A global review of violence prevention plans: Where are the men and boys?

Abstract

Given the wealth of research calling for meaningful engagement of men and boys in preventing violence against women, this study examined whether current government-endorsed violence prevention plans in countries of the Global North included men and boys as a target for primary prevention. One hundred and fourteen plans from 14 countries were analysed, and findings revealed that engaging men and boys as primary prevention advocates is still in its infancy and mostly focused on individual change. The article concludes that governments should invest in comprehensive prevention strategies and whole-of-population approaches that target social structures and norms that reinforce violence.

Keywords

Boys government men policy primary prevention violence prevention

Introduction

Numerous international declarations have called for the meaningful involvement of non-violent men and boys in promoting gender equality and preventing violence against women (VAW; United Nations, 2017). As a response to international conventions and resolutions, in 2012 the United Nations produced a handbook to guide nations on how to develop action plans on preventing VAW. These guidelines support governments and policy makers in formulating effective violence prevention plans that include legal frameworks, prevention and crisis interventions as well as implementation and evaluation strategies (UN Women, 2012). A key recommendation was the importance of engaging men and boys in both violence prevention and gender equality (p. 40). For the purpose of this article, VAW is defined as

any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or private life. (United Nations, 1993: Article 1)

Given the predication that men and boy’s engagement is key to stopping VAW, the following research study examined whether government VAW prevention plans in countries of the Global North – including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), the Republic of Ireland, the United States, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland – included engagement of men and boys as a primary prevention strategy. Primary prevention is focused on activities that take place before violence has occurred to prevent initial perpetration or victimization. This is different from secondary prevention, which is focused on an immediate response after violence has occurred, and tertiary prevention, which is focused on long-term responses after the violence has occurred (Flood, 2019: 40). While many governments have focused their efforts on designing legislation to respond to violence after it has occurred, this study specifically targeted policy frameworks in the form of government-endorsed violence prevention plans as they provide the broadest understanding of a country’s (or a state/province’s) political commitment to VAW, including their theories, priorities for action and level of financial investment (Wells et al., 2012).

Theoretical frame

This study is theoretically grounded in feminist social work that frames VAW within a context of power, privilege, unequal gender relations and structural oppression. A feminist social work approach to violence prevention includes a critique of patriarchy, ‘a system of social structures and practices in which men dominate, oppress and exploit women’ (Walby, 1990: 20), and investigates how patriarchy has structured the institutions in which we learn, work, live, play and worship. Fundamentally, men’s VAW is a political and ethical issue grounded in gender, power and systemic and structural inequalities (Stark, 2006).

Leading activists in this area agree that the work with men and boys must be grounded within a feminist social work approach (Crooks et al., 2007; Flood, 2010, 2019; MenEngage Alliance, 2014, 2017; Minerson et al., 2011; Pease, 2008), which means that the accountability, standards and guidelines for the engagement of men and boys must be nested within feminist values (American Psychological Association, Boys and Men Guidelines Group, 2018; MenEngage Alliance, 2018; Pease, 2017) and structural social work (Dominelli, 2002; Mullaly, 2006). Given that men are the primary perpetrators of VAW (and against other men and boys and girls), a feminist social work stance asserts they have an important role in preventing and ending VAW at both the individual and systemic levels (Dominelli, 2002; Flood, 2011).

A socio-ecological model also underpins this study. Reinforcing a feminist social work approach, Bronfenbrenner’s (1999) socio-ecological model argues that prevention efforts exclusively aimed at the individual level are an inadequate approach to dealing with VAW. Social and cultural environments, within which people are embedded – such as families, schools, communities and institutions – must also be targeted for intervention as they influence and reinforce individual behaviours, attitudes and beliefs. Drawing on the socio-ecological approach, Cohen and Swift (1999) formulated a primary prevention framework outlining six interdependent activities to prevent violence. These are: (1) strengthening individual knowledge and skills; (2) promoting community education; (3) educating providers; (4) fostering coalitions and networks; (5) changing organizational practices and (6) influencing policy and legislation (Cohen and Swift, 1999).

As a profession, we have a responsibility to understand social structures and systems and ‘who they value and who they ignore, who they benefit and who they marginalize. Only then can we locate ourselves as agents of advocacy to work alongside communities and colleagues to organize and advocate to better meet people’s needs’ (Harding and Jeyapal, 2018: 4).

Literature review

It is well established worldwide that men perpetrate the majority of violence against women and girls as well as against other men and boys (Black et al., 2011; Fleming et al., 2016; UN Women, 2017; World Health Organization, 2012). Estimates of male VAW around the world are striking, with one in three women reporting having experienced physical and/or sexual violence from an intimate partner or sexual violence from a non-partner, over the course of their lifetime (World Health Organization, 2017).

Data from countries of the Global North show similar patterns. In Canada, for example, women are three times more likely than men to be killed, sexually assaulted, choked or threatened with a weapon by a male partner (Statistics Canada, 2017). Australian statistics are comparable, indicating that one in six women have experienced physical or sexual abuse by a current or previous partner compared with 1 in 16 men (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2018), and in the United Kingdom, for serious sexual offences reported by women, offenders were most often young males typically between the ages of 20 and 39 (Ministry of Justice, 2013). These VAW statistics are similar across all countries of the Global North (Flatley, 2017; Government of Scotland, 2017; New Zealand Family Violence Clearing House, 2017; Police Services of Northern Ireland, 2018).

It is without question that the majority of intimate partner violence and sexual assaults are experienced more often by women at the hands of men. Wells et al. (2015b) assert that it is this reality that has reinforced an individualistic, gender dyadic narrative which asserts a binary between the female victim and male perpetrator. The authors argue that this oppositional narrative reinforces an individualistic-level response that aims for protection, sequestering and support of the female victim, and punishment, monitoring and rehabilitation of the male perpetrator. This dominant narrative reinforces the notion that women are the weaker sex in need of protection, while invoking masculinity stereotypes that limit the possibility for men to be more than perpetrators. Wells et al. (2015b) argue that this prevailing view has limited the design and implementation of effective population-based prevention approaches to engage and mobilize non-violent men and boys in violence prevention – a critical component missing in most mainstream prevention efforts. Furthermore, this gender dyadic narrative has influenced ‘the underlying philosophy and assumptions that guide the design of country/state [VAW] prevention plans, policies, programs and community activities and may be limiting a long-term, systematic dismantling of socio-cultural conditions that enable violence to exist’ (Wells et al., 2015b: 332).

