~ archived since 2018 ~

Role call: sex, gender roles, and intimate partner violence

UnHope20

January 11, 2022

6 upvotes

/r/Male_Studies

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	Role call: sex, gender roles, and intimate partner violence
Author	UnHope20
Upvotes	6
Comments	14
Date	January 11, 2022 12:53 AM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/Male_Studies
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/Male_Studies/comments/s0ztlc/role_call_sex_gender_roles_and_intimate_partner/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/Male_Studies/role-call-sex-gender-roles-and-intimate-partner.1216064 https://theredarchive.com/post/1216064

Comments

[–]UnHope20[S] 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Intimate partner violence (IPV) continues to be viewed in gendered and heteronormative ways. Stanziani, Cox, and Coffey (2018, Adding insult to injury: Sex, sexual orientation, and juror decision-making in a case of intimate partner violence. Journal of Homosexuality, 65(10), 1325–1350) presented participants with a case of alleged IPV while manipulating the sex and sexual orientation of the aggressor/victim dyad.

Results suggested participants view violence perpetrated by a man against a woman most abhorrently.

The current study replicated and expanded that study, exploring how gender role beliefs influence participant decision-making. Female participants held more adverse attitudes towards IPV when a male assaulted a female.

Further, participant gender role beliefs influenced decision-making. Specifically, males who endorsed higher levels of hegemonic masculinity perceived the crime to be less serious, while females who endorsed the same beliefs perceived the defendant as less likely to benefit from treatment.

Overall, results suggest individual beliefs regarding gender roles and masculinity may influence their perceptions of IPV, regardless of the gender and sexual orientation of the aggressor and victim.

What do you all think about these findings? Is there usefulness in the hegemonic masculinity concept in research?

[–]Nicksvibes 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]UnHope20[S] 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

So are we to then term this hegemonic femininity?

Among the gender studies people, the definition of hegemonic femininity is (like their definition of hegemonic masculinity) societies idealized version of womanhood. There is a caveat here though which I will add below.

I need to look into the way the concept is defined in academia. However, just looking at Connell's book should be enough to see the misandry in the term. Additionally, women who endorse these traits are what? Hegemonically masculine, too? Or?

Academia defines hegemonic masculinity as the version of masculinity which society prescribes and rewards. It's purpose is to ensure male dominance.

They define hegemonic femininity essentially the same way except for femininity. However, like hegemonic masculinity they belief that hegemonic femininity also exists to ensure male dominance.

When they talk about beliefs regarding hegemonic masculinity they are essentially referring to ways that society believes a man should behave.

That is more of what I'm asking about.

Frankly, I am not convinced of the value of the construct for 3 reasons

The concepts of hegemonic masculinity and femininity seem a bit unfalsifiable to me. Almost like a type of 'just-so' story telling.
While they obviously have some predictive validity, I'm not sure that this is evidence of its hypothesized distal function or a refutation of it.
While its often cited as a mediator in the relationship between patriarchy and violence there's a major issue an issue with directionality and multivariate analysis are lacking.

That being said, I'm open to having my mind changed. What are your thoughts on it?

[–]Nicksvibes 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Among the gender studies people, the definition of hegemonic femininity is (like their definition of hegemonic masculinity) societies idealized version of womanhood. There is a caveat here though which I will add below.

Yes, but the study doesn't appear to be concerned with it based on what you quoted, nor do I think hegemonic femininity is anywhere near as popularized or treated similarly in its damages and origin. Connell never wrote about it in her popular works.

Academia defines hegemonic masculinity as the version of masculinity which society prescribes and rewards. It's purpose is to ensure male dominance.

