Integrating Masculinities into GAD (my thesis)

Should men and masculinities be further integrated into GAD practices and, if so, how?  Should this integration take place, given the feminist ideals and work that created the field of gender-sensitive development?

     The field of Gender and Development (GAD) emerged from earlier Women in Development (WID) practice because of the documented underperformance of women-centered development programs.  WID theory operated under the assumption that, since women are most affected by societal inequity, development projects should concentrate on their specific needs.  Despite this concentration on what seemed to be the obvious victims of inequitable development processes, WID programs implemented throughout the UN Decade for Women ultimately resulted in little improvement in women's status (Chant and Gutmann 2002: 269).  GAD was created in response to the underperformance of WID programs; it sought to extend the scope of gendered development  beyond the economic, women-centered projects that WID favored.  Rather than concentrating only on downtrodden women, GAD looked at the broad spectrum of societal factors--among them race, class, economic status--that contributed to negative patterns of development.  Unlike WID rhetoric, which portrayed men as powerful oppressors of women, GAD accepted that both men and women could be victims of development forces.  Instead of excluding men from gendered development strategy, GAD saw them as constituencies to be helped in the interests of creating more equitable societies.  With this goal in mind, there has been much debate about how and to what extent men can be integrated into what has historically been a field concerned with the advancement of women.  Since the study of masculinities emerged concurrent to the transition to GAD, it has strongly influenced this debate.  Ideas from the scholarly field of Masculinities have become relevant as GAD seeks to explore the relationships between men in women in society.  Masculinities theory has helped to destroy the simple "oppressor" image that WID applied to men and to create an appreciation for the different gendered pressures that go into a constructed masculine identity.  Moving away from the image of men as "oppressors" and accepting the possible contributions that men can make to GAD (both in development-targeted populations and in GAD organizations) is essential to GAD's reaching its stated goal of "gender," rather than "women-centered" work.  Therefore, in this essay I will first give a brief history of the evolution of gendered development (from WID to GAD), then set out some of the major developments in the field of Masculinities, then consider the possibilities of the integration of men and masculinities into Gender and Development policy.  Through this history of gendered development and its interaction with men and masculinities I will try to show how the women-centered nature of WID policies still influences the purportedly "gender"-oriented GAD.  Because of the marginalization of men and masculinities that exists in gendered development policy and practice, it is impossible for GAD to truly live up to its own goals.  Without paying attention to masculinities in development, GAD cannot investigate the web of gendered relationships that make up society.  In order to rectify this, GAD needs to think about men in gendered development policy--to focus on their specific gendered problems and on the effects that these problems can have on relationships between men and women in development.  By integrating men into gendered development organizations--both on the staff and as the targets of development projects--GAD will be able to better help both women and men.

Woman-conscious development and the rise of WID

     Gender--or, initially, women's concerns--came to the attention of the development community in the 1970s.  This new attention was caused by two main events: the institution and early work of the UN Commission on the Status of Women and the American feminist movement. (Tinker 1997:34)  The UN had become aware of the issue of women in development through the work of its Women's Commission (dating from the early 60s), which in the early 1970s championed theories of development that would include women and help them realize their fullest potential (Tinker 1997:34).  These theories were formalized in the work of Ester Boserup, whose 1970 book Women's Role in Economic Development became the founding text for the Women in Development movement.  In her work, Boserup criticized the assumptions behind "trickle-down" development (which held that the purchase of technology from the West would lead to broad economic growth which would ultimately benefit all sectors of society) that had been the basis of international development policy (Visvanathan 1997: 2).  Although development assistance was at the time of Boserup's writing seen as gender neutral, Boserup argued that Western agencies were basing their aid to Third World countries on Western assumptions about how households worked and how women were valued in society (Steans 1998: 144).  Boserup argued, as Irene Tinker writes in "The Making of a Field," for a system of development based on "justice and efficiency." (Tinker 1997: 34)  Current development models offered assistance to commercially-minded elites in society and to putatative heads of household (assumed to be men), which resulted in powerful men receiving the greatest share of international aid.  For Boserup, to offer assistance only to those currently in power in society is to retard economic and social progress; she writes that "it is the recruitment of women to the modern sector (that) helps to accelerate the growth of the economy beyond the rate attainable by the use of male labor alone" (Boserup 1989: 211).  American feminists, armed with Boserup's arguments for just and efficient gendered development (as well as her concrete studies legitimizing those arguments), eventually testified before the US Senate on the importance of women-conscious development.  Their efforts led to the Percy Amendment to the US Foreign Assistance Act of 1973, which ordered the US Agency for International Development to "give particular attention to those programs, projects, and activities which tend to integrate women into thenational economies of foreign countries" (Tinker 1997: 35).  The UN quickly followed suit, with attention to women-conscious development permeating the 1975 Mexico City conference for World Women's Year and subsequent UN Decade for Women (Tinker 1997: 35).  The three World Conferences held between 1975 and 1985 were a great legitimizing force for those calling for more attention to women in development, as governments were required to report sex-segregated development data and therefore to recognize the severe gendered differences this data revealed (Tinker 1997: 35).  In addition to these enforced self-investigations, the World Conferences also facilitated interaction between female activists and development workers all over the world.

     A prime characteristic of Women in Development policy throughout the 70s and 80s was the emphasis on bringing women in the developing world into the economic sphere.  WID had three major strategies to this effect, all of which portrayed women's economic advancement as the key to developmental success (Visvanathan 1997b: 20).  The first strategy was "equity," which sought to "bring women in" to development by increasing their access to jobs and economic opportunities (Moser 1993: 63).  By bringing women into the market sphere while recognizing the unpaid and official work they already perform, the "equity" approach would equalize men's and women's economic status, leading to more general social equity (Moser 1993: 64).  The "equity" approach assumed that this would be managed through "top-down legislative...measures" and, if necessary, positive discrimination policies (Moser 1993: 64).  The "equity" approach then evolved into the "anti-poverty," or "needs" approach, which sacrificed some of the political rhetoric of social equality in favor of concrete gains for the poorest women (Razavi 1997: 1113).  This move was prompted in part by the "reluctance of development agencies to interfere with the manner in which relations between men and women are constructed in a given society" and the daunting prospects of enforcing the "redistribution of power" that would be required (Moser 1993: 65, 67).  The "anti-poverty" approach removed some of the broader social transformations that "equity" entailed and concentrated on concrete ways to fulfill women's "basic needs", such as "food, shelter, clothing and fuel" (Moser 1993: 65-68, Razavi and Miller 1995: 7). It also called for women to increase their productivity: this was based on the idea that "the origins of women's poverty and inequality with men are attributable to their lack of acces to private ownership of land and capital" and that with greater access, greater productivity and "basic needs" fulfilling would ensue (Moser 1993: 67-68).  Eventually, "anti-poverty" was transformed into the "efficiency" approach, which cast off much of the theoretical baggage of previous approaches and called for women's inclusion in the national economy as simply a more efficient use of a part of the national labor force (Moser 1993: 70).  In the "efficiency" approach, women's representation in and economic contribution to development simultaneously helps development and women (Razavi and Miller 1995: 13).  The evolution of WID's strategies shows a move from addressing women's societal subordination to making women a contributing part of the development process, presuming that their representation would automatically cause gender equality.  In focusing on women's economic viability, WID practitioners eventually let the market's needs override those of women.

     WID theory, in focusing on individual women's economic gains and representation in the national market, put the idea of economic equality and the center of its policy, eventually at the expense of attention to women's societal problems.  Reports at the 1980 UN Women's Conference in Copenhagen, however,  showed that WID policies had made no--or indeed, a negative--impact on the specifically female problems they were intended to combat (Chant and Gutmann 2000: 8, Williams 1999: 179).  Similarly, the 1995 Beijing Platform for Action acknowledges that the Nairobi Forward-looking Strategies for the Advancement of Women had not been met, that women and girls' "civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights, including the right to development" had not been helped since the 1975 Nairobi conference (UN 1995).  As Suzanne Williams, Oxfam's Co-ordinator of GADU (Gender and Development Units) writes, "While gains had been made in relation to employment and remuneration, far more women had become poorer, and the "feminization of poverty" was a trend in both the poor and richest countries" (Williams 1999: 179).  The conference highlighted the fact that there was a large and growing disparity between the rights and development goals set for women and women's actual access to them.  Because of this disparity (and after another decade of attempted modifications to WID), the 1995 Beijing Conference for Women established the principles of gender and development--GAD. GAD and the recognition--or not--of gender roles

     With the women-centered, economically-driven policies of WID proven ineffective, a new perspective on how to deal with women and gender in development was required.  By moving from women-specific concerns to an investigation of gendered social relations and by introducing a gender "mainstreaming" (in which gender relations, in all their complexity, would be considered at every step of the development process), Gender and Development theory (GAD) became the dominant perspective on the gendered implications and consequences of development.  Institutionalized following the conferences at the end of the UN Decade for Women, GAD emerged from a socialist feminist position that recognized women's voices from the South as part of a global dialogue on the varied causes of gender inequality (Parpart and Marchand 14).  Instead of treating women as isolated subjects in need of social and economic empowerment, GAD looked at the overall construction of gender and gender relations in society.

