Men’s Reflections on Their Experiences of Gender-Based Violence

Abstract

Using Multicultural and Gender Case Conceptualization (MGCC) epistemology, the aim of this phenomenological study was to explore adult male victims’ perceptions of gender and reflections on their experiences of gender-based violence (GBV). Data were analyzed using interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA). Results indicated that, regardless of sexual orientation, participants experienced verbal and physical abuse due to their feminine gender expression, beginning in primary school and continuing through university and into the workplace. To reduce victimization, the men developed a range of strategies, such as policing their gender and avoiding social situations. The experiences of violence affected the participants’ social relationships, choice of occupation, self-esteem, and ability to trust. However, after entering university, heterosexual, gay, and bisexual participants interpreted their experiences differently, whereby heterosexual participants linked the abuse to gender, and gay and bisexual participants viewed it as homophobia. As well, gay and bisexual participants found respite in the gay and bisexual communities, while heterosexual participants remained silent, isolated, and afraid to discuss their experiences. Implications for future research are discussed.

Keywords

masculinity gender sexuality men violence

Gender is defined as an action or expression, rather than a characteristic, and includes attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that may or may not be consistent with socially prescribed gender roles for that individual’s biological sex (DiPalma & Ferguson, 2006). Biological sex is defined as a person’s biological status and is typically categorized as male, female, or intersex. As such, for males, the socially prescribed gender is masculinity. However, this prescription is not without consequences.

Scholars agree that there are four components to traditional masculinity: “a) anti-femininity, b) status and achievement, c) inexpressiveness and independence, and d) adventurousness and aggressiveness” (Kilmartin, 2010, p. 7). Antifemininity is the rejection of anything feminine or linked to being female. Status and achievement carries the expectation that males will be successful in athletics, careers, and heterosexual exploits. Inexpressiveness and independence is the view that emotional expression (other than anger) is a sign of vulnerability and weakness. Finally, adventurousness and aggressiveness is the expectation that males will take physical risks and become violent if necessary to prove their manhood (Kilmartin, 2010). From a very young age, boys are raised with these constructions of masculinity and are quickly admonished if they fail to achieve the expectations in any one of the four areas (Kimmel, 2016). In addition, some scholars have described the idea of “chivalry” as another aspect of traditional masculinity. This notion posits that men are socialized to view themselves as “protectors” of women, thereby reinforcing the assumption of femininity as weak or vulnerable (Cohen, 2005).

This construction of masculinity results in women being viewed as objects of disdain and sexual conquest, and perpetuates homophobia. Furthermore, boys and men who fail to meet the expectations of masculinity are quickly accused of either acting like a girl or being gay (Kilmartin, 2010). Thus, male displays of femininity, vulnerability, and emotional expression are considered signs of weakness for which the consequence may be verbal abuse, homophobic bullying, or physical violence.

Homophobic Bullying

Homophobic bullying is defined as those forms of physical, relational, or social aggressions perpetrated against an individual based on their actual or perceived sexual orientation, or because their behavior is not typically associated with what is expected of someone with their biological sex (Rivers, Duncan, & Besag, 2007). It is important to note that heterosexual individuals who are perceived to have deviated from social expectations about gender expression are often victims of homophobic bullying. For example, Dominic McCann, Plummer, and Minichiello (2010) explored the influence of homophobic humor on male identity development and found that men who were perceived to deviate from traditional notions of masculinity were often the targets of homophobic harassment and violence, irrespective of their sexual orientation. As well, adult heterosexual male undergraduate students were more likely to report being uncomfortable around men whom they perceived to be feminine. As a result, they were more likely to engage in antigay behaviors toward these men, regardless of their actual sexual orientation (Woodford, Howell, Kulick, & Silverschanz, 2013).

However, for the most part, research examining homophobic bullying attends to sexual minority youth, with most of the research focused on school settings. For example, a meta-analysis of 33 studies indicated that the rate of school victimization for gay and bisexual-identified individuals was 33% (Katz-Wise & Hyde, 2012). In addition, results of 26 school-based studies determined that sexual minority adolescents were, on average, 1.7 times more likely than heterosexual peers to report bullying (Friedman et al., 2011). As well, among the respondents in the 2015 National School Climate Survey, sexual orientation and gender expression were named as the most common reasons for being bullied (Kosciw, Greytak, Giga, Villenas, & Danischewski, 2016).

Reported incidents of homophobic bullying vary greatly in severity and can include verbal harassment, property damage, social exclusion, and physical violence (Swearer, Turner, Givens, & Pollack, 2008; Williams, Connolly, Pepler, & Craig, 2005). In addition to the immediate physical consequences, there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that homophobic bullying results in detriments to victims’ mental health, school performance, and an increase in substance use and suicidal ideation (Almeida, Johnson, Corliss, Molnar, & Azrael, 2009; Williams et al., 2005). As well, sexual minority youth who experience bullying are more likely to skip school, to report negative perceptions of the school climate, and to feel alienated in their school (Birkett, Espelage, & Koenig, 2009; Rivers, 2000, 2004).

Overall, these studies provide valuable information on the prevalence and severe consequences of homophobic bullying to adolescent youth; however, they conflate incidents of bullying based on sexual orientation with those based on gender expression. That is, they focus predominantly on sexual minority youth with little attention given to heterosexual youth and adults. Consequently, less is known about acts of violence that are perpetrated against victims based on their gender expression. The few studies that have specifically explored gender-based bullying are reviewed below.

