Masculinity and Violence Interconnectedness: Defining and Reconciling the Gender Paradox Among Men With Cumulative Lifetime Violence Histories

Abstract

Among men, gender and views about violence contribute to how men, and others, identify and respond to violence and related outcomes. Despite this, little is known about men’s perspectives regarding gender/masculinities and cumulative lifetime violence (CLV) exposure. Using the qualitative method of Interpretative description, the complex relationship between gender and violence for men who have experienced CLV was explored. Interviews with thirty-two men who experienced CLV revealed a complex interrelation between masculinity and violence (MV interconnectedness). This intricate connection is difficult to separate due to persistent normalization and acceptance of violence. Because violence is one way that men live up to pressure to ‘be a man,’ MV interconnectedness positively contributes to men’s sense of self. However, MV interconnectedness also contributes to significant harm. The contradictory nature of MV interconnectedness and the tension that arises when men contemplate the link between gender and violence was labelled ‘the paradox’. As men grapple with the paradox, and the ways that gender and violence have influenced their lives, they are able to move toward disconnecting violence from how they define themselves as men. The paradox is a significant addition to the understanding of how men may reject the narrative that masculinity and violence are interconnected. MV Interconnectedness demonstrates that the link between masculinity and violence perpetration is not straightforward. Normalization and acceptance of violence calls for efforts to counteract the messages and pressures boys and men receive that influence their behaviour.

Plain language summary

Understanding masculinity and violence interconnectedness among men with cumulative lifetime violence histories

Among men, gender and views about violence contribute to how men, and others, identify and respond to violence and related outcomes. Despite this, little is known about men’s perspectives regarding gender/masculinities and cumulative lifetime violence (CLV) exposure. Using Interpretive Description analysis of qualitative interviews with men, we explored the complex relationship between gender and violence for men who have experienced CLV. This revealed a complex interrelationship between masculinity and violence (MV interconnectedness). This intricate connection is difficult to separate due to persistent normalization and acceptance of violence. Because violence is one way that men live up to pressure to “be a man,” MV interconnectedness positively contributes to men’s sense of self. However, MV interconnectedness also contributes to significant harm. The contradictory nature of MV interconnectedness and the tension that arises when men contemplate the link between gender and violence was labelled “the paradox.” As men grapple with the paradox, and the ways that gender and violence have influenced their lives, they are able to move toward disconnecting violence from how they define themselves as men.

Introduction

Among men, there is evidence that gender and views of the appropriate use of violence in the context of families, relationships and communities is associated with being a perpetrator and/or a target of violence (Fleming et al., 2015; Hamby & Jackson 2010; Hogan, 2016). Gender and views about men’s violence contribute to how men, and others who are positioned to support them, identify and respond to violence and the related outcomes (Elkins, et al., 2017). Despite these well-established links, little is known about men’s perspectives about masculinities and cumulative lifetime violence (CLV) experiences. In part, this is because most research has focused narrowly on experiences of particular types of violence as either target or perpetrator, ignoring the co-occurrence and interrelations among multiple, diverse, and gendered experiences of violence (Scott-Storey et al., 2020). Based on this, we define CLV as physical, psychological, or sexual violence experience as perpetrator and/or target across the lifespan (e.g., childhood, adolescence and/or adulthood) in a range of contexts (e.g., family, community, school, partner, workplace) and acknowledge the distress these experiences may cause. We discovered in our Men’s Violence, Gender and Health Study (MVGHS) 82% of men reported experiencing violence as both target and perpetrator across their lifespan (Scott-Storey et al., 2018). Thus, in the current analysis we explored how dual experiences as target and/or perpetrator are informed by and affect perceptions of gender, from lived experiences of men with CLV. This will help provide new and greater understanding of the complex relationships that exist between masculinity and violence for men who have experiences of CLV.

Background and Purpose

Although binary notions of gender that align with biological sex dominate social discourse, gender is understood as a fluid, social construct influenced by and negotiated in relation to social, cultural, and historical contexts (Connell, 1995, 2005). Gender is a relational construct through which individuals are considered and appraised in relation to one another (e.g., men to women, masculine to feminine) (Connell, 1995, 2005), creating expectations about gender and what it means to be a woman, man, transgender, etcetera. Gender expectations further intersect with factors such as ethnicity, race, culture, social class, sex, and sexuality (Lohan, 2010). Culturally, institutionally, and socially valued gender expectations are embedded in families, schools, communities, and broader society, and inform dominant ideals about what it means to be a boy/man (Lohan, 2010). Although there is significant variation in constructions and expressions of gender among men, and notions of masculinity vary international and culturally, because this research was conducted in Canada, conceptualizations of masculinity and literature cited is based on gendered social norms that align with North American culture. In North America, dominant views about what it means to be a boy/man continue to reflect traditional or stereotypical ideals such as, risk taking, self-reliance, prioritizing work, emotional control, dominance, and having power over women (Mahalik et al., 2011). Although these ideals are often unattainable, even undesirable, boys and men continue to experience pressure to satisfy, and are measured against, these expectations (Taylor et al., 2013).