Engaging men and boys in prevention

There is a significant amount of research indicating that engaging non-violent men and boys in violence prevention is a critical strategy to stopping male VAW (Casey et al., 2018; Crooks et al., 2007; DeKeseredy et al., 2000; Flood, 2015a, 2015b; Groth, 2001; Kaufman, 2001; Wells et al., 2013). The rationale for engaging and mobilizing men is vast, with the greatest emphasis on three key elements. First, efforts to prevent VAW must address men because largely it is men who perpetrate violence (Flood, 2019). Second, we know from myriad studies that constructions of masculinity play a crucial role in shaping VAW (Heise, 1998; Murnen et al., 2002; Schumacher et al., 2001). And third, men have a positive role to play in stopping and preventing violence (Connell, 2014; Fleming et al., 2016; Flood, 2015a, 2019; Heise and Kotsadam, 2015; Jewkes et al., 2015).

Based on the influence of these ideas, there has been a proliferation of initiatives to engage men and boys in violence prevention around the world varying in target group, delivery method and goals (Ellsberg et al., 2015; Jewkes et al., 2015; Peacock and Barker, 2014). Strategies in the Global North typically fall into three broad categories: activism/advocacy, programme intervention and policy change (Casey et al., 2018; Flood, 2019).

In terms of activism, small groups of men have allied themselves with feminist action and advocacy as far back as the women’s suffrage movement (Flood, 2019). Today, there are several pro-feminist male-identified groups across the Global North working against sexism and violence on behalf of gender equality (Okun, 2014). There are also a host of programme-level interventions targeting men and boys in violence prevention that specifically focus on group education, service-based community outreach and mass media campaigns (Barker et al., 2016; Crooks et al., 2019). Unfortunately, the evidence base for such initiatives is largely weak due to a lack of rigorous evaluation (Flood, 2019; Jewkes et al., 2015). However, it is known that a critical component of such work involves using a gender-transformative approach, meaning that programmes explicitly examine power and privilege, gender norms, masculinity, and related attitudes and behaviours (Casey et al., 2018; Dworkin et al., 2013; Jewkes et al., 2015; Peacock and Barker, 2014).

Regarding policy work for engaging men and boys in violence prevention, there is little scholarship available. In a review of the evidence, Wells et al. (2013) found that most policy and legislative approaches to engage men and boys in violence prevention focused on the secondary and tertiary levels of intervention, meaning that the emphasis was on programmatic interventions for perpetrators and/or on men who come into contact with the justice system following an episode of violence. Other policy-level tactics involve broader gender-equality aims through targeted economic and social initiatives, such as parental leave, poverty reduction strategies, gender quotas or recruitment strategies (Storer et al., 2016), but are often not directly tied to preventing VAW (Flood et al., 2010) or have no explicit connection to stopping male VAW (Barker et al., 2016; Edstrom et al., 2015; World Health Organization, 2007).

Despite strong rationales for engaging men and boys in primary prevention, the work in this area is mostly emergent and relatively small in scope (Jewkes et al., 2015; Minerson et al., 2011; Wells et al., 2013). With little evidence of effectiveness available, Wells et al. (2013) caution that social workers must proceed with men and boys’ engagement and mobilization carefully, ensuring that good documentation and evaluation are conducted, and that partnerships between community, academia and government are promoted to advance change. Others add that work that aims to end male VAW must do so from a frame that promotes human rights and social justice, aligns with feminism, addresses structural inequalities and enhances the lives of a diversity of men (Flood et al., 2010; Jewkes et al., 2015; Peacock and Barker, 2014; Wells et al., 2015a). What is more, engaging and mobilizing men and boys should be done alongside women’s rights activists and further feminist goals of gender equality (Flood, 2019; MenEngage Alliance, 2014; Pease, 2008; Wells et al., 2015a).

Methods

The following study sought to determine whether men and boys are included in government-endorsed VAW prevention plans from the Global North, how they are conceptualized, and in which ways they are engaged in primary prevention activities. As this work is largely practice driven, centring the study within the pragmatic paradigm was deemed most appropriate. The pragmatic paradigm is one that favours an applied approach to practical research questions and, rather than being driven by methodological alignment, such as grounded theory, the research is guided by practicality and the best means of answering the research question (Creswell, 2007; Patton, 2002; Wicks and Freeman, 1998). Since our research focused on government work in the area of VAW prevention and whether men and boys are included as primary prevention strategies, this proved the best way forward.

Our primary method was documentation analysis. Using documentation as a data source in research has several notable advantages. According to Bowen (2009), this strategy is less time-consuming as documents are generally easily accessible, and as such, more cost-effective than other methods. Yet even though documents tend to provide more accuracy in terms of detail (Bowen, 2009), they are not without their limitations. Documents may lack certain detail, or be incomplete (Patton, 2002). Furthermore, they risk ‘biased selectivity’ as they may reflect a specific agenda (Yin, 2003).

Government-endorsed national and regional VAW prevention plans were collected across 14 countries in the Global North, and investigated for their content dedicated to men and boys. This type of document was selected because these plans represent public prevention efforts by national and state governments. As previously stated, government-endorsed violence prevention plans are policy documents that illustrate a government’s level of commitment to an issue, their theoretical position, level of investment and priorities for action (Wells et al., 2012). Only plans/policy frameworks that were government-endorsed were accepted into our sample. This is because these plans are those that have gone through a formalized process of development, agreement and approval, often at multiple levels within the government with budgets attached. They represent government policy as they guide decision-making, establish future decision-making and support the alignment of policies and practices internal and external to government (Government of Alberta, 2013). VAW plans that are endorsed by national and regional governments thus offer the best barometer of government understanding and commitments to prevent VAW (Weldon, 2002).

The collection of documents and analysis of content occurred over two phases. Via the Internet, English-only, government-endorsed plans between 2001 and 2018 were collected across 14 countries – Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), the Republic of Ireland, the United States, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland – and included both federal- and provincial/state-level documents. From this, 125 documents were identified. Exclusion criteria were then applied. Plans were excluded if (1) they were older than 2001, and (2) did not take a comprehensive approach to VAW and solely focused on only one form of violence, such as sexual violence or female genital mutilation (In the Global North, governments tend to privilege domestic violence and family violence over that of sexual violence when designing VAW prevention plans); (3) the plan was not endorsed by the government (i.e. plans written by coalitions or non-government organizations); (4) the plan focused on domestic violence laws and legislation because these are forms of secondary and tertiary levels of prevention; (5) the plan was one that focused solely on ‘gender equality’, ‘empowerment of women’ or ‘women, peace and security’ or (6) it was a progress report or update – only main plans and action plans were included. From this, the sample was reduced to 114 documents across 14 countries (Appendix 1).

