Global Social Welfare
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40609-018-00136-x
Which Feminism? Dilemmas in Profeminist Men’s Praxis to End
Violence Against Women
Stephen R. Burrell 1
&
Michael Flood 2
# The Author(s) 2019
Abstract
Much of the work to engage men in preventing violence against women across the globe is profeminist—it is informed by
feminist perspectives and done by or in collaboration with women and women’s organisations. Men involved in this work
typically are expected to support feminism and to be accountable to women and feminism. But which feminism should
profeminist men support? There has been relatively little discussion of this question in the ‘engaging men’ field. Yet, organisations and individuals involved in undertaking this work, whether it is delivered by or with men, adopt a range of different
approaches and the significant diversity of thought within feminist activism is also reflected to some extent within the engaging
men field. This can make accountability more challenging, because it means asking: to whom specifically should profeminist
men be accountable? The relationship between feminism and the theories and strategies adopted by organisations and activists in
this field is often left implicit or vague, and there can be a lack of clarity or transparency about the nature of the feminist social
change that such groups seek to help bring about. The paper therefore contributes to the articulation of how profeminist men
should understand their relationship to feminism, and considers how they can make choices about which feminism to adopt. It
argues that, by discussing more explicitly the different interpretations of feminism shaping the engaging men field, this work will
be better equipped to tackle men’s violence against women through more open, rigorous and profoundly profeminist praxis.
Keywords Engaging men and boys . Violence prevention . Feminism and profeminism . Men’s violence against women . Gender
inequalities
Introduction
If efforts to engage men and boys in preventing men’s violence against women are feminist, then which feminism does
this represent? This article explores how to assess the extent to
which efforts in the ‘engaging men’ field are feminist, and the
kinds of feminism they embody. The fact of diverse and indeed incompatible feminist theories raises important conceptual and political challenges for profeminist men’s praxis in
anti-violence work. The article identifies four important factors which can help to answer the question of which feminism
* Stephen R. Burrell
s.r.burrell@durham.ac.uk
Michael Flood
m.flood@qut.edu.au
1
Department of Sociology, Durham University, 29 Old Elvet,
Durham DH1 3HN, UK
2
Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology, GPO Box
2434, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia
should be adopted within such efforts, and considers ways in
which profeminist male advocates can effectively and constructively negotiate debates within feminism.
Much of the work to engage men in preventing violence
against women across the globe is (pro) feminist—it is informed by feminist perspectives and carried out by or in collaboration with women and women’s organisations. Men involved in this work typically are expected to support feminism
and to be accountable to feminist women. Yet, there has been
relatively little discussion of the question of which feminism
profeminist men should support within the engaging men
field. Such work is often perceived to be relatively homogenous, yet organisations and advocates involved in engaging
men adopt a range of different theoretical and strategic approaches, and the significant diversity of thought within feminist activism is also reflected to some extent within this field
(Storer et al. 2016).
This can make the key practice of accountability more challenging, because it means asking: to whom should profeminist
men be accountable? The relationship between feminism and
the theories and strategies adopted by violence prevention organisations and advocates is often left implicit or vague. There
Glob Soc Welf
can be a lack of clarity or transparency about the nature of the
feminist social change that such groups seek to help bring
about. This article therefore contributes to the articulation of
how profeminist men should understand their relationship to
feminism, and considers the feminisms that they should adopt.
By discussing more explicitly the different interpretations of
feminism shaping the engaging men field, we will be better
equipped to tackle men’s violence against women through more
robust, transparent and profoundly profeminist praxis.
The article provides an assessment of the field, based upon
the authors’ empirical experiences and observations of work
with men and boys to prevent violence against women in
Britain, Australia and internationally. It is not based on a systematic empirical analysis of the field as a whole internationally
or in a specific locale, so in this sense represents a conceptual
assessment. The article begins with an appraisal of how feminist such efforts can be seen as being, before considering which
kinds of feminisms are manifested within it. It then asks on
what basis profeminist men involved in the prevention of violence against women can make a choice between which feminist theories they should seek to follow. Finally, it explores
some of the issues and dilemmas of praxis that are associated
with making such a choice. Rather than seeking to provide a
direct answer to the BWhich feminism?^ question then, it aims
to provide tools which can help profeminist men to arrive at
answers to that question themselves—and to show why it is an
important question to ask in the first place.
In describing work to engage men and boys in the prevention or reduction of men’s violence against women, we use
such shorthand terms as the engaging men field and ‘work
with men’. Whilst such terms also can be applied to efforts
to involve men in gender-related change focused on other
domains, including sexual and reproductive health, fathering
and education, they are not included in our discussion here.
The engaging men field here includes male activists, menfocused organisations and other organisations which work
with men as part of their violence prevention activities. Note
therefore that efforts by and with men to prevent violence
against women exist on a continuum, from those in which
men themselves are the agents of change (e.g. as activists
and educators) to those in which men are the objects or targets
of change (as participants in education, the audiences of lobbying efforts and so on). At different times in the article we
discuss issues which specifically affect either organisations or
individual advocates (who may or may not be involved as
members of organisations) working in the field, or which
sometimes affect both.
How Feminist Is the Field?
First, we will consider the extent to which the engaging men
field can actually be seen as feminist, and what kinds of
feminism it represents. On a simple assessment, certainly it
seems that efforts underway around the world to engage men
in the prevention of men’s violence against women typically
are feminist. Such efforts are intended to achieve feminist
aims, are grounded in feminist perspectives and are practiced
by or in collaboration with feminist activists and
organisations.
First, this work with men embodies a goal which is quintessentially feminist: to end men’s violence against women,
perhaps the bluntest expression of patriarchy or systemic gender inequality. For example, feminist and women’s rights organisations increasingly have worked to involve men in violence prevention efforts because of a recognition that violence
perpetration will only lessen with positive changes in men’s
attitudes and practices, their peer relations and the social and
structural relations in which they participate (Flood 2015).
Second, feminist perspectives are the anchor for much of this
work. Much of the work engaging men in violence prevention
is based on well-established feminist understandings: gender
inequalities are at the root of violence against women, domestic and sexual violence are legitimated and normalised by
sexist social and cultural norms, perpetrators of violence must
be held accountable for their actions and so on (Jewkes et al.
2015a). Feminist notions of how to conduct this work also are
common: men involved in violence prevention advocacy
should address their own sexist behaviour, patterns of interaction and decision-making should be gender-equitable and
work with men should be accountable to women (Messner
et al. 2015). Amongst men involved in efforts to prevent violence against women and girls, there is widespread recognition of the challenges of negotiating male privilege (Casey
et al. 2013). Third, much of the work is carried out by, or with,
women’s rights organisations, as global data suggests
(Kimball et al. 2013).
Men-focused violence prevention efforts come in part out
of a longer history of profeminist men’s activism. Men have
mobilised collectively at various points in support of women’s
struggles for gender equality, including at least as far back as
the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in efforts to achieve
women’s suffrage (Messner et al. 2015). More recently, antisexist or profeminist men’s groups emerged in the 1970s in
countries such as the USA, Australia, the United Kingdom,
and elsewhere in the wake of the second wave of feminism
(Ashe 2007; Flood 2005). The contemporary engaging men
field includes collective mobilisations amongst men, most notably the international White Ribbon Campaign (Ashe 2007).
Again, this work typically is inspired by feminism.
Whilst the field of work engaging men in preventing violence against women can therefore be seen as feminist in some
simple sense, what does a more systematic analysis suggest?
There are several different ways in which we can appraise the
different positions and approaches that organisations and advocates take.
