*The following is a published journal article with citation: "Hall, C. M. (2019). Merging Efforts: The Intersections of Domestic Violence Intervention, Men, and Masculinities. Men and Masculinities, 22(1), 104–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X18805565"
Merging Efforts: The Intersections of Domestic Violence Intervention, Men, and Masculinities
First Published March 12, 2019
Abstract
Feminist-focused
activism and domestic violence services have grown in tandem, both
developing analysis of systemic interventions for abusive men and in
men’s role to address violence against women. Research on men and
masculinities create a space for enhancing the view of toxic and healthy
masculinities; however, analysis of masculinities without specific
discussion on topics of intersectionality can avoid directly addressing
men's violent behavior. There is a growing need to combine two focal
points of work: honoring the foundations of anti-oppression work by
encouraging non-abusive men to address their entitlement and disconnect
from women, and motivating domestically abusive and violent men to
choose respectful behavior that integrates healthy masculinities.
Consideration for LGBTQ+ analysis of masculinities and opportunities for
combined work are also explored.
Domestic
violence intervention work, often focused on cis-male heterosexual
offenders, faces challenges from community support and from offenders
themselves when media, individuals, and researchers believe that such
men are incapable of change. In doing work to end violence in
relationships and to reduce toxic masculinities, change agents must
believe in the possibility of working toward respect, health, and
progress. The process of this change can be explored more concretely
through a strong foundation and connection to women’s and gender
studies, and domestic violence work needs to continue this connection
rather than forgetting or abandoning it.
Male Privilege without Depth: Challenges with Domestic Violence Work
The
history of domestic violence intervention work involves initial efforts
at Emerge: Counseling and Education to Stop Domestic Violence in 1977,
with several other initiatives starting soon after to address men’s
violence against women (
Adams 2003, p. 171).
The
most identified and well-known domestic violence intervention program,
the Domestic Abuse Intervention Program, also known as “the Duluth
model” started in 1984 when Ellen Pence and Michael Paymar interviewed
female victims of domestic violence and categorized experiences of harm
within their “Power and Control Wheel (PCW).” While overall, their
approach was designed to involve community involvement, coordination,
and systemic review, classroom-style groups of domestic violence
offenders focus on using the PCW to educate about their abusive and
violent behavior in conjunction with a “control log” activity.
Since
the early 2000s, national domestic violence intervention programs such
as Emerge and Duluth have attempted to create a broader humanistic
approach: Emerge through the use of motivational interviewing approaches
and Duluth through a greater focus on their “respect and equality”
wheel. Both programs have stressed the need to focus on the change they
want to see in abusers, but dissemination of this approach is difficult
within agencies and groups that lack coordination and communication with
progress and advances outside of their own communities.
Part of
the challenge faced by domestic violence intervention has to do with
Duluth’s PCW, which identifies a category of control and harm labeled as
“male privilege,” which includes examples such as “treating her like a
servant,” “making all the big decisions,” “acting like the ‘master of
the castle,’” and “being the one to define men’s and women’s roles” (
Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs 2014a).
While this wedge of the PCW is designed to be a starting point to
discuss toxic masculinity and other forms of oppressive and entitled
behavior, the challenge becomes that if individual interventionists do
not have a nuanced understanding of men and masculinities, or a greater
connection to community collaboration as practiced by the Duluth model
itself, discussions and interventions can potentially become
demotivational, alienating, and dismissive of respectful and healthy
masculinities.
The Duluth model, in its work to be more focused on
respect and equality, has engaged men by considering “shared
responsibility,” but the challenge is that interventionists outside of
the Duluth model itself often do not directly address oppressive beliefs
and behavior behind toxic masculinities. Suggested items in the “shared
responsibility” wedge include “mutually agreeing on a fair distribution
of work” and “making family decisions together” (
Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs 2014b).
Individual group facilitators might be able to have an engaging and
thought-provoking discussion about sexism, heterosexism, classism, and
other oppressions that become domestically violent, but again the
responsibility and skill are totally dependent on that individual
interventionist.