Because gender is a social construct, socialization to gender ideals and expectations begins at birth and continues throughout men’s lives (Fleming et al., 2015; Rivera & Scholar, 2020) and for men/boys, this often includes behaviours such as exhibiting power, dominance and violence. For example, preschoolers have associated power with being male (Charafeddine et al., 2020) and middle school aged boys perceived they may be bullied by peers for demonstrating behavior that does not align with masculine ideals (Rosen & Nofziger, 2019). Adult men who do not demonstrate behaviors reflecting such ideals can be targets of gender role harassment (Berdahl, 2007), which can threaten men’s sense of masculinity (Funk & Werhun, 2011). For example, bullying and gender role harassment has been reported among men who work in sectors traditionally not occupied by men such as nursing (Erikson & Einarsen, 2004). These studies reveal that these stereotypical or traditional ideals create pressure for boys and men to express themselves in particular ways, and that behaviours that do not align with such ideals creates risk and potential for harm.

Violence is “the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual against oneself, another person or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation” (World Health Organization [WHO], 2002, p. 5) and is one way that traditional masculine ideals may be demonstrated (E. H. Thompson & Bennett, 2017). Indeed, men’s experiences of violence have been linked to masculine socialization (American Psychological Association, Boys and Men Guidelines Group, 2018). For example, socialization to suppress emotions and vulnerabilities may compel young males to express their emotions through aggression or violence, a pattern that continues in adulthood (Feder et al., 2010). Adolescents identified that it was “more acceptable, or expected, that men are more violent and aggressive than women” (McCarry, 2010, p. 23) and young men were more likely to perpetrate sexual violence when they had higher hostile masculinity scores and believed that peers were accepting of sexual aggression (M. Thompson et al., 2013). Violent and aggressive behavior in families has been linked to increased aggression and violence in children, and there is some evidence to suggest that boys who are socialized to conform to masculine ideals (i.e., aggression, dominance,) are more likely to engage in violence as adults (Feder et al., 2010). This reinforces the idea that traditional masculine norms support the use of violence as an acceptable way for men to express masculinity.

Men may experience violence both as a target and as a perpetrator. A substantial amount of research has focused on men who perpetrate violence, particularly intimate partner violence (IPV). Men who endorse traditional masculine beliefs tend to have more difficulties in relationships with women, including IPV perpetration (Tager et al., 2010). Men who experience masculine discrepancy stress, stress that “arises when a man believes that he is, or believes he is perceived to be insufficiently masculine” were more likely to perpetrate IPV (Reidy et al., 2014, p. 160). Further, men’s perceived need for power in intimate relationships was manifested in attempts to control partners as a means to avoid being controlled (Peralta & Tuttle, 2013). This supports our previous research findings about mental health status among men with CLV where some men use violence towards partners as a way of gaining power within relationships (Taylor et al., 2021). Taylor’s et al. (2013) meta-synthesis revealed that some men use violence as a way of maintaining power and control, particularly when they endorse traditional views of masculinity but lack power and resources associated with employment, marriage, and fatherhood. Links between traditional views of masculinity and acceptance of IPV/sexual violence myths have also been revealed. Studies have shown that men who endorsed traditional masculine norms were more likely to agree with statements such as, women who do not struggle during a sexual encounter or leave an abuser, are consenting to those acts and thus are not victims of violence (Cole et al., 2020; Gage & Lease, 2021).

In addition to being perpetrators, men also experience violence as targets in a variety of interpersonal and community contexts. For example, of those who experienced and reported violent crimes to police in Canada, men comprised 46% of victims (Sutton, 2023). Target or victim status is contradictory to traditional or stereotypical masculine ideals and is associated with lack of control and weakness, especially among men. Some men who are victims of IPV report homophobic and emasculating statements (McHugh et al., 2013; Nybergh et al., 2016), which may make targeted men believe they are not fulfilling masculine expectations. And it appears that maintaining masculine status is important for men who experience victimization. Brooks et al. (2017) identified that men who were targets of IPV reframed experiences by discussing violence in terms of their own power and control in the situation. Similarly, Burcar and Åkerström (2009) noted that, although the men in their study identified themselves as “victims” of violent crimes (i.e., mugging), when describing those events, language used highlighted and preserved their masculinity. This provides evidence that being a target of violence does not support traditional masculine norms and ideas that men perpetrate but are not targets of violence and highlights the importance of understanding men’s perspectives as both target and perpetrator. Additionally, evidence suggests that some men who are targets reciprocate and/or perpetrate violence to preserve masculinity. In a two-year ethnographic study, Ellis (2016) found that some men who have been victims and/or witnesses of various forms of violence may subsequently perpetrate violence to demonstrate masculinity and thus preserve masculine status. Specifically, being a victim of violence left men feeling weak with no control, whereas exhibiting physical strength and engaging in physical violence resulted in feeling dominant and in control (Ellis, 2016). Similarly, Harrington et al. (2021) identified that when men felt that their masculinity was diminished by low relationship power, or when they had greater psychological strain associated with traditional gender roles, they were more likely to perpetrate violence toward their intimate partner. Others have identified that men who experience gender role conflict may express their distress through harmful behaviors including violence and aggression (Fleming et al., 2015; Taylor et al., 2013). These studies reveal that men may engage in various acts of violence to maintain masculine status thereby reinforcing the idea that men are not only required to engage in acts of violence, but must also avoid being a victim or target of violence (Connell, 2005).

