Why Marriage?

Some years back, we faced this question in a development course. Two of the discussants divided the question into two: Why Women marry? Why men marry? One of them kept the discussion to the basic issues and the other went in-depth into negotiation, survival needs and social and cultural options. Both peeked at the household economic models and theories like the ‘Black Box’, Neoclassical, and Bargaining/ Co-operative, etc. Both came to the same conclusion that women and men marry based on a personal perception of well-being. This perception, according to one of them, is a result of a negotiation between a woman/man’s survival needs and socio-cultural constructions of what ‘personal well-being’ means.

Taking Amartya Sen’s example of a rural Indian woman, who is not likely to extract her own welfare from that of her household and conceive of her own well-being as separate from that of her family’s, the discussant argued that the household, therefore, is the locus of inequality where discrimination and exploitation of women’s labour get naturalized. In other words, a woman from my part of the world is likely to marry based on what she considers to be her well-being but which may not necessarily be her well-being. Does this mean a North American or European woman is more likely to marry based on her sense of ‘personal well-being’, which is more individual centered and that she is more likely to be able to deconstruct the larger structures of inequality and thereby better placed to negotiate her position in the family? This is another debate and we shall come to it some other day. For today, so far, we have one reason which may make women and men inclined to get married. Let's look at some other reasons also.

The brokers of the सात फेरा, मंगलसुत्र, गठबंधन, सिंदूर, the wedding ring, et al or those who market the practice of marriage as ‘the holy state’ of matrimony tend to ascribe some sacredness and centrality of this practice for the institution called family. These brokers, in general, have a big say in the decision to marry, whether to be taken by the individual or the relatives, and/or the family. In some contexts, even when people have little more than a token affiliation with a religion, they tend to stick to the religious boundaries when it comes to marriage. This is not always based on a fear of reprimand or being ostracized. Rather it is based on deep seated belief in the advantages of segregation based on religious affiliation. This belief has a profound influence in the decision about who is fit to mate or is sacred enough to be a partner in personal and family life.

The brokers insist that all the matches for ‘this world’ are made in the ‘other world’ and that it is the duty of the follower to accept the person who the god selected for them. Marriage itself is regarded as a religious obligation by them. Among people who have an inclination to accept that they have a duty to marry, procreation has special value attached to it. Children are the gifts from the god or marriage and children come as a package gift from the god. In other words, religious brokers emphasize shared beliefs in religion, marriage and procreation as a foundation for the continuation of particular faiths, beliefs and way of conducting life. No wonder divorce is a taboo subject in the books of the brokers because ‘What God hath put together, let no man [or woman] put asunder’. But divorce is another [related] issue, not to be brought into today’s discussion [though an interesting one to understand how even when religion says yes to divorce, how religio-legalities disallow it].

The sociologists believe that marriage is a practice to establish a social order. Through marriage women and men are put together in a relationship of social and legal obligations to fulfill social and economic objectives. It is believed that marriage is a good way to put people’s mental and physical health, sex life, solid and liquid assets in an organized state. It is an institution that allows people to meet their sexual desires in a manner that doesn’t harm anybody [or so we like to believe]. It also helps bring together people with greater commitment and therefore provide a safer ground for procreation and responsible environment for bringing up children.

There is no doubt about the economic value of marriage [albeit disputed by some men]. Women have been free labour, partly thanks to the practice of marriage [remember, the complimentarity argument]. The many justifications for marriage advanced through centuries have one angle which has to do with ‘value’-based labour which leads to communal and family wellbeing and another angle of ‘income-based’ labour which brings income to the community and the family. The history of these arguments have subordinated the ‘value’-based labour and elevated the ‘income-based’ labour. The economic argument in an age when the ‘income-based labour has been making more sense to more and more number of women and there is considerable increase in educational and political equality, seems to be fading away. We will come back to this point a little later.

Then there is the whole economy of marriage where the marriage is seen as a contract. This particular reason for marriage does not quite stand on its own. Rather it stands as a dimension in all the above arguments and will remain, in my opinion, a factor in any other current or future reasons for marriage. A marriage contract can be visible or invisible; stated or assumed; or legal or social. For centuries, marriage has involved contracts like the dowry that a bride’s family gives to the groom’s family, the bride price that a groom’s family gives to the bride’s family [they are not to be confused as the same because the theories behind are completely different], exchange of women through marriage for settling disputes between families, giving a daughter or a sister in marriage for settling a debt or to earn goodwill and so on. These practices may sound like buying, selling, discounting and writing off or collateral and the kind that takes place in a market place. Indeed, these practices are exactly that. These contracts also create a lot of employment for people willing to serve as brokers [who are often clan members, church leaders, mullahs, priests, village or community elders, and the like].

In a secular legal context, the terms and conditions of a marriage contract may not have so much of economic angle but does have implications for how responsibilities will be attended and by whom. It is also a way to safeguard the rights of the contracting parties by registration and legitimizing by the state.