The Emerge model engaged in a more “political
activist” approach in the 1990s, addressing oppressive language and
calling abusers out on attitudes and beliefs that were hurtful. While
Emerge lacks a concrete display such as the PCW, there are lesson plans
addressing “the effects of domestic violence on women” and
“disrespectful/respectful communication.” However, like the Duluth
model, Emerge does not have any lessons which directly engage abusers in
discussions of healthy and respectful masculinity, although it does
have opportunities within discussions on respectful communication,
exploring effects of domestic violence on women and children, and a
consideration of what counts as abuse and violence.
One of the
early domestic violence intervention programs, the Oakland Men’s
Project, cofounded by Paul Kivel and Allan Creighton made several
efforts to engage men in discussions of toxic and healthy masculinities
in the form of the “Act Like a Man Box” and avoided use of terms such as
“batterer intervention” instead choosing to call their interventions
“Men’s Work.” Their call to engage all men in the work to end violence
against women and girls has been mirrored by other organizations and
efforts, but that work is often separate from direct interventions.
Domestic
violence intervention shares many overlaps with research on men and
masculinities, in some ways being a practical extension of that work.
However, there is little interaction between the two groups, and to
build effective interventions and more directly change toxic
masculinities in male domestic violence offenders, this connection needs
to be stronger and more direct. Part of the challenge in these
connections involves the varied training requirements throughout the
nation for domestic violence intervention work. State standards and
protocols for programs and individual facilitators vary greatly;
Colorado has 150 pages of rules (including detailed evaluation
components), while three states have no guidelines whatsoever.
There
are several reasons why states have created standards, but many do so
through court and legislative rulings requiring that individual abusers
receive education, intervention, or counseling as a consequence for
domestic violence criminal offenses. This creates a certain quality of
care for programs, but since this quality is so different between sites,
and monitoring of these standards is often minimal, holding individuals
and programs to a standard of analysis is very difficult.
As
domestic violence is not a mental health issue, it invites analysis that
considers belief systems, values, and meaning and where those interplay
with toxic, unhealthy, disrespectful, violent, and abusive behavior. As
much of the work has focused on where gender role training fits into
those beliefs, there is opportunity for natural overlaps between this
research and progress. Getting past the issues behind standards of
programs and requirements for practitioners could be an excellent
opportunity for future work.
Extrapolation without Depth: Concerns with Men and Masculinities Work
Gender
studies as an area of research and study has long focused on feminism,
as well as LGBTQ+ studies. As time has led to differentiation between
the two focal areas, both have often supported each other and worked
together within their realms of research. There has been tension and
distrust from both groups as masculinities studies have gained ground,
influence, and garnered financial support.
A major source of this
distrust can be seen in part as coming from elements of men’s studies
that is directly and/or indirectly connected to Men’s Rights Activist
(MRA) groups. These groups work to portray men as victims of women,
victims of society, and victims of other men. Masculinities studies has
opportunities to denounce and work directly against such groups by
providing research and discussion that keeps men’s potential for
violence in the foreground.
Molly Dragiewicz, a sociologist and
noted researcher of MRAs, notes when reviewing “Some Men,” a book about
men’s experiences in doing antiviolence work, “Some men interviewed in
this chapter raise concerns about the use of antiviolence publicity as
window dressing to disguise an underlying lack of commitment to
organizational policies to address men’s violence against women and the
structures that engender it” (
Dragiewicz 2016, p. 312).
But
why is it that men are challenged by taking a more direct and visible
role in calling out violence as a part of toxic masculinities? Sebastián
Molano wrote about some of the challenges faced by men by stating,
“Many of the men (including me) working on gender issues are
self-taught. We have arrived in the gender landscape as a result of
different circumstances but rarely due to an ingrained interest. This is
explained, typically, as men enjoying a series of privileges that do
not push them to question the status quo” (
Molano, 2015).
This
mirrors the challenge with domestic violence intervention work, where
engaging men in respectful and healthy masculinities reflections or in
confronting toxic masculinities does not necessarily have any sort of
guidelines, standards, or rules of foundation, training, or engagement.
Molano goes on to state, “men who work on gender issues do not tend to
have a solid conceptual framework on gender issues, vis-à-vis women.