Glob Soc Welf
One method is to assess the extent to which particular efforts or approaches are feminist. The most widely used example of this is Gupta’s (2000) influential typology of how different health interventions interact with gender. Gupta offered
a continuum, from least desirable to most desirable approaches: gender-unequal (perpetuate gender inequalities),
gender-blind (ignore gender norms and conditions), gendersensitive (acknowledge but do not address gender inequalities), gender-specific (acknowledge gender norms and consider women’s and men’s specific needs), gendertransformative (create more gender-equitable relationships),
and gender-empowering (empower women or free women
and men from the impact of destructive gender and sexual
norms). This typology now has been taken up in guidance
for and assessments of the engaging men field. For example,
in an influential 2010 guide for engaging men Gupta’s categories were adapted into a four-category programming continuum: gender-exploitative, gender-neutral, gender-sensitive,
and gender-transformative (UNFPA and Promundo 2010).
Whilst Gupta does not describe a gender-transformative
approach as feminist (and the term does not appear in her
2000 plenary address), that is what it is: it seeks to end gender
inequalities and create more gender-equitable relations (Gupta
2000). To gauge how feminist the engaging men field is,
therefore, one approach is to hold it up against a gendertransformative standard. This is precisely what a number of
subsequent examinations do. A World Health Organisation
review examines health interventions aimed at men against a
gender-transformative standard (Barker et al. 2007). Dworkin
and colleagues assess gender-transformative interventions
with heterosexually active men as they impact four sets of
outcomes: HIV/STI outcomes, violence perpetration, sexual
risk behaviour, and norms and attitudes related to gender equity (Dworkin et al. 2013). Fleming and colleagues appraise
health promotion efforts aimed at men against a gendertransformative standard (Fleming et al. 2014). Casey et al.
(2016) assess to what extent a gender-transformative approach
(defined by an explicit focus at least in part on a critical examination of gender-related norms and expectations—
particularly those related to masculinity—and on increasing
gender-equitable attitudes and behaviours) characterises the
engaging men field, across the three domains of initial outreach and recruitment, interventions and social action.
In fact, ‘gender-transformative’ is rapidly emerging as an
ideal for work with men, as this approach to engaging men in
change is said to be more effective than other approaches. The
2007 WHO review emphasised that gender-transformative
programmes were more effective than gender-neutral
programmes at improving a variety of health outcomes, and
this was also supported in a more recent review (Dworkin
et al. 2013).
Whilst the gender-transformative ideal is influential, it remains a relatively weak model at this stage. It is under-
developed in terms of what it requires of the field, and its
usage is somewhat vague, varying from influencing gender
norms to building more gender-equitable interpersonal relationships (Dworkin et al. 2013). Some other assessments of
men’s anti-violence work have used much more demanding
and elaborate criteria for what counts as desirable support for
feminism, of which two are described here. In an assessment
of a men’s anti-violence network in Indonesia, Hasyim (2014)
compares it to feminist criteria for its (a) ideology, (b)
organisational structure and practices and (c) positive impact
on the prevention of violence against women. Feminist ideology, for example, is demonstrated by the presence of the beliefs that patriarchy plays an important role in shaping the
notion and practices of gender, that the root cause of violence
against women is the unequal power relations between men
and women produced by patriarchy and that men must be held
responsible for their use of violence. Feminist organisational
structures and practices are demonstrated by collegial rather
than hierarchical organisation, the presence of accountability
mechanisms to women’s networks and the use of strategies
addressing both the personal and structural dimensions of violence against women. Whilst there will certainly be debate
over the specific elements said to be defining or constitutive of
feminism in Hasyim’s framework, it nevertheless is notable
for setting a clear and high bar for what counts as feminist
work.
Another assessment framework is more focused on the
capacity of organisations working with men to engage them
effectively, but includes some assessment of the extent to
which this work is feminist. Profeminist activist Rus Funk
has developed assessment tools including a measure of
BOrganizational Readiness to Engage Men in Violence
Prevention^, which examines the extent to which an organisation is prepared to engage men effectively, based on its
organisational structures and practices, professional development, programming and community engagement work (Funk
2017). The measure includes the expectation of a feminist
analysis of gendered violence. Another measure of
organisational readiness, the BEngaging Men Capacity
Assessment for Member Partners^ (EM-CAMP) developed
by the Delaware Men’s Education Network (2016), includes
assessment of the degree to which the work in question adheres to key principles of effective efforts in prevention and
engaging men, but does not specify any explicitly feminist
criteria.
What Kind of Feminism?
So far we have considered the question BHow feminist is the
engaging men field?^ A different kind of question, however,
is, BWhat kind of feminism does the engaging men field
adopt?^ The approaches described thus far seem to treat
Glob Soc Welf
feminism as a continuum, such that something can be ‘more’
or ‘less’ feminist. However, feminism is diverse, and one
could more properly speak in the plural, of feminisms.
Indeed, there are multiple, incommensurate feminisms, with
radically different and incompatible ideologies and practices.
Given this, one also could assess organisations or interventions in the engaging men field in terms of which feminism
they embody.
There is significant debate about how to define kinds of
feminism, with disagreement over how to divide feminisms
into types, which to include, how broadly or narrowly to define them, and the labels with which to name them (Beasley
1999). Overlapping with this, there is debate over conceptions
of ‘waves’ of feminism (Evans and Chamberlain 2015).
Nevertheless, there are some common formulations of distinctive feminisms.
Three feminisms which characterised the early second
wave of feminism in particular are liberal, radical and
socialist/Marxist feminism (Lorber 2012). Liberal feminism,
often mistakenly seen as synonymous with feminism per se,
focuses on women’s right to participate in the public worlds of
work, the marketplace and politics (Beasley 1999; Harding
1998; Lorber 2012). Radical feminism focuses on women’s
oppression as women in a social order dominated by men,
seen in terms of patriarchy or the systemic organisation of
male supremacy and female subordination, including through
sexuality and bodies (Harding 1998; Mackay 2015; Robinson
2003). Marxist feminism sees unequal class relations, the defining feature of capitalism, as also being at the root of gender
inequalities, whilst socialist feminism emphasises that patriarchy and capitalism interact as two systems of social organisation and power (Beasley 1999; Harding 1998; Johnson 1997).
Other types often identified in contemporary accounts of feminism’s diversity include postmodern and intersectional feminisms. Postmodern or poststructuralist feminism emphasises
the role of language in the construction of the social order,
difference and the instability of categories and the contingent
character of identities, thus offering differing accounts of
truth, identity and power (Beasley 1999; Lorber 2012).
Intersectional feminism stresses the interconnections of gender with other forms of social difference and inequality, particularly of race/ethnicity (Beasley 1999; Crenshaw 1991).
This brief account hardly does justice to the diversity and
complexity of contemporary strands of feminism. There are
several dangers in such typologies: they may impose too neat
an order and exaggerate the internal homogeneity of each
type, they can suggest an overly fragmented view of feminist
theories and more recent feminist perspectives do not fit such
labels (Beasley 1999; McCarry 2007). Nonetheless, it is valuable to recognise the distinctive theoretical approaches and
political programmes of these different feminisms.
There are clear radical feminist roots to the dominant perspectives and strategies of the men’s anti-violence field,
reflecting its origins in radical feminist advocacy and scholarship (Brod 1998; Robinson 2003). It is radical feminism that
has tended to focus most of all on men’s violence against
women as a cause and consequence of patriarchal social relations. The majority of theory regarding men’s violence against
women has therefore been developed by radical feminists, and
radical feminists pioneered advocacy and education aimed at
the prevention and reduction of men’s violence (Mackay
2015; Robinson 2003). Given this, choosing to focus specifically on the prevention of men’s violence against women may
articulate an alignment with a radical feminist analysis.
