Men-streaming Disaster Risk Reduction

(1)

‘Men-streaming’ Disaster Risk Reduction

A qualitative study on male engagement in the context of Disaster Risk Reduction

Agnes Blomqvist

Bachelor’s Thesis in Development Studies, 15 Credits, Autumn 2021 Department of Government, Uppsala University

Supervisor: Jacob Hileman Word Count: 11918

(2)

Abstract

Incorporating gender into disasters and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) is important given women’s and men’s different needs, vulnerabilities, capacities and roles in the context of disasters. Male engagement or ‘men-streaming’ has gained increased attention in research on gender and development, yet it has been overlooked in the field of DRR. This thesis aims to transfer the discussion on male engagement from development to disasters by studying how

‘men-streaming’ is described in the context of DRR. The analysis will build upon a case-study of the Gender Equality Toolkit by The Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB). A qualitative content analysis will be the main method for the thesis. The Toolkit will be analyzed using an open analytical framework, consisting of three themes: Men as

Vulnerable, Men as Capable and Men as Allies. The results illustrate that all three themes of male engagement are described in gender policy for DRR, with a main focus on men’s vulnerabilities. The contribution of this thesis is the recognition that while men are

increasingly seen as vulnerable rather than obstacles in the context of DRR, men’s capacities and allyship to women are not fully included in gender policy.

Keywords: gender, gender policy, men, male engagement, men-streaming, disasters, disaster risk reduction, The Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency

(3)

List of Figures and Tables

Table 1. Main Theoretical Concepts Figure 1. Research Contribution Table 2. Male Engagement Framework Table 3. Summary of Male Engagement

(6)

List of Abbreviations

DRR: Disaster Risk Reduction GAD: Gender and Development GBV: Gender-based Violence

MSB: The Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency WAD: Women and Development

WID: Women in Development

(7)

1. Introduction

With recent bushfires in Australia, flash floods in Indonesia and earthquakes in Jamaica and Russia, research on natural hazards and disasters, especially in the light of climate change, has increased in the last few years. Alongside the increase in disasters around the world, policy efforts to reduce and limit the impact of natural hazards have emerged. The effects of disasters on societies and individuals have proven to vary between different ages, between social classes and across the gender divide (Bradshaw, 2013, pp.8-10).

DRR is a concept aimed at minimizing societal vulnerability and disaster risk in the context of sustainable development (Bradshaw, 2013, pp.157-158). The emergence of DRR policy has enabled states, organizations and communities to prepare for natural hazards and prevent severe impact of disasters in terms of loss of life, damage of property and environmental destruction. Organizations like The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and agencies like MSB have developed strategies for addressing disasters before and after they occur.

However, gendered aspects of disasters and DRR have long been overlooked in disaster research and policy. Women are known to face a ‘double disaster’ due to decreases in social and economic well-being as well as increases in gender-based violence (GBV). The

incorporation of gender issues into DRR has been an important step in contributing to gender equality. Nonetheless, the idea of women as most vulnerable in the context of disasters has created a narrative of women as ‘virtuous victims’ rather than agents of change (Bradshaw, 2014, pp.67,69). Besides the importance of highlighting gendered vulnerabilities in disasters, there lies a need to emphasize and enhance the capacities that women have in preventing and mitigating disasters, an aspect which has been particularly overlooked.

While the increased attention paid to gendered aspects in disasters and DRR has incited efforts and strategies specifically directed towards women, such gendered dimensions have tended to leave out the interests and needs of men. Norms of hegemonic masculinity have provided an image of men as providers and protectors, limiting their ability to access trauma counseling and safe spaces for dealing with post-disaster grief (Malalgoda Ariyabandu, 2009, p.8). Additionally, men have not been sufficiently utilized as supporters and partners in achieving gender-sensitive development.

(8)

This thesis departs from the lack of research on male engagement in DRR. The thesis aims to contribute to the research field by moving the existing discussion on male engagement in development to the field of disasters and DRR, as well as to add a policy perspective to the idea of mainstreaming male engagement, or ‘men-streaming’.

1.1. Research Aim and Outline

The overarching aim of this thesis is to investigate how men’s needs, vulnerabilities, capacities, roles, experiences and perspectives are described in national policy regarding gender in DRR. The thesis will look specifically at male engagement or ‘men-streaming’ in the Gender Equality Toolkit by MSB. The following research question has been formulated:

How is male engagement accounted for in the context of Disaster Risk Reduction?

The thesis will begin by outlining the theoretical framework, including a theory review of gender and development, a theory review of disasters and DRR, a summary of previous research and a description of international disaster policy. The thesis will then account for the methodology and material of the thesis, describing the research design, choice of method and analytical framework. The next part of the thesis consists of the analysis and results, where the analytical framework will be applied to the selected case in three different themes: Men as Vulnerable, Men as Capable and Men as Allies. In the last chapter, a discussion will connect the results to previous research and the theoretical and analytical frameworks.

(9)

2. Theoretical Framework

This chapter will begin with a section providing an overview of the theoretical background on women, gender and development. The second section will describe the theoretical

background and development of DRR, framing the context in which male engagement will be analyzed. The third section will address previous attempts in research to address gender and male engagement in development and DRR. The fourth section will provide a description of international disaster policy. The last section will account for how this thesis contributes to the research field. Table 1 summarizes how this thesis will define the main theoretical concepts described in the theoretical framework:

Table 1. Main Theoretical Concepts

Theoretical Concept Definition

Gender The socially constructed identities, roles and responsibilities ascribed to women and men

Gender Mainstreaming The integration of gender equality issues into the formulation of development projects and goals

Hegemonic Masculinity The socially accepted and superior version of masculinity Natural Hazard A natural phenomenon that when affecting a vulnerable society

may lead to loss of life, damage of property and environmental destruction, and may provoke the onset of a disaster

Disaster A socially constructed event that disrupts the functioning of societies beyond their ability to cope

Vulnerability The social and political structures that make a natural hazard turn into a disaster

Resilience The ability of communities to adapt to stress and strengthen their capacities

Risk A product of the intersection of a natural hazard, the exposure to such a hazard and the vulnerability of a society

Disaster Risk Reduction The prevention and limitation of the impact of natural hazards, societal vulnerability and risk in the context of sustainable development

(10)

2.1. Theory Review of Women, Gender and Development

2.1.1. From Women in Development to Women and Development

In the 1970’s, studies by Ester Boserup on women’s marginalization on the agricultural and industrial labor markets gave rise to a focus on women as contributors to the economy rather than mothers and dependents (Benería et al., 2016, p.5). The Women in Development (WID) perspective developed from liberal feminism and women’s movements as a policy response to Boserup’s findings, attempting to build an institutional framework for achieving gender equality on the labor market. The WID approach to development was rooted in modernization theory and the idea of development as a linear process (Rathgeber, 1990, p.490).