This affects their credibility but most importantly, it is exposed when
men who are working on these issues try to build bridges of
collaboration with women’s organizations.”
Men and Masculinities
studies need collaborations with feminist organizations and need the
analysis of gender through the lens of privilege and power men hold over
women. The expansion of that lens to consider the intersectionality of
other oppressions needs to be continued.
Research on
intersectional oppression and the perceptions of invisibility
experienced by marginalized individuals can provide guidance in
understanding how women’s experiences are easily overlooked by men. In
exploring social invisibility, Pérez and Passini found that the more
areas of privilege that individuals held, the easier it was to overlook
or avoid people without privilege. Their research focused on multiple
layers of identity, including gender and sexism, and their conclusion
was that, “participants avoid visual interaction with people belonging
to social minorities, presumably in order to prevent them from seeing
themselves through the eyes with which the minority would see them” (
Pérez & Passini 2012, p. 873).
Since
2017, when #MeToo gained international attention and sparked an
increase in awareness and validation for women who are sexually and
physically victimized by men, the invisibility has been waning,
particularly as Sandra M. Gilbert notes:
Thousands
and thousands of victims are cafeteria workers, file clerks,
undergraduate and graduate students, ambitious young paralegals and
overworked line cooks, electricians and rookie cops, junior high school
students, and even, God help us, younger girls, sometimes even
kindergartners. The labyrinth is the quotidian workplace—the winding
corridors of the school or the office, where sexual aggression all too
often accompanies power. (
American Scholar 2018, p. 18)
With
this rise of visibility, masculinities studies has an opportunity to
join with domestic violence researchers in assessing appropriate
responses to offenders, discussing the impacts of men’s violence on
women and children, and overall working to provide avenues for repair.
Unfortunately,
with the arrival of Donald Trump as President of the United States of
America, the landscape of masculinities in overall US culture may have
serious shifts toward attitudes of entitlement and traditional gender
roles, embracing foundations of toxic masculinity that are fundamental
aspects of MRA belief systems. This creates a need to be intentional in
having conversations with MRA individuals and groups to find methods of
analyzing toxic masculinities and to possibly learn more about shifting
beliefs toward healthy and respectful alternatives.
As a part of working toward respectful and healthy shifts,
Men and Masculinities
(and domestic violence) studies need to be cautious to remember how
gender intersects with other categories of oppression, otherwise it can
potentially lead to other forms of invisibility within the work. Chris
Beasley notes ,“specifically naming violence as ‘the problem of men’,
with regard to violence in communities which face racist
marginalisation, is not straightforward. The strategy may be viewed as
not so much as ensuring men are rendered responsible but as potentially
eliding histories of racism/colonialism, thereby ensuring that dominant
white cultures are not associated with responsibility” (
Beasley 2015, p. 574).
A
focus on toxic masculinities still needs to be balanced with
understanding healthy and respectful masculinities, and while there have
been several attempts to be more positive about men, careful balance is
critical. Englar-Carlson names the challenge of working within that
balance:
For many individuals, the idea of
empowering men or identifying strengths may seem foreign or downright
antithetical to someone who is working to reduce male power, privilege,
and sexism. A central concern could be that advocating for a positive
psychology of men, or positive masculinity, may gloss over the dark side
of masculinity and may be associated with supporting patriarchal
structures. (
Englar-Carlson & Kiselica 2013, p. 401)
Englar-Carlson offers an example of maintaining both the sense of the toxic and the sense of the healthy:
Loyalty
is commonly identified among men as a desirable trait because it can
strengthen relationships, build trust, and show support of others.
However, when used in a rigid manner, loyalty has the potential to
reinforce traditional positions of male privilege (e.g., protecting
other men at the expense of truth and justice) and mask independent
thinking. It is the ability to be flexible in the enactment of male
strengths and knowing when it is adaptive that is critical. (
Englar-Carlson & Kiselica 2013, p. 402)
Being
flexible is crucial in understanding the ways behavior, gender role
training, and even violence itself can be potentially toxic and
destructive, but also where it may be healthy or embody a context
wherein the violence is protective to self or others. Research and
writing needs to be careful to nuance approaches and make sure both
sides are considered.
