Masculinity and Violence Interconnectedness: Defining and Reconciling the Gender Paradox Among Men With Cumulative Lifetime Violence Histories
Bibliographic record
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.
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 | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".