In many societies since history began and in the larger visible societies in the last century or so, there have been some departures from the above-mentioned reasons. Marriage here is seen as a relationship between individuals for mutual comfort and assistance and so the personal compatibility issues are as important as procreative and contract aspects of the practice. Now with the lessening of the some other dimensions of the marriage, the centrality of this practice to a family and communal life of an individual has also weakened. Alternatives to marriage are growing as a practice and marriage is increasingly being viewed as essentially an additionality that strengthens the emotional bonding and trust because of some level of social and contractual security that it brings with it.

The alternatives to marriage tend to require a lot of other things but often less commitments of social and contractual/legal nature. This is one of the reasons why some men are a game for the alternatives because they get comforts of a relationship without being responsible for it. Some of them, on the other hand, resent the women’s preference for the alternatives because they stand to lose out on the ‘value’-based labour or the fact that a woman is not willing to commit makes them feel insecure. But alternatives to marriage do not necessarily make the relationships any more egalitarian. Individuals, due to these two factors among several other possible reasons, find themselves participating in inequitable relationships, which leads to both emotional stress and stress in the relationship. The more inequitable the relationship, the more stress they face. So in a nutshell, if not the reasons related to community and family, marital-economics or contracts, the individual needs of emotional security and commitment bring the focus back on marriage in the alternatives to marriage because it is seen as a demonstration of those two qualities. But even without marriage, any real or perceived emotional or material inequity in the relationship has an effect on intimacy and continuation of the relationship. But breakup is not something that we will discuss today!

Sphere: Related Content

Going Through Death to Give Birth

Seventeen years old and visiting a doctor for the first time in her life, Amira, married a few months back, finds out that she is pregnant. She remembers that about two years back, the health worker had advised her to take vitamins because she used to feel fatigued. Today, the doctor tells her that she is anaemic. Her blood test suggests that her haemoglobin level is as low as 6g/dl. The doctor tells Amira’s mother-in-law that she will have to be careful about Amira’s food and care, otherwise, Amira and her foetus may not be able to pull through. Amira’s mother-in-law is insisting that the doctor should give her daughter-in-law some tablets. But the doctor replies that it may not be a good idea because Amira is already suffering from diarrhoea and the medicines used in cases of anaemia have a tendency to cause constipation or diarrhoea may aggravate her condition. Amira is angry. She can’t understand why she has to go through this when other girls her age are going to the school, and do not have to worry about anything. The doctor tells her that she is in this situation because she is married and pregnant while her friends may not be. He explains that at 17 she is still growing; her own body requirement of red blood [haemoglobin] is high. Pregnancy at this age means far more increased demand for red blood [haemoglobin] to meet the needs of the foetus. Since her body is producing more blood to meet the needs of the foetus without having enough iron in her food, it is causing wateriness in the blood. “it is like adding water to blood to meet the quantity requirement but it reduces redness in blood and causes all the trouble that she is facing”, the doctor explained.

Amira’s village falls within the service catchment area of a health centre. The centre is not far from her home. “It is useful for children”, says Amira about the centre. Her family did not want her going to the centre when Amira complained of dizziness a couple of times. This centre has no facilities for women’s health other than an examination room. Amira did not complain about it, “I don’t like to go to the health centre, anyway”. But her family took her to the centre when she developed persistent irregular bowel movements. The health worker prescribed her medicines meant for diarrhoea. Amira’s mother-in-law patiently listened to her grumblings and cajoled her to take the medicines as prescribed by the health worker. Two days later Amira fainted. Her husband collected his savings and decided to take her to a private hospital in a neighbouring town. Her mother-in-law gathered a few things that may be needed in case they have to hospitalize Amira. She loves Amira. She frequently asked her son to be gentle with Amira and showered extra affection on her thinking she is a delicate girl who is having difficulty adjusting to the married life.

Safiah, Amira’s mother-in-law is around 40 years old. She is dressed in a black abaya and a black pair of gloves which reflect her family’s modest condition. The opening in her naqab for the eyes has lost its shape and is partly covering her left eye. When the doctor was explaining Amira’s condition, she could feel a lump in her throat. She couldn’t help breaking into loud sobs when Amira’s angry voice asked why she has to go through this. Safiah is not convinced with the doctor’s explanation. So while the doctor was explaining she interjected many times to tell the doctor as well as Amira that it is women’s fate to go through death to give birth. Like many traditional Yemeni women, Safiah believes motherhood is a holy duty that every woman must perform even if it means risking her life. But she is desperate to protect Amira. Once they came out of the doctor’s room, she dragged her son to one side and asked him to pray so that Amira’s first child birth goes smoothly. In a slight indirect way, she asked him to give Amira some rest.

