Abstract
This article examines what discourses and assumed subject positions have emerged about men and masculinity in #MeToo debates. Using feminist critical discourse analysis and an exploratory approach to analyze 163 media articles, five key framings are noted: men are victims of masculinity requiring intervention, men are positioned as inherently ‘good’ or ‘bad’, boys and men are lost and need to be found, men are performative in their ‘awakenings’, and men’s take up of protector or allyship roles may in fact be attempts to be false heroes. The findings of this work note several tensions and contradictions that highlight an overall lack of coherency and agreement regarding men’s engagements with, and roles in, the #MeToo movement. These contradictions and tensions have implications for thinking about gender equality and gendered violence prevention initiatives.
The viral online global movement #MeToo in Western culture has sparked, or contributed to, broader cultural shifts relating to justice practices and sexual violence (Chandra & Erlingsdóttir, 2020). First started by social activist Tarana Burke in 2006 to support racial and ethnic minority women who have experienced sexual violence, #MeToo gained momentum in 2017 as a hashtag after a twitter post by actress Alyssa Milano went viral about her experiences with now sentenced Harvey Weinstein (Chandra & Erlingsdóttir, 2020). #MeToo has spurred countless op-eds of women’s experiences of sexual violence and renewed calls for changes to criminal legislation across the globe to better support victims/survivors. 1
#MeToo has also received significant attention and critique across a variety of academic disciplines (e.g. Chandra & Erlingsdóttir, 2020; Lin & Yang, 2019). Findings stemming from this large body of work note the way #MeToo centres 2 White, middle to upper-class women’s voices and experiences of sexual violence to the exclusion of women of racial and ethnic minorities (e.g. Gómez & Gobin, 2020). Some have noted most #MeToo reporting tends to be focused on announcing sexual violence cases and sharing sexual assault stories, rather than solution-oriented (e.g. De Benedictis et al., 2019). Others have examined the longevity of the movement, questioning whether #MeToo is enough to enact long-lasting structural and systemic change (e.g. Gill & Orgad, 2018). Within these considerations, dominating perspectives on #MeToo are framed within broader feminist considerations of structural and systemic patriarchy, gendered violence prevention including sexual violence, and associated social inequalities.
Such considerations also include a careful look at men and masculinity within #MeToo. Some scholars have become critical of the way in which ‘masculinity’ as a concept and subject position for men has been utilised within academic research and public discourse (Haywood, 2020), such as within the #MeToo movement (e.g. Cover, 2019; Hindes & Fileborn, 2020; Nilsson & Lundgren, 2020). One emerging criticism is the increasing use of masculinity tropes, types and taxonomies in academic research and public discourse like #MeToo that assume men’s subject positions, with little attention paid to agency, affect, emotion, reflexivity, temporalities and materialities (e.g. Allan, 2018; Beasley, 2015; Berggren, 2014; Waling, 2019a). For example, gender theories about men and masculinity are used to shape public health promotion and gendered violence prevention programs focussing on men and boys in addressing health inequities and issues, gender inequalities and sexual violence (Burrell, 2018; Keddie, 2021; Keddie et al., 2022). Masculinity is also discussed in public media, of which comes from the long history of gender theorising. Describing men’s masculinity as ‘toxic’ or ‘problematic’ are commonplace when discussing men’s roles in the perpetuation of sexual and gender-based violence (Harrington, 2020). New kinds of masculinity such as ‘healthy’ or ‘sensitive’ have now become staples in both academic and public discourse, whereby ‘types’ of masculinity are offered to men as different (often touted as better) ways of being (Waling, 2019a; 2019b). This is often positioned under a rhetoric of ‘masculinities’ as an attempt to account for a diversity of gender expression of masculinity, but so often becomes utilised in the categorical (Beasley, 2015; Berggren, 2015; Waling, 2019b). 3
These ideas and concepts have become major ways in which public discourses like #MeToo engage with questions of men and masculinity. For example, elsewhere I have critiqued the use of ‘toxic’ and ‘healthy’ masculinity in both academic and public discourse regarding gender violence prevention initiatives (Waling, 2019a). I argue such terms utilise moralistic positions of health and well-being, as well as continue to privilege masculinity over other gendered expressions, and reproduce a hierarchal gendered binary logic in which men can only engage in masculinity, even if it is revamped to a new version. As a result, men are not offered opportunities to engage in other expressions of gender unless such expressions are always masculinity. This creates a circular effect, as academic concepts like masculinity become adopted into mainstream public discourse, they become simplified and stabilised, and then those simplified and stabilised versions are retaken up in academic thought and become presumed subject positions for men. In doing so, the nuanced, fluid, and intricate and changing nature of the concept is lost. Other ways of thinking about men’s relations to the world are thus always a simplistic by-product of masculinity (Waling, 2019b). These criticisms can also be found, for example, in recent considerations concerning how to get men engaged in gender violence prevention (see Burrell, 2018; Keddie, 2021; Keddie et al., 2022). Such critiques have noted dilemmas as to whether individualising focus on men’s masculinity detracts attention from women’s lived experiences, privileges men’s experiences and hinders men’s development of empathy towards others (Burrell, 2018; Keddie, 2021; Keddie et al., 2022).
As such, Haywood (2020, p. 21) questions the value of continuing to focus on masculinity when talking about men, arguing that masculinity ‘is seen as a “thing”, a property, something that is owned - and there is an attendant narrowing of the conceptual gap between men and masculinity’. For Haywood (2020), men’s gender is always reduced to this thing of masculinity, leaving little space to explore how men might experience or be gendered outside of an already established subject position of ‘masculinity’. Haywood (2020) also notes that gender literacy has emerged within public commentaries, often in simplistic terms and explanations that inadequately elucidate the complexities and intricacies of social, economic and geographic configurations of gender. Haywood (2020, p. 24) contends discourses of masculinity in academic research and public commentaries are limiting ‘not only what we know, but also what we are able to know’, and restricts our understanding of boys and men to very specific, narrow and predictable theoretical models, subject positions and explanations.
