Engaging Men as Allies in Women’s Economic Empowerment:

Strategies and Recommendations for CARE Country Offices

Prepared for CARE Norway by

Gary Barker and Jennifer Schulte,International Center for Research on Women

FINAL DRAFT – April 9, 2010

“Used to be men in my community thought I was controlled by my wife because I let her go out by herself and have her freedom when she was coming to the savings and loan group. But then I joined too. I saw that she was able to buy vegetables and sell them in the market and the money was good for both us. Then I became member (of the VSL group) and we both had access to credit and we pooled our money and we bought animals.

“Now we invest together and we make more money. I never got to wear the clothes I have now. I have confidence in myself. I don’t feel so self-conscious about my limp any more. And my wife seems to me more beautiful than she used to me, and our children are happier.”

- Public testimony from a man who participates in a CARE-supported VSL initiative in rural Rwanda

PART 1: Overview, Scope of Paper and Summary

How do men react and respond when their partners or wives are beneficiaries of microfinance programs and other economic empowerment initiatives? What is the role of men in women’s economic empowerment initiatives, including those implemented by CARE worldwide? Are men mostly allies or obstacles, or sometimes both? How can men be engaged as partners in achieving greater empowerment and equality for women? And, should some groups of vulnerable men be given greater consideration as beneficiaries of microfinance programs?

Women-focused microfinance programs are widely implemented globally with the premise that women’s lower income on aggregate leaves them vulnerable and perpetuates their limited agency, mobility and social status compared to men. Indeed, globally, women earn on average 22% less than men (World Bank, 2007). In turn evidence has confirmed that women’s participation in microfinance and other economic empowerment approaches can lead to a number of positive benefits for women—including reduced risk of HIV, reductions in violence from male partners, and increased social status and mobility—in addition to the benefits of the income itself (Kabeer, 2009).1

But microfinance programs and other women’s empowerment programs are also often based on a number of premises—partly sustained by research, and partly not—that men are already economic empowered, that they are not as reliable at paying back loans, that they are not interested in “micro”-credit (seeing the income as too limited) and that more income in the hands of a woman benefits the household more on average than in the hands of a man. While all of these assertions are supported by research, there are just as many examples of men’s behaviors going counter to all these assertions (Ahmed, 2008a). In sum, there are men in many settings who show all those tendencies, but there are also

1 This paper includes references from the broader field of “women’s economic empowerment (WEE)” as well as specific approaches of microfinance, which include the Village Savings and Loan (VSL) community finance methodology. When referring specifically to this CARE-supported initiative, we use the more specific name “VSL.”

2

men who show different behaviors: contributing to family income, supporting their wives or partners in numerous ways, and men who could and do find microfinance programs to be beneficial and who participate in consistent ways.

In this paper we argue that there is an urgent need to understand men as gendered —that is as shaped by social norms and institutions that influence their perceptions of what it means to be men and their related behavior.

It also emphasizes that men are not a monolithic category. This diversity of men and men’s responses to their partners’ involvement in microfinance programs must be our starting point. In discussing “men and their responses to women’s economic empowerment” we affirm first and foremost that there is no “generic” man and that any recommendations must take into account the plurality of men and their specific cultural and country contexts as well as their individual differences.

This paper was prepared for CARE Norway to identify strategies for more effectively engaging men as partners in the goal of achieving gender equality through empowering women and engaging specific groups of men as beneficiaries. To develop the paper, the authors:

(1) Reviewed salient literature, including program-based, organizational reports and academic research on engaging men in economic development initiatives, and(2) Carried out telephone interviews with CARE staff from seven country offices.

In this paper we repeatedly affirm the complexity of engaging men in efforts that have the laudable and strategic goal of empowering women. We propose four key principles in engaging men in women’s economic empowerment initiatives, and in particular in CARE’s Village Savings and Loan (VSL) programming:

(1) The need to do no harm. Given the instrumental gains that women often experience in VSL programs, particularly in settings where women have considerably less social and political power than men, including men in such programming must not undo fragile gains in terms of women’s empowerment, should not put women at additional risk and should not reduce women’s voices and agency. At the same time we argue that VSL programs as currently run can do harm, and sometimes are doing harm, by not understanding how men’s attitudes and behaviors influence women’s lives. In other words, “business as usual” in VSL programs is not necessarily harm-free or always ultimately empowering for women.

(2) The need to acknowledge the dynamics of couple relationships. VSL programs and women’s empowerment programs in general too often see women as autonomous agents rather than understand the complex dynamics of their relationships with men (including husbands, other male family members and other men in their community settings). Even when men are not direct participants or beneficiaries in VSL programs, they have a tremendous influence on women’s

3

movements, behaviors and agency and must be considered. Specifically, existing and new VSL programs should carry out assessments of men’s views and participation with a view toward understanding the diversity of men’s voices and responses.

(3) The need to acknowledge men’s multiple roles and to see men as a diverse group. In Figure 1, we provide a partial listing of men’s multiple roles – from gatekeepers, to community leaders, to husbands/partners, to policymakers and program directors, to owners of means of production and land. Each of these specific roles requires more understanding of men’s gendered attitudes and realities. At the same time, we must acknowledge those men who already are supportive and show gender-equitable attitudes and behaviors – men who can and already are acting as change agents. An assessment of men’s reactions and attitudes about women’s empowerment must include an analysis of different categories of men, rather than assuming and presenting men as a monolithic group. Those men who already show support for women’s equality and empowerment can and should be engaged as change agents to reach other men.

(4) The need to acknowledge that some specific groups of men are vulnerable and that given CARE’s goal of empowering the most vulnerable, in some settings men should continue to be beneficiaries of VSL programs.

This paper is divided into three sections:

(1) A brief review of salient literature on and program examples of the issue of men’s responses to women’s economic empowerment initiatives;(2) A discussion and analysis of the telephone interviews with CARE country office staff; and(3) Specific recommendations for action by CARE country offices and CARE Norway.

PART 2: Existing Research on Men’s Participation in Microfinance Initiatives

In this section, we will highlight a few conclusions from data available on men’s attitudes and behaviors related to women’s economic empowerment programs. Overall, the research affirms that women’s economic empowerment interventions, including microfinance programs, are vital for empowering women in many settings, but that men’s attitudes and behaviors have neither been adequately understood nor taken into account. Furthermore, some research affirms that men show more varied responses than is often assumed to women’s participation in economic empowerment programs and to household decision-making and gender equality in general.

4

1) Economic empowerment initiatives targeting women have brought short-term gains in basic well-being but limited attention has been paid to men’s reactions and roles in household decision-making. To date, numerous women’s economic empowerment programs have sought to address women’s needs for income, but mainly to fulfill their gendered roles and responsibilities as caregivers and unpaid workers on family businesses. Such interventions have fostered vital gains in basic well-being, but many have done so while accommodating and sometimes reinforcing traditional gender roles that subordinate women’s economic agency and contributions, and do not analyze gender inequities in access to and control over economic resources. For example, a household sample of women in rural Bangladesh found that 56% of women said that their husbands had compelled them not to work outside the household and 78% reported that they had been forced to give the money they earned to their husbands (Pitt, Khandker and Cartwight, 2006, in Ahmed, 2009). In this example, as in others reported in the telephone interviews with CARE country staff, women may be the chief beneficiaries of VSLs but men continue to control household and financial-decision making.

