- What do we mean by “ally” and why is this kind of relationship important?
- What is the added value of increased men’s involvement around the Women, Peace and Security
- What kind of peacebuilding do we envision once men and women work together as allies in this work? What do we see as the outcome? What could this new approach to peacebuilding lead to?
- Address the male/female ally relationship – Share your positive experiences in engaging men and women as allies in peacebuilding.
Why should men and women be involved as allies in peacebuilding?
Tue, 03/29/2011 - 7:41pm
#1
Why should men and women be involved as allies in peacebuilding?
To me it is obvious that men and women should work together in peacebuilding. Men are responsible for a lot of violence in the world, both men and women suffer from this violence. Ending violence is for the good of both men and women. It is a pity that working separately is still so often a necessity. About time for men to take the feminist challenge serious, to their personal ánd political lives.
In my opinion, the discussion should nog just be about men and women cooperating in gender-sensitive peacebuilding, but at least also adress the issue of gender-sensitive peacebuilding among men. How men deal with each other is very much gendered; men create gender hierarchies among themselves, live up to stereotypes of masculinities, and harm themselves and others in doing so.
As a gender-sensitive men, I am grateful to the women who welcomed me in their circles, who confronted and supported me in my development, again both personal and political.
It would be a great achievement if a new, mixed, gender-sensitive peace movement could arise from - and be related to - the women's peace movement. However, I believe that it is also important to do the struggle for gender-sensitivity from within the "regular", male-dominated peace organisations. For that matter, men can be allies to Women, Peace and Security as a part or supporter of women's organisations, and as a dissident part of the malestream movement.
Indeed, I find it important to emphasize that also men themselves will gain hugely from gender-sensitive peacebuilding, like they actually also do from gender equality in general. Being involved as men should not be seen as a "charity" towards women, to help the helpless; this is of course also related to the question what "male ally" really means. In that I also see an important role for progressive men, for gender-sensitive men to play; to convey that message to others.
Men and women are socialised in different ways right from the time we are young and this becomes our way of life. The society wants us to act and behave in a particular way. We unconsciously follow this and are eventually slaves to what the society wants us to be. When we are slaves then we are also victims. Deconstruction of this equals liberating men from this slavery afterwhich they stand to benefit from allyship.
I agree with the earlier comments regarding women and men a) both being victims of gender socialization and the restrictive limitations of gender roles, even if men (at least certain types of men) are privileged within the gender hierarchy, as well as b) both standing to benefit from working to advance gender-sensitive peacebuilding and the ungendering of roles, institutions, etc. My question is around practical ways as practitioners to incentivize this process for men, or to rephrase, ways to make explicit these incentives/benefits, because it is never easy to break power relations and accepted social norms, especially when it entails the relinquishing of privilege. Usually the more dominant group is the one that least "suffers," not to say that it does not, but the violence against them is more hidden and packaged within the glamour of power, so they might not have even ever felt oppressed or constrained. To use a metaphor on an individual level, how do you convince someone to give up the instant gratification and put in the hard work for the long-term benefits?
Hi Olivia
Yes, indeed - that's the challenge; how do we convince someone? I think positive role-models of the group (e.g. gender, but perhaps also of the same social group) are crucial in this regard; men speaking out and sharing and discussing with other men how they feel in the current system; discussing the benefits and disadvantages of being in this system. I think sometimes it takes one person to speak out and share, for others to be able to come forward as well, in terms of not always being comfortable with the "privileges". I think its important that men have the safe space to share about these issues, without being "immediately" judged as not being a "real man". I think in this regard its important to ask questions, listen and to acknowledge different experiences. Its a process which takes time. Also, support is important. If one person speaks out on a certain issue, its more difficult to maintain this position when one is alone - so support and finding strength and courage in this to continue is crucial.
I totally agree with you Jose. Support is the key word in this changing process. Being judged as not being a real man is the tough area that we have to look into in this change process. Therefore, from my experience, I see this should be a very individual centred process- which I call "personal transformation" - which needs very close support, encouragement and appreciation. This will add one by one changed into positive masculinities.
Hi Inoka
yes, I agree change starts from the personal level. People need to feel touched, on a personal level. However, this is not enough I feel. If people and men in particular, do not speak out openly and in public on the personal transformation and their gains - on community levels, in regional meetings, hence on more political levels - we will never be able to achieve sustainable change and (patriarchal) structures itself will not change. Therefore, the political involvement is just as crucial I think.
Greetings Jose
I do agree with Jose on the point that though personal transformation is vital for long lasting societal change, emphasizing only the personal aspect bears the danger to not strongly enough pointing out that is is foremost a problem of our patriarchal societies and their gender systems. Therefore even if courageous men speak out about their personal experiences with positive masculinities, others can easier discredit them by framing it as a personal choice of not conforming to hegemonic masculinity. Bringing the discussion on a political level also helps to de-personalize the discussion, which in my eyes could also make it easier for those men who have incorporated positive masculinities to speak out. We do need men to speak out as positive role models, and that involves talking about personal transformation as well, but we have to make sure the discussion takes place additionally on (all) political levels.
I have been following this interesting discussion and have a question to those who have been involved in the first IFOR/WPP ToT - as far as I know in this forum that includes the WPP team and Alimou Diallo as a former participant. Have there been approaches of former ToT participants to work towards bringing the discussion on positive masculinities to the political level? I imagine that is a pretty hard step to take but also once achieved, it can lead to significant change. It would be interesting to know if these approaches are happening or planned, and what your experiences are so far.
Gesa Bent, Coordinator Gender at the GPPAC Global Secretariat
Dear Gesa and the rest of the GPPAC team,
thanks for this question. In total, 16 out of the 19 male participants developed and implemented a follow-up plan with the support of a female activist. The follow-up activities resulted in the training of 336
people, in 14 different countries, on the topics of gender, masculinities, gender-sensitive active nonviolence, and partnership building between women and men. Of these 336 people, 208 were men, 126 were women and two were transgender.
The participants in these follow-up activities included police officers, representatives from the media (TV, radio, newspapers), representatives of NGOs, lawyers, community elders, religious scholars, school teachers, representatives from the men’s movement, government officials, youth opinion leaders at teachers’ colleges, agricultural colleges and universities, church leaders, youth leaders from indigenous groups, and students.The follow-up plans reached a broader audience than the
reported 336 people (direct outreach) who were trained through the follow-up activities. The indirect outreach of the ToT cycle takes places on various levels, including: 1 the dissemination of the training content by the 336 trainees trained as part of the required follow-up plans; 2 the further dissemination and integration of the content and vision of the pilot ToT project by the 19 ToT participants beyond the follow-up activity.
A few examples of what participants shared throughout the process:
The participant from Lebanon shared this:
“I was in East Timor for the first global meeting of the International Dialogue on Peacebuilding and Statebuilding in Dili, Timor-Leste. The meeting brought together more than a hundred participants from over 40 countries and international organizations, as well as representatives from civil society. During the discussions I lobbied to include gender mainstreaming in the workings. And the final declaration
recognizes the status of women and girls, both in conflicts and their transformation. A real success.”
