing men, how do we go about solving the “women’s ” problems? We, at MAVA, are trying to develop such a wide perspective. While there are very few men’s groups who are ready for such a wide view, one can understand the apprehensions/resistance of most women’s groups. While women’s groups have historical and ideological reasons to look at men and their discourse with suspicion, we feel enriched and strengthened by several feminist friends who are ready to confront the gender issue in a fresh light.
Harish Sadani and Dr. Ravindra R.P.
on behalf of MAVA
Dear Manisha,
Thank you much for responding to MAVA’s profile.
For historical reasons, over the years, the women’s movement has had no gender agenda to address men as a group. Issues of gender-based violence and the like have been largely viewed by women’s groups, governmental bodies and others concerned as ‘women’s issues’, thus insulating men from the process of liberating from shackles of stereotypes.
One of the most hopeful of current trends across the globe is the emerging number of men’s groups (although still in small numbers and relatively disorganized) who reject the system that creates patriarchal values. Established in response to the women’s movement worldwide, most of them have been actively working for the past decade or two. They intend to go to the roots of the reasons why the concept of masculinity got so perverted. Interrogating the dominant constructs of masculinity, they are engaged in critiques of male socialization and gender roles and, in the process, redefining masculinity. The ‘White Ribbon Campaign’ which began in Canada and later has been spread to several countries, the ‘Fathers’ Incorporated’ in Jamaica, Institute Promuondo in Brazil, ‘Men Can Stop Rape’ in the U.S. and the ‘No to Violence’ group in Australia are examples of such men’s initiatives involved in various interventions with men to stop and prevent gender-based violence.
However, the reconstruction of masculinity along emancipatory lines must proceed in tandem with women’s efforts on similar lines. There needs to be an on-going dialogue with women’s groups on the role of men’s involvement on gender and sexuality issues. The International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) held in 1994 and the World Women’s Conference, Beijing held in 1995 both had stressed the role of men’s involvement in improving women’s reproductive health, calling for specific action-plans by respective governments. There have been, however, no major / significant programs involving men’s participation apart from promoting condoms and vasectomies and prevention of HIV/AIDS.
The initiatives of men have to be seen not only as complementary to the women’s movement, but as crucial for the goals that it has set for itself. As on date, there is a woeful dearth of forums (physical and psychological) for men – esp. adolescent boys and young men -- in which new ideas about masculinity including gender, violence and sexuality can be imparted and opportunities provided to comfortably unwind, communicate, share their fears, thoughts and concerns on sexual health and gender matters. There is also a need for studies on construction of masculinities and the factors contributing towards shaping various models of masculinity.
All this calls for long-term, focused interventions by and with men on a pro-active level. This requires on-going support and collaboration by donor agencies, governmental bodies and women’s groups. But for this, a paradigm shift from women’s issues to gender issues (which is equally men’s issues) has to be facilitated at various levels.
For the last 2-3 years, international bodies, donor agencies, development groups, and few women’s groups in India have started talking of ‘male involvement’, ‘engendering the male change agents’ and ‘reaching out and communicating with men.’ Seminars, Conferences are being organized and resource material is being generated on the subject. However, there needs to be more widening of perspective on men’s involvement through debate and sharing of concerns not only among voluntary developmental professionals, women’s activists and academicians but also among government functionaries at national level. Funding has to be provided by Central Social Welfare Board and other governmental bodies for supporting such intiatives on gender issues (which is not happening at the moment).
Men Against Violence & Abuse (MAVA) has been attempting to promote a dialogue through networking with and organizing joint action programs with women’s groups for past many years. This is largely at inter-city level. It needs to be done at a wider level. With 2-3 other initiatives involving men being shaping up for past 3-4 years, efforts towards engaging a national dialogue has begun through interested individuals and organizations.
Men’s studies should not be independent, but rather be an integral part of Gender Studies promoted by women’s movement.