     GAD became institutionalized following the Fourth World Conference for Women in Beijing.  The Conference's Declaration, while listing women's problems and seeking solutions, cited the "uneven progress" of women-centered development over the past decades and pledged a new focus on "gender" (United Nations: 1995).  The Declaration resolved that member governments would "implement...gender-sensitive policies and practices...(and) ensur(e) that a gender perspective is followed in all our policies and practices" (United Nations: 1995).  With "gender," rather than "women," now the focus, three main frameworks came to be used to integrate gender issues into development work (Moser et. al 1999: 15).  These frameworks concentrated on the gendered relationships in a community, analyzing women's place in a network of relations in order to appreciate the context of women's needs.  Chronologically, the first is the Harvard Framework, which is used to analyse "who does, what, who owns what, and who controls what within a community"  (Overholt and others cited in Moser et al 1999: 15).  Second and most influential is the Moser Methodology, developed by Caroline Moser and set out in her 1993 book Gender Planning and Development.  The Moser Methodology divides women's gendered requirements into practical needs and strategic interests (Moser 1993: 39-40).  Practical gender needs are "a response to immediate perceived necessity (and) often are concerned with inadequacies in living conditions such as water provision, health care, and employment" (Moser 1993: 40).   Strategic gender needs, however, are those that "women identify because of their subordinate position to men in society;" meeting them "helps women to achieve greater equality,...change existing roles and...challenge women's subordinate position"  (Moser 1993: 39).  This distinction is required so that "policy-makers and planners" who are accustomed to dealing with practical needs can see the bigger picture and try to integrate more strategic gender needs into their plans (Moser 1993: 41).  Finally, the Longwe Framework concentrates on women's realization of their subordinate place in societal relations and the subsequent development of their self-empowerment (Longwe 2002: 6).  A gender analysis of a situation requires the use of all of these frameworks, with each complementing the others (Moser et al 1999: 15).  The complementary nature of these analytical lenses is characteristic of the broad approach advocated by GAD theory.  

     The most important component of GAD theory is its holistic perspective on development.  In contrast to WID, which saw "pushing" women into economic development programs as the answer to sexual inequality, GAD sees inequality as emerging from how gender identities interact with one another in society.  GAD recognizes gender as socially constructed and as influenced both by context (influences of time and place) and by social factors such as class, age, and race (Chant and Gutmann 2000:9).  It is this social construction of gender that is harmful to women--and, as we shall see, to men--because of the requirements that a social identity demands.  If women are seen as passive domestic workers and men as aggressive leaders and public figures, "pushing" women into an economic realm reserved for men will do little to counter gendered aggression and inequality.  By simply including women in an already gendered and proscribed economic system WID treated women's exclusion, as Parpart and Marchand write, as a "logistical problem, rather than something requiring a fundamental reassessment of gender relations and ideology" (Parpart and Marchand 1995: 13).  Kate Young characterized the GAD approach, in contrast, as "look(ing) at the totality of social organization, economic and political life in order to understand the shaping of particular aspects of society" (Young 1997:52).  This entails looking not only at the social and economic issues that characterized WID, but at how all the influences in a woman's (or a man's) life--such as family, culture, economics, politics--work together to construct her identity (Young 1997: 52).  By analyzing these influences and seeing how they form identities that then interact in society, GAD theorists hope to alter the forces that lead to negatively constructed identities.  On an institutional level, GAD's holistic view of gender and development found a counterpart in "gender mainstreaming."  Gender mainstreaming calls for gender issues to be integrated into every part of development work--for the "re-working of structures of decision-making and institutional cultures such that gender becomes a central rather than a peripheral issue" (Chant and Gutmann 2002: 270).  This would be done in order to transform the patriarchal culture of many development organizations and to revision development policy as holistic, relationship-centered, and GAD-based.

Criticism of GAD

     As GAD developed, some critics began to argue that despite the emphasis on relational identities and the need to "mainstream" gender in development thinking, GAD practitioners and development bodies were still susceptible to WID's preoccupation with women rather than relationships.  Judy El-Bushra argues that it is confusion that has caused this: confusion about defining gender discourse, about the relationship between gender and economic empowerment, and about the "sloganeering" of complex gender issues (El-Bushra 2000: 56).  For El-Bushra, confusion about gender definition comes from the divide between the "gender specialists" who define gender-awareness (by which she presumably means academics) and the working definitions used by development organizations (El-Bushra 2000: 56).  She also criticizes GAD's retention of WID's concentration on economic empowerment--although in theory a more holistic view should be pursued, development agencies have historically been built on economic incentives, and that remains the case now (El-Bushra 2000: 56).  Wieringa adds a historical note to this argument--she refers to the Marxist/socialist past of several founding WID and GAD authors and argues that they (and the gendered development field) "retain the Marxist focus on material conditions (and) relations of production" at the expense of fully accepting other notions of development (Wieringa 1998: 17).  In her final argument, in which she resists oversimplification, El-Bushra re-emphasizes the need for GAD's original broad view of development--for her, the UN's slogan "Two-thirds of the world's work is done by women" is concealing the need for both new economic outlets for women and the other developmental needs they may face (El-Bushra 2000: 57, UN: 1985).

     Others have mentioned the difficulty of bringing GAD principles into organizations built on WID practices, and several authors have cited GAD's lack of implementation in development organizations.  Humble has called GAD "a theory in need of a methodology for implementation," and it is certainly difficult to dismantle long-standing women's bureaus to accommodate the untested, misunderstood and perhaps easily ignored practices of gender relations study and institutional gender mainstreaming (Humble quoted in Chant and Gutmann 2002: 10).  Moser and other's analysis of the World Bank GAD policy, for example, accuses it of "lack(ing) a common, institution-wide rationale, common language, and clearly defined policy approach to gender and development" (Moser et al. 1999: 5).  They describe the Bank as "mixing" its approaches--it "identif(ies) GAD as its framework, but frequently refers to women as a separate target group...; in addition the term gender is used interchangeably with women, such that the distinction between the two is not clear and the terms are often confused" (Moser et al 1999: 6, Harrison 1997: 122).  A debate has arisen in development organizations concerning this issue, which has caused some of the confusion surrounding GAD's implementation.  Because of the need to integrate GAD principles into every section of development bodies, members of current "women's units" are divided over whether to dissolve themselves in favor of "mainstreaming" or continue to advocate gender concerns as a distinct issue (Chant and Gutmann 2002: 10).  These two opposing viewpoints have slowed GAD's institutional implementation, making it at present a theory more applied to gendered development projects than development organizations.  In the meantime, despite their support (or lack thereof) for GAD's full introduction, the WID-style "women's sections" have had to remain strong to guard the existence of gender-conscious development.  This has kept WID issues in play and has made it even more difficult for development organizations to switch to a GAD methodology.  The difficulty of implementing GAD in organizations and the corresponding continued concentration on women's issues has made it difficult for a real integration of men and masculinities into gendered development.

     Although the specifics of the criticism have changed from that which ultimately brought down WID, it is still gendered development's focus on women that causes problems.  Having already fought for gendered development to include a holistic view of gendered relationships, GAD's critics are now seeking proof that this view can include men and men's issues.  Though a few programs specifically for men were initiated under GAD (often taking the form of men's groups to discuss masculine roles), these efforts have been characterized by some critics as "marginal initiatives" (White 1997: 15).  Although GAD workers in theory accept the need for some show of male recognition, men's identities are still seen as uncomplicated and "taken for granted" (White 1997: 15).  Chant opines that this may be because of "few concrete guidelines" about including men either "at institutional or grassroots level" or perhaps merely because of gendered development workers' infamiliarity with the logistics of involving men in GAD (White 1997: 8-9)  There may also be a feminist backlash within GAD organizations against including men's issues in what has been built up as (on the strength of feminist activism) as a women's concern.  Whatever the reasons, men have been shortchanged, if not conceptually, then in the the execution of GAD theory.  In the interests of integrating a more complete picture of men's lives and relationships into gendered development, it is therefore useful to look at the fairly new field of Masculinities and at conceptions of men in development that have emerged in response to GAD.

Men and Masculinities

     The emergence of GAD theory in the 1990s coincided with the institutionalization of the scholarly field of Masculinities, which specialized in the study of men's behavior and gender identities.  The study of Masculinities arose from the debates about sex and gender associated with the American women's movement, and crystallized as the new fields of queer studies and gender studies became more entrenched in academic life.  Just as some feminist political theorists debated the sexual and gendered components of female identity, Masculinities scholars debated what it meant to be male.  