Cautions and Differences: Masculinities Work and Sexuality
Intersectional
overlaps need to be intentional by including the experiences of
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer (LGBTQ) community and other
nonbinary sexualities. While masculinities papers and research often
consider, or even focus on, gay masculinities, an aspect of sexualities
that is missing both within domestic violence intervention and
masculinities work is a more expansive focus on sexuality beyond
heterosexual/homosexual/bisexual.
Research on asexuality is
scarce, and testing instruments on sexuality often ignore or minimize
asexual spectrums of sexual identity and sexual orientation (
Hinderliter 2009);
although there has been some work on developing scales to measure
asexuality more recently, relying on open-ended questioning (
Yule, Brotto, & Gorzalka 2015).
Initially, sexuality research looked at a spectrum from heterosexual to
homosexual and categorized any other sexuality as the “X category” (
Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin 1948).
In more recent times, considerations of sexual orientation as something
distinctly separate from romantic orientation have been discussed and
expanded within asexual communities.
Asexuality sites fiercely
debate aspects of sexuality needing to include “romantic orientation” as
being separate from “sexual orientation” and the need to differentiate
between the two and acknowledge space and presence of those individuals
who may not be interested in sexual activity but are romantically and
socially attracted to others (
Amy/amygdala 2013).
This
concept, as a view of sexuality that is inclusive not just of the “big
three” sexual orientations, but other concepts behind an individual’s
identity needs to be more explored within masculinities as well as the
domestic violence community.
One major reason for this need is the
probability of male domestic violence offenders having a characteristic
of being heterosexually oriented to a female partner, but not being
interested in a romantic/social connection to women. This complicated
combination of identities can explain some levels of toxic masculinities
that have not been fully explored.
Another challenging aspect of
masculinities work that focuses on gay and bisexual males is the
often-overlooked aspect of sexism among these men. Authors at various
LGBTQ+ organizations and media have noted some of these issues, one
stating, “The topic of misogyny among gay men is a difficult one to
broach. In my experience, men either simply refuse to believe the
phenomenon exists, or the conversation is quickly derailed” (
Faye 2015).
This
is not to say that the study of masculinities within the LGBTQ+
community are demonstrating sexism in their work; however, inclusion of
forms of oppression beyond heterosexism and homophobia is still
necessary in masculinities research, even from within an LGBTQ+ focus.
Emerge
has been working with domestic violence offenders within the LGBTQ+
community since the mid-1990s. Culturally specific LGBTQ groups for
perpetrators has influenced their work with heterosexual male
perpetrators, leading to greater understanding of oppression dynamics
and guiding more nuanced interventions while offering a broader ability
to inform and work with victims and survivors.
Much of the
challenge in both domestic violence intervention and masculinities
research is in seeing sexuality in binary terms, both within
orientation, but also within making decisions to explore the “most
common” sexual preferences and excluding (or being invisible to) how all
human sexuality informs work with men.
Domestic violence
continues to evolve within the LGBTQ+ community due to work by experts
in the field of intervention as well as within agencies that provide
advocacy and support for victims and survivors. Some of these nonbinary
sexualities, as they are still being explored and understood, need to
also be given support and advocacy for victimization, and perpetrators
need to be held accountable for change. To avoid stifling progress, we
need to start expanding our understanding and research, and we must
become as aware of what we leave out as of what include in our work.
Moving Forward and Conclusions
The reality of
Men and Masculinities
work and of domestic violence intervention is that we are at the
infancy of their scholarship and not far removed from the foundations
created by feminist analysis. Domestic violence intervention has a
history of being corrupted by a lack of connections, distancing
programs, and individuals from both national efforts and others doing
the work. Siloing of resources, advances, materials, curriculum, and
even intervention approaches has prevented progress and created rifts
within the field. Negative and shame-based focus on perpetrators has
created an imbalance in making individual and societal change toward
respect and health in relationships.
