Category Archives: Norms on gender equality and violence
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.
From work with men and boys to changes of social norms and reduction of inequities in gender relations: a conceptual shift in prevention of violence against women and girls.
Jewkes, Rachel; Michael Flood & James Lang (2014). The Lancet 385(9977): 15801589.
Violence perpetrated by and against men and boys is a major public health problem. Although individual men’s use of violence differs, engagement of all men and boys in action to prevent violence against women and girls is essential. We discuss why this engagement approach is theoretically important and how prevention interventions have developed from treating men simply as perpetrators of violence against women and girls or as allies of women in its prevention, to approaches that seek to transform the relations, social norms, and systems that sustain gender inequality and violence. We review evidence of intervention effectiveness in the reduction of violence or its risk factors, features commonly seen in more effective interventions, and how strong evidence-based interventions can be developed with more robust use of theory. Future interventions should emphasize work with both men and boys and women and girls to change social norms on gender relations, and need to appropriately accommodate the differences between men and women in the design of programmes.
Men’s violence against women and men are inter-related: Recommendations for simultaneous intervention.
Fleming, Paul J., Sofia Gruskin, Florencia Rojo & Shari L. Dworkin (2015). Social Science & Medicine 146: 249-256.
Men are more likely than women to perpetrate nearly all types of interpersonal violence (e.g. intimate partner violence, murder, assault, rape). While public health programs target prevention efforts for each type of violence, there are rarely efforts that approach the prevention of violence holistically and attempt to tackle its common root causes. Drawing upon theories that explain the drivers of violence, we examine how gender norms, including norms and social constructions of masculinity, are at the root of most physical violence perpetration by men against women and against other men. We then argue that simply isolating each type of violence and constructing separate interventions for each type is inefficient and less effective. We call for recognition of the commonalities found across the drivers of different types of violence and make intervention recommendations with the goal of seeking more long-standing solutions to violence prevention.
Garca Selgas, F. J. (2015). “Redoing Gender Relations in Transnational Lives: Ecuadorian and Senegalese Migrants in Spain.” Men and Masculinities.
Are male/female gender relations mainly (mechanically) done, (willing) undone, or (conditionally) redone? To what extent do social structurations, historical processes, and subjective strategies influence gender relations? This article is a contribution to answer these questions. After a short review of the conceptual debate brought about by West and Zimmerman’s notion of “doing gender”, the author’s own long-term empirical research into gender relations in the transnational lives of Ecuadorians and Senegalese in Spain is used to argue that gender relations usually stretch and shrink and are consequently displaced from their original forms by the changing aims, situations, and dynamics in which they are displayed. The main features of these displacements or shifts in the studied case (i.e., hierarchical intersectionality, dual logic, and situated character) confirm that gender relations are conditionally sustained by interactions, which produce continuous variations in their forms and issues.
Panke, D. and U. Petersohn (2015). “Norm challenges and norm death: The inexplicable?” Cooperation and Conflict.
The subject of a formerly strong norm’s death is not often in the limelight of political science research. This paper investigates successful norm challenges and analyses the conditions that lead to the abolition of norms rather than to limitations of the norms. It presents a theoretical account of norm challenges and develops hypotheses on mechanisms, success and outcomes. Six illustrative case studies show that norm contestations take place through non-compliance when norms are not embedded in international negotiation systems, while norm contestations through negotiation are frequently the case if norms are embedded in international regimes or organizations. Irrespective of the institutional context, the strength of norm challengers relative to norm proponents impacts the prospects for successful normative change. If norm challengers are stronger than the actors defending the status quo, the outcome of norm challenges is influenced by the combination of norm precision and the stability of the normative environment. If the broader context undergoes change while the contested norm is precise, norms cannot be reinterpreted to accommodate norm change. As a result, in such instances, norms die. By contrast, vague norms in combination with stable environments are not abolished after being subject to strong challenges, but are merely reinterpreted in a manner delimiting their applicatory scope.
Men’s Perpetration of Intimate Partner Violence in Vietnam: Gendered Social Learning and the Challenges of Masculinity
Yount, K. M., et al. (2015). “Men’s Perpetration of Intimate Partner Violence in Vietnam: Gendered Social Learning and the Challenges of Masculinity.” Men and Masculinities.
Using the survey responses of 522 married men (eighteen to fifty-one years) in Vietnam, we explored how gendered social learning in boyhood and challenges to men’s expected status in marriage may increase the risk that men perpetrate intimate partner violence (IPV) against their wives. Over one-third (36.6 percent) of the participants reported having ever perpetrated psychological, physical, or sexual IPV against their current wife. Accounting for other characteristics of men in the sample, witnessing IPV as a boy, being physically maltreated as a boy, and being the same age or younger than one’s wife were associated with almost two to three times higher odds of perpetrating any IPV. Men with thirteen to eighteen completed grades of schooling had about half the adjusted odds of ever perpetrating any IPV than men with twelve or fewer completed grades (aOR = 0.56). The determinants of men’s perpetration of physical IPV and psychological IPV were, largely, similar. Programs to prevent men’s perpetration of IPV should address the parenting practices of boys that legitimize men’s aggression and gendered status expectations in marriage, which when challenged, may lead husbands to respond with violence. Engaging men to endorse nonviolent masculinities is an important consideration for future intervention.
Stroud, A. (2012). “Good Guys With Guns: Hegemonic Masculinity and Concealed Handguns.” Gender & Society 26(2): 216-238.
In most states in the U.S. it is legal to carry a concealed handgun in public, but little is known about why people want to do this. While the existing literature argues that guns symbolize masculinity, most research on the actual use of guns has focused on marginalized men. The issue of concealed handguns is interesting because they must remain concealed and because relatively privileged men are most likely to have a license to carry one. Using in-depth interviews with 20 men, this article explores how they draw on discourses of masculinity to explain their use of concealed handguns. These men claim that they are motivated by a desire to protect their wives and children, to compensate for lost strength as they age, and to defend themselves against people and places they perceive as dangerous, especially those involving racial/ethnic minority men. These findings suggest that part of the appeal of carrying a concealed firearm is that it allows men to identify with hegemonic masculinity through fantasies of violence and self-defense.
You’re Either In or You’re Out: School Violence, Peer Discipline, and the (Re)Production of Hegemonic Masculinity
Stoudt, B. G. (2006). “You’re Either In or You’re Out: School Violence, Peer Discipline, and the (Re)Production of Hegemonic Masculinity.” 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.