     The field of Masculinities grew out of men's involvement in the second-wave feminist movement and expanded as different academic disciplines started to engage with masculine identities.  In line with the consciousness-raising groups promoted by women in the movement, men began to meet to talk about gender relations and about men's role in the overall exploitation of women (Morrell 2001: 4).  This was supported by "leftist scholars supportive of feminism," whose influence could be seen in the British journal Achilles Heel, founded in the early 1970s, in the pages of which scholars began to discuss masculinity and the relation of the private to the public (Morrell 2001: 4).  Hearn refers to the groups and networks that developed around this time as "men against sexism;" they worked alongside the Women's Liberation Movement and the Gay Liberation movement, and in some places (particularly in the US) were accorded the status of their own "movement." (Hearn and Morgan 1990: 4)  By the end of the 1970s sociological and psychological work along with academic work on men in other fields were coming to be known (at least in the UK) as "men's studies." (Hearn and Morgan 1990: 5).  Studies of men and masculinity increased during the 1980s, with the centerpiece of men's studies in the decade the publication of Bob Connell's Gender and Power in 1987.  At the end of the 1980s and in the 1990s men's issues were also in the public eye through the actions of the Men's Movement, which has included such organizations as the Promise Keepers and the Million Man March, both of which stressed men's duties as fathers and their particular identities as men (Morrell 2001: 6).  Throughout the 1990s scholarly work on masculinities continued to increase, and by the time that GAD began to emerge in the mid-1990s, Masculinities had become accepted as a scholarly field on its own account.

     Several issues have characterized the study of masculinities throughout its twenty-year existence.  Among the most important was the exploding of second-wave feminism's "patriarchal oppressor" vision of masculinity.  Headed by the work of Bob Connell, whose Masculinities and Gender and Power are considered the founding texts of the field, scholars soon shattered the myth of the single, uncomplicated male just as feminist theorists had deconstructed femininity decades before.  Masculine identities are fluid and unfixed; they are constructed, just as are feminine identities, in "a process which involves contestation between rival understandings of what being a man should involve" (Morrell 2001: 7, Hearn 2004: 61).  Identifying the various and changing forms of manhood led to the term "masculinities," as distinguished from the single and universal term "man."  The fluidity of masculinities (their constant protection and defense, destruction and recreation) has given hope to gender activists because of the possibility for change (Morrell 2001: 7, Hearn 2004: 66).  If identities can be so mutable, perhaps it will be possible to take action and create more "peaceful and harmonious" masculinities (Morrell 2001: 7).  Greig et al suggest that one way this could be done is through "working with the institutions that socialize boys into men" in order to "creat(e) new models and identities for men" that will help them to understand and foster gender equality and promote equitable development (Greig et al 2000: 5).  The idea of mutable identities ties into the post-feminist ideas of the distinction between sex and gender--a male gender identity need have no inalienable connection with the male sex.  In practice, however, there are forces in society that maintain male identities in certain ways.  The theory of multiple masculinities (set out by Connell and others) refers to the "interplay between gender, race and class," as well as other forces that creates gender identities individual to the man who feels those forces but powerfully affected by outside influences (Connell 2005: 76). Masculinities scholars are interested in determining (and possible changing) the powerful discourses that have created masculine identities as they stand today.

     The discourses that prescribe masculine identities are the basis of another large part of the Masculinities field.  One such identity-constructing discourse is the "passage to manhood" that boys face--the transition from boyhood to maturity is fraught with worry, especially because, as Morrell writes, boys have "a masculine gender identity which is deficient relative to the adult masculinity of men" (Morrell 2001: 8).  This worry over the lack of a masculine identity stays with men into adult life, supported by the powerful discourses of the mass media and popular culture that define manhood and increase the pressure on men to adopt a certain masculine identity  (Morrell 2001: 8).  Although each man creates his own individual masculinity, these outside discourses combine to create a masculinity that is both familiar to all men and simultaneously oppressive in its pressure for men to conform.  Bob Connell has called these the discourses the "hard compulsions under which gender configurations are formed" and it is his definition of this constructed gender identity that has characterized "men's studies"  (Connell 2005: 76).  This is the most famous--and most debated--issue in Masculinities theory: the idea of "hegemonic masculinity."

     The notion of "hegemonic masculinity" was put forward by Bob Connell in Masculinities and describes a sort of ur-masculinity that men are shamed, intimidated, or socially conditioned into following (Connell 2005: 76-81, 146).  The idea of hegemonic masculinity carries along with it a corresponding notion of subordinate masculinities--men who feel that their gendered maleness is somehow insufficient and who therefore follow the lead of hegemonic masculinity out of shame at their own perceived self-worth.  In an interesting reversal, that self-directed shame can actually affect women; Connell portrays hegemonic masculinity as actually practiced by a very small percentage of men, but writes that "the majority of men gain from its hegemony, since they benefit from...the advantage men in general gain from the overall subordination of women"  (Connell 2005: 79).  Despite their own feelings of inferiority as measured against the hegemonic ideal, men can still feel dominant over the sex that ur-masculinity demeans.  By valorizing a overblown masculine ideal, men perpetuate a system of thought that demeans women and gives men power over them.  Men's studies, as Morrell writes, has tried to complicate this idea, to "show that not all men have the same amount of power or benefit equally from it, and that power is exercised differently depending on the location and the specific arrangement of relations which are in place"  (Morrell 2001: 9).  

     Masculinities studies, like feminism and women's studies, has also concerned itself with different factors, such as race, class, and sexuality, that can unify groups of men and construct certain kinds of group identities.  Feminism's success in focusing on women shifted attention away from the problems of black men and left them without a forum to express their concerns (Staples cited in Morrell 2001: 10).  There is a clear comparison here with the situation of black feminists, whose split with the mainstream feminist establishment was part of the foundation of third-wave identity feminism.  While black feminists now have a specific platform for their issues, black men are left with the (mainly antifeminist) rhetoric of groups like the Promise Keepers and the Million Man March organizers.  Working class masculinities have also been a crucial area of Masculinities studies.  The process of socialization into a working class identity is bound up with definitions of masculinity, and several authors have analyzed how harmful male identities spring in part from class alienation (Morrell 2001: 11).  Gay male identities are also a large part of masculinities studies, as they operate against Connell's "compulsory heterosexuality" while simultaneously reinforcing stereotypes of hegemonic masculinity (Whitehead 2002: 73-74, Connell 2005: 123).

     One idea from the work of Masculinities scholars that ties in with GAD theory is that of masculinity that is subordinate or underprivileged.  GAD, in moving away from WID's concentration on women to a holistic view of gender relations, has acknowledged the gendered problems that men also suffer.  Rather than seeing gendered development as only for the aid of downtrodden women, the idea of "men at risk" has begun to receive greater attention (Chant 2000: 8).  While women's widespread economic and social disadvantages are not forgotten, studies have shown that traditional neo-liberal development policies have hurt men as well (Chant 2000: 8).  Young men are beginning to fall behind women in their rates of educational accomplishment, which has made it harder for them to find employment (Whitehead 2002: 51-52, Chant and Gutmann 2002: 4). Since this trend of male underachievement has also been occurring in the developed world, it may be the case that it is a double burden in developing nations (Thomson 2002: 178).  This lack of education, coupled with the economic restructuring and job losses associated with structural adjustment-based development programs, has made it  harder for men to fulfill the traditional "breadwinner" role in their families (Silberschmidt 2001: 5).  Just as men's status in the family is changing and weakening, more women are finding employment (partly as a result of WID-style programs that concentrated on women), exacerbating the shift in domestic power relations (Chant 2000: 8).  Silberschmidt argues that men's traditional identities are bound up with their ability to support--and control--their wives; as those identities disintegrate they may have to "find new ways to manifest themselves as men" (Silberschmidt 2001: 5).  These "new ways" can take familiar forms: sexual power and aggression, long seen as ways of controlling women, can increase as the balance of power shifts in a family (Silberschmidt 2001: 5-6).  As men lose what has traditionally been a support and source of their authority, they may therefore start to look more like the oppressive stereotype of WID theory--embracing patriarchal authority, perhaps in the form of domestic violence; in short, assuming an identity closer to Connell's "hegemonic masculinity."  This progression makes it all too easy for critics of GAD's "gender" focus to reiterate the need to concentrate on women to protect them and save them from this situation.  What is required, however, is to take masculinities into consideration when thinking about development; to see that development affects gender identities and relationships for both men and women.  To exclude men from thinking about gendered development is to ignore half of the population affected.  