To date, research examining the link between lifetime violence and gender for men has been limited by narrow focus on specific demographic groups and particular contexts and types of violence (such as geographical locations or physical violence or IPV; e.g., Ellis, 2016; Voith et al., 2020). However, because many men report multiple experiences of various forms of violence as target and/or perpetrator across the lifespan, investigation must be broadened to address gender and the pervasive occurrence and recurrence of violence in men’s lives. When boys and men are exposed to violence over periods of time, they may start to accept and normalize those experiences (Ellis et al., 2017; Rosen & Nofziger, 2019). However, because not all men go on to use violence, it is important to examine and understand factors that influence men’s acceptance and endorsement of stereotypical male behaviors (Christofidou, 2021). Because people often learn gender norms from early youth, which can influence their behavior as adults (Heise et al., 2019), it is reasonable to assume that men who experience violence early in life, may be more willing to accept violence as a normal occurrence. Therefore, it is important to understand the role that violence experienced as target and/or perpetrator plays in shaping gender and one’s sense of self as a man. Given the narrow scope of men’s violence experience addressed in the existing literature, we defined CLV as physical, psychological, or sexual violence that occurred during childhood, adolescence or adulthood, as perpetrators and/or targets within different contexts (e.g., family, community, school, partner, workplace) and were interested in men’s perspectives of how violence and masculinity are related. Our MVGHS survey findings revealed that a significant number of men experienced violence as both a target and perpetrator (Scott-Storey et al., 2018) and led to our interest in investigating the link between gender and violence from the perspectives of men. As such, the purpose of the current study was to examine the complex relationship between gender and CLV for men with attention to exploring how constructions of gender intersect with diverse profiles of CLV. Specific objectives included to examine and understand how men(s):

• Define gender, particular masculine gender.

• Describe their experiences of CLV.

• Constructions of gender intersect with experiences of CLV and a target and/or perpetrator.

Men’s Violence Gender and Heath Study Design

After receiving university ethical approval, we used a sequential design to explore how gender and CLV experiences as perpetrator and/or target in a convenience sample of eastern Canadian men ages 19 to 65 years influenced men’s health via an online quantitative survey and qualitative interviews. Inclusion criteria included self identifying as a man, English speaking: a history of violence experiences was not an inclusion criterion. Recruitment occurred mainly via online classified pages and websites as well as posters in targeted community settings and community partners. This was a mixed method study which included an online survey, biophysical health indictors as well as qualitative interviews to gain a broad understanding of the negative effects of violence on health, while considering social contexts and norms, including gender. We measured CLV using the cumulative lifetime violence severity scale (CLVS-44) which captures distress and frequency of violence experiences over the course of the lifetime within various contexts, as a target and/or perpetrator (Scott-Storey et al., 2020). To explore and understand the complex relationship between gender and CLV, we asked the broad question; How do men with CLV describe the relationship between masculinities and violence?

Analytic Framework

To guide our study, and in keeping with the method of interpretative description, we relied on a broad analytic framework based on our past research and professional experiences (Thompson-Burdine et al., 2021). In particular, narrow conceptualization and investigation of violence (Scott-Storey, 2011) has informed our work to expand understanding of experiences and impacts of CLV among men (Scott-Storey et al., 2018). We have approached our work with a social determinants’ perspective and the assumption that social factors and context (e.g., gender, violence, socioeconomic status) influence health and well-being. Gender and violence are known social determinants and thus our analytic framework has informed our work and desire to examine the relationship among CLV experience and gender in a range of contexts, from the perspective of men. This means we are attuned to and view gender, violence, and social factors and contexts as important constructs in this exploratory work.

Methods and Procedures

Qualitative Data Collection

All men who completed the quantitative survey (N = 685) were asked about interest in completing a qualitative interview. Those who stated yes, and had CLV experience, were contacted. Interviews were audio recorded in-person or via telephone. A letter of information was sent to participants and reviewed prior to interviews, before obtaining informed consent. During interviews, if participants were distressed, we offered to pause, move on to another question, or stop the interview. All participants chose to complete interviews and were provided with a debriefing guide and community resources. Participants received $25 Canadian dollars (CAD) for participation. The 32 men interviewed were on average 43 years old (range 19–64). Most were married or living with a partner (75%), heterosexual (84.4%) and had some post-secondary education (84.4%). Half had annual incomes less than $25,000 CAD, 43.8% lived in rural areas or small towns, 40.6% were employed, 21.9% were unemployed, and 18.7% were retired. Most reported CLV as both target and perpetrator (87.5%), with the remainder reporting CLV as target only.