Working in an area in which some of the most harrowing
consequences of patriarchy and men’s practices within it are
dealt with on a day-to-day basis may also make it more likely
for activists and educators to adopt a more critical feminist
perspective. This may mean that efforts to engage men in
ending violence against women have a stronger conceptual
orientation to radical feminism than those focused on engaging men in other areas, such as sexual and reproductive health
or parenting, although feminist orientations are visible here
too.
A focus on men’s violence against women still does not
guarantee, however, that efforts to engage men in its prevention will have a homogenous feminist perspective. Diversity
and disagreement amongst feminisms extends to feminist understandings of men’s violence against women. Diverse
strands or schools of feminist advocacy and scholarship differ
in the weight they give to the issue of men’s violence, their
explanatory or theoretical frameworks regarding this violence
and the strategies they advocate or pursue in response. Indeed,
there are heated debates within feminism over particular practices or domains seen by some to be implicated in men’s
violence against women, such as pornography, prostitution
or sex work, trafficking and sadomasochism. Such debates
became so heated in the 1980s that they were termed the
‘feminist sex wars’ (Vance 1984), and these debates persist
today. Indeed, differences amongst profeminist men with regard to such divisions have caused some organisations and
groups to split and disintegrate in the past, as has been the
case in feminist activism more broadly (Messner et al. 2015).
Given the diversity and disagreement amongst feminisms,
have profeminist men sided with some and against others? In
one sense, any position on gender issues represents a ‘taking
of sides’, whether conscious or not. It is inevitable that
profeminist men involved in preventing violence against
women will take positions in relation to different debates within feminism, because agreeing with some feminist arguments
sometimes unavoidably means disagreeing with others (Pease
2017). However, men’s anti-violence groups and organisations only rarely have explicitly taken sides in feminist debates. One notable exception to this occurred in 1992. At the
First National Ending Men’s Violence Network Conference in
Chicago, USA, participants argued that activists against men’s
Glob Soc Welf
violence should hold themselves accountable only to those
feminists who themselves are accountable to the victims of
prostitution and pornography. This declaration of loyalties
and political allegiances was challenged by others, with academic and activist Harry Brod critical particularly of the authors’ negative characterisations of the feminists with whom
they disagree. He wrote in an open letter, BThe profeminist
men’s movement has no business contributing to the
factionalisation and divisiveness in the women’s movement^.
We return to the politics of profeminist men’s side-taking later
in this article.
Whilst most organisations undertaking work with men and
boys to prevent violence against women are relatively open
about being influenced by and seeking to support feminism in
general, which feminism they are attempting to adopt and apply
is often left more implicit and vague. That being said, it can still
be relatively easy to identify their broader standpoints if they
have an explicit position in relation to specific issues. However,
many organisations appear to steer clear of clear commitments
to specific feminist approaches over others.
One issue which can evoke visible divergence amongst
men involved as agents of change in the prevention of violence against women is how they perceive and define themselves in relation to their work. More specifically, different
men take different positions as to whether it is appropriate to
describe themselves as being a feminist, with some instead
preferring terms such as profeminist or feminist ally. This
illustrates that even the way that men understand and construct
our own identities in work to prevent men’s violence against
women carries with it important and contested signifiers about
their wider interpretations of feminist thinking (Crowe 2013;
Brod 1998). For example, using the term ‘profeminist’ may
imply support for more radical iterations of feminism, based
on the radical feminist notion that the goal of feminism is
women’s liberation from patriarchy (as opposed to simply
bringing about gender equality), and that whilst men can support feminism, they cannot therefore themselves be feminists
(Mackay 2015). However, there are no definitive rules in this
regard, and the usage of the term ‘profeminist’ for example
does not mean that a man is necessarily pursuing radical feminist agendas in different aspects of his life and practice.
There are perhaps justifiable reasons why an organisation
might want to be relatively equivocal about its position in
relation to the differences within feminism. Some who work
to prevent violence against women may aim to adopt an approach which can have as broad an appeal as possible, and
which avoids the risk of potentially alienating some people by
explicitly committing to one specific form of feminism, or
focusing excessively upon internal debates (Casey et al.
2013). They may also be fearful of receiving criticism from
those who hold opposing views, or of causing divisions within
their own organisation. The perception amongst some organisations in the engaging men field may therefore be that it is
unnecessary or counter-productive to overtly align themselves
with specific variants of feminism as part of their work.
It may also be the case that the vagueness or lack of clarity
of organisations regarding debates and contentious issues
within feminism is not a deliberate decision. It could instead
be based around a lack of confidence in their knowledge of
different feminist perspectives, or a failure to engage beyond a
superficial level with feminist theories to enable them to clearly differentiate and choose a specific set of ideas to follow in
an informed way. For individual advocates who are relatively
new to the field this may be understandable, but for organisations, the seriousness of their profeminist approach could be
brought into question if they have not at least reflected on
these differences, even if they do not explicitly advocate for
one position or another. Undertaking prevention work always
involves the implementation of theories of some kind, knowingly or not, so it is likely to lead to more effective practice if
these theories are consciously decided upon and pursued
(Carmody et al. 2009; Casey and Lindhorst 2009; Flood
2005; Nation et al. 2003).
The field of engaging men in the prevention of men’s violence against women is therefore not homogenous with regard
to approaches to feminism, and there are other distinctions and
complexities which can be found within it too. For example,
the organisations that carry out work in this area are often
multi-layered entities, with those involved in them undertaking a range of different roles. When individuals are engaging
in this work, they may therefore be doing so in a variety of
different ways, both inside and outside of formal organisations
(Pease 2008). For example, many organisations working with
men and boys may have board members, a small number of
paid full time and part time staff and a much larger group of
volunteers, such as ‘ambassadors’, who are all carrying out
some form of practice relating to the prevention of men’s
violence against women. It would therefore be unreasonable
to expect the same depth of reflection on and awareness of
feminist theory and strategy at all of these different levels in an
organisation. A veteran profeminist activist will have been
able to spend much more time engaging with feminist thought
than an individual who has just begun volunteering for an
organisation, for example.
For these reasons, it is important to avoid over-generalising
about those who are involved in working with men to prevent
violence against women. It would be unrealistic to expect all
those in the field to be equally well versed in the different
strands of feminist theory, especially in the early stages of their
involvement, and it would be counterproductive to shun those
who are relatively new to such work on this basis. Experience
should therefore be taken into account when considering the
commitments of individual activists to specific profeminist
principles, given the knowledge and awareness which must
be developed to unlearn deeply embedded patriarchal ideologies. A key factor in assessing the work of male advocates in
Glob Soc Welf
putting feminism into practice may therefore be the effort they
make to engage reflexively with feminist ideas and analysis in
a substantive way. This may be more significant than the
length of time profeminist men have spent doing so, or the
specific conclusions they come to about which schools of
feminist thought they are most closely aligned with.
Having discussed the extent to which the engaging men
field is feminist, or can be assessed as such, together with what
kinds of feminism that actually means, we now turn to a more
abstract question: on what basis should a particular feminist
theory be chosen?
Choosing Between Feminist Theories
If men support feminism, which feminism should they support? This question has had some currency in profeminist
men’s activism and, overlapping with this, in scholarship on
men and masculinities. Profeminist men, on the email list
Profem for example, have debated the issue, as well as men’s
claims to the term ‘feminist’ and men’s roles in (pro)feminist
advocacy. Scholarship on men and masculinities too has explored the political, epistemological and ontological issues at
stake in men’s relations to feminism (for example, see Digby
1998; Hearn 2013; Pease 2013). On the other hand, there has
been little obvious attention in the engaging men field itself to
the question of which feminism.
