Ith men (and women) should be to overthrow the gender categoies/boundaries suggested by masculinities and femininities and create an entirely new lexicon. In addition to debate about whether it is possible to achieve a progressive masculinity or whether masculinity itself needs to be erased (and whether this is in fact possible either), there is a separate but SB 202190 chemical information linked argument about whether and how this can be done through discrete, short-term interventions. The case study of the Young Men’s Initiative described by Sophie Namy and colleagues (this issue), explicitly deployed an aspirational model of masculinity through the intervention tag line `Be a Man! Change the Rules!’ Deployment of such language may raise concerns, but the authors describe how it opened up a space for men to become engaged in an intervention that had a positive impact on participant attitudes and intentions. Jewkes and colleagues (this issue) try to resolve this tension by suggesting that the long-term aim of gender transformative interventions must be the removal of gender binaries, but that the short-term objectives of discrete interventions may be much more limited. They highlight that a `cautious analysis of the types of change that are secured by such interventions suggests that, even when IPV [intimate partner violence] perpetration is reduced, men’s strides towards gender equity are at best incremental’. Similarly, Comrie-Thomson et al. (this issue) question what constitutes success for interventions with men and boys: changing behaviours or changing identities? Their review found that securing greater male involvement in maternal and child health is often seen as a positive outcome of interventions in and of itself, but note that this is aSEditorialvery instrumental view of male involvement that says nothing about whether relationships between men and women have been transformed. Whether it is possible to introduce gender-equitable forms of masculinity or whether gender-binaries need removing, and whether either of these outcomes is achievable, or rather an ideal to strive towards, remains a central theoretical question in this work. A review of the contributions to this special issue highlights how researchers and practitioners in diverse settings are struggling with the pragmatic translation of this theoretical question into time-bound, measurable interventions, under pressure to demonstrate `success’. Intersectionality, structure and agency In their reflections on how men and boys may be engaged to support change, authors in this special issue inevitably consider how men and boys also resist change. Many of the papers in this issue describe interventions working with subordinated men, who experience intersecting disadvantage on the basis of age, ethnicity or colour, socio-economic status or class. Ratele (this issue) notes that marginalised men may resist efforts to change dominant masculinities, when adherence to a hegemonic masculinity is a symbolic resource in the context of few others. As Dworkin et al. (this issue), Flood (this issue) and others have highlighted, democratising the gender order will mean that men will lose access to the patriarchal dividend (Connell 2009), undermining men’s willingness to be involved in progressive gender justice work. In reflecting on EPZ004777 price resistance to change, and the resources available to marginalised men, the papers highlight the role of economic marginalisation in the construction of masculinities (Gibbs, Sikweyiya,.Ith men (and women) should be to overthrow the gender categoies/boundaries suggested by masculinities and femininities and create an entirely new lexicon. In addition to debate about whether it is possible to achieve a progressive masculinity or whether masculinity itself needs to be erased (and whether this is in fact possible either), there is a separate but linked argument about whether and how this can be done through discrete, short-term interventions. The case study of the Young Men’s Initiative described by Sophie Namy and colleagues (this issue), explicitly deployed an aspirational model of masculinity through the intervention tag line `Be a Man! Change the Rules!’ Deployment of such language may raise concerns, but the authors describe how it opened up a space for men to become engaged in an intervention that had a positive impact on participant attitudes and intentions. Jewkes and colleagues (this issue) try to resolve this tension by suggesting that the long-term aim of gender transformative interventions must be the removal of gender binaries, but that the short-term objectives of discrete interventions may be much more limited. They highlight that a `cautious analysis of the types of change that are secured by such interventions suggests that, even when IPV [intimate partner violence] perpetration is reduced, men’s strides towards gender equity are at best incremental’. Similarly, Comrie-Thomson et al. (this issue) question what constitutes success for interventions with men and boys: changing behaviours or changing identities? Their review found that securing greater male involvement in maternal and child health is often seen as a positive outcome of interventions in and of itself, but note that this is aSEditorialvery instrumental view of male involvement that says nothing about whether relationships between men and women have been transformed. Whether it is possible to introduce gender-equitable forms of masculinity or whether gender-binaries need removing, and whether either of these outcomes is achievable, or rather an ideal to strive towards, remains a central theoretical question in this work. A review of the contributions to this special issue highlights how researchers and practitioners in diverse settings are struggling with the pragmatic translation of this theoretical question into time-bound, measurable interventions, under pressure to demonstrate `success’. Intersectionality, structure and agency In their reflections on how men and boys may be engaged to support change, authors in this special issue inevitably consider how men and boys also resist change. Many of the papers in this issue describe interventions working with subordinated men, who experience intersecting disadvantage on the basis of age, ethnicity or colour, socio-economic status or class. Ratele (this issue) notes that marginalised men may resist efforts to change dominant masculinities, when adherence to a hegemonic masculinity is a symbolic resource in the context of few others. As Dworkin et al. (this issue), Flood (this issue) and others have highlighted, democratising the gender order will mean that men will lose access to the patriarchal dividend (Connell 2009), undermining men’s willingness to be involved in progressive gender justice work. In reflecting on resistance to change, and the resources available to marginalised men, the papers highlight the role of economic marginalisation in the construction of masculinities (Gibbs, Sikweyiya,.
http://calcium-channel.com
Calcium Channel