The second phase of the method involved uploading the 114 documents into a mixed methodology analysis software program: Dedoose (Lieber and Weisner, 2016). Plans were then coded using a pre-established codebook, cited in Table 1. Documents were then searched for the following terms: men, male, boys, masculine/ity and father. If plans included any of the above search terms, they were further coded into four main themes.

Table 1.

Main coding themes.

Main theme	Description
Men as victims	Do the plans discuss men as victims? If so, how/what is identified in the plan to help or support them (i.e. counselling, helpline)?
Boys as victims	Do the plans discuss boys as victims? If so, how/what is identified in the plan to help or support them (i.e. programmes for boys)?
Men/boys as perpetrators	Are men/boys identified as perpetrators in the plan? If so, what strategies are identified for perpetrators?
Men/boys engaged in violence prevention	Are men/boys discussed in relation to prevention work? What strategies are identified to engage and support men in this work?

Once documents were coded with the pre-established main themes, content analysis, coding and categorization occurred consistent with the pragmatic approach (Patton, 2002). Content analysis ‘is used to refer to any qualitative data reduction and sense-making effort that takes a volume of qualitative material and attempts to identify core consistencies and meanings’ (p. 453). Coding and categorization is the process where similarities and differences between themes and subthemes are considered to reveal relationships (Coleman and Unrau, 1996).

Findings

Distribution of plans and inclusion of men and boys

The distribution of the 114 plans is heavily weighted in favour of Australia (N = 27), Canada (N = 22) and the United States (N = 24). The remaining nations – including New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the Scandinavian countries – have between two and six plans each. Of all the plans found, the majority (N = 98) referred to men and boys in some manner. For most of these plans, men and boys were mentioned through the use of statistics or briefly including the terms ‘men’ or ‘boys’ in the content. Some plans discussed men and boys in more depth using the following language categories: victims, perpetrators or at-risk of perpetration, and engaged in prevention activities (as allies and advocates). The most common group men were associated with was that of being a victim of domestic violence (N = 70). Closely behind was perpetrator, or at-risk of perpetration (N = 67), followed by engaged in violence prevention (N = 50). Boys received much less recognition in government plans. They were identified as victims in 29 plans, perpetrator or at-risk of perpetration in 11 and engaged in violence prevention in 30.

Men/boys as victims

Men and boys were most often viewed as victims or possible victims in the plans (N = 70). This was predominantly done by way of simple statements indicating that ‘anyone can be a victim’ or that VAW ‘hurts everyone’. About half of these 70 plans provided statistics on adult male victimization and about one-third on adult men as victims of sexual violence or abuse. It was in this context of victimhood that gender and sexually diverse¹ men were sometimes highlighted as a subpopulation at risk of becoming a victim of interpersonal violence. Beyond these statements and statistics, however, little more discussion was provided on men and boys as possible victims.

For the 70 plans that covered men as victims, about one-quarter also stated that men deserve to be supported and receive services. In this respect, increasing services to male victims was a common strategy put forward, such as through the provision of shelters and crisis lines, followed by the need for legal advocacy. Services for gender diverse men were also identified. Plans that specified services for this population recognized the addition of heterosexism and homophobia in their experience of victimization and service utilization; however, these were very few in number.

Boys as victims were explicitly mentioned in far fewer plans than their adult male counterparts (N = 29 vs N = 70). When boys were identified as potential victims, it most often occurred through presenting statistics in the context of exposure to family violence. A small number of plans (N = 6) acknowledged boys as victims of sexual violence.

Men/boys as perpetrators

Men were described as perpetrators almost as frequently as victims in government plans (N = 67). Much like in the case of victims, men as perpetrators were also largely discussed through presentation of statistics or brief mention. Within this context of perpetration, the theme of accountability through criminal justice processes was frequent.

Some plans provided more context regarding factors that contribute to men’s use of violence, though these were few in number. Examples of factors that governments identified as contributing to male VAW included gender inequality, power and control, rigid gender roles, toxic masculinities, drugs and alcohol, as well as cultural traditions such as forced marriage and female genital mutilation.

Plans that included content on men as perpetrators of VAW also examined related services. In line with the reference to accountability noted above, the most common services identified for male perpetrators were within the criminal justice system. Specific comments included the need for specialized courts, monitoring risk and an overall stronger criminal justice response to domestic violence perpetration.

Plans also indicated the need for intervention programmes for men who commit VAW. This was the most frequently direct service named for men most often in the form of batterer intervention groups. Specific sub-populations were also indicated for these programmes, such as Indigenous or immigrant men. Overall, only a few plans acknowledged that male perpetrators need to be supported through services outside of the criminal justice system.

Men/boys engaged in primary prevention

Content describing strategies to engage men and boys in violence prevention received less attention (N = 50). When plans did identify this as a meaningful component, common phrases to impart the importance of such work were used, such as ‘engage non-violent men’, ‘working with men is critical’, ‘men are a compelling target’ and ‘burden of prevention has long been carried by women’. Beyond these types of statements, very few plans included further theoretical discussion on why men and boys should be engaged and mobilized as allies and violence disrupters.

Strategies in which men and boys are engaged in primary prevention

A variety of strategies were identified to engage and mobilize men and boys as primary prevention advocates. Many plans invested in education campaigns that targeted men and boys. Investment in male leaders to promote healthy gender norms and champion change within their communities of influence was also a common strategy identified. Others made commitments to supporting educational opportunities that increase men’s awareness of the prevalence of VAW, while other plans focused on targeting male youth in schools to develop skills to challenge violent attitudes, build healthy relationships and change behaviours. Bystander programmes were a common approach. Some plans also identified certain populations of men, such as Indigenous or immigrant men and boys. In these cases, campaigns and support for male leadership in these communities were common, as was support for local solutions generated by the community.

There were over 55 unique primary prevention programmes and initiatives named in these plans, including school-based programmes, campaigns and coalitions. The goal of these approaches largely focused on changing individual attitudes as well as individual norms and behaviours that condone and perpetuate violence. Very few targeted the promotion of gender equality in their strategies or took a structural or population-based approach.