Arguments against ignoring men

     There are a few clear arguments to be made against ignoring or "categorizing" men in thinking about gendered development.  One mentioned already is the danger of stereotyping men: of thinking of them, as Andrea Cornwall writes, as a "single...oppositional category" or at best as "hazy background figures" (Cornwall quoted in Chant 2000: 9, White 1997: 16).  Feminism and feminist political theorists have for decades discussed the differences between women (ultimately with postmodern feminist theory negating any notion of fixed identities), but is has been too easy for development workers to rely on the dichotomy of "good girl/bad boy" without thinking about the multiple identities men could have or what could have caused "badness" (White 1997: 16).  WID and GAD have usually reduced the identities of men (and, to some degree those of women) to those dictated by sex, rather than gender (Cornwall 2000: 19).  To be male is to have a single, oppositional identity to that of women; this therefore positions women as vulnerable and in need of help rather than empowerment (Cornwall quoted on Chant 10).  Cornwall has argued that Western feminists have actually been guilty of perpetuating this stereotype of "women as victims" in order to justify certain WID-style developmental "acts of rescue" (Cornwall 2000: 21-22).  In a discourse that portrays women as abused and disadvantaged, men are, as Cornwall writes, "rarely...depicted as people--sons, lovers, husbands, fathers--with whom women might have shared interests and concerns, let alone love and cherish" (Cornwall 2000: 18-19).  Men are a "homogeneous (and) problematic category" rather than a diverse group of people with diverse--and sometimes helpful--relations to women in development (Cornwall 2000: 19).  Constructing masculinity as powerful and oppressive also deprives men of the ability to "use their agency as men" to work together with women (Cornwall 2000: 23).  Connell's "patriarchal dividend" of universal male privilege has the associated problem of labeling all men--even those who might want to help women work for gender equity--as potential oppressors (Connell 2005: 79, Cornwall 23).  Male stereotyping not only victimizes women, but forbids men from playing a helping role in gendered development.

     Another component to the stereotyping of men comes from the analysis of the gendered division of labor.  As Cleaver has written, women's "triple role" in work (Cleaver adds community labor to the reproductive and productive labor usually referred to as "double duty") "has become a mainstay of GAD approaches and has led to oversimplified statements in policy documents that 'women do all the work'" (Cleaver 2002: 12-13).  Time studies (the dominant method for measuring work), while highlighting the importance of domestic work, also oversimplify men's contributions (Cleaver 2002: 13).  A major point from the field of times studies has been the idea of the "lazy male," who sits around loafing while women perform reproductive, domestic, and other duties (Whitehead 1999: 49, 54).  Ann Whitehead, however, examines the "resting periods"  men in sub-Saharan Africa are accused of taking (Whitehead 1999: 58).  Although no physical activity appears to be taking place (criminal in the eyes of other researchers she cites, who have determined a 3:1 ratio of men's/women's work), men are still active (Whitehead 1999: 53, 58).  The vast expanse of their day that appears wasted when compared to women's toiling, actually may be taken up with various unquantifiable activies: "developing social networks, making contacts, gathering information, and attempting to find work and business opportunities" (Whitehead 1999: 58).  Since time studies generally refer to the labor that can be seen by the analyzers, it is also possible that men's contributions to the "livelihood of the family" that occur away from the home (in businesses or part-time jobs) can be missed (Whitehead 1999: 57-58).  Regarding the differences in hours of labor, there are also arguments that male laborers work very intensely in a short time; simply calculating time spent in a job says little about how much work is done (Jackson 1998: 320).  Occasionally short jobs requiring different skills--upper-body strength, for example--can be done by women but are relinquished to men, leaving women to work on their traditionally more endurance-based tasks (Jackson 1998: 320).  The problem with the misconception that "women do all the (unmeasured) labor" and the analytical measurement of time spent working is that they perpetuate gendered notions of labor (women in domestic work, men in the public sphere) as well as associating men with physical labor outside the home (Cleaver 2002: 15-16)  There is also the worry that concentrating so much on what's become known as "women's gendered labor" will deflect attention from the base, difficult labor which may be all that is available for underprivileged men.  Looking at women's and men's work through the lens of time analysis makes it difficult for different relations--and relations of labor--to develop, as well as hindering the valuation of more unquantifiable work (such as planning and organizing) essential for GAD practice. (Cleaver 2002: 16).

     A more concrete problem with ignoring men in gendered development work is the danger of breeding male hostility. By excluding men from aid programs and specifically targeting women, projects intended to empower women could transform them into a threat to the men in their lives.  The general changing social situation has contributed to an increase in male violence--as neo-liberal development increases male unemployment, women become more active and involved and men more resentful (Silberschmidt 2001: 5).  Male identities that are centered on honor--often based on control of wives--suffer under the new circumstances, and violence is a way for unstable males to "manifest themselves as men" (Silberschmidt 2001: 5).  Silberschmidt draws a link between the loss of male income and the increase in sexual demands and assault: "If you cannot be a breadwinner, you can be a seducer" (Silberschmidt 2001: 6).  This hearkens back to Masculinities theorists' "hegemonic masculinity;" as men feel threatened about their roles, they begin to act in overtly (and overly) masculine ways.  The Economist in 1998 reported the story of Asma Begum, a clothing factory worker whose husband threw acid on her after she returned home late and was unable to make dinner for him (cited in Balaam and Veseth 2005: 106).  Balaam and Veseth place the motivation for this horrible action on the changing gender roles brought on by global economic restructuralization and the unease men feel as they lose traditional power (Balaam and Veseth 2005: 106).  With regard to development programs themselves, in cases where women-targeted programs are the only sources of development assistance, men can agitate for inclusion, or forbid their wives from taking part.

     A further problem with women-centered development thought is that solely focusing on women effectively makes them responsible for changing their society.  WID-style "equity" programs that sought to utilize women's untapped labor saw including women in the market as a way to "cushion" against the problems of economic reform ( Chant 2000: 11).  By giving women more places in a male-dominated public economy, that economy could absorb the impact of structural readjustment while simultaneously empowering women.  Chant argues that this may "result in women working for development rather than vice versa" (emphasis added); that is, women are making it easier for development programs to succeed, rather than the other way around (Chant 2000: 11).  To think only of women's numerical representation in economic processes ignores the "double duty" women face because of their feminine identities--marketplace workers or not, women are often still expected to perform domestic and reproductive labor.  A comparison is often made between this "double duty" of labor and the doubled obligations women are faced with in traditional development programs.  In focusing on women and encouraging them to change their situation, development workers are ignoring the relationships that make up these women's lives.  After education and empowerment, women are presumably changed--but they retain the relationships that existed before development intervention.  In dealing with their husbands, relatives, and friends, women have to become de facto development workers, explaining to a often resistant audience what a more gender-sensitive life entails.  Chant cites the situation created by family planning workshops in Chimbote, Peru that were seen by local men as centered on women (the health personnel were primarily female and the workshops were only running during men's working hours) (Chant 2000: 10). Because of men's inability to join the meetings, "women were left with virtually exclusive responsibility for reproductive matters" and required to make their case to their husbands without official support (Cobián and Reyes 1998 cited in Chant 2000: 10).  This kind of responsibility is another type of double duty--women "have to take responsibility not only for changing their own ideologies and practice, but those of (others) as well" (White 1997: 15).

Positive reasons for including men

     Just as these arguments show the negative effects of ignoring men in gendered development, there are corresponding positive reasons for their inclusion.  The greatest justification for including men, and the largest overall reason, is actually present within GAD as it has been theorized (Chant 2000: 11).  As many critics have written, up until now GAD has been discussed, written into regulation, and given token support, but it has not been fully implemented.  By incorporating men and masculinities into GAD projects, there will be solid proof that GAD practitioners are recognizing the gender relationships that exist in society and their need to deal with all of them.  As part of this overall goal, there are several concrete ways in which integrating men into GAD practice will help to increase gender equality and standards of living for both women and men.

     One way that integrating men will help, which follows on from the general argument that it will fulfill GAD's promise, is that their inclusion will make development projects both more applicable to the target population and more successful (Chant and Gutmann 2000: 27).  An important point is that including men--even those who might be resistant to female empowerment--makes it clear that gendered development is not a zero-sum game; as Chant and Gutmann put it, "empowering women does not necessarily mean disempowering men" (Kanji cited in Chant and Gutmann 2000: 28, Cornwall 2000: 25, Pineda 2000, Cleaver 2002: 1).  Men can realize that development can be sensitive to the needs of men as well as women; by including both in projects women's empowerment can be seen as a part of a larger empowerment of society.  To many women targeted by development projects, this is not even an issue.  Men's participation has often been welcomed by female target populations; as projects are constructed, they have questioned why an able-bodied, useful portion of their society cannot take part in them (Chant and Gutmann 2000: 27).  Harrison in "Men in Women's Groups" cites the case of the Monga women's farming group, in which the chairman of the group was a man (married to the treasurer), elected because of his contacts in the area and his ability to liase with local authorities (Harrison 1997: 128).  When men begin to participate in women's enterprises, especially in the case of home-based projects, there is the possibility of greater cooperation and respect between spouses, which provides the opportunity for new, more equitable forms of masculinity to emerge (Chant and Gutmann 2000: 28).  Rather than serving as a women's space free of men's destructive influences, women's groups can instead transform masculinities while simultaneously helping both women and men.  