Gender based bullying

The social pressure to conform to gender stereotypes typically begins in early childhood; by preschool, children understand gender categories and begin to experience the social pressure to conform to the category and assume the characteristics associated with their biological sex (Grossman & D’Augelli, 2006; Yunger, Carver, & Perry, 2004). Studies have shown that individuals who are gender nonconforming are more likely to be the victims of bullying, facing severe consequences to their physical and psychological well-being (D’Augelli, Grossman, & Starks, 2006; Friedman, Koeske, Silvestre, Korr, & Sites, 2006; Greene, Britton, & Fitts, 2014; Singh, Meng, & Hansen, 2014). As well, research that investigated retrospective accounts of gender-based bullying during adolescence demonstrated that these experiences can have consequences lasting into adulthood, including psychosocial adjustment, depression (Friedman, Marshal, Stall, Cheong, & Wright, 2008; Toomey, Ryan, Diaz, Card, & Russell, 2010), posttraumatic stress disorder (D’Augelli et al., 2006), and social anxiety (Greene et al., 2014).

Limitations in the Literature

The research on homophobic bullying and gender-based bullying focuses predominantly on the experiences of adolescents and oftentimes conflates sexual orientation with gender expression. As a result, the accounts of men, regardless of sexual orientation, who experience violence due to their gender expression are absent. However, anecdotal accounts indicate that men are not immune to experiencing violence due to their gender expression. Thus, these limitations combined with the anecdotal data suggest that there is a need for research that specifically addresses adult males’ experiences of gender-based discrimination and violence that is inclusive of diversity regardless of sexual orientations. For the purposes of this study, the authors refer to this phenomenon as Gender-Based Violence (GBV). GBV is defined as someone who is victimized for not prescribing to the socially constructed gender expression that is expected of their biological sex (Sinacore & Chiang, 2013). This study explored adult male victims’ retrospective accounts of their experiences of GBV from childhood through young adulthood in different contexts.

Method

The researchers used the Multicultural and Gender Case Conceptualization (MGCC) model (Sinacore, 2011; Sinacore-Guinn, 1995) as an epistemological framework for this study. The MGCC model was developed based on the Diagnostic Window (Sinacore-Guinn, 1995), which proposed that cultural systems and structures, cultural values, gender, and trauma must be assessed to provide cultural competent care. In this model, gender is a verb and refers to the manner in which individuals perform masculinity and femininity. Furthermore, trauma is defined as including both traumatic events and negative life-transforming experiences (Sinacore-Guinn, 1995). Building on the Diagnostic Window, the MGCC model proposed that individuals are better understood through the exploration of their intersecting salient identities and that these identities need to be situated across contexts (Sinacore, 2011). Accordingly, Sinacore (2011) posited that contexts include cultural systems (e.g., religious institutions), cultural values, social systems (e.g., schools), social values, and family systems. Thus, MGCC allowed the researchers to explore participants’ experiences of trauma resulting from their intersecting identities and how these experiences varied across contexts. Specifically, MGCC provides a framework to understand the construction of identities through an intersectional approach and to consider gender as dynamic. In addition, MGCC acknowledges diversity and multiple realities, thus recognizing that men can understand and perform gender in various ways.

Hermeneutic phenomenology was used to facilitate a deeper understanding of the phenomenon in question and to ensure that the basic aspects of the experience are not taken for granted. As well, phenomenology allowed the researchers to explore beyond the details of the experience and reflect on the significant themes or ideas that comprise its meaning (van Manen, 1997). For the purposes of this study, the phenomenon of interest was male victims’ experiences of GBV. As such, retrospective accounts of men’s experiences of GBV were collected. The use of retrospective accounts corresponds well with an underlying assumption of hermeneutic phenomenology, which states that experience cannot be grasped directly but only interpreted (Hein & Austin, 2001). Specifically, hermeneutic phenomenology permits researchers to understand meaning or an interpretation of an individual’s lived experiences (Polkinghorne, 1983). Thus, a retrospective research design complements a hermeneutic phenomenological method, as it lends itself to the exploration of the subjective meanings and interpretations that these men have made out of their lived experiences.

Procedure

Prior to recruitment, this research study was subject to review by the Review Ethics Board of the authors’ university. Upon ethical approval, purposive selection was used to ensure that the sample represented the phenomenon under investigation (Polkinghorne, 2005; Wertz, 2005). Thus, to be eligible for the study, participants needed to be adult men who experienced harassment, bullying, or violence due to their gender expression or not being masculine enough. Participants were recruited using several methods, including advertisements that were posted in universities, distributed through community institutions, and listed in online forums (e.g., Craigslist). In addition, participants were recruited through word of mouth. Once the participant’s eligibility was verified, each participant met with the interviewing researcher to discuss the objectives and procedure of the research project. After obtaining informed consent, each participant completed a demographic information sheet, as well as a 60- to 90-min semistructured qualitative interview. The interview began with a discussion about the definitions of gender, sex, and sexual orientation to ensure that the participant understood how these terms were being used in this study. In addition to the definitional discussion, the interview protocol covered topics such as the following: (a) experiences of GBV, (b) gender expression, (c) masculinity, and (d) the relationship between violence and masculinity. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Compensation for each participant was a 15-dollar gift card to a local grocery store.

Recruitment resulted in 10 men, whose ages ranged from 18 to 32 years. Four identified as heterosexual, two identified as bisexual, and four identified as gay, with two of the participants using the terms gay and queer interchangeably. Given that all four identified as gay, the authors will be using the term gay when discussing these participants. As for gender expression, all the participants identified as being feminine, though at times they worked to modify this expression to be perceived as masculine. Regarding race, seven identified as Caucasian and three as Asian/Pacific Islander. With respect to level of education, two earned a master’s degree, two earned a bachelor’s degree, and six completed secondary school. As well, five were full-time students working toward a bachelor’s degree and the rest were working either full-time or part-time in their chosen occupation. Of the part-time workers, one was in the process of pursuing a master’s degree and the other a doctorate.