So why does it matter which feminisms are adopted in
the name of efforts to engage men in preventing violence
against women? What is at stake when we ask this question, and why is the specific theoretical perspectives, and
practical strategies, that are taken up important? We explore four possible answers to why this matters: (1) work
with men should be guided by theory, (2) work with men
should be guided by the best theories, (3) work with men
should be guided by shared theories and (4) work with
men should be guided by the theories of the women and
organisations to whom it is accountable.
Guided by Theory
Efforts to engage men and boys in preventing men’s violence
against women, like any effort to create social change, are
more likely to be effective if they are guided by theory: by
an appropriate diagnosis of the problem and an account of
how they will address this. Violence prevention must therefore
incorporate both an appropriate theoretical framework for understanding violence, and a theory of change (Carmody et al.
2009; Flood et al. 2009). There is a growing awareness in the
violence prevention field that the articulation of these two
overlapping elements is necessary to good practice (Jewkes
et al. 2015a; Storer et al. 2016). Without them, there is little
sense of what change is being attempted or how these efforts
will lead to the transformations that are desired. Despite this,
both elements often are absent or underdeveloped in existing
programmes.
For example, a systematic, evidence-based review of sexual assault prevention programmes, based on an evaluation of
publications of 59 studies from between 1990 and 2003, found
that most programmes do not have strong or well-developed
theoretical frameworks (Morrison et al. 2004). Meanwhile, a
review of 11 programs targeting middle- or high-school-aged
students and addressing the prevention of partner violence
reported that few studies discussed the theoretical orientation
of the intervention program in depth (Whitaker et al. 2006).
Feminist and feminist-informed approaches provide the most
common theories and concepts amongst violence prevention
programmes. A reliance on feminist approaches is both understandable and appropriate, given that it is feminist activism
that placed violence against women on community and policy
agendas and feminist scholarship that provides the most comprehensive and credible account of the causes and consequences of domestic and sexual violence. At the same time,
many interventions’ theoretical underpinnings are relatively
simple and underdeveloped.
In asking why Which feminism? matters then, the first
point is that work with men should be guided by theory.
However, this does not mean that any theory will do so long
as it is adopted energetically. Some theories are better than
others. Some theories are inaccurate, and their adoption will
lead to neutral or even negative outcomes. Indeed, some feminist theories are better than others.
Guided by the Best Theories
What makes a better theory? There is wide-ranging debate
amongst scholars over how to assess the quality of theoretical claims, frameworks and the research that they are
built upon. For example, whilst criteria such as reliability,
validity and objectivity are widely used in quantitative
research, their applicability to qualitative research is hotly
contested (Flick 2008). Alternative criteria have been offered which may also have relevance to theorising, such
as Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) influential account of the
‘trustworthiness’ of a research study, based on its (1)
credibility (confidence in the ‘truth’ of the findings), (2)
transferability (the findings are applicable in other contexts), (3) dependability (the findings are consistent and
could be repeated) and (4) confirmability (the extent to
which the findings are shaped by the data and not researcher bias, motivation or interest). Note that these are
similar to common criteria for quantitative research, with
the four matched, respectively, by internal validity, external validity, reliability and objectivity. Other scholars
raise cautions about the use of standards or criteria altogether, whether because they are not suited to qualitative
Glob Soc Welf
research, they focus on technical fixes which may not
themselves confer rigour or they are challenged by the
pluralism of qualitative methods and frameworks
(Hammersley 2007; Barbour 2001).
Whilst these debates may seem obscure in relation to violence prevention practice, they have real ethical and political
implications. Bad theory generates bad outcomes. If efforts to
engage men are informed by understandings which are inaccurate or incoherent or out of date, they are less likely to be
effective and more likely to do harm. In practice, for the engaging men field the decision about which theories to adopt is
usually one taken from outside research or scholarship, as
most advocates and organisations involved in this work are
outside the university context. They therefore find themselves
in the same position for example as governments, having to
assess the quality of the theories and research available to
them (Spencer et al. 2003).
Pragmatically, there are questions which those working
with men can pose in deciding upon which theoretical
accounts to draw from. These questions are not merely
about theories’ abstract properties, their claims to knowledge and truth, but also about theories’ utility. This reflects the fact that engaging men is a project of social
change, and it shares with other activist projects more
political considerations regarding how theories and research are applied or used and the practical ends to which
they can be put (Hammersley 2007; Brookfield 2005). It
may therefore seek to ask questions such as
1. Does this theory help us understand the world or some
part of it?
2. Is this theory useful in explaining how the world might be
changed for the better? (Does this theory assist us to do
good work? Does it contribute to building a society
organised according to the values we espouse?)
3. Does this theory offer hope for change (rather than simply
pessimism)? (Brookfield 2005).
The first question emphasises the matter of the truthfulness
or accuracy of a theory. For work with men then, we could ask
whether the theory accurately represents men, masculinities,
gender and violence. Does it speak to the realities of gender?
Better theories will enable explanation, for example, of why
some men use violence whilst other men do not, why some
men desist from violence whilst other men continue to perpetrate, why rates of violence against women are much higher in
some contexts than others and so on. In the absence of the
opportunity to gather data and test theoretical claims themselves, advocates may ask whether a theory is supported in
contemporary scholarship, and if it is supported by evidence.
Put more simply, is this what contemporary scholarship says is
true? In short, then, work with men should be guided by better
theories.
Guided by Shared Theories
If one basis of choosing one’s feminist theory is explanatory accuracy and political utility, another is the extent to
which it is shared. The rationale for this goes as follows.
Work with men may be more likely to make change if it is
guided by shared theories. If diverse organisations and
networks seeking to engage men in preventing violence
against women have common understandings of the problem and the solution, they are more likely to push in the
same directions, and their shared agenda and strategies
will increase the momentum and critical mass of their
work. In contrast, differing understandings may weaken
existing efforts or even breed internal conflict and factionalism. This reasoning leads to the conclusion that work
with men should be guided by shared theories.
Profeminist men and organisations should cast their lot
with whichever explanations are dominant in the field.
Indeed, in practice, this may be what occurs.
Individuals’ and organisations’ adoption of particular theories is likely to be shaped as much by prosaic factors as
by careful assessment of their merit, such as advocates’
own political and personal predispositions, the influence
of peers and mentors, the conceptual approaches of the
organisations and movements with which they associate
and wider social and cultural conditions.
The obvious problem here is that influential feminist theories, shared or not, may be poor theories. They may be empirically inaccurate, conceptually impoverished or devoid of strategic utility. If it is bad theory, then being adopted by more
advocates and organisations may simply make things worse.
There is strength in numbers, but not if the numbers are
wrong. We therefore reject the third possible answer to the
Which feminism? question, that ‘work with men should be
guided by shared theories’.
Guided by Those to Whom It Is Accountable
A fourth possible answer to the question Which feminism? is
that work with men should be guided by the theoretical frameworks of the feminist women and organisations to whom it is
accountable. The ideal of ‘accountability’ is widespread in the
engaging men field (Flood 2015; Pease 2008). It is a central
tenet of much work involving men and boys to prevent violence against women that it is accountable to feminism
(Messner et al. 2015), although at times its conceptualisation
is vague and its practice is uneven (Macomber 2015). The
notion of accountability comes out of the politics of oppression and the politics of knowledge. It is based on two, overlapping foundational ideas. First, struggles against oppression
should be led by those who are oppressed. Second, when it
comes to systems of oppression or inequality, those who are
oppressed or disadvantaged have a much better understanding
Glob Soc Welf
of that system than those who are privileged or advantaged, as
privilege and injustice often are invisible to members of the
dominant group (Cohen 2012; Harding 1998; Kahane 1998).
