Researchers focusing on fathers’ violence and perpetrator programmes have expressed growing interest in the question of change. Yet, there has been little dialogue in relation to feminist affect theories on change. Drawing on the narratives of eight fathers in Iceland who had been violent against their female partner and/or children, we suggest that attending to comfort and discomfort is central to understanding violent fathers’ process of change. Inspired by feminist theories of affective dissonance, the analysis shows that, on the one hand, fathers avoided dealing with uncomfortable emotions, conversations, and situations in diverse ways, for example, by leaning on women’s emotional labour. On the other hand, the fathers also attempted to deal with discomfort, and this was often as part of their decision to seek help, turn to self-reflection, or hold themselves accountable. By foregrounding discomfort in these narratives, this paper provides insights into the possibilities of and hindrances to fathers’ change from perpetrating domestic violence.

Research on men who have been violent against women has often shown how these men justify or excuse their violence, minimize their responsibility, as well as construct dominant forms of masculinity. However, as attitudes in support of intimate partner violence are declining around the world, we might expect perpetrators to become less self-righteous and more self-critical about their violence. This article reports data from a qualitative interview study with 14 young partner-violent men in Sweden. While our participants sometimes downplayed their responsibility, more often they condemned violence in intimate relationships, and reflected upon the place of violence in their lives. This included experiences of domestic violence as children, as well as their processes of moving away from violence. Drawing on feminist readings of phenomenology, particularly Heidegger, we suggest that phenomenological conceptualizations of embodiment, consciousness and practice are helpful in understanding the experiences of partner-violent men.

Anna Julia Cooper skrev den första boken i vad som i dag kallas den svarta feministiska traditionen, A voice from the south, år 1892. Hon utvecklar ett perspektiv på social ojämlikhet utifrån svarta kvinnors erfarenhet. Cooper erbjuder en kritisk genusanalys av rasproblemet och samtidigt en kritisk rasanalys av kvinnofrågan. Svarta kvinnor konfronteras med bägge problemen, och därför behövs en kritisk samhällsanalys som länkar samman olika maktdimensioner i stället för att ställa dem mot varandra. Cooper var engagerad i olika organisationer som verkade för social rättvisa, särskilt i utbildningsfrågor. Hennes texter spänner över en rad områden, såsom litteratur, ekonomi och kolonialism, teman som hon analyserar med utgångspunkt i frågor om ras, kön och klass. Coopers arbete visar hur denna typ av sociologiska analyser, som i dag ofta går under namnet intersektionalitet, har funnits sedan slutet av 1800-talet.

Male Peer Support Theory (MPST) is one of the few principal theories about masculinity and men’s violence against women. The theory foregrounds the role of social networks in encouraging violence. This article offers a critical discussion of MPST, particularly the assumption that social networks primarily support violence. Drawing on a qualitative study of young men perpetrators in Sweden, we suggest that the concept of response is better suited than support in capturing the diversity of social network responses to violence. In our data, there were few stories about unmitigated pro-abuse support. Instead, we found responses that unequivocally condemned violence, as well as ambiguous and transformative responses. We suggest that such responses be understood in relation to changing attitudes concerning violence.

This article explores different problematizations of young men in masculinity research. It looks at research on young men in school, young men and sports, and young men and violence, as well as the place of young men in more general discussions about masculinity. It is argued that four main problematizations can be identified in this research, depending on whether the focus is on the structure, the group, the experience, or the categorization. Differentiating between different problematizations, it is suggested, may be a helpful way of understanding key differences in research on, as well as in interventions directed at, young men. 

This chapter discusses different historical and contemporary approaches to men, masculinity and intimate partner violence. We present radical feminism and its analysis of men’s violence as an effect of patriarchal society, as well as a contribution to its upholding. We then discuss socialist feminist contributions to understanding masculinity and violence where the emphasis instead lies on diversity, historical change and situated action. Next, we turn to ‘accounts research’, which deconstructs how men talk about, explain and justify their violence, and to psychosocial criminology, which instead stresses the psychological history of the perpetrator, albeit within the context of structural inequality. We also consider what we call social network approaches, particularly male peer support theory, which foregrounds the role of the relational setting as a mediator between social structure and individual action. Finally, we discuss intersectional perspectives, which foreground the interconnectedness of different forms of social inequality, such as gender, sexuality, race and class. We conclude by suggesting the need for more dialogue between on the one hand research on gender and violence and on the other contemporary developments within interdisciplinary feminist theory.