On your point about leadership in the movement. While men’s movement is complementing and supplementing the cause of women’s liberation, it calls for ownership of gender issues by men (equally with women) and hence a pro-active role taking specific stands at personal, professional and societal levels. The leadership, set by example, by significant number of men would in no way co-opt the leadership and spaces of women’s movement but would rather strengthen them.
However, apart from issues of leadership, integration within feminist (women’s?) movement(s), the most important issue has remained untouched at all discussions from local to global levels. It is of looking at men as men, as human beings (and not just gendered entities), as someone who are also victims of patriarchy. Such a discourse calls for a paradigm shift from the domain of “Violence against women” (VAW) to the redefinition of gender roles of both men and women to make them better human beings. We need to deconstruct the myth of masculinity as a monolith and understand its “million mutations resulting from the interaction of patriarchy with other social/cultural constructs like class, race/caste, religion and with dynamic forces like globalization.” Changing the role of men from the perpetrators to resistors of VAW is necessary but not sufficient. Because we can’t restrict our understanding and analysis of men’s psyche to violence of only one kind; we need to understand the ethos that breeds violence, makes it a way of life. For this we need to realize that men feel trapped in their gender roles shaped by the prevalent socio-economic structures. We need to empathize and understand (rather than accusing) them, build a rapport with them. Without these prerequisites, how can we change them; and without changing men, how do we go about solving the “women’s ” problems? We, at MAVA, are trying to develop such a wide perspective. While there are very few men’s groups who are ready for such a wide view, one can understand the apprehensions/resistance of most women’s groups. While women’s groups have historical and ideological reasons to look at men and their discourse with suspicion, we feel enriched and strengthened by several feminist friends who are ready to confront the gender issue in a fresh light.
Harish Sadani and Dr. Ravindra R.P.
on behalf of MAVA
Dear Harish Sadani:
Thank you for your detailed description of what your “small, lean organization believing in democratic leadership” has been able to accomplish over the past thirteen years in terms of critical thinking, creative and varied activities, and extraordinary changes in the attitudes and practices of the thousands of people whose lives you have touched!
We all can learn a great from you.
A fundamental issue comes immediately to mind, about which my colleagues and I seek comments from others whenever we can create the opportunity to do so. This issue may be as relevant to the thoughtful questions posed by Manisha Gupta (March 3, 2007) as it is to the daily activities of Men Against Violence and Abuse:
In your work as a teacher, how do you deal with the central question that faces all of us who are committed to ending violence and changing the world by working with people in non-violent ways: How shall we be directive in our work without being authoritarian or manipulative? To put it in other terms, in the intersection between theory and practice, if we want to help people develop a commitment to interacting in collaborative rather than authoritarian ways, how shall we structure our learning groups so that everyone understands our goals and no one is dominated, demeaned, or domesticated by our practice? What guidelines do you propose in your learning groups, for example, for dealing with a situation in which one member interrupts another? In dealing with an instance of domination by one group member over another, how shall we model the precept to do naught unto others that we would not have them do unto us (Mahabharata 5, 15, 17), or the teaching that we must be the change that we wish to see in the world (M.K. Gandhi)?
Again, please accept my expression of appreciation for what you are doing and for sharing what you are doing. I shall be grateful for the opportunity to continue learning from you.
Warmly,
Herman M. Frankel, M.D.
Building Caring Families
www.changemakers.net/en-us/node/167
frankelh@earthlink.net
Dear Dr. Frankel,
Thank you very much for your words of appreciation of MAVA’s work and sharing your concerns.
The concerns raised by you are also ours, too, which we have been grappling with over the past many years. The issues raised in the context of the women’s movement, could very well be applied to all progressive movements in India - whether related to caste, class or gender.
Refusal to self-critique, ghettoization based on caste/ class/ gender, lack of democratic space for frank interchange of ideas, refusal to accept fresh perspectives of others on a contemporary issue are common in most progressive groups. We find many developmental professionals so rigid even in the rapidly changing world order that their cause cannot attract and retain young minds.