“We did what we could do. We are doing what we can do. Allah will save Amira like he saved me”, Safia says in a voice, which shows that she is trying to reconcile to the reality of the situation. Amira’s husband, a 25 year old brick-maker is Safiah’s first live born. She was lucky that her parental family was relatively well-off. She remembers that her father often told her mother to feed her well. But the first pregnancy nearly killed her. She still remembers the long painful labour at the end of which she fainted. When she regained consciousness, her mother told her between cries that her child is with Allah. She remembers taunts and stigma that she had to bear till she gave birth to a son, Amira’s husband. In all, she went through 14 pregnancies of which nine survived. Only her youngest son, now eight years old, was born in a hospital. She had to be rushed to the hospital when her water broke but she was unable to push the baby out. These multiple pregnancies have taken a toll on her. She is glad that her husband finally heeded to the doctor’s advice to use protection to save her life. She remembers that her stepmother was not so lucky. Barely two-three years older than Safiah, she suffered and finally succumbed to death while giving birth to her first child at home. She was barely 17 or18 years old. As always safiah mutters a prayer for her stepmother and her thoughts move to one of her three married daughters.

Safiah’s three daughters were married by the time they reached 17 years of age. Two of them became mothers within first year of their marriages. Safiah’s second daughter, Arwa who was married at 16 years of age, could not adjust to the life after marriage. She wanted to finish basic schooling and join the secondary school. Her parents-in-law and husband prohibited her from studying and reprimanded her every time she failed to do any of the household chores. Fatigued and pregnant with her first child, Arwa ran away to her parents’ house. She was forced by her father to go back to her husband. A few days later, she had a miscarriage. Her health deteriorated rapidly. There is no government hospital close to her marital village and the cost of treatment in a private hospital was something her husband refused to bear. In a matter of months Arwa was divorced. She has been at her parents’ house since then.

I narrated this intergenerational story to highlight how near absence of knowledge of women’s health among health centre staff, unavailability of women health workers and doctors, early marriage, lack of knowledge and sensitivity among decision-makers in the family, and many other such reasons take a toll on women’s lives. Yemen is one of the countries with the highest rates of maternal deaths during childbirth and infant mortality. In areas where some preventive women’s health programmes are available, shortage of women paramedics and doctors and cultural resistance to examination by men, early marriage leading to early pregnancy, scarce resources and many other such reasons practically push women to death. Yemeni women will continue to die unless the government, development organizations and society become sensitive towards women and begin to believe that terrible realities of women’s lives can be changed and must be changed.

Originally published at: Yemen Times.

Sphere: Related Content

Questions of Masculinities in Development

Nairobi National Museum

I must confess that I cannot take the questions of masculinities in development contexts without cynicism. Part of the cynicism arises from having to experience masculine hegemony in different garbs everywhere and almost all the time. It’s presence can be felt everywhere, in every aspect of life. Academic institutions and workplaces are a reminder of masculization and feminization of disciplines and policies and practices set by men. Even the development and interdisciplinary courses are affected by it. It is not often that one can find a male academic teaching or supervising a gender studies programme or research and segregated and token existence of gender in development and policy based courses is another reminder of gender being ‘women’s burden’ and development being a ‘man’s job’. A close review of the reading list for a course on Masculinities in any academic institution is yet another reminder that women theorists not only have to analyze subjugation and systemic disadvantageous position of people other than men but also have to take up the responsibility of clarifying why men are what they are and how they could be saved from being ‘men in crisis’ ‘whose traditional bases of power and identify in family units are being undermined by changes in the labour market, and by legislative and policy initiatives in women's interests’ (Chant 2000).

The practice of living with perpetual social, organizational and (sometimes) self impositions to be cautious in my approach to men, to be careful not to rock the boat, not to push ‘men in crisis’ (Chant, 2000) should have made me accept the question without problematizing it. It hasn’t. The questions, eg, why development is not paying attention to masculinities, me should not be left behind, etc, are a reminder of: (1) An assumption that so far, all development has indeed been carried out from a feminist perspective, (2) an accusation based on a presumption that decisionmaking in development policy and practice has been vested in women who regard men as obstacles to women’s well-being and consequently development policymakers and practitioners have conflated women and gender, (3) a belief that development theory, policy and practice cannot transcend the male/female or masculine/feminine binaries, and (4) a demand that development programmes should not only do gender analysis, they must also induce psychoanalytic thinking among men to help them overcome restrictive stereotypes and understand implications of hegemonic masculinity on themselves. It seems that this demand carries a presumption that ‘all men desperately wish to emulate particular styles of being a man and it is their frustration with their inability to achieve this that drives them into ‘behaving badly’’ (Cornwall, 1998, a).

Notwithstanding my cynicism, I feel that giving it attention would be useful in so far as it shares the promise to move beyond the token gains of ‘Women in Development’* (WID) to: (1) ‘Gender and Development’ (GAD) approach to understand women in relation to men and the way in which relations between these categories are socio-historically constructed (Kabeer 1994, Moser 1993, Razavi and Miller 1995), (2) the need to shift increasingly towards the heterogeneity of women and men as categories since caste, class, culture, religion, race, age and ethnicity are some of the categories which intersect gender to give women and men multiple identities and result in multiple realities, and (3) look critically at the issue of gender identities in order to address the silence of gender policy and practice on the abuse and marginalization faced by those who challenge sex/gender stereotypes.