Whilst the principle of accountability does invite advocates
and organisations to look towards feminism for its theory, the
issue of which feminism remains. Because of the debates and
disagreements within feminism, it is impossible to agree with
all feminists at all times, so what does it mean for being accountable, if one in fact disagrees with what some feminists
are arguing (Pease 2017)? This tension often goes unacknowledged and undiscussed within the engaging men field, perhaps
because it is so difficult to resolve, and illustrates some of the
contradictions involved in profeminism and ‘ally work’
(Pease 2008).
In the name of accountability, an organisation working with
men to prevent violence against women may decide simply to
adopt whatever feminist frameworks are dominant amongst
the women and women’s organisations in local proximity to
them. Working with and supporting local feminist organisations is an important element of profeminist activism, and this
approach may seem easier, by virtue of avoiding the challenge
of assessing competing feminist theories. However, it has
three flaws. First, it fails to put those frameworks to the test
in terms of accuracy, relevance or rigour. Second, there may
be a range of different types of feminist activism present in the
local area and debates and disagreements between those,
meaning that political choices will still have to be made.
The reflex adoption of whatever form of feminist theory
and activism is locally dominant also positions profeminist
men as passive, and this is the third problem here. It is difficult
to see how this approach fosters ‘ownership’ of or a meaningful commitment to feminist ideas. Men’s support for feminism
should mean actively engaging with feminist theories and
making them their ‘own’, rather than uncritically taking on
whatever they encounter first (Brod 1998; Harding 1998).
Certainly, listening to women is fundamental in this kind of
work, because it recognises Bwomen’s epistemic privilege in
the form of first-hand experiences of gender oppression^
(Göransson 2014). This does not, however, mean leaving it
to women to undertake the intellectual labour involved in
being profeminist on men’s behalf, nor leaving it to women
to ‘train’ men in feminist theory, so that they do not have to do
the hard work involved in reflecting on and applying it to their
own lives and practices (Castelino 2014). In other words, men
who support feminism must be autonomous moral agents,
taking the onus for their own personal and social politics,
rather than turning all such responsibility over to women
(Brod 1998). We return to more effective strategies for accountability further below.
In response to the question Which feminism? then, it is not
good enough to answer, BWhichever feminisms are held by
the women and organisations to whom I am/we are
accountable^. Whilst accountability is a vital political
principle, it does not remove the challenge of critically
assessing and adopting specific feminist theories.
Dilemmas of Praxis
It is important to recognise that there are also a number of
dilemmas and issues of practice which are posed for
profeminist men and the engaging men field when choosing
between different feminist theories. We will discuss some of
these further now.
Gaps Between Profeminism and Feminism
First of all, we need to consider the very purpose of
profeminist men’s work: is it simply to mirror or echo feminism more broadly? If so, then the specific feminist approach
in question, and the strength of its project of social change, is
relatively unimportant, so long as that original goal of replication has been achieved. Yet, this in itself again asks relatively little of men who are serious about applying profeminist
praxis. On the other hand, if profeminism develops independently from feminism to such a degree that the links in theory
and practice between the two become largely disconnected,
then arguably it could no longer be considered profeminist.
The solution to this dilemma for profeminist men may lie in
finding a balance in practice, between listening to and
supporting feminist theories, and reflecting upon and applying
what are believed to be the most powerful of those for their
own context.
There may already be a gap between the feminisms of the
engaging men field and those which characterise feminist advocacy more broadly. For example, work with men still seems
to lag behind other feminist social change projects in terms of
its recognition of the intersections of gender with other forms
of social difference and inequality and its acknowledgement
of sexual diversity (Flood 2015; Peretz 2017). Of course, feminist advocacy itself is diverse and under continual threat, and
there are feminist reasons for the engaging men field to resist
troubling trends in gender justice practice and policy, whether
they are hollowed out, neoliberal and individualised versions
of feminism (Rottenberg 2014) or depoliticised anti-violence
strategies (Hall 2015).
If there are gaps or tensions between the engaging men
field and women’s movements, they may mirror those documented between masculinities scholarship and feminist scholarship. There is now something of a disconnect between contemporary feminist scholarship, a great deal of which is significantly influenced by postmodern, poststructuralist
theorising and scholarship on men and masculinities, which
continues to be strongly influenced by more modernist, structuralist modes of thinking (Beasley 2012, 2013, 2015).
However, the latter is also true to some extent regarding
Glob Soc Welf
feminist scholarship specifically on men’s violence against
women, so critical studies on men and masculinities in particular may have remained more closely aligned with feminist
work in this area, than with feminist theorising more broadly.
Compared to much contemporary feminist theorising, critical
studies on men and masculinities typically place greater emphasis on power as structural oppression, give greater emphasis to categories of identity and, arguably, have a greater orientation towards practice, activism and making social change.
The extent to which contemporary research on men and
masculinities can be said to be accountable to, and influenced
by, feminist scholarship more generally is therefore debatable.
Indeed, there has also long been scepticism from some feminist theorists about the extent to which men and masculinity
scholarship measures up to its claims to be aligned with feminism (for example, see Ashe 2007; Castelino 2014; McCarry
2007; Robinson 2003). Meanwhile, O’Neill (2015) has suggested that contemporary scholarship on men and
masculinities is moving further away from its ‘critical’ roots
and relationship with feminism. This also brings into question
the extent to which there is a relationship between efforts to
engage men and boys in the prevention of violence against
women, and contemporary scholarship on men and
masculinities.
An Accountability Based on Critical Reflexivity
On accountability, we argued above that whilst profeminist
work with men must be accountable to women and feminism,
this does not remove the responsibility also to assess the feminisms to which it is accountable. Because of the sometimes
significant divergences in feminist theorising and activism, in
practice accountability may therefore often mean being accountable to specific feminist women and specific iterations
of feminism (Pease 2017). This does not mean that
profeminist men should not be open to being held to account
by other feminist women too. However, only being accountable to a notion of ‘feminism’ as a broad singular entity, rather
than to specific individuals, groups and strands of feminist
thought and activism, may in fact mean relatively little in
practice, and may indicate a vague and ineffectual approach
to accountability.
At the same time, being accountable also means interrogating why it is that one does sympathise with some specific
forms of feminism over others. It is important to listen to
and reflect upon the diversity of feminist viewpoints and
women’s experiences, even (and perhaps especially) if they
challenge one’s existing beliefs (Pease 2017). Otherwise, it
may be the case that profeminist men simply adopt whichever
feminist theories fit most easily with their existing view of the
world and challenge their current ideas and behaviours the
least. Being sympathetic to a particular school of thought
within feminism does not therefore mean that profeminist
men should engage only with those ideas, since one cannot
meaningfully adopt a position without considering the range
of other arguments available.
This demonstrates that the accountability of men’s antiviolence work can be most effective if it is built on critical
reflexivity, especially with regard to its relationship with feminism. Furthermore, it is important to maintain an awareness
of the directions and arguments of the broader women’s movement (whilst avoiding what is ‘shared’ becoming the sole
factor in deciding which theories to adopt). As we have
shown, if there is a significant gap between those and the
frameworks that engaging men work follows, then that too
would bring into question the efficacy of its practices of accountability. This approach may also help organisations and
activists to deal with occasions where they are faced with
conflicting arguments from different feminists, or if they are
unsure about feedback or comments received from individual
feminist women (Pease 2017).