Similarly, some authors have argued that the focus on women or the “feminization” of anti-poverty programs has had limited results for alleviating women’s gendered obligations and burdens in coping with poverty, and has in some cases further economically marginalized them (Chant, 2007). In a similar vein, Schuler and colleagues have suggested that the economic gains of women in microcredit programs have been mostly marginal and invested in short-term or immediate household consumption rather than in businesses or other economically productive activities (Schuler, Hashemi and Riley, 1996). In other words, the income women gain in such programs often provides a small contribution to household consumption and small gains to well-being but does not allow the household to move out of poverty, or is often not enough income for women to be perceived as being on equal footing with their male partners.

This limitation should in no way imply that VSL programs are ineffective. Indeed, various researchers have confirmed that the income provided through participation in VSLs improves economic security, especially during times of crises (e.g. droughts, floods, family illnesses and the like), and is vital so that families do not have to sell off limited assets:

“While the amount that most women in credit programs contribute to family incomes is typically small, under conditions of extreme scarcity this small amount of income makes a significant difference to a family’s well-being. It often means that a family can eat two meals rather than only one meal a day during the lean season, or eat one meal a day rather than going hungry if the husband falls ill and can’t work” (Schuler, Hashemi and Riley, 1996: 646).

Where WEE programs have focused on transforming women’s traditional gender roles, an analysis of gendered economic issues at household, community, workplace and wider levels must be included (Kidder, 2004). This can and should also include empowering women in terms of household and community decision-making as well as activities to engage men in questioning existing, inequitable patterns of resource use and decision-

5

making. Such activities include working to raise men’s awareness about gendered roles and household bargaining dynamics, and about the value of women’s economic contributions.

2) The issue of men’s reactions to women’s participation in economic empowerment initiatives in terms gender-based violence deserves special attention. Perhaps the most glaring example of why men’s roles and attitudes should be taken into account in WEE programs is the issue of domestic violence, or gender-based violence. Various studies have affirmed a range of reactions by men when their wives or female partners participate in economic empowerment programs. In some programs, men’s reactions towards women-targeted VSLs have been acceptance when they see women shouldering more of the burden of household expenses (e.g., food, school fees, health expenses). In other cases, acceptance may become “simmering irritation after awhile that they [men] haven’t been able to benefit” (H. Allen communication, September 30, 2009).In one study, 70% of women members of Grameen Bank reported higher levels of domestic violence after participating in WEE programs (Rahman, 1999). A 2009 study on gender, economic empowerment, intimate partner violence and employment status in India, found that unemployed women who became employed had an 80% higher risk of suffering from violence compared to women who maintained a status of employment. At the same time, women with husbands who had some difficulty in stable employment had 1.7 times greater chance of violence compared to women whose husbands maintained stable employment (Krishnan, et al., 2009)

On the other hand, some studies have found mixed results on the effects of women’s participation in microcredit and other WEE programs on their risk of violence. Some interventions have found that women’s risk of violence decreases as a result of participation in such groups as they are able to renegotiate power dynamics in their interactions with men in the household, or as stress on the household reduces as women’s incomes rise (Schuler et al,. 1996; Hadi 2005). For example, individual interviews and focus group discussions with men and women in 20 savings and credit groups in rural Bangladesh suggested reduced levels of domestic violence (Kelkar, Nathan and Jahan, 2004). In South Africa, the IMAGE program showed that women who participated in microcredit programs together with group social support activities had 52% less violence than women in a control group who did not participate in such activities (Kim, 2009).

Other researchers have found that increases or decreases in violence against women as a result of WEE programs are context-specific (Koenig et al., 2003). Some research has also suggested that violence may escalate soon after women receive credit but then it reduces as women participate in skills training and employment, and as some male partners see that they also benefit from improve household income (Ahmed, 2005).

The key point is that women’s participation in economic empowerment activities, including VSL, often changes household dynamics and can result in increased risk of GBV. At the same time, though, we do not know if men’s participation alongside women in the same settings reduces GBV, but we do have, as cited below from the International Men and Gender Equality Survey (IMAGES) carried out by ICRW and Instituto

6

Promundo, evidence from India that men’s perceptions of being economically disempowered are related to their use of GBV. Thus, while we do not have enough evidence to affirm existing anecdotal reports, the other limited research that we do have suggests that, at the very least, programs should be attentive to the issue that men who perceive themselves to be economically vulnerable or marginalized are already more likely to use GBV. If economically marginalized men view themselves as being excluded from VSL groups while their wives and partners participate, their reactions can be supportive, but they may also react negatively. Overall, then, a do-no-harm approach would suggest that activities to engage men at the community level in questioning and ending GBV should be part of all women-focused VSL activities – building on those interventions that have shown evidence of leading to changes in attitudes and behaviors of men related to GBV.

3) The need to take into account women’s disproportionate burden in terms of caregiving activities and to examine ways to engage men to a greater extent in such activities.Research shows that women carry out a disproportionate share of care-related activities worldwide, including domestic work and child care, thus limiting their potential to earn income and perpetuating income inequalities between men and women. For example, global data suggests that women spend two to four times the amount of time as men in child-care. A recent multi-country study including lower, middle and higher income countries found that the mean time spent on unpaid word by women is more than twice that for men, reaching 10 times as much unpaid care work for women in India and other low income settings (Budlender, 2008). Similarly, substantial evidence from Latin America and the Caribbean shows that men still are not sharing household work and unpaid caregiving activities (even when they live in the same households with their partners) even as women’s participation in the paid labor market has increased dramatically in the region while men’s has stagnated or declined (ECLAC, 2004 in Barker, 2006). In other words, in much of the world, women are earning income increasingly outside the home in both informal and formal sectors, but they (or other women or girls in the household) continue to carry the greatest burden of care for other family members, children, the ill or disabled, and community members in need of care.

Various studies confirm that women’s almost universal gender-specific responsibility to provide unpaid care underpins their lower rates of labor force participation and their lower pay. In many parts of the world, this inequality is being compounded by a greater burden of care for the elderly that is increasing due to demographic shifts as populations in much of the world get older. Indeed, numerous studies from countries as diverse as Kyrgyz Republic and Brazil demonstrate that a key factor in women’s labor market decisions continues to be the issue of juggling work outside the home along with care for children and other family members (Morrison and Lamana, 2006; Deutsch, 1998).

The increasing burden on women in combining productive and care work is reflected in these and other time-use studies showing that increased hours working outside the home have not been compensated for by men. This is taking place at the same time that men in many low income countries are experiencing greater difficulty in earning a living, and yet

7

men are not significantly increasing their contributions to unpaid care activities and household labor (Chant, 2007). In sum, a more equitable distribution of the care burden between women and men is essential to supporting women’s economic empowerment and the social and economic development benefits it can bring and should be taken into account as an issue in all WEE, including VSL, programming.

It is important to note that these issues have for the most part not been studied as much in the lowest income countries where CARE mostly works. In economies where the majority of the population may work in subsistence agriculture and other informal sector work, child care and care for the elderly is often combined with productive work in the same spaces. More research is needed on this issue – including research that examines men’s attitudes and behaviors in terms of caregiving activities in rural settings, and in the poorest countries.

