The Trump Administration’s Decision to Withdraw from the Human Rights Council Lands the United States on the Wrong Side of History and Justice
A Joint Statement Between the North American MenEngage Network (NAMEN) and Promundo-US
The United States was once a leader on supporting global efforts to end violence against women and promote women’s human rights. But under President Trump, the US government is now far from that; the decision to withdraw the country from the Human Rights Council is just one example.
The United States, under previous administrations, has been a global supporter of advancing human rights, including efforts to respond to and eliminate violence against women domestically and internationally. However, on June 20, 2018, the Trump administration withdrew the United States (US) from the Human Rights Council (HRC), an intergovernmental body within the United Nations (UN) that holds the responsibility to promote and protect human rights globally and to address human rights violations, including violence against women.
The Trump administration’s decision puts the US on a list of countries that do not take human rights seriously and do not take women's, children’s, or immigrants’ rights seriously. The North American MenEngage Network (NAMEN) and Promundo-US express grave concerns and deep disagreement with this decision, which we believe lands the US firmly on the wrong side of history and justice. By withdrawing itself from any involvement or engagement in collaborative diplomacy, the US is removing itself from a position of both being held accountable and holding other states accountable for the advancement of human rights and the global effort to prevent all forms of gender-based violence.
Representatives of NAMEN and Promundo-US attended the Human Rights Council session in June along with a number of MenEngage Alliance members – from more than 15 countries, across 5 continents – at which the US withdrew from the HRC. We were there because last year, the Human Rights Council did something historic: it affirmed that men and boys must be engaged as key actors to prevent violence against women. It affirmed that this work must be done in ways that challenge harmful ideas about what it means to be a man and must be applied within a human rights and feminist framework.
This HRC Resolution (HRC 35-10) says we need to get serious about shifting the cultures of manhood – in policy and practice – that too often drive men's violence against women. It asserts that member states have a responsibility to support and promote men’s engagement in these efforts to prevent and eliminate all forms of gender-based violence.
Tellingly, the US was not one of the 85 member states to co-sponsor that resolution. The US refused to confirm that men are the majority of those who carry out violence against women, and therefore we must engage men to end it. Now, by withdrawing, the US is going even further by pulling ourselves out of this UN body and refusing to participate in advancing the international community’s human rights agenda more broadly. The Trump administration’s decision to withdraw came one day after the opening statement and global update of human rights concerns by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein, a statement which soundly (and in our view, rightly) criticized the US for the Trump administration’s practice of separating children from their families – including those seeking asylum (while also recently removing domestic violence as cause to seek it) – at the US’s southern border as a response to so-called and unsubstantiated immigration “crisis” into the US.
We call on the Trump administration to reverse its decision, returning to the Human Rights Council and to the global conversation about expanding human rights. We call on the government and leadership of the United States to re-commit to prioritizing the advancement of women’s rights and gender equality in its domestic and foreign policy.
As the United States, we must show what we wish to stand for; we must show that we believe we can become a place where women, children, immigrants, and all people feel safe – a place where their human rights are protected.
The North American MenEngage Network (NAMEN), a member of the Global MenEngage Alliance, is a regional network of organizational and individuals in the US and Canada working to engage and mobilize men and boys in support of expanding women’s human rights. NAMEN focuses on three key areas: ending gender based violence, promoting men’s roles in responsible and engaged caregiving, and promoting reproductive health and justice. NAMEN is the network in the US and Canada that provides technical support and resources to the multiple local, state, provincial, and national organizations in both countries working to engage men and boys; and provides a bi-national voice for these efforts.
Founded in Brazil in 1997, Promundo works to promote gender equality and create a world free from violence by engaging men and boys in partnership with women and girls. Promundo is a global consortium with members in the United States, Brazil, Portugal, and Democratic Republic of the Congo that collaborate to achieve this mission by conducting cutting-edge research that builds the knowledge base on masculinities and gender equality; developing, evaluating, and scaling up high-impact gender-transformative interventions and programs; and carrying out national and international campaigns and advocacy initiatives to prevent violence and promote gender justice.
Raising Boys to Love and Care, Not Kill By Rob Okun
Heart contracts; tears collide. Ten dead, 13 wounded; this time in Santa Fe, Texas.
If we're ever to end these tragic bloodbaths in the United States, we have to put gender at the center of the national conversation about mass murders.
News flash: The location of the killings is only one way to describe the murders; highlighting the shooters’ gender is essential to gain insights to prevent future tragedies. While not all mass murders occur at schools—think churches and movie theaters—virtually every murderer is male, almost always white. Dimitrios Pagourtzis, 17, who opened fire at Santa Fe High School on Galveston County's Gulf Coast, is no exception. We ignore that truth at our peril.