The participant from Burundi shared with the group how he had developed a training program for ministers, media representatives and the program managers of international NGOs. He developed it in close cooperation with various women activists. The training focused on gender and gender mainstreaming, as well as on the obstacles to and effective strategies for involving men in positive social change and peacebuilding. The ToT exercises that he used included “the cycle of male and female socialization” and the “power and control wheel”, which he first translated into French.
The participant from Liberia shared about his work on gender mainstreaming and gender-sensitive active nonviolence. In his work for the West Africa Network for Peacebuilding, he mainly works with human right groups, the media, lobbyists and advocacy organizations, and peace groups.
The participant from Ghana told of some of his efforts in working for gender justice in peacebuilding, including: his participation in a Solidarity Mission organized by Femmes Africa Solidarité (FAS) to assess the situation of political transition in Guinea and to establish a framework for women’s contributions to the peace process (including defining a strategy for the participation of women in peace negotiations and democratic processes); his contributions to the development of an organizational gender policy; his participation as a trainer in a capacity-building training on gender mainstreaming for peace CSOs (civil
society organizations); his contribution to the development of a national action plan on UNSCR 1325 for Sierra Leone, a document that was presented at the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) meeting in New York in March 2010.
The participant from Uganda shared about how he had developed and conducted a follow-up training for local community leaders – both men and women – on gendersensitive active nonviolence, the theory of masculinity and its relationship to violence, peacebuilding, and participatory and gender-sensitive facilitation.
The participant from Peshawar, Pakistan, spoke about his reconciliation and gender work. Among other issues, he is raising awareness on the need to include women’s voices and perspectives within the jirga system. In the Pukhtoon community in Afghanistan and in the northwest frontier province of Pakistan, the jirga is a council of elders that deals with local problems through its unwritten traditional code of life called Pusthunwali. It consists of a community-based, open-circle process, during which victims and
offenders have the right to level their allegations against each other. The jirga members then decide on what comes next.
It would be great if the ToT participants are in this dialogue could add as well, since Im sure they could share their own experiences much better than I do.
I would like to share a community mediation resource from the experience of CVICT in Nepal and how they have been able to significantly advance the voices of women in community mediation processes in quite a number of districts in Nepal. This example might be of particular use in the communities in Pakistan that use the traditional code of Pushunwali.
The tactical notebook from Nepal is: Access to Justice: Creating local level, citizen action mediation bodies to ensure human rights (Direct link to the full tactical notebook). The mediation bodies have served as a vehicle to empower women to become community leaders, addressing their individual and collective needs through both Human Rights Medication Committees (HRMC) and Women Peace Committees (WPC). Briefly:
"The foundation of the community mediation tactic is a participatory, rights-based approach to education and awareness building. For those in confl ict, this helps them to make their own informed choices and is designed to uplift the status of disadvantaged groups.
One great asset is that it is a volunteer based programme in which all people are welcome, regardless of background. This welcoming attitude has proved to be highly effective to motivate people to participate. Women are especially encouraged to be involved —both in the HRMCs as well as the WPCs. The mediation programme has been established with a type of “reservation system.” For example, each HRMC has a minimum of 25% women and reasonable participation of marginalised groups depending upon the composition of the local community. The WPCs are totally composed of and run by women."
The process has been so successful that Women Peace Committees (WPCs) and Human Rights Mediation Committees (HRMCs) have received annual funds by the government’s Village Development Committees to continue their sustainability.
Would you envision this kind of tactic being adapted in other countries and serving a useful role in other peacemaking efforts?
Thank you Jose and Nancy for sharing these inspiring examples. This and the overall wealth of contributions to the dialogue have been very beneficial and I see a lot of linkages with our priority themes in GPPAC for the next years (Dialogue & Mediation, Peace Education, Human Security, Preventive Action). Great to have shared our stories & ideas and thanks to the New Tactics team for providing this space for exchange!
Gesa Bent, Coordinator Gender at the GPPAC Global Secretariat
Hi Dola,
I'm agree with you. Men are socialized like that. Do you think that it is easy to behave in a different way in the same society which socialize us like that? What are the risks? Which could be the better tools to succeed without blaming our society?
SECONDE
FEMALE SUPPORTING MEN ALLIES AND
MEMBER OF FOUNTAIN ISOKO FOR GOOD GORVERNANCE
AND INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT
So fresh in our minds are the images of the recent revolution taking place in Egypt, so inspiring seeing men and women standing side by side in nonviolent protest; bravely demanding better lives for everyone...
What most people are not aware of these days, now the cameras have mostly switched off, is how women are struggling to be part of Egypt's future. Egyptian women activists are very concerned now that the major decisions about the future are being taken without them. We received an email this week, which was forwarded by War Resisters International, in which Cynthia Enloe shares a worrying update on what is happening to women activists in Egypt these days:
"Dear All --- I know that each of you has been trying to keep track of what has been happening to women active in the Egyptian uprising. Here's what I've just heard from my friend Nadje Al-Ali. Nadje, as many of you know, is an Iraqi British feminist scholar, head of the Gender Studies Centre at SOAS, University or London, and author of some of the best books on Iraqi women's politics (U of Calif Press; Zed Press). She did her phd in Cairo and her first book was about Egyptian women's politics. Nadje has stayed in contact with a circle of leftist and feminist Eygyptian friends. According to Nadje's Cairo friends, there has been a severe backlash in recent days, with women often the targets, anti-democracy men attacking and sexually harrassing women, some arrested and abused. In the lead-up to the referendum on the 8 constitutional amendments (drafted by a military-appointed all-male civilian constitutional council), women activists were divided on the question of whether to vote YES (confirming these 8 amendments and a june parliamentary election ) - or NO (I.e. Against just these 8 amendments rather than a thorough re-writing of the Constitution, and Against elections for the parliament in June, so soon that the estabparty, Mubrarak's, and the Muslim Brotherhood , would have a huge organizational advantage in campaigning over the younger liberal and left activists, who are only now able to try launching a new electoral party with its own candidates and national network). Nadje says that most of her leftist and feminist women friends voted NO. But, as you know, the great majority of voters in last week's referendum voted YES (there was a 40 percent turn out -- that's 4 times as many as Egyptians as voted in the last Mubarak rigged election -- no data re gender breakdown of either turn out or voting choice). Also, despite a really impressive pre-referendum petitioning campaign by independent Egyptian women's civil society groups and human rts grps, which called for the deletion of one of the 8 amends designed by the all-male council - an amendment that banned from the future presidency "any person married to a non-Egyptian woman" - an amendment flawed on several counts but esp in that it made the const'l presumption that the Pres. could only be male - despite their efforts, this sexist (and xenophobic -- there's lots of cross-nationality marriage in Egypt) amendment stayed on the ballot - and was part of the all-or-nothing package of amends that passed last week. Nadje was great to share this with me and so I wanted to pass it on to you. She says that this remains a dangerous time for Egyptian women, fluid, but full of risks. So we'll all need to stay attentive and hopefully share what we learn. All best wishes to you, Cynthia"
As long as peace is not defined in gender-sensitive terms, there can be no peace...As long as male leaders keep ignoring women's perspectives and concerns and block their contributions and participation, democracy is an illusion...