It is and would indeed be a major challenge, in coming years, to convincingly put forth our ideas, thoughts and views on the varied gender and sexuality issues before various stakeholders : within the organization and outside.
We have had differences of opinion with many partners in the field on contentious issues like banning of dance bars in our state last year. There was no consensus among women’s groups on the issue : There were some who felt it was the right to livelihood of bargirls being violated hence vociferous in their claims to remove the ban, there were others who felt that a ban was necessary in view of the criminal and corruptive influences of bars on youths. There was a significant number of women’s groups who were not taking any stands nor engaging in any dialogue on the issue. MAVA advocated for a ban on dance bars as there have been lakhs of poor and vulnerable girls from different parts of India, who are being trafficked and subjected to commercial sexual exploitation through dance bars that were mushrooming in towns and villages apart from cities in the state. 35% of these girls, during various police raids, have found to be minors. Many of the stakeholders, who disagreed and were angered by MAVA’s decision to support the ban, did not took the effort to understand our viewpoint. Several leading and veteran women’s activists who joined MAVA were also decried by other bodies, without understanding their perspective on the issue.
In one of the study circle meets initiated by MAVA last year, there was disagreement by one member on the role of religion in reinforcing dominant attitudes among men in society. MAVA key members tried to convince the organisation’s viewpoint with various examples. Yet, the lone member was not satisfied.
Despite the adverse environment at various levels, we - at MAVA strongly feel that the men, in minority, who are pro-actively and focusedly working on gender matters as a process-oriented work (rather than task / project-oriented work) ‘walk the talk’ and demonstrate through personal example their effort in redefining masculinity, they would, in the long run, effectively be able to communicate with other men and engage them in tackling gender issues collectively.
Harish Sadani and Dr. Ravindra R.P.
on behalf of MAVA
Thank you for the comprehensive profile of MAVA's work . I have two questions:
First, how accepting have gender rights movements of men? What is your assessment of the spaces available to men in participating and leading the gender-rights movement - in India and globally?
I was specially struck by the fact that the 7th National Conference of Women's Movements organized in Kolkata in 2006, categorically ruled out the participation of men, except for some general sessions which were open to the public. In a 3-day conference which saw the participation of 2000 women, men (specially those who have been active in women's rights issues) were not allowed into any plenary.
Second, are your strategies for integrating men more integrally into national and international feminist movements? Moving forward, what dialogues do you need to have and concrete collaborations do you need to build with women's groups for greater recognition, inclusion and spaces within the gender rights movement for male leaders?
Dear Manisha,
Thank you much for responding to MAVA’s profile.
For historical reasons, over the years, the women’s movement has had no gender agenda to address men as a group. Issues of gender-based violence and the like have been largely viewed by women’s groups, governmental bodies and others concerned as ‘women’s issues’, thus insulating men from the process of liberating from shackles of stereotypes.
One of the most hopeful of current trends across the globe is the emerging number of men’s groups (although still in small numbers and relatively disorganized) who reject the system that creates patriarchal values. Established in response to the women’s movement worldwide, most of them have been actively working for the past decade or two. They intend to go to the roots of the reasons why the concept of masculinity got so perverted. Interrogating the dominant constructs of masculinity, they are engaged in critiques of male socialization and gender roles and, in the process, redefining masculinity. The ‘White Ribbon Campaign’ which began in Canada and later has been spread to several countries, the ‘Fathers’ Incorporated’ in Jamaica, Institute Promuondo in Brazil, ‘Men Can Stop Rape’ in the U.S. and the ‘No to Violence’ group in Australia are examples of such men’s initiatives involved in various interventions with men to stop and prevent gender-based violence.
