Pathways to Gender Justice: A Latent Class Analysis of Precipitates of Men's Anti-Gender Based Violence Allyship

Background and purpose:  As efforts to leverage men and boys’ participation in preventing gender-based violence (GBV) have proliferated globally, evidence is beginning to emerge about the factors and experiences that motivate men’s anti-violence participation. To date, this work has largely been qualitative, descriptive, and reflective of North American men’s experiences. Further, research has not examined whether different reasons for becoming an anti-violence ally are associated with different outcomes, attitudes, and behaviors as an ally.  The purpose of this study was to quantitatively examine patterns of reasons for anti-violence involvement in a global sample of men who participated in GBV prevention events in the past year.  We aimed to link empirically derived patterns of involvement to men’s gender, violence, and bystander-related attitudes, and to examine regional differences in involvement patterns.

 Methods: Survey data were collected online in early 2014; participants had the option of completing the survey in English, Spanish, or French.  Male-identified, adult participants were recruited though email invitations to anti-violence organizations, postings on relevant list-serves (e.g. the Sexual Violence Research Initiative), and via organizations that used the survey to evaluate prevention events.  The survey assessed domains including, but not limited to: men’s reasons for and the nature of their anti-violence involvement, attitudes toward gender equity, bystander self-efficacy, and motivation for maintaining anti-violence involvement.  The sample for this analysis included 433 respondents ages 18 to over 65, from over 50 countries; of these, 56% were from North America, 18% from Latin America, 11% from Europe, 9% from Africa, and 6% from Asia.  Latent class analysis (lca) was used to surface patterns in men’s reasons for anti-violence involvement; subsequent patterns were then compared across ally and regional variables.

 Results:  The lca detected four different constellations of motivations for anti-violence involvement. Respectively, these patterns were 1) men engaged primarily through their professional work, 2)  “empathic” men motivated by stories of violence, but with little personal exposure to GBV, 3) “violence-exposed” men with high rates of both personal victimization and perpetration, and 4) “highly motivated, violence-exposed men” who reported personal exposure to violence, but several other co-occurring precipitating factors. The latter group of highly motivated men reported the most positive levels of gender attitudes and bystander efficacy, but were also more likely to report some more traditional involvement motivations such as wanting to protect women. Regional differences in group membership were also found.

 Conclusion and Implications:  This analysis builds on descriptive work regarding factors that motivate men’s anti-violence involvement, and suggests heterogeneity in the pathways men take to allyship. These different pathways imply the need for diverse and tailored outreach strategies by men’s anti-violence engagement efforts. Further, findings suggest that anti-violence allies (and more generally, perhaps, social justice allies), have varying attitudes and self-efficacy related to addressing inequity and violence, reinforcing the need for a tailored and developmental approach to engaging and supporting allies in gender justice work over time. Specific strategies for ally outreach and engagement will be discussed, which can also inform discourse about ally development in other anti-oppression arenas.