It is sad and disappointing to see that now the Egyptian women face exclusion (half of the population!); there are no large crowds gathering on the Tahrir Square to voice that this is absolutely unacceptable and not what the new Egypt should stand for. Instead, women activists who speak out stand alone and face violence and repression.
This is why women need male allies. For women need men to stand with them to voice that decision-making without women can never lead to peaceful societies. Only when all are equally involved, can peace become a reality. It is important for men to realize that women's exclusion from the negotiation tables will strengthen patriarchy once again and in the end will also leave men vulnerable. For when patriarchal paradigms are allowed to continue; men will also suffer. Yesterday we learned that Maikel Nabil Sanad - an Egyptian pacifist and a conscientious objector to military service, was arrested. According to reports from his friends, Maikel Nabil Sanad was arrested in the night of 28 March, when he was alone at home. He managed to call his brother on 29 March in the morning, to inform him about his arrest. He also told him that he would be tried in a military court on the same day, and that he is being threatened with a prison sentence of five years, on unknown charges. Maikel was first arrested in November 2010 for his conscientious objection, but released two days later. He was then discharged from military service for being unfit to serve [1]. He was again arrested on 4 February 2011, during the time of the revolution. He was mistreated and threatened by the military, but released 27 hours later [2]. "This is not the first time the Egyptian military has arrested Maikel Nabil Sanad, nor is he the only case of an activist has been arrested after the revolution", says Andreas Speck, War Resisters' International's conscientious objection campaigning worker. "We fear that this time the military really wants to have a go at him, which means he needs all the support we can give him. His arrest and the fast-track trial in front of a military court are in clear violation of international human rights standards, especially the right to a fair trial. If this is the new Egypt, it does not seem to be better than the old one."
Maikel Nabil Sanad is a known critic of the Egyptian military. On his blog http://maikelnabil.com, he regularly publishes his political opinion, including most recently a lengthy critique of the role of the military during the so-called Egyptian revolution. In this document, he detailed the arrest and torture of activists by the military during and after the revolution [3].
"In a way, his arrest proof that his criticism of the role of the military in the revolution is very true", says Andreas Speck. "Far from being a free country, Egypt is presently governed directly by the military, which did never and does not now care for political freedom or human rights. The revolution might have gotten rid of Mubarak as figure head, but it has not - yet - achieved political freedom."
We still have a long way to go... For what happens in Egypt is not an exception. It is something that women peacemakers all over the world are very familiar with. I would like to conclude with Margaret Mead's wise words: “Every time we liberate a woman, we liberate a man” . Women's and men's lives are deeply connected. When women are free from patriarchal oppression, so will be men. That is why we need to stand side by side and look our for each other. Only then will peace have a chance.
Communities where some of us were born and brought up are either strictly religious or heavily cultural. Experience has shown that this two pose serious opposition to women led process because of the nature of their set up and composition where crucial decisions lie squarely at the men's doorsteps. Women and men working as allies in peacebuilding in my view is one creative way of defusing this and winning acceptance as we all work towards more inclusive processes where every view and contribution is important. To penetrate religion and culture which are so deeprooted in African requires a lot of strategising and creativity that will ensure that in the end, we don't create more violence.
In the struggle for gender sensitivity on issues of peace building, to have allies is almost as important as the cause of fighting for peace in my view. If women are the only ones who believe in the critical importance of their involvement in peace building, it's still a noble thing to do, but probably won't bring much change history shows us.
As has been outlined in the postings above, in communities where women are not involved in decision making processes, they are also not taken seriously. For this perception to change we need men who believe in this cause, to support and stand alongside women as partners to bring about the change.
When I think of a male ally, I think of a male consultant who had been invited to facilitate a peace building dialogue meeting in a remote community in a place called Yirol in Southern Sudan. This community was in conflict over water resources for many years. In this community women were not allowed to attend such peace building dialogue meetings culturally. Such meetings were characterized by rituals which women were not allowed to perform. This consultant knowing this however convinced the community leaders to invite some women as observers. He was an African but from another country so he was even allowed by the community leaders to co-facilitate the dialogue with a woman from his country.
You can imagine during the dialogue these men who culturally do not allow women in such meetings, had to face a women co-facilitating their dialogue and also they had some women as observers. Out of 60 men, only 6 women attended the meeting and they were sitting right at the back as observers. Ofcourse the men dominated the talk, but at a certain moment when the arguments got heated up, the woman co-facilitator strategically posed the question “can we now hear from a woman in the room how they see it?” This encouraged the women to speak out. When the women started speaking, they went directly to the root cause of the conflict and that was the beginning of a sustainable solution to the conflict. I visited the same community three years later and people were still living peacefully with each other.
This is an example of an ally who believes in the importance of involving women in peace building and integrates this in his interventions. We also have other examples of male allies who support and join initiatives by women in peacebuilding. Increasing the number of gender sensitive male allies is a critical issue that cannot be ignored anymore in peace building just as much as the importance of women’s participation cannot be ignored.
You made a point there Dola. In this regard what strategies could we readily put forward to reduce structural violence against women knowing how rigid religion and culture are in the African context you have described?
First, I think we need to revisit religious interpretation that has been twisted to the advantage of a dominant group – MEN. The truth is that all religions teach peace, love, respect and dignity of the human person. If you read the Bible and the Quran and many other religious scripts, women were leaders in times past. They were scholars who contributed immensely in every aspect of humanity.
Therefor, as far as I am concerned, the problem has been with the interpretation of religion and religious values which have been distorted to relegate women to occupy back sits. For example, Aisha, the wife of the Holy Prophet S.A.W.S became one of the spiritual leaders of the Muslim Ummah after the passing of the Prophet and she was consulted on a daily basis to interpret Islamic jurisprudence.
Additionally, everywhere in the world culture is dynamic. The problem we face in changing cultural practices that violate women’s rights is because MEN are ‘benefitting’ from the injustice. Or rather MEN think they are benefitting. The fact is, MEN are also victims because hegemonic masculinity consumes MEN first as victims of violence in bloody wars. Let’s be realistic; don’t assume that men are aware of the trap they are in; they too are victims of the system and need liberation.
I believe in this strongly because I was only liberated when I attended the IFOR/WPP training of trainers on masculinities and gender sensitive active non-violence in the Netherlands in 2009 and in the Philippines in 2010. The trainings were a revelation to me which helped me understand how my socialization process was responsible for the way I think, behave and relate to others as a ‘real man’.
I have since regained my consciousness and learned to relate to men and women in a peaceful and dignified manner. My family today is healthier, happier and wealthier too:)
I would like to call on all men not to use religion and or culture as a pretext to perpetrate violence against women. It is not right – and you know it.
Be yourself; use the positive aspect of religion and culture to promote peace, love and respect for human lives. We are all equal in the sight of God – Women and Men.
