Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/16703 Record ID: 0ab2104c-32c6-4aca-ae12-974069f89f90
Full metadata record
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Pease, Bob | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-06-30T23:27:47Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2022-06-30T23:27:47Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2005 | en |
| dc.identifier.citation | (16), 2004-2005 | en |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1327-5550 | en |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/16703 | - |
| dc.language | en | en |
| dc.publisher | CASA House (Centre Against Sexual Assault) | en |
| dc.subject | Policy | en |
| dc.subject | CALD (culturally and linguistically diverse) | en |
| dc.subject | Perpetrators | en |
| dc.subject | Perpetrator programs | en |
| dc.subject | Theories of violence | en |
| dc.subject | Indigenous issues | en |
| dc.subject | Prevention | en |
| dc.subject | Cross-cultural | en |
| dc.title | Rethinking profeminist men’s behaviour change programs | en |
| dc.title.alternative | Women against violence : an Australian feminist journal | en |
| dc.type | Journal Article | en |
| dc.identifier.catalogid | 1157 | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | Victoria | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | new_record | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | Journal article/research paper | en |
| dc.description.notes | This article provides a literature review of perpetrator programmes that express profeminist values to assess the extent to which feminist analyses of men’s violence have been incorporated in the principles, theories and strategies for working with violent men. It argues that profeminist programmes for violent men or perpetrators’ programmes had led to a series of axioms which often failed to address the complexities of feminist theories. These include: expanding the definition of violence to include all controlling behaviours could lead to a concept of violence which loses its meaning; treating men’s violence as learned behaviour has led to cognitive-behavioural approaches which shift power and control from a structural issue to a behaviour issue; identification of masculinity led to a sex-role approach that gives more emphasis on the costs of masculinity rather than men’s privileges, which provides little analysis of gendered power or inequality; while men’s violence is about control of women but it is not always consciously exercised by violent men; men’s programmes have generally failed to address the intersections of race, class and culture in relation to men’s violence; and that the focus on men’s capacity to change does not examine the structural and cultural limitations on the process of individual change as the conception of ‘sole responsibility’ for violence is that of a rational and autonomous man disconnected from the patriarchal social relations. It explains the development of such approaches as partially a result of facilitators being drawn from therapeutic feminist literature rather than the wider feminist social theories. Therefore, the diversity of debates within feminism is not reflected in the men’s programmes. It suggests that the limitations of existing representations of feminist analysis in men’s programmes need to be understood so that programmes could be developed to build on feminist understandings, to ensure that feminist analyses are not depoliticised or co-opted as they are in the current approaches of most of the men’s programmes. | en |
| dc.identifier.source | Women against violence : an Australian feminist journal | en |
| dc.date.entered | 2005-07-28 | en |
| Appears in Collections: | Journal Articles | |
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in ANROWS library are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.