Global Social Welfare (2019) 6:231–244

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

Published online: 11 January 2019

# 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, organisa-
tions 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 should be adopted within such efforts, and considers ways in

which profeminist male advocates can effectively and con-
If efforts to engage men and boys in preventing men’s vio- structively negotiate debates within feminism.
lence against women are feminist, then which feminism does Much of the work to engage men in preventing violence
this represent? This article explores how to assess the extent to against women across the globe is (pro) feminist—it is in-
which efforts in the ‘engaging men’ field are feminist, and the formed by feminist perspectives and carried out by or in col-
kinds of feminism they embody. The fact of diverse and in- laboration with women and women’s organisations. Men in-
deed incompatible feminist theories raises important concep- volved in this work typically are expected to support feminism
tual and political challenges for profeminist men’s praxis in and to be accountable to feminist women. Yet, there has been
anti-violence work. The article identifies four important fac- relatively little discussion of the question of which feminism
tors which can help to answer the question of which feminism profeminist men should support within the engaging men
field. Such work is often perceived to be relatively homoge-
nous, yet organisations and advocates involved in engaging
* Stephen R. Burrell men adopt a range of different theoretical and strategic ap-
s.r.burrell@durham.ac.uk proaches, and the significant diversity of thought within fem-
inist activism is also reflected to some extent within this field
Michael Flood
(Storer et al. 2016).
m.flood@qut.edu.au
This can make the key practice of accountability more chal-
1
Department of Sociology, Durham University, 29 Old Elvet, lenging, because it means asking: to whom should profeminist
Durham DH1 3HN, UK men be accountable? The relationship between feminism and
2
Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology, GPO Box the theories and strategies adopted by violence prevention or-
2434, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia ganisations and advocates is often left implicit or vague. There
232 Glob Soc Welf (2019) 6:231–244

can be a lack of clarity or transparency about the nature of the feminism it represents. On a simple assessment, certainly it
feminist social change that such groups seek to help bring seems that efforts underway around the world to engage men
about. This article therefore contributes to the articulation of in the prevention of men’s violence against women typically
how profeminist men should understand their relationship to are feminist. Such efforts are intended to achieve feminist
feminism, and considers the feminisms that they should adopt. aims, are grounded in feminist perspectives and are practiced
By discussing more explicitly the different interpretations of by or in collaboration with feminist activists and
feminism shaping the engaging men field, we will be better organisations.
equipped to tackle men’s violence against women through more First, this work with men embodies a goal which is quin-
robust, transparent and profoundly profeminist praxis. tessentially feminist: to end men’s violence against women,
The article provides an assessment of the field, based upon perhaps the bluntest expression of patriarchy or systemic gen-
the authors’ empirical experiences and observations of work der inequality. For example, feminist and women’s rights or-
with men and boys to prevent violence against women in ganisations increasingly have worked to involve men in vio-
Britain, Australia and internationally. It is not based on a sys- lence prevention efforts because of a recognition that violence
tematic empirical analysis of the field as a whole internationally perpetration will only lessen with positive changes in men’s
or in a specific locale, so in this sense represents a conceptual attitudes and practices, their peer relations and the social and
assessment. The article begins with an appraisal of how femi- structural relations in which they participate (Flood 2015).
nist such efforts can be seen as being, before considering which Second, feminist perspectives are the anchor for much of this
kinds of feminisms are manifested within it. It then asks on work. Much of the work engaging men in violence prevention
what basis profeminist men involved in the prevention of vio- is based on well-established feminist understandings: gender
lence against women can make a choice between which femi- inequalities are at the root of violence against women, domes-
nist theories they should seek to follow. Finally, it explores tic and sexual violence are legitimated and normalised by
some of the issues and dilemmas of praxis that are associated sexist social and cultural norms, perpetrators of violence must
with making such a choice. Rather than seeking to provide a be held accountable for their actions and so on (Jewkes et al.
direct answer to the BWhich feminism?^ question then, it aims 2015a). Feminist notions of how to conduct this work also are
to provide tools which can help profeminist men to arrive at common: men involved in violence prevention advocacy
answers to that question themselves—and to show why it is an should address their own sexist behaviour, patterns of interac-
important question to ask in the first place. tion and decision-making should be gender-equitable and
In describing work to engage men and boys in the preven- work with men should be accountable to women (Messner
tion or reduction of men’s violence against women, we use et al. 2015). Amongst men involved in efforts to prevent vio-
such shorthand terms as the engaging men field and ‘work lence against women and girls, there is widespread recogni-
with men’. Whilst such terms also can be applied to efforts tion of the challenges of negotiating male privilege (Casey
to involve men in gender-related change focused on other et al. 2013). Third, much of the work is carried out by, or with,
domains, including sexual and reproductive health, fathering women’s rights organisations, as global data suggests
and education, they are not included in our discussion here. (Kimball et al. 2013).
The engaging men field here includes male activists, men- Men-focused violence prevention efforts come in part out
focused organisations and other organisations which work of a longer history of profeminist men’s activism. Men have
with men as part of their violence prevention activities. Note mobilised collectively at various points in support of women’s
therefore that efforts by and with men to prevent violence struggles for gender equality, including at least as far back as
against women exist on a continuum, from those in which the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in efforts to achieve
men themselves are the agents of change (e.g. as activists women’s suffrage (Messner et al. 2015). More recently, anti-
and educators) to those in which men are the objects or targets sexist or profeminist men’s groups emerged in the 1970s in
of change (as participants in education, the audiences of lob- countries such as the USA, Australia, the United Kingdom,
bying efforts and so on). At different times in the article we and elsewhere in the wake of the second wave of feminism
discuss issues which specifically affect either organisations or (Ashe 2007; Flood 2005). The contemporary engaging men
individual advocates (who may or may not be involved as field includes collective mobilisations amongst men, most no-
members of organisations) working in the field, or which tably the international White Ribbon Campaign (Ashe 2007).
sometimes affect both. Again, this work typically is inspired by feminism.
Whilst the field of work engaging men in preventing vio-
lence against women can therefore be seen as feminist in some
How Feminist Is the Field? simple sense, what does a more systematic analysis suggest?
There are several different ways in which we can appraise the
First, we will consider the extent to which the engaging men different positions and approaches that organisations and ad-
field can actually be seen as feminist, and what kinds of vocates take.
Glob Soc Welf (2019) 6:231–244 233

