| |
Back to Index
Where are the men in development
James Majoni
June 29, 2010
Men are increasingly
missing from participating in developmental projects and HIV/AIDS
programmes. They only appear in the guise of Man the Oppressor,
as custodians and perpetrators of male domination and as obstacles
to equitable development. Representations of men in relation to
women often portray men as figures women struggle with, fear, resist
or resent. Rarely if ever are men depicted as people - sons, lovers,
husbands, fathers - with whom women might have shared interests
and concerns, let alone love and cherish. Nor is the range of subject
positions actual men may occupy in different kinds of relationships
with women, or indeed men, brought into the frame. Rather, 'men'
emerge as a potent, homogeneous category that is invariably treated
as problematic.
Zimbabwean men are missing
from mainstream development and more especially in HIV/AIDS programmes.
Here, stereotypes of a different order pervade the assumptions on
which policies, projects and programmes continue to be based. Yet
the 'male bias' (see Elson (ed.) 1991) that many feminists have
pointed out as part of what Pearson (this issue) terms 'main (male)stream
development' is not only biased against women. Unproblematic importations
of Western constructs and assumptions sustain a different set of
male stereotypes. In the Zimbabwean context, for example, the focus
on male breadwinners and heads of households has negatively affected
development as men are the decision makers at household level hence
the percentage of man and women who attends and participate in development
matters is 3-1 if not worse than that.
Men are also largely
missing from institutional efforts to operationally and promote
development and fight against poverty and HIV/AIDS. Their absence
continues to inscribe 'gender' as the domain and the concern of
women. The extent to which men are actually missed by women working
in Support groups around the country remains an open question: certainly
there are some for whom the relative absence of men in this sphere
is seen as entirely positive and unproblematic. Yet, as has become
so very evident in recent years, changing inequitable gender relations
can hardly proceed without working with men. The Guruve Community
working with different NGOs that are doing developmental projects
in HIV/AIDS programs and Livelihoods programmes for orphans have
seen that 'Male involvement' is now the flavour of the month in
some circles, notably sexual and reproductive health. Yet quite
how that involvement is cast, and quite how 'men' are represented
in these initiatives, remains in itself something that we need to
examine more closely. For current attempts to involve men may continue
to miss them, precisely because of the ways in which their interests
and concerns are represented.
What, then, can be done
about these missing men? At the level of description and analysis,
painting in the spectrum of ways of being a man and focusing on
the complex relational dimensions of gendered power would brighten
up the monotone of Man the Oppressor. This would help put paid to
some of the grosser assumptions about gender and gender relations,
enabling a more productive focus on relations and positions of power
and powerlessness. What is clear, however, is that simply 'bringing
men in' without a more fundamental reflection on what the development
and HIV/AIDS programme or the support group is about or for is not
going to solve the central issues at stake.
Much of the current engagement
of men in development projects is as pro-feminists; those who advocate
this kind of engagement emphasise activities like promoting gender
equality or involving men as trainers in gender training (see Farnsveden
and Ronquist, Levy et al. this issue). Men who become involved,
then, become allies in pursuit of unchanged goals. Yet opportunities
for men to engage with gender issues within development organisations
appear limited by more than the masculinise that continues to pervade
many of these institutions. The 'it takes one to know one' flavour
that continues to characterise development in a way that have effect
of alienating men: gender is simply not considered to be 'their'
issue. And men, by virtue of their sex, are assumed to have questionable
credentials and perhaps even questionable motives for wanting to
engage. Pro-feminist or not, men are assumed to lack the sense of
identification that women are assumed to have with other women,
and their engagement may be regarded as a depoliticising influence,
reduced merely to technical assistance (see Kajifusa 1998).
It is clear that mainstream
development could benefit from understanding the complexities of
gendered identities and expectations as relating to men as well
as to women, but 'mainstreaming gender' is a potentially problematic
strategy for ensuring a more subtle understanding of the dynamics
of difference.
Just because men are
missing from developmental projects, then, it doesn't mean that
adding men - to policy documents or to projects - is going to make
a difference. For maintaining the oppositional distinction between
'women' and 'men' on which much of development is premised would
entail a continued refusal to acknowledge diversity, dissonance
and difference within these categories. It would also continue to
narrow the scope for alliances between men and women, closing off
important spaces for change. A focus not on the abundant negativity
associated with 'problem men', but on the spectrum of alternatives
that exist in any cultural context may seem idealistic in the wake
of persistent gender inequities.
* James
Majoni is a development programme officer with a local NGO working
in Guruve
Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.
TOP
|
