Pain, Rachel. 2014. “Everyday terrorism: Connecting domestic violence and global terrorism.” Progress in Human Geography 38 (4):531550. doi: 10.1177/0309132513512231.
This paper remaps the geographies of terrorism. Everyday terrorism (domestic violence) and global terrorism are related attempts to exert political control through fear. Geographical research on violence neatly reflects the disproportionate recognition and resourcing that global terrorism receives from the state. The paper explores the parallels, shared foundations and direct points of connection between everyday and global terrorisms. It does so across four interrelated themes: multiscalar politics and securities, fear and trauma, public recognition and recovery, and the inequitable nature of counter-terrorisms. It concludes with implications for addressing terrorisms and for future research.
Duriesmith, David. 2017. Masculinity and New War: The gendered dynamics of contemporary armed conflict. London and New York: Routledge.
This book advances the claims of feminist international relations scholars that the social construction of masculinities is key to resolving the scourges of militarism, sexual violence and international insecurity. More than two decades of feminist research has chartered the dynamic relationship between warfare and masculinity, but there has yet to be a detailed account of the role of masculinity in structuring the range of volatile civil conflicts which emerged in the Global South after the end of the Cold War.
By bridging feminist scholarship on international relations with the scholarship of masculinities, Duriesmith advances both bodies of scholarship through detailed case study analysis. By challenging the concept of ‘new war’, he suggests that a new model for understanding the gendered dynamics of civil conflict is needed, and proposes that the power dynamics groups of men based on age difference, ethnicity, location and class form an important and often overlooked causal component to these civil conflicts.
Exploring the role of masculinities through two case studies, the civil war in Sierra Leone (1991-2002) and the Second Sudanese Civil War (1983-2005), this book will be of great interest to postgraduate students, practitioners and academics working in the fields of gender and security studies.
The quest for modern manhood: masculine stereotypes, peer culture and the social significance of homophobia
Plummer, David C. (2001) Journal of Adolescence 24: 15-23.
This paper explores the use of homophobic terms by boys and young men and the meanings they invoke when using them. Highly detailed interviews were conducted with young men from diverse backgrounds about their own experiences while growing up and their observations of schools, teachers, family and peers. Homophobia was found to be more than a simple prejudice against homosexuals. Homophobic terms like “poofter” and “faggot” have a rich developmental history and play a central role in adolescent male peer-group dynamics. Homophobic terms come into currency in primary school. When this happens, words like poofter and faggot rarely have sexual connotations. Nevertheless, far from being indiscriminate terms of abuse, these terms tap a complex array of meanings that are precisely mapped in peer cultures, and boys quickly learn to avoid homophobia and to use it decisively and with great impact against others. Significantly, this early, very powerful use of homophobic terms occurs prior to puberty, prior to adult sexual identity and prior to knowing much, if anything, about homosexuality. An effect of this sequence is that early homophobic experiences may well provide a key reference point for comprehending forthcoming adult sexual identity formation (gay or not) because powerful homophobic codes are learned first.
Flood, Michael, Bob Pease, Natalie Taylor & Kim Webster (2009). In: Evan Stark & Eve S. Buzawa (eds) Violence against Women in Families and Relationships: The Media and Cultural Attitudes, vol. 4. Santa Barbara, Denver, Oxford: Praeger (177-198).
Since the early 1970s, when the grassroots women’s movement mounted its challenge to rape and domestic violence, there has been a worldwide revolution in societal responses to violence against women. Among the changes, the best known are the proliferation of community-based services for victims and reforms in public policy, law, policing, and health care. What is less well-known is whether the revolution in societal intervention is reflected in how ordinary citizens think about violence against women. However important institutional reforms are in the short term, they are unlikely to be sustained unless the normative climate changes that supports violence against women.
How widespread is the belief that women “ask to be raped”, that there are circumstances in which it is acceptable for a man to hit a woman, or that violence against women is acceptable? Do people feel empathy for women who are assaulted or raped, or do they blame the victim and excuse the perpetrator? Why do some family members, friends, and professionals respond to victims with support and sympathy, while others respond with indifference or blame? Why do some men use violence against women and others do not? Why do some victims feel self-blame, while others do not? We know that individual and community attitudes shape how women and men experience and understand violence against women. More than this, these attitudes influence the perpetration of this violence, community responses to violence against women, how victims respond to assault, and whether institutional reforms can be sustained.
This chapter provides an international perspective on attitudes toward violence against women. We begin by identifying the role attitudes play in shaping the problem. Next, we provide and international picture of existing attitudes and identify the key factors that shape them. Finally, we identify critical junctures where interventions to change violence-supportive attitudes can make a difference.