One method is to assess the extent to which particular ef- developed in terms of what it requires of the field, and its
forts or approaches are feminist. The most widely used exam- usage is somewhat vague, varying from influencing gender
ple of this is Gupta’s (2000) influential typology of how dif- norms to building more gender-equitable interpersonal rela-
ferent health interventions interact with gender. Gupta offered tionships (Dworkin et al. 2013). Some other assessments of
a continuum, from least desirable to most desirable ap- men’s anti-violence work have used much more demanding
proaches: gender-unequal (perpetuate gender inequalities), and elaborate criteria for what counts as desirable support for
gender-blind (ignore gender norms and conditions), gender- feminism, of which two are described here. In an assessment
sensitive (acknowledge but do not address gender inequal- of a men’s anti-violence network in Indonesia, Hasyim (2014)
ities), gender-specific (acknowledge gender norms and con- compares it to feminist criteria for its (a) ideology, (b)
sider women’s and men’s specific needs), gender- organisational structure and practices and (c) positive impact
transformative (create more gender-equitable relationships), on the prevention of violence against women. Feminist ideol-
and gender-empowering (empower women or free women ogy, for example, is demonstrated by the presence of the be-
and men from the impact of destructive gender and sexual liefs that patriarchy plays an important role in shaping the
norms). This typology now has been taken up in guidance notion and practices of gender, that the root cause of violence
for and assessments of the engaging men field. For example, against women is the unequal power relations between men
in an influential 2010 guide for engaging men Gupta’s cate- and women produced by patriarchy and that men must be held
gories were adapted into a four-category programming con- responsible for their use of violence. Feminist organisational
tinuum: gender-exploitative, gender-neutral, gender-sensitive, structures and practices are demonstrated by collegial rather
and gender-transformative (UNFPA and Promundo 2010). than hierarchical organisation, the presence of accountability
Whilst Gupta does not describe a gender-transformative mechanisms to women’s networks and the use of strategies
approach as feminist (and the term does not appear in her addressing both the personal and structural dimensions of vi-
2000 plenary address), that is what it is: it seeks to end gender olence against women. Whilst there will certainly be debate
inequalities and create more gender-equitable relations (Gupta over the specific elements said to be defining or constitutive of
2000). To gauge how feminist the engaging men field is, feminism in Hasyim’s framework, it nevertheless is notable
therefore, one approach is to hold it up against a gender- for setting a clear and high bar for what counts as feminist
transformative standard. This is precisely what a number of work.
subsequent examinations do. A World Health Organisation Another assessment framework is more focused on the
review examines health interventions aimed at men against a capacity of organisations working with men to engage them
gender-transformative standard (Barker et al. 2007). Dworkin effectively, but includes some assessment of the extent to
and colleagues assess gender-transformative interventions which this work is feminist. Profeminist activist Rus Funk
with heterosexually active men as they impact four sets of has developed assessment tools including a measure of
outcomes: HIV/STI outcomes, violence perpetration, sexual BOrganizational Readiness to Engage Men in Violence
risk behaviour, and norms and attitudes related to gender eq- Prevention^, which examines the extent to which an organi-
uity (Dworkin et al. 2013). Fleming and colleagues appraise sation is prepared to engage men effectively, based on its
health promotion efforts aimed at men against a gender- organisational structures and practices, professional develop-
transformative standard (Fleming et al. 2014). Casey et al. ment, programming and community engagement work (Funk
(2016) assess to what extent a gender-transformative approach 2017). The measure includes the expectation of a feminist
(defined by an explicit focus at least in part on a critical ex- analysis of gendered violence. Another measure of
amination of gender-related norms and expectations— organisational readiness, the BEngaging Men Capacity
particularly those related to masculinity—and on increasing Assessment for Member Partners^ (EM-CAMP) developed
gender-equitable attitudes and behaviours) characterises the by the Delaware Men’s Education Network (2016), includes
engaging men field, across the three domains of initial out- assessment of the degree to which the work in question ad-
reach and recruitment, interventions and social action. heres to key principles of effective efforts in prevention and
In fact, ‘gender-transformative’ is rapidly emerging as an engaging men, but does not specify any explicitly feminist
ideal for work with men, as this approach to engaging men in criteria.
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 What Kind of Feminism?
programmes at improving a variety of health outcomes, and
this was also supported in a more recent review (Dworkin So far we have considered the question BHow feminist is the
et al. 2013). engaging men field?^ A different kind of question, however,
Whilst the gender-transformative ideal is influential, it re- is, BWhat kind of feminism does the engaging men field
mains a relatively weak model at this stage. It is under- adopt?^ The approaches described thus far seem to treat
234 Glob Soc Welf (2019) 6:231–244

feminism as a continuum, such that something can be ‘more’ reflecting its origins in radical feminist advocacy and scholar-
or ‘less’ feminist. However, feminism is diverse, and one ship (Brod 1998; Robinson 2003). It is radical feminism that
could more properly speak in the plural, of feminisms. has tended to focus most of all on men’s violence against
Indeed, there are multiple, incommensurate feminisms, with women as a cause and consequence of patriarchal social rela-
radically different and incompatible ideologies and practices. tions. The majority of theory regarding men’s violence against
Given this, one also could assess organisations or interven- women has therefore been developed by radical feminists, and
tions in the engaging men field in terms of which feminism radical feminists pioneered advocacy and education aimed at
they embody. the prevention and reduction of men’s violence (Mackay
There is significant debate about how to define kinds of 2015; Robinson 2003). Given this, choosing to focus specifi-
feminism, with disagreement over how to divide feminisms cally on the prevention of men’s violence against women may
into types, which to include, how broadly or narrowly to de- articulate an alignment with a radical feminist analysis.
fine them, and the labels with which to name them (Beasley Working in an area in which some of the most harrowing
1999). Overlapping with this, there is debate over conceptions consequences of patriarchy and men’s practices within it are
of ‘waves’ of feminism (Evans and Chamberlain 2015). dealt with on a day-to-day basis may also make it more likely
Nevertheless, there are some common formulations of distinc- for activists and educators to adopt a more critical feminist
tive feminisms. perspective. This may mean that efforts to engage men in
Three feminisms which characterised the early second ending violence against women have a stronger conceptual
wave of feminism in particular are liberal, radical and orientation to radical feminism than those focused on engag-
socialist/Marxist feminism (Lorber 2012). Liberal feminism, ing men in other areas, such as sexual and reproductive health
often mistakenly seen as synonymous with feminism per se, or parenting, although feminist orientations are visible here
focuses on women’s right to participate in the public worlds of too.
work, the marketplace and politics (Beasley 1999; Harding A focus on men’s violence against women still does not
1998; Lorber 2012). Radical feminism focuses on women’s guarantee, however, that efforts to engage men in its preven-
oppression as women in a social order dominated by men, tion will have a homogenous feminist perspective. Diversity
seen in terms of patriarchy or the systemic organisation of and disagreement amongst feminisms extends to feminist un-
male supremacy and female subordination, including through derstandings of men’s violence against women. Diverse
sexuality and bodies (Harding 1998; Mackay 2015; Robinson strands or schools of feminist advocacy and scholarship differ
2003). Marxist feminism sees unequal class relations, the de- in the weight they give to the issue of men’s violence, their
fining feature of capitalism, as also being at the root of gender explanatory or theoretical frameworks regarding this violence
inequalities, whilst socialist feminism emphasises that patriar- and the strategies they advocate or pursue in response. Indeed,
chy and capitalism interact as two systems of social organisa- there are heated debates within feminism over particular prac-
tion and power (Beasley 1999; Harding 1998; Johnson 1997). tices or domains seen by some to be implicated in men’s
Other types often identified in contemporary accounts of fem- violence against women, such as pornography, prostitution
inism’s diversity include postmodern and intersectional femi- or sex work, trafficking and sadomasochism. Such debates
nisms. Postmodern or poststructuralist feminism emphasises became so heated in the 1980s that they were termed the
the role of language in the construction of the social order, ‘feminist sex wars’ (Vance 1984), and these debates persist
difference and the instability of categories and the contingent today. Indeed, differences amongst profeminist men with re-
character of identities, thus offering differing accounts of gard to such divisions have caused some organisations and
truth, identity and power (Beasley 1999; Lorber 2012). groups to split and disintegrate in the past, as has been the
Intersectional feminism stresses the interconnections of gen- case in feminist activism more broadly (Messner et al. 2015).
der with other forms of social difference and inequality, par- Given the diversity and disagreement amongst feminisms,
ticularly of race/ethnicity (Beasley 1999; Crenshaw 1991). have profeminist men sided with some and against others? In
This brief account hardly does justice to the diversity and one sense, any position on gender issues represents a ‘taking
complexity of contemporary strands of feminism. There are of sides’, whether conscious or not. It is inevitable that
several dangers in such typologies: they may impose too neat profeminist men involved in preventing violence against
an order and exaggerate the internal homogeneity of each women will take positions in relation to different debates with-
type, they can suggest an overly fragmented view of feminist in feminism, because agreeing with some feminist arguments
theories and more recent feminist perspectives do not fit such sometimes unavoidably means disagreeing with others (Pease
labels (Beasley 1999; McCarry 2007). Nonetheless, it is valu- 2017). However, men’s anti-violence groups and organisa-
able to recognise the distinctive theoretical approaches and tions only rarely have explicitly taken sides in feminist de-
political programmes of these different feminisms. bates. One notable exception to this occurred in 1992. At the
There are clear radical feminist roots to the dominant per- First National Ending Men’s Violence Network Conference in
spectives and strategies of the men’s anti-violence field, Chicago, USA, participants argued that activists against men’s
Glob Soc Welf (2019) 6:231–244 235

