https://cdn.menengage.org/media/documents/resources/transforming-masculinities-towards-shared-vision/Transforming-Masculinities-Towards-a-Shared-Vision-MenEngage-Alliance.pdf.pdf

Page 20

Diversity in masculinities

Experiences of power or marginalization are relative, and vary not only between men in comparison to women, but within and among men.

Men and boys do not form a homogenous group. Some men have more power than others, andsome men experience vulnerabilities in relation to other men – based on ethnicity, class, age, religion, sexual orientation, expressions of gender, and other identities. A prevalent theme in discussions on engaging men and boys is to what extent such efforts should appeal to ‘men’s vulnerabilities’, such as mental health issues or poorer educational performance on averagecompared to girls. Some members see this as a risk that takes the ‘easier’ route of engaging men and boys in a way that resonates with them, at the expense of prioritizing the needs of women and girls and those most affected by gender inequality.

While many members of MenEngage Alliancefind addressing men’s vulnerabilities – such as their experiences of marginalization, humiliation, or exclusion – an effective approach to open doors to engage with men and boys, there is a concern that it might become limited in terms of their meaningful engagement in understanding and dismantling the patriarchal systems that create these vulnerabilities in the first place. Moreover, such approaches can easily fail to centre the disproportionate vulnerabilities that women, girls and people of diverse genderidentities are facing, and have historically faced.

It is important that the Alliance bases its work within an understanding of eliminating patriarchy as a system that favors the masculine over the feminine, and that tends to benefit men over women, girls, and people of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities at all levels. Agreement is therefore growing across the Alliance that rooting an approach in ‘men’s vulnerabilities’ is a risky and potentially misguided strategy. An intersectional approach is becoming more widely recognizedacross the Alliance as a central framework for understanding men’s power and privilege.

Such approaches may not explicitly address men’s own needs and vulnerabilities. However, supporting men and boys to transform masculinities can bring benefits for their own health and wellbeing, as well as well as that of women, girls and people of diverse gender identities and sexual orientations. Men’s vulnerabilities should therefore be addressed – first and foremost – in relation to the vulnerabilities of women, girls and LGBTQI groups within a gendered framework, which explores the ways powerdynamics impact individuals differently based on multiple and intersecting forms of identity.

It is important that when discussing men’s needs, language does not come across as ‘men’s rights’ language that ignores or pitches men’s experiences against the realities of women and girls, or against women’s rights activists and feminist movements. Approaches should focus on expanding understandings of how men’s vulnerabilities result from the ways in which boys are socialized, and how this also severely impacts other groups.

Spending several paragraphs just to say that they're unwilling to help men or boys, unwilling to talk about their issues (unless it benefits women and girls) and unwilling to address real legal inequalities because they fear that it might help men's rights gain any traction. Notice that they don't even open to the door for such issues to be discussed elsewhere. Instead, those issues are dangerous to even be address or mentioned in the first place anywhere, even outside of these seminars.