Discussion

Findings suggest that engaging men and boys as allies, leaders, advocates and violence disrupters is still in its infancy and mostly focused on individual behaviour change. Despite a wealth of scholarship examining rationale and opportunities for men’s engagement, over half of the government-endorsed plans did not include men and boys as primary prevention advocates in their content. What is more, when discussion did occur on the subject, key theoretical perspectives were often missing, such as those related to feminism, masculinities, social construction of gender norms, gender-transformative approaches, the relationship between gender inequality and VAW, and the impact of patriarchy, power and privilege. Plans from Australia, Scotland and a few from Canada and the United States tended to include theoretical discussion or mention of concepts, such as ‘hypermasculinity’ and its link to male violence, but outside these examples, this was not consistent across countries and was not presented in-depth.

While there is evidence in some plans of an evolving discourse that broadens men’s roles beyond perpetrators to also being possible allies and advocates, by and large, the dominant discourse in VAW government-endorsed plans continues to be grounded in the gender dyad which reinforces patriarchy and a singular narrative that ‘men are perpetrators and women are victims’. Even though men were identified as possible victims in many of the plans, this typically occurred through brief statements, such as ‘anyone can be a victim’, or through listing possible victims: ‘men, women, boys and girls’. Beyond these few statements, plans typically reverted to discussions that assumed a male perpetrator and a female victim, followed by emphasis on associated services such as women’s shelters and crisis lines for women and children, and batterer intervention groups, risk monitoring and criminal justice involvement for men. This finding is further supported by the dearth of content in 64 plans on engaging men and boys as allies. When plans did include men’s and boys’ engagement from a prevention perspective, strategies commonly focused on reducing the likelihood that boys will become violent and holding abusive men accountable, so that they do not reoffend. In this way, men and boys were most often framed as objects of prevention, not agents of prevention.

Wells et al. (2015b) argue that this gender dyad is prevalent in most VAW discourse and strongly influences intervention philosophy along with the ‘design of government policies, programs and community activities’ (p. 331). These authors further argue that this stance reinforces patriarchy and limits the possibilities for engaging non-violent men and boys in a comprehensive, impactful way. While men and boys can be violent and abusive, as widely supported in the academic and grey literature, they can also be activists and allies, leaders, partners, change agents, bystanders, violence disrupters (Crooks et al., 2007; Wells et al., 2013), stakeholders and co-beneficiaries (MenEngage Alliance, 2016) in ending VAW. There is an opportunity to re-conceptualize men’s roles within these plans that leverages them as primary prevention advocates and norm changers rather than as possible or future perpetrators.

In addition to the limiting framing of men’s roles in violence prevention plans, we identified approximately 55 unique programmes and initiatives that engage men and boys in primary prevention. This is consistent with the literature that indicates a plethora of programmes around the world are mostly focused on individual-level change (Ellsberg et al., 2015; Flood, 2019; Jewkes et al., 2015; Peacock and Barker, 2014). While this may appear positive in that men and boys are being engaged in various capacities, research indicates that in practice these programmes are episodic, disconnected from other initiatives and not comprehensive in the material they cover, and lack evidence of their effectiveness (Dworkin et al., 2013; Flood, 2010; Flood, 2019; Jewkes et al., 2015; Minerson et al., 2011; Ricardo et al., 2011; Wells et al., 2013). Moreover, these stand-alone programmes will not effect change at scale as they typically target the individual level. For true social change to occur, feminist social work practice must target social and cultural environments that reinforce behaviours, attitudes and beliefs (Bronfenbrenner, 1997; Cohen and Swift, 1999; Dominelli, 2002; Jewkes et al., 2015; Mullaly, 2006). In other words, if governments truly want to reduce and prevent male VAW, we need policies and programmes that are embedded within broader social change strategies that target gender and social norms, power and privilege, hegemonic masculinities and gender inequality at the individual, family, and institutional and societal levels (Jewkes et al., 2015; Wells et al., 2015a). This means that social workers will need to be incorporating a gender-transformative approach into their micro, mezzo and macro practices.

Within the 114 plans reviewed, not one government has designed a comprehensive engagement and mobilization strategy that would achieve widespread social change by engaging men and boys across the prevention continuum (as victims – to heal; perpetrators – to stop violence and allies – to advance broader social change). This gap has profound implications to reducing male VAW and engaging men and boys as agents of change. What is more, men who identify as LGBTQ + are largely excluded, adding a heteronormative layer to these mainstream government plans. Furthermore, there is little connection being made in these plans on how boys and men are socialized into violence through homophobic bullying (Brush and Miller, 2019). Men and boys require support and services along the prevention continuum, including whether they perpetrate violence, are victims of violence, or want to prevent violence. Ultimately, as social workers, we need to help male victims heal, perpetrators to stop the violence, and support non-violent men to become leaders, allies and violence disrupters by influencing the norms, behaviours and attitudes within their spheres of influence.

There are several method limitations within the study worth noting. First, not all government work that is focused on VAW prevention is reflected in these plans. Other work may be occurring that is not formalized into VAW prevention plans (e.g. gender-equality strategies or specific sexual violence prevention plans). Furthermore, plans that were not publicly available or locatable through the use of search terms on the Internet or in English were not included in this analysis. Nonetheless, the collection of 114 documents from 14 countries provides a sufficient sample with which the research questions can be explored.

Another limitation to the study was the search terms used as they did not include the words ‘children’ and ‘youth’ due to their gender-neutral meaning. This was purposeful to our methodology as we sought to determine the level of policy targeted specifically at men and boys. This is a potential limitation in that some reference to working with men and boys may have been embedded within work involving children and youth.

Conclusion

Feminist social work theory

argues that patriarchy is a root cause of violence against women because it legitimizes the oppression of women, normalizes gender-based power differentials, and perpetuates sexist norms within families, communities and societies. [. . .] Patriarchy makes things like wage disparity, toxic masculinities and VAW seem like a normal and natural part of life. They are not. They are the products of patriarchal norms and systems. We created them – which means we can change them. (Wells, 2019: 3)

Governments can commit to designing VAW prevention plans that are comprehensive, meaning that they identify strategies across the prevention continuum and use a gender-transformative approach within a structural social work framework for social change. This means governments will need to better articulate and address the drivers of male VAW at all levels. Within this approach, social workers need to get better at engaging and mobilize non-violent men and boys specifically as primary prevention advocates. Our profession must go beyond programming focused on the individual. For true social change to occur, social workers need to target men and boys where they naturally congregate and the conditions within those settings that reinforce and support violence, gender inequality and homophobia. This means focussing on gender and social norms, culture and systems that perpetuate discrimination, oppression and patriarchy. “We will never end male violence if we seek only to change one man at a time rather than adopting a whole-of-population approach, including targeting social structures, norms” and culture (Our Watch, 2019: 10).