The shift from the WID perspective to a perspective of Women and Development (WAD) in the late 1970’s was initiated by a growing concern regarding the ability of modernization theory to accurately explain international development (Rathgeber, 1990, p.492). According to critics, the WID perspective’s intention to ‘add women and stir’ lacked a consideration for the underlying economic structures that generated gender inequality. WID was also criticized for having an instrumentalist view on women. Departing from Marxist feminist discussions and dependency theory (Bradshaw, 2014, p.57), the WAD perspective raised questions about women’s socioeconomic marginalization, class cleavages and redistribution of wealth (Benería et al., 2016, p.12). Rather than focusing on the integration of women into

development, WAD saw the need to study the relationship between women and development practices (Rathgeber, 1990, p.492).

2.1.2. Gender and Development

A critical evaluation of Boserup’s findings by Lourdes Benería and Amartya Sen initiated a change in the 1980’s towards a Gender and Development (GAD) perspective in the

development field. Benería and Sen argued that Boserup’s work lacked a thorough explanation of the impact of colonialism on class cleavages and gender divisions. While Boserup viewed capital accumulation as advantageous for men, Benería and Sen found that men were also harmed and marginalized by the economic system. Additionally, women’s care work brought attention to another aspect of gender inequality (Benería et al., 2016, pp.12-13).

(11)

The GAD perspective is rooted in socialist feminism and applies a more holistic approach to gender and development, focusing on gender roles and relations. GAD moves the discourse from women to gender and provides a distinction between the biological aspect of sex and the social aspect of gender, described as a mechanism for the socially constructed identities, roles and responsibilities attached to women and men (Butler, 2011, p.20; Malalgoda Ariyabandu, 2009, pp.5-6). Although the gender concept incorporates a multitude of gender identities and expressions, this thesis will focus on the roles and experiences of women and men.

Highlighting women’s role as agents of change rather than passive bystanders, the GAD perspective stresses women’s collective organization for promoting structural change (Rathgeber, 1990, pp.493-494). GAD theorists further make a distinction between practical gender needs that require immediate action and do not challenge women’s subordination, and strategic gender needs that seek to question women’s long-term subordination. Strategic gender needs and interests aim to transform power hierarchies and question the relations between women and men in society (Bradshaw, 2014, pp.50-51). The perspectives of WID and WAD were mainly concerned with women, and were therefore criticized by GAD proponents for leaving out the interests of men. Discussions on the social hierarchy of

masculinities, with the hegemonic masculinity regarded as superior, have developed from the GAD discourse (Bradshaw, 2014, pp.58-59; Connell and Messerschmidt, 2005, p.832).

Increasingly, men are also welcomed as allies in promoting gender equality.

2.1.3. Gender Mainstreaming

Gender mainstreaming developed as a way of addressing the call to incorporate gender into development policy and practice. Beginning at the World Conference in Beijing in 1995, feminists expressed concern over the implementation of WID and GAD policies and the lack of attention to the root causes of women’s marginalization (Bradshaw, 2014, p.64).

The idea of gender mainstreaming is to integrate gender equality issues into the formulation of projects and goals and to enable both women and men to make decisions and participate in policy-making. The application of gender mainstreaming by institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund has been criticized for being overly technical and for not challenging women’s status quo. A recurring critique against the approach of

mainstreaming has regarded the integration of gender equality concerns for efficiency gains.

(12)

Gender issues in policy and practice have been promoted for economic growth rather than for the intrinsic value of gender equality (Bradshaw, 2014, pp.64-65). This thesis builds onto the notion of gender mainstreaming by studying ‘men-streaming’, implying that men as well as women can be mainstreamed into development and disaster policy.

2.2. Theory Review of Disasters and Disaster Risk Reduction

2.2.1. Disaster, Vulnerability, Resilience and Risk

The term disaster has traditionally referred to the occurrence of natural events such as cyclones, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, droughts or landslides. Disasters have been conceptualized as inherently physical and unavoidable natural hazards that require structural responses (Bradshaw, 2013, pp.2-3). In current disaster discourse, as well as in this thesis, disasters are distinguished from natural hazards. Natural hazards are natural

phenomena that when affecting vulnerable societies may lead to loss of life, damage of property and environmental destruction, and may provoke the onset of disasters. Disasters are socially constructed events that disrupt the functioning of societies or communities beyond their ability to cope (Bradshaw, 2013, pp.2-3; Albrecht, 2017, pp.14-15).

Vulnerability is a concept used to describe the social and political structures that make a natural hazard turn into a disaster. The risk of disaster (R) is described as a product of the intersection of a natural hazard (H), the exposure (E) to such a hazard and the vulnerability (V) of a society or community (Albrecht, 2017, p.15):

R = H x E x V

The vulnerability of a society or community is in turn produced by social, economic, political and cultural conditions. On a national level, vulnerability to a natural hazard can depend on geographical location, institutional organization, disaster laws, early-warning systems, government trust and cultural norms. As a consequence, both vulnerability and exposure to natural hazards vary between different countries and regions. Additionally, differences in vulnerability can be noted on an individual level. Class, income, ethnicity and gender are factors that affect the ability of an individual to receive warnings, evacuate and know how to act when a disaster occurs (Bradshaw, 2013, pp.6-8). Vulnerability must also be understood

(13)

as a dynamic and complex concept, dependent on temporal, spatial, and situational dimensions as well as intersecting identities (Morsut et al., 2021, p.5).

A critique against the notion of vulnerability is its exclusive focus on the negative aspect of what countries, communities or individuals lack in terms of managing disasters. An

alternative concept, resilience, instead describes the positive capacities of societies to adapt to stress and ‘bounce back’ after a disastrous event (Bradshaw, 2013, p.12). Instead of focusing on vulnerability, resilience emphasizes the ability of communities to strengthen and develop their capacities. A shift within the discourse on resilience can also be noticed, where the idea of ‘bouncing back’ is replaced with that of ‘bouncing forward’ or ‘building back better’, viewing disasters as catalysts for change, adaptation and reconstruction beyond the status quo (Local Environment, 2011, pp.417,419).