If organisations working with men to prevent violence
against women are honest, explicit and specific about their
profeminist commitments, this can encourage a deeper and
more focused level of engagement with feminist perspectives
and activism. This in turn will aid the development of clearer,
more systematic and coherent theoretical and strategic underpinnings for such efforts. It would also help organisations to
be more transparent, and thus facilitate being held to account
by feminist women more easily, if their aims are identified and
explained from the outset. This does not mean it is necessary
to make every aspect of an organisation’s frameworks explicit
to everyone at all times, and certain debates, issues and complexities will be more appropriate for different audiences in
different contexts. However, being prepared to thoughtfully
engage with and critically reflect on feminist debates and divergences in the first place could have a number of useful
impacts in developing the rigour of work with men boys.
Men Taking Sides
This raises the question of how profeminist men and the engaging men field more generally should interact with debates
and disagreements within feminism, and whether or not they
can make a useful contribution to them. Many would take the
view that it would be highly inappropriate for profeminist men
to wade into contentious debates and implicitly or explicitly
assert to some feminists that they are ‘wrong’ about a particular issue; that it is not men’s place to make claims about
which direction the women’s movement should take (Pease
2008). At the same time, a serious engagement with feminist
theories arguably requires men to actively reflect and take on
their own positions in relation to different feminist issues,
rather than passively accepting whichever feminist arguments
they encounter about them (Brod 1998; Harding 1998).
Glob Soc Welf
It would be an abnegation of responsibility, moreover, for
profeminist men to ignore contentious debates within feminism, especially since these issues are often directly related
to men and men’s practices. Indeed, evading such discussions
in itself involves taking a particular position (Pease 2017), and
arguably reflects a privileged position, by being able to ‘pick
and choose’ which feminist issues to care about. It may be
particularly difficult for an organisation focusing on the prevention of men’s violence against women to disregard deliberations around prostitution/sex work and pornography for
example, given that many feminists would argue that these
are themselves examples of violence, abuse and exploitation,
or at least encourage and glorify these things (Jensen 2017;
Mackay 2015). What is more, it may be easier for men to
comment on such issues than it is for women, given the sexist
and misogynistic abuse that women often receive for speaking
out about any topic related to feminism, and perhaps especially when those issues are more ‘controversial’ (Messner et al.
2015).
Where feminist debates do concern issues in which men’s
practices are directly involved, such as prostitution/sex work
(as sex buyers) or violence (as perpetrators), profeminist
men’s voices may be particularly valuable. It is therefore possible that men’s experiences may, on occasion, actually be
able to provide alternative and productive perspectives and
insights within highly polarised debates (Harding 1998).
However, any such intervention from men must be handled
very carefully, in a way that does not diminish the
prioritisation of women’s voices and experiences, and which
is based around supporting the feminist movement rather than
colonising discussions within it (Kahane 1998).
Weighing up and arriving at their own position on a certain
issue, and potentially disagreeing with some feminists, does
not mean that profeminist men should spend their time dictating to feminist women that their position is wrong. It is one
thing to advocate for a particular position amongst profeminist
men, quite another to make claims about which direction the
women’s movement should take—because, if men see themselves as allies to feminism, then it is not their movement to
make such claims to. This also brings us back to the point
made by Brod that profeminist men have to be careful not to
contribute to or antagonise divisions within feminism, which
can in turn help to preserve patriarchal social relations.
Profeminist men could thus help to maintain patriarchal inequalities if they contribute to such conflicts, or, on the other
hand, if they see themselves as ‘saviours’ of feminism who
possess the solutions to contentions within the women’s
movement.
Aligning Feminist Theory and Practice
It is also important to consider whether there may be a relationship between the type of feminist theoretical framework
that an organisation adopts, and the extent to which it succeeds
in putting profeminism into practice. For example, it could be
argued that subscribing to a form of radical feminist analysis is
likely to equate to a ‘stronger’ degree of profeminist praxis, as
by its very nature radical feminism demands deeper levels of
individual and social change in relation to gender than other
forms of feminism (Brod 1998). If we are asking more farreaching, critical and challenging questions about ourselves
and the structures and systems of the world in which we live,
it is likely that the strategies and methods we adopt in
attempting to put that theory into practice will be more profoundly and transformatively feminist in nature.
However, it is not inevitable that this will be the case. We
cannot necessarily take aspects of an organisation or individual advocate’s practice for granted because of the theory they
are adopting. Adopting radical feminist ideas does not automatically detach men from male privilege and entitlement.
Attempting to recognise and dismantle these things remains
an everyday task for all profeminist men, in which mistakes
and lurches back into sexism can easily be made. On the one
hand, subscribing to radical feminist ideas may make men
more attuned to identifying such dynamics. However, it could
also lead to problematic behaviours of its own, such as a
‘holier than thou’ or competitive approach to being more ‘radical’ than other men—or spending more time criticising ‘liberal’ feminist women than on the day-to-day work of engaging with other men and boys. It may also counter-intuitively
lead to a failure to reflect adequately on one’s own behaviour,
based on the mistaken assumption that, having adopted a radical feminist analysis, it is impossible to simultaneously enact
sexism in practice.
This again demonstrates why consistent critical reflexivity
and accountability to feminist women about the work that
profeminist men do is so crucial. It also highlights why it is
beneficial to listen to a range of women’s voices and feminist
arguments, not only those which one agrees with most for
whatever reason. Working to prevent violence against women
as a man surely means constantly being challenged—men
never reach a point of being ‘beyond’ this, no matter how well
versed in feminist theory, or experienced in profeminist praxis, they may be. Furthermore, sometimes men can be challenged by unexpected voices and in unexpected contexts,
not only in those that they perceive to be the most radical.
These issues also illustrate the importance of taking into
account both theory and practice in engaging men work, and
working to create a harmonious alignment between the two, in
order to effectively enact profeminist praxis (Jewkes et al.
2015b; Storer et al. 2016). An organisation working with
men can develop a highly radical and systematic theoretical
framework, but that can be relatively meaningless if the strategies and methods it uses to put that framework into practice
are not equally carefully developed. The type of feminist theory an organisation adopts may thus be of less importance
Glob Soc Welf
than the extent which it is effective in actually putting feminism into practice. On the other hand, an organisation might
undertake a wide range of innovative activities in engaging
men, but if these are not built upon a coherent theory of feminist social change, then it will be difficult to assess what the
actual aims of that work are, and whether or not it can actually
be considered to be effective. Work with men and boys to
prevent violence against women therefore requires carefully
developed and mutually supportive theory and practice if it is
to have a significant impact in achieving its goals.
Conclusion
There are a number of differences which can be observed
within work to engage men and boys in the prevention of
men’s violence against women. These are particularly apparent in the different types of (typically feminist) theories and
frameworks that provide the foundations for these efforts, and
in the degree to which feminism is put into practice in the
range of strategies and methods that organisations adopt in
their work. However, differences do appear elsewhere too,
such as in the structure and composition of organisations involved in this field, and the different ways in which they
implement accountability to feminism. To date, there has been
relatively little reflection on these divergences within engaging men work, and we do not seek to highlight them in order to
encourage conflict or division which could serve to constrain a
still relatively small field of activism.