violence should hold themselves accountable only to those unnecessary or counter-productive to overtly align themselves
feminists who themselves are accountable to the victims of with specific variants of feminism as part of their work.
prostitution and pornography. This declaration of loyalties It may also be the case that the vagueness or lack of clarity
and political allegiances was challenged by others, with aca- of organisations regarding debates and contentious issues
demic and activist Harry Brod critical particularly of the au- within feminism is not a deliberate decision. It could instead
thors’ negative characterisations of the feminists with whom be based around a lack of confidence in their knowledge of
they disagree. He wrote in an open letter, BThe profeminist different feminist perspectives, or a failure to engage beyond a
men’s movement has no business contributing to the superficial level with feminist theories to enable them to clear-
factionalisation and divisiveness in the women’s movement^. ly differentiate and choose a specific set of ideas to follow in
We return to the politics of profeminist men’s side-taking later an informed way. For individual advocates who are relatively
in this article. new to the field this may be understandable, but for organisa-
Whilst most organisations undertaking work with men and tions, the seriousness of their profeminist approach could be
boys to prevent violence against women are relatively open brought into question if they have not at least reflected on
about being influenced by and seeking to support feminism in these differences, even if they do not explicitly advocate for
general, which feminism they are attempting to adopt and apply one position or another. Undertaking prevention work always
is often left more implicit and vague. That being said, it can still involves the implementation of theories of some kind, know-
be relatively easy to identify their broader standpoints if they ingly or not, so it is likely to lead to more effective practice if
have an explicit position in relation to specific issues. However, these theories are consciously decided upon and pursued
many organisations appear to steer clear of clear commitments (Carmody et al. 2009; Casey and Lindhorst 2009; Flood
to specific feminist approaches over others. 2005; Nation et al. 2003).
One issue which can evoke visible divergence amongst The field of engaging men in the prevention of men’s vio-
men involved as agents of change in the prevention of vio- lence against women is therefore not homogenous with regard
lence against women is how they perceive and define them- to approaches to feminism, and there are other distinctions and
selves in relation to their work. More specifically, different complexities which can be found within it too. For example,
men take different positions as to whether it is appropriate to the organisations that carry out work in this area are often
describe themselves as being a feminist, with some instead multi-layered entities, with those involved in them undertak-
preferring terms such as profeminist or feminist ally. This ing a range of different roles. When individuals are engaging
illustrates that even the way that men understand and construct in this work, they may therefore be doing so in a variety of
our own identities in work to prevent men’s violence against different ways, both inside and outside of formal organisations
women carries with it important and contested signifiers about (Pease 2008). For example, many organisations working with
their wider interpretations of feminist thinking (Crowe 2013; men and boys may have board members, a small number of
Brod 1998). For example, using the term ‘profeminist’ may paid full time and part time staff and a much larger group of
imply support for more radical iterations of feminism, based volunteers, such as ‘ambassadors’, who are all carrying out
on the radical feminist notion that the goal of feminism is some form of practice relating to the prevention of men’s
women’s liberation from patriarchy (as opposed to simply violence against women. It would therefore be unreasonable
bringing about gender equality), and that whilst men can sup- to expect the same depth of reflection on and awareness of
port feminism, they cannot therefore themselves be feminists feminist theory and strategy at all of these different levels in an
(Mackay 2015). However, there are no definitive rules in this organisation. A veteran profeminist activist will have been
regard, and the usage of the term ‘profeminist’ for example able to spend much more time engaging with feminist thought
does not mean that a man is necessarily pursuing radical fem- than an individual who has just begun volunteering for an
inist agendas in different aspects of his life and practice. organisation, for example.
There are perhaps justifiable reasons why an organisation For these reasons, it is important to avoid over-generalising
might want to be relatively equivocal about its position in about those who are involved in working with men to prevent
relation to the differences within feminism. Some who work violence against women. It would be unrealistic to expect all
to prevent violence against women may aim to adopt an ap- those in the field to be equally well versed in the different
proach which can have as broad an appeal as possible, and strands of feminist theory, especially in the early stages of their
which avoids the risk of potentially alienating some people by involvement, and it would be counterproductive to shun those
explicitly committing to one specific form of feminism, or who are relatively new to such work on this basis. Experience
focusing excessively upon internal debates (Casey et al. should therefore be taken into account when considering the
2013). They may also be fearful of receiving criticism from commitments of individual activists to specific profeminist
those who hold opposing views, or of causing divisions within principles, given the knowledge and awareness which must
their own organisation. The perception amongst some organi- be developed to unlearn deeply embedded patriarchal ideolo-
sations in the engaging men field may therefore be that it is gies. A key factor in assessing the work of male advocates in
236 Glob Soc Welf (2019) 6:231–244

