Work with Men to End Violence against Women: A Critical Stocktake

"This paper provides a critical assessment of efforts to involve men in the prevention of men's violence against women. Although there is a substantial evidence base attesting to the effectiveness of at least some strategies and interventions, this field is also limited in important ways."

Which approaches are effective in reducing and preventing men's violence against women and building gender equality? This is the question animating this paper, which offers an assessment of 3 dimensions of the men's violence prevention field: its practical relations with feminism, its understandings of men and gender, and its approaches to engaging men. The author, Michael Flood, explains that, although there is a substantial evidence base attesting to the effectiveness of at least some strategies and interventions, the field of involving men in the prevention of men's violence against women is limited - e.g., much violence prevention work assumes a homogenously heterosexual male constituency, and this work is often conceptually simplistic with regard to gender. Flood critically examines assumptions that are part of an emerging consensus in men's violence prevention, such as that it is in men's interests to support progress towards non-violence and gender equality and that the best people to engage and work with men are other men.

Flood first examines what the field of efforts to involve men in violence prevention has achieved so far, noting that contemporary scholarship does document that particular interventions successfully have shifted the attitudes, behaviours, and/or inequalities associated with violence against women. However, Flood stresses that it would be incorrect to proclaim simply that "engaging men to end violence against women works", as most interventions have not been evaluated or evaluated only in methodologically or conceptually weak ways.

The paper offers an assessment of 3 dimensions of the men's violence prevention field, starting with its practical relations with feminism. Flood explains that the growing emphasis on the need to involve men in stopping violence against women can be seen as a feminist achievement (e.g., the ideal or principle of accountability is widespread in gender-conscious work with men, as evidenced by the Engaging Men through Accountable Practice curriculum ). However, Flood argues that involving men may have had negative consequences for feminist work, in 3 ways. First, it indirectly may diminish the legitimacy of women-only and women-focused programmes and services in prompting a mistaken belief that all interventions should include men. Second, an emphasis on and practice of including men in this work can fuel the invalidation and marginalisation of the expertise of women and the women's sector. Third, it can add to women's work and divert energy and focus, with women working to thank and reassure men and to manage or censor their own critical responses. Men may not take over entire campaigns, but Macomber's (2012) research among United States (US) "engaging men" groups finds that some men in the movement dominate interactions and interactions, claim unearned expertise, or act in other patriarchal ways. Male advocates in the violence prevention field may be given greater status, power, and recognition than women doing similar work and rise more quickly to leadership positions.

Relatedly, Flood asks: To what extent does men's anti-violence work embody feminist theoretical or conceptual frameworks? He cites international research among representatives of organisations that engage men and boys in preventing violence against women and girls that finds they typically take as given that gender relations are relations of inequality and injustice and that the social construction of masculinity as dominant and aggressive is central to men's violence against women. However, there are weaknesses in the typical conceptual approaches of men's anti-violence work, according to Flood. For instance, violence prevention efforts often have focused on changing men's attitudes, yet changing attitudes does not necessarily change behaviour, and the relationship between attitudes and behaviour is complex and bi-directional. A second weakness in the typical approaches of men's anti-violence work, particularly in the global North, is its treatment of both men and violence as homogenous. Although there is little systematic knowledge of how to address intersecting forms of gender, class, and race in working with boys and men, Flood says, there is at least recognition among the leaders of men's anti-violence organisations of the challenge of intersectionality. In interviews with 29 representatives of organisations that engage men and boys in preventing violence against women and girls, based in countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, Oceania and North and South America, they emphasised the ways in which poverty, racism, migration, food insecurity, and other issues complicate the conceptualisation, implementation and prioritisation of engaging men in violence prevention.

Flood also critically examines the use of the language of "men as partners", which emerged in the 1990s, with men described as allies with women in working to end men's violence or in supporting women's reproductive health and promoting gender equality. He cautions that the language of "partnership" may erase women's and feminist work and leadership in the field of concern, like the broader emphasis on engaging men per se. In addition, it may give the false impression that equal numbers of men and women are doing the work and taking action, whereas typically the number of active men is small. Returning to the issue of sexuality, the framing of "men as partners" also risks heterosexism; while this is one way to motivate men's concern for violence against women and girls, it would ideally be complemented by or move to a wider concern with the rights of women and girls in general.