Interviews lasted between 21 and 89 minutes and were informed by a semi-structured interview guide. Because initial data analysis was conducted while interview data was still being collected, principles of data adequacy were used to guide sampling and final sample size. Open-ended questions broadly focused on: (a) how men label and describe violence and, (b) their perceptions of the links between CLV experiences and views about masculinity. We used the terms violence and abuse throughout interviews, recognizing that these words are often used interchangeably and that men often equate the term violence with physical violence (O’Donnell et al., 2018) Context was established by providing participants a broad description of violence and the clarifying statement, this includes not only physical violence/abuse, but emotional and other types of abuse that might have occurred in the family, workplace, community, or partner relationships. To examine perspectives about what it means to be a man, and thoughts about if or how this might relate to violence, we asked questions such as: Can you talk about your thoughts surrounding the role that violence plays in the lives of boys and men? How has experiencing violence affected how you see yourself as a man? How do you think that being a man has affected your experience of violence? Interviews were transcribed verbatim by research assistants, as well as a paid transcriptionist. Any names or identifying information were removed from the transcripts and the interviewers were unaware of survey responses of those interviewed. Identifying information was only available to the research manager and primary investigators and was stored separately from survey responses and transcript documents. Confidential information and data were stored as per the affiliated university’s research ethics board standards.

Qualitative Data Analysis

Using an interpretive descriptive design, we explored men’s perceptions of violence and the relationship between masculinity and CLV. Interpretive description is a non-categorical, inductive qualitative research approach that examines complexities of the human condition (Thorne et al., 1997). The ontological stance of interpretative description is that multiple realities exist within different contexts and the epistemological stance is that knowledge is socially constructed (Thorne, 2008). Researchers and participants engage in an interactive examination of the issues and create understandings of the participants’ experiences. Research questions are “articulated in such a manner that they extend […] beyond generic qualitative description […] into the domain of interpretive explanation” (Thorne, 2008, p. 50). Guided by our research question, we immersed ourselves in the data to achieve understanding and generate meaning from men’s perspectives.

Consistent with interpretive description (Thorne et al., 1997), analysis began with reading transcripts line-by-line, then coding data into broad units of meaning and assigning labels. For example, sections of data focused on fights with other non-related men were assigned codes such as: abuse perpetration; abuse type physical; community violence. Where links with gender were evident, data were assigned to the code label gender/masculinity. Once all transcripts were coded into broad units, they were examined to identify and label smaller units of meaning. We then assigned code labels such as: acceptance, normalization, and masculinities/violence (MV) interconnectedness. To guide examination and analysis of the data, we used what Thorne et al. (2004) escribes as, “intellectual inquiry” and asked questions such as, “What is happening here? Why is this here? Why not something else?” allowing us to move beyond qualitative description to interpretation of the meaning derived from men’s experiences (p. 7). This process required reflexivity and involved independent and group memoing and team meetings, where written and visual representations of concepts, ideas, and relationships were developed, generating discussion about emerging findings and continued refinement of code labels and descriptions.

To ensure rigor and trustworthiness of the findings, we used Thorne’s (2008) four criteria for evaluating interpretive description studies as a guide: (1) epistemological integrity, (2) representative credibility, (3) analytic logic, and (4) interpretive authority. Epistemological integrity, or the consistency between the research question, data collection, and the worldview of the study is reflected in our study being representative of men’s perceptions and that their reality is their truth. Representative credibility is a way of measuring whether the sample and sampling methods are appropriate to capturing study claims. Our approach to only asking men with CLV experience to participate in the study ensures that men are positioned to comment on views about gender and violence. Based on participant demographic data however, we recognize that our findings may be generalizable among other men living in rural Canada, but may not apply to those living in large urban centers. Third is analytic logic or demonstrating how findings were learned from the analysis through an audit trail or demonstrating how concepts and relationships emerge within memos. For example, the role of societal expectations and the connection between gender and violence became increasingly apparent as evidenced in the following memo entry: “When men talk about being tough this affects how they are perceived, affecting their social interactions […] Violence influenced how all men viewed their perceptions by other people.” Interpretive authority is the fourth criterion that demonstrates transparency in the researchers’ potential biases, increasing the study’s trustworthiness. For example, during international events within the media of a police officer killing a man of color in the United States, care was taken to recognize the potential influence of these events on the analysis of men’s violence experiences.

Results

Describing Violence

Because the terms violence and abuse are often used interchangeably and, based on our previous research we learned that men often equate the term violence with physical violence (O’Donnell et al., 2018), we used the terms violence and abuse throughout interviews. At the beginning of each interview, we established context for the study by offering a broad description of violence and the clarifying statement, this includes not only physical violence/abuse, but emotional and other types of abuse that might have occurred in the family, workplace, community or partner relationships. Despite offering this broad description of violence and clarifying statement to outline our interest in understanding and exploring physical, emotional and other types of violence, more than 60% of participants initially focused on physical violence. With further probing, men discussed and described experiences of physical, emotional, and sexual violence as a target and/or perpetrator. These experiences occurred across the lifespan from childhood through to adulthood in a variety of settings such as homes, schools, communities, and workplaces. Overall, men described violence as actions that threaten or cause harm to another person, object or oneself. They also discussed the consequences of violence for themselves and others, which included physical, emotional, and social harm.