putting feminism into practice may therefore be the effort they will lead to the transformations that are desired. Despite this,
make to engage reflexively with feminist ideas and analysis in both elements often are absent or underdeveloped in existing
a substantive way. This may be more significant than the programmes.
length of time profeminist men have spent doing so, or the For example, a systematic, evidence-based review of sex-
specific conclusions they come to about which schools of ual assault prevention programmes, based on an evaluation of
feminist thought they are most closely aligned with. publications of 59 studies from between 1990 and 2003, found
Having discussed the extent to which the engaging men that most programmes do not have strong or well-developed
field is feminist, or can be assessed as such, together with what theoretical frameworks (Morrison et al. 2004). Meanwhile, a
kinds of feminism that actually means, we now turn to a more review of 11 programs targeting middle- or high-school-aged
abstract question: on what basis should a particular feminist students and addressing the prevention of partner violence
theory be chosen? 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
Choosing Between Feminist Theories common theories and concepts amongst violence prevention
programmes. A reliance on feminist approaches is both under-
If men support feminism, which feminism should they sup- standable and appropriate, given that it is feminist activism
port? This question has had some currency in profeminist that placed violence against women on community and policy
men’s activism and, overlapping with this, in scholarship on agendas and feminist scholarship that provides the most com-
men and masculinities. Profeminist men, on the email list prehensive and credible account of the causes and conse-
Profem for example, have debated the issue, as well as men’s quences of domestic and sexual violence. At the same time,
claims to the term ‘feminist’ and men’s roles in (pro)feminist many interventions’ theoretical underpinnings are relatively
advocacy. Scholarship on men and masculinities too has ex- simple and underdeveloped.
plored the political, epistemological and ontological issues at In asking why Which feminism? matters then, the first
stake in men’s relations to feminism (for example, see Digby point is that work with men should be guided by theory.
1998; Hearn 2013; Pease 2013). On the other hand, there has However, this does not mean that any theory will do so long
been little obvious attention in the engaging men field itself to as it is adopted energetically. Some theories are better than
the question of which feminism. others. Some theories are inaccurate, and their adoption will
So why does it matter which feminisms are adopted in lead to neutral or even negative outcomes. Indeed, some fem-
the name of efforts to engage men in preventing violence inist theories are better than others.
against women? What is at stake when we ask this ques-
tion, and why is the specific theoretical perspectives, and Guided by the Best Theories
practical strategies, that are taken up important? We ex-
plore four possible answers to why this matters: (1) work What makes a better theory? There is wide-ranging debate
with men should be guided by theory, (2) work with men amongst scholars over how to assess the quality of theo-
should be guided by the best theories, (3) work with men retical claims, frameworks and the research that they are
should be guided by shared theories and (4) work with built upon. For example, whilst criteria such as reliability,
men should be guided by the theories of the women and validity and objectivity are widely used in quantitative
organisations to whom it is accountable. research, their applicability to qualitative research is hotly
contested (Flick 2008). Alternative criteria have been of-
Guided by Theory fered which may also have relevance to theorising, such
as Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) influential account of the
Efforts to engage men and boys in preventing men’s violence ‘trustworthiness’ of a research study, based on its (1)
against women, like any effort to create social change, are credibility (confidence in the ‘truth’ of the findings), (2)
more likely to be effective if they are guided by theory: by transferability (the findings are applicable in other con-
an appropriate diagnosis of the problem and an account of texts), (3) dependability (the findings are consistent and
how they will address this. Violence prevention must therefore could be repeated) and (4) confirmability (the extent to
incorporate both an appropriate theoretical framework for un- which the findings are shaped by the data and not re-
derstanding violence, and a theory of change (Carmody et al. searcher bias, motivation or interest). Note that these are
2009; Flood et al. 2009). There is a growing awareness in the similar to common criteria for quantitative research, with
violence prevention field that the articulation of these two the four matched, respectively, by internal validity, exter-
overlapping elements is necessary to good practice (Jewkes nal validity, reliability and objectivity. Other scholars
et al. 2015a; Storer et al. 2016). Without them, there is little raise cautions about the use of standards or criteria alto-
sense of what change is being attempted or how these efforts gether, whether because they are not suited to qualitative
Glob Soc Welf (2019) 6:231–244 237

research, they focus on technical fixes which may not Guided by Shared Theories
themselves confer rigour or they are challenged by the
pluralism of qualitative methods and frameworks If one basis of choosing one’s feminist theory is explana-
(Hammersley 2007; Barbour 2001). tory accuracy and political utility, another is the extent to
Whilst these debates may seem obscure in relation to vio- which it is shared. The rationale for this goes as follows.
lence prevention practice, they have real ethical and political Work with men may be more likely to make change if it is
implications. Bad theory generates bad outcomes. If efforts to guided by shared theories. If diverse organisations and
engage men are informed by understandings which are inac- networks seeking to engage men in preventing violence
curate or incoherent or out of date, they are less likely to be against women have common understandings of the prob-
effective and more likely to do harm. In practice, for the en- lem and the solution, they are more likely to push in the
gaging men field the decision about which theories to adopt is same directions, and their shared agenda and strategies
usually one taken from outside research or scholarship, as will increase the momentum and critical mass of their
most advocates and organisations involved in this work are work. In contrast, differing understandings may weaken
outside the university context. They therefore find themselves existing efforts or even breed internal conflict and faction-
in the same position for example as governments, having to alism. This reasoning leads to the conclusion that work
assess the quality of the theories and research available to with men should be guided by shared theories.
them (Spencer et al. 2003). Profeminist men and organisations should cast their lot
Pragmatically, there are questions which those working with whichever explanations are dominant in the field.
with men can pose in deciding upon which theoretical Indeed, in practice, this may be what occurs.
accounts to draw from. These questions are not merely Individuals’ and organisations’ adoption of particular the-
about theories’ abstract properties, their claims to knowl- ories is likely to be shaped as much by prosaic factors as
edge and truth, but also about theories’ utility. This re- by careful assessment of their merit, such as advocates’
flects the fact that engaging men is a project of social own political and personal predispositions, the influence
change, and it shares with other activist projects more of peers and mentors, the conceptual approaches of the
political considerations regarding how theories and re- organisations and movements with which they associate
search are applied or used and the practical ends to which and wider social and cultural conditions.
they can be put (Hammersley 2007; Brookfield 2005). It The obvious problem here is that influential feminist theo-
may therefore seek to ask questions such as ries, shared or not, may be poor theories. They may be empir-
ically inaccurate, conceptually impoverished or devoid of stra-
1. Does this theory help us understand the world or some tegic utility. If it is bad theory, then being adopted by more
part of it? advocates and organisations may simply make things worse.
2. Is this theory useful in explaining how the world might be There is strength in numbers, but not if the numbers are
changed for the better? (Does this theory assist us to do wrong. We therefore reject the third possible answer to the
good work? Does it contribute to building a society Which feminism? question, that ‘work with men should be
organised according to the values we espouse?) guided by shared theories’.
3. Does this theory offer hope for change (rather than simply
pessimism)? (Brookfield 2005). Guided by Those to Whom It Is Accountable

The first question emphasises the matter of the truthfulness A fourth possible answer to the question Which feminism? is
or accuracy of a theory. For work with men then, we could ask that work with men should be guided by the theoretical frame-
whether the theory accurately represents men, masculinities, works of the feminist women and organisations to whom it is
gender and violence. Does it speak to the realities of gender? accountable. The ideal of ‘accountability’ is widespread in the
Better theories will enable explanation, for example, of why engaging men field (Flood 2015; Pease 2008). It is a central
some men use violence whilst other men do not, why some tenet of much work involving men and boys to prevent vio-
men desist from violence whilst other men continue to perpe- lence against women that it is accountable to feminism
trate, why rates of violence against women are much higher in (Messner et al. 2015), although at times its conceptualisation
some contexts than others and so on. In the absence of the is vague and its practice is uneven (Macomber 2015). The
opportunity to gather data and test theoretical claims them- notion of accountability comes out of the politics of oppres-
selves, advocates may ask whether a theory is supported in sion and the politics of knowledge. It is based on two, over-
contemporary scholarship, and if it is supported by evidence. lapping foundational ideas. First, struggles against oppression
Put more simply, is this what contemporary scholarship says is should be led by those who are oppressed. Second, when it
true? In short, then, work with men should be guided by better comes to systems of oppression or inequality, those who are
theories. oppressed or disadvantaged have a much better understanding
238 Glob Soc Welf (2019) 6:231–244