In gun-friendly Texas, memories are still fresh from last November’s mass murders at a church in Sutherland Springs (27 dead, including the perpetrator, 26-year-old white male Devin Patrick Kelley). The Santa Fe tragedy was the 22nd school shooting of 2018 —that's more than one a week. Yet the national conversation focuses on gun access, mental health, school building security—anything but the gender of the perpetrator. Perplexing, since gender is central in another arena where men are perpetrating violence: sexual assault.
In the past 12 months, there's been a powerful shift in our cultural narrative, with the #MeToo movement inspiring more women to speak out—and be believed. So why are we reluctant to call a mass shooter a male mass shooter? If women were doing the killing, you can bet gender would lead every broadcast and news story.
In talking about men, phrases like “toxic masculinity” (or “healthy masculinity” for that matter) do men a disservice. They obscure deeper issues about manhood, especially the most important one: how we raise boys.
Let's be truthful: the majority of boys and men do not commit mass murder; do not enter public spaces brandishing automatic weapons; do not mow down pedestrians with cars careening down city sidewalks. Those men are the hawks in the coal mine; we need to pay attention to the canaries.
Any middle or high school student can identify the canaries—isolated, alienated boys with low self-esteem, products of a culture indifferent to boys’ social anxieties, disillusionment, and loneliness. Addressing their struggles as teenagers is too late; we must begin helping boys in preschool, learning from discerning early childhood educators and insightful psychotherapists about how we, as adults and role models, can raise happy, healthy men.
In considering both mass shootings and #MeToo, we’re told men have been largely silent. That's only partially true. How many readers are aware of the four-decade old anti-sexist men's movement that has been challenging men's violence against women (and other men), since the 1970s? How many know about the initiatives and organizations that have dotted the landscape since then?
Decades ago, when Gloria Steinem famously said, “Women want a men's movement. We are literally dying for it,” some men were listening. In the aftermath of a tragedy like Santa Fe, there is a treasure-trove of resources addressing contemporary masculinity. Men are helping; men want to help. Demonizing all men is a losing proposition.
Of course, there is never any justification for the twisted belief that men are “entitled” to a girlfriend or to sex. Troubled, lonely males are made, not born. A culture that refuses to consider the health of our boy children, and fails to acknowledge the gender inequality girls and women have experienced for, well, forever, will continue to produce wounded men, a tiny number of whom will become violent. Without early counseling and support, though, many will turn to extremist online misogynist groups for validation.
Boys can grow to be beautiful men if society is willing to re-evaluate how they are socialized. If Congress won't fund the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to conduct a comprehensive public health study of male socialization, then every state legislature should take up the cause. To honor the memories of the murdered in Santa Fe, Texas, Parkland, Florida, and all those who came before, we have to act. Now.
Rob Okun is editor of Voice Male magazine and a member of the steering committee of North America MenEngage. A new edition of his book, Voice Male: The Untold Story of the Profeminist Men’s Movement, was published earlier this year. He can be reached at email@example.com.
This article first appeared in The Dallas Morning Union and The Telegraph in London. It is syndicated by Peace Voice.
Men Responding to the Harassment and Assault
By Rus Ervin Funk
The #MeToo campaign, along with the recent rash of allegations about sexual harassment and assault by both women and men, have created another opportunity for men, individually and collectively, to respond to sexual harassment and assault. What we’ve seen is less than encouraging and suggests we need to do more as a movement. It speaks to the need for us to better empower--and model for men--how they can respond to sexual harassment and assault in ways that are both proactive and more effective than just expressing our support or outrage for victimized women or men.
Michael Flood, in Men Speak Up: A Toolkit for Action in Men’s Daily Lives (White Ribbon Campaign, 2011), outlines a host of actions men can (and should) take in response to gender based violence. He categorizes them into three areas:
Behaving nonviolently ourselves
Taking action with other men and women
Joining in collective action
He doesn’t suggest these steps are linear (i.e. behaving nonviolently is not meant to be a first step of men’s action that leads to taking action amongst other men and women). Rather his categorization is offered as a way to think about and offer men opportunities to act.
In 2017, Rus Funk and Lundy Bancroft, in their chapter “Addressing and Combating Intimate Partner Sexual Violence” (in Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Sexual Violence: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Prevention, Recognition and Intervention, (Routledge, Press, 2017) identified five criteria men need in order to perpetrate sexual violence:
A lack of empathy for women’s feelings and experiences. Men who perpetrate sexual assault and harassment are well aware (based on the acknowledgements of men who have confessed to perpetrating) that what they are doing is causing distress and her lack of consent is obvious.