However, we would argue that it is important that these
organisations, and profeminist men seeking to support efforts
to prevent men’s violence against women more generally, reflect upon rather than ignore the divergences and debates
within feminist thinking, and contemplate their own position
in relation to them. There can sometimes be ambiguity surrounding the theoretical underpinnings of the engaging men
field, where the specificities and emphases of feminist commitments of individuals and groups can be left implicit. This
may cultivate a lack of transparency, which limits the capacity
for those organisations and individuals to be held to account as
they attempt to put feminism into practice. Furthermore, a
dearth of openness and decisiveness in relation to the ideological approach being adopted can contribute to a lack of cohesion and coherence between the change that is aspired to, the
rationale for that change and the strategy for accomplishing it,
which can lead to disjointed and ineffective efforts.
Yet, there are undoubtedly also challenges involved both in
being more reflective and more explicit about the forms of
feminist theory that provide the foundations for work with
men and boys, and the strategies that are developed to implement them. Not least because this requires an in-depth, ongoing engagement with different strands of feminist thought,
which demands resources of time and effort. However, it
could be argued that for those who are serious about
supporting feminist social change, these levels of engagement
are essential. In addition, some of the debates within feminism
are also highly contentious and polarised, and so it is important to respond to them sensitively. It is inappropriate for men,
as the dominant group within the patriarchal social order, to
intrude on these and proclaim the direction which they think
the movement for women’s liberation should take, as if men
could solve the dilemmas and contradictions that feminists
have grappled with for decades.
That does not mean these issues and debates should be
avoided in the process of trying to engage men in preventing
violence against women, not least because ignoring them in
the context of such work is almost impossible. It would also
represent an abdication of responsibility if the field is serious
about taking up feminist analyses. As is frequently the case in
work to engage men in the prevention of men’s violence
against women, it is therefore important to craft a careful balance in response to the Which feminism? question.
Profeminist men should engage seriously with the diversity
of feminist thought and advocacy, but avoid replicating patriarchal power dynamics, such as invading or antagonising debates within feminism, in the process.
This article has considered how we can assess the feminism
of work to engage men and boys in preventing violence
against women, in terms of how feminist the field is, and what
kinds of feminism can be identified within it. It has also explored how profeminist men involved in the prevention of
violence against women can go about choosing which feminist theory they should adopt in their work, as well as some of
the dilemmas in practice that can arise when making such
decisions. This leaves us with the question of whether or not
there is a particular type of feminism which should be adopted
in work with men and boys to end violence against women.
Taking into account the issues raised in this article, individual
advocates and organisations involved in the prevention of violence against women must come to their own conclusions
about which kind of feminism they feel is most relevant and
helpful to apply to the contexts in which they are operating. In
some ways, the answer to this question may be less important
than the extent to which this work succeeds in actually putting
profeminism into practice—because the frameworks that are
adopted are relatively meaningless if they do not become effective praxis.
Fundamentally, organisations and individual advocates
should push themselves to be as feminist as they can be in
work with men and boys, because deep-rooted feminist social
change is what is required in order to bring about an end to
men’s violence against women. This will undoubtedly mean
different things to different people, depending on their subjective interpretations of feminism. However, we would argue
that there are some rudimentary principles which should underpin work with men and boys to prevent men’s violence
Glob Soc Welf
against women, if it can genuinely be considered profeminist.
The following are by no means intended by be comprehensive, but they illustrate what some of the minimum standards
could be in profeminist approaches to the elimination of men’s
violence against women:
1. That we strive to enact transformations towards gender
justice in our personal lives, in the lives of other men
and boys and in society as a whole.
2. That we make ourselves open to being held to account
about our practices and our work by feminist women,
and put steps in place which ensure we are accountable
as individuals and organisations to specific feminist women and feminist organisations.
3. That at the same time as being accountable to women, we
do not place the onus on them to ‘teach us’ about gender
inequality. We take on the responsibility to learn, and to
change ourselves and other men in order to live in more
gender-equitable ways.
4. That we make efforts to listen and learn from the diversity
of women’s experiences and engage critically and reflexively with a range of feminist theories and ideas. This
means being clear about the kind of feminist approach
we are adopting, particularly regarding what kind of
change we want to achieve and why that change is
important.
5. That the strategies and methods we adopt marry with the
aims of our theory of feminist change, and that we consult
with feminist women wherever possible during the process of implementing work with men and boys.
6. That we critically reflect on and evaluate the extent to
which the work being carried out is effective in actually
bringing about the change that it aims to achieve.
7. That through both our theory and practice, we make the
connections between and address different forms of men’s
violence against women and patriarchal social relations—
and consider the ways in which we are also personally
implicated in, and privileged by, these social structures.
8. That we take into account the full continuum of men’s
violence against women in our prevention work, and consider the relationships between this and other normalised
institutions and patterns of practice within patriarchy (including those which are seen as being contentious within
feminism, such as the sex industry).
9. That we recognise the importance of women’s voices and
women-only spaces being prioritised and playing a leading role within struggles to end men’s violence against
women and gender inequality. Whilst seeking to support
this work, this also means working to counteract the potential for men to dominate or ‘take over’ such efforts.
These principles themselves perhaps lean more towards a
radical feminist analysis. However, we would argue that this is
to some extent inevitable, given the saliency of radical forms
of feminism in particular to efforts to understand and address
violence against women and girls. If it can build upon such
principles with the reflexive development of cohesive
profeminist praxis, the engaging men field has the potential
to contribute to significant transformations in men and
masculinities and gender relations more broadly, and to bringing men’s violence against women to an end.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
This paper is not based on research with human subjects and therefore did
require Institutional Review Board approval.
Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the
Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
Ashe, F. (2007). The new politics of masculinity: men, power and
resistance. London: Routledge.
Barbour, R. S. (2001). Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative
research: a case of the tail wagging the dog? BMJ [British Medical
Journal], 322(7294), 1115–1117.
Barker, G., Ricardo, C., & Nascimento, M. (2007). Engaging men and
boys in changing gender-based inequity in health: evidence from
programme interventions. Geneva: World Health Organization.
Beasley, C. (1999). What is feminism, anyway? Understanding contemporary feminist thought. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Beasley, C. (2012). Problematizing contemporary men/masculinities theorizing: the contribution of Raewyn Connell and conceptualterminological tensions today. British Journal of Sociology, 63(4),
747–765.
Beasley, C. (2013). Mind the gap? Masculinity studies and contemporary
gender/sexuality thinking. Australian Feminist Studies, 28(75),
108–124.
Beasley, C. (2015). Caution! Hazards ahead: considering the potential
gap between feminist thinking and men/masculinities theory and
practice. Journal of Sociology, 51(3), 566–581.
Brod, H. (1998). To be a man, or not to be a man—that is the feminist
question. In T. Digby (Ed.), Men doing feminism (pp. 197–212).
London: Routledge.
Brookfield, S. (2005). The power of critical theory for adult learning and
teaching. Berkshire: Open University Press.
Carmody, M., Evans, S., Krogh, C., Flood, M., Heenan, M., & Ovenden,
G. (2009). Framing best practice: National standards for the primary prevention of sexual assault through education. Sydney:
University of Western Sydney.
Glob Soc Welf
Casey, E., & Lindhorst, T. P. (2009). Toward a multi-level, ecological
approach to the primary prevention of sexual assault: prevention in
peer and community contexts. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 10(2),
91–114.
Casey, E., Carlson, J., Fraguela-Rios, C., Kimball, E., Neugut, T. B.,
Tolman, R. M., et al. (2013). Context, challenges, and tensions in
global efforts to engage men in the prevention of violence against
women: an ecological analysis. Men and Masculinities, 16(2),
228–251.
Casey, E., Carlson, J., Two Bulls, S., & Yager, A. (2016). Gender transformative approaches to engaging men in gender-based violence
prevention: a review and conceptual model. Trauma, Violence &
Abuse, 19(2), 231–246.