     Another rationale for including men is that, despite the "gender gap" (the disparity between men and women in employment, education, and rights throughout the world), men still have problems in development (Chant 2000: 8).  A widely-used term is a "crisis of masculinity," which stems from men (as I discussed in the introduction to this section) losing the "traditional" masculine identities of father and breadwinner because of the changes in the global economy and the effects of development.  Although the exact symptoms of this loss are hard to separate from men's problems in general (for example, with fear of emasculation from women working entwined with problems over increasing unemployment), what is certain, according to Chant, is that men are more uncertain about their roles and their ability to fulfill their responsibilities (Chant quoted in Chant and Gutmann 2000: 29.)  Just as including men in women's home-based projects wrought changes in masculinities, Chant thinks positively and proposes that new masculinities can result from the "space" opened up from the destruction of conventional masculine identities (Chant 2000: 13).  She cites Engle and Breaux, who suggest a re-investigation of fatherhood to "recognise the social and economic situation we all share, and find ways to weave a new social fabric out of the broken strands of worn-out stereotypes" (Engle and Breaux quoted in Chant 2000: 13).

     More generally, including men in gendered development can be justified according to a human rights discourse.  Since the aim of WID and GAD has been to increase women's human rights, it would be hypocritical to refrain from advocating them for men in development.  Several authors have cited an "instrumental" case for recognizing men's human rights in development: if one advocates for men's rights to, say, care for their children, it is a way to provoke men into fighting for something that a gendered analysis would have them do more anyway (Shepard cited in Chant and Gutmann 2000: 28).  This is not dissimilar to what Bob Connell has advocated as regards getting men to deal with gender issues: for Connell, including gender concerns inside other arguments (he suggests green politics) can drag men into gender issues without their realization or opposition (Connell 1995: 237).  It may be necessary to spell out men's claim to human rights because of the recognized deprival of women's human rights over the years; it is all too easy to pigeonhole human rights recognition as something women are fighting for rather than something for all (Chant and Gutmann 2000: 28-29).

Feminist resistance to men in GAD

     Although GAD thinking has by now made its way into the bylaws, if not the practices, of major development institutions, the introduction of men and masculinities had made lesser progress.  One major reason for the failure of GAD institutions to integrate men into their processes is the legacy of WID and of the feminist activism that created a viable Women in Development category.  Where gendered development has expanded to include men, it has seemed to some feminists as a betrayal of WID's women-centered agenda.  Although feminists actually brought the field of women-centered development into institutionalized existence, the move from WID to GAD and the introduction of men and masculinities into development has caused a backlash.

     Since the instutionalizion of WID was the result of years of feminist action activism, the shift to GAD, with its recognition of "gender" and integration of men, has caused some feminist resistance.  WID's concentration on women and its emphasis on exposing female subordination were certainly influenced by its origins in the American feminist movement.  The Percy Amendment to the US Foreign Assistance Act of 1973 established WID as the creation of Northern, white liberal feminists (Pearson 2000: 43).  The people who ensured the passage of the Percy amendment were, as Pearson writes, "women within powerful development organizations who were linking their personal politics (feminism) to their professional locations as development institution bureaucrats and using this privileged position to argue for resources, opportunities and visibility for women in development" (Pearson 2000: 43).  Even though some of the stronger feminist rhetoric could not carry over into development practice, the "femocrats" within development agencies ensured that WID maintained feminist principles (Chant and Gutmann 2000: 20).  These feminist development bureaucrats were working both out of solidarity with subordinated women and out of feminist principles; they were applying feminism to females in need (Pearson 2000: 43).  In a WID system, this seems natural; it is a framework that promotes direct, specific intervention for subordinated women, and feminist principles (at least those of Northern feminists; Third World feminists might think somewhat differently) apply neatly.  One argument against including men and masculinities in development thought concerns the question: who are men in development agencies working for?

      The argument questioning men's motivation in working in GAD is based on the participation of men in gendered development work compared to the projects that involve men.  Although there are certainly many men working in development, in the field of gendered development "the majority of those who have engaged their time and energy" in thinking about men and masculinities in development are women (Pearson 2000: 44, Chant and Gutmann 2002: 270).  Although the literature on men and masculinities is increasing rapidly, in development circles the majority of the thinking is being done by women.  This is proved, Pearson argues, by the refusal of those "at the pinnacle of power" in development agencies to strongly challenge destructive male roles and recognize the male-favoring practices their male-biased institutions observe (Pearson 2000: 45).  Since the men at the top, she writes, are not focusing on masculinities in development, it's left to the women who are already concerned about gendered development to take up the slack.  Although this is a fairly broad criticism (and Pearson's cited studies include no sex breakdown of development employees), the literature on men and gendered development is overwhelming written by women.  Because of this, men's participation in gendered development and the study of masculinities in development lacks the urgency and solidarity of feminists helping subordinated women in WID.  There is some hope held out for men in development groups in the South, who have shown signs of fighting against unhealthy and harmful masculinities, though as they often work in countries experiencing conflict, their experiences may not be applicable to all men's groups (Pearson 2000: 47).  Pearson argues (supported, it must be said, by the focus of Chant and Gutmann's "Mainstreaming Men") that men in Northern development agencies focus their attention on their representation as men and their right therefore to concentrate on the male subjects "who are the(ir appropriate) object of development assistance" (Pearson 2000: 47).  The problem with this for feminists is that there is a lack of a "solidarity of interest;" men in development agencies do not have a political goal in mind when considering their development population, which makes the whole endeavor seem shallow compared to feminist visions of development (Pearson 2000: 47).

     Another substantial feminist argument against men in development comes from postmodern feminists.  GAD's notion of constructed identities is familiar territory for postmodernists, and they can even accept that men can also be the "victims" of gendered constructs (Barriteau 1995: 148).  This recognition, however, "does not alter the reality that all social relations are asymmetrical and usually benefit men" (Barriteau 1995: 148).  Since men have historically held a dominant position, their victimhood has a lesser status compared to the global societal subordination of women.  This is one facet of the general anti-male integration feminist viewpoint that accepts that men may have some problems, but that women's problems are so much greater and fundamental that it is treachery to think of anything else.  For feminists, it hearkens back to the original problem of postmodern feminism: if sex and gender are constructed, "why then organize together as women at all?" (Baden and Goetz 1998: 33).  For postmodern feminists in development, that question might be: if everyone is a victim, why think about women as women at all?

Vijayan's history of development and the complication of feminist objections

     A possible response to these feminist arguments against men in gendered development comes from the work of Prem Vijayan.  Vijayan, in "Nationalism, Masculinity and the Developing State: Exploring Hindutva Masculinities" sets out a history of development and of feminist political thought that complicates the simple "them and us" viewpoint of many feminist critiques of development.  At the basis of Vijayan's argument is the existence of two different "tracks" to modernity: progress through promoting individual rights, or progress through protecting collective rights (Vijayan 2002: 32).  Western modernization and development has proceeded through both individualistic, rational, technology-driven industrialization and through nationalistic sentiments that constructed Western nation-states as powerful and ready to expand (Vijayan 2002: 30-31).  The two "tracks" of individualism and collectivism clash in the debate over women's rights: Western individualism would seem to require that equal rights be granted to every rational individual.   A collective approach, however, complicates this--granting universal rights actually "further sanction(s) the power of the already empowered" as it extends rights to the "weak and disempowered" (Vijayan 2002: 32).  For the underprivileged, this is perhaps a fair trade-off, but for those in power--in the West, usually dominiant men--it holds the prospect of diminishing their status.  As feminist political theorists from Wollstonecraft to McClintock have noted, however, the solution has been to move the rights of women from the "public" to the "private" spheres--to apportion citizenship only to men and make "public rights" male rights (Vijayan 2002: 32).  Feminist and suffragette political action has chipped away at this gendered division of "spheres," but feminism and Western rational individualism remain in conflict (Vijayan 2002: 33).  It is this conflicted version of modernity, Vijayan argues, that is exported to developing countries through Western-sponsored development (Vijayan 2002: 33).  

