@gianname
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Risk factors in the setting where I worked previously included harmful alcohol use, rigid gender norms, lack of civic engagement by government and high rates of unemployment. Violence prevention strategies used so far include work with liquor outlets to reduce harmful consumption, community mobilisation, economic transfers and job creation. Couples programmes could be a really useful additional strategy in this environment.
If Mercy lived in my community, her relationship would be influenced by different kinds of gender norms, many of which are less linked to male authority/dominance. Some of those norms, such as valuing open communication in relationships and equal partnership, may be protective factors instead of risk factors. At the same time, norms in my community that value family privacy could put Mercy at greater risk, as she may feel less comfortable disclosing the IPV she is experiencing to others (like her friend). I also live in an area where employment rates are very high and employees have greater power in the job market – this would be a protective factor, as it would give Mercy autonomy and relieve the pressure on her family as a whole. However, my community may be more impacted by racial discrimination within broader society than Mercy’s community it, so this may put her at greater risk of experiencing not only IPV but other types of violence.
Gender inequality enables violence in Mercy’s life by hindering her physical development as a child by preventing her from doing sports, and hindering her education and economic prospects by preventing her from finishing school and forcing only one choice taking care of herself (marriage). In her community, Mercy’s church teaches the importance of chastity, keeping a good home and pleasing your husband, rather than other ways to maintain her spirituality and preserve her wellbeing. Because of this, Mercy has to live with a man who beats her and does not feel like she has any other option. These non-options are also forced on her daughter, Angel, since she is being taught everything Mercy was taught.
The violence by Clinton worsens gender inequalities because it could injure her, preventing her from taking care of herself and her children. This also has negative affects on her physical and mental health. If she continues to excuse it, the violence can also worsen the gendered messaging about violence and gender roles that her children are receiving.
Accountable to women and girls: In the programme that I am familiar with, the project is not systematically accountable to women and girls, because participatory M&E is not part of the the programme’s monitoring, evaluation and learning processes. Participatory planning is a crucial aspect of the programme, but there is less emphasis on following-up in a participatory manner. The M&E is more for donors and government or, where it goes beyond that, is only qualitative and not rigorous enough.
Based in a gender-power analysis: The programme that I am familiar with is based in a gender-power analysis because it collects qualitative and quantitative data about community’s demographics and sociopolitical context before beginning project planning and implementation.
Inclusive and intersectional:The programme strives to be inclusive and intersectional by engaging as many community leaders and community organisations. It is not always possible to get past gatekeepers and, because the programme works at neighbourhood-scale, it can be challenging to find the more marginalised voices. This is an ongoing journey where programming is only as inclusive as the community participation team is able to make it based on their available resources, time and contacts in the community.
Prioritising the safety of women and girls: This is a priority for the programme. Project planning involves strategizing for risk mitigation. Situational/environmental interventions such as walking buses are frequently used.
Starting with ourselves: The programme has an ongoing transformation process that is consistently evolving and responding to the needs of the team and the communities where it is being implemented. At the same time, the programme is chronically understaffed and extremely busy – it is one thing to create the brave spaces for transformation and another to hold them regularly enough or to hold the team accountable for what they discuss. At the same time, informal conversations often occur between colleagues where people learn from one another and expand their perspectives together.
The activity I brainstormed was “men’s classes and mentorship groups that focus on changing masculinity norms.” This would go under universal prevention on the prevention-to-response continuum, because it is not selecting a particular group that is high-risk (it was simply targeted at “men”) but it is seeking to transform a root cause of violence. It is not responding to particular instances of VAW. Mitigation may be required to ensure that the mentorship groups do not pose other risks for escalating violence.