4) Many women’s economic empowerment initiatives assume that men are a homogenous group and not supportive of women’s economic empowerment.Ahmed’s (2008a, 2008b) extensive research in rural Bangladesh with beneficiaries of Grameen Bank programs, argues that most gender and development programs (and WEE programs) operate from a view that all men are the same and are generally not supportive of women’s empowerment, and at the same time assume that men will easily change once women are empowered:

“The concept of ‘universal man’ that is implemented in these programs falsely assumes that men are all alike and inimical to women’s rights. On the other hand, this framework also assumes that once the woman starts earning, her husband as the ‘universal man,’ will inevitably start to value her and things will improve in the household. But this imposition of sameness on the male relatives of Grameen Bank loanees is a belief as yet unsupported by any evidence.”

Her research with women and men in rural areas in Bangladesh found that some men were abusive/violent when women benefited from Grameen Bank programs, some showed a mixture of positive and controlling behaviors, while others were supportive, gender-equitable and “high-minded,” meaning they generally supported women’s empowerment from a human rights-based perspective. Her conclusion is that the Grameen Bank should “use men to change other men,” by identifying those men who are supportive of women’s empowerment and to empower those men as change agents to reach other men in the community and to change community norms. This recommendation is similar to the approach used in formal and informal ways by the Abatangamuco program supported by CARE Burundi. This is perhaps one of the key conclusions for immediate action: finding opportunities to identify and engage those men at the community level, among CARE country staff, who are engaged, gender-equitable men already willing to be allies in women’s empowerment and supporting these men to change community norms about manhood and gender.

8

5) The gender and development paradigm too often assumes that men do not need economic empowerment; this premise needs to be questioned so that vulnerable men are included in appropriate ways in VSL and other economic empowerment initiatives. Ahmed and Chant (already cited), as well as White (2000) have argued that many stereotypes abound about low income men (particularly about men from the Global South) in terms of economic empowerment and microfinance programs. These include assumptions that men are not interested in such programs because they bring in too little income, or that men are not as good or reliable at paying back loans. This latter belief in particular persists in spite of the fact that there is little evidence that men who participate in VSL groups do not repay their loans (H. Allen communication September 30, 2009).

Program examples outside of CARE provide additional evidence that men’s interests and needs for economic empowerment have gone overlooked or underaddressed, often creating confusion among men about the purpose of targeting women only. Chant and Gutmann (2000) cite a program example from South Asia described by Vijayendra Rao, a World Bank economist, that suggests the ramifications of neglecting men’s economic empowerment and poverty alleviation needs:

“For instance, in a micro-credit programme, there’s some evidence that men are using women as a conduit for bringing resources into the family. And there’s resentment that only women can bring resources to the family. In a programme I was involved in six to seven years ago, men would ask, ‘Why isn’t there anything for me?’ ‘Why is there only help available for the women?’ And these are valid questions. They didn’t have access to credit, but we were giving it to women when the men were better educated and perhaps in a better position to take the information we provided them and be productive. There was a lot of confusion about what it was we were trying to do and there were a lot of conflicts that arose inadvertently.” (Chant and Gutmann, 2000:35-36)

Technical advisors from Acción International note specific opportunities in India to differentiate and reach diverse clients as specific market segments, and highlight male urban enterprise owners as an underserved group:

“Eighty-eight percent of the urban enterprises in India are owned by men, while only 12 percent are owned by women. However, enterprises owned by men have women participating actively in business activities. Lending to men poses fresh challenges to the Indian microfinance industry as previous microfinance programs in rural areas are mainly women-focused. It is encouraging to note that the international experience of enterprise micro-financing to men has been as successful as that for women.” (Gupta and Bansal, 2007)

In the broader field of semi-formal and formal microfinance, the Consultative Group to Assist the Poor (CGAP) reports that globally, between 77-100% of participants in microfinance programs to economically empower “the poor” are women (CGAP, 2010). In other datasets, the lack of sex disaggregation of microfinance program participants by their poverty level (“vulnerable non-poor, upper poor, poor, very poor”) makes it difficult

9

to capture the diversity and specific needs between and among women and men. Furthermore, little is known about the range of needs of diverse male clients for financial services, or about which men might be excluded, or self-exclude, from participation in existing microfinance program models and targeting strategies.

The largest microfinance providers in the field since the 1970s, notably Grameen Bank and Acción International, have targeted women as a majority based upon the rationale that women clients are more likely to invest their earnings in their families. Grameen Bank started off reaching a majority of men, but from 1976 to the present the bank has targeted and reached progressively more women. The percentage of women among Grameen clients rose from lows of 14-20% in 1976 to 97% in 2009.2 Acción’s rationale for targeting women can be summed up by the following:

“The benefits of providing microloans for women are obvious, and many. Acción International and its partners provide microfinance services to both genders, but with a heavier focus on women in areas such as India where gender equality lags. Through the development of a thriving commercial microfinance industry, Acción seeks to bring economic empowerment to millions of microentrepreneurs who need it. Eventually, impoverished women will find it possible – and even commonplace – to take their livelihoods into their own hands.” (Acción International, 2010)

Ela Bhatt, founder of the Self-Employed Women’s Association of India (SEWA), has been asked why SEWA membership is restricted to women only and how the organizational dynamics would change if men were permitted to become members. Bhatt responded:

“I wanted to include men in the organization when SEWA was losing certain battles because we did not have enough support of men in the same field. I brought up this issue twice or thrice in the General Body Meeting at SEWA, but the women present there were very clear that they did not want to have male members and firmly said no. They also say that men are not dependable when it comes to money. I have personally noticed that in presence of men, especially of their own family, women do not participate as much as they do otherwise. But I still feel that to win a big battle, you need both men and women, where women should act as the leaders. I have more faith in the leadership of women. A woman’s approach to work and her thinking is always very holistic.” (Bhatt, 2009)

A related key argument for not including men in CARE VSL programs has been a reported tendency that when men have joined VSL groups that they take up leadership positions disproportionate to their representation in these groups, in other words, that they tend to dominate the groups and may silence the voices of women. This is a real concern and should be addressed as VSL initiatives engage men. However, if adequate measures are included—such as stipulating that a woman must be the president of the group or that 2 See Grameen Bank Historical Data Series 1976-2008, http://www.grameen-info.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=670&Itemid=689, last accessed 2/21/2010.

10

leadership must be shared—this is an issue that is surmountable. Furthermore, the opportunity for women and men to interact in spaces of shared power can be positive for women and men and for communities as a whole as witnessed by one of the authors (GB) in visiting a coffee cooperative program in western Rwanda.

The quote at the beginning of this paper—from a man who participates in one of CARE’s VSL groups in Rwanda—is illustrative of the potential impact when men are encouraged to participate in VSL. In this case, the man reported that his participation in a VSL group led the couple to have more collaborative decision-making, to increase household income in transformative ways and for the man to view his wife as an equal partner in income generation activities. Clearly not all participation of men in VSL groups is successful in this way in the short-term. Indeed, as reported below, our interviews with CARE country staff found both positive and negative examples of men’s participation in women-centered VSL groups.