I will now give a brief overview of the arguments which support mainstreaming of men into development and explore specific sectors and contexts within development policy and practice where attention to masculinities has impacted or could impact.

Nairobi National Museum

Within GAD paradigm, men are being implicated rather than explicitly addressed in development work focusing on gender inequalities. Men are hardly visible in GAD policy. And where they are it is often as instruments to reach the development programmes to women. Since 1980s, GAD theory began recognizing the need to examine men’s responsibility for women’s disadvantage and men’s role in redressing gender inequalities. Yet it is relatively recently that the debates on economic and social policy have begun to analyze ‘men’s gender identity’, and their roles in the private sphere (Folbre 1994 in Sweetman 2000 a). It is argued that that by focusing on men and masculinity, development programmes can forge men’s relationship with the process to change gender inequalities. This view is supported by some from an equality and social justice point of view, that is, men as well as women may be disadvantaged by social and economic structures and that they both have the right to live free from poverty and repression. This view contends that empowerment processes should enable women and men to be liberated from stereotyped gender roles (Cleaver, 2000). Another aspect of this view suggests that masculinity renders gender visible to men. It can help men see how gender inequalities are produced and distributed between and within the two gender categories. In other words, examination of the ‘politics of masculinity’ (Connel, 1995 a) offers an opportunity to rethink men’s strategic interests in challenging the values and practices that create gender hierarchy.

Development research and GAD practice like GAD policy, has lagged behind GAD theory. Partly because of development organizations’ reluctance to ‘effectively’ change gender relations and their tendency to fall in the ‘public-private’ dichotomy, to ‘side-step uncomfortable issues like ‘interfering’ in relations between men and women within the household’ (Varley 1996 in Sweetman 2000 b).

The recent discourses on masculinities have highlighted integration of the Western constructs and assumptions of masculinity in the development work in the Southern countries and paved the way for ‘localized solutions’ rooted in ‘indigenous contexts’. The Western models of male stereotypes, like, male ‘breadwinner’ or ‘head of the family’ valourized a particular kind of masculinity. In many Indian contexts, such valourization further conjured and supported the notions of purush-paurasharth/mard-mardanagi** or man-manliness. This valourized form of Indo-Western masculinity could be used to highlight the marginality and powerlessness of some men – in relation to some women as well as to other men. Dalit*** rights work and specific campaigns within dalit rights framework, like, mass movements to protest forced sterilization of dalits and Muslims, both men and women, during the tenure of India’s only women Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi (Rahman, 2000), are examples of the work, which have been taken up by development organizations, to address marginality and powerlessness of some men. However, this kind of work by development organizations has been more of an unconscious fallout of dalit rights work rather than an outcome of specific attention to dalit men’s marginality against men from upper castes. Also, neither dalit movement nor any other mass advocacy and mobilization work in India challenged the male stereotypes. It also did not address the realities of ‘male privilege’ of the marginalized and powerless men in relation to women (read Omvedt, 1995 to see how this issue surfaces in dalit contexts).

Similarly, the discourses on masculinity also reveal the fact that wherever men have been involved in gender based development work as beneficiaries their involvement has also been limited to stereotypical casts in certain sectors, eg, as biological procreators, intercourse initiators, providers and protectors in sexual and reproductive health, HIV/AIDS, education, etc. To quote Cornwall, ‘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 … ’ (Cornwall, 1998 b).

Nairobi National Museum

Attention to hegemonic masculinity has made evident that men are not necessarily absent as beneficiaries even if a development programme is targeted only at women. Discourses and research around feminization of debt arising out of microfinance interventions suggest that often men have been beneficiaries (FitzGibbon 2002). Confronted with situations where leadership and/or benefits of ‘women only’ interventions have been usurped by men, some development practiceners, not yet the policymakers, have started improvizing programmes to address such challenges. However, significant impact of this understanding is dependent upon organizational willingness and capacities to take their programmes out of vacuum and to address the issues arising from the contexts in which the programmes are located. Directly addressing hegemonic masculinity would create opportunities to address issues of gender equality. For example, an understanding of unequal interdependency between women and men could lead to development of strategies to deal with the issue of double burden of women which result from participatory development (Dawson, 1999) or women’s income generation/livelihoods programmes. From this angle, it is essential to facilitate changes in men’s behaviour to effect positive changes in women’s position. And why just men, even in the practice of hegemonic masculinity by some women because ‘as a set of values, masculinity is available to women as well as men’ (White, 2000 a).