Data Analysis

Data collected in this research study were analyzed using interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA; Smith, Flowers, & Larkin, 2009). IPA is consistent with hermeneutic phenomenological methodology, as it involves a thorough examination of participants’ experiences and focuses on participants’ perceptions of the phenomenon (Larkin & Thompson, 2012). Following verification of the accuracy of transcription, the researchers engaged in an “interpretive relationship with the transcript” (Smith & Osborn, 2015, p. 38) by reading each transcript a number of times to become familiarized with the account. Initial notes and comments were turned into concise themes or phrases, and then connections between themes were made into superordinate themes or reflections of the participant’s lived experiences. A narrative description was subsequently written that summarized participants’ experiences of GBV and sent to participants for verification. The researchers repeated this process for each transcript, and convergent and divergent superordinate themes across transcripts were examined (Smith & Osborn, 2015).

Rigor

To uphold rigor in this study, four processes were followed, which include sensitivity to context, credibility, dependability, and catalytic validity (Morrow, 2005; Shenton, 2004). The researchers demonstrated sensitivity to context throughout the research process by conducting a thorough review of extant research to guide the formulation of the research questions, attending to the limitations in the literature, and remaining sensitive to the sociocultural contexts of participants during data collection and analysis (Wilkinson, Joffe, & Yardley, 2004; Yardley, 2015). In addition, the aim of credibility is to document that the study was conducted in a way that ensured the accurate identification and description of the phenomenon (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Credibility was achieved in several ways, including the use of peer researchers for verification, researcher reflexivity, and member checking. Another method of ensuring trustworthiness is through dependability, where a clear and comprehensive explanation of the process in which findings are derived is articulated (Morrow, 2005). Dependability was accomplished by keeping an audit trail or a detailed account of the research activities (Morrow, 2005; Shenton, 2004). Finally, catalytic validity is defined as “the degree to which research moves those it studies to understand the world and the way it is shaped in order for them to transform it” (Kincheloe & McLaren, 2005, p. 324). For example, when asked, “What was this process like for you?” one participant stated, “I’ve never deeply reflected about it. Even if I ever did, I never talked about it vocally, so I think just getting it out of my system helps.”

Results

Participants reported that they were targeted due to their gender expression at a young age (e.g., before the age of 12) and that the abuse continued through adulthood, predominantly by male perpetrators. Although a few of the men noted that their experiences of violence were a series of isolated events, others stated that they were taunted or excluded on a daily basis. Specifically, participants reported that family members, school peers, neighborhood children, colleagues, and others would harass them verbally, physically, sexually, via online forums, or through social exclusion due to the perception of them as feminine, and because they did not participate in traditionally masculine activities or behaviors. As one gay participant stated, “And everybody does like a million sports, all the guys. ’Cuz it’s all genderized. So, there’s that kind of competitive aggression that creates an intolerance for behaviors that are not masculine or man-like.” Similarly, a straight participant described, “At that time, there was a stereotype that a man, a boy should act in a certain way, a certain masculine way, and if he didn’t act, he’s one of the girls.”

Overall, participants reported that as children and through adulthood, they expressed their gender through their appearance, mannerisms, interests, activities, and academic performance. As a result, participants were often deemed to be “feminine” and/or presumed to be gay (whether they were gay or not) resulting in them experiencing GBV from childhood through early adulthood across different contexts.

Primary and Secondary School Age

Primary school age

Participants reported that they first became aware of their gender expression as being different from what was expected of boys when they were primary school age. For example, as one bisexual participant described,

I guess in regards to gender, as a child, I was, I looked like a little porcelain doll . . . I had platinum blond ringlets like curly hair . . . and people often thought I was a girl. I hated it. I mean I hated it.

This awareness was heightened by their parents’ reactions to their gender expression. As one gay participant stated,

My mom and sister bought Spanish fans, I really wanted one so my mom bought me one . . . my dad became furious . . . dragged me to a store . . . bought me a model bull with spears and made me play with [it].

A straight participant stated, “In that age period, I never did physical sports, so I was rather . . . let’s say soft and I looked feminine . . . so, yeah, they would make fun of that.”

In addition to parents, other relatives also intensified their cognizance of their feminine gender expression. That is, one participant’s gender expression resulted in him being teased and ultimately sexually abused by his older cousin. He indicated that he never reported the abuse to his family for fear of not being believed or understood.

Strategies for dealing with the GBV in elementary school

Participants recounted that they attempted to resist or stand up for themselves when they were being harassed or teased by others. When these strategies did not work, they often became upset and ran away from their tormentors. To evade further conflict, they would often avoid their peers or isolate themselves in other parts of the school. Participants generally commented that they did not share their experiences of GBV with their parents or teachers, although a few participants noted that on occasion, their teachers came to their aid. For example, one straight participant expressed, “One teacher noticed. That was the only time. So that was the only time that I told or-, actually I had to tell because the teacher asked me why I was fighting that guy.”

Secondary school age

Participants described educational and social environments where not conforming to masculinity was linked to sexual orientation. As well, the notion of being gay and bisexual was demonized, and homophobic slurs were commonplace. Noteworthy is that none of the participants who identified as gay and bisexual were “out” in secondary school. Thus, no member of their community (e.g., peers, teachers, family) knew they were gay and bisexual. Nonetheless, heterosexual, bisexual, and gay participants reported being harassed for their feminine gender expression because they were presumed to be gay. As one gay participant commented, “People just say, ‘That’s so gay’ like 90% of the time, [that’s] what people say in the school. It’s still [like that] now.” A straight participant described an incident where his peers in the neighborhood attempted to sodomize him due to his femininity. As a result, he was afraid to go outside: “I tried to simply stay at home, I [didn’t] like to go out.” Another participant, who identified as gay, described, “I tried to hang out with all the guys, but then they would pick on me . . . I remember getting kicked around and pushed down to the ground . . . and I was hiding during recess.”