However, the reconstruction of masculinity along emancipatory lines must proceed in tandem with women’s efforts on similar lines. There needs to be an on-going dialogue with women’s groups on the role of men’s involvement on gender and sexuality issues. The International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) held in 1994 and the World Women’s Conference, Beijing held in 1995 both had stressed the role of men’s involvement in improving women’s reproductive health, calling for specific action-plans by respective governments. There have been, however, no major / significant programs involving men’s participation apart from promoting condoms and vasectomies and prevention of HIV/AIDS.
The initiatives of men have to be seen not only as complementary to the women’s movement, but as crucial for the goals that it has set for itself. As on date, there is a woeful dearth of forums (physical and psychological) for men – esp. adolescent boys and young men -- in which new ideas about masculinity including gender, violence and sexuality can be imparted and opportunities provided to comfortably unwind, communicate, share their fears, thoughts and concerns on sexual health and gender matters. There is also a need for studies on construction of masculinities and the factors contributing towards shaping various models of masculinity.
All this calls for long-term, focused interventions by and with men on a pro-active level. This requires on-going support and collaboration by donor agencies, governmental bodies and women’s groups. But for this, a paradigm shift from women’s issues to gender issues (which is equally men’s issues) has to be facilitated at various levels.
For the last 2-3 years, international bodies, donor agencies, development groups, and few women’s groups in India have started talking of ‘male involvement’, ‘engendering the male change agents’ and ‘reaching out and communicating with men.’ Seminars, Conferences are being organized and resource material is being generated on the subject. However, there needs to be more widening of perspective on men’s involvement through debate and sharing of concerns not only among voluntary developmental professionals, women’s activists and academicians but also among government functionaries at national level. Funding has to be provided by Central Social Welfare Board and other governmental bodies for supporting such intiatives on gender issues (which is not happening at the moment).
Men Against Violence & Abuse (MAVA) has been attempting to promote a dialogue through networking with and organizing joint action programs with women’s groups for past many years. This is largely at inter-city level. It needs to be done at a wider level. With 2-3 other initiatives involving men being shaping up for past 3-4 years, efforts towards engaging a national dialogue has begun through interested individuals and organizations.
Men’s studies should not be independent, but rather be an integral part of Gender Studies promoted by women’s movement.
Lastly,on your point about leadership in the movement. While men’s movement is complementing and supplementing the cause of women’s liberation, it calls for ownership of gender issues by men (equally with women) and hence a pro-active role taking specific stands at personal, professional and societal levels. The leadership, set by example, by significant number of men would in no way co-opt the leadership and spaces of women’s movement but would rather strengthen them.
However, apart from issues of leadership, integration within feminist (women’s?) movement(s), the most important issue has remained untouched at all discussions from local to global levels. It is of looking at men as men, as human beings (and not just gendered entities), as someone who are also victims of patriarchy. Such a discourse calls for a paradigm shift from the domain of “Violence against women” (VAW) to the redefinition of gender roles of both men and women to make them better human beings. We need to deconstruct the myth of masculinity as a monolith and understand its “million mutations resulting from the interaction of patriarchy with other social/cultural constructs like class, race/caste, religion and with dynamic forces like globalization.” Changing the role of men from the perpetrators to resistors of VAW is necessary but not sufficient. Because we can’t restrict our understanding and analysis of men’s psyche to violence of only one kind; we need to understand the ethos that breeds violence, makes it a way of life. For this we need to realize that men feel trapped in their gender roles shaped by the prevalent socio-economic structures. We need to empathize and understand (rather than accusing) them, build a rapport with them. Without these prerequisites, how can we change them; and without changing men, how do we go about solving the “women’s ” problems? We, at MAVA, are trying to develop such a wide perspective. While there are very few men’s groups who are ready for such a wide view, one can understand the apprehensions/resistance of most women’s groups. While women’s groups have historical and ideological reasons to look at men and their discourse with suspicion, we feel enriched and strengthened by several feminist friends who are ready to confront the gender issue in a fresh light.
Harish Sadani and Dr. Ravindra R.P.
on behalf of MAVA