of that system than those who are privileged or advantaged, as principle, it does not remove the challenge of critically
privilege and injustice often are invisible to members of the assessing and adopting specific feminist theories.
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 Dilemmas of Praxis
issue of which feminism remains. Because of the debates and
disagreements within feminism, it is impossible to agree with It is important to recognise that there are also a number of
all feminists at all times, so what does it mean for being ac- dilemmas and issues of practice which are posed for
countable, if one in fact disagrees with what some feminists profeminist men and the engaging men field when choosing
are arguing (Pease 2017)? This tension often goes unacknowl- between different feminist theories. We will discuss some of
edged and undiscussed within the engaging men field, perhaps these further now.
because it is so difficult to resolve, and illustrates some of the
contradictions involved in profeminism and ‘ally work’ Gaps Between Profeminism and Feminism
(Pease 2008).
In the name of accountability, an organisation working with First of all, we need to consider the very purpose of
men to prevent violence against women may decide simply to profeminist men’s work: is it simply to mirror or echo femi-
adopt whatever feminist frameworks are dominant amongst nism more broadly? If so, then the specific feminist approach
the women and women’s organisations in local proximity to in question, and the strength of its project of social change, is
them. Working with and supporting local feminist organisa- relatively unimportant, so long as that original goal of repli-
tions is an important element of profeminist activism, and this cation has been achieved. Yet, this in itself again asks relative-
approach may seem easier, by virtue of avoiding the challenge ly little of men who are serious about applying profeminist
of assessing competing feminist theories. However, it has praxis. On the other hand, if profeminism develops indepen-
three flaws. First, it fails to put those frameworks to the test dently from feminism to such a degree that the links in theory
in terms of accuracy, relevance or rigour. Second, there may and practice between the two become largely disconnected,
be a range of different types of feminist activism present in the then arguably it could no longer be considered profeminist.
local area and debates and disagreements between those, The solution to this dilemma for profeminist men may lie in
meaning that political choices will still have to be made. finding a balance in practice, between listening to and
The reflex adoption of whatever form of feminist theory supporting feminist theories, and reflecting upon and applying
and activism is locally dominant also positions profeminist what are believed to be the most powerful of those for their
men as passive, and this is the third problem here. It is difficult own context.
to see how this approach fosters ‘ownership’ of or a meaning- There may already be a gap between the feminisms of the
ful commitment to feminist ideas. Men’s support for feminism engaging men field and those which characterise feminist ad-
should mean actively engaging with feminist theories and vocacy more broadly. For example, work with men still seems
making them their ‘own’, rather than uncritically taking on to lag behind other feminist social change projects in terms of
whatever they encounter first (Brod 1998; Harding 1998). its recognition of the intersections of gender with other forms
Certainly, listening to women is fundamental in this kind of of social difference and inequality and its acknowledgement
work, because it recognises Bwomen’s epistemic privilege in of sexual diversity (Flood 2015; Peretz 2017). Of course, fem-
the form of first-hand experiences of gender oppression^ inist advocacy itself is diverse and under continual threat, and
(Göransson 2014). This does not, however, mean leaving it there are feminist reasons for the engaging men field to resist
to women to undertake the intellectual labour involved in troubling trends in gender justice practice and policy, whether
being profeminist on men’s behalf, nor leaving it to women they are hollowed out, neoliberal and individualised versions
to ‘train’ men in feminist theory, so that they do not have to do of feminism (Rottenberg 2014) or depoliticised anti-violence
the hard work involved in reflecting on and applying it to their strategies (Hall 2015).
own lives and practices (Castelino 2014). In other words, men If there are gaps or tensions between the engaging men
who support feminism must be autonomous moral agents, field and women’s movements, they may mirror those docu-
taking the onus for their own personal and social politics, mented between masculinities scholarship and feminist schol-
rather than turning all such responsibility over to women arship. There is now something of a disconnect between con-
(Brod 1998). We return to more effective strategies for ac- temporary feminist scholarship, a great deal of which is sig-
countability further below. nificantly influenced by postmodern, poststructuralist
In response to the question Which feminism? then, it is not theorising and scholarship on men and masculinities, which
good enough to answer, BWhichever feminisms are held by continues to be strongly influenced by more modernist, struc-
the women and organisations to whom I am/we are turalist modes of thinking (Beasley 2012, 2013, 2015).
accountable^. Whilst accountability is a vital political However, the latter is also true to some extent regarding
Glob Soc Welf (2019) 6:231–244 239

feminist scholarship specifically on men’s violence against men should engage only with those ideas, since one cannot
women, so critical studies on men and masculinities in partic- meaningfully adopt a position without considering the range
ular may have remained more closely aligned with feminist of other arguments available.
work in this area, than with feminist theorising more broadly. This demonstrates that the accountability of men’s anti-
Compared to much contemporary feminist theorising, critical violence work can be most effective if it is built on critical
studies on men and masculinities typically place greater em- reflexivity, especially with regard to its relationship with fem-
phasis on power as structural oppression, give greater empha- inism. Furthermore, it is important to maintain an awareness
sis to categories of identity and, arguably, have a greater ori- of the directions and arguments of the broader women’s move-
entation towards practice, activism and making social change. ment (whilst avoiding what is ‘shared’ becoming the sole
The extent to which contemporary research on men and factor in deciding which theories to adopt). As we have
masculinities can be said to be accountable to, and influenced shown, if there is a significant gap between those and the
by, feminist scholarship more generally is therefore debatable. frameworks that engaging men work follows, then that too
Indeed, there has also long been scepticism from some femi- would bring into question the efficacy of its practices of ac-
nist theorists about the extent to which men and masculinity countability. This approach may also help organisations and
scholarship measures up to its claims to be aligned with fem- activists to deal with occasions where they are faced with
inism (for example, see Ashe 2007; Castelino 2014; McCarry conflicting arguments from different feminists, or if they are
2007; Robinson 2003). Meanwhile, O’Neill (2015) has sug- unsure about feedback or comments received from individual
gested that contemporary scholarship on men and feminist women (Pease 2017).
masculinities is moving further away from its ‘critical’ roots If organisations working with men to prevent violence
and relationship with feminism. This also brings into question against women are honest, explicit and specific about their
the extent to which there is a relationship between efforts to profeminist commitments, this can encourage a deeper and
engage men and boys in the prevention of violence against more focused level of engagement with feminist perspectives
women, and contemporary scholarship on men and and activism. This in turn will aid the development of clearer,
masculinities. more systematic and coherent theoretical and strategic under-
pinnings for such efforts. It would also help organisations to
An Accountability Based on Critical Reflexivity be more transparent, and thus facilitate being held to account
by feminist women more easily, if their aims are identified and
On accountability, we argued above that whilst profeminist explained from the outset. This does not mean it is necessary
work with men must be accountable to women and feminism, to make every aspect of an organisation’s frameworks explicit
this does not remove the responsibility also to assess the fem- to everyone at all times, and certain debates, issues and com-
inisms to which it is accountable. Because of the sometimes plexities will be more appropriate for different audiences in
significant divergences in feminist theorising and activism, in different contexts. However, being prepared to thoughtfully
practice accountability may therefore often mean being ac- engage with and critically reflect on feminist debates and di-
countable to specific feminist women and specific iterations vergences in the first place could have a number of useful
of feminism (Pease 2017). This does not mean that impacts in developing the rigour of work with men boys.
profeminist men should not be open to being held to account
by other feminist women too. However, only being account-
able to a notion of ‘feminism’ as a broad singular entity, rather Men Taking Sides
than to specific individuals, groups and strands of feminist
thought and activism, may in fact mean relatively little in This raises the question of how profeminist men and the en-
practice, and may indicate a vague and ineffectual approach gaging men field more generally should interact with debates
to accountability. and disagreements within feminism, and whether or not they
At the same time, being accountable also means interrogat- can make a useful contribution to them. Many would take the
ing why it is that one does sympathise with some specific view that it would be highly inappropriate for profeminist men
forms of feminism over others. It is important to listen to to wade into contentious debates and implicitly or explicitly
and reflect upon the diversity of feminist viewpoints and assert to some feminists that they are ‘wrong’ about a partic-
women’s experiences, even (and perhaps especially) if they ular issue; that it is not men’s place to make claims about
challenge one’s existing beliefs (Pease 2017). Otherwise, it which direction the women’s movement should take (Pease
may be the case that profeminist men simply adopt whichever 2008). At the same time, a serious engagement with feminist
feminist theories fit most easily with their existing view of the theories arguably requires men to actively reflect and take on
world and challenge their current ideas and behaviours the their own positions in relation to different feminist issues,
least. Being sympathetic to a particular school of thought rather than passively accepting whichever feminist arguments
within feminism does not therefore mean that profeminist they encounter about them (Brod 1998; Harding 1998).
240 Glob Soc Welf (2019) 6:231–244