Gender and Masculinity

Many men described gender by highlighting stereotypical masculine characteristics such as being heroic, macho, strong, tough, dominant, assertive, confident, stoic, and calm. Men also discussed stereotypical masculine behaviors including being a provider, helping people, enjoying sports, internalizing emotions, not seeking help for problems, and being in control.

When asked more directly about their own gender, and how they see themselves as men, many participants had difficulty responding, noted by pauses in the interview, asking for clarification, and/or being unable to answer. Challenges with responding to this question prompted changes to the interview guide, for instance, can you tell me about any experiences where what was expected of you was different than how you’ve wished to be as a man? Such amendments were useful, and men reflected on and discussed gender and violence in a more fulsome way. Interestingly, although some men had difficulty defining their view of themselves as men, their thoughts about and expressions of gender became evident. We discovered that men’s understanding and expression of gender was highly complex, nuanced, and shifted in various contexts and overtime. As one man noted,

When I was younger, I used to think the badder and tougher you were, the cooler you were. Didn’t work out well. I ended up in prison. …At this point in my life, I’m not really concerned with that anymore. I got a kid coming and … [now I am] calm, but don’t push me too far, I guess. I still have that in me somewhere. But very far down there. More interested in my family at this point.

As this quote highlighted, ideas about what it means to be a man emerged and were modified or rejected overtime. Despite variation and fluctuation in how participants defined and expressed themselves as men, descriptions of gender and masculinity were consistently linked to violence. Violence was embedded in thoughts, definitions, and expressions of what it means to be a man and was illuminated as a way of demonstrating gender and masculinity. This overarching link between masculinity and violence emerged as a central theme that was labeled MV interconnectedness.

MV Interconnectedness

MV interconnectedness addresses the reality that gender and violence are interrelated in complex ways; gender is influenced by violence experience and violence experience is influenced by gender. MV interconnectedness is shaped by broader social influences and pressures that position violence as an acceptable and normal part of being a boy and man. Normalization of violence refers to experiences and views that resulted in violence being understood as common among boys and men. Acceptance of violence on the other hand, refers to ideas and views that reinforce the appropriateness of violence.

Ongoing and pervasive normalization and acceptance of violence among boys and men contributes to MV interconnectedness. Assumptions that boys and men will be violent were revealed in notions such as, “boys will be boys, they’ll fight, you know” and “I don’t think any characteristics or stereotypes should be limited to a gender, but men basically get away with whatever because people assume that they will be violent.” Broader societal views of violence as a normal part of being a boy and man were reflected as nearly all participants described pressures to enact violence to feel like a “real man.” For some, using violence was as normal, acceptable and necessary part of being a man, “So I believe that all men should be able to be violent if need be, but they shouldn’t use violence all of the time. It should be used for specific reasons only and not used as a cure-all.”

Being a target of violence positions boys and men as weak and vulnerable, not expected roles of being strong and tough. When boys or men are targets, this can give rise to vulnerabilities surrounding gender and sense of self. For example, when men were targets of partner violence perpetrated by women, many described feelings of weakness and shame, and believed that men ought to protect and defend themselves. Some attempted to preserve masculinity by not perpetrating violence; actions aimed at demonstrating manliness (e.g., “real men” do not perpetrate violence against women). Conversely, some participants perpetrated violence to uphold expectations to be dominant and in control. Perpetrating violence is not only initiated to express and exert oneself as a boy or man (e.g., I want to be seen as strong and tough), but also as a response to being a target (e.g., I feel weak therefore I will use violence to make myself feel like more of a man), revealing deep-rooted connections between gender and violence.

In these data, the prominence of MV interconnectedness generated questions about the central role that violence has played in the ways boys and men are defined and appraised by themselves and others. As revealed in descriptions of the ways violence was connected to masculinity in schools, workplaces, relationships, and other contexts, we learned that CLV experiences gave rise to circumstances where violence was uncontested and even expected among boys and men; circumstances that contributed to normalization and acceptance of violence.

Normalization and Acceptance of Violence

Discussions with men with CLV histories revealed that normalization of violence begins at a young age and persists throughout the lifespan. Most discussed the role of father or other male figures, in shaping views about masculine gender and the link with violence. Some discussed experiences of violence in the family home where the father figure controlled the environment with physical and/or emotional abuse. Such experiences informed ideas about, and understanding of, the role of men in relationships, homes, and communities. Many who discussed childhood family violence also spoke of violence in other neighborhood and community settings, where violence was often used to attain recognition and maintain social order in peer groups. Those who prevailed as dominant and tough earned status and respect, “I think going through the whole broken jaw stuff, it definitely helped my street cred while in high school. It made a lot of people not mess with me, which was helpful I suppose.” The use of violence was viewed as a measure of toughness and, by extension, of manliness. Maintaining masculine status by way of violence was evident as participants described their own and/or others’ efforts to demonstrate toughness via physical altercations with other males and exhibit strength through, “constant competition of who is strongest in the room.”