A belief system to justify his behaviors and actions. Men who perpetrate must develop some kind of beliefs around how what he did was acceptable, which includes not being responsible for his own actions, that women are beneath him and that exploiting others sexually is acceptable. But he must also come to believe that lying to her, about her and about his actions are also excusable.
A vision of sexual assault or harassment. In order to engage in the behaviors, men who perpetrate must first have a vision of those behaviors. We know from ample evidence that the vast majority of sexual harassment and assaults are planned. So we know that he must develop a specific vision for assaulting or harassing.
A part of this visioning includes justifying or re-defining the assault or harassment as not assaultive or harassing.
A degree of perceived social approval for his actions. Men, like women, are deeply and inherently social creatures. Our behaviors, and the beliefs and attitudes that lie beneath those behaviors, exist in the context of our social relationships. Men who perpetrate believe that their actions are at least socially acceptable, if not socially encouraged.
Trust that his actions will not be found it, and if they are, will not result in robust accountability.
Examining these factors and identifying how these attitudes or beliefs are supported by broader social systems provides additional strategies for men to be involved and take action. All of us, as men, have a role to play in the social systems of which we are a part (friendship networks, workplaces, our places of worship, etc.). We can either contribute to, or counter, the social norms of those places -- including the social norms that are outlined above.
Men’s lack of empathy for women and women’s experiences does not just exist within individual men. Individual men’s lack of empathy is reinforced (in some cases required) by the social environments we’re a part of. As such, we all have roles to play in creating social environments that enforce social norms that undermine these five preconditions.
Taken together, these two documents offer an outline for ways that men can act (individually and collectively) more effectively to counter and combat sexual harassment and assault.
So when Michael Flood calls on us to “start with yourself,” we can explore our own responses when women or men allege sexual harassment or assault -- particularly when those allegations are directed at men we respect or honor, or men we know or love. We can train ourselves to hold onto our empathy towards her even while we struggle with the implications of those allegations. Men’s current default response to sexual harassment and assault seems to be stuck in disbelief, denial and victim blaming. We can help to create a social norm that re-sets men’s default in response to one of empathizing with and believing women.
When Michael suggests that we take action with other men and women, we can work within our social networks (friendships, relatives, co-workers, classmates, etc.) to clarify our intention to be more outwardly empathetic to all women and lay a new standard that we expect our friends, family, colleagues, etc to also express more empathy towards more women more often.
And when Michael suggest that we as men can take more collective action, that suggests we as men can organize public demonstrations of our support for women. As an example, as a part of the annual Take Back the Night march and rally in Louisville, Kentucky, for several years a group of men organized a “feeder march.” That is, a separate march of and for men that joined with women at the rally site prior to the candle-light vigil. In this way, men of the Louisville community were publicly demonstrating (both meanings of the word) our collective support for women.
I am, of course, am only using building empathy as an example. We as men, individually and collectively, can and must work on all five of these criteria, in all three of the arenas described above.
As critical as it is for women to find the courage and be supported in speaking up about their experiences of being harassed and assaulted, we also need to generate the courage amongst men to actively challenge men’s harassing attitudes and behaviors. This is what men can do -- and need to do.
Notes on Accountability - Practice Makes ProgressBy Rus Ervin Funk
We have have examined various issues related to accountability over the past three issues of the NAMEN newsletter. In the first (May, 2017), I offered some initial thoughts on What We’re Learning about accountability through the the lens of on the ground practitioners and efforts. In the July issue, Chuck Derry, Cliff Leek, and Humberto Carolo joined me in exploring experiences we have had individually, and collectively, seeking to hold other men and men’s groups accountable. In this issue, I will explore some additional issues related to our attempts to be accountable--and hold others accountable--as well as offer some ideas about practice.
In practicing accountability, at least three common threads emerge that deserve further exploration and attention. I’ll touch on each of these in this article:
Shaming and Blaming
It’s hard to have a conversation about accountability and not address shaming and blaming. In the US context, our ideas about accountability are overly influenced by the criminal legal system/perspective. We are mostly used to the notion of “holding someone accountable” being associated with judgement, punishment and blame. To a large degree, we understand being “held accountable” as synonymous to receiving some form of punishment. Judging, punishing and blaming are inherently shame-based behaviors. This frame make is difficult for us to willingly accepting being accountable, and can also create barriers in our ability and willingness to hold others accountable.