One of the sectors where impact of attention to masculinities is slowly becoming obvious is population and family planning. Development communication is now offering the ‘joys of fatherhood’ to men! Not yet a trend, it shows implicit understanding that ‘the ways fatherhood is experienced by individual men varies according to precedents and traditions set by wider society, current social and economic conditions, and by the dynamics of particular families and the individuals within them’ (White, 2000 b). This development comes from an attempt to recast hegemonic masculinity from an unfeeling and absent biological and economic fatherhood to ‘social fatherhood’ (Engle, 2000) – an attempt induced by the feminist demand to re-adjust the sexual division of labour and by changes in family systems due to urbanization, economic constraints, etc.

The recasting processes have received support from the nonformal education sector. This sector pays attention to masculinity and challenges gender roles within male/female binary. For example, Connell talks about the development of gender specific and gender relevant programmes on masculinity by educators in the industrialized world. The former is developed keeping either boys or girls in mind. The latter is meant for both boys and girls and attempt to thematize the gender dimension in social life and education. Connell regards gender relevant masculinity programmes more useful in redefinition and recasting of masculinities (Connell, 2000 b). In India, some organizations engage in gender analysis, use a pedagogy, which is a combination of experiential and locally produced teaching-learning texts, and pay attention to the curriculum to make education gender responsive. However, these initiatives are still very small and have not really impacted the education sector in a significant way.

Nairobi National Museum

The discourses on masculinity, wherever it has been done in conjunction with caste, class, culture, religion, race, age and ethnicity, has been successful in bringing forth the ‘politics of representation’ – in law, history, society, governance, etc. The current trend of training women to contest Panchayati Raj**** elections in India thrives on the interpretation of and opposition to hegemonic masculinity. The trainings being given by international, national and local nonprofit development organizations (NGOs) rationalize the intervention by contrasting irresponsible male politicians who are perpetrators of sexual and gender violence, engage in corruption, etc with women as honest, cooperative, community-minded, and caring persons. Such interventions use negative stereotypes of men and masculinity in relational subject positions who are associated with oppressive power.

These discourses, to some extent, have forced the development organizations to look at the those who are rendered residual by the conventional interpretation of ‘man’ – hegemonic and heterosexual. Often their powerlessness and marginalization is shaped by the lack of representation. The ‘politics of representation’ allows the powerful to represent what they consider as constituents of culture, history, etc and exclude those who are on the fringes, like hijras*****, gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgender people (Narrain, 2003). The responses of the development organizations to issues of identity and representation of sexual minorities have been cautious but also leading to an awareness of the need for diversity. Solidarity with the demand for the right to sexual identity and incorporation of the principle of diversity in employment policies are examples of this response. The impact is relatively more visible in HIV/AIDS work. There has been growing pressure on policymakers and practiceners working on HIV/AIDS to consider gender issues such as vulnerabilities of women and men and power equations in the relationships in the intervention and impact assessment. To some extent, it has made the practiceners aware of specific vulnerabilities such as: (1) Norms of masculinity prevent men, specially young men from seeking information on safe sex (UNAIDS 1999 a), (2) Linkages between social position, number of sexual partners and sexual ego render messages demanding restraint and fidelity in sexual relationship banal, and (3) notions of heterosexual masculinity create a fear of stigma among those practicing men to men sex or bisexuality and forces them to keep their sexual identity secret and hence increases vulnerabilities (UNAIDS 1999 b). Overall, the awareness has made HIV/AIDS interventions accessible to those who do not conform to conventional sexual identities yet it cannot be said that the awareness has fundamentally changed the HIV/AIDS programme strategies. The messages remain largely moralistic, gender insensitive and direct intervention remains condom-centric.

The emergence of masculinities as a field of study owes a lot to the feminist movement and its struggle to end violence against women (VAW). The understanding of the dual involvement of men in VAW – as perpetrators as well as agents who could stop VAW is one of early outcomes of lending attention to hegemonic masculinity. In the USA, the understanding resulted in alliances between feminists and profeminist consciousness raising groups of men (Clatterbaugh, 1997). Such alliances, however, did not become a consistent practice. Development organizations working within the paradigm of GAD accept explanations of VAW which link social construction of masculinities, gender inequality and violence more readily than constructions of masculinity based on biological determinism or psychological essentialism. Such explanations imply that since violent masculinity – as a means to control women and to maintain gender inequalities in various spheres is a learned behaviour and, therefore, it is possible to unlearn it. One of the major reasons for insignificant involvement of men in anti-VAW work, specially in the ‘private sphere’, is due to the huge scale of the violence and the limited resources available for its eradication. But the efforts to give maximum benefits to survivors alone may unwittingly promote the idea that violence is a ‘women’s issue’ (Wood and Jewkes, 2000). What could be derived from this opinion and feminist experience with male support groups and profeminist men is that it is not sufficient to involve profeminist men as supporters and to deliver services to survivors. There is a need to engage with male perpetrators (as well as potential perpetrators) and to recognize the contexts of the violence in order to change attitudes and practices of violent masculinities.