     It is because Western development has so long been "instrumentalist,...economistic" and ignorant of women's rights and representation that feminists helped to create WID and eventually GAD (Vijayan 2002: 34).  Vijayan argues that "the persistence of masculinist biases through the evolution of the (mainstream developmental) process...seems to suggest that they are constructed into the very processes and conditions of modernization" (Vijayan 34).  Masculine bias has spread throughout all the processes of development as a result of the Western process of modernization.  That model is being exported to developing countries, and as a result the same problems that have mobilized the feminist movement in the West need to be addressed in the Western model that is being exported.  WID and the study of gendered development have been feminists' means of addressing the problem.  Just as feminists have struggled against the inequitable Western society that has created Western-style development, they have worked against developmental masculinist biases and created a system founded on feminist thought.  With this in mind, feminist arguments about "who's doing gendered development" lose some of their power; if women and feminists have been studying and working with masculinities in development, then they have created a space that will change the men that join their organization.  Gendered development has come about through the work of feminists, and therefore differs from the masculinist norms of mainstream development.  Feminist work created the structures of WID and GAD, and slotting men into their organizations or into their target population will not change that.  Men will be recognized by GAD workers, but the origins of GAD work will not let them dominate the discourse.

Integrating men into development

     Keeping in mind the complex history of modernizing development and the feminist background of GAD, how can men and masculinities be integrated into gendered development?  There are two strands of integration: integrating men into gendered development policy, and integrating men into gendered development organizations.  At present, men are vastly underrepresented on both counts.  Chant and Gutmann in Mainstreaming Men in Gender and Development interviewed 41 women and men working with GAD in development organizations.  Almost all wished for more inclusion of men in GAD work, but "fewer than ten individuals were able to describe actual work done with men by their organizations" (Chant and Gutmann 2000: 31).  Recalling Pearson's work, it is also generally women in development organizations who are thinking about men's gendered issues and needs.  This section will first deal with ways in which men can be targeted in development, and then with how men can and should be included in GAD organizations and projects.

     There are several target areas in which direct attention to men's issues could make a huge difference to both women and men in the developing world.  One of the most important is in dealing with reproductive health, especially the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases.  One failing of WID ("failing" is a relative term; millions of women were helped) was its insistence on treating only women and educating only them about reproductive health.  As many authors have written, only concentrating on one partner in a relationship does little good.  Women may receive treatment for a sexually transmitted disease, then be re-infected by their partner (Chant and Gutmann 2000: 33).  They may be given condoms and educated in their use, but can face refusal or violence from their partner when introducing them (Maharaj 2000: 39).  In Africa, as Biddlecom and Fapohunda write, "sex and sexuality are often the exclusive preserve of the African husbands, and if a wife initiates a discussion of family planning, she may threaten her husband's sense of control and generate mayhem within the family" (Biddlecom and Fapohunda 1998).  In such situations as these--which are by no means unique to Africa--concentrating only on women's education and empowerment does little to change the situation.  In order to change the situation from one that places all the responsibility--and the consequences--on the woman in the relationship, development workers can begin education projects for men that probe their opinions about sex and sexuality and can perhaps change structures of power in the family.  

     A method for targeting men with regard to reproductive issues is education and discussion in an all-male forum.  In "Targeting Men for a Change: AIDS Discourse and Activism in Africa" Janet Bujra writes about the "all-male workshops and...individual interviews" in Lushoto in which "men spontaneously rehearsed a view of themselves as men in relation to sex" (Bujra 2002: 220).  In Lushoto, lectures on the use of condoms were paired with discussions of masculinity and men's roles, and men were encouraged to think about the safety of traditional practices (such as widow inheritance) in the age of AIDS (Bujra 2002: 221).  Peter Sternberg supports this view of enthusiastic male participation in all-male groups in his article on machismo in Nicaragua; participants in the groups "came up to the researchers to thank them for the opportunity to share their opinions with other men" about sexual subjects and commented that it was the first time they had had this opportunity (Sternberg 2001: 59).  In the Nicaraguan case, Sternberg and his organization encouraged men to identify the stereotypical signifiers of machismo (hypermasculinity, sexual promiscuity, aggression), compare these with their own identities, and think about whether their relations with themselves and others were helped because of the machismo identity (Sternberg 2001: 59, 61).  Instead of following the promiscuous dictates of machismo, they could think about the effects of macho behavior and choose another course.  

     The results of including men in reproductive health projects can be far-reaching.  Since men, as Biddlecom and Fapohunda wrote, are often the dominant decision-makers regarding reproductive issues, educating and focusing on men can have follow-on effects for women's health reproductive health issues (Biddlecom and Fapohunda 1998, Maharaj 2000: 41).  With men's approval and understanding (and with the hopes that a continued focus on changing men's roles will negate the need for "approval"), women may be free to utilize reproductive health programs and to use contraception in concert with a partner rather than covertly or not at all (Maharaj 2000: 39-41).

     Another important area in which to target men in development is in dealing with violence, especially male violence against women.  Heise has reported that "one-quarter to over half of women in many countries of the world report having been physically abused by a present or former partner" (Heise quoted in Greig 2000: 29).  It is a problem that is common to developing and developed countries alike, and one that can be addressed not by consoling the victims but by paying attention to the aggressors and possible aggressors.  In calling for more study of the socialization that creates male violence, Greig recalls the multiple constructions of masculinities and argues against characterizing violent men as simple stereotypes (Greig 2000: 30-31).  In citing the tendency of men to be "violent at the very point when they feel the least powerful," Greig sees the solution to male violent behavior in paying attention to factors that disadvantage and threaten men (Greig 2000: 30).  In terms of gendered development, this means looking at the effects that job loss and industrialization can have on men as well as women.  A solution could be something similar to what Bujra describes in her study of Lushoto: conferences with groups of men that look at the causes of violent behavior, their complicity in it , and how that behavior can be altered (Greig 2000: 32).  Silberschmidt, making a similar argument, recalls Connell in her assessment of violence:  hegemonic masculinity is at the root of male violence, she argues, and what is required is a redefinition of what is masculine: i.e. recognizing that "being a responsible partner is masculine and gives status" (Silberschmidt 2001: 12).  By discussing the ways in which different men feel inadequate and respond violently, the causes for men's anger can be addressed.

     Besides addressing problems that men cause, GAD can also deal with problems that men are experiencing.  Employment--or the lack thereof--is a huge issue for men in developing countries, especially considering the changes in the global economy caused by structural adjustment programs.  As Greig's work on male violence shows, frustration around employment issues can boil over into other areas.  Caroline Sweetman's interviews with women in Lesotho revealed that over fifty percent of wives reported domestic abuse (shocking enough), and that "all of (the women) said that the violence was worse after the redundancy" of their husbands (Sweetman 2001: 73). Even as micro-enterprise programs and WID-based economic projects continue to target women, "there is virtually no research or program work devoted to the impact on men, as men, of the economic transformations of recent decades" (Chant and Gutmann 2000: 36).  Because of the increase of female employment and the unemployment resulting from global economic restructuring, men are losing their traditional "breadwinner" status.  Unemployment not only causes practical problems in managing household expenses, but takes away men's traditional status as providers (Pineda 2000).  To combat the domestic violence and feelings of disenfranchisement that stem from unemployment, several authors mention the need to re-think the responsibilities and division of labor within the home.  Sweetman advocates interventions that "focus on the household from a gender perspective, and certain components which address both women's and men's need to be able to undertake activities that are essential for household survival and stability, regardless of conventional assumptions about men's and women's work (Sweetman 2001: 75).  The result of this would be to reveal how men's and women's actual lives differ from stereotypical gender roles--men sometimes do "women's work" and vice versa, and the recognition of this can lead to men's increased participation in domestic duties and a greater sense of responsibility for their home and family (Sweetman 2001: 76).  

     Another way in which GAD could engage with men is with the issue of education.  It can be a difficult to justify work in this area: despite the decades of WID and GAD work, "two out of every three of the 110 million children out of school in developing countries are female" (UNESCO data cited in Sweetman 2001: 73).  That said, however, educational opportunities are slim for both boys and girls in developing countries, especially when children are required to work to support their families.  In Lesotho, boys are generally kept out of school in order to herd animals; since men in Lesotho usually end up working in unskilled jobs in the mines, there is little perceived need to keep boys in school (Sweetman 2001: 73).  As Lesotho's economy changes under the pressure of globalization and structural adjustment, however, these jobs may disappear, leaving a generation of males without formal education and without any alternative job prospects.  Promoting keeping boys in school not only grants them an education, but gives teachers and development workers the opportunity to introduce new ways of thinking and new models of masculinity.  Several authors have addressed this.  Greig et al see work with boys in schools as an opportunity to "pay attention to the way in which male socialization steers boys away from intellectual pursuits" (Greig et al 2000: 19).  Thomson refers to the "current images about 'being a man'" that affect working-class boys in the UK and suggests more father-son reading activities and male-targeted reading promotions to promote reading as a male activity (Thomson 2002: 178-179).  More generally, development work that promotes male education gives development workers the chance to address issues such as male violence and reproductive health that will become relevant as boys mature.  Education already plays this role to some extent: in CARE-sponsored studies in Vietnam, the number of respondents advocating female domesticity and men's right to sex in marriage decreased with "increasing levels of formal education" (Doyle 2002: 196).  If development programs try to integrate lessons about the horror of domestic violence, women's equal status in marriage, and issues of reproductive health into educational curriculae, perhaps men can be "socialized" more positively and the need for later interventions can be negated.