Risk is a concept incorporating both the physical aspect of natural hazards and the social aspect of vulnerability and resilience. Evidence of a global rise in disaster risk can be explained with the occurence of more hazardous events due to climate change. However, increasing risk can also stem from a rise in the impact of events, for instance through rapid population growth. Similar to vulnerability and disaster, the concept of risk is complex and based on subjective perception. To exemplify, individual understandings of risk are affected by age and gender, with adolescents having a lower perception of risk than adults, and men having a lower perception of risk than women (Bradshaw, 2013, pp.15-17,19).

2.2.2. The Disaster Management Cycle and Disaster Risk Reduction

The Disaster Management Cycle is a model describing the following four phases of managing a disaster: Mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery. Mitigation entails systematically assessing and mapping risks in the physical and social environment, which have the potential to endanger the lives and resources of a community. Preparedness means developing policies, institutions and resources and training responders for a potential disaster.

The challenge of preparedness is the unknown nature of how, when and where a disaster will occur. The response phase takes place after a disaster occurs and involves minimizing harm to people and property, preventing system breakdown and ensuring effective coordination between the actors involved. Recovery entails returning to normalcy through processes of learning and accountability for relevant state and non-state stakeholders (Boin et al., 2010,

(14)

pp.3-4). This thesis focuses on the mitigation and preparedness phases, given that the Gender Equality Toolkit by MSB is directed towards risk analysis and preparation prior to the

occurrence of a disaster.

Historically, most emphasis in policy and practice has been on the response and recovery phases of the Disaster Management Cycle (Goldschmidt and Kumar, 2016, pp.4,9). Many donors continue to view disasters as natural events and focus on the effects rather than root causes of disasters. Reducing the risk of disasters requires increased attention to the

mitigation and preparedness phases, preventing natural hazards from turning into disasters.

The concept Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) has emerged as a policy response to this need, placing ideas of mitigation and preparedness within the context of sustainability. DRR contains elements aimed at preventing and limiting the impact of natural hazards as well as minimizing societal vulnerability and risk. The development of DRR policy has incited the involvement and partnership of different authorities and actors on a communal, national and international level. Disasters have also increasingly been viewed as events that require long-term action rather than urgent response. Elements that form the DRR framework include: Risk awareness and assessment; knowledge development, education and training;

early warning systems; institutional, organizational, policy and communal action; and partnership and networking (Bradshaw, 2013, pp.157-158).

2.3. Previous Research

2.3.1. Male Engagement in Gender and Development

Several recent studies have indicated that incorporating men into policy-making for gender and development would be beneficial. Wanner and Wadham (2015) contend that the limited success of previous development policies and projects can be explained by the discrepancy between rhetoric and implementation as well as the strict focus on women in gender

mainstreaming. The interest in ‘men-streaming’ has been limited to issues of GBV and sexual and reproductive health. Flood (2004) outlines three main areas in which male engagement in development is necessary: Working with men as decision-makers and service providers;

integrating men into the development process using a gendered lens; and targeting the vulnerabilities of men and boys. Chant and Gutmann (2000) suggest conducting gender training workshops for discussing gender inequalities, incorporating gender-trained men as

(15)

clients and personnel in development projects and addressing issues of gendered power and hegemonic masculinity. Both Scambor and Scambor (2008) and Jacobsen (2006) refer to efforts involving intersectionality and the changing of power relations. Scambor and Scambor argue for deconstructing gender stereotypes, binaries and heteronormativity. Jacobsen claims that gender relations tend to focus on ‘winning’ men and make marginalized men invisible.

The arguments for ‘men-streaming’ development range from addressing specific male needs to evading violence against women. Jacobsen (2006) contends that the interests of men and boys in issues such as masculinity norms, family planning and parenting must be

incorporated into development projects, parallel to interventions targeting women. Flood (2004) recognizes the need to simultaneously consider men’s role in exacerbating gender inequalities and in being allies for women’s empowerment. According to Flood, there are several potential benefits in engaging men in gender and development. Leaving out men could foster male aggression and violence, and at the same time leave women with more responsibility for conducting gender equality work. Including men could increase men’s responsibility for change and give them reasons to believe that they too can gain from gender equality. Furthermore, Flood (2004) and Wanner and Wadham (2015) claim that

incorporating a men’s perspective does not remove the need to preserve women-only spaces and programmes. Nevertheless, development projects must address integrated gender policies and establish partnerships with women and men, which draw on pre-existing experiences and strategies.

The engagement of men in development has been criticized for potentially undermining efforts towards women’s empowerment. Flood (2004) and Chant and Gutmann (2000)

emphasize feminist concerns that increased male engagement could intesify male domination over women and jeopardize funding for women’s rights. Leek (2019) identifies four reasons behind some women’s concerns of engaging men: They are concerned over the execution of work including men and boys; they are concerned that male engagement initiatives will be used for harmful purposes; they are concerned that funds for women’s empowerment will be reduced; and they are concerned that the political space for women and girls in development will be restricted.

While incorporating a male perspective in development has a risk of causing a backlash, this thesis contends that such a risk is significantly smaller than the risk of excluding men from

(16)

development. As explained by Wanner and Wadham (2015), ‘men-streaming’ does not equate to applying a ‘men only’ or ‘men too’ perspective which disempowers women and removes funding for projects on women. Instead, male engagement is considered critical for the successful inclusion of gender in development.

2.3.2. Gender in Disasters and Disaster Risk Reduction

Gender differences throughout the Disaster Management Cycle build on gendered identities, perceptions and attitudes, where women and girls are viewed as passive, weak and

subordinate to men. In disaster situations, women are therefore subscribed to roles as

‘virtuous victims’ who need to be rescued (Bradshaw, 2014, p.69; Malalgoda Ariyabandu, 2009, pp.6-7). Gininge, Amaratunga and Haigh (2009) contend that women are more vulnerable than men in disasters. Women have less access to resources, education and warning information and might also lose their bargaining position in the household if their resources are removed in a disaster. The need for privacy and sanitation with regards to pregnancy and menstruation is often not met in disaster settings. Women also tend to be responsible for domestic labor and care work, which makes migrating after a disaster more difficult. Another aspect of women’s vulnerability is the idea of women facing a ‘double disaster’, with a decrease in social and economic well-being as well as a rise in GBV (Bradshaw, 2014, p.67; Malalgoda Ariyabandu, 2009, pp.8,10). According to Bradshaw (2014), the unequal power relations created by the social construction of gender are what cause gendered differences in vulnerability.