A wider issue that Flood next explores concerns the ways in which men's engagement in violence prevention sometimes is framed with regard to men and masculinities. Evidence indicates that interventions aimed at men are more likely to be effective if they explicitly address masculinity: the practices, norms, and relations associated with manhood. This section of the paper focuses on male anti-violence advocates' articulations of their own gendered positions and practices, while a later section of the paper addresses the field's use of "real men" in seeking to engage other men. For instance, male activists may position themselves as virtuous men – as strong or courageous or bold – with a pervasive emphasis on them acting "as men". Flood finds that such framings may be useful in fostering positive, anti-patriarchal identities and in mobilising support and commitment. At the same time, they may place male activists beyond scrutiny, intensify problematic investments in gender identity, discourage critical self-examination, and exclude women.

Flood observes that, as the field of violence prevention and work with men and boys has become established around the world, a number of problematic assumptions have become visible. The first is that it is in men's interests to support progress towards non-violence and gender equality. In some ways, Flood acknowledges, men will "lose" from progress towards non-violence and gender equality. Some will lose the benefits they accrue from the perpetration of violence, while others will lose the unjust and unearned privileges associated with gender inequalities. Efforts to involve men in violence prevention must acknowledge these costs to men in addition to the potential costs of involvement in violence prevention itself, given that the men and boys who participate may be ridiculed or harassed for lack of conformity to hegemonic masculine norms. At the same time, it would be a mistake to avoid all reference to how men may benefit from a non-violent future, to portray progress necessarily as a zero-sum game in which men will lose and women will gain and to appeal to men purely on altruistic grounds.

A second common assumption in the violence prevention field that Flood describes is that the best people to engage and work with men are other men. There are two sides to this: (i) an emphasis on all-male groups: Flood says that the most effective sex composition of groups may depend on such factors as the age of the group, the focus and goals of the teaching sessions, and the nature of the teaching methods used. For instance, mixed-sex groups may be more effective if the programme or session is intended, to encourage male empathy for females or for victims of violence, to create gender dialogue, or to create opportunities for males to listen to females. (ii) an emphasis on male educators and trainers: Per Flood, there is little robust research evidence in the violence prevention field regarding the effectiveness of matching educators and participants by sex. In relation to violence prevention, there is anecdotal evidence that men will listen more readily to other men than to women, with men in all-male anti-rape prevention groups on US campuses sharing the belief that men are more receptive to hearing anti-rape messages from other men than from women. "This is a good example of a wider tension in violence prevention work with men, between meeting men 'where they are' on the one hand, and seeking to transform the gendered identities and relations among men which sustain men's violence against women on the other. If men will listen more readily to men, then violence prevention efforts among men may, understandably and pragmatically, rely on male educators and leaders. Yet men's greater willingness to listen to other men also reflects men's homosocial investment in evaluation by male peers and the social marginalisation of women's voices and experiences, and both can feed indirectly into violence against women (Schwartz and DeKeseredy 1997). Thus, prevention efforts also should find opportunities to foster men's cross-gender investments and attention to women's voices."

This tension is also reflected in education and marketing interventions aimed at men and boys that make use of "real men", men who embody at least some of the qualities associated with hegemonic masculinity. Face-to-face educational programmes on university campuses may use male leaders in sports or fraternities (all-male residences on campuses) as peer educators, while social marketing campaigns often rely on male sporting celebrities. Such men are seen as men able to lead other men into this work because of their conformity to gender norms. However, because an exclusive reliance on men who conform to (many) gender codes may lessen the effectiveness of this work by compromising long-term impact for short-term appeal, Flood urges that violence prevention efforts among boys and men at times affirm and promote men who do not fit dominant codes of masculinity, such as transgender men.

There is, in contrast to appeals to "real men", a form of intervention among men that invites men to adopt a stereotypically feminine behaviour in the service of ending violence against women. At Walk a Mile in Her Shoes marches, men wear stereotypically female shoes, typically with high heels, and literally walk a mile to show their concern about violence against women. "Even this feminine behaviour, however, is vulnerable to co-option by wider patriarchal dynamics."

The final assumption contested in this paper is that changing men necessarily involves working with men. Instead, Flood argues, changing men also can be achieved by working with women and by shifting the wider conditions within which men make choices about violence and non-violence. He suggests that violence prevention efforts should include efforts to change the structural and institutional conditions within which men make choices about how to behave. One example of such an effort is to increase the criminal justice system's policing and punishment of men's violence against women. Other strategies include empowering women, decreasing their economic dependence on men, shifting workplace and sporting cultures, and changing laws and policies.