In addition to the clearly justifiable issue of engaging men as allies in empowering women through VSL groups, what of the issue of men as beneficiaries in their own right? If VSL groups are supposed to target the poorest or most vulnerable members of a community, can some men be considered “vulnerable”? If on aggregate, men generally have more income than women, even in the poorest communities and countries, many men clearly are economically and socially vulnerable. Emerging results from the IMAGES study, being coordinated by Instituto Promundo and ICRW in 9 countries worldwide, are finding that a relatively high percentage of men report that they are frequently ashamed to face their family, stressed or depressed as a result of having too little income or being un- or underemployed. In India, out of 1552 men interviewed in the household survey in two cities, 30% said they were ashamed to face their family because of being out of work. Those men who reported being stressed or ashamed as a result of unemployment were nearly 50% more s likely to have used violence against a partner, twice as likely to have used sexual violence, had less consistent condom use (putting them and their partners at risk of HIV), and higher rates of alcohol use. All of these issues put women and men themselves at risk and suggest that men’s economic empowerment and the gender-specific ways that men respond to economic stress and unemployment should be considered in CARE’s economic empowerment work. At the very least, this data suggests that baseline and needs assessment efforts before starting VSL programs should examine men’s employment and economic dis/empowerment issues as well as women’s.

11

PART 3: Results of Telephone Interviews with CARE Country Staff

To gather additional insights on CARE’s experiences of engaging men in VSL programs, we interviewed country staff in seven country offices. The following represents an analysis of these interviews.3

1.) Type of economic empowerment projectOf the seven CARE country offices from which ICRW interviewed relevant staff, six reported implementing economic empowerment activities that used the VSL methodology and cited it as a platform for other economic and livelihoods activities, and as the entry point for group-based trainings related to relevant livelihoods, GBV and health topics. One country office, CARE-Bangladesh, reported using a savings-led Self Help Group (SHG) methodology as their main economic empowerment intervention. CARE-Bangladesh plans to study and adapt the VSL methodology to their country context sometime within the next six months.

2.) Targeting strategies Three of seven country offices prioritize single-sex targeting, mostly of women, and have a few mixed-sex groups, while the other four prioritize mixed-sex targeting with a majority of female participation ranging from 60% to 90% women and 40% to 10% men, and have few or no single-sex groups. Only two out of seven country offices reported forming parallel, single-sex groups, while the others reported no explicit or spontaneous formation of parallel, single-sex groups.

3.) Opportunities and constraints of single-sex versus mixed-sex targeting, and single-sex parallel groups (male/female)Opportunities cited often responded to specific needs or contextual factors in a given country. For example, CARE-Burundi reported forming women-only groups as necessary to address gender inequalities that were reinforced and worsened during and after armed conflict.

For CARE-Rwanda, women want men to participate in VSL activities in part so that men can receive trainings in SGBV and health issues, particularly following the history of SGBV in the Rwandan conflict. Other opportunities generally cited were that single-sex groups can help address women’s unequal access to information and financial services, discuss issues that are considered taboo in the wider community, build self-esteem and social skills, learn from other women on livelihoods strategies, and provide opportunities for peer education, psychosocial support, and open expression without fear of intimidation.

3 Annex 1 provides additional input from these interviews, including specific verbatim recommendations and a discussion of the way each country office is also engaging in policy or other national discussions on issues of gender and economic empowerment.

12

CARE-Mali cited the need for single-sex parallel groups in order to avoid tensions that may be created in an Islamic context, where sociocultural norms discourage public interaction between men and women. Traditional religious practices in some cultures within Mali socially stigmatize women who sit close to or interact with men in public places.

CARE-Niger reported similar constraints concerning how sociocultural and religious norms discourage or bar mixed-sex group formation. Still, no VSL group by-laws in Niger explicitly forbade having male and female members in the same group.

Common constraints reported across CARE country contexts with mixed sex VSL groups included:

Difficulties that women, especially single women, experience in raising their voices in mixed-sex groups or participating in group management and decision-making processes; and

Men’s unavailability to attend meetings at scheduled times, unreliability in repaying loans, and in some cases, abandonment of groups.

4.) Couples-based initiativesNo country offices reported designing or implementing explicitly couples-based economic empowerment initiatives or project activities. Although the VSL methodology does not prescribe any by-laws prohibiting spouses from participating in the same group, few spouses were reported to participate together in group activities. It does happen occasionally, but time constraints and domestic responsibilities were cited as main factors as to why two spouses often cannot or do not attend the same VSL group meetings.

5.) Strategies/approaches tried in terms of M/F participation in VSL groupsApproaches tried varied widely and findings suggest that mixed-sex, single-sex, and parallel single-sex targeting strategies work differently in diverse contexts. CARE-Burundi and CARE-Mali tried facilitating mixed-sex VSL groups with a majority of women at first, but then moved to single-sex women’s groups with parallel men-only groups to follow afterward to accommodate men’s expressed wishes to have their own group(s). Rationales for single-sex targeting from a programmatic perspective included:

1) “positive discrimination” needed to address historical inequalities and support a mission of women’s empowerment;2) smoother functioning of the groups for women in terms of managerial control by women, regularity of meetings, savings, and credit repayment, and cooperation and sustainability; and3) sociocultural, religious norms that discourage mixed-sex group interactions and activities.

Mixed-sex VSL groups discussed by respondents have a majority of women members – indeed this is a widespread practice of the CARE country offices consulted. Even with this majority, though, there were widespread reports of men dominating the groups in

13

terms of managerial control of group processes and resources. This is an issue that requires significant attention, namely how to engage women and men in mixed groups that both promote women’s voice and participation while engaging men to accept and see the benefits of working with women as equal partners.

6.) Men’s interest in participating in economic empowerment programsAcross all seven country contexts, CARE country staff reported that men widely express interest in access to credit and savings opportunities, but that they show less interest in the training activities that are generally part of VSL groups. Three country offices reported that men were interested in forming their own groups because: 1) men-only groups would allow them to save and borrow larger amounts than mixed-sex groups; and 2) in some cases, sociocultural, religious norms discourage mixed-sex group activities. Some men in two country contexts replicated their own VSL groups spontaneously without CARE program support or monitoring. In the cases of CARE-Mali and CARE-Niger, men’s apparent interest in participation led the program to facilitate parallel male-only and female-only groups.

In the four other country contexts (Bangladesh, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda), men expressed needs and interests to program staff to participate in mixed-sex economic empowerment groups directly and not just indirectly through wives or other female family members. In cases of an explicit single-sex targeting strategy, some women reportedly enabled men to participate in meetings on their behalf. Husbands of VSL participants sometimes contribute savings and take loans indirectly through their wives who are group members.

Whether they are included or excluded explicitly in the program targeting strategies, men and women find ways individually and together for men to access the savings and credit opportunities available through their direct or indirect participation in group-based WEE activities. In this way, men’s desires to participate in VSL groups are only partially limited by a single-sex, women-only targeting strategy.

Various country offices reported that very poor men are interested in economic empowerment activities, but often self-exclude from direct program participation as they feel they cannot afford to save the required minimum regular amounts.

