Addressing intersectional inequalities between men

Another issue within work with men and boys to prevent violence against women is the extent to which it attends to the intersectional differences between men. For example, Ricardo, Eads, and Barker (2011) argue that there is an urgent need to expand the cultural reach of programmes in this area, suggesting that the focus of engaging men and boys has largely been limited to schools and universities to date. Furthermore, research in this area appears to have predominantly investigated Anglophone contexts such as the US, Canada, and Australia, despite there being a variety of innovative prevention programmes being developed across the world, perhaps especially in the Global South.

The assumed ‘default’ then, both in terms of men involved in delivering violence prevention and participants in such work, often appears to be white, middle class, heterosexual men from Western countries. Flood (2015) contends that men can sometimes be treated as a

homogenous group within prevention work, with little attention paid to the social and structural differences between them. In this respect, whilst Flood does note that work with men is becoming more mindful of such assumptions, it still has much to learn from feminist activism in terms of adopting an intersectional, postcolonial approach, in order to address the complexities of men’s lives and practices. Efforts to engage men therefore need to be

broadened to reflect the diversities of different communities, and conducted in ways which take into account differences in experience based on age, class, ‘race’/ethnicity, sexuality, and disability. When thinking about how to take violence prevention forward, Flood suggests that we must move away from a ‘one size fits all’ approach, and consider how it can be made relevant to the different settings and communities of men to whom it needs to be directed. At the same time, it is important to ensure that the most privileged groups of men do not slip away from the critical focus, and that responsibility is not placed solely on those men who possess the least structural power from which to create change.

Research by Casey et al. (2013) indicates that this remains a major issue for the engaging men field. The male activists they interviewed across the globe recognised that barriers, based upon poverty or racism for example, can mean that some men are themselves already vulnerable to different forms of (in some cases state-sanctioned) violence, and can provide obstacles to them becoming, and remaining, involved in such work. Issues such as poverty, racism, migration, illiteracy, and food insecurity can thus reduce the visibility or prioritisation of violence against women in the eyes of men in some settings. Casey et al. contend that if it

68 is not designed in a carefully considered and contextualised way, intersecting social issues can make efforts to engage men in preventing violence against women appear irrelevant or inappropriate in particular environments, as well as potentially being difficult to sustain, for example due to poverty-related barriers for participants. On the other hand, Casey et al. note that an intersectional approach can potentially use men’s experiences of oppression and marginalisation as a point of opportunity and connection for tackling gender inequality. Casey et al. (2013) advocate that prevention strategies should be shared across different countries and regions, but in ways that ensure careful assessment of fit to local context and culture, and that models for engaging men are tailored to the specific settings in which they are implemented. This could mean, for example, collaboratively tackling structural factors which contribute to a range of different health and equality issues for both women and men. Similarly, Carlson et al. (2015) emphasise the importance of utilising ‘nuanced messages’ and ‘relevant messengers’ as part of violence prevention strategies which are responsive to the specific cultural, economic, and contextual concerns of local communities.

3.8 Summary

This chapter has examined what existing theory and research can tell us about the prevention of men’s violence against women, and engaging men and boys as part of such efforts. Whilst this work is attracting increasing interest in England, I would argue that there remains a lack of ambition from policymakers about the development of prevention efforts on the ground, as well as a reluctance to confront men’s responsibility for violence against women. This

recognition is vital for the advancement of preventative work, as research suggests that the adoption of gender-transformative approaches leads to the most effective anti-violence interventions. Much of the existing theory and research in this area has been influenced by public health approaches, particularly the social ecological model, and these have helped to demonstrate that tackling men’s violence against women is not only a criminal justice issue, but also one of public health, which must be addressed across the different levels of society. However, I would agree with criticisms that public health approaches risk demoting feminist theories of the problem as being rooted within patriarchy, when it is these explanations which should remain at the heart of - not only one factor within - our attempts to make sense of men’s violence against women and how to prevent it.

69 The chapter then discussed some of the different issues involved in engaging men and boys in violence prevention, with there being a number of different debates about how such work can be done most effectively - raising the question of what it actually seeks to achieve or change in the first place. For example, powerful criticisms have been made that too much focus has been placed on changing individual attitudes, and not enough on transforming the structures of gender inequality, or on deconstructing social norms of masculinity. There are also important contentions around how work with men and boys can be conducted in ways most congruent with the feminist principles which it is built upon, especially given that involving men in the movement to end violence against women does risk attenuating the feminist politics of that movement in the process. Another key challenge for engaging men relates to its application of the vital feminist theory of intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989; 1991), with assumptions often being made about the supposed homogeneity of men, and failures to address the diversity of men’s experiences in relation to different systems of power and inequality. Many of these issues were explored further within the expert-informant interviews and focus groups conducted as part of this study, and the next chapter will discuss how the research methodology was put into practice.

70