There is much opportunity in the Global North and our profession to broaden our approach to end male VAW. Perez (2019) argues that everything, from government policy and medical research to urban planning and technology, are all designed in ways that benefit men more than women. Yet when it comes to VAW or advancing gender equality, men have been left out – literally. Not only are men often excluded from the work, but they are also left out of VAW frameworks, policies, programmes, measures and indicators related to gender equality and violence prevention. Engaging men and boys as advocates, allies and change makers and targeting the settings in which they learn, play, worship and socialize are underutilized strategies that hold promise in preventing, and ultimately ending, violence against women.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix 1.

List of national and regional DV plans included in the study.

Australia

Australia (2011a). National implementation plan for the first action plan: Building a strong foundation 2010–2013

Australia (2011b). National plan to reduce violence against women and their children 2010–2022

Australia (2014). 2014–2015 Annual progress report

Australia (2014). Second action plan 2013–2016: Moving ahead

Australia (2016). Third action national plan 2016–2019

New South Wales (2014). It stops here: Standing together to end domestic and family violence in NSW. The NSW Government’s domestic and family violence framework for reform

New South Wales (2016). NSW domestic and family violence blueprint for reform 2016–2021: Safer lives for women, men and children

Northern Territory (2014). Domestic and family violence reduction strategy 2014–2017: Safety is everyone’s right

Northern Territory (2018). The Northern Territory’s domestic, family & sexual violence reduction framework 2018–2028

Queensland (2009). For our sons and daughters: Queensland government strategy to reduce domestic and family violence: Program of Action 2009–2010

Queensland (2015a). First action plan of the domestic and family violence prevention strategy 2015–2016

Queensland (2015b). Queensland Government response to the report of the special taskforce on domestic and family violence, not now, not ever: putting an end to domestic and family violence in Queensland.

Queensland (2015c). Not now, not ever. Domestic and family violence prevention strategy 2016–2026

Queensland (2015d). Not now, not ever. Putting an end to domestic and family violence in Queensland (Premier’s Taskforce report with 140 recommendations)

Queensland (2016). Not now, not ever. Queensland says: not now, not ever. Second action plan of the domestic and family violence prevention strategy 2016–2017 to 2018–2019

South Australia (2011). The next phase of South Australia’s women’s safety strategy 2011–2022: A right to safety

South Australia (2015). Social development committee – inquiry into domestic and family violence: Submission from the South Australian Government

Tasmania (2013). Taking action: Tasmania’s primary prevention strategy to reduce violence against women and children 2012–2022

Tasmania (2015a). Safe homes, safe families: Tasmania’s family violence action plan 2015–2020: Implementation plan: August 2015–December 2016

Tasmania (2015b). Safe homes, safe families: Tasmania’s family violence action plan 2015–2020

Tasmania (2015c). Responding and Reporting: Achievements in the Delivery of Safe Homes, Safe Families and Future Directions

Victoria (2012). Victoria’s action plan to address violence against women and children 2012–2015

Victoria (2014). Ending violence against women and children: Further initiative for Victoria’s action plan to address violence against women and children: Everyone has a responsibility to act 2012–2015

Victoria (2016). Ending family violence: Victoria’s plan for change

Victoria (2017). Free from Violence: Victoria’s strategy to prevent family violence and all forms of violence against women

Victoria (2018). Free from Violence: Victoria’s strategy to prevent family violence and all forms of violence against women First action plan 2018–2021

Western Australia (2009). Western Australia’s strategic plan for family and domestic violence 2009–2013

Western Australia (2012). Western Australia’s family and domestic violence prevention strategy to 2022: Creating safer communities

Western Australia (2015). Freedom from Fear: Working towards the elimination of family and domestic violence in Western Australia

Canada

Alberta (2004). Alberta roundtable on family violence and bullying: Finding solutions together

Alberta (2008). Taking action on family violence and bullying: Report to Albertans 2008

Alberta (2013). Family violence hurts everyone: A framework to end family violence in Alberta

British Columbia (2012). Taking action on domestic violence in British Columbia

British Columbia (2014b). British Columbia’s provincial domestic violence plan

British Columbia (2014c). Provincial domestic violence plan part 2: Action to improve domestic violence response in year one

British Columbia (2015). A vision for a violence free British Colombia. Addressing violence against women in British Columbia

Manitoba (2012). Manitoba’s multi-year domestic violence prevention strategy

New Brunswick (2001). A better world for women: Government’s response to the Minister’s working group on violence against women

New Brunswick (2005). A better world for women: Moving forward

Newfoundland and Labrador (2006). Taking action against violence 2006–2012

Newfoundland and Labrador (2015). Working together for violence-free communities: An action plan for the prevention of violence in Newfoundland and Labrador 2015–2019

North West Territories (2009). North West Territories family violence action plan: Phase II (2007–2012)

Nova Scotia (2010). Governor’s task force on the prevention of domestic and sexual violence: Recommendations

Nunavut (n.d.). Family violence prevention: Framework for action

Ontario (2005). Domestic violence action plan for Ontario

Ontario (2007). Domestic violence action plan update January 2007

Prince Edward Island (2015). Strategies for addressing family violence in Prince Edward Island

Quebec (2004). Government action plan on domestic violence 2004–2009

Quebec (2012). Government action plan on domestic violence 2012–2017

Saskatchewan (2002). Action plan for Saskatchewan women: Moving forward

Yukon Territory (2009). Victims of crime strategy: Moving forward together

Denmark

Denmark (2002). The Danish government’s action plan to stop violence against women

Denmark (2005). Action plan to stop men’s domestic violence against women and children 2005–2008

Denmark (2014). Measures to combat violence in the family and in intimate relations: National action plan

Finland

Finland (2004). Prevention of intimate partner and domestic violence 2004–2007

Finland (2011). Action plan to reduce violence against women

Iceland

Iceland (2006). Plan of action to deal with domestic and sexual violence

Iceland (2012). Male violence against women in intimate relationships in Iceland – Report of the Minister of Welfare

New Zealand

New Zealand (2002). Te Rito New Zealand family violence prevention strategy

New Zealand (2006). Taskforce for action on violence within families: The first report

New Zealand (2007). Taskforce for action on violence within families: The ongoing programme for action (2007–2008)

New Zealand (2010). Taskforce programme for action: 2010–2011

New Zealand (2012). Taskforce for action on violence within families – Programme of Action 2012/2013

Norway

Norway (2004). Action plan: Domestic violence 2004–2007

Norway (2007). Action plan against domestic violence 2008–2011

Norway (2012). Action plan against domestic violence 2012

Sweden

Sweden (2007). Action plan for combating men’s violence against women, violence and oppression in the name of honour and violence in same-sex relationships