Bringing men into development organizations

     Besides the advantages of concentrating on men in actual developmental projects, GAD could benefit by increasing men's representation and participation in development bodies.  The benefits range from the increased rapport of male gender trainers talking to men about their problems, to the greater overall attention to masculinities that increased male participation would cause.  In this section I will first discuss the practical advantages of having more men working in the field, then the more general benefits of increasing men's participation in the internal working of gendered development.

     There are several positive reasons--for both men and women targeted for development--for using men as development workers.  Feleke Tadele writes of his "dual position in debates on gender"--he is both a man and a "gender specialist," and as such can communicate freely with men without alienating women (Tadele 1999: 33).  He also mentions a more pragmatic advantage: as a male gender worker in Ethiopia, he is able to travel more freely and with less risk than women workers, who face cultural barriers (expectations of domesticity) and practical hardships (the possibility of harassment) if they travel alone (Tadele 1999: 33-34).  Obote Joshua's experiences working as a male gender-trainer in East Africa have led him to the conclusion that the patriarchal social systems extant in East Africa make "a male trainer...have a higher chance of making men aware of the negative ways in which existing gender relations and stereotypes affect their lives, as well as those of women" (Obote Joshua 2001: 37).  He cites the problems that face female gender trainers from the first moment they address a group: the male audience has a "polarized" view of masculinity and femininity, and a female trainer can spend her time "defending her position" as an assertive female rather than "advancing a case" (Obote Joshua 2001: 37).  Certainly with further classes and gender training these issues can be addressed, but female gender trainers face obstacles from the start that a man in the same situation would not.  Whether true or not, men can see male gender trainers as ensuring that the "male perspective will be highlighted and men's problems emphasized" (Obote Joshua 2001: 40).  Obote Joshua steps back from advocating workshops run by men only: he cites IIIR (International Institute of Rural Reconstruction) Gender Coordinator Ato Shishogo Gerbu's warning that too much authority might prompt men to "establish and/or perpetuate the kind of exclusive, hierarchical control that gender training seeks to dismantle" (Obote Joshua 2001: 41).  Interestingly, Obote Joshua and Bhasin both speak of the "authority" and "power" that male gender trainers seem to have over groups; Bhasin writes that in working with women she and her fellow trainers had never needed to use such authority, but that groups of men seemed to require a firmer approach (Bhasin 2001: 38).  Both authors mention the problems sometimes faced by female trainers working alone, and both see the solution being a male/female teaching team.  It appears that using male gender trainers in conjunction with female trainers both helps men in the audience to better relate to the material being presented and show more attention and respect to the female trainer. 

     There are also many advantages to increasing men's integration into the "gender business" of the management and planning bodies of development organizations.  Coles ties the issue of men's inclusion in with the implementation of the GAD principle of "gender mainstreaming" (Coles 2001: 4-5).  She writes that the upper echelons of DFID (the British government's Department of International Development) as being--as is the case with many development organizations--overwhelmingly male already (Coles 2001: 6).  Since these men are already there, it seems logical to try to involve them in the gender mainstreaming of the organization and to use their masculinity and their viewpoint of men as men to help influence and make gender-aware recalcitrant parts of the organization.  One way this can happen is simply through men's advocacy of gender mainstreaming: since there are men championing it, it is obviously not simply a "women's issue," and "strongly male technical departments such as engineering" may be more open to influences from a masculine presenter (Coles 2001: 7).  Men may also be more likely to hear and understand signs of "personal or institutional resistance" expressed by other men, which may be too "politically incorrect" or sexist to be repeated in front of women (Coles 2001: 7). 

     Besides men's involvement with gender mainstreaming efforts and their access to and potential influence with other (resistant) men, increasing men's involvement in the gender issues of development organizations may actually make it easier for gendered development to fit into development agencies.  Chant suggests that "building a critical mass of gender-sensitive men within development agencies in general could have a domino effect, and work towards the destabilization of patriarchy in institutional cultures" (Chant 2000: 12).  She argues that "the equation of gender with women has produced a weak, marginalized and often underfunded sector," especially in the case of "female-only or female dominated units" (Chant 2000: 12).  By including men among the staffers, gender work would seem more universal and worthy of funds.

Conclusion

     At present the integration of men and masculinities into gendered development is still in its early stages.  Although men have a token presence in gendered development organizations, and a few GAD programs concentrate on the negative effects of abusive and selfish men, GAD is still very much a child of WID.  Many of the articles describing GAD history and GAD programs give a detailed history of the WID-GAD evolution, as well as the differences of GAD programs from WID programs, but there is little talk of what exactly makes up Gender and Development.  GAD seems to be a theory created in response to WID, but with little identity of its own.  Perhaps what is missing from descriptions of GAD history and practice is true proof of the difference of "gender" and development from women-centered work.  If this is so, then an integration of men and masculinities into gendered development could do much to force the issue and require "gender" to be a part of Gender and Development.

     A large part of the problem of putting GAD theory into practice has been "holdover" from WID.  In many of the analyses of gender issues in development (especially the feminist analyses), GAD and WID are lumped together.  It is far too common for authors to critique how development programs address women, and to consider WID and GAD together as "official" responses to the issue.  As Chant and Gutmann write, "To the extent that gender still largely is equated with women alone, the move from Women in Development to Gender in Development has really changed very little" (Chant and Gutmann 2002: 271).  In general, rhetoric has outpaced reality in the move from WID to GAD--although development agencies have replaced "women" with "gender" in official language, it is still rare for men to be included or addressed in development work (Chant and Gutmann 2002: 271).  The authors who explicitly engage with men and masculinities in development usually take a different approach; this is understandable, since a WID approach negates their field of study.  Looking at men in development requires looking at the figures who have been seen--through a women-conscious lens--as the oppressors and the enemies.  By accepting that these figures can have problems as well, and that attention to these problems can help both men and women, development workers can embrace the true motives behind GAD.  At the moment the inclusion of men in gendered development has been "restricted to a limited number of sectors such as sexual and reproductive health, and violence and conflict" (Chant and Gutmann 2000: 2).  Perhaps motivated by a women-conscious agenda, development agencies have been concentrating on the problems that men can cause and trying to address them to help those that could be affected.  What is needed is for development agencies to look beyond men's negative behavior and look at the deeper gendered problems intrinsic to men.  If issues such as poverty and unemployment--as well as bigger topics, such as definitions of masculinity--can be addressed, it is likely that solutions to other issues will arise as well.  By focussing on poverty alleviation, men's frustration and violence over their changing roles could be reduced.  If men are encouraged to consider what their masculine identity is and how it affects others, issues such as violence and reproductive health must necessarily be included.  

     A greater attention to men and masculinities may actually be the salvation of GAD theory and practice.  Women-centered development, with its concentration on economic efficiency and female empowerment, failed to improve the lives of women in the developing world.  Holding onto similar ideals in the era of GAD will most likely lead to the same fate.  By embracing masculinities in gendered development, GAD workers will be required to work with gender as it plays out in the real world.  They will see for themselves the forces that construct men and masculine identities and the gendered nature of social relations caused by the interaction of femininities and masculinities.  Similarly, as men move into gendered work in development agencies, their presence--and their particular masculine viewpoint on projects and development subjects--will move GAD closer to truly integrating "gender" into development.  

Works Cited

Baden, Sarah and Goetz, Anne Marie (1998) "Who needs [Sex] When You Can Have [Gender]?" in Feminist Visions of Development: Gender, Analysis and Policy , Jackson andPearson. eds..  London: Routledge, 1998.  pp. 19-38.

Balaam and Veseth (2005) Introduction to International Political Economy, third ed.  Pearson Prentice Hall: New Jersey.

Barriteau, Eudine (1995) "Postmodernist Feminist Theorizing and Development Policy and Practice in the Anglophone Caribbean: The Barbados Case" in Marianne Marchand and Jane Parpart (eds), Feminism/Postmodernism/Development, Routledge: London.  pp. 142-158.

Bhasin, Kamla (2001) "Gender training with men: experiences and reflections from South Asia" in Men's  Involvement in Gender and Development Policy and Practice: Beyond Rhetoric, Sweetman, ed.  Oxfam: Oxford.  pp. 20-34.