It would be an abnegation of responsibility, moreover, for that an organisation adopts, and the extent to which it succeeds
profeminist men to ignore contentious debates within femi- in putting profeminism into practice. For example, it could be
nism, especially since these issues are often directly related argued that subscribing to a form of radical feminist analysis is
to men and men’s practices. Indeed, evading such discussions likely to equate to a ‘stronger’ degree of profeminist praxis, as
in itself involves taking a particular position (Pease 2017), and by its very nature radical feminism demands deeper levels of
arguably reflects a privileged position, by being able to ‘pick individual and social change in relation to gender than other
and choose’ which feminist issues to care about. It may be forms of feminism (Brod 1998). If we are asking more far-
particularly difficult for an organisation focusing on the pre- reaching, critical and challenging questions about ourselves
vention of men’s violence against women to disregard delib- and the structures and systems of the world in which we live,
erations around prostitution/sex work and pornography for it is likely that the strategies and methods we adopt in
example, given that many feminists would argue that these attempting to put that theory into practice will be more pro-
are themselves examples of violence, abuse and exploitation, foundly and transformatively feminist in nature.
or at least encourage and glorify these things (Jensen 2017; However, it is not inevitable that this will be the case. We
Mackay 2015). What is more, it may be easier for men to cannot necessarily take aspects of an organisation or individ-
comment on such issues than it is for women, given the sexist ual advocate’s practice for granted because of the theory they
and misogynistic abuse that women often receive for speaking are adopting. Adopting radical feminist ideas does not auto-
out about any topic related to feminism, and perhaps especial- matically detach men from male privilege and entitlement.
ly when those issues are more ‘controversial’ (Messner et al. Attempting to recognise and dismantle these things remains
2015). an everyday task for all profeminist men, in which mistakes
Where feminist debates do concern issues in which men’s and lurches back into sexism can easily be made. On the one
practices are directly involved, such as prostitution/sex work hand, subscribing to radical feminist ideas may make men
(as sex buyers) or violence (as perpetrators), profeminist more attuned to identifying such dynamics. However, it could
men’s voices may be particularly valuable. It is therefore pos- also lead to problematic behaviours of its own, such as a
sible that men’s experiences may, on occasion, actually be ‘holier than thou’ or competitive approach to being more ‘rad-
able to provide alternative and productive perspectives and ical’ than other men—or spending more time criticising ‘lib-
insights within highly polarised debates (Harding 1998). eral’ feminist women than on the day-to-day work of engag-
However, any such intervention from men must be handled ing with other men and boys. It may also counter-intuitively
very carefully, in a way that does not diminish the lead to a failure to reflect adequately on one’s own behaviour,
prioritisation of women’s voices and experiences, and which based on the mistaken assumption that, having adopted a rad-
is based around supporting the feminist movement rather than ical feminist analysis, it is impossible to simultaneously enact
colonising discussions within it (Kahane 1998). sexism in practice.
Weighing up and arriving at their own position on a certain This again demonstrates why consistent critical reflexivity
issue, and potentially disagreeing with some feminists, does and accountability to feminist women about the work that
not mean that profeminist men should spend their time dictat- profeminist men do is so crucial. It also highlights why it is
ing to feminist women that their position is wrong. It is one beneficial to listen to a range of women’s voices and feminist
thing to advocate for a particular position amongst profeminist arguments, not only those which one agrees with most for
men, quite another to make claims about which direction the whatever reason. Working to prevent violence against women
women’s movement should take—because, if men see them- as a man surely means constantly being challenged—men
selves as allies to feminism, then it is not their movement to never reach a point of being ‘beyond’ this, no matter how well
make such claims to. This also brings us back to the point versed in feminist theory, or experienced in profeminist prax-
made by Brod that profeminist men have to be careful not to is, they may be. Furthermore, sometimes men can be chal-
contribute to or antagonise divisions within feminism, which lenged by unexpected voices and in unexpected contexts,
can in turn help to preserve patriarchal social relations. not only in those that they perceive to be the most radical.
Profeminist men could thus help to maintain patriarchal in- These issues also illustrate the importance of taking into
equalities if they contribute to such conflicts, or, on the other account both theory and practice in engaging men work, and
hand, if they see themselves as ‘saviours’ of feminism who working to create a harmonious alignment between the two, in
possess the solutions to contentions within the women’s order to effectively enact profeminist praxis (Jewkes et al.
movement. 2015b; Storer et al. 2016). An organisation working with
men can develop a highly radical and systematic theoretical
Aligning Feminist Theory and Practice framework, but that can be relatively meaningless if the strat-
egies and methods it uses to put that framework into practice
It is also important to consider whether there may be a rela- are not equally carefully developed. The type of feminist the-
tionship between the type of feminist theoretical framework ory an organisation adopts may thus be of less importance
Glob Soc Welf (2019) 6:231–244 241