The aim of this exploratory paper then is to explore what discourses and assumed subject positions are available in discussions about men and masculinity in relation to #MeToo, and to understand what they might be doing for thinking about addressing #MeToo aims of stopping gendered violence towards women. I ask, ‘how are men and masculinity being framed in #MeToo debates’? I am not looking to determine types or trends of masculinity within these commentaries. Rather, I am interested in what subject positions (Törrönen, 2001) are available to men in these commentaries, including whether positions contradict each other, and how these may be shaping our understanding of gendered and sexual violence. I take an exploratory approach to this research by which I am exploring subject positions in media commentaries (Rendle et al., 2019). Drawing from Haywood (2020), I understand masculinity (and by extension, ‘men’ and ‘boys’) as a ‘discourse’ (Lazar, 2007) that shapes and is shaped by #MeToo commentaries and debates. By discourse, I mean ‘the ways in which language constructs and mediates social and psychological realities’ (Willig, 2014, p.2) and how power within these realities is performed and sustained through discourse. The findings of this work note several tensions and contradictions highlighting an overall lack of coherency and agreement regarding men’s engagements with, and roles in addressing the aims of #MeToo. Such tensions and contradictions reflect emerging concerns about how best to develop and support gendered violence prevention initiatives to engage men (Burrell, 2018; Keddie, 2021; Keddie et al., 2022).
#MeToo, Men and Masculinity
In #MeToo, men’s masculinity is a central and defining concept to talk about women’s experiences of violence and oppression (i.e. Airey, 2018; Boyle, 2020; Corbin, 2018; Hearn, 2020; Hindes & Fileborn, 2020; Maricourt & Burrell, 2021; PettyJohn et al., 2019; Soklaridis et al., 2018). Airey (2018) argues in their analysis of news media that men’s voices are understood as more legitimate and rational in #MeToo discussions in comparison to perceptions of women’s voices and narratives. Hearn (2020) contends men are both a direct and indirect cause of #MeToo, where #MeToo may help men take responsibility for their role (see also Flood, 2019). Both Corbin (2018) and Soklaridis et al. (2018) examine the impact of #MeToo on men and mentoring, highlighting that #MeToo has contributed to a growing fear of men mentoring women. PettyJohn et al. (2019) in their analysis of #HowIWillChange, a male-perspective offshoot of #MeToo notes men’s use of the #HowIWillChange hashtag ranges. This includes men describing their own personal involvement in harmful masculinities and beliefs, demonstrating disinterest or feeling unaffected by the movement, expressing resistance to change and responsibility, and displaying sexist attitudes. Boyle (2020) focussing on the trials of Harvey Weinstein notes the figure of the monster is utilised to position Weinstein an Other in his perpetuation of sexual violence. This Othering works to reproduce the notion that sexual predators are rare oddities, rather than recognising average men have the capacity to engage in sexual violence (Boyle, 2020). Cover (2019) and Nilsson and Lundgren (2020) also focus on the types of masculinity afforded to men in media and how these intersect with #MeToo politics. Nilsson and Lundgren (2020) focus on constructs of types of masculinity and how they are shaped by commentaries and broader discourses, while Cover (2019) notes the way ‘new’ masculinities have failed in promoting progressive gender ideals. Hindes and Fileborn (2020) contend #MeToo reports of incidents of sexual violence reproduce the sexually aggressive, toxic masculine male as expected, and desired, in heterosexual interactions.
In these considerations, masculinity is often pregiven within the #MeToo context. What is missing from these considerations is a more nuanced exploration of how men and boys are talked about in #MeToo news articles, commentaries and public debates. This has begun with the work of Cover (2019), Nilsson and Lundgren (2020), and Hindes and Fileborn (2020). I see this paper as building on this scholarship by looking at the subject positions constructed for men in #MeToo commentaries, and reflecting on how such positions can relate back to broader gendered violence prevention initiatives. Considering men and masculinity are vital features of #MeToo debates and subsequent responses, it is important to explore how men are being positioned, and what those positions are doing when reflecting on gender relations.
My approach to subject positioning draws from the work of Törrönen who defines a subject position (2001, p. 321): as a construction which, on the one hand, evolves in a specific relation to the audience and to the existing subject positions in a particular context of interaction and which, on the other hand, obtains its meaning by being attached situationally to categories and story lines.
Subject positions provide a set of guidelines for engaging a specific situation or cultural setting (Törrönen, 2001, p. 315). Such positions are in part, informed by and produced by power and are ‘relational categories that obtain their situational meaning in relation to other possible subject positions and discourses’ (Törrönen, 2001, p. 316). Identifying with or engaging certain subject positions informs a particular world view that may be regarded as truthful or natural in varied situations (Törrönen, 2001, pp. 315–316). For Törrönen (2001, p. 317), subject positions are ‘intersubjectively founded and receive their meanings contextually, situationally, and rhetorically in relation to each other’ (Törrönen, 2001, p. 317). He thus advocates for an understanding of subject positions that consider their fragmented, temporal and fluid nature. I am interested in this question of instability of subject positions when thinking about how men and masculinity are framed in #MeToo debates. Below I provide a methodological account containing the epistemological thinking and ethical considerations of my research, followed by my methods.
Methodology
This work is part of a larger multi-study project based in Australia exploring heterosexual, cisgender men’s experiences with sex, intimacy, and dating. This multi-study project (www.m-sex.org) includes interviews with expert stakeholders working in sexual health, emotional and physical health and well-being, and gendered violence prevention (Waling et al., 2022), interviews and focus groups with young cisgender, heterosexual men and women regarding their sex and dating experiences, and cultural analyses of #MeToo, dating, sex and gender relations (Waling, 2022). In this specific paper, I am seeking to understand how men and masculinity are discussed in #MeToo traditional news articles, social news and online magazines as a part of this much larger multi-study project from an exploratory perspective (Rendle et al., 2019).
I utilise Lazar’s (2007) work on feminist critical discourse analysis (CDA) which draws upon feminist principles and guidelines, and builds on Foucauldian Discourse Analysis (FDA) through the focus on power and legitimisation (Willig, 2014). Critical discourse analysis has been criticised for assuming a normative view of how the world should be (Lazar, 2007; Willig, 2014). Lazar (2007) argues that CDA has been positioned as an objective and neutral form of analysis, with roots in development by those who benefit from inequitable systems of power (i.e. White, heterosexual, able-bodied men). Lazar (2007) notes this rhetoric has been challenged by feminist scholars, and that more than just citing feminist women is necessary for an analytical process to be engaged with a ‘feminist politic of articulation’ (Wetherall, 1995, p. 141, as cited in Lazar, 2007, p. 143). Lazar (2007) contends we ‘need to be guided by feminist principles and insights in theorising and analysing the seemingly innocuous yet oppressive nature of gender as an omni-relevant category in many social practices’ (p. 143). These guidelines for analysis include investment in and awareness of feminist principles of activism and associated social justice, viewing gender as an ideological structure, recognising the complexity of gendered power relations, being attentive to discourse and (de)construction of gender, and engaging critical reflexivity as praxis (Lazar, 2007).