In addition to feminine mannerisms, participants were targeted for attributes and interests that are typically associated with being female. This targeting was due to their appearance, lack of romantic interest in girls, and friendships with their female peers. These experiences of GBV often occurred in the classroom, hallway, locker room, or school playground, promoting feelings of discomfort and fear in the school environment. For example, a straight participant recounted, “I suppose in 7th grade, I had shoulder length hair. I really liked the feeling of having longer hair and I was called a girl.”

Similarly, participants reported that when their interests were not in sports or differed from those of their male peers, such as art, reading, and academics, it often contributed to harassment. As one bisexual participant described, “I was interested in music and that was gender atypical. Also, getting good grades and doing well in school and being interested in books and learning in my culture was very gender atypical.” Given their interests and the resulting violence from males, participants indicated that they were more likely to befriend and spend time with females. For example, one straight participant remarked, “I guess I gravitated more to hanging out or becoming friends with girls . . . I was definitely straight but just liked hanging out with girls.” The gravitation toward having female friends, while not expressing an explicit romantic interest in them, exacerbated the situation for participants.

GBV was further perpetuated in school environments where teachers and administrators held traditional views about gender and sexuality. For instance, one bisexual participant recalled, “A student raised their hand and said, ‘Coach, would you want a gay person on your team?’ He [said], ‘Well, it’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. I wouldn’t want one of them on my football team.’” Similarly, silence on the part of teachers was also viewed as a way of contributing to the problem. One straight participant described, “Well, I don’t think that the teachers really cared. They were uninvolved, uninvolved, uninvolved.”

Street violence was another phenomenon commonly experienced by participants. These acts of violence took the form of verbal taunts, propelling objects, and physical attacks. For instance, when attending a music festival, a gay participant described hearing, “Hey faggot” just as a can of beer hit him in the face. A second bisexual participant recounted,

It was at nighttime. It was a park and some boys were having a bonfire. One boy called me out, “Oh, there’s that faggot” . . . and then they basically all beat me up. I remember I was so angry that I went to the 7-Eleven and I was bleeding everywhere and I went to the bathroom and I took my blood and I put it all over the mirror, all over the bathroom. I felt like someone should pay for this.

Strategies for dealing with GBV in secondary school

Over the course of their experiences of GBV, participants reported the use of several strategies and the implications of using those strategies when trying to cope with the violence. Participants reportedly developed alternative strategies to those used when they were in elementary school to cope with their feelings of isolation, shame, and worthlessness. For the most part, having supportive friends was a primary strategy, and although high academic performance may have resulted in teasing, for some participants, maintaining a strong academic record and participating in extracurricular activities, clubs, or teams enhanced their support network. However, in some cases, participants recalled doing their best to conform to gender expectations to avoid further verbal taunting and feelings of isolation. For example, as one gay participant recounted, “I would only be myself around certain people or in certain situations. Around guys, I would take on their way of speaking and talk about things that they were interested [in]. I didn’t feel freely myself.” As a result, these participants experienced discomfort because they were hiding their true gender and not being authentic.

With regard to the media, some participants reported that when men were portrayed as flamboyant or flighty, their parents’ negative attitudes toward gender diversity became apparent. For instance, a bisexual participant recounted, “Let’s say if I’m with my parents and we’re watching a movie. If there’s a guy who’s really effeminate, my dad will be like, ‘Uck. This guy’s clearly a faggot,’ because of the way the guy’s talking.”

Early Adulthood

Participants discussed their experiences of GBV and gender discrimination in different social contexts. These included postsecondary education, employment, and social networks. Ironically, in advertising for this study, the researchers experienced a form of GBV when the advertisements for the study were defaced and in some cases torn down. For example, one flyer posed the question, “Have you been teased or taunted for not being masculine enough?” Someone wrote on the flyer, “Then join Fight Club, you f***in homo.” This type of graffiti is a clear example of an environment hostile toward gender diverse men.

However, though the study advertised strictly based on gender, data analysis revealed that while all the men were violated for their gender expression, sexual orientation mitigated how they interpreted the violence. As such, it is important to distinguish between the experiences of gender discrimination for gay and bisexual and heterosexual men.

Gay and bisexual men’s experiences

After completing secondary school, the gay and bisexual participants “came out” in varying degrees in different contexts. As these participants began to disclose their sexual orientation, for them the link between gender discrimination and homophobia became intertwined; thus, it was difficult to distinguish whether the violence was due to being gay and bisexual or not masculine. For example, a gay participant expressed, “I guess it’s probably more gender expression than sexual orientation . . . I keep on mixing up sexual identity, sexual orientation, and [gender expression].” As such, for the most part when discussing the GBV they experienced in university and places of employment, participants referred to it as homophobic even when it was linked to gender.

University

Gay and bisexual participants stated that their professors and peers expected male students to be both masculine and heterosexual. The resulting conflict between the participants’ perceived expectations of their disciplines and the intersection of their gay and bisexual and gender identities influenced career choices. As one gay participant stated, “One of the messages I got was that in [field], [people in that field] can’t be gay.” As a result, this participant did not pursue his chosen career:

It made me hate [the program] . . . all my experiences were homophobic . . . now I’m not looking for a job in [field] . . . though I am well qualified . . . I feel I can’t be accepted in [field] because I never have been.

Furthermore, while university policies and service providers generally touted the notion of equality and gay and bisexual friendly environments, for most participants this was not the case. For example, a bisexual participant stated, “They had a program at the residence hall about anti-gay, about homophobia. And all the posters got torn down and trashed.” As well, the directors of these programs were oftentimes not well informed, as the same participant described, “She was this really nice woman and she wanted to be gay-friendly, but she didn’t get it. One time she asked me, ‘If you don’t mind me asking, why are you gay?’” The participant stated that he sarcastically responded, “I just thought it would be really cool and a good way to piss everybody off.”