As men we often seem most comfortable with shaming and blaming tactics for holding other men (including other men’s groups) accountable. We don’t seem to need to be taught how to start holding others accountable by being accusatory -- “You did something wrong; this is what you did wrong and this is what is wrong with you…”
Even when trying to engage other men, our messages and tactics that are inherently shaming. Consider the “real men don’t rape” kinds of campaigns. Inherent in the message that “real men” don’t rape is that the men who do rape are somehow not “real” men, i.e. they are less than “real” men and/or that there is something inherently wrong with them as human beings. Suggested in these campaigns is a parallel assumption -- “there is something wrong with you as a man, or with your manhood if you don’t speak out against rape.”
Shaming and blaming tactics, however, rarely lead to sustained change (individually or organizationally). Rather, they tend to invite defensiveness, entrenched behaviors and backlash. While shame and blame may succeed in interrupting specific behaviors or actions, that short-term interruption is not the same as accountability. Accountability necessitates taking responsibility for one’s actions (or inactions) and making amends -- goals that are typically missed and which tend to be discouraged when using shaming and blaming tactics.
While this is true, there is also some degree in which holding others accountable is inherently shaming. To suggest that we’re not shaming seems unrealistic and is likewise (although differently) ineffective. Holding someone else accountable means, in part, “holding” people to see the consequences of their action (or inaction) and inviting them to change these behaviors. It is not our responsibility to shame someone for their behaviors, but neither is it our responsibility to protect them from the shame they may feel for recognizing the consequences of what they’ve done. For perhaps most of us, coming to recognize the ways that our behaviors have caused harm (especially when we have harmed someone we care about) we feel some shame. Feeling some shame isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
Furthermore, and related, as we reflect on our process of change, we likely experienced periods of shame in regards to how we treated others. My consciousness has increased over the years regarding understanding privilege and the ways that I engage in privileged behaviors. As my consciousness increased, I have been aware when I was not yet living up to what my consciousness was telling me. There were times when I was ashamed of myself for that gap, and that shame turned into a motivating force propelling me to get my act together. Had someone protected me in those moments when was experiencing shame, I may well have avoided the growth opportunities before me.
One way to encapsulate this lesson is this -- learn the lesson you need to learn, clean up what you have to clean up, and them move on. Looking backward at the ways we’re ashamed doesn’t propel us forward -- either us as individuals, or us as a movement.
Since shaming and blaming are widely recognized as largely ineffective strategies to create sustained individual or organizational change, and shame seems to be relatively inherent in the process of being and holding others accountable, then what are we saying about shame? The lesson?: be mindful. With rare exception, the point of being accountable is not to feel bad about ourselves, and the point of holding other men or men’s groups accountable is not to make them feel bad about themselves as human beings. Ultimately, the goal of accountability is two-fold: ensure/promote the safety and well being of folks who have been harmed or who have a history of oppression/dominance; and to encourage growth, development and movement forward towards being a better ally, human being, activist…(fill in the blank.) When we attend to these goals in the process of being accountable and holding others accountable, we find ways to manage the shame, blame and accountability.
Our relationships with women
Men’s accountability often involves women. Most of us as men know and love women who we count on to support and challenge us; and most of our organizations have women in leadership who both encourage and challenge us and our efforts. How men use our relationships with women when we attempt to be accountable -- and when we’re being held accountable -- is worthy of deeper exploration.
Are we (both individually and organizationally) using the women with whom we have relationships to justify and excuse our behavior or as monitors of our behavior and actions? When challenged we have seen a tendency to refer/defer to our women supporters. In other words, when a woman holds me accountable for something I’ve said or done, as part of examining my behavior and being accountable, I quite often “check” myself with other women in my life. This isn’t inherently problematic but can be if we use these relationships to excuse, justify, or minimize our behaviors. When I go to women colleagues and friends saying, “I was called out for doing thus and such at this meeting. Here’s what happened… that wasn’t so bad was it?” I invite collusion with my minimizing. This is not to call out the women who support us, but rather to focus on how we use our relationships in ways that may justify sexist or abusive behaviors.
How others who are holding us accountable may treat us
All of us are flawed, including those folks who we have harmed in some way. This means that there are times when we’ve all (individuals and organizations) been held accountable in ways that felt hurtful or mean.
Sometimes what we’ve done, or how we’re experienced it, is so hurtful, alarming or triggering, that people react with emotional reactivity at the time they’re holding us accountable. In these moments, it is tempting to try and completely dismiss their charge rather than listening to what they are saying beneath the emotional reactivity. For many of us who are white, this seems particularly true when Black, Latina, Asian or Native women are the ones being emotional. It is also tempting to jujitsu the situation and make ourselves (individually or collectively) the victim of their “emotional outburst.”
