This paper aims to explore how men perform masculinities in their relationships with women and how their behaviour is enabled and/or maintained in modern society. An affective–discursive approach was adopted to analyse six in-depth interviews with men who identified as perpetrators of violence in intimate relationships. The analysis portrays how heteronormative discourses on masculinity frame participants’ understanding of the violence they had committed. However, the most pervasive reference point in the participants’ accounts was the construct of the monster. The participants’ understanding of their violence had an intersectional angle as the monster figured differently in their stories, depending on their social positioning. The middle-class participants believed that the monster essentialised and dehumanised them and called for new ways to talk about violence. The working-class participants experienced their violence as masculinity out of control, referring to past trauma and the intensity of their love for their partners, while dodging accountability for their actions. The findings underline the need for discourses on knowledge that encourage men to take responsibility for their actions without being dehumanised.
AhallL. (2018). Affect as methodology: Feminism and the politics of emotion. International Political Sociology, 12(1), 36–59. https://doi.org/10.1093/ips/olx024
AuðardóttirA. M. (2022). “I am the black duck”: Affective aspects of working-class mothers’ involvement in parental communities. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 43(1), 22–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2021.1999791
7.
BeresM. A. (2007). “Spontaneous” sexual consent: An analysis of sexual consent literature. Feminism & Psychology, 17(1), 93–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353507072914
8.
BjarnasonÍ. K.PétursdóttirG. M. (2019). Varla brot eða vondir menn: Orðræða um kynferðisbrot í fjölmiðlum og athugasemdakerfum [Hardly a crime or bad men: discourse on sexual violence in the media and the comment sections.]. Íslenska Þjóðfélagið, 10(1), 21–39. https://www.thjodfelagid.is/index.php/Th/article/view/139
9.
BridgesT.PascoeC. J. (2014). Hybrid masculinities: New directions in the sociology of men and masculinities. Sociology Compass, 8(3), 246–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12134
10.
ClarkeV.BraunV. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. Sage.
11.
CollinsP. H. (2000). Gender, black feminism, and black political economy. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 568(1), 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/000271620056800105
12.
ConnellR. (2005). Masculinities. University of California Press.
13.
CrenshawK. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. The University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139–167.
14.
de BoiseS. (2018). The personal is political … just not always progressive: Affective interruptions and their promise for CSMM. NORMA: International Journal for Masculinity Studies, 13(3–4), 158–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/18902138.2017.1325098
15.
de BoiseS.HearnJ. (2017). Are men getting more emotional? Critical sociological perspectives on men, masculinities and emotions. The Sociological Review, 65(4), 779–796. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026116686500
16.
DeanM. (2010). Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society(2nd ed.).Sage.
17.
DobashR. E.DobashR. (1979). Violence against wives: A case against the patriarchy. Free Press.
18.
EinarsdóttirÞ. J. (2020). All that glitters is not gold: Shrinking and bending gender equality in rankings and nation branding. NORA: Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 28(2), 140–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/08038740.2020.1745884
19.
GaveyN. (2018). Just sex? The cultural scaffolding of rape(2nd ed.). Routledge.
20.
GottzénL. (2013). Skam, maskulinitet och respons på mäns våld mot kvinnor. [Shame, masculinity and responses to men’s violence against women]. Socialvetenskaplig Tidskrift, 20(2), 75–92. https://doi.org/10.3384/SVT.2013.20.2.2439
21.
GottzénL. (2019). Chafing masculinity: Heterosexual violence and young men’s shame. Feminism & Psychology, 29(2), 286–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353518776341
22.
GottzénL.BerggrenK. (2021). The rape capital or the most gender-equal country in the world? Masculinity, hybridity and young men’s intimate partner violence in Sweden. In GottzénL.BjørnholtM.BoonzaierF. (Eds.), Men, masculinities and intimate partner violence (pp. 66–80). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429280054
HearnJ. (1998). The violences of men: How men talk about and how agencies respond to men’s violence to women. Sage.
25.
HolmaJ.PäivinenH.SiltalaH.KaikkonenS. (2021). Intimate partner violence in Finland. In StithS. M.SpencerC. M. (Eds.), International perspectives on intimate partner violence (pp. 65–75). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74808-1_8
26.
JewkesR.FloodM.LangJ. (2015). From work with men and boys to changes of social norms and reduction of inequities in gender relations: A conceptual shift in prevention of violence against women and girls. The Lancet, 385(9977), 1580–1589. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61683-4
JóhannsdóttirÁ.GíslasonI. V. (2018). Young Icelandic men’s perception of masculinities. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 26(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1060826517711161
KellyL. (1988). Surviving sexual violence. Polity Press.
31.
KellyL. (1996). “It’s everywhere”: Sexual violence as a continuum. In Stevi JacksonS. S. (Ed.), Feminism and sexuality: A reader (pp. 191–206). Columbia University Press.
32.
LazardL. (2020). Sexual harassment, psychology and feminism: #MeToo, victim politics and predators in neoliberal times. Palgrave Pivot.
33.
MesserschmidtJ. (2012). Engendering gendered knowledge: Assessing the academic appropriation of hegemonic masculinity. Men and Masculinities, 15(1), 56–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X11428384
ÓlafsdóttirK.KjaranJ. I. (2019). “Boys in power”: Consent and gendered power dynamics in sex. Boyhood Studies, 12(1), 38–56. https://doi.org/10.3167/bhs.2019.120104
36.
PaechterC. (2007). Being boys; being girls: Learning masculinities and femininities. Open University Press.
37.
PétursdóttirG. M.Greta RúdólfsdóttirA. (2022). “When he turns his back to me, I give him the finger”: Sexual violations in work environments and women’s world-making capacities. Journal of Gender Studies, 31(2), 262–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2021.1956443
PtacekJ. (2021). Hidden dramas of masculinity: Women’s perspectives on intimate violence in different social classes. Violence Against Women, 27(5), 666–687. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801220958486
40.
ReeserT. (2017). Producing awkwardness: Affective labour and masculinity in popular culture. Mosaic: An Interdisciplinary Critical Journal, 50(4), 51–68. https://www.jstor.org/stable/90015599
ShildrickM. (2002). Embodying the monster: Encounters with the vulnerable self. Sage.
44.
SkeggsB. (2004). Class, self, culture. Routledge.
45.
SteinþórsdóttirF. S.PétursdóttirG. M. (2019). Ábyrgar konur og sjúkir karlar. Birtingarmyndir nauðgunarmenningar í íslensku samfélagi. [Responsible women and sick men: Manifestations of rape culture in Icelandic society.]. Ritið, 19(1), 15–40. https://doi.org/10.33112/ritid.19.1.2
46.
WacquantL. (2009). Punishing the poor: The neoliberal government of social insecurity. Duke University Press.
47.
WetherellM. (2012). Affect and emotion: A new social science understanding. Sage.
48.
WetherellM. (2013). Affect and discourse – what’s the problem? From affect as excess to affective/discursive practice. Subjectivity, 6(4), 349–368. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1057/sub.2013.13
49.
WetherellM.McConvilleA.McCreanorT. (2020). Defrosting the freezer and other acts of quiet resistance: Affective practice theory, everyday activism and affective dilemmas. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 17(1), 13–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2019.1581310
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