Conversely, however, some of the participants reported that despite their experiences of homophobia, educational contexts were places in which they felt supported by their close circle of friends in university. In addition, in one or two instances, the men reported that teachers or other school or university personnel stepped in to help resolve conflicts when they occurred.

Employment

As for employment, gay and bisexual participants reported that they experienced verbal GBV in their workplace. One gay participant described, “Even at work I would hear lots of homophobic things, which made [being gay] more difficult.” Furthermore, he stated about a female supervisor: “She would use homophobic words and talked about gay as being promiscuous and that they all had HIV and stuff like that.”

Other participants reported that they attempted to conform to traditionally masculine gender expectations to better fit into the environment, not be targeted, and feel secure. For example, one bisexual participant reported that he learned to monitor his level of enthusiasm around his coworkers. Another bisexual participant stated, “I also need to be smart about to whom I disclose this [being bisexual] about myself.” Furthermore, a gay participant, who cross-dresses, stated, “I probably dress like I am dressed now [generic pants, shirt] for a job interview because I don’t want to have to argue about gender expression with an employer.” The same participant reported, “I will go for a walk in a dress with my friends, but I wouldn’t go by myself.”

Gay and bisexual community contexts

As previously stated, for gay and bisexual participants, the intersections of gender expression with their sexual identity resulted in them experiencing both gender discrimination and heterosexism as homophobia in contexts outside of the gay and bisexual community. However, while the gay and bisexual community was cited as a place of respite and social support, participants reported that in some of these contexts, the gender expectation was to be either masculine or feminine. That is, some gay and bisexual participants reported that they received strong messages from other gay and bisexual men that they should display either stereotypical traits of masculinity or femininity depending on the contexts. For example, some participants noted that they often felt pressure to express stereotypically feminine traits in certain contexts, such as “twink bars” (bars frequented by stereotypically feminine gay men). On the contrary, some men felt pressure to appear athletic and express stereotypical masculine traits, which were valued in most venues frequented by gay and bisexual men. In addition, participants reported that they experienced a hierarchy within the gay community, where masculine men were viewed positively, while “feminine” qualities were associated with passivity and viewed negatively. As one bisexual participant stated, “If you are a masculine gay person, you’re top of the line, and if you feminine, you’re like a piece of crap.”

Alternatively, another participant, who identified as gay, stated, “[I don’t go to] social spaces that aren’t explicitly [gay and bisexual] positive, I normally don’t go to spaces that I wouldn’t be comfortable cross-dressing. I avoid a lot of public spaces [that] aren’t particularly inviting.” Although the participants never experienced GBV within the gay community, they were confronted with stereotypical expectations about gender expression and the need to find spaces where they could safely express their gender.

However, one participant discussed feeling isolated regardless of gay or bisexual-inclusive community contexts, due to racism. This participant, who identified as gay and Asian, described feeling alienated from the mainstream gay community because he was not White: “I think when I was accessing these queer spaces, like the Gay Village [city], it’s White. There’s not very much of a representation of racialized bodies.” This experience of isolation led to feelings of self-hatred: “I really didn’t like being Asian. I hated being Asian. It wasn’t until all these years later where I finally understood that I have power being an Asian man.”

Interpersonal and social relationships

The gay and bisexual participants stated that their experiences of GBV influenced their self-concept in both negative and positive ways. As one bisexual participant described,

I felt terrible. I wasn’t worth what everyone else was worth. I didn’t feel equal. I felt like there’s standards for decency and everyone could expect that they’re valued. And no one should hurt them. No one should call them names and everyone has dignity. I felt that didn’t apply to me.

In addition, gay and bisexual participants discussed being inherently angry and that anger affected their social interactions and behaviors. For example, a bisexual participant expressed,

Well, whether I am [gay] or not, you’re not gonna hurt me. I need to be ready to fight. And it kind of toughened me up. Like, okay this person wants to beat me up . . . they’re gonna be hurt too.

Another bisexual participant stated, “I put myself in a situation where I would stand out or I knew that people would be angry or offended or want to hurt me.” For this participant, the resulting conflict served as an outlet for his anger, and empowered him to be authentic and not see themselves as victims.

Despite feelings of anger and fear related to their history of bullying and violence, participants reported that as they have gotten older, they understood the mistreatment from a different perspective. For example, a gay participant remarked, “I still hear homophobic things, but I just interpret them completely differently. Rather than think something’s wrong with me, I think something’s wrong with them.” He also stated, “[I feel] a lot more self-aware, a lot more self-confident. I feel like I can do anything. Like, some days I wear nail polish and I don’t care at all what people think of me.” Other participants reported that whether or not they felt safe was context specific. As one gay participant stated, “I mean, I still think it’s dangerous and sometimes I feel like when I’m out I have to, you know, man-up, butch-up, be more masculine. Just in certain contexts.” Similarly, a bisexual participant talked about assessing the situation to feel safe: “For me it’s a balance of being respected and not pushing unease on others.”

Heterosexual men’s experiences

Conversely, heterosexual participants’ experiences of gender discrimination were not linked to their sexual orientation, and thus, they differentiated between the gender expression and sexual orientation regardless of context. This differentiation heightened their awareness of their gender expression and the resulting gender discrimination.

Unlike gay and bisexual participants, heterosexual participants did not discuss GBV in university contexts. However, they reported experiences of harassment at work due to their gender expression. Some participants described being verbally harassed at work for not being masculine, which resulted in them conforming to the gendered behaviors expected of them by their supervisors. For example, when a straight participant’s male boss said to him, “You’re so gay,” he recounted, “I was stunned at first. That wasn’t the end of it, but it was definitely the start where I was monitoring my own behavior.” In another incident with a female boss, the same participant reported, “I wasn’t being called out for being feminine or gay, I was being called out for not being masculine enough.” As for coworkers, participants recounted that their colleagues made gender negative comments and held negative stereotypes about gender diverse men. For example, one straight participant talked about being told to “man up” or “stop crying” when he reported a difficulty or challenge. Once again, these comments were experienced as verbal harassment aimed at their gender expression.