The arguments for strategic partnerships with men and the national and international ‘development politics’ in World Women's Conference in Beijing in 1995 resulted in considerable demands for mainstreaming gender concerns. This period is also marked by a shift in the approach of the feminists and development organizations towards the state agencies. It became more collaborative and necessitated a ‘sense-making’ and nonconfrontational definition of gender mainstreaming to enable important state agencies like law, judiciary, police, planning departments and other institutions to accept key feminist expectations, like, ‘substantive equality in place of formal equality’ (Baruah, 1999). The shift also resulted in ‘gendering of the demand for gender mainstreaming’, that is, examination of men’s needs. It led to a demand on the state and nonstate (including development and humanitarian) agencies to formulate and implement policies targeted at the wellbeing of the families of those working with them and at the transformation of the division of labour at home to make it more equal. The mainstreaming agenda included reconstitution of certain systems, demands for new provisions and transformation of the development programmes in view of the work being done by women in the ‘private sphere’ and recognition of men’s right and responsibility to contribute equally to the private sphere. The mainstreaming is gradually becoming visible in terms of provisions like paternity leave alongside maternity leave, childcare at the workplace, etc.

To sum up, even within GAD paradigm, it is not always possible for the development field to give substantial attention to the issues of sexual/gender identities because of development policy’s preoccupation with the practical outcomes, measurable impacts and rigidly defined indicators. The demand to deliver practical programmes often means measuring applicability of theoretical issues from the lenses of prevailing notions of gender. There is also a tendency to shy away from programmatic propositions likely to challenge gender norms out of fear of community reprisal. It is also important to remember that gender related programmatic work within development field is beings done mainly by women. Representation of gender issues, specially masculinities by them are not always taken without resentment and their intentions in asking to stop thinking in binary opposites are often seen as a convoluted plan of feminists to endanger the culture. It is challenging for gender activists working in the development organizations as they have a task of balancing the constraints, which their organizations face and gender equality aspirations and goals they identify with. Any changes, such as cuts in the resources, often entail a loss of commitment of gender rights. For example, resource crunch or changes in the political context may endanger a gender sensitive emergency response or may result in implementation of a relief programme which sees gender related work as an optional add-on (Brayer, 1999). More involvement of men in delivering gender based programmes and more women in emergency relief, livelihoods, governance programmes and inclusion of marginalized gender identities in policymaking may help address some of the problems. Attention to masculinities without abandoning fundamental feminist concerns with women’s rights is, in a way, helping in understanding and explaining inequality to larger audiences and making an argument for changing the focus of the masculinity – from oppressive to humane.

Endnotes:

* WID resulted in institution of gender bureaus/desks/sections in the UN, other international and national bodies. However, its output amounted to symbolic politics and little concrete achievements (Kabeer, 1994).

** The ideal purush/mard is described as the creator, provider, and protector. Adjectives, such as, ‘purushottam’/’sachcha-mard’ or the man who is unparalleled, ‘paurush’/’mardanagi’ or courage, and ‘purusharth’/’mardaneeyat’ or the trait of being effort oriented are used to express attributes of purush.

*** Broken or oppressed people who have been denied human dignity and rights.

**** A three-tier local governance system in which 33% seats are reserved for women.

***** Eunuch – usually a castrated person, known also as India’s ‘third gender’

References:

• Baruah, Nandita, undated, www.skk.uit.no/WW99/papers/Baruah_Nandita.pdf

• Brayer, David (1999), ‘Preface’ in Fenella Porter, Ines Smyth and Caroline Sweetman, eds, Gender Works: Oxfam Experience in Policy and Practice, Oxford: Oxfam

• Chant, Sylvia (2000), 'Men in Crisis? Reflections on masculinities, work and family in north-west Costa Rica', European Journal of Development Research, 12, 2, December 2000

• Clatterbaugh, Kenneth (1997), ‘Feminist Allies: Profeminist Men’, Contemporary Perspectives on Masculinities’, Oxford: Westview Press

• Cleaver, Frances (2000), IDS Bulletin, 31.2, April 2000

• Connel, RW (1995) a, ‘Masculinities’, Cambridge: Polity Press

• ---- (2000) b, ‘Teaching the Boys’, ‘Masculinities’, Cambridge: Polity Press

• Cornwall, Andrea (1998) a, Paper titled ‘Missing Men? Reflections on Men, Masculinities and Gender in GAD’ presented at a Seminar – Identifying the Gaps, Setting the Agenda, 8th-9th September 1998, University of Bradford. Available at http://www.bradford.ac.uk/acad/dppc/gender/mandmweb/acornwalltext.html

• ---- (1998) b, Paper titled ‘Missing Men? Reflections on Men, Masculinities and Gender in GAD’ presented at a Seminar – Identifying the Gaps, Setting the Agenda, 8th-9th September 1998, University of Bradford