than the extent which it is effective in actually putting femi- could be argued that for those who are serious about
nism into practice. On the other hand, an organisation might supporting feminist social change, these levels of engagement
undertake a wide range of innovative activities in engaging are essential. In addition, some of the debates within feminism
men, but if these are not built upon a coherent theory of fem- are also highly contentious and polarised, and so it is impor-
inist social change, then it will be difficult to assess what the tant to respond to them sensitively. It is inappropriate for men,
actual aims of that work are, and whether or not it can actually as the dominant group within the patriarchal social order, to
be considered to be effective. Work with men and boys to intrude on these and proclaim the direction which they think
prevent violence against women therefore requires carefully the movement for women’s liberation should take, as if men
developed and mutually supportive theory and practice if it is could solve the dilemmas and contradictions that feminists
to have a significant impact in achieving its goals. 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
Conclusion violence against women, not least because ignoring them in
the context of such work is almost impossible. It would also
There are a number of differences which can be observed represent an abdication of responsibility if the field is serious
within work to engage men and boys in the prevention of about taking up feminist analyses. As is frequently the case in
men’s violence against women. These are particularly appar- work to engage men in the prevention of men’s violence
ent in the different types of (typically feminist) theories and against women, it is therefore important to craft a careful bal-
frameworks that provide the foundations for these efforts, and ance in response to the Which feminism? question.
in the degree to which feminism is put into practice in the Profeminist men should engage seriously with the diversity
range of strategies and methods that organisations adopt in of feminist thought and advocacy, but avoid replicating patri-
their work. However, differences do appear elsewhere too, archal power dynamics, such as invading or antagonising de-
such as in the structure and composition of organisations in- bates within feminism, in the process.
volved in this field, and the different ways in which they This article has considered how we can assess the feminism
implement accountability to feminism. To date, there has been of work to engage men and boys in preventing violence
relatively little reflection on these divergences within engag- against women, in terms of how feminist the field is, and what
ing men work, and we do not seek to highlight them in order to kinds of feminism can be identified within it. It has also ex-
encourage conflict or division which could serve to constrain a plored how profeminist men involved in the prevention of
still relatively small field of activism. violence against women can go about choosing which femi-
However, we would argue that it is important that these nist theory they should adopt in their work, as well as some of
organisations, and profeminist men seeking to support efforts the dilemmas in practice that can arise when making such
to prevent men’s violence against women more generally, re- decisions. This leaves us with the question of whether or not
flect upon rather than ignore the divergences and debates there is a particular type of feminism which should be adopted
within feminist thinking, and contemplate their own position in work with men and boys to end violence against women.
in relation to them. There can sometimes be ambiguity sur- Taking into account the issues raised in this article, individual
rounding the theoretical underpinnings of the engaging men advocates and organisations involved in the prevention of vi-
field, where the specificities and emphases of feminist com- olence against women must come to their own conclusions
mitments of individuals and groups can be left implicit. This about which kind of feminism they feel is most relevant and
may cultivate a lack of transparency, which limits the capacity helpful to apply to the contexts in which they are operating. In
for those organisations and individuals to be held to account as some ways, the answer to this question may be less important
they attempt to put feminism into practice. Furthermore, a than the extent to which this work succeeds in actually putting
dearth of openness and decisiveness in relation to the ideolog- profeminism into practice—because the frameworks that are
ical approach being adopted can contribute to a lack of cohe- adopted are relatively meaningless if they do not become ef-
sion and coherence between the change that is aspired to, the fective praxis.
rationale for that change and the strategy for accomplishing it, Fundamentally, organisations and individual advocates
which can lead to disjointed and ineffective efforts. should push themselves to be as feminist as they can be in
Yet, there are undoubtedly also challenges involved both in work with men and boys, because deep-rooted feminist social
being more reflective and more explicit about the forms of change is what is required in order to bring about an end to
feminist theory that provide the foundations for work with men’s violence against women. This will undoubtedly mean
men and boys, and the strategies that are developed to imple- different things to different people, depending on their subjec-
ment them. Not least because this requires an in-depth, ongo- tive interpretations of feminism. However, we would argue
ing engagement with different strands of feminist thought, that there are some rudimentary principles which should un-
which demands resources of time and effort. However, it derpin work with men and boys to prevent men’s violence
242 Glob Soc Welf (2019) 6:231–244

against women, if it can genuinely be considered profeminist. to some extent inevitable, given the saliency of radical forms
The following are by no means intended by be comprehen- of feminism in particular to efforts to understand and address
sive, but they illustrate what some of the minimum standards violence against women and girls. If it can build upon such
could be in profeminist approaches to the elimination of men’s principles with the reflexive development of cohesive
violence against women: profeminist praxis, the engaging men field has the potential
to contribute to significant transformations in men and
1. That we strive to enact transformations towards gender masculinities and gender relations more broadly, and to bring-
justice in our personal lives, in the lives of other men ing men’s violence against women to an end.
and boys and in society as a whole.
2. That we make ourselves open to being held to account Compliance with Ethical Standards
about our practices and our work by feminist women,
and put steps in place which ensure we are accountable This paper is not based on research with human subjects and therefore did
require Institutional Review Board approval.
as individuals and organisations to specific feminist wom-
en and feminist organisations.
Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
3. That at the same time as being accountable to women, we interest.
do not place the onus on them to ‘teach us’ about gender
inequality. We take on the responsibility to learn, and to Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://
change ourselves and other men in order to live in more creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use,
gender-equitable ways. distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appro-
4. That we make efforts to listen and learn from the diversity priate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the
of women’s experiences and engage critically and reflex- Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
ively with a range of feminist theories and ideas. This
means being clear about the kind of feminist approach
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
we are adopting, particularly regarding what kind of tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
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 References
with feminist women wherever possible during the pro-
cess of implementing work with men and boys. Ashe, F. (2007). The new politics of masculinity: men, power and
resistance. London: Routledge.
6. That we critically reflect on and evaluate the extent to
Barbour, R. S. (2001). Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative
which the work being carried out is effective in actually research: a case of the tail wagging the dog? BMJ [British Medical
bringing about the change that it aims to achieve. Journal], 322(7294), 1115–1117.
7. That through both our theory and practice, we make the Barker, G., Ricardo, C., & Nascimento, M. (2007). Engaging men and
connections between and address different forms of men’s boys in changing gender-based inequity in health: evidence from
programme interventions. Geneva: World Health Organization.
violence against women and patriarchal social relations—
Beasley, C. (1999). What is feminism, anyway? Understanding contem-
and consider the ways in which we are also personally porary feminist thought. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
implicated in, and privileged by, these social structures. Beasley, C. (2012). Problematizing contemporary men/masculinities the-
8. That we take into account the full continuum of men’s orizing: the contribution of Raewyn Connell and conceptual-
violence against women in our prevention work, and con- terminological tensions today. British Journal of Sociology, 63(4),
747–765.
sider the relationships between this and other normalised
Beasley, C. (2013). Mind the gap? Masculinity studies and contemporary
institutions and patterns of practice within patriarchy (in- gender/sexuality thinking. Australian Feminist Studies, 28(75),
cluding those which are seen as being contentious within 108–124.
feminism, such as the sex industry). Beasley, C. (2015). Caution! Hazards ahead: considering the potential
9. That we recognise the importance of women’s voices and gap between feminist thinking and men/masculinities theory and
practice. Journal of Sociology, 51(3), 566–581.
women-only spaces being prioritised and playing a lead-
Brod, H. (1998). To be a man, or not to be a man—that is the feminist
ing role within struggles to end men’s violence against question. In T. Digby (Ed.), Men doing feminism (pp. 197–212).
women and gender inequality. Whilst seeking to support London: Routledge.
this work, this also means working to counteract the po- Brookfield, S. (2005). The power of critical theory for adult learning and
tential for men to dominate or ‘take over’ such efforts. 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 pri-
These principles themselves perhaps lean more towards a mary prevention of sexual assault through education. Sydney:
radical feminist analysis. However, we would argue that this is University of Western Sydney.
Glob Soc Welf (2019) 6:231–244 243