7.) Men’s attitudes and reactions to women’s economic empowerment and women-only VSL groupsVarious country office staff affirmed that men had expressed resentment at not being included and many felt that economically marginalized men were being unfairly excluded from VSL groups, an issue highlighted in some of the literature cited. CARE-Uganda office staff expressed that:

“If a male engagement approach to support WEE is not mainstreamed, then indeed when targeting women, economic empowerment projects become disconnected from men and men’s economic needs. This is because the project

14

focuses mainly on women as the direct beneficiaries, and hence neglecting men and their economic needs.”

Similarly, Rwandan men in CARE VSL program implementation areas were quoted saying, “Why is CARE not targeting us? We need income too.”

The view that men want to participate more in economic empowerment program activities was shared across CARE country contexts in the interviewing sample, but assessments will need to be developed to determine which men are most interested and why and how they would like to participate in VSL.

Still, CARE country staff noted the complexity of including men. For example, the formation of single-sex and mixed-sex groups follows sensitization meetings held by program staff with male community, religious, administrative authority, and other leaders, but these meetings do not explicitly include other men and women in community decision-making processes over whether or not to approve of the program in their community. Finally, mixed-sex groups were reported often to include male leaders and this excluded men with lesser status whose economic empowerment needs remain unmet. In other cases, women group members deny men membership out of concern that men will usurp managerial control and/or will not repay their loans reliably. Other women VSL members have found mechanisms to include men in group activities indirectly while retaining autonomy in group management.

Mixed-sex CARE economic empowerment groups engage some men explicitly, but it is not known which men are being included or excluded by targeting strategies, or who self-include or self-exclude, due to a wide lack of formal assessments of men’s involvement to date. Some men self-exclude from VSL activities because they understand the program to be relevant for women, or that the activities do not meet their economic empowerment needs appropriately. In other cases, male community, religious and administrative leaders have demanded explanations for why a CARE economic empowerment program only targets women. Men, including recognized leaders and community members, were commonly reported to have seen women’s gains and asked why they cannot join VSL groups or form their own.

Some men who self-exclude from mixed-sex economic empowerment groups tend to have other economic opportunities and regard VSL as not appropriate for these needs. In most communities in Tanzania, for example, there are non-CARE microfinance programs such as SACCOS (local cooperatives) and other local funds that men participate in, along with some women. However, even in these settings there are men who are as marginalized and poor as the women in the VSL groups, but who are not availed the opportunity to participate in CARE’s VSL groups. The SACCOS target mostly people with steady income, including for example government employees, but not more economically vulnerable women or men.

Many CARE country offices reported that there is a lingering misperception on the part of some men and women that VSL programs are for women only and serve women’s

15

needs and interests for relevant training, financial services and smaller-scale livelihoods activities. Men who have mostly been involved in mixed-sex economic empowerment group activities have been married men and it was often cited that these men feel compelled to join a VSL group to fulfill their immediate responsibilities as a provider. Unmarried men, or younger men, seem less likely to participate.

8.) Men’s reactions towards women’s economic empowerment in CARE VSL groupsWithin and across all seven country offices, reports of men’s reactions towards women’s economic empowerment were both positive and negative, generally affirming the range of responses highlighted in the literature cited above. CARE-Burundi cited that reactions are often more negative than positive. The range of reactions spans more cooperative and supportive behaviors towards women’s economic empowerment on the part of men at one end to more conflictual or violent behaviors on the other.

Positive reactions have included: Increases in women’s income lead men to see the value of women’s participation

in economic empowerment activities. Some men become more cooperative and supportive by understanding that

women can better contribute to household expenses and relieve men’s burden of being “sole provider.”

Male leaders have adopted supportive attitudes and influenced other men. Some men participate in trainings on topics related to gender equality. These

often are men who already support activism, for example, against GBV.

Negative reactions have included: Expecting women to get men’s permission to participate in VSL groups. Men withholding or withdrawing support from women’s economic activities, or

from contributions to household expenditures. Men demanding that women give them money from their income-generating

activities. Perceptions that men’s power, authority and traditional role as provider are under

threat. Increases in conflict in household relations if a woman’s participation in VSL

challenges a male household head’s perception of his traditional role. Resistance on the part of men to being led and managed by women in VSL

groups. Not understanding the rationale of having to support issues that are seen as being

only in favor of women (e.g., reinforcing by-laws for supporting education for girls) in group activities.

Not supporting gender equality trainings or women’s economic empowerment group activities when men were not involved in sensitization meetings or group awareness-raising processes.

16

9.) Specific Examples of Positive Impacts on Household Gender Relations

Greater cooperation reported between husbands and wives when participate in group activities.

One woman reported that her husband took care of the children while she attended VSL meetings.

Another said she came home one day and her husband had prepared a meal. Men and women who participate in groups activities as couples have reported

reduced violence in the household. Men begin consulting women’s opinions more in household decision-making. Improved inter-personal or couple communication. Men become “more supportive” when wives’ contributions to household

expenditures rise. In one case, men who participate in mixed-groups consistently have been also

those who have participated in GBV program activities. Many men whose wives are VSL members involve themselves indirectly in

supporting women save regularly, to make their credit payments and to develop income-generating activities.

Men whose wives participate in VSL groups support them by transporting the goods their wives produced to market by bike (usually banana beer).

When men are involved in EE activities, they have facilitated women’s access to markets, savings, and livelihoods with the help of other men both in the case of accessing local markets and markets further away.

Single-sex parallel groups “promote exchange and mutual understanding” between spouses who participate.

Social taboos reduce when mixed-sex or parallel single-sex groups mature and can begin to discuss sensitive topics, e.g., SRH.

Men cooperate with and participate in behavior change program activities, referring to group activities related to SRH and GBV.

Male administrative authorities participate in and support development of program “action plans.”

10.) Conclusions from the Country InterviewsThe interviews with country staff reflect a diversity of contexts as well as the complexity of engaging men in gender equality and women’s economic empowerment. The number of positive and negative outcomes suggests the need for careful monitoring and evaluation and the need to develop broad guidelines rather than a VSL approach that is universal for all CARE country offices. Indeed almost none of the programs have regular processes for monitoring or evaluating these results, particularly concerning the issue of the potential for increased use of violence by men. At the same time, the various positive examples—of men spontaneously forming groups, male community leaders supporting change, men who change their behaviors—reinforce the need to build on positive outcomes of engaging men to amplify and scale up change. These interviews also confirm the range of men—staff, beneficiaries and male partners of women involved in VSL groups—who can be engaged as positive change agents for scaling up positive

17

outcomes of WEE activities through a more deliberate and strategic inclusion of men in CARE’s VSL work.

PART 4: Recommendations for ActionBased on the literature review and the country staff interviews, the following recommendations emerge:

1) The need for more needs assessment and baseline research on men’s attitudes toward and reaction toward women’s participation in VSL, and their multiple roles. This research needs to include developing indicators for men’s use of violence against women in each setting, as well as a mapping or identification of the range of men’s responses and reactions to women’s economic empowerment rather than research that simply affirms “men are like this or that”. In other words, this research must and should identify the variation and diversity of men. It should also include an identification of those men who can already act as change agents. In Figure 1, we provide examples of the multiple roles of men in terms of VSL and women’s economic empowerment in general. Any baseline or needs assessment should take into account the complexity of men and these multiple roles.