• Dawson, Elsa L (1999), ’Gender: Assessing the Impact’ in Fenella Porter, Ines Smyth, Caroline Sweetman, eds, ‘Gender Works: Oxfam Experience in Policy and Practice’, Oxford: Oxfam

• Engle, Patrice L (2000), ‘The Role of Men in Families: Achieving Gender Equity and Supporting Children’, Caroline Sweetman, ed, Men and Masculinities, Oxford: Oxfam GB

• FitzGibbon, Mike (2002), Paper titled ‘Short Changed - Gendered Consequences of Implementing Financial Services in Moshi Rural District, Northern Tanzania’, presented at a Seminar – "Women's Empowerment or the Feminization of Debt? Towards a new agenda in African micro-finance" March 21st - 22nd 2002, The International Famine Centre, University College Cork. Also available at: http://www.ucc.ie/famine/Presentations/conferencepresentations.htm

• Kabeer, Naila (1994), ‘Reversed Realities: Gender Hierarchies in Development Thought’, London & New York: Verso

• Moser, Caroline (1993), ‘Gender Planning and Development: Theory, Practice and Training’, London & New York: Routledge

• Narrain, Arvind (2003), http://www.india-seminar.com/2003/524/524%20arvind%20narrain.htm

• Omvedt, Gail (1995), ‘Dalit Visions, Tracts For The Times’, 8, Orient Longman

• Rahman, Sayed Ubaidur (2000), Saddest Day of Indian Democracy, Milli Gazette, Vol 1-No 3, 15 July 2000

• Razavi, Shahrashoub and Miller, Carol (1995), ‘From WID to GAD: Conceptual Shifts in the Women and Development Discourses’, Geneva: UN Research Institute on Social Development, Occasional Paper 1, 1995

• Sweetman, Caroline (2000) a, ed, Editorial in Men and Masculinities, Oxford: Oxfam GB

• ---- (2000) b, ed, Editorial in Men and Masculinities, Oxford: Oxfam GB

• UNAIDS (1999) a, Gender and HIV/AIDS: Taking Stock of Research and Programs. Geneva

• UNAIDS (1999) b, Gender and HIV/AIDS: Taking Stock of Research and Programs. Geneva

• White, Sarah C (2000) a, ‘Men, Masculinity, and the Politics of Development’ in Caroline Sweetman, ed, Men and Masculinities, Oxford: Oxfam GB

• ---- (2000) b, ‘Men, Masculinity, and the Politics of Development’ in Caroline Sweetman, ed, Men and Masculinities, Oxford: Oxfam GB

• Wood, Katherine and Jewkes, Rachel (2000), Violence, Rape and Sexual Coercion: Everyday Love in a South African Township, in Caroline Sweetman, ed, Men and Masculinities, Oxford: Oxfam GB

Sphere: Related Content

Why men in Development?