This is best suited to explore what Haywood (2020) notes are the limitations of the theories we use to talk about masculinity, men and boys, while still paying careful attention to important feminist theories, methodologies and pedagogies on which some of those theories are based. As such, I pay particular attention to the discursive objects ‘men’ and ‘boys’ and explore how men/boys are being talked about in #MeToo debates, what subject positions are available for them, and who or what might benefit from these framings. There is an ethical consideration to this task. The #MeToo movement has been significant in mobilising action against sexual violence towards women and trans and gender diverse people (Chandra & Erlingsdóttir, 2020). Focusing on men and masculinity within media commentaries about women’s experiences of sexual violence can be regarded as decentring women’s voices and experiences (see Allan, 2016, for his critique of men’s right’s activist appropriation of feminist language). Or could be taken as a critique of the importance of the gains of #MeToo. This is not my intention. Rather, in using Lazar’s (2007) approach to CDA, my aim is to see how as Lazar notes, such discourses emerge, and what they may be doing for our understandings of gender, men, violence and masculinity. This is in alignment with several feminist critiques of #MeToo, such as those by De Benedictis et al. (2019) and Gill and Orgad (2018) among others.
Method
This research was approved by La Trobe University human research ethics committee (HEC20110). To search for news media and popular commentary about #MeToo, three databases were utilised, Factivia, Proquest and Media Cloud. As this was not intended to be a systematic content analysis, but rather, an exploration of how discourses that might shape understandings of men and masculinity during the #MeToo moment in contemporary media, using these three databases seemed prudent to provide a wider reach across exploring these questions. Rigour, however, was still applied through the sampling in using a curated search string, examining all items against inclusion and exclusion criteria, and sampling strategy (Albury et al., 2020). This study focuses on media gathered from Anglo-speaking countries situated in the Global North. These countries (discussed below) were chosen as they share similarities in terms of economic, cultural and social structures.
In this piece, I review a range of 163 news media which included traditional news media, online magazines and social news. There are a set of characteristics that underpin these different but often overlapping genres (Hurcombe et al., 2021). Traditional news media subscribe to traditional journalistic norms which include balancing perspectives, objective reporting and an asynchronous approach to the writing of work (i.e. standard local and national newspapers) (Hurcombe et al., 2021). Online magazines are developed with specific audiences and advertisers in mind, in which editorial content is devised to advertise products, and discuss entertainment and gossip. Social news defined by Hurcombe et al. (2021, p. 378) is a particular genre of news that ‘departs from traditional norms around objectivity, instead exhibiting a strong and explicit positionality, and critiquing ideas like “balance”’.
My rationale for including traditional news, online magazines and newer forms such as social news (Hurcombe et al., 2021) is threefold. The first, the age in which traditional news information is defined and distinct from other kinds of information has changed quite drastically with the advent of digital technologies (e.g. Hurcombe et al., 2021). Such changes include shifts in how journalism is conducted, the increased synchronous engagement between journalists and audience/readers, and the rise of sites such as social news which blend traditional news reporting and editorial content (Albury et al., 2020). Secondly, social news and online magazines are accessible and shared, whereby more traditional news platforms may be inaccessible due to paywalls or subscription models (Albury, 2019). The third, in a digital age, individuals consume a range of information from a range of sources rather than just traditional news media (Albury et al., 2020), and may not subscribe to any one news source has certain political or social leanings. As such, it is important to explore this range when considering how boys, men and masculinity are being discussed and framed within these sources regarding #MeToo. Below, I provide a detailed approach to how I came to analyse a final total of 163 articles.
Data Collection I: Media Cloud
Media Cloud was used to search for news articles exploring #MeToo, consent and heterosexual men. Media Cloud which launched in 2009 and relaunched in 2014 is an online platform enabling researchers and journalists to explore news coverage of a particular topic (Albury et al., 2020). It is ‘an open-source platform for studying media ecosystems . . . contain [ing] a collection of more than 1.1 billion stories imported via their sources RSS feeds, with 568,000 stories added to the collection daily’ (Albury et al., 2020, p. 236). To answer the research question, ‘how are men and masculinity being framed in #MeToo media and news reporting’? initial searches were first conducted using the Explorer tool to determine feasibility. This included exploring various pairings of keywords to see what would emerge using Boolean logic. #MeToo is a highly covered topic. A simple search of #MeToo across all media covered in the media cloud database from October 1, 2020, until June 30, 2020, came up with over 1,668,164 articles (July 1, 2020). The enormity thus required further narrowing of the search. Australia and New Zealand were chosen as this study is focused primarily on Australia and is where the author is situated. The United States of America was chosen since #MeToo has its origins in US culture, and is where the majority of reporting is derived. These countries share similarities in how #MeToo has been engaged, including calls to address problems in the legal justice system regarding sexual violence, addressing concerns about consent and dating, and addressing sexual harassment in the workplace. After careful deliberation of multiple varying search strings and keywords, a final search string was chosen: #MeToo AND consent* AND (dating OR date* OR sex* OR flirt* OR hook-up* OR hook up* OR sex*) OR (corec* OR manip* OR power*) AND (straight OR hetero*) AND (man OR male* OR masc* OR boy* OR guy*)
These search choices were chosen to reflect the larger project which focuses on men’s understandings and engagement with sex, consent and intimacy in wake of #MeToo. A subsequent paper explores sexual communication, sex and intimacy (Waling, 2022). In this paper, I focus on articles discussing masculinity and men. This resulted in 2331 articles. A spreadsheet containing the stories titles, press/media publishers, dates of publication and language was downloaded. While initial results stated 2331 news articles, duplicates were removed by the program, leaving an actual total of 938. A further assessment of material resulted in further deletions of missed duplicates, 330 articles remained for further inclusion/exclusion and subsequent analysis. Duplicates were either (1) direct copies of the articles collected multiple times or (2) had different titles and published in different sources but contained the exact same content and written by the same author.
The Topic Mapper 4 tool which searches for additional ‘seed’ stories using the same search string was utilised. An additional 402 ‘seed’ stories were located. However, after searching through the database and engaging in removals of duplicates, only eight additional seed stories remained, leaving a total of 338.
The hashtags 5 #ItWasMe OR #IHave were also looked at, as they were developed by the voices of men in recognising their potential role, or complicity in the sexual assault of women. An initial search of #ItWasMe, with no geographic restrictions (set to ALL MEDIA) located 1151 articles. A number of these were not in the English language, and so a further 232 were deleted (leaving 919). Articles not about #MeToo were deemed not relevant for analysis, alongside duplicates, and a total of 75 articles remained. Topic Mapper was utilised, but resulted in no seed stories. These were then compared to the #MeToo stories, with few duplicate crossovers. These were then combined with the #MeToo search data for a total of 413 articles from Media Cloud.