I want to call attention to the discussion Alimou and Dola are having because religion reflects an archetypal imbalance of power related to gender. Religion does not treat women better than any other patriarchal institution. God the father is not an ally, especially these days, when it comes to women's rights or roles. Look at the greatness of Adam compared to the "evilness" of Eve. We can't use religion as a guide for ally behavior, other than as a general ethical map, picking and choosing our way through the text, avoiding what feminists call the "Texts of Terror" where women are ripped limb from limb to pay a man's debt? There is so much gratuitous violence in religion. I wish religion could be stripped down to its essence - its mystical essence - where only lover, respect, regard for nature, and peace was left. I wish it was the way that Alimou states:
"The truth is that all religions teach peace, love, respect and dignity of the human person. If you read the Bible and the Quran and many other religious scripts, women were leaders in times past. They were scholars who contributed immensely in every aspect of humanity."
I think of how contaminated relationships between men and women have been by perversions and misinterpretations that disenfranchise women and give men power-over.
Male privilege and structures may have to become a detriment to men before they give them up. As long as women are willing to play the role of the exploited in the media or in the home, it will be harder for men to give up their privilege. Negotiations between men and women will continue to be complex with all parties needing to gain. The continued victimization of women by men makes trust difficult if not impossible. Women want men as allies who are genuine, not manipulative, or secretly hostile. The advantages of ally relationship are as you have said, Alimou, that it makes us happier, healthier, richer in nonmaterial as well as material ways. It is mutually constitutive relationship where women make men and men make women who we all are. To use psychodramatic terms we can create the "auxiliaries" we want in order to live a good life. There are many factors that impact our search for the goodness in one another, and that is what we are working for in this conversation.
I wanted to address this a bit, because I think that religion/belief systems cannot be completely dismissed and written off. As much as I might have the same reservations about everything from the text to the practice and the gender-embedded norms, within the primary Judeo-Christian traditions for example, or other large institutionalized global religions, I think it still needs to be engaged with, especially with certain individuals, groups, parts of the world. Even if we agree that like other institutions it is patriarchal, this in essence means it can be altered, even if slowly, since like any cultural expression, religion is also multi-faceted and dynamic, containing everything from the politics of the leadership, the way it is practiced in different places, different schools of thought, different interpretations of text that emerge, etc. all in a complex interplay. I agree it can be a source for so much inequality and oppression and conflict – both because of the people that use it and how they use it, while again, not taking out all culpability in what currently exists in the texts and institutions that also more than lend themselves to this misuse – but I think in many ways its current expression is always a reflection of the social, political, and economic context (i.e. “culture” which I have never liked as a word and always try to break down into parts) and it can also be a force for so much good to change that context or can also change itself when that context is targeted; basically, they are inter-linked. It’s a language that many people speak and that you can then use to speak to them, which I know brings alarm to a lot of Western radical feminists, secular liberals, socialists, etc. but that alarm also has to be questioned because it can lead to its own type of exclusion, disengagement/marginalization, and often intersects with racial assumptions about the extremist, fanatical, religiously devout “other” in the context of the non-Western world or even then not seeing and engaging with religious individuals within their own societies. (Patti, by the way, not accusing you of this in any way!, just bringing in a larger discussion around the type of thinking I’ve seen in many Western-school feminists and the gap that then emerges between them and much of the world. And also self-reflecting, for example in my situation, I too am not the most comfortable when talking about the religious evangelicals throwing themselves into political movements in the U.S., but I have to question that alarm and ask if it actually stops me from working with them effectively.)
I just want to bring it up because practically, writing it off, leads us to a bit of a dead-end in some places, and I think as peacebuilding and gender practitioners, we always want to engage. First of all, as practitioners building on a foundation of peace values, I think we need to respect the beliefs of others and start from a place, not of tolerance because that implies a bit condescension or allowance, but of understanding and valuing. On an individual level, that means understanding the experiences of someone, the way they think, what they value, what they use to guide themselves in life, what their challenges and needs and hopes are. On a group level, similarly, I think it means understanding the dynamics within, between individuals and sub-groups, what shapes patterns of belief and behavior, what collective experiences have been lived and what collective frameworks are used, and the variations within, and yes, also the power dynamics and inequalities and injustices. From there, it is much easier to engage with their terms and language and what they use to frame their life. I’m not trying to represent it just as a strategic study but for it to be more of a dialogue, to find places of entry and eventually transformation around ways of not arriving to some pre-determined outcome but in addressing their needs and finding ways they want to change and supporting/facilitating this. There is a bit of a dilemma here, of course, there is a sense of what is “right” that guides us as practitioners, gender equality, peace, etc. but I think within that there are so many nuances and different ways and forms of expression of these large concepts within each community that they can and should determine. We should not be superimposing a how or what it looks like but taking guidance from working with them.
Of course, this does not mean excusing or not holding people and instituitons to account, but on a practical level of the every day, I think we cannot write off systems of belief even if they are the ones that "oppressors" use, especially those that are "victimized" also are influenced by them and have them intergated into their every day life, so if you take it out of the equation, you also remove possible resources, tools, sources of strength, as well as perhaps the opportunity to connect with those whose rights you are working to advance as well as even those (men, religious leaders, women who also perpetuate systems of discrimination, etc.) who are seeking consciously or unconsciously to subordinate those rights.
As an academic, I can theorize a lot about the place of religion, the embedded nuances of its roots for each type of faith ideology, its lineage and what it draws from, etc. and what that all means in terms of being gendered inequality, but as a practitioner, I have to see it also as part of the experiences of the people with whom I work, even if conscious still of some of the larger context (overall trends in terms of gender inequality, tensions between groups, how leaders use it for divisiveness, etc.). Without being an apologist, I have to try to understand it and what it means in each situation (because it can signify different things, it is not monolithic, like there can be a million and two reasons for wearing the hijab and that does not necessarily translate blindly and unequivocally into gender oppression). I can choose to ignore it or completely try to take it on as the one and only thing holding women back and causing conflict, or I can see it as integrated in the social, political, economic, etc. context/web I’m dealing with and address aspects of it interwoven in each problem. To give an example, since I know I’ve been speaking very generally without pulling in much of these, in Lebanon, there are 18 different confessions which means 18 different personal status courts where we go to address divorce, child custody, etc. While still working on the larger separation of religion and state, reform within each religion, etc., at the end of the day, when we have an Iraqi refugee who needs to obtain a divorce, we go to the court that applies to her and work with the religious leaders and the judges to understand her needs, her problems (often domestic violence), and find ways within their frameworks to assist her (we cannot turn to civil courts because there is no national law against violence against women and also Iraqi refugees are not usually legal in their status/stay in the country because there is no recognition of refugee rights).
I will not be blind and paint it as an idealistic picture. Each religion of course has words of hate and discrimination within its texts, as Patti points out, or at least words that can be construed as such. But I would actually argue that it is not the entirety of it and there are powerful words for peace and equality and freedom that we need to see because if not, we limit our toolkit. I think our challenge as practitioners is to make those words speak louder, with religion and any other factor/tool, but especially because of the significance of religion, I do not think we can choose to ignore it in our everyday work (not arguing that we all need to focus on being feminist text-revisionists or whatever, or direct our efforts to speaking to religion only, but at least to not pretend not to see it there). I would argue we still need to be extremely constructively critical and careful and can still have also our own overall beliefs about whether we need religion in our lives or the overall institution of it as such, but we cannot do the same thing we argue that religion when misused does, we cannot see it just one way or use it to exclude rather than engage, because then we might not succeed in many situations as practitioners of gender-sensitive peacebuilding.