Sweden (2016). National strategy to prevent and combat men’s violence against women

United Kingdom

Ireland (2010). National strategy on domestic, sexual and gender-based violence 2010–2014

Ireland (2016). Second national strategy on domestic, sexual and gender-based violence 2016–2021

Ireland (2017). Action plan: Second national strategy on domestic, sexual and gender-based violence 2016–2021 (third version)

Northern Ireland (2005). Tackling violence at home: A strategy for addressing domestic violence and abuse in Northern Ireland

Northern Ireland (2010). Tackling violence at home: Action plan October 2010 to March 2012

Northern Ireland (2012). Tackling domestic and sexual violence and abuse: Action plan: April 2012 to September 2013

Northern Ireland (2016). Stopping domestic and sexual violence and abuse in Northern Ireland: A seven-year strategy

Scotland (2001). Preventing violence against women: Action across the Scottish executive

Scotland (2003). Preventing domestic abuse: A national strategy

Scotland (2009a). Safer lives: Changed lives. A shared approach to tackling violence against women in Scotland

Scotland (2009b). A partnership approach to tackling violence against women in Scotland

United Kingdom (2009). Together we can end violence against women and girls: A strategy

United Kingdom (2011). Call to end violence against women and girls: Action plan

United Kingdom (2012). Call to end violence against women and girls: Taking Action – the next chapter

United Kingdom (2013). A call to end violence against women and girls: Action plan 2013

United Kingdom (2014). A call to end violence against women and girls: Action plan 2014

United Kingdom (2016). Ending violence against women and girls: Strategy 2016–2020

Wales (2005). Tackling domestic abuse: The all wales national strategy – A joint-agency approach

Wales (2008). Domestic abuse

Wales (2010a). The right to be safe

Wales (2010b). The violence against women and domestic abuse implementation plan 2010–2013

Wales (2016). National strategy on violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence 2016–2021

United States

Alabama (2002). Violence against women: The plan for the state of Alabama

Alabama (n.d). Intimate partner violence: injury prevention plan of Alabama

Alaska (2009). Council on domestic violence and sexual assault: 2009–2019 Strategic plan

Arizona (2004). The state plan on domestic and sexual violence

Delaware (2017). Domestic Violence Coordinating Council fiscal year 2017 annual report

Florida (2009). Building Florida’s capacity to prevent intimate partner violence: Eight-year strategic plan

Hawaii (2012). Violence and abuse prevention 2012–2017

Indiana (2011). Action plan: Domestic and sexual violence 2011

Kentucky (2006). State-wide strategic plan for the prevention of sexual assault, domestic violence and child abuse

Maryland (2010). Addressing domestic violence: Maryland’s plan 2010–2011

Minnesota (2003). Domestic and sexual violence in Minnesota: Strategies for prevention and intervention

Nebraska (2012). Nebraska’s state plan addressing domestic violence and sexual assault 2012–2013

New Hampshire (2006). New Hampshire violence against women state plan: A framework for action

New York (2006). New York state’s response to domestic violence: systems and services making a difference

North Dakota (2009). North Dakota intimate partner and sexual violence prevention plan

North Dakota (2012). Prevention starts here: North Dakota’s plan for a future free of intimate partner and sexual violence

Ohio (2009). Pathways in prevention: A roadmap for change: Ohio’s plan for sexual and intimate partner violence prevention

Oregon (2005). Oregon violence against women prevention plan

Texas (2004). Texas violence against women prevention: A strategic plan to prevent violence against women

Texas (2013). The 2013 update to the Texas state plan: Access to safety, justice and opportunity: A Blueprint from domestic violence interventions in Texas

Vermont (2013). Governor’s task force on the prevention of domestic and sexual violence: Recommendations

Virginia (n.d). Summary: Virginia’s plan for primary prevention of intimate partner violence

Wisconsin (2006). Forward to a domestic violence free Wisconsin

Wisconsin (2014). Vision. Hope. Safety. 2014–2020 Long range plan for a safe Wisconsin

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Lana Wells

Notes

Author biographies

Lana Wells is the Brenda Strafford Chair in the Prevention of Domestic Violence, Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary, Canada and leads Shift: The Project to End Domestic Violence ().

Sarah Fotheringham is a research and evaluation consultant in the social services sector and teaches at the University of Calgary, Faculty of Social Work.

References

American Psychological Association, Boys and Men Guidelines Group (2018) ‘APA Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men’. Available online at: http://www.apa.org/about/policy/psychological-practice-boys-men-guidelines.pdf

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2018) ‘Family, Domestic and Sexual Violence in Australia 2018’. Available online at: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/domestic-violence/family-domestic-sexual-violence-in-australia-2018/contents/table-of-contents

Barker

Greene

M.E.

Goldstein-Siegel

Nascimento

Segundo

Ricardo

Figueroa

J.G.

Franzoni

Redpath

Morrell

Jewkes

Peacock

Aguayo

Sadler

Das

Singh

S.K.

Pawar

Pawlak

(2016) ‘What Men Have to Do with It: Public Policy to Promote Gender Equality’.Available online at: https://www.icrw.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/What-Men-Have-to-Do-With-It.pdf

Black

M.C.

Basile

K.C.

Breiding

M.J.

Smith

S.G.

Walters

M.L.

Merrick

M.T.

Chen

Stevens

M.R.

(2011) ‘The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report’. Available online at: https://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf

Bowen

G.A.

(2009) ‘Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method’, Qualitative Research Journal 9(2): 27–40.

Brofenbrenner

(1977). ‘Toward an experimental ecology of human development’. American Psychologist 32: 513–531.

Bronfenbrenner

(1999) ‘Environments in Developmental Perspective: Theoretical and Operational Models’, in Friedman

S.L.

Wachs

T.D.

(eds) Measuring Environment across the Life Span: Emerging Methods and Concepts, pp. 3–28. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Brush

L.D.

Miller

(2019) ‘Trouble in Paradigm: “Gender Transformative” Programming in Violence Prevention’, Violence Against Women 25(14): 1635–56.

Casey

Carlson

Two Bulls

Yager

(2018) ‘Gender Transformative Approaches to Engaging Men in Gender-Based Violence Prevention: A Review and Conceptual Model’, Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 19(2): 231–46.

10.

Cohen

Swift

(1999) ‘The Spectrum of Prevention: Developing a Comprehensive Approach to Injury Prevention’, Journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention 5(3): 203–7.

11.