However, the assertion that women are more vulnerable than men remains contested. For instance, Bradshaw (2013) argues that norms of machismo in Latin America might encourage men to partake in risky behavior when facing danger, leading to a higher risk of death.

Another critique from Bradshaw against the notion that women are more vulnerable than men is that there is no homogenous group of women. Gendered risk, vulnerability and resilience intersects with aspects such as age, health conditions, poverty status, marriage, childbirth and caring conditions.

Furthermore, women should be seen not only as victims in disasters but also as important agents of change in managing disasters. Gininge, Amaratunga and Haigh (2009) and Malalgoda Ariyabandu (2009) claim that women’s capacities and experiences from living

(17)

with seasonal disaster cycles have not been sufficiently included in disaster risk policy and practice. Discussions on gender in mitigation have mainly centered around community involvement or women’s vulnerabilities. Taking advantage of women’s experiences from coping with disasters through mainstreaming gender into DRR is important for ensuring that women as well as men can influence and gain from disaster policy and practice.

2.3.3. Male Engagement in Disasters and Disaster Risk Reduction

‘Men-streaming’ is an overlooked aspect in academic research on gender and disasters. Men are often included in research as obstacles to gender-sensitive DRR or as perpetrators of GBV. Existing research on male engagement in disasters is also focused on the inclusion of men in practice rather than policy, and oriented towards specific country-cases. Tyler and Fairbrother (2013) have studied the importance of gender and masculinities in the context of bushfires in Australia, and found a masculinized social pressure of staying and a feminized label on evacuating early during a bushfire. The masculine versus feminine norms for staying and evacuating are reinforced by masculinized institutions in fire response and emergency services. These norms cause tension in households where men want to stay and women evacuate, albeit with increasing tendencies of men choosing to stay. Similarly, Dominelli (2020) has studied men’s roles and experiences following the 2004 tsunami in southern Sri Lanka, and found that men who lose their ability to presume their breadwinner role

post-disaster are more likely to resort to violence. Loss of property undermines men’s role as providers and their sense of traditional masculinity. Furthermore, the lack of trauma

counseling and emotional support for men is claimed to often result in depression, alcoholism and violence.

Arguably, meeting men’s specific needs in disaster could have an intrinsic value but also lead to improvements in the security of women, children and other men. Khoza (2021) has

researched local perspectives on gender and masculinities in Malawi and Zambia and come to the conclusion that Western NGOs tend to focus on women-specific efforts for DRR, viewing women as more dependable in using income for family needs. On the contrary, local

communities consider gender-based alliances the best method for achieving gender-equitable resilience. Engaging men in DRR strategies could therefore inspire better gender equality outcomes for society as a whole.

(18)

2.4. International Disaster Policy

2.4.1. The Hyogo and Sendai Frameworks

In 2005, at the Second UN World Conference on Disaster Reduction, an international framework for DRR was adopted. The Hyogo Framework aimed to reduce losses in life and social, economic and environmental resources by the year 2015 through a set of guiding principles (UNISDR, 2005). The priorities for action for the Hyogo Framework were to:

1. Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and a local priority with a strong institutional basis for implementation

2. Identify, assess and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warning

3. Use knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels

4. Reduce the underlying risk factors

5. Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels

Implementation and follow-up of the priorities for action was said to be achieved with a multisectoral approach, through a collaboration between states and organizations. While the responsibility for developing plans, policies and practice for implementing the Hyogo Framework was laid at individual states and organizations, a strategic coordination between relevant stakeholders was encouraged (UNISDR, 2005). The Hyogo Framework achieved progress in strengthening cooperation between local, national and international actors and in developing institutions, policy and legislation for disaster preparedness, response and early warning. However, limited progress was seen in managing the underlying causes of risk as well as reducing hazard exposure. The need for a more transformational and holistic approach to disaster risk was identified (UNDRR, 2021). Additionally, while the document claimed to integrate a gender perspective into disaster risk policy and planning, it was criticized for only mentioning gender and women twice (Bradshaw, 2014, p.55). This critique formed the basis for developing the Sendai Framework, the successor framework to the Hyogo Framework.

The Sendai Framework was adopted in 2015 at the Third UN World Conference on Disaster Reduction, as an outcome of stakeholder consultations and intergovernmental negotiations.

The Sendai Framework aimed to improve disaster risk governance, global cooperation and partnership in managing disasters, stakeholder responsibility and accountability as well as

(19)

understanding of exposure, vulnerability and hazard in disaster risk (UNISDR, 2015). The priorities for action for the Sendai Framework were:

1. Understanding disaster risk

2. Strengthening disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk 3. Investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience

4. Enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response and to “Build Back Better” in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction

For implementing the Sendai Framework, states as well as non-state stakeholders were called to share responsibility and provide mutual support, knowledge, experience and resources on DRR. The Sendai Framework further stressed the importance of genuine and durable

partnerships for enabling states with less capacities and higher vulnerability to respond to and recover from disasters (UNISDR, 2015). Although the framework encouraged the

participation and inclusion of women in the development of disaster policy, it was criticized for adopting a too narrow approach to gender inclusiveness in disaster implementation and monitoring (Zaidi and Fordham, 2021, p.6).

2.4.2. Male Engagement in the Sendai Framework

As the successor document to the Hyogo Framework, the Sendai Framework (UNISDR, 2015) gives increasing consideration to gender dimensions in DRR, albeit leaving men out of the gender equation. Men and boys are not mentioned a single time throughout the document.

The lack of clear emphasis on men is evident in quotes like the following: “A gender, age, disability and cultural perspective should be integrated in all policies and practices, and women and youth leadership should be promoted.” (p.13). This paragraph does not account for whether adopting a gender perspective means focusing on women, men or the partnership between women and men. An example of when gender is equated to women is the following quote:

Women and their participation are critical to effectively managing disaster risk and designing, resourcing and implementing gender-sensitive disaster risk reduction policies, plans and programmes; and adequate capacity building measures need to be taken to empower women for preparedness as well as to build their capacity to secure alternate means of livelihood in post-disaster situations. (p.23).

(20)

This paragraph highlights women’s specific needs in capacity-building and the importance of women’s agency for achieving gender-sensitive DRR. However, men’s needs and men’s participation are not mentioned.