And lastly, religion is not the only one to blame, its not the only factor and as stated before, can be linked and deconstructed to multiple changing parts, and officially secular societies also have their share of unjust gender practices, as Jens points out. It is sometimes a little too convenient as a scapegoat and we should try to delver deeper and be more specific, to be able to really address root causes to conflict and gender inequality, otherwise we never completely understand the problem itself, as well as not being able to find solutions engaging with the people.
Just my thoughts on this subject especially from my experiences both in an academic and practitioner setting, thanks to Patti and Alimou and Dola for raising it, because there is no one right answer and it is a difficult and complicated issue to address.
Hi Olivia,
Your wrote: 'Of course, this does not mean excusing or not holding people and instituitons to account, but on a practical level of the every day, I think we cannot write off systems of belief even if they are the ones that "oppressors" use, especially those that are "victimized" also are influenced by them and have them intergated into their every day life, so if you take it out of the equation, you also remove possible resources, tools, sources of strength, as well as perhaps the opportunity to connect with those whose rights you are working to advance as well as even those (men, religious leaders, women who also perpetuate systems of discrimination, etc.) who are seeking consciously or unconsciously to subordinate those rights.
As an academic, I can theorize a lot about the place of religion, the embedded nuances of its roots for each type of faith ideology, its lineage and what it draws from, etc. and what that all means in terms of being gendered inequality, but as a practitioner, I have to see it also as part of the experiences of the people with whom I work, even if conscious still of some of the larger context (overall trends in terms of gender inequality, tensions between groups, how leaders use it for divisiveness, etc.). Without being an apologist, I have to try to understand it and what it means in each situation (because it can signify different things, it is not monolithic, like there can be a million and two reasons for wearing the hijab and that does not necessarily translate blindly and unequivocally into gender oppression). I can choose to ignore it or completely try to take it on as the one and only thing holding women back and causing conflict, or I can see it as integrated in the social, political, economic, etc. context/web I’m dealing with and address aspects of it interwoven in each problem'
I completely agree with your analogy and proposed approaches. Let us engage the issues that matter in the gender discourse.
I agree as practitioners working for transformation in people and on pillars of cultures and religious interpretations that are used to oppress and discriminate, we cannot afford to dismiss people’s worldview (context). The fundamental principles of a culture the story it accepts as true, it’s people’s dreams, ideals, and vision because this is what will provide the foundation of the changes we are seeking. That is why having allies is effective because they influence change from within the same context. Just as for us practitioners want to know who, where, when and how and care about strategies, methods, personnel, resources, curricula and institutions. Yet often forget that our practices stem from policies that are derived from a particular concept of development – rooted in a worldview. The challenge is for us as practitioners from time to time to also examine our own worldviews too. Culture and religious interpretations are dynamic through regions and generations and a value adding approach would be to influence the change from within as it is evolving.
I agree as practitioners working for transformation in people and on pillars of cultures and religious interpretations that are used to oppress and discriminate, we cannot afford to dismiss people’s worldview (context). The fundamental principles of a culture the story it accepts as true, it’s people’s dreams, ideals, and vision because this is what will provide the foundation of the changes we are seeking. That is why having allies is effective because they influence change from within the same context. Just as for us practitioners want to know who, where, when and how and care about strategies, methods, personnel, resources, curricula and institutions. Yet often forget that our practices stem from policies that are derived from a particular concept of development – rooted in a worldview. The challenge is for us as practitioners from time to time to also examine our own worldviews too. Culture and religious interpretations are dynamic through regions and generations and a value adding approach would be to influence the change from within as it is evolving.
Dear Alimou,
You wrote: "First, I think we need to revisit religious interpretation that has been twisted to the advantage of a dominant group – MEN." I think this is an important point to raise since in many conflict areas religion plays an important role for the people, and many conflicts are even religiously based.
The issue of religous reinterpretation actually was one of the main points discussed at the Consultation the WPP organized last year on the topic of (inter)faith-based peacebuilding and gender. The women present, many of them working in faith-based peacebuilding, were voicing the need for a reinterpretation of the religious texts in a more gender-sensitive way. All religions have at their core a message of peace, therefore it can be seen as a valuable tool for reconciliation. But at the present, most faiths are heavily patriarchal in structure, which becomes an obstacle for women to be involved in faith-based peacebuilding other than on grassroots level, and even there often in a very restrictive way.
Here the women at the consultation also saw a role to play for progressive men and religous leaders; to support and propagate a gender-sensitive interpretation of the religous texts and to work for separation of religion from discriminatory cultural practices.
I was struck by this particular discussion related to religion and peacebuilding. The role of religion in BOTH the instigation or justifcation of conflicts AND efforts of peacebuilding and reconcilation have been profound throughout history.
Quite a number of years ago (the late 90s) I had the honor and pleasure of working at Isis International - Manila. We had the opportunity to bring together women leaders from many of the major relgions in the world - Buddism, Christianity, Confusism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Shamanism. In spite of the patriarchial oppression experienced by the women from all of these faiths, they ALL found their inspiration, as well as drew their support and personal sustanence to continue their amazing work, from their faith.
The need and importance of self-care is critical for this work, as people have identified already in this dialogue. For many, a critical foundation of their self care comes from their religious beliefs and practices which provide a powerful source of support, motivation and nourishment.
I would like to share a few examples that emerged from different issues but that could be relevant for this discussion.
1) In Egypt, Re-writing Traditional Stories to Gain a Gender-Sensitive Perspective was undertaken by the Women's Memory Forum.
2) In Ghana, Engaging locally respected leaders to end customary practices that violate human rights was undertaken by the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ)
3) In Kenya, the Coalition on Violence against Women (COVAW) engaged local leaders to become women’s rights and victim advocates to become women’s rights advocates and resources for victims.
Do participants have examples where religious texts have been framed in gender-sensitive ways? Or where support has been gained from religious leaders for peacebuilding efforts?
They have to work hands in hands for a just society!!! Men are responsible of different forms of violence in the society and must be involved while looking for solutions and for lasting approaches. If men are not involved, how will they change from the adversial approche to the collaborative one??? How will they be conscious of the injustice and human rights violation that they are causing in the human society!!!
If we have to involve them and allow them to work with women for the positive change, what kund of approaches and strategies to be devevelopped in order to have them on the board??? are women ready to collaborate with men??? What is challenging in this new appraoch???
Being aware of the apparently huge differences between countries, cultures and religions, I wish to state here that also in The Netherlands a lot of work is still needed to liberate both men and women from the constraints of patriarchy. And although there is no symmetry in this, women's suffering cannot be compared to men's suffering, one thing is very clear to me: both men and women live in fear of violence, every day, and this is a threat of potential violence coming from men as a collective. Sadly, many men and women fear many men who do no harm at all.