It seems critical in our efforts to be accountable to expand our capacity to non-defensively respond to these situations. This means not only developing our own abilities, but also helping to develop our collective capabilities. Since there is usually a legitimate reason we’re being called out, holding ourselves accountable is necessary even if we don’t like the way someone is holding us accountable.
Still, as human beings who don’t want to be emotional punching bags, we have the right to set limits on the ways we are spoken to and treated. It is precisely those times when I am feeling most defensive or anxious that I often have the greatest opportunity to learn about myself. So when someone is coming after me with some heat about my behavior or words -- and I start feeling the most intense desire to avoid or defend -- that is exactly the moment when I most probably need to do my best listening. That is most likely exactly the moment when someone is telling me something that I most need to hear (especially if I don’t want to.)
Being accountable, both individually and collectively, is a process of learning for us all. We learn best, it seems, when we are transparent about that process, including those aspects of learning that are particularly difficult. As long as we continue to understand being accountable as a process, rather than an endpoint, we increase our chances of continuing to make progress on how we understand and practice accountability.
Exploring Accountabilityby Rus Ervin Funk, Chuck Derry, Cliff Leek, & Humberto Carolo
In the Last issue, we started a process of defining what we mean by accountability and began exploring several of the dynamics related to being accountable.
As men and as a male identified network, one area of accountability that we are often called upon to engage in is holding other men, or other men’s groups/organizations accountable. A prime and very public example is the National Football League and their systemic hesitancy to hold men who act abusively towards their partners accountable. Among other organizations, A Call to Men stepped up and has been a part of the ongoing process of helping (alongside several other advocacy organizations) to support the NFL to take more appropriate action towards preventing domestic violence.
Holding other men accountable is an area that is fraught with difficulty and challenge. The MenEngage Global Alliance has developed an accountability guide and toolkit to attend to these challenges. Perhaps one of the greatest challenges is our privilege. The privilege to remain silent, to decide we’d rather not challenge another man or organization, our tendency to “just let it go”. As men, we will not bear the brunt of that dismissal, women will. So, as pro-feminist men, and well-meaning men, how do we attend to our own accountability and that of others? That is the ongoing collective conversation that is needed. When and how is this done?
In this month’s issue, we aim to explore some of this area of accountability in more detail, offering some lessons learned both with NAMEN, and with other organizational efforts of which the authors have been a part.
We have found “calling men in” an effective means of holding other men accountable. There are behaviors and attitudes that warrant “calling men out”. When behaviors or attitudes have reached a certain level, the purpose of calling out is very different. The goal is not necessarily to get someone to accept responsibility, change their ways and make amends; the goal is to more clearly draw a line in the sand to say this kind of behavior/attitude is not acceptable here.
Much more common are opportunities to call men in -- helping them (and us) to recognize their behaviors/attitudes, note the harm that is being caused, and offer them an invitation to make amends, when necessary, and adjust their behaviors in the future. We think this same kind of thinking applies on the organizational level as well.
Our experience is that, first, we are all on a learning curve (individually and collectively) about being accountable. Acknowledging this can be an important part of the process. When NAMEN has reached out to other organizations about our concerns, we have tried to lead with this recognition and attempt to open the door to this process as being a shared learning experience.
At NAMEN, we cannot claim to have figured this out, but accountability continues to be a critical aspect of the integrity of our network. This commitment to gender equality and respect challenges us to challenge ourselves and others. And, there are risks associated with those challenges. It can undermine personal and professional relationships and/or, it will enhance them. That is often not predictable. But we know our silence is complicity in the face of both personal and institutional sexist oppression. There is no neutral ground, we are either supporting gender equality and justice or we are colluding with the systematic injustices doled out to women.
In late 2013, NAMEN was approached by several community activists (male, female and trans) regarding an issue that had arisen with the National Organization for Men Against Sexism (NOMAS) during their Forging Justice conference in Michigan that summer.
NAMEN entered into a process of working with NOMAS in an attempt to address some of the questions that emerged about NOMAS accountability, including a primary member of the NOMAS council and accountability for his actions at the conference. In November of 2013, we sent NOMAS a letter encouraging them to consider some key points related to accountability. We received no reply. After several attempts to engage with the NOMAS Council and/or its representatives, we eventually were able to participate in a call with NOMAS representatives in May of 2016. Six months later, in November of 2016, we received a reply from the board indicating their satisfaction that their accountability processes related to the incidents occurring at the 2013 Forging Justice conference are complete and have no further interest is attending to those issues. In April of 2017 we responded to the NOMAS Council.