Interpersonal and social relationships

Heterosexual participants noted that they were wary of interpersonal relationships and became socially reserved such that they did not trust others or take initiative in social situations. A straight participant remarked, “You don’t know who you can trust and it’s better to really get to know a person before you show any type of weakness or abnormality.” When it came to this study, participants reported that they may not have completed the qualitative interview with a man, and if they had, they likely would have censored themselves due to fear of judgment. For example, one straight participant said to the female interviewer, “I would have preferred to speak to a woman. I think if it was a man, I don’t think I would have admitted what I said. [If it was a male interviewer], I don’t think I would have come.”

On the contrary, some participants reported that they reconceptualized their GBV experiences such that they became more self-accepting. For instance, a straight participant expressed, “I act with more confidence or more affirmative behavior . . . I actually don’t care anymore, I just try to be myself.” Furthermore, participants discussed how their experience resulted in their recognizing the need to be empathic and accepting toward others, and contribute to advocacy and outreach. As one straight participant stated, “I am still accepting, very accepting of every person, especially in terms of sexuality.”

Discussion

Employing the MGCC model (Sinacore, 2011; Sinacore-Guinn, 1995) allowed the researchers to explore the intersections of biological sex, gender expression, and sexual orientation across time and in multiple contexts. As well, this framework combined with the phenomenological methodology resulted in rich descriptions of adult males’ experiences of GBV from childhood through young adulthood in different environments.

All the participants in this study reported being abused for not meeting the four expectations of masculinity (Kilmartin, 2010). They were bullied due to their femininity, interests, lack of athleticism, respect for females, emotional expressiveness, and interpersonal style. Consistent with extant literature (e.g., D’Augelli et al., 2006; Friedman et al., 2008; Greene et al., 2014; Singh et al., 2014; Toomey et al., 2010), the male participants described that they experienced GBV in environments where the social pressure to conform to stereotypical, masculine behaviors was prevalent. Furthermore, in line with other studies (e.g., Birkett et al., 2009; Rivers, 2000, 2004; Swearer et al., 2008; Williams et al., 2005), results indicated that participants experienced various forms of violence, including verbal harassment, physical violence, sexual violence, and social exclusion. These experiences led to negative perceptions of their educational institutions and workplace, conflict within their families, and not reporting incidents. Thus, negative attitudes toward men who violate the expectations of masculinity within educational institutions, workplaces, and families contributed to creating a culture of silence among victims about their experiences of violence.

Furthermore, this study demonstrated that GBV was not limited to adolescent or school-based contexts and that adult males experienced gender-based discrimination and violence in university, the workforce, and social contexts. As well, regardless of their sexual orientation, they experienced gender-based discrimination; however, the ways in which the men negotiated and interpreted the violence and discrimination were linked to their sexual orientation.

Consistent with the literature that indicates that traditional masculinity is linked with homophobia (Kilmartin, 2010), gay and bisexual participants did not distinguish between experiences of homophobia and gender discrimination. Although these participants found respite within the gay and bisexual communities, they reported that members of the community held similar views about masculinity as the population at large. Thus, gay and bisexual men are not immune to the hegemonic biases held in society and may, in fact, internalize and perpetuate them. This appears to be true for racial discrimination, as racism was cited as an additional factor that contributed to discrimination and resulted in isolation.

Alternatively, straight men viewed their lack of masculinity as a problem and tried to monitor how they expressed their gender for fear of reprisal. For example, straight, gay, and bisexual participants discussed workplaces as institutions with strict gender normative expectations, where not meeting prescriptions of masculinity resulted in verbal harassment. The gay and bisexual participants reported that the harassment they experienced was linked to their sexual orientation and they labeled it as homophobic. For the straight men, the harassment was about their gender, with coworkers suggesting that they “man up” and act more masculine, resulting in the expectation that they change their behavior. This pressure influenced participants’ ability to trust other men and how they expressed themselves across contexts. However, it is unclear as to whether being perceived as gay and dealing with homophobic epithets is what resulted in their feeling the need to alter their natural gender expression. Yet, over time, they became more self-accepting, open to others, and less conforming.

As for university, though the public discourse and policies of the university promoted gender inclusive and gay and bisexual affirmative environments, participants described university environments that perpetuated the privileging of traditional masculinity. Participants reported that most university personnel were ill equipped to address gender-based discrimination and homophobia on campus. As well, within certain academic programs, the expectation of gender conformity was promoted by students and professors alike. Thus, the pressure to conform to the expectations of traditional masculinity has consequences for academic and career development, which may result in a lack of diversity in certain programs and occupations.

All the men discussed developing strategies to mitigate or reduce the chances of revictimization. Such strategies included forming supportive social networks, preparing themselves for possible physical altercations, or conforming to traditionally masculine gender expectations. Participants were highly aware of their mannerisms, tone of voice, and appearance such that they self-monitored their gender expression to avoid conflict. This personal policing of their gender was further complicated for gay and bisexual participants who had to make decisions about whether to disclose their sexual orientation. Thus, adult men who experience GBV develop a heightened awareness of their environments and monitored their behavior and appearance to increase their sense of safety.

In addition, straight men reported being cautious in social interactions, wherein they became socially reserved, wary of others, unable to trust, and viewed their femininity as a sign of weakness. There was little opportunity or support for them to discuss their experiences, without fear of being revictimized. By contrast, gay and bisexual men were faced with the daily challenge of homophobia, and sought respite within the gay and bisexual community, which they generally viewed as a place of social support. Although (as previously discussed) they sometimes felt pressure to conform to prescribed masculinity or femininity within the gay and bisexual community, they had an identifiable place to seek safety. Thus, developing spaces where heterosexual men can seek support for and acceptance of their natural gender expression appears to be warranted.

