Ed earlier, appealing to aspirational models of masculinity risks reinforcing gender binaries and promoting the assumption that there can be positive masculinities. The tension between the practical needs of programmatic work and the wider political battles being fought needs continual questioning. Another question is raised around who is best to facilitate interventions with men and boys. As Flood (this issue) highlights, should the facilitators be male, female, dominant men or marginalised men? Flood suggests that there is no evidence on what is working best and sets out both practical and political reasons for the different combinations. Yet the two 4-Hydroxytamoxifen web Papers drawing on practical intervention experiences potentially suggest that closely matching facilitators and participants may be critical. McGeeney (this issue) describes the way the young working-class men played up against her middleclass sensibilities and those of the facilitators, resisting their interactions. While Namy et al. (this issue) emphasise that facilitators who were similar to the young men they were working with enabled participants to build an easy relationship of trust and openness to change. As Flood (this issue) concludes in his discussion, there is an ongoing tension `between meeting men “where they are”, on the one hand, and seeking to transform the gendered identities and relations among men which sustain men’s violence against women.’ How to intersect with women’s rights work Finally there is a growing body of work about how working with men and boys intersects with, builds and challenges feminist and/or women’s rights work (e.g. Casey et al. 2013; Jewkes, Flood, and Lang 2015). Somewhat unsurprisingly, the papers included here, written as they are by many people working with men and boys from a progressive agenda, highlight the overlaps and the ways in which a progressive approach to working with men and boys works to improve the lives of women and girls and men and boys themselves (Flood this issue; Jewkes et al. this issue). Papers also highlighted the importance of women in the constitution of masculinities and shapingSEditorialthe possibilities for change (Comrie-Thompson et al. this issue; Flood this issue; Ratele this issue; Shefer et al. this issue; Stern et al. this issue). Despite the ongoing debates around whether working with men and boys diverts from working with women and girls and can truly advance women’s rights, only Flood (this issue) directly engages with these debates. Flood argues that there is very A-836339 mechanism of action little evidence that the men and boys agenda has taken away funding from working with women and girls. Yet he also suggests that the turn to men and boys has at some level ignored the fact that there remains a substantial body of research that shows that working only with women and girls can lead to changes in the gender order and to women resisting male power (Ellsberg et al. 2015). The perception remains in many settings that work with men and boys has led to a disinvestment in more `traditional’ approaches to improving women’s health and wellbeing, such as direct work with women and girls to empower them socially and economically. Many papers discuss how the wider political contexts that efforts to engage men and boys are situated in, particularly those of racism (Dworkin et al. this issue; Ratele this issue; Shefer et al. this issue) and unemployment/economic marginalisation (Dworkin et al. this issue; Flood this issue; Jewkes et al. this iss.Ed earlier, appealing to aspirational models of masculinity risks reinforcing gender binaries and promoting the assumption that there can be positive masculinities. The tension between the practical needs of programmatic work and the wider political battles being fought needs continual questioning. Another question is raised around who is best to facilitate interventions with men and boys. As Flood (this issue) highlights, should the facilitators be male, female, dominant men or marginalised men? Flood suggests that there is no evidence on what is working best and sets out both practical and political reasons for the different combinations. Yet the two papers drawing on practical intervention experiences potentially suggest that closely matching facilitators and participants may be critical. McGeeney (this issue) describes the way the young working-class men played up against her middleclass sensibilities and those of the facilitators, resisting their interactions. While Namy et al. (this issue) emphasise that facilitators who were similar to the young men they were working with enabled participants to build an easy relationship of trust and openness to change. As Flood (this issue) concludes in his discussion, there is an ongoing tension `between meeting men “where they are”, on the one hand, and seeking to transform the gendered identities and relations among men which sustain men’s violence against women.’ How to intersect with women’s rights work Finally there is a growing body of work about how working with men and boys intersects with, builds and challenges feminist and/or women’s rights work (e.g. Casey et al. 2013; Jewkes, Flood, and Lang 2015). Somewhat unsurprisingly, the papers included here, written as they are by many people working with men and boys from a progressive agenda, highlight the overlaps and the ways in which a progressive approach to working with men and boys works to improve the lives of women and girls and men and boys themselves (Flood this issue; Jewkes et al. this issue). Papers also highlighted the importance of women in the constitution of masculinities and shapingSEditorialthe possibilities for change (Comrie-Thompson et al. this issue; Flood this issue; Ratele this issue; Shefer et al. this issue; Stern et al. this issue). Despite the ongoing debates around whether working with men and boys diverts from working with women and girls and can truly advance women’s rights, only Flood (this issue) directly engages with these debates. Flood argues that there is very little evidence that the men and boys agenda has taken away funding from working with women and girls. Yet he also suggests that the turn to men and boys has at some level ignored the fact that there remains a substantial body of research that shows that working only with women and girls can lead to changes in the gender order and to women resisting male power (Ellsberg et al. 2015). The perception remains in many settings that work with men and boys has led to a disinvestment in more `traditional’ approaches to improving women’s health and wellbeing, such as direct work with women and girls to empower them socially and economically. Many papers discuss how the wider political contexts that efforts to engage men and boys are situated in, particularly those of racism (Dworkin et al. this issue; Ratele this issue; Shefer et al. this issue) and unemployment/economic marginalisation (Dworkin et al. this issue; Flood this issue; Jewkes et al. this iss.
http://cathepsin-s.com
Cathepsins
