EvalGender+ Meet up at FIFE Nov 2019

EvalGender+ Meet up at FIFE 13th Nov 2019. Photo courtesy Idrissa

What is different about evaluating work with men and boys on challenging dominant masculinities? -with CHSJ and other organisations

Photo credit: Center for Health and Social Justice

This article explores lessons from evaluations that I have done on work with men and boys to challenge dominant masculinities in India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Afghanistan.  It also asks what lessons are different from evaluating work with women and girls on gender equality and women’s empowerment.

Reflecting back on around eight evaluations that I have done on working with men and boys, the following unique lessons emerge:

  • Gender transformation or men’s/boys’ gendered needs? Evaluations need to examine whether the project/programme focus is instrumental in nature that is to achieving men’s needs and interests, or whether it is oriented towards gender transformation. An example of the former, is efforts to work with men and boys on the problems they have faced as a result of the social construction of gender (e.g. pressure to be breadwinner), while not discussing privileges they have experienced.   An example of the latter is effort to work with men and boys to reduce violence against women in domestic and public spaces, through giving up/reducing their power ‘over’ space.   Ideally projects should work men and boys with largely a gender transformative agenda, which does not preclude some attention to working on issues confronting men and boys as a result of social construction of gender.   Gender gap is high in economic and political sphere and sexual and reproductive rights and bodily integrity are violated the world over.

 

  • Benevolence or partnership with women’s groups? Another aspect that evaluations need to examine is whether the work with men (and boys) on gender and social equality encourages men to form alliances with women’s groups in villages and slums to address strategic gender issues like violence on women under joint leadership, or whether the work with men and boys is restricted to encouraging benevolent behaviour with men and boys acting on behalf of women and girls without the latter’s agency.  A good example of the latter is how adolescent boys after a life skill programme formed a “vigilance committee” during village temple festival in Tamil Nadu, India to ensure that boys from other villages who came did not mix with the girls from their village. On the other hand, a partnership approach entails how male youth partnered with women’s groups to combat acid violence in parts of Bangladesh or men and women came together in the We Can Campaign to address violence on women in Sri Lanka, India and Bangladesh

 

  • Norms around caste, class, relations, disability, heteronormativity are being broken or perpetuated? Another aspect to be examined is whether norms around other identities amongst men and boys are broken or reinforced. In an evaluation in Jharkhand, India it was found that men and boys of different castes, religions, class and abilities came together in Bokaro and visited/ate in each other’s houses (and more frequently than before). While norms on arranged marriages were breaking, love marriages were mainly within the community.      

 

  • Assess whether discourse on relation position is non patriarchal: We need to look at the underpinning discourse of the project/programme on men and boys, and ask whether the discourse is dominated by patriarchal concepts like men and boys as fathers, sons, husbands, brothers or goes beyond to reconstruct relation position as parents, children, partners, friend, activist etc.  At the same time, we need to understand that discourses take long to change, and it may take several project cycles to make this shift.

 

  • Are men, boys, women and girls coming together to hold institutional accountable to gender equality? Apart from men/ boys and their families, evaluations need to assess whether norms and practices are changing at community, market, local government and service provider levels in favour of gender and social equality. For example, in Afghanistan as part of the evaluation discussions were held with Community Development Councils and men traders in markets to see whether their thinking was changing on gender norms. In Jharkhand and Tamil Nadu, India efforts were made in evaluations to assess how far men’s groups were holding local government, schools and Anganwadi centres to account on gender equality.

 

 

  • Do the projects work with men and boys on peace: It is well known that men and boys are more involved in conflicts than women, and resolve conflicts in violent ways. It is important to assess if projects and programmes promote non violent ways of resolving differences amongst men and boys- be it on the basis of race, caste, class, religion, gender etc.

 

  • Cross bridges, triangulate and do not expect full participation: Men’s labour force participation in many south Asian countries is higher than that of men. It is difficult to expect full participation in meetings, especially if held during day time. It is important to look at average attendance in group meetings and not just your meeting. Alternatively meet them in the evening, on a day convenient to them given migration.  Further, the tendency to give the politically correct answer may be higher amongst men than women, and hence cross verification with partner, children and other group members is a must. As a woman evaluator know what questions can be asked, when, and what cannot. Asking questions on women’s sexual rights can be tricky and more so if by women.  

 

This article explored what is unique or “added” about evaluations of work with men and boys on challenging dominant masculinities, when compared to work with women and girls. What, how, when and why of evaluations differ when we assess work with men and boys on masculinities. Lessons from such evaluations can contribute to progress towards SDGs, in particular SDG 5 on Gender Equality as well as SDG 10 on Reduced Inequalities and SDG 16 on Security.

 

Views: 558

Add a Comment

You need to be a member of Gender and Evaluation to add comments!

Join Gender and Evaluation

Comment by Nkirote Muriithi on May 21, 2019 at 18:34

Dear Ranjani,

Thank you for sharing, the virtues of using the men as the advocates in driving empowerment is key as it looks at men and boys as the empowering agents rather than the saviours thus building independence rather than dependence in women and girls. Often program will only consider this approach as a small part of their program rather than including boys and men through out the process. As rightly mentioned by Jeanette, the approach should be uniform in program implementation and evaluation.

Comment by Jeanette Kloosterman on April 25, 2019 at 14:29

Dear Ranjani,

Thank you for this post, very important points! A question that comes to my mind however is if it is possible to apply them in evaluations when so often in the planning of projects or programs this approach is not taken up. How can we measure the transformation of norms for example, if the program didn’t intend to change them? This is a difficulty I have faced in my work.

Comment by Rituu B Nanda on April 18, 2019 at 19:27

I like how you explain your point Ranjani. You have a deep understanding of gender:-)

In the case I was mentioning not only men but also grandparents both grandpa and grandma are taking responsibility for immunisation of children.  Earlier the fathers used to take responsibility only in terms of taking the child to hospital when sick. When NGOs work with mothers or women for health it means the entire onus is on women. But here we did not focus on the woman but the entire family.

I have seen startling results in terms on gender and inequity but its hard to explain in words the Constellation's SALT approach. the material is available for free online and one can get trained online in a triad. SALT also builds very good facilitation skills.

Comment by Ranjani K.Murthy on April 18, 2019 at 18:12

Dear Rituu

Thanks for sharing. 

Gender roles can be redefined in a instrumental and contingent way, in the best interest of the child and when mothers are sick the fathers take the child for immunisation, or in a transformative way- women too work but unpaid work or paid less. They contribute (economically) equally to family, and hence it is important that men share child care and health responsibilities.

Rituu, can you kindly share how we can  facilitate this in strength based trianing. 

Thanks so much

Ranjani  

 

Comment by Rituu B Nanda on April 17, 2019 at 17:47

Hi Ranjani,

I have found your blog very useful and examples very powerful. Am going to use them in my work.  A big thank you!

See one of my blogs here on engaging young men in self assessment using SALT and CLCP a strength based approach https://aidscompetence.ning.com/profiles/blogs/self-assessment-trig...

Warmly,

Rituu

Comment by Ranjani K.Murthy on April 17, 2019 at 15:14

Dear Maha and Margerit

Look forward to hearing your experiences on evaluating work with men and boys. 

Thanks

Ranjani

 

Comment by Maha el said on April 17, 2019 at 0:16

Thank you for these important insights.

maha

Comment by Margerit Roger on April 16, 2019 at 4:24

Thank you for sending this! I'm just doing a social impact analysis with three Indigenous father's/men's circles and this will be helpful. 

 Margerit

© 2019   Created by Rituu B Nanda.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service