2) Build on and expand evidence-based approaches for engaging men in community-based activities to reduce GBV and to promote men’s involvement in caregiving, fatherhood and cooperative decision-making and reducing violence against women. In a previous evaluation review, Instituto Promundo and WHO (Barker, et al 2007) have affirmed that well-designed group education activities and community campaigns (including Program H, Men as Partners, Soul City, Stepping Stones) and others have shown, in impact evaluation studies, to lead to changes in men’s behaviors and attitudes in terms of HIV prevention, SRH, GBV and maternal and child health. Some of these initiatives have also included activities promoting greater involvement by men as fathers and caregiving activities. In South Africa, for example, Sonke Gender Justice has carried out community campaigns and used posters and photo contests to document and “hold up” men acting in caregiving roles. Similarly, the Ghana Initiative Fatherhood Foundation develops “Dad’s Clubs” and carried out national level awareness-raising on the role of fathers in the lives of children. The global MenEngage Alliance is increasingly documenting examples of interventions working to engage men at the community level in preventing GBV, involving group education, community activism, street theatre, community radio and forming alliances with the public health sector to engage men as allies in reducing violence against women.

Such efforts have, however, for the most part not been carried out together or in collaboration with women’s economic empowerment activities. Fatherhood preparation courses and information campaigns focusing on men’s roles in the lives of children can offer strategic opportunities to address fathers’ reported feelings of being unprepared or ill-informed about caring for children, and help men perceive benefits to themselves from greater participation in family life. The compelling reason for considering men’s roles in

18

caregiving is because such activities have the potential to tap into men’s self-interest in having more connected and caring relationships with their families.

If CARE considers providing more support to these kinds of activities, it is key that staff acknowledge that implementing such activities take as much technical support, funding and evaluation as do VSL activities themselves. The rigorous baseline and evaluation process carried out by CARE-Balkans for the Young Men’s Initiative (while a far different setting than the seven country offices included here) provides insights on the need for consistent, evaluated group educational interventions that engage men as change agents, along with engaging key partner organizations as allies in promoting change among men.

3) Design and test integrated programs – that seek to promote women’s economic empowerment and engaging men, both in economic empowerment. Some CARE country offices might, for example, consider implementing joint women’s economic empowerment and men’s economic empowerment taking into account local context. CARE offices could also consider couple-based or family-based economic empowerment strategies. Alternatively, CARE offices might consider “wraparound” programming that coordinates among partners with diverse value-added, for example:

oCombining economic empowerment with community and couple discussions about joint decision-making (Stepping Stones, Program H, and others), along with evaluation of outcomes both related to economic empowerment and GBV, SRH, care burden and household-decision-making outcomes.

oCombining economic empowerment with GBV prevention with men (building on examples of evidence-based practice in engaging men in GBV prevention).

Carrying out “demonstration” projects with rigorous impact evaluation like this in some key CARE countries could be illustrative for other CARE offices to follow suit.

4) Expand efforts to monitor women’s vulnerability and risk of GBV as a result of their participation in VSL. Many of the country offices noted that participants had reported increased conflict and at times GBV as a result of changes in household dynamics from women’s participation in VSL groups. This suggests the need for increasing GBV prevention activities and for CARE offices to more closely measure changes in GBV as a result of their activities.

5) Carry out visible marketing and promotional activities at CARE International and country offices to acknowledge gender equality as including men and women and taking a visible, institutional stance that men should be included as allies in achieving gender equality. CARE staff acknowledged that the “messages” and campaigns from international offices promote a woman-centered approach, which while justified from an affirmative action point of view, also can inadvertently reinforce the idea of the homogenous or “universal”, unsupportive and violent man, as highlighted earlier. CARE should consider making engaging men in gender equality part of its visual image (and marketing materials) and find ways to engage male staff – in country offices and international offices – as allies in achieving gender equality. This could involve

19

creating dialogues, workshops or campaigns (photo essays, for example) in which men are encouraged to talk about their family roles and examples of positive male involvement are celebrated.

6) Explore additional opportunities for mixed-sex dialogue and collaboration, including couples-based interventions when appropriate. A few country offices expressed interest in building on models of cooperative couples, understanding couple dynamics and measuring changes in couple cooperation as a result of VSL activities. While none of the country offices seem to favor couple participation in VSL groups, many expressed interest in identifying and expanding opportunities for dialogue between men and women at the community level and between men-only and women-only VSL groups.

7) Explore ways that CARE globally and at the country-level can be part of the growing network of efforts to engage men and boys in gender equality. Given CARE’s size, its experience and importance in working in poverty alleviation, and examples at the country level (in Rwanda, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, the Balkans and others), there are clear opportunities for CARE to lend its voice to the growing, global call for engaging men and boys in gender equality, including acknowledging the gendered realities of men and boys (including the economic marginalization of some groups of men). Networks like MenEngage, as well as various UN initiatives, and other networks would clearly benefit from CARE’s global reach and global leadership in poverty alleviation and to raising the attention and status given to acknowledging men’s roles in achieving gender equality, and in particular, in acknowledging what men gain from gender equality.

20

FIGURE 1: Men’s multiple roles in economic empowerment programs that target all or mostly women:

Which men? Men’s direct roles

Men’s indirect roles

Recommendations on engaging men

Desired Outcomes

Program decision-makers and implementers

Fund, design, manage and implement program

Influence male peers, male leaders in program communities, and men as beneficiaries

Fund and facilitate gender training and awareness raising workshops

Evaluate workshop participants’ changes in knowledge, attitudes and behaviors and feed learnings into improved, contextualized trainings

Develop and promote organizational communication strategies, eg case studies highlighting programmatic lessons learned on engaging men

Donors and programs invest in building male staff’s gender awareness, abilities to model gender equitable attitudes and behaviors, and design, monitor and evaluate women’s economic empowerment programs that engage men

Male leaders (community, administrative authorities, religious, peer, etc.)

Program gatekeepers during sensitization phase

Program supporters during implementation

Gender training and awareness raising

Create spaces for discussion between male leaders, male and female leaders, and between leaders and community members to learn benefits of greater gender equity for community empowerment

Male leaders speak out against gender inequities, support women’s economic empowerment and help identify context-specific ways to engage men as allies

Male program Direct Supporters of or Identify which Male program

21

Which men? Men’s direct roles

Men’s indirect roles

Recommendations on engaging men

Desired Outcomes

participants participation in program economic empowerment activities

obstacles to women’s participation in economic empowerment activities

men are being included and excluded by targeting, and which men self-include or self-exclude from economic empowerment activities

Assess quality and relevance of activities for meeting different male and female participants’ economic empowerment needs

participants cooperate with women’s economic empowerment activities, attend trainings relevant for their social and economic empowerment needs, and have their own economic empowerment needs met

Excluded men None Support or undermine women’s participation; access savings and credit through women participants

Sensitization, awareness raising and gender training with excluded men to support women’s economic empowerment activities

Develop strategies to identify and address excluded men’s unmet economic empowerment needs