While gendered roles, needs and interests are described throughout the Sendai Framework, they are either ascribed to women or not specified for any gender. The framework lacks a men’s perspective and specific policies for addressing the engagement of men. Based on the lack of ‘men-streaming’ in international disaster policy as well as the responsibility of individual states and organizations to implement the framework, male engagement in gender policy from The Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB) will be analyzed. An analysis of MSB’s policy on male engagement in DRR will account for how a Swedish DRR agency has interpreted the international guidelines on gender inclusion provided by the Sendai Framework.

2.5. Research Contribution

Male engagement in gender policy for DRR is an overlooked aspect in research. Firstly, the normative debate on male engagement focuses either on the general development process or on specific aspects of development, such as GBV. Research on ‘men-streaming’ also tends to be oriented towards empirical cases rather than gender policy. Secondly, gender dimensions in DRR research are centered predominantly around women. This thesis seeks to contribute to the research field by moving the discussion on ‘men-streaming’ from development to disasters. Additionally, the thesis aims to advance research on male engagement in specific disaster contexts by adding a policy perspective. The following diagram indicates the relationship between existing research areas and the contribution of this thesis:

Figure 1. Research Contribution

1. DRR

2. Gender Policy

3. Gender Policy for DRR 4. Male Engagement

5. Contribution: Male Engagement in DRR

(21)

3. Methodology and Material

This chapter will begin with a section describing the research design and cases selected, including the selection of agency and document. The second section will account for and discuss the implementation of the main method, content analysis. The third section will present the analytical framework used for the analysis as well as provide reflections on the validity and reliability of the study.

3.1. Design and Case Selection

This thesis has a case-study design, which refers to an intensive analysis of a single case with the purpose of filling theoretical gaps or generating theory. Although a case-study consists of only one case, it can still be viewed as a comparison within time and space if it is contrasted against a point of comparison (Esaiasson et al., 2012, pp.108-109). In this thesis, international disaster policy, previous research and the theoretical reviews of gender and DRR will serve as points of comparison for the case.

3.1.1. Selection of Agency

The selection of MSB as the agency to be analyzed in this thesis is based on criteria for a strategic selection. The thesis has a case-study design with a single case, which means that the case selected must be able to represent other agencies or organizations focused on DRR.

Although the study is descriptive rather than explanatory, the selection of agency builds on the logic of a critical, most-likely case (Esaiasson et al., 2012, p.161).

Given that male engagement is an overlooked aspect in research on gender in DRR, the selected case will be the case considered most likely to have incorporated this perspective.

MSB is a Swedish governmental agency that aims to support society’s preparedness for crises, including disasters and DRR. In 2019, the same year in which the selected document was published, Sweden ranked first in the EU on the Gender Equality Index. The index is tailored to fit progress and setbacks in policy goals on gender equality within the EU (EIGE, 2019). Against the background of Sweden being a pioneer in gender equality work, the Swedish agency MSB is argued to be the most likely agency to provide policy guidance on male engagement in DRR. An assumption is therefore made that more gender equality

(22)

implies a better consideration to male engagement in gender policy. Another argument for selecting the case of MSB is that the agency is internationally recognized, which means that other agencies and organizations are likely to follow the guidelines provided by MSB. The results of ‘men-streaming’ in this thesis are therefore argued to be applicable also to similar agencies and organizations.

3.1.2. Selection of Document

The selection of the Gender Equality Toolkit (Molin, 2019) among all of MSB’s policy documents is based on a number of criteria. Firstly, the document was published in 2019, which means that it represents MSB’s current gender policy for DRR. Secondly, the document has a specific focus on gender issues. The gender focus in the document furthers the argument that the case is a critical, most-likely case and that the Toolkit therefore is the most likely document to provide policy guidance on male engagement in DRR. Lastly, the document selected is a document guiding policy, which is necessary for understanding how male engagement is described in gender policy. The parts of the Gender Equality Toolkit that are analyzed are outlined in the Appendix.

3.2. Content Analysis

The main method for this thesis will be a qualitative content analysis. Qualitative content analysis aims to understand text material through carefully analyzing and emphasizing central passages in a text. Content analysis is an appropriate method for this thesis because certain passages in the document will be considered more relevant than others, implying that the sum of the text differs from the sum of the parts of the text. One way of conducting content

analysis is by clarifying the structure of thoughts and ideas described by actors in a text (Esaiasson et al., 2012, pp.210-211). This thesis will do so through the following steps.

Firstly, the document will be read through several times, both to get an overview of the content and to find specific details that are considered relevant. Secondly, relevant text passages that correspond to the themes developed by an analytical framework will be selected. Lastly, the passages selected will be connected to the theoretical framework and previous research.

(23)

The content analysis will be executed with a more open approach, where the results are determined by the content in the text, rather than with pre-defined categories. This decision is based on the lack of research on male engagement in DRR, which makes it difficult to

categorize possible answers. Pre-defined categories require an analytical framework where the categories are mutually exclusive, inclusive and applicable, and where new and relevant aspects of the studied phenomenon are lifted. An open approach instead requires adhering to the themes of interest and considering possible responses to the questions asked (Esaiasson et al., 2012, pp.217-218). These requirements will be ensured by highlighting the themes, aspects and features that will be searched for in the document.

An important part of conducting a qualitative content analysis is determining the genre of the text and thus developing an understanding of the rules for writing, since such rules can have an impact on the content of the text (Esaiasson et al., 2012, p.223). A policy report tends to be oriented towards a specific topic and contains specific aims, recommendations, and goals.

The language is often clear, concise and objective. Additionally, a policy report is normally directed at a specific audience with a pre-existing interest and knowledge of the subject.

These rules for writing must be regarded when executing an analysis of the Gender Equality Toolkit.

3.2.1. Limitations

One of the main limitations of this study is that it consists of only one case. The description of male engagement in the Gender Equality Toolkit by MSB might differ from a description in a different document, by a different agency or organization, and in a different country.

While the intensive character and case-study design of the thesis limits the ability to make a statistical generalization, an analytical generalization can still be made with a strategic selection (Esaiasson et al., 2012, p.159). MSB and the Toolkit have been selected to best represent national gender policy for DRR. The argument for conducting an intensive study with only one case is that it allows for a deeper understanding of this particular case, which would not be possible in an extensive study with more cases and a random selection.