One of the key lessons that emerged for us was how we as men and men’s groups can use silence. Sometimes our silence is acting in an accountable way -- not defending or making excuses, not “mansplaining”, not deflecting the conversation. Sometimes sitting silently and listening intently to the ways that we have hurt or disappointed someone is a critical form of being accountable. But there are also times when staying silent is a way that we keep from being accountable. We have shared our concern with NOMAS related to their silence with us and others. Silence can be a critical aspect of respect and learning, and it can also be a tool of the privileged, used to avoid challenges or dismiss the concerns of those they purpose to support. There is a line between making excuses and offering explanations.
A second lesson for us is exploring this line between making excuses and offering explanations. A part of accountability, as we understand it, is transparency. Transparently explaining how it is that we come to the decisions we make is crucial. Whether those decisions are related to our initial behavior which is currently being challenged; and/or our subsequent response, or lack of response, to those concerns as they are expressed to us. This transparency is not a way to excuse our actions, or dismiss concerns brought to us, but it is a way to explain how it was we came to make the decisions we made. For example, several years ago, MensWork (a community-based organization in Louisville) and Rus were asked to support and call men to be a part of the largest fund-raiser for a “women’s fund.” When MensWork’s decision to do so was made public, MensWork and Rus were invited to meet with leaders of the pro-choice movement in Louisville to explain their decision to support a funding organization that refused to fund women’s reproductive rights. (As a note, they also refused to fund anti-choice organizations or programs). We explained to them what we had agreed to do and our decision-making process that led to the decision. MensWork and Rus explained, we did not excuse. When we transparently explain, those who have concerns are provided an opportunity for further discourse and the learning process continues between the parties. This level of transparency allows those with concerns to determine whether this individual, or organization/network, is an ally in the work for gender justice and someone to further trust and engage with.
This initial process with NOMAS was a step we felt was most appropriate in engaging them about accountability -- “calling them in”. It has been a long process, one we would have preferred to “just let go” at times. Due to both NOMAS’s response, and lack of response, we have been challenged whether we should simply “let this go” or make it public.
NAMEN has worked since 2013 to engage NOMAS in an exchange of thoughts and concerns related to accountability. This resulted, after much effort on our part, in one email, one phone call, and again, months of delay before we received the council’s reply to our requests. All of these requests have occurred as private exchanges. Due to our continued concerns related to NOMAS’ limited engagement, we feel an ethical obligation to publicly express our efforts to engage the group in accountability discussions and requests for transparent action, and the lack of substantive results, from NOMAS, regarding those efforts.
While we respect and appreciate the years of work and effort that NOMAS has engaged in to counter sexist oppression, we are sorely disappointed in their history of accountability. Accountability is an “enormously important issue” that is the foundation of our work for justice, and fundamental to the integrity of that work.
As a pro-feminist male identified network of activists and allies, we will continue to work to end gender oppression by responding effectively to harm which has already occurred, work to change the social norms supporting sexist violence and oppression, and hold ourselves and others accountable for our actions and intents. In this way, we build our alliance with women’s rights organizations and others working for gender equality and justice, and create a world where all people, regardless of their gender identity, have equal access to resources and the happiness and security which is their birthright.
Men Stopping Violence
Organizing Men with MSV’s Community Restoration Program
by Greg Loughlin
Men Stopping Violence (MSV), based in Atlanta, GA is one of the United States longest standing community-based organizations working with men to end male violence against women. MSV began 35 years ago primarily working with men who batter, but always held the core analysis that intervening with individual men is insufficient without simultaneously changing the community and societal norms that provide men with opportunity, permission and justification to commit violence and abuse. MSV’s founding frame is that working to end male violence against women requires organizing men to change the community by supporting gender equality and gender justice.
Based on this analysis, MSV has developed a number of programs and projects that were designed to change the community context; often including the men in the program in these efforts. A prime example is the Community Restoration Program.
In 1987, MSV launched The Community Restoration Program (CRP) which provides a dynamic space for men to become involved in organizing to prevent violence against women and girls. Specifically, CRP members - men who have completed MSV’s 24-week Men’s Education Program (for men who have been abusive to their partners) and men from other social justice organizations - further their education and development by assisting MSV staff in engaging other men as change agents in the community and state-wide. CRP activities include conducting presentations for men’s groups in the community, assisting with Information Meetings where new men learn about the Men’s Education Program, staffing information tables at community events, and engaging men on policy issues.
