Stereotypes of men and boys in Gender and HIV work: Challenges, tensions and possible directions Jerker Edström Research Fellow: HIV and Development Institute of Development Studies (IDS)

Trajectories of framing gendered subjects in HIV Combining gender with ‘vulnerability’ and ‘risk’ Diversity and change in masculinities as feasible Challenges in work on gender norms, ‘missing HIV’ Challenges and possibilities for the way forward Quick overview

Trajectories of framing gendered subjects, incl. ‘men’, in HIV & AIDS Story from “GRID” and “4Hs”; to “MSM”, “CSW” and “IDU” etc. - a gradual shift to ‘behaviour’ Shifting to ‘norms’ as driving behaviour – ABC “demand reduction” (say “no”, “later” or “if..”) Making better ‘Women’ and ‘Men’? – Conflations with generalised vulnerability of ‘the masses’ (ignoring key groups at the heart of HIV)

The problem of vulnerability and the unspoken ‘threat’ Risk (of transmission) = Vulnerability (to HIV) + Threat (infective source) The ‘HIV problem = vulnerability’; ‘Gender = women’ The focus on women’s vulnerability easily result in three sets of binary ‘encoded’ stereotypes: men’s promiscuity  women’s faithfulness men’s violence  women’s victim-hood men’s (ir)responsibility  women’s rights

Challenges of a binary “di-vision” of gender, or – rather – sex…

Reinforces essentialist binary gender constructs, shoring up male stereotypes and excluding minorities – Ignoring male victims of rape, criminalising/pathologising sex worker’s clients, stigmatising homosexuality Undermines men’s motivation to engage – Men framed mainly as ‘the source of problem’ Counterproductive for women’s empowerment – Framed as faithful, vulnerable victims with little agency So, what are the implications?

A decade(+) of male engagement showing some signs of progress Research and activism from the 80s and 90s has challenged essentialist binary notions of masculinity, showing; – plurality, hierarchical relations and contested change as key. Practice has shown a diversity of ‘alternative’ and more ‘positive’ masculinities feasible, locally (more later) However, a fundamentally binary and heteronormative framework (often alluding to male/female complemetarities) prevails and shapes policy and responses. – Focusing merely on ‘better men’ as juxtaposed to vulnerable women (& girls) can reinforce these binary stereotypes

The key challenge: Abstract binary ‘genders’ miss the virus Violence as interpersonal vs. structural Promiscuity as essentially male - an old gender and HIV myth Sexual behaviour as essential ‘natural’ behaviour with sex- specific hydraulics If unprotected anal sex is a key issue, why only “MSM” and not all the women and other men who have anal sex? Are they fewer? (Hardly!) Which men matter most, in what respects and settings? Even as general norms and behaviours of the majority of men (and women) matter too, has changing them at scale ever succeeded ? Which drivers – of vulnerability or risk? These don’t just shape individuals, but the relations and dynamics between people, as well as the obstacles and constraints to access HIV is a disease of inequality (not poverty) And the virus thrives in the margins of intersecting inequalities

How to move beyond these abstract binary individuals? Move beyond methodological individualism (& RCTs!) – it not only over-generalises, but also tends to de- contextualise and depoliticise the issues Focus more on the ‘men in power’ and institutions – Policy ‘down-streams’ problematic masculinity as an issue of the poor, the Southern or the criminalised underclass Focus on realities of marginal and non-conforming men, who get left out (some of them matter most) – Sexual minorities, cultural dissidents, the incarcerated Don’t g gloss over changes needed at multiple levels – Not just drivers of general norms, but obstacles to access

Broadening the focus on people within context Individual/s Personal/interpersonal Institutional (services, workplaces etc.) Governmental (legal, regulatory) Communal (networks)

Challenges for the way forward Constantly challenge the binary stereoptypes Strike a balance in problematising cultures and behaviour with specific drivers of risk Within a contextual analysis of power relations and Without loosing sight of intersecting structural inequities Focus better on the men matter most for HIV? With treatment as key to prevention, how well do we reach the most relevant HIV+ men? In broader gender justice work with men, forge better alliances with key groups Sexual rights and sex workers rights movements etc.

Thank You et Merci! De Nada, amigo

Sources Edström, J. (2011), Masculinity and HIV: Di-visions of Bodies, Sex and Structural Context, Ch 6 in Men and Development: Politicizing Masculinities, Ch 6 in A. Cornwall, J. Edström and A. Greig (Eds.), Zed Books: London Edström, J. (2010), Time to call the bluff: (de)-constructing ‘women’s vulnerability’ in HIV and sexual health, Development 53: 2, Society for International Development