Men’s Reflections on Their Experiences of Gender-Based Violence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using Multicultural and Gender Case Conceptualization (MGCC) epistemology, the aim of this phenomenological study was to explore adult male victims' perceptions of gender and reflections on their experiences of gender-based violence (GBV). Data were analyzed using interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA). Results indicated that, regardless of sexual orientation, participants experienced verbal and physical abuse due to their feminine gender expression, beginning in primary school and continuing through university and into the workplace. To reduce victimization, the men developed a range of strategies, such as policing their gender and avoiding social situations. The experiences of violence affected the participants' social relationships, choice of occupation, self-esteem, and ability to trust. However, after entering university, heterosexual, gay, and bisexual participants interpreted their experiences differently, whereby heterosexual participants linked the abuse to gender, and gay and bisexual participants viewed it as homophobia. As well, gay and bisexual participants found respite in the gay and bisexual communities, while heterosexual participants remained silent, isolated, and afraid to discuss their experiences. Implications for future research are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".