Forging partnerships to end violence against women
|
Why are we talking today of building partnerships with men and boys to combat violence against women? The two parts to this question are – partnership with boys and men and violence against women. Let us try to unpack these two phrases.
Posing questions What constitutes a partnership? Which men and boys are we talking about? How are partnerships established? What are the boundaries or parameters of a partnership? Is it really possible to have an effective partnership with men and boys in combating violence against women (VAW)? Or are we falling in the trap of pushing the concept of masculinities and partnership with men and boys in directions where it might not be effective, all because it happens to be the flavour of the month? Will there be something new in this partnership? Haven’t men been involved with the ‘women’s question’ for more than a hundred years, and prominent men at that? These might seem a long list of questions but they need to be addressed if we are exploring the possibility of building partnerships with men and boys on the issue VAW. Men challenging women’s oppression There already exists in South Asia a long line up of men who in the last hundred years, ever since the women’s question got entwined with anti-colonial movements, who have challenged various issues of women’s oppression. Many of them were prominent public figures and others never got the recognition they deserved. The broad picture that emerges is that these movements or efforts were willing to engage with women’s oppression up to a point and the picture for them got complicated over the issue of equality, which to me is the crux of the issue. So what am I trying to say? That we should not make efforts to build partnerships? No, what I am trying to argue is that the ground on which these partnerships are based must be re-examined for them to be effective. But, to come back to the issue of partnership and who do you make partnership with? I believe that for any partnership to be meaningful there has to be an acknowledgement, acceptance and affirmation of your partner. Reorienting institutional mechanisms Finally, what kind of partnerships can we form with men and boys on the issue of violence? The most important area that requires attention is a reorientation of the largely male dominated institutional mechanisms to make them more gender sensitive. Many conscious efforts have been made in this direction. However, in my opinion the starting point of all these interventions is to create greater understanding of masculinities and its role in defending and perpetuating patriarchal structures. The effort has to be made by men to understand not only the trap they set for themselves by defending power structures but also their own vulnerabilities and emotional inadequacies, which they hide under the armour of manhood. If men cannot understand their own internal dramas they can hardly be expected to be sensitive or supportive to women on issues of gender-based violence. The search for becoming men who can resist the pressures to conform to the norms of an aggressive masculinity is as much an external battle against institutions that create hierarchies based on power and privileges as an internal battle against the demons that men carry close to their heart but don’t have the words to articulate or express what they hide. Understanding hegemonic masculinity I will end with a short comment on the possible directions that partnerships with men and boys can take in the sphere of promoting gender equality. Masculinities, the gender system that makes men, remains the least researched, the most unrecognised, the least visible, pool of darkness of South Asian reality. Women’s lives, histories and struggles have seen an upsurge of research and representation but the same cannot be said of men as gendered entities. We know very little of the mechanics of men’s behaviour patterns in different social and life settings. We certainly know the obvious - the visible, hegemonic masculinity that bristles and valorously displays its wares but what about various other masculinities, those that remain silent, hidden, de-legitimised, disenfranchised, pushed under, often defeated and mostly unrecognised. If women are not biologically non-violent then men cannot be biologically violent and if all men are not violent then many men must be non-violent. What is the story of these men, these masculinities that shun violence? How do different forms of masculinities relate with each other? Are they locked in some form of permanent conflict? Why are some forms of masculinity more assertive and more public? Or why is hegemonic masculinity, hegemonic in the first place? Are various forms of masculinities definite, unbreakable, permanent or do they form historically, decay, change and transform? We can go on and on posing questions that remain largely unanswered within the South Asian context. However, these questions need to be asked because only then will we recognise the paucity of ethnographic and historical work that can provide a rich tapestry of the story of the gendering of men’s lives, histories, situations and conflicts. Zone of silence It has been argued that the invisibility of masculinities to men is the dividend they gain from occupying the vantage positions in the patriarchal pyramid. It cannot be doubted for a moment that this invisibility, this zone of silence, is a political space. A space that hides the struggles to become a man, the insecurities of the impermanence of manhood, experiences of power and powerlessness, the hard realities of scrounging for work and conflicts that defy comprehensible resolutions. Where do we go from here? The reality is grim to say the least but international research has demonstrated that there do exist those gaps, openings and fractures where ideas of gender equality and non-violence can find the space to breathe within the suffocating structures of masculinities. But for this to happen there have to be concerted attempts from all parts of the civil society - academics, activists, artists, writers, development practitioners, filmmakers - to unearth, validate, recognise and make visible men’s behaviour patterns that stand in direct conflict to the violence prone, hegemonic patterns of masculinities. As with the women’s movement there will be two elements to this effort - of theorising, understanding and unravelling and of simultaneously developing a praxis of challenging, confronting and constructing alternatives to hegemonic masculinities. And one of the most critical entry points for this battle will be the minds of young people and children. Besides various other issues this is also a battle of ideas that need to enter young minds and be nurtured into a vision of a world of equality that shuns violence as the only means of resolving conflicts, of settling differences. RAHUL ROY completed his masters in film and TV production from the Mass Communication Research Centre, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi in 1987 and since then has been working as an independent documentary filmmaker. In the last few years his films have focused on the theme of masculinities. His films have been widely screened internationally and won several awards. Besides film making he has been researching and writing on masculinities. His graphic book on masculinities titled – A Little Book on Men, was recently published by Yoda Press. He is currently organising a travelling seminar on masculinities to be held at ten universities across South Asia. |
Printable version
Back to top