Coleman

Unrau

(1996) ‘Analyzing Your Data’, in Tutty

Rothery

Grinnell

(eds) Qualitative Research for Social Workers, pp. 88–119. Toronto: Allyn & Bacon.

12.

Connell

(2014) ‘The Study of Masculinities’, Qualitative Research Journal 14(1): 5–15.

13.

Creswell

J.W.

(2007) Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

14.

Crooks

Jaffe

Dunlop

Kerry

Houston

Exner-Cortens

Wells

(2019) Primary Prevention of Violence against Women and Girls: Current Knowledge and Program Effectiveness. London, ON, Canada: Western University, Centre for Research & Education on Violence against Women & Children.

15.

Crooks

C.V.

Goodall

G.R.

Hughes

Jaffe

P.G.

Baker

(2007) ‘Engaging Men and Boys in Preventing Violence against Women’, Violence Against Women 13(3): 217–39.

16.

DeGagne

(2011) ‘Queering the Language of ‘Sexual Minorities’ in Canada’, Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences Blog. Available online at: https://www.ideas-idees.ca/blog/queering-language-sexual-minorities-canada

17.

DeKeseredy

W.S.

Schwartz

M.D.

Alvi

(2000) ‘The Role of Profeminist Men in Dealing with Woman Abuse on the Canadian College Campus’, Violence Against Women 6(9): 918–35.

18.

Dominelli

(2002) Feminist Social Work Theory and Practice. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

19.

Dworkin

S.L.

Treves-Kagan

Lippman

S.A.

(2013) ‘Gender-Transformative Interventions to Reduce HIV Risks and Violence with Heterosexually-Active Men: A Review of the Global Evidence’, AIDS and Behavior 17(9): 2845–63.

20.

Edstrom

Hassink

Shahrokh

Stern

(eds) (2015) ‘Engendering Men: A Collaborative Review of Evidence on Men and Boys in Social Change and Gender Equality. EMERGE Evidence Review, Promundo-US, Sonke Gender Justice and the Institute of Development Studies’. Available online at: http://menengage.org/engendering-men-collaborative-review-evidence-men-boys-social-change-gender-equality/

21.

Ellsberg

Arango

D.J.

Morton

Gennari

Kiplesund

Contreras

Watts

(2015) ‘Prevention of Violence against Women and Girls: What Does the Evidence Say?’, The Lancet 385(9977): 1555–66.

22.

Flatley

(2017) ‘Domestic Abuse in England and Wales: Year Ending March 2017’, Office for National Statistics, UK. Available online at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/domesticabuseinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2017#main-points

23.

Fleming

Gruskin

Rojo

Dworkin

(2016) ‘Men’s Violence against Women and Men Are Inter-Related: Recommendations for Simultaneous Intervention’, Social Science & Medicine 146: 249–56.

24.

Flood

(2011) ‘Building Men’s Commitment to Ending Sexual Violence against Women’, Feminism & Psychology 21(2): 262–7.

25.

Flood

(2015a) ‘Men and Gender Equality’, in Flood

Howson

(eds) Engaging Men in Building Gender Equality, pp. 1–31. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

26.

Flood

(2015b) ‘Work with Men to End Violence against Women: A Critical Stocktake’, Culture, Health & Sexuality 17(2): 159–76.

27.

Flood

(2019) Engaging Men and Boys in Violence Prevention. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

28.

Flood

Barker

Greig

Peacock

Stern

(2010) Policy Approaches to Engaging Men and Boys in Achieving Gender Equality and Health Equity. Geneva: World Health Organization. Available online at: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/44402/9789241500128_eng.pdf;sequence=1

29.

Government of Alberta (2013) ‘Alberta’s Social Policy Framework’. Available online at: http://www.humanservices.alberta.ca/documents/family-violence-hurts-everyone.pdf

30.

Government of Scotland (2017) ‘Domestic Abuse in Scotland: 2016-2017 Statistics’. Available online at: https://beta.gov.scot/publications/domestic-abuse-recorded-police-scotland-2016-17/

31.

Groth

(2001) ‘Lessons from the Spiritual Lives of Men Who Works in the Movement to End Violence against Women and Children’, Journal of Religion & Abuse 2(1): 5–31.

32.

Harding

Jeyapal

(2018) Canadian Social Policy for Social Workers. New York: Oxford University Press.

33.

Heise

(1998) ‘Violence against Women: An Integrated, Ecological Framework’, Violence Against Women 4(3): 262–90.

34.

Heise

Kotsadam

(2015) ‘Cross-National and Multi-Level Correlates of Partner Violence: An Analysis of Data from Population-Based Surveys’, The Lancet Global Health 3(6): 332–40.

35.

Jewkes

Flood

Lang

(2015) ‘From Work with Men and Boys to Changes of Social Norms and Reductions of Inequities in Gender Relations: A Conceptual Shift in Prevention of Violence against Women and Girls’, The Lancet 385(997): 1580–9.

36.

Kaufman

(2001) ‘Building a Movement of Men Working to End Violence against Women’, Development 44(3): 9–14.

37.

Lieber

Weisner

T.S

(2016) Dedoose Version 7.0.23. Los Angeles, CA: Socio Cultural Research Consultants, LLC. Available online at: http://www.dedoose.com (accessed 16 January 2018).

38.

MenEngage Alliance (2014) ‘The MenEngage Alliance Accountability Standards and Guidelines’. Available online at: http://menengage.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/MenEngage_Accountability-Standards-and-Guidelines_FINAL.pdf

39.

MenEngage Alliance (2016) ‘Men, Masculinities, and Changing Power: A Discussion Paper on Engaging Men in Gender Equality from Beijing 1995 to 2015’. Available online at: https://www.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/resource-pdf/Men-Masculinities-and-Changing-Power-MenEngage-2014.pdf

40.

MenEngage Alliance (2017) ‘Accelerating Efforts to End Violence against Women: Engaging Men and Boys in Preventing and Responding to Violence against All Women and Girls’. Available online at: http://menengage.org/resources/menengage-alliance-policy-brief-accelerating-efforts-to-end-vaw-engaging-men-and-boys-in-preventing-and-responding-to-violence-against-all-women-and-girls/

41.

MenEngage Alliance (2018) ‘Accountability Training Toolkit’. Available online at: http://menengage.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/MenEngage_Accountability-Toolkit_English_WEB.pdf

42.

Minerson

Carolo

Dinner

Jones

(2011) ‘Engaging Men and Boys to Reduce and Prevent Gender-Based Violence’, Status of Women Canada. Available online at: https://www.whiteribbon.ca/uploads/1/1/3/2/113222347/wrc_swc_issuebrief.pdf

43.