Hutchings, Kimberly (2008). Men and Masculinities 10(4): 389-404.
This article examines modes of theorizing about war in two contemporary literatures: on war and gender and on the changing nature of war. Both these literatures make a connection between masculinity and war. The article argues that, on examination, the link between masculinity and war does not depend on the substantive meanings of either masculinity or war, or on a causal or constitutive relation between the two; rather, masculinity is linked to war because the formal, relational properties of masculinity provide a framework through which war can be rendered both intelligible and acceptable as a social practice and institution.
You’re Either In or You’re Out: School Violence, Peer Discipline, and the (Re)Production of Hegemonic Masculinity.
Stoudt, Brett G. (2006). Men and Masculinities 8(3): 273-287.
School violence has not been studied widely across schools and communities. This article examines hegemonic masculinity and its relationship to violence through the peer disciplining (hazing, teasing, bullying) that occurs among students who attend an elite suburban boys’ school. Using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods, the analysis suggests that violence is embedded in the social fabric of the school and implicated in power relations between both peers and their institution. Emotionally ambiguous, you’re either in or you’re out distinctions made by peer disciplining can produce shame, fear, and hurt alongside friendship, intimacy, and bonding. The normalcy with which hegemonic values are practiced makes it difficult, though not impossible, to contest. If we are to find viable alternatives to dominant masculinities, which are restrictive for most, it will be important to ask which boys and under what conditions are they able to resist its mandates.
Chenoy, Anuradha M. (2004) India Journal of Gender Studies 11(1): 27-42.
The politics of globalisation and militarisation are lending a muscular discourse to international politics, which provide continuity to the principle of patriarchy and privilege, especially during times of threat and conflict. This kind of politics has a structural impact on society because it endorses traditional gender roles and places people in binary categories like ‘with us’ or ‘against us’, ‘civilised’ and ‘uncivilised’, ‘warriors’ or ‘wimps’. The militarist discourse marginalises opposition, diversity and difference, and with this the value of force as part of power is privileged, and militant nationalism exaggerated. Each local culture has its variant of the muscular discourse. As women try and increase their agency, the perception is that when women accept militarist notions of power it is easier for them to become part of national security and state institutions. This is a major challenge to feminist culture and thinking.
Varieties of Patriarchy and Violence Against Women : Resurrecting ”Patriarchy” as a Theoretical Tool.
Hunnicutt, Gwen (2009). Violence Against Women 15(5): 553-573.
Feminist scholars have produced abundant writings on violence against women, yet theory development has stagnated. The effort to construct a theory of patriarchy to explain violence against women was derailed by criticism. In this article, the author addresses some of these criticisms, uncovers the explanatory strengths of this concept, and lays some foundations for a more fully developed theory of violence against women because it keeps the theoretical focus on dominance, gender, and power. It also anchors the problem of violence against women in social conditions, rather than individual attributes.
Flood, Michael (2015) In: Holly Johnson; Bonnie S. Fisher & Vronique Jaquier (eds) Critical Issues on Violence Against Women. London and New York: Routledge (209-220).
Intimate partner violence (IPV) and sexual violence are the outcome of a complex interplay of individual, relationship, community, institutional, and societal factors. Given this, violence prevention too must work at these multiple levels. This is recognized in common models of violence prevention, including the “ecological” model popularized by the World Health Organization and other frameworks such as the “spectrum of prevention”. This chapter describes and assesses a range of strategies of primary prevention – strategies to prevent initial perpetration or victimization. These strategies are intended to strengthen individual knowledge and skills, build healthy relationships and families, involve and develop communities, promote community norms of nonviolence, improve organizational practices and workplace and institutional cultures, lessen gender inequalities, and address the larger cultural, social and economic factors that contribute to violence. The chapter takes as given that much intimate partner and sexual violence concern men’s violence against women.
Flood, Michael & Bob Pease (2009). Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 10(2): 125-142.
Attitudes toward mens violence against women shape both the perpetration of violence against women and responses to this violence by the victim and others around her. For these reasons, attitudes are the target of violence-prevention campaigns. To improve understanding of the determinants of violence against women and to aid the development of violence-prevention efforts, this article reviews the factors that shape attitudes toward violence against women. It offers a framework with which to comprehend the complex array of influences on attitudes toward violent behavior perpetrated by men against women. Two clusters of factors, associated with gender and culture, have an influence at multiple levels of the social order on attitudes regarding violence. Further factors operate at individual, organizational, communal, or societal levels in particular, although their influence may overlap across multiple levels. This article concludes with recommendations regarding efforts to improve attitudes toward violence against women.