CRP’s policy work is particularly vibrant and robust. This work is built on a foundation of longstanding relationships with victim advocacy organizations. “We’ve got a solid process in place: Every year women’s advocates from the Georgia Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the Georgia Network to End Sexual Assault, and other community based organizations, come and educate CRP men about policy issues that matter for women and girls, and how men can advocate in meaningful ways to support their efforts,” says CRP Coordinator Greg Loughlin. “And then – after getting solid about where we (as men) stand and what men can authentically say - CRP teams physically show up as a team at the Capitol to support the work of these sister organizations.” Examples of CRP’s policy work includes founding Men Supporting VAWA to mobilize men to support the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act in 2005; volunteering at Stop Violence Against Women Day at the Capitol every year; and opposing anti-immigration policies that hurt refugee and immigrant survivors.
During the 2017 GA Legislative Session, CRP organized men to oppose HB 51 re: Campus Rape Bill. According to Helen Robinson, Director of Advocacy for the YWCA of Greater Atlanta, “Survivors and advocates were united in their opposition to HB 51. It was critical to have men show up in solidarity with our efforts to challenge this misguided legislation.” CRP members spoke with male legislators, testified in a committee hearing, and spoke with the media to voice opposition to HB 51. Eventually – thanks to a broad coalition of advocacy
(CRP men at Stop Violence against Women Day at the Capitol in 2016)
organizations and survivors - the bill was defeated. “CRP wasn’t central, nor should we have been,” says Loughlin. “But we got educated, played our position, and showed up to contribute to safety for women and teens. That matters.” (Note: HB 51 will be back in 2018, and CRP is already actively listening to advocates about how to assist.)
Through this model, MSV’s Community Restoration Program demonstrates a way to continue to support men in their process of change from men who batter to advocates; offer a model of how men can restore safety to the community after the harm they’ve done by their abusive choices; and provide a pathway for ALL men to find their voices in concrete ways to help promote gender respect and gender justice at the community and societal level.
For more information about CRP, please contact Greg Loughlin, Assistant Director, Men Stopping Violence, greg@menstoppingviolence
What We're Learning - Some Thoughts on Accountability
by Rus Ervin Funk
Men’s accountability in working to promote gender equality and gender justice continues to be a contentious issue. Both NAMEN and the Global MenEngage Alliance view men’s accountability, both as individuals and within groups and organizations, as vitally important. As such, we believe in creating opportunities to continue to develop and expand the conversation about what it means to be accountable—and to offer some tools for how men and men's groups can act accountably. NAMEN recognizes accountability as a crucial area of our continuing work to build a vital male engagement movement in the US and Canada.
Towards this end, NAMEN produced a webinar, “Conceptualizing and Implementing Accountability in Men’s Gender Equity Efforts” In December, 2014. View the webinar here; and access handouts here.
Earlier in 2014, the Global MenEngage Alliance produced Accountability Standards and Guidelines (access here), outlining the standards MenEngage member groups hold ourselves and each other up to. These standards focus on four levels of accountability: global and regional, national, organizational, and individual.
The MenEngage Standards are based on three principles:
Prevent the violation of or infringement upon MenEngage’s Core Principles and Code of Conduct;
Respond effectively if concerns emerge regarding the conduct of a member; and
Collaborate openly with women’s rights organizations and other social justice organizations.
One of the lessons NAMEN took from our conversations about the MenEngage standards is that men’s accountability is traditionally understood as after something occurs that is of concern -- that is, how we hold ourselves and each other accountable (as men) after we have done something or failed to do something. NAMEN is also interested in accountability before an incident occurs—being proactive. For NAMEN accountability is both about how we behave when we fail to act in accordance with our principles— i.e. done things that have caused harm; and how we act, make decisions, and more broadly interact with each other and with women’s leadership on an ongoing basis.
While NAMEN has adopted the MenEngage Alliance standards, we are simultaneously working on our own interpretation of definitions and standards. Here are some emerging points about how NAMEN views accountability:
Accountability as process, not end point
Managing multiple accountabilities
Accountability as proactive as well as reactive
For NAMEN, accountability is a process among various actors and a practice of how we act. Being accountable, and holding other men’s groups accountable, is not yet fully clear and presents us with both challenges and opportunities.
We’ve also learned that by understanding accountability as a “process,” we have room to move between contradictory expectations or demands. As a process, we can disagree about what I, as a man, should do and how I should do it and still be accountable.
That being said, there are times when we make mistakes, act in ways that are counter to our principles, or which cause harm. There need to be a process by which men and men’s groups accept responsibility for the mistakes we make and the harm we cause, as well as a mechanism to make amends.
In practice there are multiple accountabilities. Many of us are accountable to multiple women leaders (who, like most people, sometimes disagree with each other about what it is that they think men should do). But we are also accountable to other groups. As we engage men and boys—and as a consequence want to be accountable to the men that we’re seeking to engage, (as well as other men in our communities)— we’re also accountable to our communities. For most of us that means multiple communities to which we’re accountable. Those of us who work for agencies are also accountable to those organizations (which includes a level of accountability to our funders.)
