Intervening in masculinity: work, relationships and violence among the intimate partners of female sex workers in South India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although health researchers have begun to examine the forms of violence and power dynamics that play out in the intimate relationships of female sex workers (FSWs) in India, this knowledge has tended to focus on the perspectives of women, leaving men’s motivations and attitudes relatively unexamined. This paper examines the contours of masculinity and gender norms from the perspective of the intimate partners of FSWs. Based on six months of ethnographic research in Northern Karnataka, the study employed two focus group discussions (FGDs) with Devadasi FSWs (N = 17), as well as four FGDs (N = 34) and 30 in-depth interviews with their intimate partners. Given the precarious labour conditions in this region, tensions developed in the participants’ relationships with FSWs, as these men were unable to meet local ideals of manhood. Violence became a way that men attempted to re-secure a sense of control in their relationships with women, and to fulfil fantasies of male power. We recommend that programs engaging men not only address intimate partner violence but also attend to the social and structural realities surrounding these men’s daily lived experiences.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".