What we need is to get these men and women together, to change the dominant ideas that equal masculinity with dominance, power, control and violence; that deny that vulnerability, love, care and reciprocity are just as well masculine qualities; that threaten boys and men who exhibit so-called feminine traits; that define homo- and bisexuals as inferior and unmasculine; that creates dichotomy and thus hierarchy between people; that creates conflict through denying humanness to humans.
Hi Christian!
The challenge here is bringing the men on board at the grassroots level because more often, in Sri Lankan context it is the woman who represents the family at community gathering or in a public meeting due to the fact that the man is engaged in economic activities. This is more prevelant in the tsunami affected areas (locations) where several of development work carried out. However, the interesting fact is that the dicisions made at the meetings are changed when women have gone home and consulted their husbands. So, the challenge is bringing the man into the awareness process where the man and the woman be assisted to change their attitudes and beliefs. Among the educated groups who are engaged in white collar jobs, bringing men and women is easy as it is mundatory for them to work together in some organisations. The question is "does this really change or does it further segregate both of them due to the confirmation of perceptions because of the behaviours?" This both occurs and more the second. I think in each team or organisation, there should be somebody who can facilitate the process of changing by supporting and appreciating the change.
For me, a male ally in women's empowerment and gender justice, is a man who has an understanding of his own position and power, and how this stands in relation to others. This requires an understanding of and compassionate view towards others, their identity, and their (power) position. To quote buddhist monk, nonviolent peace activist Thich Nath Hanh; “The essence of love and compassion is understanding, the ability to recognize the physical, material, and psychological suffering of others, to put ourselves ‘inside the skin’ of the other.” I think this requires an understanding of the roots of the suffering of (oneself and) others. Patriarchal structures, and the socialization of men and women in these structures, result in unequal powerrelations between people; women, men, transgenders and transsexuals. Dominant men, conforming to hegemonic expressions of masculinities, are the ones in decision-making positions, deciding over the fate of others. A male ally has an understanding of the structures - the suffering of both women and men in these structures – and an understanding of the gains there will be for women, men and societies as a whole when this is changed.
However, the understanding in itself is not enough - a male ally has the strength and courage to speak out against the injustice and suffering and to lobby and advocate for change – on behalf of disadvantaged groups, yet not without them.
A male ally towards women takes into consideration the needs, challenges, perceptions and experiences of women. Not by assuming he knows or understands them, but by asking the women, and checking with them if he understood it well. A male ally might work sometimes on behalf of women, however he can never work without women. For me a male ally understands the power position he is in - on obvious and more subtle levels - and uses this to facilitate spaces for women and disempowered men, for them to become more empowered as well – in particular to facilitate spaces for women on political and decision-making levels. As long as this doesn’t happen, peacebuilding efforts can never lead to sustainable changes.
I find the concept of men as "allies" somewhat troubling; it recalls the 60s feminist movements in the US when men could give money or join in support but could not be considered part of the core of the movement itself. Bringing men into gender-sensitive peace-building may require that they be acknowledged as equally sensitive players in the peace-building process. I strongly agree that more attention needs to be paid to hierarchies within masculinities and to the effects of this men-centered power struggle. I wish there could be a way to both recognize men as equal players in the struggle for gender equality and peace-building AND to consider their own gendered problems. All too often it seems that issues of gendered oppression are seen as intrinsically requiring a female response; I believe that using male trainers who are well-versed in gendered oppression as well as masculine-specific problems could only be helpful. I am in complete agreement with Mr. de Vries' characterization of a male ally in gender-sensitive peacebuilding; I only wish that the support and sensitivity of a male gender worker did not have to be confirmed by the presence of a female counterpart.
It's hard to know whether this could work in the real world without the physical and rhetorical presence of female gender advisors; would an audience with 94 men and 6 women--led by a male gender trainer--permit a woman's viewpoint to emerge? Nonetheless, it seems a rather narrow view of masculinities and gender workers that would define men as allies rather than possible principals.
Hello Matthew. Thanks for raising these questions.
As I understand it, being an ally is a specific set of attitudes and skills within the repetoire of a male gender sensitive peacebuilder. Usually, these skills form the foundation for effective, equal partnerships between women and men. Sometimes men feel threatened when they think that being an ally somehow subsumes our full recognition and empowerment as an equal partner. In my experience, as I develop and refine my ally skills, I/we become even more powerful.
To me, an ally is a male or a female (individual) or an institution/organization who / which supports and be align with and stands on our cause. The ally is sensitive towards women and women’s suffering. As some of the resource practitioners have pointed out, “Gender” is understood as something to do with women. In Sri Lanka, in late 1970s, women’s issues were addressed by the then mushroomed women’s organizations: most of which were headed by the middle class women. This created a connotation that it is a “female oriented and focused on only females isolating men.” Isolation of men in the women’s emancipation arena is reflected in the isolation of women as a result and women only focus in GENDER. Being inclusive in all aspects (caste, class, ethnicity, religion, language and gender), women can extend their hands towards the like-minded men (first of all).
Why an ally is a male or a female?The women's movement was not able to be inclusive of all women despite their differences, simply because it did not touch the hearts of every women. Main reason, I see is that in Sri Lanka, women's organisations being a middle class itellectuals movement tended to transform the working class or agriculture based communities- a top down approach. Approach itself segregated women and men from all social strata. My definition for ally is that it includes both men and women who are sensitive towards women's suffering, who want to find an inclusive solution to transform the power relations.
Hi Inoka
This is great - I think its such an important point; the need to be inclusive in all aspects (caste, class, ethnicity, religion, language and gender).
With your example regarding Sri Lanka's women's movement; do you mean the women in the middle class felt they were " emancipated" or "liberated" enough already and felt they had to "help these non-liberated-women" from the other classes, rather than (also) being active within their own "social class"? It's an interesting point - do you see any strategies for challenging this?
Greetings Jose
Hi Jose!
I think middle class women felt that they had been emancipated..I see here women who got the opportunity to study in western universities, embarked with new knowledge of social sciences, tried to help "perceived non-liberated women" from other classes. Literature by Kumari Jayawardena- Nobodies to Somebodies: The Rise of the Colonial Bourgeoisie in Sri Lanka and The White Woman's Other Burden well - explain the history. So...that older middle class femisits either died or are inactive now. My suggestion is to work with an all inclusive group towards addressing structural violence aiming at policy development and implementation. I know, Sri Lanka is well-known to sign international treaties as early as possible and not to put them in practice. Well, on the other hand, in Sri Lanka, most of the social movements have failed or made "failed" or rather "politicised". I take a recent example: Mothers' Fronts.especially the Southern Mothers' Front (you will wonder why it is called southern mothers' front which is Sinhala. We also had a Northern Mothers' Front which is from the Tamil community). These both fronts failed to work together though they addressed a similar issue- disappearances of men. However, the northern Mothers' Front became automatically inactive as they could not respond to the growing direct and indirect violence. The Southern Mothers' Front became so polical paw of male political figures who used them as election canvassing group.
What does all inclusive group here mean? A grassroots movement needs support, guidance, coaching and appreciation to stand alone from the allies from other social segments of the society. The INCLUSIVE group could be a network or a advocasy body which provides the said psychological support. Th.is could be started with a very village level group with possible expansion to other villages, districts - across the whole society...it takes time..a lot of committed work..innovation
Hi Inoka!
