Home » Articles (Page 2)
Category Archives: Articles
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 & 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.
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.
Elliott, K. (2015). “Caring Masculinities: Theorizing an Emerging Concept.” Men and Masculinities.
A space has emerged for theorizing caring masculinities as the concept has increasingly become a focus of European critical studies on men and masculinities (CSMM). In this article, I present a practice-based framework of the concept. I propose that caring masculinities are masculine identities that reject domination and its associated traits and embrace values of care such as positive emotion, interdependence, and relationality. I suggest that these caring masculinities constitute a critical form of men’s engagement and involvement in gender equality and offer the potential of sustained social change for men and gender relations. I draw on CSMM and feminist care theory to construct the framework proposed here. In doing so, I offer a feminist exploration of how masculinities might be reworked into identities of care rather than domination.
Morrell, R., et al. (2012). “Hegemonic Masculinity/Masculinities in South Africa: Culture, Power, and Gender Politics.” Men and Masculinities 15(1): 11-30.
The concept of hegemonic masculinity has had a profound impact on gender activism and has been taken up particularly in health interventions. The concept was part of a conceptual gendered vocabulary about men which opened up analytical space for research on masculinity and prompted a generation of gender interventions with men. Academic work focused primarily on relations between men, to the neglect of relations with women, while paradoxically acknowledging the power that men had over women. Interventions that drew on theories of masculinities focused on the content of hegemonic masculinity, identifying hegemony with oppressive attitudes and practices. Hegemonic masculinity was considered singular and universal, with little acknowledgment given to research-based work that argued for a model of multiple hegemonic masculinities. An unintended consequence of efforts to promote gender equity through a focus on men and hegemony has been a recent popular discursive backlash. In this, Jacob Zuma and Julius Malema, presidents of the African National Congress (ANC) and the ANC youth league respectively, have sought to valorize an African masculinity that is race-specific, backward-looking, and predicated on the notion of male superiority. In this article, the authors argue that the concept of hegemonic masculinities retains a utility in both scholarship and activism but that its use needs to be located within a broader gendered understanding of society which in turn needs to confront race and class-based national realities.
Messerschmidt, J. W. (2012). “Engendering Gendered Knowledge: Assessing the Academic Appropriation of Hegemonic Masculinity.” Men and Masculinities 15(1): 56-76.
The appropriation of concepts long established as salient contributions to gender theory and research recently has come under scholarly scrutiny. In this article, the author contributes to this dissection of crucial gender concepts by assessing the recent academic appropriation of the reformulated concept of hegemonic masculinity and how this appropriation engenders gendered knowledge. The author first briefly revisits the concept of hegemonic masculinity as reformulated by Connell and Messerschmidt. Following this, the author examines selected studies to illustrate how hegemonic masculinity has been appropriated differently, how this dissimilarity is significant for the production of gendered knowledge, and how several new directions in the appropriations extend gendered knowledge on hegemonic masculinity. Finally, the author discusses the relevance of all his conclusions to the wider debates over the concept of hegemonic masculinity and posits how these conclusions arguably impact future feminist/gender research and theory construction.
Johnson, B. (2010). “A Few Good Boys: Masculinity at a Military-Style Charter School.” Men and Masculinities 12(5): 575-596.
Through four years of ethnographic participant observation, and in-depth interviews, this article examines how militarism and masculinity are bound together in the social space of a military-style charter school in Southern California. Drawing on the concept of hegemonic masculinity by Connell, and the discussion by Higate and Hopton on the reciprocal relationship between militarism and masculinity, this article examines the construction of a military hegemonic masculinity at the school. It also examines the nuances and effects of this particular form of hegemonic masculinity for both boys and girls and argues it is exemplified at the school through the acceptance and condonement of violence and the warrior hero archetype. While not all cadets at the school have access to, or can capitalize upon the advantages of this particular hegemonic masculinity, specifically black boys and girls, it is a powerful force that shapes social interactions, social patterns, and social identities for boys and girls.
Higate, P. (2007). “Peacekeepers, Masculinities, and Sexual Exploitation.” Men and Masculinities 10(1): 99-119.
My aim in this article is to analyze a set of gendered power relations played out in two postconflict settings. Based on interviews with peacekeepers and others, I argue that sexual exploitation of local women by male peacekeepers continues to be documented. I then turn to scholarly considerations of peacekeeper sexual exploitation, some of which accord excessive explanatory power to a crude form of military masculinity. This is underlined by similarly exploitative activities perpetrated by humanitarian workers and so-called sex tourists. In conclusion, I argue that a form of exploitative social masculinities shaped by socioeconomic structure, impunity, and privilege offers a more appropriate way to capture the activities of some male peacekeepers during peacekeeping missions. Finally, in underlining the conflation of military masculinities with exploitation, I pose the question of how to explain those military men who do not exploit local women while deployed on missions.
Garlick, S. (2010). “Taking Control of Sex?: Hegemonic Masculinity, Technology, and Internet Pornography.” Men and Masculinities 12(5): 597-614.
It is widely acknowledged that gender is a key category in pornography, yet the relation of the latter to contemporary masculinities remains relatively obscure. Although there is a substantial critical literature on the positioning and treatment of women in pornography, the connection between the consumption of pornographic images and the social construction of hegemonic masculinity has been more often presumed than examined. This lacuna becomes more apparent when juxtaposed with the profusion and proliferation of Internet porn in recent years. Rather than enter into existing antiporn or proporn debates, this article seeks to pose a different set of questions about the relationship between masculinity, technology, and pornography. It suggests that the Internet produces a qualitative change in the way in which viewers are affected by pornography and that this has implications for contemporary gender relations. Beyond men’s control over women’s bodies, Internet porn participates in the larger drama of a technological confrontation between men and nature one in which control and the meaning of masculinity is perpetually at stake.