Data collection II: Factiva and Proquest
An initial search of Factivia and Proquest brought up over a combined 1122 potential news and media articles across a criterion of texts written in the English language about #MeToo, collated in an endnote database. Due to the high volume of articles, the same search string used for Media Cloud was used on the article titles, leaving a total of 111 relevant articles. Such articles were compared with the Media Cloud results, noting that there were no duplicates. The titles were then exported to a spreadsheet to be combined with the Media Cloud results.
Once the two databases of Factiva and Proquest, and Media Cloud were combined (524 articles), another assessment was done to reduce the articles. This included editing out further duplicates that were the same story but with different titles and removing further articles that were not relevant to the research question. This left a total of 330 articles. Factivia and Media Cloud only provide headlines, individuals are still required to search for the actual articles for analysis. As such, another check was done by checking each link, or procuring the article through either Gale Academic or Proquest and downloading a PDF copy of the article for analysis. This meant some stories reported by Factivia, Proquest or Media Cloud were no longer available or accessible, and thus not included for analysis. Out of this total of 330 articles, 302 were considered relevant.
Analysis
The spreadsheet of the 302 articles which included news articles, online magazine articles and online public commentaries, was loaded into NVivo 12 qualitative analysis software and coded using descriptive codes. Coding was based on the titles of articles to find top-level descriptive themes. These top-level themes were developed in response to the research question, and based on common themes noted in the titles, and cursory glances at the article content. These were for organisation purposes. The top-level thematics included ‘masculinity and men’, ‘sexual communication and sexual practices’, ‘sexual violence_legal_criminal focus’, and ‘#MeToo movement’. I chose to analyse articles from all nodes, choosing every second one per node for analysis to ensure I did not miss anything in case other articles may have contained material about men and masculinity. This is in alignment with Albury et al., (2020) who used a similar method.
As a result, a total of 163 articles were finally reviewed. Each article was read with notes made against each article using the NVivo memo function. Using feminist critical discourse analysis as a guiding framework (Lazar, 2007), notes reflecting on the content as whole were also completed after reading a set of articles, and attention was paid to patterns of discourses emerging in the data. Particular attention was paid to key concerns of feminist critical discourse analysis, that is, how men are being positioned in #MeToo commentaries and what that means for thinking about social justice, social transformation and gender relations. As part of feminist discourse analysis techniques, this includes what is being said, how it is being said, and what is implied or insinuated. I pay careful attention to what is emerging in the articles themselves about men and masculinity, as opposed to a broader consideration of social or political leaning of a particular writer.
Table 1 provides an overview of the general contents of these articles. Following Albury et al. (2020), I focus on how these media stories evaluate and position men’s roles and engagements with #MeToo. As these articles were published between October 2017 and June 2020, they cannot be regarded as representative of all media reportage, and like Albury et al. (2020), some articles reflect a surge of interest of incidents or media coverage of sexual violence trials and/or trials by social media. All media articles referenced are marked with an asterisk (*) and citation details are in Appendix A: Materials Cited. This appendix also provides specific details of the articles referenced in this paper, including type of news article, summary and country of publication. 6
Overview of Descriptive Themes.
Findings
The analysis of 163 articles explores how men and by extension, masculinity are discussed and framed in media concerning #MeToo. These include, (1) men as ‘victims’ of masculinity, (2) inherently ‘good’ and ‘bad’ men, (3) ‘lost’ boys and becoming men, (4) ‘awakening’ men and the ‘awakened’ man and (5) protectors and false heroes. Data is presented using direct quotations, as well as summaries of article main points.
Men as ‘Victims’ of Masculinity
Many articles have adopted an approach in which masculinity is solely responsible for men’s violent behaviours. This has been criticised by scholars for its effect in absolving men of the responsibility of their actions through the focus being placed on men as ‘victims’ of masculinity (Beasley, 2015; McCarry, 2007; Waling, 2019b). Regarding #MeToo, both ‘toxic’ and to a lesser extent, ‘healthy’ masculinity are dominant ways in which men are discussed, drawing upon medical and health discourses, often linking back to misunderstandings of Connell’s (1987) concept of hegemonic masculinity (a theory of gendered power relations in which men exert power over other men, women, and trans and gender diverse people). 7 A number of articles focus on masculinity as the main or sole reason for men’s problematic behaviours and violence towards women (e.g. De Gallier, 2018*; Dhaliwal, 2018*; Essig, 2018*; Friedman, 2018*; Marcotte, 2018*). Friedman (2018)* argues that ‘middle school could be an ideal time to inoculate boys against toxic masculinity’. Here, ‘toxic’ masculinity is positioned as something that can be ‘caught’, much like a virus if left unchecked. Toxic masculinity thus becomes something that is discursively inscribed onto the body, and requires some kind of formal health intervention before its effects take place.
Leser (2018)* indicates a ‘revolution in the masculine is required, one which calls us to return to a healthy masculinity’. Marcotte (2018)* in discussing experiences of consent violations notes that men and boys are aware of the harms they cause, they are ‘clear on the fact that their attentions were unwanted’. Yet a contradiction appears when Marcotte (2018)* contends ‘there are still powerful social forces that instruct boys, from an early age, to adopt domineering personas to prove their manhood’. Marcotte (2018)* thus advocates for education that provides a space for ‘reimagining what men and masculinity can be’ as a way to support boys and men whose actions and behaviours (i.e. harm and sexual violence) can be blamed on masculinity gender socialisation. De Gaillier (2018)* notes in their overview of women’s sexual violence experiences with musicians that ‘the idea of being a rock star is rooted in these deeply problematic ideas of masculinity’ as explanations for sexual misconduct. In these examples, masculinity becomes a kind of discursive force in which men are victims, positioning men as lacking awareness and agentic engagement in their practices of masculinity (see Waling, 2019b).