Thanks, very interesting and I will check out Kumari Jayawardena.
I like your emphasis on being able to stand-alone from other allies. I think this is an important point indeed as well, and I think not yet mentioned. Support, guidance and coaching is crucial, however, a successful ally relationship doesn’t lead to a dependency relationship (since where is the empowerment then?). In this regard I also think that an ally relationship is beneficial for all actors involved – it should be a dynamic relationship in which both learn, develop, gain and invest.
And mental health support is crucial as well – for the groups we work with, as well as oneself. Often, activists are not good in self-care. Perhaps this could be an important aspect of being allies as well; pointing out when the other is not taking care of him/herself well enough.
When reading your comment regarding addressing structural violence, I also thought of the post Alimou made earlier in this same section, regarding women and men in Saudi Arabia. The men had studied on various other places, but maintained to defend the restrictive climate for women in Saudia Arabia – having ‘ open eyes but not seeing’ – hence awareness raising on what structural violence and inequality means in a specific context is important I guess – what does it mean for the disadvantaged group in that specific context?
Thanks!
Hi !
I agree with what Dola was saying; its crucial to work on resocialization and deconstruction. In this regards, I also wanted to note that its just as important to work on reconstructing and awareness raising of alternative nonviolent life styles. Sometimes we tend to emphasize the need to challenge violent behaviour - yet, reconstructing violent behaviour and deconstruction of positive, nonviolent behaviour goes hand in hand, and women and men could support each other in this. Since sometimes it takes somebody else to open your eyes, and make you aware of the consequences of your behaviour
Greetings José
José, you are on spot when you said ‘sometimes it takes somebody else to open your eyes, and make you aware of the consequences of your behaviour’. I was listening to the BBC this morning between 8:00 to 8:30am and the program was on the life of women in Saudi Arabia. I was first of all shocked to learn that women need written permission from MEN before they are allowed to enter public transportation and the airport.
Both men and women were live on air sharing their perspectives on the topic of discussion and some women spoke strongly against the system while others supported it. That is why I understand Inoka Priyadarshani of Sri Lanka when said defined allies to include men and women who are committed to gender justice and gender equality. In Africa also, women are rewarded for being the gate keepers of patriarchy.
Sometimes one can hold strongly to a position without noticing how wrong and odd one is. I am saying this in light of the conviction of one of the discussants of the radio program, a man, who claimed to have had his first degree in the US and has travelled extensively in the west yet he was passionately defending the state of women’s affairs in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as the 'best in the world'. His argument was that the women stay home and they are taken care of. They don’t have to work but rather take care of their homes and children.
His eyes are open but he did not see the women are working. His eyes are open but he did see not see that his point amounts to objectification of women. His eyes are open but he did see that women too need to take their destiny into their own hands and live an independent life. His eyes are open but he did not see that chaining women home is injustice while the men travel around the world to have fun. His eyes are open but he did not see a future for his daughters where they will live in dignity and work for it.
We need both men and women working together for a peaceful world where justice is not selective in order to forge ahead. But sometimes it takes somebody else to open your eyes and make you aware of how you can liberate yourself contribute meaningfully.
Hi Alimou
Yes, women indeed also play a role in maintaining the status quo, as men do, and therefore I think a sustainable approach can only be one which involves both - since change is required from both.
I was wondering, when reading this; could you share some examples of how you, as a gender-sensitive man, deal with this issue in your work? You have done some great work at WANEP in terms of awareness raising on gender issues - could you share some examples on how you opened other people's eyes in your region/ work? Were you even able to transform some women, who internalize the patriarchal structures without realizing this?
Greetings Jose
Hi Jose
Thanks for bringing me back home! As a Gender Sensitive Active Non-Violent man, I am personally involved in debunking and correcting the gender stereo types regarding the role of women in our society. In so doing I train both men and women to work together as allies.
At WANEP, we have created the Women in Peacebuilding program (WIPNET) which seeks to amplify the voices of women in peacebuilding in view of ensuring their active participation and also formalizing it. An example is the current activity we are planning in Liberia to address the conspicuous lack of women in the mediation process to end the political crisis in Cote d’Ivoire and also sound an alarm that the killings in cold blood of women peaceful demonstrators in the capital Abidjan who were simply asking for a halt to the violence is not acceptable and must not go unpunished.
As a matter of recall, we are organizing this forum because our early warning program picked the following information in Cote d’Ivoire:
The women’s forum seeking to address the above problems will bring together women activist from the 15 West African countries to Liberia for a two day ‘stop killing women now’ – peace advocacy campaign on 6th and 7th April 2011. The activities include round table discussions, peace marches in Monrovia, peace vigil, a press conferences and presentation of communiqué to the President of Liberia, Hellen Johnson Sirleaf, the UN, African Union and ECOWAS. Our strategy is to take action when things are go wrong and present our advocacy tool to their right quarters.
In term of policy frameworks, WANEP has developed a gender policy and we are implementing it at the regional level and in the national network secretariats to promote gender equality and gender justice. We hold a belief that we cannot succeed in this journey without the right policies that are implemented. WANEP is also leading in West Africa in supporting Governments to develop national actions plans for the implementation UN Resolution 1325, 1888, 1889 and 1820 as is required by national governments. WANEP works directly with Ministries of women and children’s affairs and have received funding from the Ministry to train men allies who work with women to promote gender equality.
WANEP also uses community radio programs in each country to provide a platform for women to contribute to the debate on issues affecting their lives. We pay for the air space, and provide technical and logistical support to the women who freely choose a topic and discuss it on the airwaves.
In our capacity building trainings, one effective way I noticed to open people’s eye is the use video such as the ‘Tough Guise’. The video clearly depicts socialization processes that promote hegemonic masculinities. I also maintain contact with my trainees and share materials with them always and request that they provide feedback to me. While serving as role model is key in help people transform in a positive manner, using the right tools and material is also very important.
Hi Alimou,
Sounds very interesting and live. Keep it up!
I would like to share one of my recent experiences. I am attached with one of the UNDP Sri Lanka's project "women leadership development project" where capacity of 30 women are built to become leaders at community level in Ampara district of Sri Lanka. Women are from all three ethnic communities. I am too engaged in the capacity building process. Each of these women leaders are supported to address one chosen gender issue from their communities. The biggest challenge, these women leaders have faced is cooperating with and including men in their activism. During the last week, I met a group 21 women who have become widows due to war related reasons. They are very young and single parents. The mini project strives to develop a social acceptance for these selected women because society (both men and women) considers them as "BAD" due to the type of relationship these women have with men (they have been sexually harassed by the government home guards or forced to have sexual relationship with thug type married drunken men from the village. At times, women tend to accept this fate due to the economic support they receive from the men).
My role was to (rather what I was asked to do) develop the basic conflict resolution skills of these selected women. It was a huge challenge for me to deal with the psychological scars in their hearts. So, I took a more listening role to hear what they tell about the experiences, violence they have undergone (both societal and domestic) and psychological pain. The need is here bringing these perpetuators into the mainstream and makes them aware of being positive and empathetic towards women, through that a small seed can be sowed to look at women differently and help men to help themselves to be empathetic. So, the biggest challenge is to bring them together????