Bottom line: being accountable means managing multiple accountabilities in as transparent and responsible manner as possible.
Finally, many of us argue that acting accountably means not only being and holding each other accountable when we make mistakes, but also being and holding each other accountable when we do well. In both cases, acting accountably is (or can be) proactive and reactive. Acting accountably means thinking and feeling as we’re conceiving of actions to take, about how we can do so in a way:
that is transparent about our decisions (and decision-making processes);
do what we say we’re going to do;
take responsibility for the consequences of our actions (both positive and negative, intended and unintended); and
apologize and make amends when necessary.
One short article cannot hope to comprehensively address a topic as complex as accountability. We encourage readers to continue to explore what each of you mean when you hear the term “being accountable.” In the meantime, check out the resources listed above, and please share your feedback on this vital issue.
NOTE: We plan on following up on this article in an upcoming issue of NAMEN News.
To: NOMAS CouncilFrom: NAMEN (North American MenEngage Network) Steering Committee
RE: Accountability - NOMAS/ Haven “Forging Justice” Conference
Thank you for sending the NOMAS statement on November 30, 2016 regarding our concerns related to the 2013 Forging Justice Conference, which was co-sponsored by NOMAS. We have shared it with the collection of folks who have been trying to engage with NOMAS on this for several years now. While we are very cognizant of the difficulties involved with accountability, and our responsibilities as allies for gender justice, we do not believe NOMAS’s strategy of silence reflects those responsibilities. This silence has served to isolate NOMAS and the intent, according to your most recent statement, was to “protect’ you from further accusations of “defensiveness, deflection and mansplaining”. It is our view that this silence has in fact increased our concerns, rather than alleviated them.
While your assertion that it is critical for allies to listen to those with concerns, and seriously consider those concerns, your decision to subsequently remain silent, due to an assertion that you were treated unethically, only leaves others with deeper questions and a sense of dismissal of their concerns. That has been our collective experience to date.
Silence can be a critical aspect of respect and learning, and it can also be a tool of the privileged, used to avoid challenges or dismiss the concerns of those they purpose to support.
It is our view, that in the context of sexist oppression, transparency from allies in this movement for gender justice is a critical component of social responsibility, and accountability to those who are most harmed.
On November 20, 2013, the North American MenEngage Network (NAMEN) sent you a request which included asking for this transparency…
“In reviewing the list of demands as posted on the shakesville website, and the NOMAS response, we recognize that some demands seem to be met while others appear partially met and yet others not attended to at all. We ask NOMAS leadership to listen to the women making the demands, in your efforts at accountability, and to respond fully to the stated demands.
In the event NOMAS cannot address a demand to the extent requested, we recommend you clearly articulate why you chose to refuse a demand or answered the demand to the degree in which you did.”
This level of transparency will allow those who challenge us (pro-feminist men), or who have been offended and/or harmed by our behavior, as well as others, to have the necessary information to determine their future alliances with us as an individual, or as a group. In addition, this will enable them to ascertain their subsequent safety, and/or comfort level, if we are sharing spaces at work, at conferences, or other personal/professional events.
NOMAS has failed to attend to these concerns. Your silence has not only been targeted toward those who were directly offended by your collective behaviors in 2013, but also toward multiple national feminist and pro-feminist men’s organizations and individuals calling for accountability.
Based on your last communication, we understand that NOMAS is no longer interested in attending to any further concerns regarding your accountability on this issue and you are comfortable with the manner in which you have responded.
As we know, silence is also complacency. Therefore, NAMEN will not stay silent, and subsequently complacent, regarding a national pro-feminist men’s organization’s response to public calls for accountability.
NAMEN has worked since 2013 to engage NOMAS in conversation and an exchange of thoughts and concerns related to accountability. This resulted, after much effort on our part, in one email, one phone call, and again, months of delay before we received the council’s reply to our requests. All of these requests have occurred as private exchanges. Due to our continued concerns related to NOMAS’s limited engagement, we feel an ethical obligation to publicly express our efforts to engage NOMAS in accountability discussions, and requests for transparent action, and the lack of substantive results, from NOMAS, regarding those efforts.
While we respect and appreciate the years of work and effort that NOMAS has engaged in to counter sexist oppression, we are sorely disappointed in your history of accountability. Accountability is an “enormously important issue” that is the foundation of our work for justice, and fundamental to the integrity of that work.
NAMEN Steering Committee