We find ourselves in a new
stage of development within this field. Where we can become inclusive of
nonbinary sexuality and romantic connections. Where we can consider
what it means to be balanced within concepts of toxic and healthy
masculinities. Where we can confront male apologists and call out
misogyny at the same time we can build awareness of the invisibilities
we can easily fall prey to.
Tal Peretz lists five reasons to study
Men and Masculinities that support this ongoing evolution:
- Making Men and Masculinities the focus of research helps to keep men’s hurtful behavior visible;
- Gender, as an intersectional matrix of domination, informs our knowledge of other forms of oppression;
- Disrupting the perception that men’s experiences are “natural” illuminates the possibility of change;
- Research suggests momentum toward egalitarian patterns comes from a focus on masculinities; and
- Investigating masculinities offers valuable information for feminist projects. (Peretz 2016)
How
better to leverage privilege than by using the study of men to further
work to end suffering and harms toward all oppressed populations? A
fully synthesized approach could grow both fields in addition to leading
us to a clarified foundation upon which to confront oppression.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The
author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
| Adams, David . 2003. “Treatment Programs for Batterers.” Clinics in Family Practice 5:171.
Google Scholar | Crossref
|
| Amy/amygdala . 2013, October 21. “Sexual and Romantic Orientations Chart.” Accessed September 28, 2018. https://thethinkingasexual.wordpress.com/2013/10/21/sexual-and-romantic-orientations-chart/.
Google Scholar
|
| Beasley, C. 2015. “Caution! Hazards Ahead: Considering the Potential Gap between Feminist Thinking and Men/Masculinities Theory and Practice.” Journal of Sociology 51:566–81. doi: 10.1177/1440783314553317.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI
|
| Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs . 2014a. “The Duluth Model: Power and Control Wheel.” Accessed July 28, 2016. http://www.theduluthmodel.org/pdf/PowerandControl.pdf.
Google Scholar
|
| Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs . 2014b. “The Duluth Model: Respect and Equality Wheel.” Accessed July 28, 2016. http://www.theduluthmodel.org/pdf/Equality.pdf.
Google Scholar
|
| Dragiewicz, M. 2016. “Some Men: Feminist Allies and the Movement to End Violence against Women.” American Journal of Sociology 122:311–13.
Google Scholar | Crossref
|
| Englar-Carlson, M., Kiselica, M. S. 2013. “Affirming the Strengths in Men: A Positive Masculinity Approach to Assisting Male Clients.’ Journal of Counseling & Development 91:399–409. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6676.2013.00111.x.
Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI
|
| Faye, S. 2015, November 11. “The Gay Men Who Hate Women.” Accessed September 28, 2018. https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/the-gay-men-who-hate-women.
Google Scholar
|
| Hinderliter, A. C. 2009. “Methodological Issues for Studying Asexuality.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 38:619–21. doi: 10.1007/s10508-009-9502-x.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
|
| “In the Labyrinth of #MeToo: Addressing
Sexual Aggression and Power in Contemporary Society Also Means
Questioning What the Feminist Movement Has Really Been About.” (Cover
story). American Scholar, 2018, vol. 87, 14–25.
Google Scholar
|
| Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E. 1948. “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male.” Journal of Clinical Psychology 4:314.
Google Scholar
|
| Molano, S. 2015, November 19. “Partnership & Accountability Blog Series: The Risks of Men Talking about Gender.” Accessed September 28, 2018. http://menengage.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-risks-of-men-talking-about-gender.html.
Google Scholar
|
| Peretz, Tal . 2016. “Why Study Men and Masculinities? A Theorized Research Review.” In Graduate Journal of Social Science: Men, Masculinities, and Violence, edited by Sharma, Alankaar, Das, Arpita, Vol. 12, 30–43.
Google Scholar
|
| Pérez, J. A., Passini, S. 2012. “Avoiding Minorities: Social Invisibility.” European Journal of Social Psychology 42:864–74. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.1889.
Google Scholar | Crossref
|
| Yule, M. A., Brotto, L. A., Gorzalka, B. B. 2015. “A Validated Measure of No Sexual Attraction: The Asexuality Identification Scale.” Psychological Assessment 27:148–60. doi: 10.1037/a0038196.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