Previously excluded men are able to participate in economic empowerment activities and cooperate with women’s efforts to become economically empowered

22

Program targeting approaches and complementary strategies to engage men as allies:

Targeting approach Complementary strategies to engage men as alliesfor women’s economic empowerment

Single-sex(women-only orparallel men/women groups)

Conduct gender analyses that assess diverse women’s and men’s economic empowerment interests, needs, opportunities and constraints

Identify and categorize diverse men’s multiple direct and indirect roles in project activities

Work with male leaders to support women’s economic empowerment and foster men’s cooperation as allies

Conduct awareness raising activities, gender training workshops, and communications campaigns, and share stories of the benefits of men and women working together as allies with communities

Monitor do no harm principles

Mixed-sex groups In addition to the above recommended strategies for single-sex groups, also:

Require a maximum percentage of men in the group, and in leadership positions, if at all

Consult with women on their leadership within the group to ensure full participation and managerial control

Identify which women and men participate and which are excluded, or self-exclude from economic empowerment project activities, and why

Develop mechanisms to ensure and monitor women’s voice and full participation in group decision-making and managerial control over resources

Conduct comparative evaluations of gender dynamics and decision-making in single-sex versus mixed-sex groups for a given context

23

References

Accion International (2010), “Microloans for Women: A Source of Empowerment and Social Change,” http://www.accion.org/Page.aspx?pid=1876, last accessed 2/21/2010. Ahmed S.M. (2005) “IPV against Women: Experiences from a Women-Focused Development Programme in Matlab Bangladesh,” Journal of Health, Population, and Nutrition 23, No 1, 99. Ahmed, F. (2008a) “Microcredit, Men and Masculinity,” NWSA Journal, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Summer). Ahmed, F. (2008b) “Hidden Opportunities,” International Feminist Journal of Politics, 10: 4, 542-562. Allen, H. "Re: VSLAs, engaging men, and women's economic empowerment" Email to authors. 9/30/2009.

Barker, Gary, Christine Ricardo and Marcos Nascimento. 2007. “Engaging Men and Boys in Changing Gender-based Inequity in Health: Evidence from Programme Interventions.” Geneva: World Health Organization. Barker, G. (2006) “Men’s Participation as Fathers in Latin America and the Caribbean: Critical Literature Review and Policy Options,” in M. Correia and I. Bannon, eds. The Other Half of Gender: Men’s Issues in Development. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Bhatt, E. (2009) “The Proof is in the People: Impacting Women through Relationships and Trust,” in Microfinance Insights, Vol. 12, May/June 2009. Budlender, D. (2008) “The Statistical Evidence on Care and Non-Care Work across Six Countries,” Gender and Development Programme Paper 4, December 2008. Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.

Consultative Group to Assist the Poor (CGAP) (2010) “Who Are the Clients of Microfinance?” (http://www.cgap.org/p/site/c/template.rc/1.26.1304/, last accessed 2/21/2010).

Chant, S. and M. Gutmann (2000) Mainstreaming Men into Gender and Development: Debates, Reflections and Experiences, Oxford: Oxfam. Chant, S. (2007) Gender, Generation and Poverty: Exploring the 'Feminisation of Poverty' in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Ed. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, xxiv-428. Deutsch, R. (1998) “Does Child Care Pay? Labor Force Participation and Earnings Effects of Access to Child Care in the Favelas of Rio de Janeiro,” Office of the Chief

24

Economist. Working Paper No. 384. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank. Gupta, A. and Dr. H. Bansal (2007) “Urban Microenterprises: A Ready Market,” in Microfinance Insights, Vol. 2, March/April 2007. Hadi, A. (2005) “Women’s Productive Work and Marital Violence in Bangladesh,” Journal of Family Violence 20, No 3, 181-9. Kabeer, N. (2009) “Women’s Economic Empowerment: Key Issues and Policy Options,” SIDA Background Paper. Sussex: Institute of Development Studies. Kelkar G., D. Nathan and R. Jahan (2004) “We Were In Fire, Now We Are In Water: Micro-Credit and Gender Relations in Rural Bangladesh,” New Delhi: IFAD-UNIFEM Gender Mainstreaming Programme in Asia. Kidder, T. (2004) “‘How Do You Eat Between Harvests?’and Other Stories: Engaging Men in Gender and Livelihoods,” in Sandy Ruxton, ed. (2004) Gender Equality and Men: Learning from Practice. London: Oxfam GB. Kim, J., et al., (2008) “Understanding the Impact of a Microfinance-based Intervention on Women’s Empowerment and the Reduction of Intimate Partner Violence in South Africa,” American Journal of Public Health, 97: 1794-1802.

Koenig M.A., et al. (2003) “Women’s Status and Domestic Violence in Rural Bangladesh: Individual and Community Level Effects,” Demography 40, No. 2, 269-288. Morrison, A., and F. Lamana (2006) “Gender Issues in the Kyrgyz Labor Market,” Background paper for Kyrgyz Poverty Assessment. Washington, DC: World Bank. Pitt, M., S.R. Khandker, and J. Cartwright (2006) “Empowering Women with Microfinance: Evidence from Bangladesh,” Economic Development and Cultural Change 54(4):791-831, in Ahmed, 2008a.

Rahman, A. (1999) “Women and Microcredit in Rural Bangladesh: An Anthropological Study of the Rhetoric and Realities of Grameen Bank Lending,” Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Schuler S.R., S.M. Hashemi and A.P. Riley (1996) “Credit Programs, Patriarachy and Men's Violence against Women in Rural Bangladesh,” Social Science and Medicine 43, 1729-1742.

White, S. (2000) “’Did the Earth Move?’ The Hazards of Bringing Men and Masculinities into Gender and Development,” IDS Bulletin Vol. 31, No 2, April 2000.

World Bank (2007) “Gender: Working Towards Greater Equality,” in Gender Equality as Smart Economics: A World Bank Group Action Plan. Washington, DC: World Bank.

25

ANNEX 1: Additional Input from Interviews with CARE Country Office Staff

[Note: The following is additional information from the phone interviews that is useful for the discussion and was used to contribute to the recommendations and the analyses in the full text of the paper.]

Questions: How are you engaged with national policy discussions about gender and WEE? Are men included/excluded by these efforts?

CARE-Bangladesh: Women and Development national policy: specifically encouraging development

organizations to follow this—projects trying to contribute to this policy. Government is implementing partner and diverse government departments are

involved. Government therefore is a partner in reaching men. Many government workers are men and this represents an opportunity for men to

influence other men. Important to think of opportunities for men to support gender equality both as

program implementers and beneficiaries. “Access to Markets Initiative” has worked to ensure women have place in

markets; introducing concept of space in markets for women.

CARE-Burundi: Burundi adopted 2003 national gender policy to correct imbalances in 12 areas:

culture and tradition, security, mobilization Peace, employment, health, decision making, information and communication, poverty, agriculture, education and training, HIV / AIDS, VAW and equal rights.

Solidarity groups fit well in most of the 12 areas and are a channel for transmitting messages and training on several relevant topics.

CARE-Mali: A national gender equality policy initiated by the Ministry for the Promotion of

Women, Children and Family is currently under review and “validation.”