The question of men in development seems a little strange to ask. Aren’t they already there? As policymakers, development theorists and practitioners, haven’t they led the development discourse, policy and practice? Yes, they are there but what is perhaps more critical is to ask whether the development policymaking and practice have actually consciously analyzed participation of men as a gendered constituency in gender and development policy and practice (Chant and Gutmann, 2000, p 31)[i]. And even when their participation is articulated in practice, the contexts in which it is articulated needs to be analyzed. Cornwall while talking about development initiatives, which do not attempt to challenge the stereotypical gender role divisions even if they include men, says that there is a need to examine how involvement of men is cast, and how 'men' are represented in these initiatives (Cornwall, 1998)[ii].
Development policy and practice tends to take men’s current multifarious roles in the economy, the community and the family as ‘naturally given’. It does not see the gender role divisions as an evolving process. The development initiatives attempt to improve the lives of the people (read men and their families) without altering the status or identity of men. There is a tendency to overlook the fact that across most of the differences like caste, religion, generation, class, race and so on exist almost a uniform privilege that men as a group share, that is their gender privilege (Greig, Kimmel and Lang, 2000, p 6-7)[iii]. Despite the differences and regardless of their positioning in other hierarchical structures, men generally have a strategic common interest in defending and not challenging their gender privilege or the patriarchal dividend (Connell 1995: 82 in Greig, Kimmel and Lang, 2000, p 7 )[iv].
According to Greig, Kimmel and Lang, the initiatives which confer privileges on one group are often not visible to that group. Gender privilege is one of the patriarchal dividends that are conferred on men by the patriarchal gender order. Not having experienced gender discrimination, men tend not to consider themselves as gendered beings. This is one reason why policymakers and development practitioners often conflate ‘gender’ and women and see gender issues as only women's issue (Greig, Kimmel and Lang, 2000, p 7-16)[v].
There are several arguments for mainstreaming men as a gender in the development initiatives. These arguments include the medico-social perspectives which points out that the performance of masculinity by men not only causes gender related diseases, early deaths and a high rate of suicides but also that men do not develop their full human potential or the ability to relate to women in a sensitive way including mutuality and caring (Jalmert, 2003, p 2[vi] and Gokova, 1998[vii]).
Another argument suggests that by focusing on men and masculinity, development programmes can forge men’s relationship with the process to change gender inequalities (Sweetman, 2000)[viii]. This view is supported by some from equality and social justice point of view, that is, men as well as women may be disadvantaged by social and economic structures and that they both have the right to live free from poverty and repression. This view contends that empowerment processes should enable women and men to be liberated from stereotyped gender roles (Cleaver, 2000)[ix].
The social output perspective calculates the high costs of gender inequalities or lower economic output due to gendered division of labour and suggests changes in the gender role through development initiatives and process. This perspective uses the idea of efficient investment in women or men to optimize higher economic returns.
Yet another view exploring the hegemonic masculinity and its impact on work and family, suggests that the focus on women, in education, employment, policy, legislation and other development areas and processes has led ‘men in crisis’. The analysis suggests that the ‘men in crisis’ syndrome has been created because of the gradual erosion or undermining of the traditional bases of male power and identity in the families (Chant, 2000)[x]. Addressing the issues arising from the threat to the traditional masculine identities is essential especially for the prevention of violence and psychological abuse (Chant and Gutmann, 2000, p 28[xi] and Sweetman, 2001, p 1[xii]).
Development practitioners disagree about the need to work with men as well as on how to work with them. There are wide ranging differences of opinion over the sectors and contexts in which men should be involved as beneficiaries. Even when the need to work with men is recognized as an important means to achieve gender equality there is a dearth of clear and workable strategies (Smith, 2001, p 58)[xiii]. There is clearly a need for more research and exploration in order to develop ‘deliverable’ strategies. Also, participation of men in development as beneficiaries should not be at the cost of women’s rights agenda. Projects which mainstream men into development would continue to require special design features to facilitate and promote the inclusion of women. Participation of men has to be strategized in such as way that there is as little friction between gradual shift in men’s gendered roles and improvement in women’s access, equality, and benefits leading to long-term improvements in their social and economic status. The gender mainstreaming agenda, whether to include women or men, should not be treated like either or approach. The mainstreaming agenda should deploy combination of approaches including gender specific to gender relevant, or women/men specific projects to projects targeting both men and women.

References

---

[i] Chant and Mathew Gutmann (2000), p 31, Including men in Gender and development: Practice, Experience and Perspectives from Development Organization in Debates, Reflections and Experiences: Mainstreaming men into Gender and Development, Oxfam Working Papers, Oxford: Oxfam GB
[ii] Andrea Cornwall (1998), Paper titled ‘Missing Men? Reflections on Men, Masculinities and Gender in GAD’ presented at a Seminar – Identifying the Gaps, Setting the Agenda, 8th-9th September 1998, University of Bradford
[iii] Alan Greig, Michael Kimmel and James Lang (2000), p 6-7, Men, Masculinities & Development: Broadening Our Work Towards Gender Equality, Gender in Development, Monograph Series #10, UNDP
[iv] RW Connell 1995: 82 in Alan Greig, Michael Kimmel and James Lang (2000), p 7, Men, Masculinities & Development: Broadening Our Work Towards Gender Equality, Gender in Development, Monograph Series #10, UNDP
[v] Alan Greig, Michael Kimmel and James Lang (2000), p 7-16, Men, Masculinities & Development: Broadening Our Work Towards Gender Equality, Gender in Development, Monograph Series #10, UNDP
[vi] Lars Jalmert, 2003, The Role of Men and Boys in Achieving Gender Equality – Some Swedish and Scandinavian Experiences, EGM/Men-Boys-GE/2003/EP.13, United Nations
[vii] Jonah Gokova, 1998, Sexual Health Exchange, 1998 No. 2
[viii] Caroline Sweetman (2000), ed, Editorial in Men and Masculinities, Oxford: Oxfam GB
[ix] Frances Cleaver (2000), IDS Bulletin, 31.2, April 2000
[x] Sylvia Chant (2000), 'Men in Crisis? Reflections on masculinities, work and family in north-west Costa Rica', European Journal of Development Research, 12, 2, December 2000
[xi] Sylvia Chant and Mathew Gutmann (2000), p 28, Including Men in Gender and Development: Principles and Rationales, Debates, Reflections and Experiences: Mainstreaming men into Gender and Development, Oxfam Working Papers, Oxford: Oxfam GB
[xii]Caroline Sweetman (2001), p 1, Introduction in Men’s Involvement in beyond Rhetoric: Gender and Development Policy and Practice, Oxfam Working Papers, Oxford: Oxfam GB
[xiii] Sue Smith (2001), p 58, Tackling Male Exclusion in Post-Industrialized Setting: Lessons from UK, in Men’s Involvement in beyond Rhetoric: Gender and Development Policy and Practice, Oxfam Working Papers, Oxford: Oxfam GB

Sphere: Related Content