All the men in this study reported that the harassment negatively affected their self-perceptions, confidence, and social relationships. They reported both being angry and blaming themselves for the abuse. As they got older, the men discussed becoming increasingly self-accepting and seeing the problem as more societal versus individual. For example, their experiences made them keenly aware of discrimination, and the importance of advocacy and outreach for a diversity of marginalized populations. Thus, gender variant men do not have access to the privilege that is typically associated with being male and masculine in our society. As well, this access is further denied due to homophobia and heterosexism.

Overall, this study illuminated that the prescriptions of masculinity that led to violence in elementary and high school continued into adulthood, across educational, occupational, and societal contexts, with ongoing negative consequences. In addition to the physical and emotional penalties resulting from GBV, men who do not conform to traditional masculinity become hypervigilant and police their gender as a strategy to protect themselves from further abuse. The enormous amount of energy being displaced from academic, workplace, social, and other activities to stay safe comes at a great price to the victims. Thus, efforts need to be made to rethink society’s expectations of men and manhood to allow men to have fluid gender roles and expressions. That is, to reduce societal violence, gender fluidity is essential.

Limitations and Implications for Future Research

A significant strength of this study is that it offers insight into males’ experiences of GBV in adulthood and allowed the researchers to further explore educational, occupational, and societal contexts. However, this study is not without its limitations. More specifically, the oldest participants in this study were in their early 30s, and thus, future research should attend to experiences of GBV in males over 35 years of age. Specifically, research exploring workplace abuse could be expanded to address GBV. Furthermore, a study attending to the intersections of other salient identities (e.g., ethnicity, religion, race, socioeconomic status [SES]) may determine how masculinity is constructed in relationship to different identities and how these identities intersect with biological sex, gender expression, and sexual orientation in different cultural contexts. That is, it is important to examine how other forms of discrimination and marginalization (e.g., racism) affect men’s ability to negotiate the challenges related to GBV. In addition, this research identified that universities and workplaces remain spaces where men are victims of GBV, despite policies in place that make this form of harassment unacceptable. Thus, future research may specifically address policy construction and implementation, and how these factors may result in men underreporting experiences of GBV in universities and workplaces.

Footnotes

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.

Author Biographies

Ada L. Sinacore, PhD, is the chair of the Gender, Sexuality, Feminist, and Social Justice Studies Program in the Institute for Gender, Sexuality, and Feminist Studies; the director of the Social Justice and Diversity Research Lab; and an associate professor in the Counselling Psychology Program at McGill University. She is actively involved in research that addresses topics including gender equity education, feminist and social justice pedagogy, migration and immigration, workplace harassment, bullying, and gender-based violence.

Samir Durrani, MA, is a doctoral student in Counselling Psychology at McGill University. His research interests involve psychosocial health promotion among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) populations. As well, he is interested in exploring the intersections of gender, sexuality, and identity, and how these intersections relate to health outcomes.

Sarah Khayutin, MA, is a doctoral candidate in School/Applied Child Psychology at McGill University. She recently completed her predoctoral internship at the University of Minnesota Medical Center and is currently finishing her dissertation. Her research interests include understanding the experiences of immigrants across the life span, exploring the influences of intersecting identities on acculturation and immigration experiences, and promoting mental health and well-being in school settings.

References

Almeida

Johnson

R. M.

Corliss

H. L.

Molnar

B. E.

Azrael

(2009). Emotional distress among LGBT youth: The influence of perceived discrimination based on sexual orientation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 1001-1014. doi:10.1007/s10964-009-9397-9

Birkett

Espelage

D. L.

Koenig

(2009). LGB and questioning students in schools: The moderating effects of homophobic bullying and school climate on negative outcomes. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 989-1000. doi:10.1007/s10964-008-9389-1

Cohen

(2005). “Manners” make the man: Politeness, chivalry, and the construction of masculinity, 1750–1830. Journal of British Studies, 44, 312-329. doi:10.1086/427127

D’Augelli

A. R.

Grossman

A. H.

Starks

M. T.

(2006). Childhood gender atypicality, victimization, and PTSD among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 1462-1482. doi:10.1177/0886260506293482

DiPalma

Ferguson

K. E.

(2006). Clearing ground and making connections: Modernism, postmodernism, feminism. In Davis

Evans

Lorber

(Eds.), Handbook of gender and women’s studies (pp. 127-145). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Dominic McCann

Plummer

Minichiello

. (2010). Being the butt of the joke: Homophobic humour, male identity, and its connection to emotional and physical violence for men. Health Sociology Review, 19, 505-521. doi:10.5172/hesr.2010.19.4.505

Friedman

M. S.

Koeske

G. F.

Silvestre

A. J.

Korr

W. S.

Sites

E. W.

(2006). The impact of gender-role nonconforming behavior, bullying, and social support on suicidality among gay male youth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 38, 621-623. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2005.04.014

Friedman

M. S.

Marshal

M. P.

Guadamuz

T. E.

Wei

Wong

C. F.

Saewyc

E. M.

Stall

(2011). A meta-analysis of disparities in childhood sexual abuse, parental physical abuse, and peer victimization among sexual minority and sexual nonminority individuals. American Journal of Public Health, 101, 1481-1494. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2009.190009

Friedman

M. S.

Marshal

M. P.

Stall

Cheong

Wright

E. R.

(2008). Gay-related development, early abuse and adult health outcomes among gay males. AIDS and Behavior, 12, 891-902. doi:10.1007/s10461-007-9319-3

10.

Greene

D. C.

Britton

P. J.

Fitts

(2014). Long-term outcomes of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender recalled school victimization. Journal of Counseling & Development, 92, 406-417. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2014.00167.x

11.