CARE-Niger: Niger adopted a National Gender Policy that is the result of a participatory

consultation process that started in May 2005. Its development involved all stakeholders (including CARE, which participated actively) through the organization of several regional workshops and national discussion. This policy is intended as a unifying framework, guidance and coordination of efforts to promote gender equity and gender equality in Niger. The policy established four strategic commitments:

26

1) Promote greater equity of women and men within the family and community; 2) Foster fair opportunities for women and men within household and market economies; 3) Build institutional capacities for implementation of the National Gender Policy;

4) Strengthen: Effective enforcement of the rights of women and girls; The fight against violence based on gender; Equitable participation of men and women in the management of

power.

 • Also, Niger established a quota system in 2000 to increase women’s political representation at the National Assembley. This law requires that women represent at least 10% of elected positions and 25% of nominated positions.

CARE-Rwanda: Strategic plan inspired by national economic development strategies, but not

focused on human rights or SGBV. Great Lakes Advocacy Initiative (DRC, RW, BR, Uganda): Aimed at

implementation of law and advocacy related to SGBV.

CARE-Tanzania: VSL groups have produced women who are popularly referred to as

animators.They are key in engaging with local level policy work and to some extent national level especially through prominent gender networks e.g., Tanzania Gender Networking Program. Very few men participate in these efforts as they are highly dominated by women. CARE Tanzania has facilitated such linkages, by providing women with relevant access to people and resources.

CARE-Uganda: Not much activity was reported to engage nationally on these issues.

Recommended strategies going forward?[RECOMMENDATIONS OF CARE STAFF IN THEIR OWN WORDS]

CARE-Bangladesh: Understand better which gender norms and practices in Bangladesh promote

supportive, cooperative masculinities. Need strong commitment from organizations—how women benefit at HH and

community levels Must be in solidarity with men—all different types of men. Global women’s empowerment involves increasing structural agency of women

across three areas (HH, Community, State). New 1 yr initiative: Costs of violence pilot in 24 communities. Developing tools,

techniques, methodologies, engaging men so women can engage in EE activities

27

Engaging men for WEE? Need to know what existing economic opportunities are in a given context

Last 35 yrs in Bangladesh—a lot of development activities. Women more involved, but activities have not targeted men. Gender norms in society: How can we move on these concepts? Opportunities? Maybe small number of practices can/do already support more

equitable gender norms; some men already activing positively. Need better understanding of how we’re perceiving men’s and women’s

empowerment, and factors important to both. Did a lot of work within some institutions in Bangladesh, government policy,

development organizations coming forward—but staff level knowledge needs to be increased—need to develop framework to address/operationalize issue systematically.

Involving women means involving men—men’s involvement is very important. Must build capacity of partners on these issues. Should also engage women with status, along with men in communities.

CARE-Burundi: Men cling to theory that women’s empowerment is a threat to them. Train men and women in egalitarian gender relations, human rights, SRH,

responsible parenthood, shared responsibilities, and other relevant topics. Work with men who already support the participation of women in solidarity

groups. Men could educate other men to encourage women to participate in such

activities. Men can help their peers change attitudes and behavior marginalizing and

excluding women in HH the decision-making.

CARE-Mali: Conduct action research and exploratory studies to inform appropriate, innovative

and relevant actions. Investigate in-depth how sociocultural and religious norms affect efforts to engage men as allies in women’s economic empowerment.

Take into account differences and similarities of gender issues across and within diverse countries, e.g. different social norms within and across diverse ethnic and religious groups within and across country contexts.

Strengthen civil society to problem solve for gender equality. Develop task forces for issues at local, regional and national levels. Strengthen existing frameworks on EE for both men and women. Information campaigns and to educate about benefits of empowering women. Involve traditional and modern media. Involve community and religious leaders. Identify and promote sociocultural religious beliefs and practices that support

gender equality. Engage young men and women to adopt practices and behaviors that support

gender equality.

28

Conduct participatory analysis to understand mentalities and practices that undermine gender equality.

Systematize expansion of VSL activities for men. Translate into local languages national laws and international conventions that

support gender equality. Establish learning exchange meetings with CARE-Mali and other NGOs to foster

gender equality as a value that staff embody.

CARE-Niger: The “program will open its activities to men, especially leaders, husbands of

women leaders and youth whose membership brings positive changes in gender relations. Therefore the promotion of dialogue and inter-community and an ongoing dialogue based on mutual respect and trust will be the focus of the program.”

The contributions of men, leaders and youth to reduce inequalities and inequities of gender will be measured through public actions undertaken: positions, firm commitments, intellectual debate, institutional, political, or associative, overt support for women, clear opposition to the project or laws undermining social justice. Such contributions could include:

actions of men or groups of men for gender equality; ideas that people have developed or supported; aid or support that men have made to women involved; networks of men and/or women in which they worked.

CARE-Rwanda: Should think of men as an impact group not as a target group. Look at un- or under-examined issues, such as men’s alcoholism and GBV related

to women’s EE. Men’s use of time needs to be evaluated b/c men were reported to be spending

more time in bars as women’s incomes rose. Need to ensure M&E system is geared more to investigate impacts. Now only

have monitoring data of project activities mainly, so we don’t know about impacts on women or men, or on gender relations. We only know the numbers of women trained, etc. HH relations? Gender? We don’t really go in-depth into looking at the real impacts of our efforts on target groups. There is very little reflection, learning and documentation of what we do and how it impacts people.

Taking a long time to get women staff convinced about male engagement. Staff “afraid.”

Need a few years to begin implementing a deliberate, male-engaged strategy. Need to understand what men’s economic needs are. Can adapt VSL model to

men’s economic needs? Does CARE need to change the VSL model overall? Haven’t thought about it. Have been concerned more with family planning and GBV so far. Will men be interested in these issues or those that interest them more?

Engaging men should take into account an understanding of how they can contribute to reproductive health. It’s possible to consider a VSL model

29

specifically geared towards men’s economic and social needs—VSL being an entry point to address social issues affecting men. The group setting could be beneficial for me as a space to reflect on their issues and get support.

CARE-Tanzania: Now in the process of devising a more coherent strategy around men’s

involvement in the economic, social and political empowerment of women. The mobilization process that was done previously deliberately targeted women

for the fear that if men were involved they might hijack the whole intention of women economic empowerment. CARE Tanzania has since realized that this is not a successful approach, because there are many men who are economically unstable and unemployed, and who can also benefit from economic empowerment projects.

Including men in the groups might minimize rise in conflict in HH relations related to women’s EE. Women participants say that involving men might lead to better dynamics in the household.

Before embarking on a serious work on engaging men in economic empowerment projects, it is important that one understands fully, (a) what a gender perspective means when applied to men and boys; (b) how men and women, and boys and girls are made vulnerable by rigid notions of manhood and gender hierarchies; and (c) an understanding of the gender-related vulnerabilities that men and boys face in different stages of their life cycle. This new strategy will likely be piloted beginning around July 2010.

CARE-Uganda: Gender mainstreaming during the design and planning of our economic

empowerment projects. Mainstreaming behavior communications to influence positive attitude towards

women in all our economic empowerment projects. More mixed-sex targeting versus single-sex targeting in our economic

empowerment projects.

30