Search

In this article, we systematically and critically review the past decade of empirical psychological research (n = 132) on masculinity and violence against women (VAW) to demonstrate an overreliance on individualist and "culturalist" (or culturally essentialist) approaches to theorizing and studying masculinity. Individualist and essentialist approaches assume that masculinity is something men are or possess based on the extent to which they identify with, conform to, or approve of traits or norms (pre)deemed masculine. We argue that these approaches cannot explain why it is men who overwhelmingly practice VAW, or account for the contextual, material, and structural power asymmetries that create conditions for gendered violence. We demonstrate the potentiality of formulations of masculinity (structuralist, poststructuralist, and especially processual) for ending VAW that move beyond individualism and essentialism. While they have helpfully situated masculinity within wider systemic forces, structuralist approaches often overlook how structures operate in constituting masculinities; and they impose false unity by theorizing masculinity through a homogenizing categorical lens. Poststructuralist approaches have accounted for fluidity in the complex construction of masculine subjects, but not for sociomaterial forces, or systemic inequities and modes of structural violence (e.g., neoliberalism, colonialism) that coproduce VAW. We argue that processual approaches, not yet mobilized in the empirical psychological masculinity and VAW literature, offer a particularly productive new way forward in that they map how the individual and social intertwine. We outline implications for theory, research, and praxis. Public Significance Statement: Psychologists tend to conceptualize and study masculinity as something that men are or possess, leaving undertheorized how the individual and sociomaterial intertwine in explaining violence. New approaches that understand and study masculinity as constantly shifting with the social and material world will help us better understand and disrupt the links between masculinity and violence against women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

\nThis study compared the qualitative nature of women and men’s sexual violence (SV) victimization, the types of experiences captured and missed on the Sexual Experiences Survey-Short Form Victimization (SES-SFV) across genders, and common interpretations of the SES-SFV items. Fifty-four university students (31 women, 21 cis men, 2 trans men) who had recent unwanted (but not necessarily nonconsensual) sexual experiences thought out loud while privately completing the SES-SFV. They also typed descriptions of experiences reported on SES-SFV items or similar experiences when nothing was reported on an item. Results indicated that women’s victimization was more frequent and severe than cis men’s, except when men were victimized by men. Although verbal coercion was common across genders, event descriptions indicated that women’s verbal coercion experiences were more often harsh and part of a partner’s ongoing SV or coercive control. The findings suggest that quantitative measurement can mask important gender differences in victimization and (based on analysis of false positives and negatives) may underestimate rape and attempted rape experiences, especially women’s. Findings suggested that responding to the SES-SFV was not traumatic or distressing. However, participants sometimes expressed confusion about the items and interpreted them in unintended ways.Read the transcriptWatch the video on Vimeo© 2024 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, I first critically review previous research on normative heterosexuality and its intersections with sexual violence to demonstrate that the common focus on consent in Western sexual justice politics, sexuality education, and sexual violence prevention is inadequate for defining and promoting ethical sex and preventing sexual violence. In particular, I demonstrate that a consent focus allows men to (a) hold women responsible for communicating (non)consent; (b) define the conditions of sexual interactions; (c) achieve consent through violence and coercion; (d) accept "yes" as unfettered consent; and (e) minimize and justify sexual violence. I then articulate an alternative view of ethical sex that moves beyond consent and centers care, empathy, co-determination, and ongoing communication and attention, and highlight the importance of social norms and gender transformative approaches to sexual violence prevention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Men's sexual violence against women is pervasive and is especially common in heterosexual intimate relationships. Little research has examined sexual violence in this relational context and from men's perspectives, including how they talk about and frame their behavior. The current research examined how men's sexual violence and accounts thereof reflected and enacted the normalization of violent heterosexuality. We used online surveys with 447 Canadian university men to screen for men who had used sexual violence in their most recent past or present relationship with a woman. Of these men, 71 (15.88%) reported at least one experience using sexual violence and 10 of these men participated in an in-depth interview to elaborate on their experiences. We used a feminist poststructuralist form of discourse analysis to analyze the interview transcripts. Results suggested that men often used language that helped them to position themselves and their sexual violence as normal and expected. However, they also often used alternative discourses and accounts about sexual violence, heterosexuality, and consent. We briefly discuss the implications of our results for educational campaigns and interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examined women’s subjective experiences with sexual coercion (SC), particularly less forceful forms, in intimate relationships. In-depth interviews with 12 university women highlighted that physical violence need not be present for SC to be harmful, as many experienced guilt, anger, sadness, and self-blame. The severity of SC and the context of women’s relationships affected their interpretations, which in turn affected the effects of SC. Many women not only held negative interpretations of their partners’ SC but also minimized and justified. Thus, the interviews were also critically analyzed for the possible influence of dominant discourses and gendered power relations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]