Casey, E., & Lindhorst, T. P. (2009). Toward a multi-level, ecological Harding, S. (1998). Can men be subjects of feminist thought? In T. Digby
approach to the primary prevention of sexual assault: prevention in (Ed.), Men doing feminism (pp. 171–195). London: Routledge.
peer and community contexts. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 10(2), Hasyim, N. (2014). How far can men go? A study of the men's movement
91–114. to end violence against women in Indonesia. Wollongong:
Casey, E., Carlson, J., Fraguela-Rios, C., Kimball, E., Neugut, T. B., University of Wollongong.
Tolman, R. M., et al. (2013). Context, challenges, and tensions in Hearn, J. (2013). Methods and methodologies in critical studies on men
global efforts to engage men in the prevention of violence against and masculinities. In B. Pini & B. Pease (Eds.), Men, masculinities
women: an ecological analysis. Men and Masculinities, 16(2), and methodologies (pp. 26–38). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
228–251. Jensen, R. (2017). The end of patriarchy: radical feminism for men.
Casey, E., Carlson, J., Two Bulls, S., & Yager, A. (2016). Gender trans- Melbourne: Spinifex Press.
formative approaches to engaging men in gender-based violence Jewkes, R., Flood, M., & Lang, J. (2015a). From work with men and boys
prevention: a review and conceptual model. Trauma, Violence & to changes of social norms and reduction of inequities in gender
Abuse, 19(2), 231–246. relations: A conceptual shift in prevention of violence against wom-
Castelino, T. (2014). A feminist critique of men’s violence against women en and girls. The Lancet, 385(9977), 1580–1589.
efforts. The No To Violence Journal, Autumn 2014, 7–14.
Jewkes, R., Morrell, R., Hearn, J., Lundqvist, E., Blackbeard, D.,
Cohen, J. (2012). The politics of accountability. In E. B. Martínez, M.
Lindegger, G., et al. (2015b). Hegemonic masculinity: combining
Meyer, & M. Carter (Eds.), We Have Not Been Moved: Resisting
theory and practice in gender interventions. Culture, Health &
Racism and Militarism in 21st Century America. Oakland: PM Press.
Sexuality, 17(sup2), 96–111.
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: identity politics,
Johnson, A. G. (1997). The gender knot: unraveling our patriarchal
intersectionality, and violence against women. Stanford Law
legacy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.
Crowe, J. (2013). Can men be feminists? TC Beirne School of Law Kahane, D. J. (1998). Male feminism as oxymoron. In T. Digby (Ed.),
Research Paper No. 13–08. Brisbane: University of Queensland. Men doing feminism (pp. 213–236). London: Routledge.
Delaware Men’s Education Network. (2016). Engaging Men Capacity Kimball, E., Edleson, J. L., Tolman, R. M., Neugut, T. B., & Carlson, J.
Assessment for Member Partners (EM-CAMP). Wilmington: (2013). Global efforts to engage men in preventing violence against
Delaware Coalition Against Domestic Violence. women: an international survey. Violence Against Women, 19(7),
Digby, T. (Ed.). (1998). Men doing feminism. New York: Routledge. 924–939.
Dworkin, S. L., Treves-Kagan, S., & Lippman, S. A. (2013). Gender- Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalist inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage.
transformative interventions to reduce HIV risks and violence with Lorber, J. (2012). Gender inequality: feminist theories and politics (5th
heterosexually-active men: a review of the global evidence. AIDS ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
and Behavior, 17(9), 2845–2863. Mackay, F. (2015). Radical feminism: feminist activism in movement.
Evans, E., & Chamberlain, P. (2015). Critical waves: exploring feminist Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
identity, discourse and praxis in western feminism. Social Movement Macomber, K. (2018). BI’m sure as hell not putting any man on a
Studies, 14(4), 396–409. pedestal^: Male privilege and accountability in domestic and sexual
Fleming, P. J., Lee, J. G., & Dworkin, S. L. (2014). BReal men don’t^: violence work. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(9), 1491–
constructions of masculinity and inadvertent harm in public health 1518.
interventions. American Journal of Public Health, 104(6), 1029– McCarry, M. (2007). Masculinity studies and male violence: critique or
1035. collusion? Women's Studies International Forum, 30(5), 404–415.
Flick, U. (2008). Managing quality in qualitative research. London: Messner, M. A., Greenberg, M. A., & Peretz, T. (2015). Some men:
Sage. feminist allies and the movement to end violence against women.
Flood, M. (2005). Men’s collective struggles for gender justice: The case New York: Oxford University Press.
of antiviolence activism. In M. Kimmel, J. Hearn, & R. Connell
Morrison, S., Hardison, J., Mathew, A., & O’Neil, J. (2004). An evidence-
(Eds.), Handbook of studies on men and masculinities (pp. 458–
based review of sexual assault preventive intervention programs:
466). Thousand Oak: Sage.
technical report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Flood, M. (2015). Work with men to end violence against women: A
O’Neill, R. (2015). Whither critical masculinity studies? Notes on inclu-
critical stocktake. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 17(2), 159–176
sive masculinity theory, postfeminism, and sexual politics. Men and
Flood, M., Fergus, L., & Heenan, M. (2009). Respectful relationships
Masculinities, 18(1), 100–120.
education: Violence prevention and respectful relationships educa-
tion in Victorian secondary schools. Melbourne: Department of Nation, M., Crusto, C., Wandersman, A., Kumpfer, K. L., Seybolt, D.,
Education and Early Childhood Development, State of Victoria. Morrissey-Kane, E., & Davino, K. (2003). What works in preven-
Funk, R. E. (2017). Organizational readiness to engage men in violence tion: principles of effective prevention programs. American
prevention. Rus Funk Consulting. Psychologist, 58(6–7), 449–456.
Göransson, C. (2014). Rejecting violence, reclaiming men: how men’s Pease, B. (2008). Engaging men in men’s violence prevention: exploring
work against men’s violence challenges and reinforces the gender the tensions, dilemmas and possibilities. Australian domestic & fam-
order. In Department of Political Science. Stockholm: Stockholm ily violence clearinghouse issues paper 17. Sydney: Australian
University. Domestic & Family Violence Clearinghouse.
Gupta, G. R. (2000). Gender, sexuality, and HIV/AIDS: the what, the Pease, B. (2013). Epistemology, methodology and accountability in
why, and the how. Canadian HIV/AIDS Policy & Law Review, researching men’s subjectivities and practices. In B. Pini & B.
5(4), 86–93. Pease (Eds.), Men, masculinities and methodologies (pp. 39–52).
Hall, R. J. (2015). Feminist strategies to end violence against women. In Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
R. Baksh & W. Harcourt (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of transna- Pease, B. (2017). Men as allies in preventing violence against women:
tional feminist movements (pp. 394–415). New York: Oxford principles and practices for promoting accountability. Sydney:
University Press. White Ribbon Australia.
Hammersley, M. (2007). The issue of quality in qualitative research. Peretz, T. (2017). Engaging diverse men: an intersectional analysis of
International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 30(3), men’s pathways to antiviolence activism. Gender & Society, 31(4),
287–305. 526–548.
244 Glob Soc Welf (2019) 6:231–244

Robinson, V. (2003). Radical revisionings?: the theorizing of masculinity conceptualize and operationalize their work. Violence Against
and (radical) feminist theory. Women's Studies International Forum, Women, 22(2), 249–268.
26(2), 129–137. UNFPA & Promundo. (2010). Engaging men and boys in gender equality
Rottenberg, C. (2014). The rise of neoliberal feminism. Cultural Studies, and health: a global toolkit for action. Rio de Janeiro: Promundo.
28(3), 418–437. Vance, C. S. (1984). Pleasure and danger: toward a politics of sexuality. In
Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., & Dillon, L. (2003). Quality in quali- C. S. Vance (Ed.), Pleasure and danger: exploring female sexuality
tative evaluation: a framework for assessing research evidence. (pp. 1–28). Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
London: Government Chief Social Researcher’s Office. Whitaker, D. J., Morrison, S., Lindquist, C., Hawkins, S. R., O’Neil, J. A.,
Storer, H. L., Casey, E. A., Carlson, J., Edleson, J. L., & Tolman, R. M. Nesius, A. M., et al. (2006). A critical review of interventions for the
(2016). Primary prevention is? A global perspective on how orga- primary prevention of perpetration of partner violence. Aggression
nizations engaging men in preventing gender-based violence and Violent Behavior, 11(2), 151–166.