Castelino, T. (2014). A feminist critique of men’s violence against women
efforts. The No To Violence Journal, Autumn 2014, 7–14.
Cohen, J. (2012). The politics of accountability. In E. B. Martínez, M.
Meyer, & M. Carter (Eds.), We Have Not Been Moved: Resisting
Racism and Militarism in 21st Century America. Oakland: PM Press.
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: identity politics,
intersectionality, and violence against women. Stanford Law
Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.
Crowe, J. (2013). Can men be feminists? TC Beirne School of Law
Research Paper No. 13–08. Brisbane: University of Queensland.
Delaware Men’s Education Network. (2016). Engaging Men Capacity
Assessment for Member Partners (EM-CAMP). Wilmington:
Delaware Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
Digby, T. (Ed.). (1998). Men doing feminism. New York: Routledge.
Dworkin, S. L., Treves-Kagan, S., & Lippman, S. A. (2013). Gendertransformative interventions to reduce HIV risks and violence with
heterosexually-active men: a review of the global evidence. AIDS
and Behavior, 17(9), 2845–2863.
Evans, E., & Chamberlain, P. (2015). Critical waves: exploring feminist
identity, discourse and praxis in western feminism. Social Movement
Studies, 14(4), 396–409.
Fleming, P. J., Lee, J. G., & Dworkin, S. L. (2014). BReal men don’t^:
constructions of masculinity and inadvertent harm in public health
interventions. American Journal of Public Health, 104(6), 1029–
1035.
Flick, U. (2008). Managing quality in qualitative research. London:
Sage.
Flood, M. (2005). Men’s collective struggles for gender justice: The case
of antiviolence activism. In M. Kimmel, J. Hearn, & R. Connell
(Eds.), Handbook of studies on men and masculinities (pp. 458–
466). Thousand Oak: Sage.
Flood, M. (2015). Work with men to end violence against women: A
critical stocktake. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 17(2), 159–176
Flood, M., Fergus, L., & Heenan, M. (2009). Respectful relationships
education: Violence prevention and respectful relationships education in Victorian secondary schools. Melbourne: Department of
Education and Early Childhood Development, State of Victoria.
Funk, R. E. (2017). Organizational readiness to engage men in violence
prevention. Rus Funk Consulting.
Göransson, C. (2014). Rejecting violence, reclaiming men: how men’s
work against men’s violence challenges and reinforces the gender
order. In Department of Political Science. Stockholm: Stockholm
University.
Gupta, G. R. (2000). Gender, sexuality, and HIV/AIDS: the what, the
why, and the how. Canadian HIV/AIDS Policy & Law Review,
5(4), 86–93.
Hall, R. J. (2015). Feminist strategies to end violence against women. In
R. Baksh & W. Harcourt (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of transnational feminist movements (pp. 394–415). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Hammersley, M. (2007). The issue of quality in qualitative research.
International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 30(3),
287–305.
Harding, S. (1998). Can men be subjects of feminist thought? In T. Digby
(Ed.), Men doing feminism (pp. 171–195). London: Routledge.
Hasyim, N. (2014). How far can men go? A study of the men's movement
to end violence against women in Indonesia. Wollongong:
University of Wollongong.
Hearn, J. (2013). Methods and methodologies in critical studies on men
and masculinities. In B. Pini & B. Pease (Eds.), Men, masculinities
and methodologies (pp. 26–38). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Jensen, R. (2017). The end of patriarchy: radical feminism for men.
Melbourne: Spinifex Press.
Jewkes, R., Flood, M., & Lang, J. (2015a). 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. The Lancet, 385(9977), 1580–1589.
Jewkes, R., Morrell, R., Hearn, J., Lundqvist, E., Blackbeard, D.,
Lindegger, G., et al. (2015b). Hegemonic masculinity: combining
theory and practice in gender interventions. Culture, Health &
Sexuality, 17(sup2), 96–111.
Johnson, A. G. (1997). The gender knot: unraveling our patriarchal
legacy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Kahane, D. J. (1998). Male feminism as oxymoron. In T. Digby (Ed.),
Men doing feminism (pp. 213–236). London: Routledge.
Kimball, E., Edleson, J. L., Tolman, R. M., Neugut, T. B., & Carlson, J.
(2013). Global efforts to engage men in preventing violence against
women: an international survey. Violence Against Women, 19(7),
924–939.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalist inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage.
Lorber, J. (2012). Gender inequality: feminist theories and politics (5th
ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mackay, F. (2015). Radical feminism: feminist activism in movement.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Macomber, K. (2018). BI’m sure as hell not putting any man on a
pedestal^: Male privilege and accountability in domestic and sexual
violence work. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(9), 1491–
1518.
McCarry, M. (2007). Masculinity studies and male violence: critique or
collusion? Women's Studies International Forum, 30(5), 404–415.
Messner, M. A., Greenberg, M. A., & Peretz, T. (2015). Some men:
feminist allies and the movement to end violence against women.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Morrison, S., Hardison, J., Mathew, A., & O’Neil, J. (2004). An evidencebased review of sexual assault preventive intervention programs:
technical report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
O’Neill, R. (2015). Whither critical masculinity studies? Notes on inclusive masculinity theory, postfeminism, and sexual politics. Men and
Masculinities, 18(1), 100–120.
Nation, M., Crusto, C., Wandersman, A., Kumpfer, K. L., Seybolt, D.,
Morrissey-Kane, E., & Davino, K. (2003). What works in prevention: principles of effective prevention programs. American
Psychologist, 58(6–7), 449–456.
Pease, B. (2008). Engaging men in men’s violence prevention: exploring
the tensions, dilemmas and possibilities. Australian domestic & family violence clearinghouse issues paper 17. Sydney: Australian
Domestic & Family Violence Clearinghouse.
Pease, B. (2013). Epistemology, methodology and accountability in
researching men’s subjectivities and practices. In B. Pini & B.
Pease (Eds.), Men, masculinities and methodologies (pp. 39–52).
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pease, B. (2017). Men as allies in preventing violence against women:
principles and practices for promoting accountability. Sydney:
White Ribbon Australia.
Peretz, T. (2017). Engaging diverse men: an intersectional analysis of
men’s pathways to antiviolence activism. Gender & Society, 31(4),
526–548.
Glob Soc Welf
Robinson, V. (2003). Radical revisionings?: the theorizing of masculinity
and (radical) feminist theory. Women's Studies International Forum,
26(2), 129–137.
Rottenberg, C. (2014). The rise of neoliberal feminism. Cultural Studies,
28(3), 418–437.
Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., & Dillon, L. (2003). Quality in qualitative evaluation: a framework for assessing research evidence.
London: Government Chief Social Researcher’s Office.
Storer, H. L., Casey, E. A., Carlson, J., Edleson, J. L., & Tolman, R. M.
(2016). Primary prevention is? A global perspective on how organizations engaging men in preventing gender-based violence
conceptualize and operationalize their work. Violence Against
Women, 22(2), 249–268.
UNFPA & Promundo. (2010). Engaging men and boys in gender equality
and health: a global toolkit for action. Rio de Janeiro: Promundo.
Vance, C. S. (1984). Pleasure and danger: toward a politics of sexuality. In
C. S. Vance (Ed.), Pleasure and danger: exploring female sexuality
(pp. 1–28). Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Whitaker, D. J., Morrison, S., Lindquist, C., Hawkins, S. R., O’Neil, J. A.,
Nesius, A. M., et al. (2006). A critical review of interventions for the
primary prevention of perpetration of partner violence. Aggression
and Violent Behavior, 11(2), 151–166.