The pervasiveness of CLV in men’s lives informed their understanding of and views about gender and violence. Most noted violence was so commonplace, it was seen as the “norm,”

Because violence has been a part of my life before I was even able to walk. Because of the sexual abuse from my grandmother that my brother and I went through. Like I said, we grew up in a town where fighting between boys, fighting was the norm. And, I went into the army where fighting was the norm too. Going to war you’re fighting, you’re killing, who knows. I never even thought my whole life what other type of job I would do, you know, I was born to be a soldier, end of story. And, like I said, I’d still be there if I could. So, it has shaped me to be what is sitting in front of you.

Pressure to demonstrate strength, toughness, and risk harm was also evident when men felt their own or others’ safety was threatened. Men described perpetrating violence towards bullies to either defend themselves or protect others. Social expectations that men ought to defend those who are vulnerable or that they feel “responsible” for (e.g., family) contribute to normalization of violence among boys and men whereby such actions are viewed as necessary to “do the right thing” and take up the role of boy or man. Some noted they felt compelled to use violence to demonstrate dominance, and protect others, simply because they were men.

I can specifically recall memories where the option of being aggressive was available, either by peer pressure, or anything like that where you’re supposed to stand up, get aggressive, insert yourself in there by threatening with violence. Like a fight coming on, or something like that. And me, shying away from it, because I didn’t want to do that. And … it conflicts so hard because you have an expectation to be that way, at least in a certain amount, like at the center, or you know. So, it’s difficult, because you almost feel guilty.

The complexity of MV interconnectedness contributed to conflicted views about violence and its role in men’s lives. Even among those who resisted violence, views about gender and what it means to be a man contributed to persistent pressure to act in particular ways; ways that often included using violence.

Normalization surrounding MV interconnectedness was also evident among men who experienced dating and partner violence in relationships with women. In this context, assumptions that men should be dominant and not victimized left men questioning their masculinity and how to handle such circumstances. This was reflected in expressions of weakness and shame, worries that others would not believe them, and concerns about lack of resources to address the violence. Highlighting gender assumptions and discomfort with the idea of men being targets, one participant suggested that others experienced difficulty talking to him about his experience of dating violence and noted that his uncle asked if he was being “bullied” by his girlfriend. Another highlighted feelings of discord associated with experiencing partner violence in a society where men are seen as “head of the household”; which left him feeling that he should be able to manage the experience.

Normalization and acceptance of violence was evident in workplaces, where work-related violence perpetration was common and/or deemed to be part of the job, particularly in security, military, and law enforcement. One man noted, “Other than when I have been ordered to, I’ve been a pretty non-violent person. I haven’t had a violent past of any serious consequence other than my military service.” In these roles, it was acceptable to use physical violence as a means of providing protection and maintaining order and control. The use of violence was unquestioned and expected; as one individual noted, “Well it was controlled violence because I was in security and law enforcement. And I could justify using violence just by you know the job, right?”

Overall, these data revealed that CLV experience was linked to ideas and expressions that reflected normalization and acceptance of violence among men. Such experience is set within a broader social context where MV interconnectedness continues to be reinforced. Despite normalization and acceptance of violence, participants reflected on and grappled with MV interconnectedness and many identified interest in defining and expressing themselves in ways that were not characterized by violence. Although men’s motivation for separating masculinity and violence were not explored as a part of this research, men described contributing factors such as time, maturity, reflection, self-exploration, and life events such as the birth of a child, or consequences of violence, such as a partner leaving or incarceration.

The Paradox

The contradictory nature of MV interconnectedness and the tension that arises when men contemplate the link between gender and violence, the related impacts, and their desire to separate violence from how they define themselves as men, was labelled the paradox. Regardless of whether CLV experiences were based on having been a target, perpetrator, or both, most men identified that they no longer wanted violence to be a part of how they and others defined their gender. As men reflected on and grappled with this paradox, and the ways that gender and violence have influenced their lives, they begin to imagine separating or disconnecting violence from how they define themselves as men—yet this is difficult due to the paradox.

For most men, the desire to disconnect violence from their masculinity was influenced by contemplating the consequences of violence, it’s past and current role, and how they perceive violence in their future. Men identified that violence resulted physical, emotional, and social consequences that contributed to harm and/or reward for themselves and others. This reality demonstrated the complex and paradoxical nature of MV interconnectedness perpetrating violence in certain circumstances led to a positive result, and when failing to do so may result in harm to self or others. Examples were reflected in descriptions of using violence as part of their work role, in response to family violence, or to limit school bullying. In these circumstances, many men perceived that asserting themselves and/or fighting back resulted in benefit (e.g., broke up fight at workplace, protected mom from dad’s physical abuse, stopped bullying). As this man noted:

I did get bullied when I was at the beginning of grade school partially because I was smaller but then I befriended someone who was quite large so that helped and then eventually I ended up fighting back against the bullies and that kind of stopped it. It did lead to me obviously becoming violent towards other people but in the end, it did prevent further abuse I suppose.

On the other hand, not asserting themselves through violence perpetration often resulted in perceptions of contributing to harm; circumstances that left boys and men feeling guilt and shame for failing to defend or protect others.