Inherently ‘Good’ and ‘Bad’ Men
Some articles engage in a notion of men as being inherently ‘good’ or ‘bad’, and it is these qualities that will determine whether they will engage in sexual violence. This has been noted as a common phenomenon in engaging in conversations about men’s sexual violence, where the notion of ‘good’ men is often used to challenge sexual assault accusations (e.g. Pascoe & Hollander, 2016). For example, Roberts (2018)* highlights in a conversation with a reader regarding potential #MeToo sexual violence accusations that the ‘decent and respectful man has little to fear…good men have nothing to worry about’. For Roberts’ interviewee, notions of ‘good’ then underpin what kind of man will, or will not, engage in sexual violence. Essig (2018)* maintains ‘good men [are] trying to reckon with their often-unwitting participation in the toxic currents of mainstream masculinity’. Essig (2018)* insinuates men are inherently good, but have the potential to be corrupted. In describing ‘bad’ men, particular language is used to reconfigure them as ‘Other’ such as ‘sexual predators’, ‘monsters’, ‘cretin’, ‘creep’, ‘pigs’, ‘rotten’ and ‘scourge’, and other colourful, dehumanising and mythologising vocabulary (e.g. Dhaliwal, 2018*; Essig, 2018*; Leser, 2018*; Silvester, 2018*; Szego, 2017*). For example, Silvester (2018)* in calling out men anonymously for their behaviour describes one as a ‘sewer rat that sniffs around Facebook looking for women’. Szego (2017)* notes calling women brave continues to perpetuate ‘the stigma around sexual assault that enables pigs such as Weinstein, [list of names] to escape reckoning for as long as they do’. The use of this language discursively produces a mythical ‘Other’ figure, thereby guising the reality that average, everyday men engage in these practices (Boyle, 2020; O’Hara, 2012). The innateness of ‘bad’ lends itself to what Roiphe (2017)* contends in her controversial essay is the ‘dramatic and indefensible crime of being male. . .all men are presumed guilty’ in which symbolic violence and silencing towards men is justified and deserved, due to centuries of men’s violence wrought upon women and trans and gender diverse people.
A few, however, have picked up on this problem of language and framing, such as Han (2018)* who argues that ‘categorising men as “good” or “bad” implies that those are two distinct and static groups, when the truth is that anyone can engage in inappropriate behaviour’. Likewise, Maley (2017)* notes ‘we can no longer pretend that the harassers are bad apples who exist at a remove from the rest of us’ suggesting focus needs to be on the everyday, average man who is just as capable of committing sexual violence as those deemed sexual predators. Here, there are calls to rethink the language, where continued framing of men as ‘bad’ continues to hinder rather than address gender inequalities (O’Hara, 2012).
‘Awakening’ and ‘Awakened’ Men
Some articles focus on men’s awareness of power and women’s experiences of sexual violence. This has been noted in Nilsson and Lundgren (2020)’s work in which they describe this as a discourse of ‘awakening’ that can be understood as a ‘fateful moment’ producing positive social change. However, I argue that ‘awakening’ has a different function more in alignment with feminist neoliberal discussions of ‘woke’ which describes the capacity for awareness and investment in social justice issues (Sobande, 2019). Sobande (2019) notes ‘woke’ culture has seeped into consumer and social entrepreneurialism, providing opportunities for individuals or institutions to brand themselves as ‘woke’, but that this alignment may be disingenuous.
A series of articles highlight men’s increasing awareness of, and confronted by, women’s experiences of sexual violence (e.g. Law, 2017*; Leser, 2018*; Dineen, 2017*; Richardson, 2017*). This discursively positions men as needing to be ‘awakened’ or are in the process of ‘awakening’. There are two ways in which this awareness occurs that lead to men ‘awakening’. The first, through familial and close friendships, in which men seek out and learn from those close to them about their experiences of sexual violence, often stating shock at finding out what their loved ones have been through (e.g. Law, 2017*; Leser, 2018*). Law (2017)* recounts a conversation with his mother, ‘asking her if she’d ever been sexually harassed, abused or assaulted. . .She dropped her hot chocolate and nodded vigorously, staring into my eyes as if to say, “Are you kidding? Of course.” Her stories were a wake-up call’. For others, it is the sheer number of women who confess to experiences of sexual violence in online spaces that ‘awaken’ them to the problem (Leser, 2018)*: I was horrified to hear that in the northern NSW town where my former wife and I raised our two daughters during the first decade of the noughties [2000s], the rape and abuse of teenage girls was purportedly not uncommon.
In these cases, familiarity with the victim/survivor, or multiple reported cases of sexual violence by various women were required for men to take the issue seriously.
Others note an awareness and draw upon memories in reflecting on potential moments of sexual violence transgressions. However, such awareness is curated through the selective language they use to describe their transgressions, ‘when they were too drunk to consent, he “had sex” with them’ (Friedman, 2018*), ‘I had sex with her when she didn’t want to’ (Moss, 2017*) or ‘I tried to penetrate her’ (Brodsky, 2017*). Language such as violence, harm, coercion, manipulation and rape are absent from these discussions. Some men are also aware of their power, such as the case of Kane (2017)* who highlights he used his awareness of how to make women uncomfortable to assert himself during a work confrontation, ‘I stared at her breasts until she stopped yelling at me, adjusted the cardigan she was wearing, and walked away’. Kane (2017)* argues men are aware of the power they hold and yield it when necessary. Similarly, Friedman (2018)* writes that a friend raped women because ‘I [friend interviewed] didn’t suffer any consequences’. Thomas-Peter (2018)* in interviewing a man who sexually assaulted women contends that at ‘his core, he knew what he was doing was wrong, and did it anyway because he wanted to’.
Yet, there is also an attempt to shift responsibility. For Thomas-Peter (2018)* while the interviewee admitted to rape and knowing that it was wrong, she maintains ‘that his behaviour was in part underpinned by a society-wide attitude that women’s bodies were not their own’. Dineen’s (2017)* interview with Steven Locke notes Locke felt ‘big and powerful’ after a violent outburst towards his partner made her cower in fear, and yet questioned ‘how could I do that to someone I loved? There was a great cognitive dissonance and my brain was just scrambled’ blaming mental health for his actions. Kane (2017)* notes his objectifying reaction to his manager was premised on his perception of poor treatment by a female manager at his place of work, and was a way to push back from his perceived position of inferiority and disadvantage. In each of these cases, men draw upon ‘woke’ discourses of social and economic disadvantage (Kane, 2017)*, feminist positions on sexual objectification (Thomas-Peter, 2018)* and psychological impacts of poor mental health (Dineen, 2017)* as explanations for their behaviours, enabling a shift of responsibility.
‘Lost’ Boys and Becoming ‘Men’
Prominent in the discussions is the subject position of the ‘lost’ boy 8 or man who needs guidance in engaging in a post-#MeToo world. Berg and Aaltonen (2017) contend that this notion of young boys requiring guidance can be found in social welfare approaches to supporting young men, whereby many are described as ‘lost’ and unable to cope without (feminine) guidance. Similar ideas can be found in mythopoetic movements, which encouraged men to seek out their natural inner warrior at overnight meetings and camps with other men (Singleton, 2004), often led by a leader or in the case of the Promise Keepers, a Christian saviour who could lead men to the right path. In #MeToo articles, these ideas have remanifested in attempts to address questions of ‘toxic’ masculinity and helping boys and men find ‘healthier’ ways of engaging in manhood (see Waling, 2019a).