Grossman

A. H.

D’Augelli

A. R.

(2006). Transgender youth: Invisible and vulnerable. Journal of Homosexuality, 51, 111-128. doi:10.1300/J082v51n01_06

12.

Hein

S. F.

Austin

W. J.

(2001). Empirical and hermeneutic approaches to phenomenological research in psychology: A comparison. Psychological Methods, 6, 3-17. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.6.1.3

13.

Katz-Wise

S. L.

Hyde

J. S.

(2012). Victimization experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sex Research, 49, 142-167. doi:10.1080/00224499.2011.637247

14.

Kilmartin

(2010). The masculine self (4th ed.). Cornwall, NY: Sloan Publishing.

15.

Kimmel

(2016). Guyland: Gendering the transition to adulthood. In Pasco

C. J.

Bridges

(Eds.), Exploring masculinities: Identity, inequality, continuity and change (pp. 107-120). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

16.

Kincheloe

J. L.

McLaren

(2005). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In Hayes

Steinberg

Tobin

(Series Eds.), Bold Visions in Educational Research Series: Vol. 32. Key works in critical pedagogy (pp. 285-326). doi:10.1007/978-94-6091-397-6_23

17.

Kosciw

J. G.

Greytak

E. A.

Giga

N. M.

Villenas

Danischewski

D. J.

(2016). The 2015 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and gay and bisexual youth in our nation’s schools. Retrieved from https://www.glsen.org/sites/default/files/2015%20National%20GLSEN%202015%20National%20School%20Climate%20Survey%20%28NSCS%29%20-%20Full%20Report_0.pdf

18.

Larkin

Thompson

(2012). Interpretative phenomenological analysis in mental health and psychotherapy research. In Thompson

Harper

(Eds.), Qualitative research methods in mental health and psychotherapy: A guide for students and practitioners (pp. 99-116). Oxford, UK: John Wiley.

19.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

20.

Morrow

S. L.

(2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 250-260. doi:10.1037/0022 0167.52.2.250

21.

Polkinghorne

D. E.

(1983). Methodology for the human sciences: Systems of inquiry. Albany: State University of New York Press.

22.

Polkinghorne

D. E.

(2005). Language and meaning: Data collection in qualitative research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 137-145. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.137

23.

Rivers

(2000). Social exclusion, absenteeism and sexual minority youth. Support for Learning, 15, 13-18. doi:10.1111/1467-9604.00136

24.

Rivers

(2004). Recollections of bullying at school and their long-term implications for lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Crisis, 25, 169-175. doi:10.1027/0227-5910.25.4.169

25.

Rivers

Duncan

Besag

V. E.

(2007). Bullying: A handbook for educators and parents. Lanham, MD: Greenwood Publishing.

26.

Shenton

A. K.

(2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22, 63-75. Retrieved from https://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/73868647/750861395/name/Trustworthypaper.pdf

27.

Sinacore-Guinn

A. L.

(1995). The diagnostic window: Culture- and gender-sensitive diagnosis and training. Counselor Education and Supervision, 35, 18-31. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.1995.tb00206.x

28.

Sinacore

A. L.

(2011, November). Using social justice and multicultural perspectives in the development of international counseling psychology. Paper presented at the Professional Development Seminar the Department of Guidance & Counseling, National Changhua University of Education, Changhua, Taiwan.

29.

Sinacore

A. L.

Chiang

C.-M.

(2013, November). A qualitative analysis of male adults’ experiences of GBV: Implications for identity development. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Prevention and Treatment of GBV, National Pingtung University of Education, Pingtung, Taiwan.

30.

Singh

A. A.

Meng

S. E.

Hansen

A. W.

(2014). “I am my own gender”: Resilience strategies of trans youth. Journal of Counseling & Development, 92, 208-218. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2014.00150.x

31.

Smith

J. A.

Flowers

Larkin

(2009). Interpretive phenomenological analysis: Theory, method, and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

32.

Smith

J. A.

Osborn

(2015). Interpretive phenomenological analysis. In Smith

(Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (3rd ed., pp. 25-52). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

33.

Swearer

S. M.

Turner

R. K.

Givens

J. E.

Pollack

W. S.

(2008). “You’re so gay!”: Do different forms of bullying matter for adolescent males? School Psychology Review, 37, 160-173. Retrieved from http://extension.fullerton.edu/professionaldevelopment/assets/pdf/bullying/youre_so_gay.pdf

34.

Toomey

R. B.

Ryan

Diaz

R. M.

Card

N. A.

Russell

S. T.

(2010). Gender-nonconforming lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth: School victimization and young adult psychosocial adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 46, 1580-1589. doi:10.1037/a0020705

35.

van Manen

. (1997). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy (2nd ed.). London, Ontario, Canada: The Althouse Press.

36.

Wertz

F. J.

(2005). Phenomenological research methods for counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 167-177. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.167

37.

Wilkinson

Joffe

Yardley

(2004). Qualitative data collection. In Marks

Yardley

(Eds.), Research methods for clinical and health psychology (pp. 39-55). London, England: SAGE.

38.

Williams

Connolly

Pepler

Craig

(2005). Peer victimization, social support, and psychosocial adjustment of sexual minority adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34, 471-482. doi:10.1007/s10964-005-7264-x

39.

Woodford

M. R.

Howell

M. L.

Kulick

Silverschanz

(2013). “That’s so gay”: Heterosexual male undergraduates and the perpetuation of sexual orientation microaggressions on campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 416-435. doi:10.1177/0886260512454719

40.

Yardley

(2015). Demonstrating validity in qualitative psychology. In Smith

(Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (3rd ed., pp. 257-272). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

41.

Yunger

J. L.

Carver

P. R.

Perry

D. G.

(2004). Does gender identity influence children’s psychological well-being? Developmental Psychology, 40, 572-583. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.40.4.572