To me an ally is also a man who´s willing to give up his priviledges as a man...which sometimes to me also means keeping myself from becoming the principal and supportiing women´s leadership instead, this is because many people are easily wiling to accept men´s leadership but not so much women´s leadership. The struggle against racism, homophobia, xenochobia and other ism is also a common cuase for men and women so we can be partners in the struggle, but in the struggle against gender based-violence and oppression as men we are both perpatrators and victims of oppresion and violence, so it´s not easy for us to learn to be partners with women in this struggle because we have to learn to give up on priveledges; so, as I understand it, in the struggle against gender-based violence and opression, we are not partners yet, but, as an ally, I am willing to learn and I am willing to challlenge myself and to be challenged by women. Not an easy position,but it´s supposed to be a challenge to men.
Dear Ruben,
I totally agree, and at the same time I wish to argue that it sometimes means taking up the principal role, precisely as a gender-sensitive man, if otherwise other men instead of women might take the lead. But when taking the lead, in no time, you may find yourself back in one of those inter-male fights about power and status. At the other hand, leaving it to other men, often comes down to withdrawing all together.
This dilemma has troubled me a lot, and is still troubling. In the Dutch activist movement, I first 'fought' a 'feminist fight' (the contradiction is so real and clear at the same time) with my 'comrades', supported women in their struggle, hesitated to take the lead, tried to help women take the lead (who was in charge here, actually?), and finally withdrew from the (core of) the movement into academia. As a man in women's studies, I didn't want to be on stage, but nevertheless always was, because a man in women's studies is still something atypical, even when it's called gender studies. I got support from women to take the lead in speaking out about men and feminism, and in this created again a kind of principal role for myself.
And now, working professionally with boys and men on gender justice, participating in this dialogue, still I have mixed feelings: am I doing all this to support women, to support men, to support the world and justice in general, or to support myself? Most likely it is a brilliant mix, in which I also mix support and leadership, in which I am an ally to women and to men, and in which I need both men and women to be my ally.
Dear Jens,
You've addressed my own dilemma with being a gender-sensitive man trying to work in the field of gender and development. I actually wrote my thesis on the integration of masculinities into Gender and Development theory, and it became clear in the course of my research that it's a very uneasy situation. As Masculinities as a field has developed, attention and funding given to "gendered" research has given the impression of diverting resources from programs directed at women (especially to the almost universally female staff who have fought for those same programs). Gender is now presented as a cross-cutting theme in international organizations, but in the specific departments that deal with it, it's still seen as an issue about and for women, both in staffing and in targeted populations.
As a man trying to start in this field, I was likewise treated as a novelty. My opinions were respected, but no-one could quite see a place for a man among the otherwise female staff (in several organizations people remarked on how I was the first male program staff member who wasn't in IT). To me, the importance of women's rights in development are self-evident, and I don't see this as unusual. As you write, Jens, it becomes a little difficult to determine who I'm supporting--as it becomes clearer that there are few spaces in the current gender and development system for male practitioners, I've focused on masculinities and issues of social justice and hoped that my knowledge and support for gender equality can seep into my work in other ways.
I completely support the idea of men as allies to women in creating transformative gender programs. Men supporting women-centered programs as part of a gender and development team would be ideal; I have no wish to see a man at the head of a presentation or procession for women's rights. Actually recognizing that there is a place for male gender workers in a team, however, is a rare occurrence, to say nothing of discussing masculine hierarchies or bringing a cross-cutting gender perspective to males in a gender-focused development project.
I appreciate this discussion, as it's encouraging to see that men can and do have careers as allies and policy-makers in gender and development, and that issues of participation seem to be as yet unresolved.
Dear Matthew,
I can imagine it is difficult to situate yourself as a man in the gender debate. What has helped me as a woman trying to make sense of the men-women issue in regards to feminism/ working for gender equality; is the philosophy of active nonviolence (ANV).
This philosophy reasons that the "opponent" is not "people (in this case: men) but rather the system - in this case: patriarchy (see also principle 3 below). This aproach helps in terms of approaching the gender question from a holistic perspective.
In particular I refer here to Martin Luther King’s six principles and steps of nonviolent action; which guided his ANV work:
Principle 1: Nonviolence is a way of life for courageous people.
Principle 2: Nonviolence means seeking friendship and understanding among those who are different from you.
Principle 3: Nonviolence defeats injustice, not people.
Principle 4: Nonviolence holds that suffering can educate and transform people and societies.
Principle 5: Nonviolence chooses loving solutions, not hateful ones.
Principle 6: Nonviolence means the entire universe embraces justice.
Step 1: Gather Information
Step 2: Educate Others
Step 3: Remain Committed
Step 4: Peacefully Negotiate
Step 5: Take Action Peacefully
Step 6: Reconcile
I think in terms of steps; we are now at step 2:
Step 1: Women start to discover the facts; who and what is responsible for the gender injustices they face on a daily basis. The oppressive system (patriarchy) is identified and analyzed, and some women start speaking out courageously, often in a hostile climate. (note: step one is always done by the oppressed group).
Step 2: Women get organized and start educating themselves and others; those who agree and those who oppose. In order for the situation to change it is important not to blame individual men, but to expose the patriarchal system: to make clear how those who are privileged by the system; are being oppressed themselves by upholding the injustice. This perspective is important in order for men and women to be able to start to work together as allies for change.
Men have a very important role to play in the struggle for gender justice - in line with MLK's thinking: not because they should be regarded and approached as the "oppressors"; but because they are part of the oppressive system called patriarchy (of which they benefit; yet they also loose out). A system of oppression can only be stopped when people (men and women) stop cooperating - the essence of active nonviolence. MLK's philisophy shows that the freedom of the other is linked to one's own freedom and vice versa - it does not build on dichotomy, but on interconnectedness.
Making a gender-just world a reality needs to happen amongst both sexes; and men and women have their specific roles to play in this struggle.
What is important for women now step 2 is being made? Women need to feel that when men join (what for so long has been their struggle); they do this on the basis of knowing and understanding the reality that women are coming from; and that men's actions are informed by this awareness and sense of urgency. Maybe for some women the reality of gender discrimination has been too tough; so tough that they cannot or do not want to work with men. That is something to be aware of and to respect, as it is informed by a reality that has been very difficult.
Yet there are also many women out there who see the big picture and who are eager to have men join the struggle - during the many WPP trainings and consultations we organized over the past years, women have always called for male participation and inclusion. I think that although never easy (after all, we are re-doing our gender socialization as we go about it), as long as we keep the common goal in mind - men and women should and can work together for change to become a reality.
Being allies for a course in my view sounds very good but am just wondering what happens when the course is achieved. We are likely to go back to our old ways, because we only became allies for a course. Once again in my view this is what has really killed some of the good process we've had in the past. In Kenya we say doing things part time but over time I have come to realise that it is important to take people through processes that will help them internalise concepts to the extent that peace, nonviolence among other important concepts become their ways of life.