Because of all of the incidences that happened like my mother being beaten, I’m 8 years old, … I got brushed aside like I was a mosquito. And, since my father died, my mom kept telling me, well you’re the man of the family. And how does a man protect his family if he gets brushed aside like a mosquito? So, there is that unresolved guilt and shame that would keep coming out.

Even though men identified circumstances where violence was beneficial, they reflected on ways that using violence contributed to physical, emotional, and social consequences. These included harmful impacts such as trauma, damaged relationships, difficulties in the workplace and incarceration. As one man explained,

At the time it never bothered me because, I was trying to be manly, tough, and ridiculous swagger. But, you know, after sobriety I started looking at these things and I remember at one point… it was a domination to bend somebody to my will. That, even with my ex, when I had the worst…when she left, it was after an episode of violence.

Overall, men’s perceptions that violence simultaneously results in both benefit and harm contributed to significant tension. However, for most men the negative impacts of violence outweighed the benefits, as they discussed moving away from defining who they are as men in relation to violence. As one participant noted:

I think maybe when we’re younger and we’re young kids, adolescents, you know, like maybe then we think, oh if I was bigger and tougher, I’d be the best man ever because I could just beat everybody up. But as you get older, I think you kind of, for the most part, get away from that thinking and start to realize that maybe that’s not what’s important about being a man.

Through reflection of the impact violence had on their lives and sense of self, participants considered and envisioned ways of being a man that did not involve violence. One man, expressed a desire to engage with others in ways that were clear and direct, yet excluded violence,

I kind of admire people who, men who could stand their ground, or like be confident and not worry that like saying. I’ve got friends who aren’t fighters, but they will meet people and they will get chatting about something and they will actively disagree with them. I was always, like [it], amazed me that people can do that. I’m still not there yet.

For others, disconnecting gender and violence meant being comfortable with relinquishing traditional gender expectations where men are expected to participate in violent circumstances. Some overtly rejected violence use and aimed to demonstrate manliness by providing and caring for others,

Seeing violence didn’t change me as a man, it changed me as a person, but it didn’t change me as a man. I’ve always been manly. I’ve always thought to myself okay, you want to fight? If you’re that stupid, we’ll fight. I take care of people. I take care of people that even don’t belong to me. I’ll go visit people, people that I don’t even know that I visit just because they like to visit and chat.

Despite men’s interest in disconnecting violence from their masculinity, it is complex. The paradoxical nature of men’s desire to separate how violence defines their sense of self, while being aware that violence and boy/manhood are tightly linked was revealed in continued descriptions of expectations for boys and men to be strong, assertive, and willing to protect, defend and use violence. This was revealed in descriptions such as, “I still am against violence, or the use of violence overtly, but at the same time, violence is a part of being a man as well.” Although most men had made the decision to eliminate violence from their lives, past experiences and societal expectations make it challenging to sever MV Interconnectedness completely.

Confronting the paradox allowed men to redefine their sense of self in ways that reduced the role of violence. Thus, the tension created by the paradox was also diminished as men embraced their new definition of masculinity. Conceptualizations of gender and masculinity that aligned less with traditional views and expectations and more with non-violent relationships, behaviors and interactions were evident;

Well, the way I used to think, being a man would be somebody that could punch out everybody up and down the road, and everybody scared of ya and running away from ya, but now, I don’t know. I look at it being a man and violence shouldn’t be together anymore anyway. Like, we’re in a new millennium here so … if just any type of violence, it’s not manly.

By confronting the paradox, most men redefined their own gender in less traditional ways and no longer regarded violence as the key method to demonstrate masculine behaviors. Thus, MV interconnectedness was decreased, and men’s tensions about their masculine identity and violence were reduced.

Discussion

Our interpretive descriptive analysis of masculinity and violence in men with CLV offers new knowledge about the intersection of gender and violence experiences over lifetimes, thus moving beyond the traditional conceptualization of violence as separate events or types (Scott-Storey, 2011). This qualitative analysis provides a deeper examination of the link between masculinities and violence through in-depth descriptions of the complexity of this interconnection, challenging assumptions that the relationship between masculinity and violence is straightforward. Our findings demonstrate the importance of understanding how social norms can influence how and why some men may perpetrate violence and, in particular, the role that such norms can play in informing views of what it means to be a man and generating pressure for men to use violence to demonstrate and/or maintain masculinity. Although our findings suggest that many men continue to be influenced by traditional views of masculinity, there is also evidence that some men reject this notion and that views of what it means to be a man are subject to change. Shifting social norms that involve questioning traditional or stereotypical masculine norms (Christofidou, 2021) generates opportunity boys and men to construct and express gender in ways that are not harmful or do not include the use of violence. As social messages and images change, so too can men. Many companies and organizations have been invested in addressing “toxic” masculinity and, for example, there is a noted trend among advertising companies to use language and visuals that counter traditional masculine values (Knudsen & Anderson, 2020).