(24)

3.3. Analytical Framework

This section aims to provide a roadmap for analyzing the Gender Equality Toolkit and for answering the formulated research question. The analytical framework in Table 2 serves as an operationalization of ‘male engagement’ and will thus be used to understand how gender policy for DRR accounts for male engagement. The framework is divided into three themes of male engagement; Men as Vulnerable, Men as Capable and Men as Allies. The three themes are constituted by different aspects of male engagement, described in the middle columns. These aspects must in turn be understood in terms of different features of male engagement, mentioned in the columns to the right. It should be noted that while the different themes are separate categories, they are often mutually reinforcing and overlapping.

Table 2. Male Engagement Framework

Theme of Male Engagement

Aspects of Male Engagement

Features of Male Engagement

Men as Vulnerable ● Rights, interests and needs

● Risks and vulnerabilities

● Potential benefits

● Men’s separate spaces

● Individual, community and institutional/policy

● Public and private

● Practical and strategic

● Physical and emotional

Men as Capable ● Roles and responsibilities

● Resources, capacities and experiences

● Individual, community and institutional/policy

● Public and private

Men as Allies ● Partnership

● Support

● Gender norm change

● Women’s empowerment

● Women’s separate spaces

The Male Engagement Framework has been developed from a combination of theory and previous research, building onto areas described as important and missing in policy. The aspect of support is derived from Leek’s (2019) critique that male engagement removes focus

(25)

from women’s issues and spaces. Partnership is added to emphasize the importance of

building onto women’s already existing knowledge and experience, addressed by Wanner and Wadham (2015). Men’s emotional needs in disasters have been included based on

Dominelli’s (2021) argument that there is a lack of attention to this aspect in policy and practice. The incorporation of both practical and strategic needs comes from the GAD notion that addressing more immediate needs must be complemented with understanding the root causes of marginalization (Bradshaw, 2014). Moreover, the emphasis on men’s potential benefits comes from advice by Flood (2004), stressing that men must understand how they too can gain from gender equality.

To some extent, the Male Engagement Framework is grounded in elements, principles and lessons from Gender Analysis, mainly from the Gender Tool Box by Sida (Sida, 2015).

However, given that Gender Analysis is predominantly directed towards women as a

marginalized group, the focus has been shifted for this thesis towards men as an overlooked group. Advice for constructing an analytical framework has also been taken from a report on gender equity and male engagement by the International Center for Research on Women (Glinski et al., 2018).

The Male Engagement Framework could possibly be complemented with a fourth theme:

Men as Obstacles or Perpetrators. Such a theme would highlight the ways in which men exacerbate gender inequalities and hinder women’s empowerment. Nonetheless, negative masculinities and men’s violence have been studied extensively since the 1990’s (Glinski et al., 2018, pp.12,17). Since this thesis aims to look at male engagement from a different perspective, the fourth theme will not be included as a focus.

3.3.1. Validity and Reliability

The method for forming and realizing a content analysis has implications for the validity and reliability of the study. This thesis is based on an open approach where the text is analyzed using an open analytical framework rather than pre-defined categories. With regards to validity advantages, having an open approach means leaving more room for adjustment according to the situation of the text. Rather than measuring the number of times women versus men are mentioned in the document, this study analyzes the context in which men are mentioned. The themes, aspects and features outlined by the analytical framework are

(26)

guidelines rather than strict categorizations. For instance, the theme Men as Vulnerable is not exclusive to the aspects rights, interests, needs, risks and vulnerabilities, but also allows for similar or related aspects. Additionally, the term ‘partnership’ is not automatically

categorized as an aspect of Men as Allies unless it is relevant and relates to the context of male engagement.

While an open approach provides validity advantages, it implies certain reliability limitations.

The openness of the analytical framework makes standardization and replication of the study more difficult. Given the lack of pre-defined, mutually exclusive and inclusive categories, the interpretation work becomes more subjective and dependent on the researcher. For instance, with regards to reliability, ‘partnership’ can be interpreted and coded in several different ways. The open approach is chosen because of validity advantages, but also due to the lack of research on the subject, which makes pre-defining categories difficult. The study still seeks to maximize replicability by having a clearly defined analytical framework that is followed throughout the analysis.

(27)

4. Analysis and Results

This chapter will account for the analysis and results derived from the research question: How is male engagement accounted for in the context of Disaster Risk Reduction? The first section will present the results from the content analysis, divided into the following three themes:

Men as Vulnerable, Men as Capable and Men as Allies. All quotes are derived from the Gender Equality Toolkit by MSB (Molin, 2019). The second section will connect the data from the content analysis with previous research and the theoretical framework in a discussion. Table 3 summarizes the results from the three themes of male engagement:

Table 3. Summary of Male Engagement

Theme of Male Engagement

Summary of Key Findings

Men as Vulnerable ● Recognizing gendered effects of disasters and hazardous events

● Identifying different needs in terms of services and assets, freedom of movement, distribution of relief items and access to warning information

● Addressing gendered hierarchies, inequalities and masculinity norms

● Allowing for men and boys to handle their emotional needs through psychosocial support and trauma-counseling

● Establishing safe spaces and meeting points for men

● Understanding gendered risk perception and identification

● Recognizing men’s and boys’ vulnerabilities, including experiences of GBV

Men as Capable ● Understanding gendered participation in disaster planning, monitoring, response and information

● Enhancing the capacities and experiences of women and men as a long-term, holistic and systematic change process

● Broadening men’s normative roles and responsibilities in society

● Challenging traditional and stereotypical depictions of men

● Ensuring that staff teams consist of both women and men

(28)

Men as Allies ● Developing a culture that values the inclusion of women and men in needs assessment, rapid response teams and volunteer networks

● Incorporating both women and men in gender training and education, including procedures regarding GBV

● Promoting partnership by mixing women and men in training sessions

● Preserving actions and spaces directed specifically towards women

● Identifying male allies and role models who serve to

disencourage hegemonic masculinity and promote women’s security

4.1. Results

The main gender equality goal of the Gender Equality Toolkit is described as follows: “The overall goal is that women, girls, boys and men of all ages, abilities and social backgrounds have the same opportunities and power to shape society and their own lives.” (p.49). The overall goal expresses a commitment to include the perspectives of women, girls, men and boys. To achieve the main gender equality goal, MSB has formulated five gender equality outcomes:

1. Women, girls, boys and men’s different needs, risks, vulnerabilities, priorities and capacities are considered in analysis, planning, implementation and follow-up of activities

2. Women, girls, boys and men enjoy equal opportunities to participate in and influence the planning, design, implementation and follow-up of activities

3. Enhanced capacities, empowerment and resilience of women, girls, boys and men on equal terms

4. The integrity and protection of women, girls, boys and men are ensured and risks of gender-based violence, including sexual exploitation and abuse, are mitigated 5. Increased involvement of men and boys in the work of achieving gender equality

All five gender equality outcomes emphasize the involvement of men and boys in terms of their needs, risks, vulnerabilities, priorities, capacities, opportunities, influence,

(29)

empowerment, resilience, integrity and protection. In addition, the last outcome specifically addresses the involvement of men and boys in gender equality work.