And it is wrong. To these people dominance is something negative which is what this study seems to be perpetuating. Dominance is simply a hierarchy of prestige and it is the natural expression of male sociality. The version of masculinity society rewards, at least healthy developed civilizations is not hitting women or minimizing the harm done to women or not protecting women or dominating women (in the negative sense via rape and IPV). It is a protective version of masculinity which ensures the greater protection of females than males. This is easily captured by studies on empathy which show males empathize with females more than males and studies on gender attitudes which find mostly positive views of women and to an extent negative views of men. For reviews, see Moxon 2018. Therefore, it cannot be argued hegemonic masculinity is negative dominance for the most part, nor is this how men see their masculinity cross culturally (see this article ).

[–]UnHope20[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Yes, but the study doesn't appear to be concerned with it based on what you quoted, nor do I think hegemonic femininity is anywhere near as popularized or treated similarly in its damages and origin. Connell never wrote about it in her popular works.

Agreed. That was sort if implicit in my mentioning that there was a caveat associated with my description of toxic femininity.

And it is wrong.

I want to be clear that I was not endorsing that perspective. I was simply describing their (some academics) definition of the concept because you had mentioned that you weren't familiar with academics definition of hegemonic masculinity.

The version of masculinity society rewards, at least healthy developed civilizations is not hitting women or minimizing the harm done to women or not protecting women or dominating women (in the negative sense via rape and IPV). It is a protective version of masculinity which ensures the greater protection of females than males.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. I was simply sharing the beliefs of gender studies scholars about the construct known as hegemonic masculinity.

This is easily captured by studies on empathy which show males empathize with females more than males and studies on gender attitudes which find mostly positive views of women and to an extent negative views of men.

I don't disagree with you. I have posted many such studies on this sub and have many more that I plan on sharing.

For reviews, see Moxon 2018. Therefore, it cannot be argued hegemonic masculinity is negative dominance for the most part, nor is this how men see their masculinity cross culturally (see this article ).

Moxon has some ok insights and his 2018 paper:

Misogyny has no scientific basis of any kind: the evidence is of philogyny

Was alright. He injected a bit too much emotionality into his writing, but the examples and citations were alright.

Thanks for the link. I'll have a look. Bear with me imma slow reader lol

[–]Nicksvibes 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]UnHope20[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well, I didn't say you were disagreeing with me. I am aware of the studies you publish on here. I was arguing against them (the supposed academics).

Oh I see. Well in that case, my bad.

I really don't know why people think this is a valid critique when it is not. The "emotionality" was not the unjustified SJW obnoxious type but rather provocative and to an extent a reaction to the data he was sharing which is almost always the case.

It's a valid critique from the standpoint of good scientific writing. Anything that diverts attention away from the argument being presented is something that shouldn't be there if possible.

The goal should be to provide a cogent understandable argument. An author doesn't want to attach any emotional valence to the article and the reader should rarely (If ever) be put in a position where they are thinking about the author's motivations for writing the article or his personal feelings about it's content. The focus should be entirely on the content of the article.

As someone who agrees with most of his findings, it's bothersome to know that he is unnecessarily opening his work up to such criticisms since it's entirely pointless to do so.

[–]Nicksvibes 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

It's a valid critique from the standpoint of good scientific writing. Anything that diverts attention away from the argument being presented is something that shouldn't be there if possible.

When did he divert attention?

The goal should be to provide a cogent understandable argument. An author doesn't want to attach any emotional valence to the article and the reader should rarely (If ever) be put in a position where they are thinking about the author's motivations for writing the article or his personal feelings about it's content. The focus should be entirely on the content of the article.

The goal should be to provide a cogent understandable argument.

He doesn't do that, how?

I also disagree. It is a matter of perspective. Plus Moxon merely reviews. He isn't associated with any university so his emotional language doesn't discredit any academic status he has as he has none.

As someone who agrees with most of his findings, it's bothersome to know that he is unnecessarily opening his work up to such criticisms since it's entirely pointless to do so.

And I actually find this unique about him. Most of the other researchers apologize, are unconfident and never provocative. He is unique in the regard that he isn't afraid to be provocative, to speak his mind and criticise.

[–]Nicksvibes 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nicksvibes 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]UnHope20[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nicksvibes 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]UnHope20[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Nicksvibes 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link