Ministry of Justice (2013) ‘An Overview of Sexual Offending in England and Wales’. Available online at: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140711232238/https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/an-overview-of-sexual-offending-in-england-and-wales

44.

Mullaly

(2006) The New Structural Social Work: Ideology, Theory and Practice, 3d edn. Don Mills: Oxford University Press.

45.

Murnen

S.K.

Wright

Kaluzny

(2002) ‘If “Boys Will Be Boys”, Then Girls Will Be Victims? A Meta-Analytic Review of the Research That Relates Masculine Ideology to Sexual Aggression’, Sex Roles 46(11–2): 359–75.

46.

New Zealand Family Violence Clearing House (2017) ‘Data Summaries 2017: Snapshot’. Available online at: https://nzfvc.org.nz/sites/nzfvc.org.nz/files/Data-summaries-snapshot-2017.pdf

47.

Okun

(2014) Voice Male: The Untold Story of the Pro-Feminist Men’s Movement. Northampton, MA: Interlink Books.

48.

Our Watch (2019) Men in Focus: Unpacking Masculinities and Engaging Men in the Prevention of Violence against Women. Melbourne: Our Watch.

49.

Patton

M.Q.

(2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

50.

Peacock

Barker

(2014) ‘Working with Men and Boys to Prevent Gender-Based Violence Principles, Lessons Learned, and Ways Forward’, Men and Masculinities 17(5): 578–99.

51.

Pease

(2008) ‘Engaging Men in Men’s Violence Prevention: Exploring the Tensions, Dilemmas and Possibilities’, Australian Domestic & Family Violence Clearinghouse 17: 1–20.

52.

Pease

(2017) Men as Allies in Preventing Men’s Violence against Women: Principles and Practices for Promoting Accountability. Sydney: White Ribbon Australia.

53.

Perez

(2019) Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc.

54.

Police Services of Northern Ireland (2018) ‘Trends in Domestic Abuse Incidents and Crimes Recorded by the Policy in Northern Ireland 2004/05 to 2016/17’. Available online at: https://www.psni.police.uk/globalassets/inside-the-psni/our-statistics/domestic-abuse-statistics/domestic-abuse-incidents-and-crimes-in-northern-ireland-2004-05-to-2016-17.pdf

55.

Ricardo

Eads

Barker

(2011) Engaging Boys and Men in the Prevention of Sexual Violence: A Systematic and Global Review of Evaluated Interventions. Pretoria: Sexual Violence Research Initiative (SVRI) and Promundo.

56.

Schumacher

J.A.

Feldbau-Kohn

Slep

A.M.S.

Heyman

R.E.

(2001) ‘Risk Factors for Male-to-Female Partner Physical Abuse’, Aggression and Violent Behavior 6(2–3): 281–352.

57.

Stark

(2006) ‘Status Aspirations, Wealth Inequality, and Economic Growth’, Review of Development Economics 10(1): 171–6.

58.

Statistics Canada (2017) ‘Self-Reported Sexual Assault in Canada by Shana Conroy and Adam Cotter’.Available online at: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2017001/article/14842-eng.htm

59.

Storer

Casey

Carlson

Edleson

Tolman

(2016) ‘Primary Prevention Is? A Global Perspective on How Organizations Engaging Men in Preventing Gender-Based Violence Conceptualize and Operationalize Their Work’, Violence Against Women 22(2): 249–68.

60.

UN Women (2012) ‘Handbook Legislation on Violence against Women’. Available online at: https://www.unwomen.org/-/media/headquarters/attachments/sections/library/publications/2012/12/unw_legislation-handbook%20pdf.pdf?la=en&vs=1502

61.

UN Women (2017) ‘Facts and Figure: Ending Violence against Women’. Available online at: http://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/ending-violence-against-women/facts-and-figures

62.

United Nations (1993) ‘The Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women’. Available online at: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/ViolenceAgainstWomen.aspx

63.

United Nations (2017) ‘Global Issues: Gender Equality’. Available online at: https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/gender-equality/

64.

Walby

(1990) Theorizing Patriarchy. Oxford: Blackwell.

65.

Weldon

S.L.

(2002) Protest, Policy, and the Problem of Violence against Women: A Cross-National Comparison. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

66.

Wells

(2019) ‘Poking the Bear: Lessons on Engaging and Mobilizing Men in Violence Prevention’, in Canadian Domestic Violence Conference # 6, Halifax, Canada, 5 March, p. 3. Available online at: https://preventdomesticviolence.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/P1_Shift_2020_Keynote_LanaWells_Canadaian_Domestic_Violence_Conference2020.pdf

67.

Wells

Dozois

Exner-Cortens

Cooper

Esina

Froese

Boutillier

(2015a) Men and Boys Violence Prevention Project: Informing a Government of Alberta Action Plan to Engage Men and Boys to Stop Violence against Women. Calgary: The University of Calgary, Shift: The Project to End Domestic Violence.

68.

Wells

Goulet

Sandham

(2012) Surveying the Landscape: Domestic Violence Plans from around the World. Calgary: The University of Calgary, Shift: The Project to End Domestic Violence.

69.

Wells

Lorenzetti

Carolo

Dinner

Jones

Minerson

Esina

(2013) ‘Engaging Men and Boys in Domestic Violence Prevention: Opportunities and Promising Approaches’. Available online at: https://preventdomesticviolence.ca/engaging-men-and-boys-in-domestic-violence-prevention-opportunities-and-promising-approaches/

70.

Wells

Turner

Cooper

(2015b) ‘Overcoming the Gender Dyad: Engaging Men and Boys in Domestic Violence Prevention’, in Taylor

M.F.

Pooley

J.A.

Taylor

R.S.

(eds) Overcoming Domestic Violence: Creating a Resilience Dialogue around Vulnerable Populations, pp. 331–47. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.

71.

Wicks

A.C.

Freeman

R.E.

(1998) ‘Organization Studies and the New Pragmatism: Positivism, Anti-Positivism, and the Search for Ethics’, Organization Science 9(2): 123–40.

72.

World Health Organization (2007) Engaging Men and Boys in Changing Gender-Based Inequity in Health: Evidence from Programme Interventions. Geneva: World Health Organization.

73.

World Health Organization (2012) ‘Understanding and Addressing Violence against Women’. Available online at: http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/violence/vaw_series/en/

74.

World Health Organization (2017) ‘Violence against Women: Key Facts’. Available online at: http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-women

75.

Yin

R.K.

(2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.