4.1.1. Men as Vulnerable

The difference in how women versus men are affected by disasters is a recurring theme throughout the text. Consequences of hazardous events are claimed to vary across the gender divide in terms of injuries, loss of property and livelihood, increased workload and GBV. The text emphasizes the link between gendered consequences of disasters and gender norms, roles and inequalities in society. Understanding the social, political and economic differences between women and men is considered a vital part of MSB’s gender equality strategy.

The Toolkit further acknowledges that women, girls, men and boys have different needs in crises. Practical, short-term needs for women and men include the right to services and assets, freedom of movement and distribution of relief items. The need for women and men to receive and access warning information is addressed: “Find out if women, girls, boys and men have equal access to relevant information on weather, climate, disaster risk and other risk-related topics.” (p.274). Enabling women and men to understand said information requires adaptation of communication methods: “Consider how to choose and adapt communication tools and channels so that women, girls, boys and men of different ages, abilities and social backgrounds can receive the information.” (p.267).

Strategic, long-term needs that require addressing power hierarchies and inequalities between women and men are outlined in the text. Making DRR gender-sensitive involves analyzing gender norms, behaviors, inequalities and action space. According to the Toolkit, the power relations between women and men must be shifted, trust must be increased and discussions on gendered norms and values must be facilitated for women and men. The effect of gender norms and roles on men and boys is explained:

But just like women and girls, men and boys also pay a significant price in terms of quality of life due to the way gender roles are defined and practiced. Globally, masculinity norms expect men to adopt risky and violent behaviours and they are often restricted from exploring their emotions and feelings, showing vulnerability or developing close relationships with their children. (p.32).

(30)

A recurring theme is that men who lose their sense of masculinity and leadership and who are not given opportunities to deal with their emotional needs resort to violence:

Due to strong social norms surrounding what it means to be a man, they often struggle to deal with the loss of their breadwinning role and changes in power dynamics during crises when women might step into new spheres. In addition, men often lack the capacity or are not given the opportunity to process traumatic experiences and may turn to destructive coping strategies, such as alcohol, drugs or violence. (p.39).

Although men’s inability to process disaster-related trauma is here conceptualized as relating to men’s needs and vulnerabilities, their coping strategies could also have severe impacts on women, girls and other men, which would rather relate to the idea of Men as Obstacles or Perpetrators.

The text recognizes that men and boys as well as women and girls experience loss and trauma during disasters, which often translates into feelings of grief: “Remember that men and boys are also in need of social and psychosocial support during and after emergencies to cope with their experiences and hardship.” (p.54). A strategy for meeting men’s emotional needs is establishing arenas in which men and boys are able to open up about their feelings, without judgement or de-masculinization: “Establish safe spaces and meeting points for men where they can seek support and explore and cope with their experiences, problems and emotions.

Make sure to integrate these measures into disaster response and contingency plans.” (p.54).

The Toolkit discusses ways in which such separate spaces for men can serve to challenge norms of hegemonic masculinity and traditional roles and behaviors attached to men:

If carrying out activities that interact with men and/or boys in a community/organisation (in any sector), consider if these can also allow for a space where men and/or boys can meet and challenge traditional gender roles and violent behaviours. This may include facilitating discussions on the pros and cons of men’s gender roles and masculinity norms in society, experiences of crises and disaster risks, and positive and negative coping mechanisms and how these can change. (p.53).

Besides gendered consequences of disasters and gendered needs in disasters, the Toolkit describes how women, girls, men and boys experience, perceive and identify risks in different ways: “Gender roles and inequalities result in women, girls, boys and men having different

(31)

movement patterns and action space in society leading to them experiencing risks differently.” (p.257). Similarly, existing norms for women’s versus men’s roles lead to differences in which hazards they face, including hazards derived from climate change:

Take into account that women and men often have different roles and needs in society, spend their time in different places and therefore often face different hazards. Consider how gender norms, women and men’s different behaviours and gender inequalities in political, social, cultural and economic spheres might impact their exposure to risk. (p.264).

To illustrate this notion, women’s traditional roles as mothers and carers and men’s roles as breadwinners cause women to spend more time in the private sphere, and men to spend more time in the public sphere.

The social construction of gender and the biological aspect of sex comes with different levels and aspects of vulnerability. Addressing gender in DRR requires gendered coping strategies that consider, manage and reduce the vulnerabilities of women and men. In the text, the need to challenge the image of women as most vulnerable and also look at the vulnerabilities of men and boys is recognized, with an example from Afghanistan:

One example that I often use is from Afghanistan where single men in a displacement camp found themselves in a vulnerable situation when they had been handed food supply from aid organisations but had no idea how to cook and make use of them. This shows that vulnerability is not only a “women’s issue”. (p.269).

One aspect of men’s vulnerability, which is often overlooked due to it primarily concerning women, is GBV. The text discusses the importance of including men’s experiences of GBV in strategies for DRR: “Like GBV against women and girls, GBV against men and boys is based on socially-constructed ideas around what it means to be a man and to exercise male power.

While underreporting of GBV is widespread in general, men and boys are even less likely to report.” (p.37).

4.1.2. Men as Capable

The Gender Equality Toolkit recognizes the need to understand the different capacities, resources and coping mechanisms that women and men have for reducing risk and

vulnerability in disaster situations. It is further necessary to distinguish the different roles and

(32)

responsibilities carried out by women and men in different societal arenas, such as healthcare and childcare: “Identify the specific functions, roles and responsibilities carried out by

women and men in society. Build these into the analysis and consider how to enhance existing capacities.” (p.265). Understanding women’s and men’s different responsibilities includes analyzing how women and men participate differently in disaster planning, monitoring, response and information. The text mentions identifying and analyzing crisis situations on the community level as an important aspect of female and male engagement.