Understanding MV interconnectedness has important practice and policy implications for services for men. A social determinants of health approach that recognizes and addresses how social factors including gender influence men’s behaviors is pivotal for improving outcomes for men with CLV in services such as health care, law enforcement, employment agencies, and social services. Policy prioritizing gender issues may enhance advocacy and support to services. For example, the Government Offices of Sweden adopted gender equity policies with a specific focus on addressing gender stereotypes and destructive masculinity norms (World Health Organization [WHO], Regional Office for Europe, 2018).

Situated in the context of CLV, MV Interconnectedness is multifaceted, expanding the one-dimensional and limited narrative of violence within the literature toward an understanding of men’s varied violence experiences over time. Acknowledging MV Interconnectedness in the context of CLV is important to understanding the complexity of men’s experiences as they interpret and find meaning in their masculinities. The finding that MV Interconnectedness is conceptualized based on men’s CLV experiences over time as both target and perpetrator is a call for service providers to avoid dividing these experiences into categories or single events when examining men’s needs and behaviours. We recommend that health service providers are aware of MV Interconnectedness and that they screen for a full history of CLV when helping men who are known to experiences of violence.

The finding that men felt pressure to demonstrate masculinity by perpetrating violence is supported in studies that reveal a relationship between masculine gender norms and enacting violence (Harrington et al., 2021; Miller et al., 2016). Other studies reinforce our findings that normalization of violence perpetration begins in the context of childhood violence within the family (Clare et al., 2021; Peralta et al., 2010). Early interventions to prevent family violence using a social determinants of health approach helping families to manage stress, health needs, and social and economic hardships associated with family violence have potential to improve outcomes. Normalization and acceptance of violence calls for efforts to counteract the messages and pressures boys and men receive that influence their behaviour. For example, a social determinants approach to the justice system may inform correctional officers about the significance of gender pressures to enact violence in the prevention of violence perpetration and rehabilitation for men within the correctional system (Morrison et al., 2021).

Importantly, the paradox is a significant and novel addition to the literature as little understanding exits of how men may reject the narrative that masculinity and violence are interconnected. Because men are stating that they want to reject or disconnect violence from how they define their gender, this may be an opportunity to offer various other perspectives on masculinity that are important to men (Anderson & McCormack, 2018). For example, traditional domestic masculine roles of the man working outside the home and having little responsibility of childcare has evolved in the last few decades, with men representing 46% of caregivers in Canada (Statistics Canada, 2020). Historically, masculinity and ideals have changed over time (Connell, 2020) and the finding of the paradox supports that change about traditional masculine norms and how to enact them can occur within individuals. Given current interest in changing masculinity in popular culture, (Adams & Frauenheim, 2020) it is important to understand how ideals about masculinities can evolve and in turn, how those changes can inform health and social services for men.

However, MV Interconnectedness demonstrates that the link between masculinity and violence perpetration is not straightforward. Our finding that men’s personal masculine identity is less connected with violence than how they perceive masculinity in general, that is, strongly tied to violence, is of interest. This is supported by Carlson (2008) who described men’s experiences of masculine expectations and violence as “gender distancing,” believing that they held higher values of non-violence more so than other men (p. 11). Our findings challenge dominant assumptions that men consider all violence perpetration as manly; rather, it is context-dependent, as men in our study perceived that violence perpetrated toward women is not manly. This finding is supported by Ravn (2018) who found men considered violence perpetration as illegitimate or not manly except to protect a family member or friend. This complexity provides an opportunity to assist men who are experiencing negative consequences of having perpetrated violence to strengthen their value to avoid violence perpetration. Whereas perceptions of masculinity changed over time for men in our study, they may strengthen their capacity to manage the paradox and promote their health and well being by exploring their values around their masculinity, identity, and violence experiences.

Limitations

Our findings are limited by the convenience sample of eastern Canadian men who took part in the MVGHS survey and additionally agreed to be invited for an interview; thus, we are unable to make general statements about all men. However, purposeful selection of men in this pool by diversity in patterns of CLV (e.g., type, context, points of time), overall CLV severity, and social determinants (e.g., employment, geographic location) increased the adequacy of our data for capturing variation in men’s perceptions of the relationship between masculinity and violence. Follow-up interviews with participants to obtain feedback on emerging findings may have strengthened this analysis. Most men in this study were white, heterosexual and identified as Anglophone. In future, sampling of racially and ethnically diverse men particularly from metropolitan areas of Canada, and men who identify other than heterosexual is necessary for broadening applicability of findings.

Conclusion

Because of their experiences of CLV, men in this study experienced normalization and acceptance of violence, which in turn contributed to MV Interconnectedness. Our findings clearly demonstrate that MV Interconnectedness exists, and men become uncomfortable with this connection. They experience a desire to disconnect their gender identity from violence. This leads to an internal struggle, the paradox, as men attempt to redefine their gender identity in a way that is different from traditional masculine stereotypes. Our findings reveal that men who have experienced CLV, no longer want to conform to traditional gender norms. It is also important to note that regardless of whether men’s experiences were as a target, perpetrator or both, they had similar experiences regarding MV interconnectedness and the paradox. Considering gender and violence with a social determinants of health perspective can assist health care and service providers to support men to make meaning of their experiences and strengthen their capacity to manage the paradox.