Some articles position men as incapable of engaging in these practices of transformation without additional help and support, ‘they can become angry and lost because they’re still operating from boy psychology’ (Rubenstein quoted in Leser, 2018*). Here, men need to rid themselves of their boyish psychology and adapt a new, fully formed adult male mindset (whatever that may be). Others argue that female role models standing in place of men result in boys being unable to learn to engage with their emotions, (Williams, 2020*), challenging Berg and Aaltonen (2017)’s assertion that feminine guidance is needed. Williams (2020)* in her interview with author Peggy Orstein notes boys confiding to their mothers results in women ‘teaching them over and over that women are the source of their emotional labour’. This is echoed in Svokos (2017)* who questions ‘why does it always, always, always have to be the work of a woman to teach men how to be human beings’? There is also an emphasis on engaging male role models rather than women to support boys. MacDiarmid (2018)* argues ‘if as men we model respectful, engaged relationships with women, the boys in our lives will potentially learn those behaviours themselves’. Further, there is emphasis on the ‘right path’ model, ‘rather than waiting for boys to go down a certain path, they want to have the conversation now’ as though once a path is chosen, young men will no longer be able to change, or alter it (Cookney, 2020*).
Goodwin’s (2018)* work also notes this, where men are being positioned as ‘lost’ and need to find pathways to become whole again. A journalist attending a masculinity workshop in the UK, Goodwin (2018)* finds the experience bewildering, and uncertain as to its goal: When I describe all this [the experience] to my wife, she seem unsurprised that we lacked direction. “When women get together, we don’t talk about femininity. We talk about rights.” Perhaps with no specific political cause to rally around, men have nothing else to contemplate other than our wounded feelings.
Goodwin’s passage articulates a tension here in relation to men, #MeToo and masculinity, that perhaps these men are in fact lost since they do not have an experience of oppression to bind them together, at least not one coherent in its articulation and understanding. Goodwin (2018)* further questions his experiences on attending such groups: I’m not sure my own experiences with men’s groups have left me more embodied in my masculinity (no doubt I haven’t gone deep enough). I also wonder if viewing everything through the prism of masculinity really helps men to be better men. If I didn’t spend much time worrying about whether I was being true to my gender identity beforehand, I sure as hell did afterwards. (Goodwin, 2018*)
Goodwin (2018*) points to a growing concern in academic circles about the use of ‘masculinity’ as the only lens to understand men (see Beasley, 2015; Haywood, 2020; McCarry, 2007; Waling, 2019b). Masculinity has been argued to be a ‘scape-goat’ in thinking about how to engage men on issues of gendered violence as it tends to disembody men from their actions (see Beasley, 2015; McCarry, 2007; Waling, 2019b).
Protectors and False Heroes
Multiple articles consider the appropriate responses of men to issues of #MeToo, sexual violence, and women’s experiences of oppression. Some articles focus on what men could and should do, positioning them as protectors of women. This requires not only recognising their power and privilege as men, but to use this as a way to advocate for women (e.g. Bonos, 2017*; MacDiarmid, 2018*; Millweard, 2017*; Richardson, 2017*; Rosario, 2017*; Reece, 2018*). As Richardson (2017)* writes: So it’s time for us men to step up and do more. Our society historically expects and encourages men to hold positions of power, so for better or worse, it’s our responsibility to push for cultural and institutional changes that protect and empower women and girls. As men, I believe we have a responsibility to be first responders when we see women at risk.
Here, men continue to be upheld as pivotal in preventing sexual violence, drawing upon old discourses that ‘the role of [a] courageous, responsible, and virtuous man is that of a protector’ (Young, 2003, p. 4). Silvester (2018)*, for example, uses his status to provide descriptions of sexual harassment and ‘calls out’ sexual abusers, though does so while maintaining said abusers’ anonymity. Alongside this are calls for men to take responsibility for their actions and behaviours, admitting to engaging in sexual violence in public forums, such as the use of #Ihave in social media, and speaking up against acts on gender inequality and sexism when encountered (e.g. Bonos, 2017*; Brodsky, 2017*; Millweard, 2017*; Rosario, 2017*; Reece, 2018*; Tokaji, 2018*). This is regarded as good feminist allyship. For example, Tokaji (2018)* notes that #Ihave/#Ididthat is crucial, ‘it is honest, real, apologetic, and it engages the matter in a healthy way because it is future-focused and solution-oriented’. For those advocating to improve men, some articles encourage the adoption of empathy and compassion, and for men to educate themselves on social justice issues, particularly those pertaining to the sexual harms and oppressions women experience (e.g. Bonos, 2017*; Cookney, 2020*; Millweard, 2017*; Rosario, 2017*; Reece, 2018*).
However, there is also a focus on ‘the self’ and that men should try to improve their behaviours for their own individual purposes, rather than encouraging empathy and compassion for others. Cookney (2020)* in his review of masculinity and consent workshops notes these are premised around ‘try [ing] to empower them [young men] to want more from themselves’. This discursively reproduces the notion men should focus on themselves rather than others, which has been criticised in comments about the individualist nature of focussing on masculinity (e.g. Beasley, 2015; Burrell, 2018; Keddie, 2021; Keddie et al., 2022), rather than on their behaviour towards others.
There is also a significant pushback against how men are responding to #MeToo. Some articles such as Moss (2017),* Steussy (2017),* and Svokos (2017)*, criticise men’s engagements, such as their use of #Ihave or voluntary admissions of potential bad behaviour, arguing these actions co-opt the #MeToo movement and risk traumatising victims and survivors. Steussy (2017)*, for example, notes ‘having men echo a woman’s own thoughts, then expecting to get recognition, is an all-too-familiar phenomenon to any woman’ gesturing towards the issue of men being listened to and heard, while women continue to be ignored. Some such as Svokos (2017)* position men as needing to do the work of dismantling gender inequality silently, and without recognition or public awareness. Schwartz (2017)* questions the effectiveness of social media, arguing it promotes and encourages superficial allyship: it’s hard to see how using social media to ask the world to bear witness to your [men’s] generalised confession to coercion, or even, in some cases, to the crime of rape, does anything but trivialise and compound the damage done.
Some note men who admit to having harmed someone should undergo criminal proceedings rather than admitting to wrong-doings and facing little consequence (e.g. Campus Voice, 2017*; Steussy, 2017*). Others have picked up on the problem of performativity of feminism and allyship in #MeToo public discourse, such as Dhaliwal (2018)* who notes ‘the emergence of the outspoken male feminist: a politicised version of the creepy, approval-seeking Mr-Nice-Guy routine that has always been the ruse of a sexual cretin, and often the mask of underhanded abuser’.
