Masculinity and Violence Against Women from a Social-Ecological Perspective: Implications for Prevention

Abstract

The prescriptive and rigid nature of masculine gender roles has repeatedly been associated with a host of physical and mental health consequences for men and women alike. In particular, a body of literature demonstrates a significant relationship between boys' and men's conformity to masculine gender roles and their perpetration of violence against girls and women. In the following chapter, we begin by briefly defining masculine gender roles and reviewing the measurement of masculinity before presenting literature linking masculinity to intimate partner violence (IPV) and sexual violence (SV) at various layers of the social ecology. We then turn our focus to the discussion of what prevention strategies currently look like at different levels of the social ecology and describe potential new strategies. In our discussion, we give attention to the differentiation between direct prevention strategiesthose strategies explicitly developed to prevent IPV/SVand indirect prevention strategies, strategies not originally intended for violence prevention but that may indirectly prevent violence (e.g., policies for paid leave, gender wage gap, etc.). We end the chapter with caveats, conclusions, and future directions. The ultimate goal of this chapter is to stimulate the development of, and research into, novel approaches for the primary prevention of IPV/TDV at multiple layers of the social ecology. The eradication of such forms of violence will ultimately require comprehensive efforts that integrate these multilayer strategies.

A Comparative Analysis of Gender Discrepancy Stress, Attitudes toward Intimate Partner Violence, and Perpetration among Young Adults in the USA and Uganda

“…Gender discrepancy stress, or a feeling of unease associated with self-perceived non-adherence to socially constructed gender roles, has also been implicated as a potential risk factor for IPV perpetration, particularly among men in the U.S. [ 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ]. A recent systematic review of cross-cultural differences in IPV attitudes among tertiary students indicated that U.S. students are less likely to have permissive attitudes toward IPV than those of students in other countries [ 21 ].…”