Biddlecom and Fapohunda (1998) "Secrecy and silence: why women hide contraceptive use" Population Briefs 4: 3.

Boserup, Ester (1989)  Woman’s Role in Economic Development. Earthscan: London.

Bujra, Janet (2002) "Targeting Men for a Change: AIDS Discourse and Activism in Africa" in Masculinities Matter: Men, Gender and Development, Cleaver, ed.  Zed Books : London.  pp. 209-234.

Chant, Sylvia (2000) "From 'Women-Blind' to 'Man-Kind:' Should Men Have More Space in Gender and Development?" IDS Bulletin 31:2.  pp. 7-17.

Chant, Sylvia and Gutmann, Matthew (2000) Mainstreaming Men into Gender and Development: Development Debates, Reflections and Experiences.  Oxfam Working Papers.

Chant, Sylvia and Gutmann, Matthew (2002) "'Men-Streaming' Gender?  Questions for gender and development policy in the twenty-first century" Progress in Development Studies 2: 4. pp. 269-282.

Cleaver, Frances ed. (2002) Masculinities Matter: Men, Gender and Development Zed Books: London.

Cleaver, Frances (2002) "Men and Masculinities: New Directions in Gender and Development" in Masculinities Matter: Men, Gender and Development, Cleaver, ed.  Zed Books: London.  pp. 1-27.

Coles, Andrea (2001) "Men, women, and organisational culture: perspectives from donors" in Men's Involvement in Gender and Development Policy and Practice: Beyond Rhetoric, Sweetman, ed.  Oxfam: Oxford.  pp. 4-10.

Connell, R.W. (2005) Masculinities, second ed. Polity Press: Cambridge. 

Cornwall, Andrea (2000) "Missing Men: Reflections on Men, Masculinities and Gender in GAD" IDS Bulletin 31:2.  pp. 18-25.

Doyle, Neil (2002) "Why Do Dogs Lick their Balls?  Gender, Desire and Change--a Case Study from Vietnam" in Masculinities Matter: Men, Gender and Development, Cleaver, ed.  Zed Books: London.  pp. 186-208.

El-Bushra, Judy (2000)  "Rethinking gender and development practice for the twenty-first century" in Gender in the 21st Century, Sweetman, ed.  Oxfam GB: Oxford. pp. 55-62.

Greig, Alan (2000) "The Spectacle of Men Fighting" IDS Bulletin 31: 2.  pp. 28-32.

Greig, Kimmel and Lang (2000) "Men, Masculinities and Development: Broadening our work toward gender equality" UNDP Gender in Development Monograph Series #10.

Harrison, Elizabeth (1997)  "Men in Women's Groups: Interlopers or Allies?" IDS Bulletin 28:3. pp. 122-132.

Hearn, Jeff (2004) "From hegemonic masculinity to the hegemony of men" Feminist Theory 5:1.  pp. 49-72.

Hearn, Jeff and Morgan, David H. J (1990)  "Men, masculinities and social theory" in Men, masculinities and social theory: Critical studies on men and masculinities, Hearn ed.  Unwin Hyman Ltd.: London.  pp. 1-20.

Jackson, Cecile (1998)  "Gender, irrigation and environment: Arguing for agency" Agriculture and Human Values 15:4.  pp. 313-124.

Longwe, Sara Hlupekile (2002)  "Addressing Rural Gender Issues: A Framework for Leadership and Mobilisation" Paper presented at the III World Congress for Rural Women, Madrid, October 2002. 

Maharaj, Pranitha (2000) "Promoting male involvement in reproductive health" Agenda 44.  pp. 37-47.

Morrell, Robert ed. (2001) Changing Men in Southern Africa Zed Books: London.

Morrell, Robert (2001) "The Times of Change: Men and Masculinity in South Africa" in Changing Men in Southern Africa, Morrell, ed.  Zed Books: London.  pp. 3-40.

Moser, Caroline O. N. (1993) Gender planning and development: theory, practice and training.  London: Routledge.

Moser, Tonquist and van Bronkhorst, eds. (1999) Mainstreaming Gender and Development in the World Bank: Progress and Recommendations.  The World Bank Washington.

Obote Joshua, Milton "Gender training with men: experiences and reflections from East Africa" in Men's Involvement in Gender and Development Policy and Practice: Beyond Rhetoric, Sweetman, ed.  Oxfam: Oxford.  pp.35-43.

Parpart, Jane and Marianne Marchand (1995) "Exploding the canon: an introduction and conclusion" 

in Marianne Marchand and Jane Parpart (eds), Feminism/Postmodernism/Development, Routledge: London, pp. 1–22. 

Pearson, Ruth (2000) "Which Men, Why Now?  Reflections on Men and Development" IDS Bulletin 31:2. pp. 42-48.

Pineda, Javier (2000) "Partners in women-headed households: emerging masculinities" European 

Journal of Development Research 12:2. 

Porter, Smyth, and Sweetman, eds. (1999) Gender Works: Oxfam Experience in Policy and Practice Oxfam: Oxford.

Razavi, Shahra (1997) "Fitting Gender into Development Institutions" World Development 25: 7.  pp. 1111-1125.

Razavi, Shahrashoub and Miller, Carol (1995) "From WID to GAD: Conceptual Shifts in the Women and Development Discourse" Occasional Paper 1, United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, United Nations Development Program.

Silberschmidt, Margrethe (2001)  "Changing Gender Roles and Male Disempowerment in Rural and Urban East Africa: a neglected dimension in the study of sexual and reproductive behaviour in East Africa"  Paper prepared for the XXIV IUSSP General Population Conference.  Salvador, Brazil, 18-24 August 2001.  

Steans, Jill (1998) Gender and International Relations.  Cambridge: Polity Press.

Sternberg, Peter (2001) "Challenging machismo to promote sexual and reproductive health: working with Nicaraguan men" in Men's Involvement in Gender and Development Policy and Practice: Beyond Rhetoric, Sweetman, ed.  Oxfam: Oxford.  pp. 59-67.

Sweetman, Caroline ed. (2001) Men's Involvement in Gender and Development Policy and Practice: Beyond Rhetoric Oxfam: Oxford. 

Sweetman, Caroline (2001) "Sitting on a rock: men, socio-economic change and development policy in Lesotho" in Men's Involvement in Gender and Development Policy and Practice: Beyond Rhetoric, Sweetman, ed.  Oxfam: Oxford.  pp. 71-79.

Tadele, Feleke (1999) "Men in the kitchen, women in the office?  Working on gender issues in Ethiopia" in Porter, Smyth, and Sweetman, eds. Gender Works: Oxfam Experience in Policy and Practice Oxfam: Oxford.  pp. 31-36.

Thomson, Marilyn (2002) "Boys will be Boys: Addressing the Social Construction of Gender" in Masculinities Matter: Men, Gender and Development, Cleaver, ed.  Zed Books: London.  pp. 166-185.

Tinker, Irene (1997) "The Making of a Field: Advocates, Practitioners and Scholars" in Visvanathan, Dugann, Nisonoff and Wiegersma (eds.), 33-42.

United Nations (1995) "The Beijing Declaration" and "The Beijing Platform for Action" United Nations: New York.

Vijayan, Prem (2002) "Nationalism, Masculinity and the Developmental State: Exploring Hindutva Masculinities" in Masculinities Matter: Men, Gender and Development, Cleaver, ed.  Zed Books: London.  pp. 28-56. 

Visvanathan, Nalini (1997a): General Introduction in Visvanathan, Dugann, Nisonoff and Wiegersma (eds.), 1-6.

Visvanathan, Nalini (1997b): Introduction to Part 1 in Visvanathan, Dugann, Nisonoff and Wiegersma (eds.), 18-32.

Visvanathan, Duggan, Nisonoff and Wiegersma (eds.) (1997)  The Women, Gender and Development Reader.  London: Zed Books Ltd.

White, Sarah C. (1997) "Men, masculinities, and the politics of development" in Men and Masculinity, Sweetman ed.  Oxfam: Oxford.

Whitehead, Ann (1999) "Lazy men," time use, and rural development in Zambia" Gender and Development 7: 3.  pp. 49-61.

Whitehead, Stephen M. (2002) Men and Masculinities.  Polity Press: Cambridge.

Wieringa, Saskia (1998) "Rethinking Gender Planning: A Critical Discussion of the Use of the Concept of Gender" Institute of Social Studies Working Paper Series No. 279.

Williams, Suzanne(1999) "Chronicle of a death foretold: the birth and death of Oxfam GB’s gender 

and development unit", in Gender Works: Oxfam Experience in Policy and Practice, Porter, Smyth, and Sweetman, eds. Oxfam: Oxford.  pp. 178–86. 

Young, Kate (1997) "Gender and Development" in Visvanathan, Dugann, Nisonoff and Wiegersma (eds.), 51-54.