Discussion
The findings of this exploratory work highlight the tensions and contradictions in how men are being positioned in #MeToo public debates. Masculinity is positioned as both something men do consciously and something that is done to, and unconsciously internalised by, them. (McCarry, 2007; Waling, 2019b). As Haywood (2020) notes, masculinity has become the thing through which to understand men and what men are assumed to possess, that is the default subject position (Törrönen, 2001). As a result, men are charged with needing to correct, or change their masculinity, but are also assumed to be simultaneously unaware of its pressures and impacts.
The distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ men might seem like a parallel to how women are set up as either the ‘ideal’ victim of sexual violence (unfortunate good girl), or, as having deserved what happened (the ‘asking for it’ bad girl) (see Powell et al., 2018). For men, however, this is different. Men in #MeToo commentaries are often positioned as either inherently good or bad, rather than something they can control at will. This shifts responsibility away from men’s actions and behaviours, instead essentialising their engagement with sexual violence as an inherent, and therefore unfixable aspect of their sexuality and gender identity (McCarry, 2007). Further, the positioning of men as not having shed their ‘boyish psychologies’ feeds into long-standing beliefs boys are naturally sexually aggressive and engage in lewd, rambunctious, and violent behaviours (Murnen et al., 2002). Known as the ‘boys will be boys’ adage, this has been criticised for its naturalising of boys and young men’s violence and misogyny towards women (e.g. Weiss, 2009). There is focus on a traditional rhetoric of assigning women the job of domesticating ‘wild’ men, thereby shifting the responsibility from men’s behaviours, and the prevention of sexual violence back onto women.
For those who are ‘awakening’, as a series of articles highlight, men’s increasing awareness of women’s issues has led to a subject position of naivety and newly acquired knowledge. This naivety enables a kind of safeguard, or perhaps method of dealing with the ‘ugly feelings’ (Nilsson & Lundgren, 2020) these revelations may evoke. There continues to be a strong focus on criticising, with little focus on how to enact or implement change, particularly around men’s engagement with #MeToo (De Benedictis et al., 2019). While these criticisms are valid in addressing long-standing sexual violence towards women, they do not, as De Benedictis et al. (2019) contend, provide consistent guidance as to what can or should be done, or what subject positions men could or should take up.
A double-bind emerges whereby men continue to be upheld as authority figures in enacting social change, and yet at the same time are deemed incapable and in need of education and close guidance. There are mixed ideas about whether the guidance role should be taken on by or by men. While this is certainly a potential artefact of differing political and social opinions on the social movement, the findings highlight broader competing discourses and tensions as to how to think about men’s involvement with the aims of #MeToo in addressing men’s sexual violence towards women (Burrell, 2018; Keddie, 2021; Keddie et al., 2022). For example, in the case of role models or men’s responses to #MeToo, the call for men to model good behaviour or to speak out with #IHave may in fact reproduce the notion men will or should only listen to other men. While there is awareness of the constant mental and emotional labour women are expected to invest in the process of addressing gender inequality and men need to act, there is also the issue of shifting the responsibility to men, which may continue to undermine women’s voices and experiences. This has already been noted as a critique of men’s involvement with hashtags like #IDidThat and #IHave (i.e. Steussy, 2017*). An analysis of media surrounding #MeToo noted above highlights similar contradictions to critiques of gender violence prevention initiatives seeking to engage men, whereby there have been concerns about the loss of focus and resources to support women (Burrell, 2018; Keddie, 2021; Keddie et al., 2022). These discursive tensions are left unresolved, but are important. Competing discourses regarding how men should engage with the aims of #MeToo make it more difficult to develop programs, public campaigns, and initiatives that can have effective social change and transformation as a response to these important aims (Keddie et al., 2022). This speaks to Gill and Orgad’s (2018) concern as to whether the movement can have long-lasting structural and systemic change when it comes to men and masculinity.
Conclusion
Where to from here? This exploratory work of media commentaries concerning #MeToo and men, boys and masculinity sheds light on how particular ideas are taken up within public debates, and raises further questions as to how men might be, or could be, engaging with these ideas. In this case, I see the findings of this work leading to more important questions for future research and practice development regarding men and gendered violence prevention, such as advocated by Keddie et al. (2022) who note an urgent need to consider intersectionality carefully in developing programs and initiatives that can attend to intersections of economic, cultural and political challenges boys and men face, while continuing to ensure attention is paid to the gendered privileges men and boys experience at the expense of women and trans and gender diverse people. These include reconsidering the best way to get men engaged in #MeToo and similar gendered violence prevention initiatives (e.g. Burrell, 2018; Keddie, 2021; Keddie et al., 2022), whether or not focussing on masculinity remains the right pathway (e.g. Haywood, 2020; McCarry, 2007; Waling, 2019b, 2019b) and how we can engage men to achieve transformation in the direction of gender equality.
Footnotes
Appendix
Materials Cited.
