Summary - Participation of Men in Achieving Gender
Equality

In the past few weeks we have been exploring whether men should be involved in achieving gender equality. In assessing where we are in achieving the goals of feminism, it
has become important to ask whether we have strategically involved all possible role-players in restructuring of society.
Most feminist efforts in the past have been targeted at empowerment and mobilization of women, in an attempt to start shifting power relations within society. As we look back and
forward, we have to acknowledge that there are still gaps that exist
in our strategies, gaps that span a range of issues. On this list we have already started engaging about the generational gaps, but for this specific issue we look at what are the
pros and cons for excluding or including men.
Why should men be involved?
Several of the discussants iterated that men's contribution and participation in the gender equality efforts will make a greater impact on social justice, because it guarantees equal
contribution and opportunities for female and male voices in the society. Secondly, change itself cannot be wrought by one group alone, especially when it involves a change in all people and societies.
Ayesha Chatterjee stated clearly that "the exclusion of men communicates that innumerable concerns, like rights violations, violence etc, are specifically 'female problems' that women alone should deal with. This is far from the truth. For example, the issue of domestic violence - excluding men implies that women face the violence and are also responsible for dealing with it. If we fail to address the men (many of them perpetrators), we are failing to rectify the problem at its source and instead perpetuating existing ideas of patriarchy and male dominance."
However, Funmi Balogun noted that "I am not sure I agree with the notion that they should be involved because they hold power to key decisions, and so to involve them to decide reproductive choices for example is in the interest of women - this strategy gives credence to the notion of 'patriarchal benevolence', all knowing men giving space to women to operate - this I think disempowers women even more!" Thus, when we talk about including men, we have
to be clear, that we do not dismiss women's own power and agency.
The second strong argument was put forward by Richard Mabala, who articulated very strongly that "one of the major reasons for many of the conflicts at present is that we have, to a
greater or lesser extent 'deconstructed' femininity over the past 30 years but we have done almost nothing to deconstruct masculinity. Thus you have unreconstructed males trying to cope with empowered females, at which point the males regress to an even earlier point
in time as far as their behaviour is concerned."
This argument was further supported by Agnes Yawe and Zitto Zuberi Kabwe who stated that the greatest challenge was changing the mindset of other men, and that men themselves could play a major role in facilitating a new way of looking at the world.
Petronella Goliath and Rose Osinde advocated for empowerment and capacity-building in relation to this, that men themselves should accept change and make it happen; women can't make them do it. They have to have change agents from their own ranks, too, to make it
happen.
Katie Hume raised her voice in support of Funmi's earlier statement and also to add to what Richard had been saying. She advocated that we should look at men's involvement in the movement for gender equality as "allies yes, feminists no. The feminist movement is
about empowering women, and if men are brought into that equation, you risk reinforcing ideas of paternalism etc.. That said, I absolutely believe in a masculinist movement, and I
don't think that feminism will ever fully achieve it's goal of gender equality without such a co-movement. If men can organize themselves to change that mindset, explore masculinity as women have explored femininity, and begin to embrace femininity as something to be revered, rather than ridiculed, then gender equity will be possible."
Why are there so few male feminists? Should there be more male feminists?
Firstly, it was raised that many men do not see the need to be part of the feminist movement. Manana raised the issue that feminism is seen as a women's domain (women's what-what). Laura Shumba supported this and added that whereas men don't need organizations and foundations for male advancement, the majority of male society takes a back seat on issues that "aren't their concern." Differences in enthusiasm between men and women are rooted in the past when women took on primarily domestic and maternal roles. Men have never needed to prove themselves as men before proving themselves as anything else.
Because of this, men seem to take a laissez-faire attitude towards feminism."
Secondly, the question of whether men can be feminists raised some interesting points. Funmi raised the provocative question of whether "men can be 'feminists' - I don't think so, because even though feminism is an ideology, men do not experience gender discrimination,
not in the way women do. And we have to understand that gender discrimination confers privileges even on the most gender sensitive male" Jennifer Myles felt it important to add to the debate that "as sensitive as a man might be to gender-based discrimination, his
understanding will be limited because he doesn't personally experience and therefore identify with the same things (as different as these "things" may be according to different cultures and societies)."
Lastly, the experiences of men involved in gender equality work, shed some light on 'exclusivity' of the movement. Sipalla Humphrey also noted that male feminists feel lonely because most gender organisations are almost wholly constituted by women, and secondly, men feel alienated from the male clique when they identify themselves as feminists.
Richard Mabala added that "male feminists have not always felt welcome within the movement. While I fully accept that I am a man and therefore cannot feel/experience/think exactly like a woman, I think the 'politics of difference' have often become the 'politics of exclusion'."
Rose Osinde and Elnura Osmonalieva also supported Sipalla's second argument by saying that "due to the impressions already existing about feminism and gender development work i.e. that women are fighting for the male space, some men shy away from identifying with such individuals or organisations." She advocated for awareness about the goals and objectives of the gender equality movement to support transformation.
What are some of the concerns of including men?
The first concern is that we as a movement do not lose sight of where we are as a feminist movement and what our goals are. Manana strongly advocated that we as a movement understand
what feminism and gender equality means, and what we need to achieve with including men. Ayesha felt that we can only include men without being cautious, once the women's movement has embedded its roots firmly and women have begun to experience a greater degree of
security and assurance about their rights. Funmi further added that we need to achieve a
critical mass of women who believe in the cause before we think about including men. She also felt that strategising around male participation is actually quite easy - but the
challenge is really how do we achieve the critical mass of women to agree to and work towards the notion that every individual should have equal rights and that women have been disadvantaged?" Tracy Nacli supported this argument by asking "can we really start talking about men's participation, when there are clearly very many spaces (eg. The United
Nations) where women are still under-represented and unable to participate?" Thus, if we want to include men, we should pro-actively make provision for a number of affirmative/positive discrimination actions for women.
This point was articulated by a number of discussants. Secondly, Nishadi (Sri Lanka) and Jackie Oluoch advised caution as to the extent to which we take men's contribution. That we need to guard against "possibilities/risks of unhealthy male dominance and prominence. But
again, positive discrimination should be guaranteed in a transparent manner, which should facilitate understanding of reasons behind the positive discrimination."
Lastly, Richard Mabala's statement "I feel that this is the time to involve men more fully. Feminists have set the agenda, and can set the boundaries as well to ensure that the inclusion of men does not lead to subversion of the agenda.", alerts us to the need as a movement, we cannot only blame men when our agenda is subverted. It is a reflection of other problems within the movement.
Conclusion The discussion illuminated many critical issues.
Although we do not all agree on every aspect, I think it is safe to safe that men's involvement in gender equality is necessary. However, it is important to be clear about what we mean when we talk about men's involvement and participation in achieving gender equality. As a strategy it is absolutely necessary, but we have to contextualize the strategy we are using to achieve it, and from there talk about men's participation and whether they're feminists or not.
Also, when we talk about young women's leadership, this issue is significant in that through strategic engagement with young men, we can make provisions for the next generation to understand issues of gender and its impact on society.

-- AWID's Young Women and Leadership Email List ---