Improving the lives of women in the world's poorest countries has been the focus of development programs for more than three decades, but now a new World Bank book asks: What about the men?

The theme of the book "The Other Half of Gender" released this week initially seems politically incorrect and has already stirred wide debate, given that women traditionally have been victims of inequality and discrimination.

But the authors argue that resolving some of the most chronic social ills in the developing world requires helping men deal with problems unique to being men.

Here is the whole article.

All in all, at first sight this seems to be good stuff! However, a more critical approach offers some doubts about that. The whole thing seems to reek of well-known "Men are broken, let's fix them" attitude. Here's the part that indicates this most directly:

They note that male gender identity -- or what it means to "be a man" -- is linked to some of the world's most pressing problems such as war, the spread of HIV/AIDS, urban crime and even terrorism.

Alarm, alarm! This could mean yet another try to re-define male identity - and call me bitter, but we all know what such tries really meant in the past, i.e. re-defining this male-identity to benefit women, first and foremost, and not the men. Here's a nice example of what I mean:

Such pressures can cause men to resort to violence and aggression against women and children, the authors note.

See, what they're really saying, is "this is important, because in the end, it's womenandchildren's lives that could be improved".

I don't know. Maybe I really am becoming too cynical and I'm seeing things that really aren't there... Maybe their intentions really are good... But I can't help it, even such seemingly good-intentioned men-friendy "programs" arouse my suspicion, that in the end, yet again, it's not really about men, but others. Blame years of experience

As a sidenote, I really don't get the following line:

"It is just that we haven't realized that men are gendered beings."

What did she mean with this? How can a man not be a gendered being?

'I don't know. Maybe I really am becoming too cynical and I'm seeing things that really aren't there... Maybe their intentions really are good... But I can't help it, even such seemingly good-intentioned men-friendy "programs" arouse my suspicion, that in the end, yet again, it's not really about men, but others. Blame years of experience '

I don't think you are being too cynical.

Seems to me that with a lot of things, if something mainly just helps a man, it is not really worth it, but if helping a man ultimately means it helps women and children it is worth doing.
Its about helping a man not for his sake, but for someone else's. Almost as if men aren't important unless someone is dependent on them or unless they can do something for someone else.

'I don't know. Maybe I really am becoming too cynical and I'm seeing things that really aren't there... Maybe their intentions really are good... But I can't help it, even such seemingly good-intentioned men-friendy "programs" arouse my suspicion, that in the end, yet again, it's not really about men, but others. Blame years of experience '

I don't think you are being too cynical.

Seems to me that with a lot of things, if something mainly just helps a man, it is not really worth it, but if helping a man ultimately means it helps women and children it is worth doing.
Its about helping a man not for his sake, but for someone else's. Almost as if men aren't important unless someone is dependent on them or unless they can do something for someone else.

It is just that we haven't realized that men are gendered beings.

The opposite of love is indifference. This gynocentric woman didn't even see such a fundamental part of men, because she didn't take men seriously before. They were just part of the landscape. One doesn't take an interest in the love-life of a tree either.

It is just that we haven't realized that men are gendered beings.

The opposite of love is indifference. This gynocentric woman didn't even see such a fundamental part of men, because she didn't take men seriously before. They were just part of the landscape. One doesn't take an interest in the love-life of a tree either.

Quote from the sad geek

The opposite of hate is indifference. This gynocentric woman didn't even see such a fundamental part of men, because she didn't take men seriously before. They were just part of the landscape. One doesn't take an interest in the love-life of a tree either.

Sad Geek, surely you meant "the opposite of love is indifference"?

Quote from the sad geek

The opposite of hate is indifference. This gynocentric woman didn't even see such a fundamental part of men, because she didn't take men seriously before. They were just part of the landscape. One doesn't take an interest in the love-life of a tree either.

Sad Geek, surely you meant "the opposite of love is indifference"?

Oops. Edited.

Long day. Brainfatigue.

Oops. Edited.

Long day. Brainfatigue.