| Citation | Publication type | Country of publication | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bonos, L. (2017, October 19). Not everyone with a #MeToo is posting their story; here’s why some are refraining. Washington Post, 19.10. Accessed 21.07.2020 | Traditional news | United States of America | Discussion of why women may not feel supported, able to, or comfortable in sharing their experiences of sexual violence |
| Brodksy, S. (2017, November 17). After #MeToo campaign goes viral, men are saying #ItWasMe. WPBF News. Accessed 17.04.2020 | Traditional news | United States of America | Overview of the #ItWasMe hashtag where men admit to engaging in various forms of sexual violence |
| Campus voice. (2017, November 9). #Ihave to talk to you about sexual assault. Griffon News. Accessed 21.07.2020 | Social news | United States of America | A critical take on the #ihave hashtag which argues it does not support women’s experiences of sexual violence |
| Cookney, F. (2020, April 24). How do young men navigate consent in a post-Me too world? Positive News. Accessed 17.07.2020 | Social news | United Kingdom | In-depth piece with interviews with young men examining how they are engaging with dating, sex and consent |
| De Gallier, T. (2018, March 16). ‘I wouldn’t want this for anybody’s daughter’: Will #MeToo kill off the rock’n'roll groupie? The Guardian. Accessed 21/07/2020 | Traditional news | Australia | Discussion of shifts in expectations regarding sexual encounters between young women and professional/celebrity musicians |
| Dhaliwal, N.S. (2018, October 16). Why #MeToo has made men afraid. The New Zealand Herald. Accessed 17.07.2020 | Traditional news | New Zealand | Critical look at the impacts of #MeToo on men’s experiences of privilege and power |
| Dineen, T. (2017, October 31). “I have led women on, I’ve cheated’: One man’s #IHave story.” CBC. Accessed 16.07.2020 | Traditional news | Canada | Discussion of men’s experiences of committing sexual violence towards women |
| Doubek, J. (2017, November 5). Power, consent and sexual harassment in the public eye. 89.3 KPCC. Accessed 31.07.2020 | Traditional news | United States of America | A discussion of perspectives concerning power, consent and #MeToo, including a discussion of whether or not the movement is creating further issues |
| Essig, T. (2018, May 28). “4 ways straight men are responding to #MeToo.” Forbes. Accessed 20.07.2020 | Online magazine | United States of America | Overview of how men are responding to the #MeToo movement which includes positive and negative responses |
| Friedman, J. (2018, March 12). Building better men: how we can begin to redefine masculinity. The Guardian. Accessed 17.07.2020 | Traditional news | Australia | Opinion piece that offers a perspective in how men’s behaviours can change for the better, with a focus on changing masculinity |
| Han, A. (2018, January 1). Aziz Ansari’s career isn’t over. What happens now? Mashable. Accessed 17.7.2020 | Social news | United States of America | Discussion of the Babe.net article controversy concerning Aziz Ansari and sexual violence |
| Leser, D. (2018, February 9). Women, men and the whole damn thing. The Age. Accessed 17.07 | Traditional news | Australia | A critical look at how the #MeToo movement has unfolded, why it has and where it should go |
| MacDiarmid, M. (2018, February 9). Male privilege has lasting effects on boys. I see it in court every day. ABC News. Accessed 17.07.2020 | Traditional news | Australia | Critical look at how privilege and power shapes boys and men, from a legal and family violence perspective |
| Maley, J. (2017, February 2). Who’s next? #metoo has made the news dangerous. Sydney Morning Herald. Accessed 17.07.2020 | Traditional news | Australia | A look at how #MeToo is supporting women to speak up about their experiences of sexual violence, with support for the movement |
| Marcotte, A. (2018, August 25). Could ‘consent education’ really work to prevent sexual assault? Salon. Accessed 25.08.2020 | Social news | United States of America | Discussion of consent education and whether it may be effective |
| Millweard, C. (2017, October 18). How can men support #metoo victims? Kvue. Accessed 25.08.2020 | Traditional news | United States of America | Discussion of ways in which men can take responsibility and support victim/survivors of sexual violence |
| Moss, R. (2017, October 19). ‘Why men need to be cautious about tweeting #ItWasMe’. Huffington Post. Accessed 17.07.2020 | Social news | Australia | Provides an overview of why the #ItWasMe hashtag may be problematic, including its impact on women |
| Reece, R.L. (2018, March 20). How men are adjusting to the #MeToo era: ‘This is going to take a really long time’. Vox. Accessed 17.07.2020 | Social news | United States of America | Overview of perspectives on how men are engaging with the #MeToo movement and expectations concerning work, sex and dating |
| Richardson, R. (2017, November 30). America, we have a man problem. The Enquirer. Accessed 17/7/2020 | Traditional news | United States of America | Discussion of men’s behaviours, with a focus on supporting men to become more engaged with gender inequality initiatives |
| Roberts, R. (2018, November 11). My #MeToo debate with a critical reader. The Washington Post. Accessed 17.07.2020 | Traditional news | United States of America | Critical look at the possibility to support women regarding their experiences of sexual violence while also supporting men |
| Roiphe, K. (2018, March). The other whisper network: How twitter feminism is bad for women. Harper’s Magazine. Accessed 21.07.2020 | Online magazine | United States of America | Controversial essay exploring the impact that social media has on ability to speak freely about experiences, and uncertainties about appropriate justice |
| Rosario, R. (2017, October 19). ‘“Me Too” raises more awareness of a perennial scourge’. Pioneer Press. Accessed 21.07.2020 | Traditional news | United States of America | Overview of men, masculinity and sexual violence in response to #MeToo |
| Schwartz, A. (2017, October 19). #MeToo, #ItWasMe, and the post-Weinstein megaphone of social media. The New Yorker. Accessed 21.07.2020 | Traditional news | United States of America | Overview of the #MeToo movement and critical look at the impact this has had on men in power |
| Silvester, J. (2018, February 16). #MeToo’s male backers must walk the talk. The Age. Accessed 07.21.2020 | Traditional news | Australia | Opinion piece that looks at the pros and cons of the #MeToo movement |
| Steussy, L. (2017, October 18). Men, women don’t want your #IHearYou hashtags. New York Post. Accessed 21.07.2020 | Traditional news | United States of America | A critical take on the #ihave hashtag which argues it does not support women’s experiences of sexual violence |
| Svokos, A. (2017, October 19). Men’s responses to #MeToo aren’t impressive or enough. Elite Daily. Accessed 21.07.2020 | Social news | United States of America | A critical take on the #ihave hashtag which argues it does not support women’s experiences of sexual violence |
| Szego, J. (2017, October 21). The great power of #MeToo. The Age. Accessed 21.07.2020 | Traditional news | Australia | Overview of the #MeToo movement and its capacity to support women |
| Thomas-Peter, H. (2018, February 21). Face to face with a rapist: The man who admits #IHave. Skynews. Accessed 17.07.2020 | Traditional news | Australia | Discussion of men’s experiences of committing sexual violence towards women |
| Tokaji, A. (2018, August 1). Why #IDidThat is better than #MeToo. Fairfax Media Publications. Accessed 21.07.2020 | Traditional news | Australia | A critical take on the #IDidThat hashtag regarding #MeToo and admissions of committing sexual violence |
| Williams, M.E. (2020, January 14). ‘Boys & sex’ author: If you can’t say no, I don’t know if you can hear it. Salon. Accessed 16.07.2020 | Social news | United States of America | An interview with Peggy Orstein, author of boys and sex and her work concerning how boys think about and engage with sex |
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr Steven Angelides, Associate Professor Jennifer Power, Dr Jonathan A. Allan, Associate Professor Chris Haywood and Professor Kath Albury for their guidance and support during the writing of this work. I’d also like to thank the reviewers who provided helpful ideas and suggestions to strengthen and improve this piece.
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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work is funded by the Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (DE200101539).
Notes
Author Biography
) explores how young, heterosexual men in Australia are navigating and negotiating intimacy, sex, and consent in wake of #MeToo politics and awareness around sexual violence against women. To date she has attracted over $1.4 million AUD in competitive funding, and has over 70 publications. She has earned several awards for her research, most recently the La Trobe University Excellence in Research Impact (2021) for the Understanding LGBTI+ Lives in Crisis project.