Enhancing and empowering the capacities of women and men in local risk analysis, gender-sensitive training and exercises is considered a vital step towards achieving gender equality. Capacities ascribed to different phases in the Disaster Management Cycle, such as preparedness, response and recovery, must be strengthened in groups of women and men. The text describes the need for capacity-development for women and men in the form of a

long-term, holistic and systematic change process that addresses the skills, knowledge and behaviors of women and men. Nevertheless, enhancing capacities can also involve more practical issues. For instance, a healthy relationship between public work and private care work for women and men should be promoted: “Ensuring that women and men’s work role is possible to balance with their role in the family e.g. by offering parental leave, flexible work hours and child and elderly care.” (p.297).

The Gender Equality Toolkit further stresses the need to challenge gender norms and stereotypes, including breaking down norms of hegemonic masculinity where men must act violent and dominant in order to be considered ‘real men’: “Expanding the definition of what it means to be a “man” and promote alternative and positive masculinity norms for men and boys has to be in focus.” (p.32). Addressing stereotypical norms and discourses around masculinity is viewed as an effective method for expanding possible roles and responsibilities for men in society and in turn build better relationships across the gender divide:

It would contribute to increasing men and boys options and broadening their roles and responsibilities in society. Moving towards a more gender-equal society therefore requires men and boys to think and act in new ways, to reconsider traditional images of manhood and to reshape their relationships with women and girls. (p.32).

(33)

A shift away from the traditional depiction of men as workers, protectors and breadwinners can be achieved by encouraging men to take on roles and responsibilities previously

stereotyped as female. The text mentions men’s caring role and fatherhood as an important notion to support: “Support men who hold non-traditional roles, such as single fathers, by actively engaging them in family welfare programmes.” (p.54).

The difference between how women’s and men’s roles are viewed can be illustrated with the common depiction of women versus men in images for DRR. While men are given typically masculine qualities, women are ascribed to traditionally feminine qualities:

Examples of common gender stereotypes in images are that men are often portrayed as active, photographed from below and have formal clothing. Women on the other hand are often portrayed as passive, smiling with their heads slightly oblique and photographed from above.

(p.115).

Challenging women’s and men’s roles in society requires reconsidering how the relation between the genders is portrayed in different contexts. The text argues that women and men should not only be ascribed to stereotypical characteristics where women are emotional, passive and dependent and men are active, leaders and violent. Similarly, women and men should be portrayed in non-traditional roles, for instance where women are responsible for logistics and leadership and where men engage in cooking and childcare. Another example mentioned is allowing women to distribute shelter kits and cash for work schemes and inviting men to activities about family welfare and hygiene promotion.

Representation of women in traditionally masculine roles is considered by the Toolkit a means for achieving gender equality. Additionally, representation of women and men in public arenas, such as institutions, government agencies and ministries, as well as in civil society planning of preparedness and contingency plans, is emphasized. Representation can be achieved by ensuring that disaster personnel, for instance in data collection teams, consists of both women and men. Incorporating women and men in staff teams enables people of all genders to feel safe enough to share their experiences and knowledge. The need for disaster personnel to challenge norms of masculinity and femininity is described: “If possible, use both female and male trainers and facilitators and try to avoid gender stereotyping by

(34)

seeking female trainers/facilitators for technical areas that they are commonly not associated with in the context, and vice versa for men.” (p.103).

4.1.3. Men as Allies

The Gender Equality Toolkit argues for involving both women and men in gender equality work, including work conducted on a community level. Support for women’s and men’s inclusion in needs assessment, rapid response teams and volunteer networks should be encouraged. In addition, the text emphasizes the necessity to promote a community culture that values the equal support and contribution of women and men.

Gender training and education should incorporate both women and men. The education of male staff and volunteers on gender issues, needs and concerns is particularly encouraged in the text. People of all genders should be given the same opportunity to participate in and learn from trainings and to give feedback on the work conducted: “All staff, volunteers and women, girls, boys and men in the local community should be aware of the procedures for providing feedback and filing complaints and have access to them.” (p.280). The text describes GBV as an issue in which men’s education and training is especially important.

Trainings must provide knowledge about how staff and volunteers should act when learning about a case of GBV: “Ensure all staff abide by safety and ethical standards and know what to do if a case of GBV is disclosed to them, e.g. how to refer to adequate medical and psychosocial services.” (p.229). The procedure for filing complaints regarding GBV should be known to women and men in staff teams and the local community.

Furthermore, the Toolkit argues that partnership should be promoted, in which women and men can help participate in and design disaster work in order to reach desired goals and contribute to gender equality. One way of encouraging partnership is by constructing training groups that mix women and men: “Consider whether women and men can be mixed in training sessions in order to ensure that everyone feels confident enough to participate actively and ensure that scheduling is appropriate to assist attendance.” (p.295). Mixing groups in education and training is described as a method for allowing women and men to share perspectives and build upon previous experiences. While this strategy is conceptualized as a way for men to act as allies, it simultaneously addresses men’s needs to feel confident in learning and sharing, which relates to the idea of Men as Vulnerable.

(35)

Furthermore, groups that are mixed can serve for women’s emancipation and empowerment, illustrated by the case of mixed teams in Afghanistan:

Women and men in Afghanistan have limited contact with one another outside of their families and the fact that the teams were mixed made it possible to reach both women and men in the population. At the same time, this also increased the employed women’s economic

independence and freedom of movement outside the home. (p.102).

The text recognizes that actions and strategies directed towards men and boys should not divert focus from the situation of women and girls. However, separate spaces and channels for women must be complemented with spaces where women and men can meet and discuss solutions:

Targeted and separate actions to support women and men to reformulate ideas around gender roles and their own identity and position in society are therefore crucial, but meeting points where new relationships can be formed between women and men and girls and boys must be available. (p.52).

Male engagement is described as important for creating more favorable conditions for gender equality and gender-sensitive DRR. Men can act as allies in the promotion of women’s and girls’ security: “If men and boys are effectively engaged, they can become allies in the work to prevent gender-based violence against women and girls and achieve greater gender equality in their communities.” (p.41). Men in a community who are willing and able to challenge gender norms and power dynamics can be regarded as role models for other men.

Such role models can serve to disencourage hegemonic masculinity and promote a shift towards positive masculinity, which allows for men to be emotional and vulnerable: “Identify and engage male allies and role models in the community/organisation you are working with to promote change in gender norms. Empower these men to become allies and role models to inspire other men to take on new gender roles and shift unequal power relations.” (p.53).

4.2. Discussion

The results highlight several themes that must be discussed in relation to previous research and the analytical and theoretical frameworks. The analysis indicates that the Gender Equality Toolkit does not put an equally large emphasis on the themes Men as Vulnerable,

Men-streaming Disaster Risk Reduction