Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 29

Gender, Work and Organization.

Vol. 16 No. 2 March 2009

Women, Gendered Work and Gendered Violence: So Much More than a Job
Kate Seymour*
This article explores the experiences of individuals who work with men who are violent, focusing in particular on the differential gendered impacts of this area of practice. Violence intervention is widely recognized as work that is difcult, demanding and, frequently, confronting. It is less often recognized that such work is not only experienced differently by men and women, but signicantly, that it may weigh more heavily, with impacts that are both broader and more profound, on the women working in this area. Building upon an understanding of the gendered nature of work and the workplace, this research reveals the distinctively gendered nature and impact of work with men who are violent, highlighting the complex interplay of gendered individuals, in the gendered workplace, in relation to a specically gendered activity, that of mens violence. Keywords: gender, work, violence intervention, gendered relations and practices, masculinities

iolence intervention is difcult, demanding and frequently confronting work. The work brings together and impacts on the personal and the professional domains: it is more than just a job. There is remarkably little published research documenting the experiences of men and women who work in the eld of violence intervention. There is even less material that directs attention to the gendered impact of the work and its implications for workers as gendered beings. The literature in this area tends to focus on issues such as vicarious trauma, stress and burn-out in relation to trauma work. Few publications address issues regarding the changes that may occur in workers intimate lives, interpersonal expectations and the structure of their identity (Goldblatt and Buchbinder, 2003, p. 256), and there is little

Address for correspondence: *School of Social Sciences and Liberal Studies, Faculty of Arts, Charles Sturt University, Panorama Avenue, Bathurst NSW 2795, Australia, e-mail: cseymour@ csu.edu.au
2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

WOMEN, GENDERED WORK AND GENDERED VIOLENCE

239

differentiation between workers who work with partner violence and those who deal with other kinds of trauma cases (p. 272). Where gender and work are considered together, the emphasis is often upon the effects of gender on career progression and career outcomes (Lewis, 2004). Goldblatt and Buchbinders (2003) study, which explores how involvement in intervention with battered women affects the gender roles of social work students, represents a signicant exception in this regard. Their nding that encounters with partner violence are overwhelming and invoke ... an inevitable selfreection (p. 269), particularly in relation to self-awareness, gender perception and gender power relations, provides an important background to the current research. This research, through its focus on established (rather than student) practitioners from a range of disciplinary and other backgrounds (including but not limited to social work), who are working with men who use violence, rather than with women as the objects of male violence, extends the important work of Goldblatt and Buchbinder (2003). In discussing the beliefs and values that they regard as fundamental to their work, the participants emphasize the impossibility of restricting these to the workplace. Their beliefs have become who they are, in terms of both their professional and personal identities. It is equally clear that the work is experienced differently, and has impacts that are both broader and more profound, for the women working in this area. In itself this is, perhaps, not surprising: however, the interviews reveal something more than this. They expose the gendered nature and substantially gendered impact of this particular kind of work and highlight the complex interplay of gendered individuals in the gendered workplace, in relation to a specically gendered activity, that is, mens violence.

Gender, power and organizations


The relationship between the symbolism of difference and the symbolism of dominance (Connell, 2000, p. 28) is critical to the constitution of gender difference: power and difference are intimately related in maintaining the gendered order of society. This article is concerned primarily with the ways in which gendered (patriarchal) workplace relations are reproduced, in the context of a particular eld of work practice in which gender, and the problematization of gendered power relations, is foregrounded as a target for intervention. As such the focus is on subjectivity/ies and their complex interrelations with power dynamics (Collinson and Hearn, 1996, p. 65) in a work setting that is explicitly oriented towards engagement with the gendered subjectivities of both workers and clients. In this respect the nature of the work is somewhat unique because gender is acknowledged and placed at the centre, rather than the periphery, of the work process.
2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Volume 16 Number 2 March 2009

240

GENDER, WORK AND ORGANIZATION

However, while one might expect to nd transformed gender relations in this environment, the research data instead reveals the embeddedness and intractability of (gendered) power, reecting both the invisibility and the magnitude of gendering dynamics (Martin, 2003, p. 359) and the multiple, shifting but tenacious nature of gendered power regimes (Collinson and Hearn, 1996, p. 73). Many writers have highlighted the micro-level of practices through which the exercise of social power is achieved (Acker, 1990; Cranny-Francis, 1992; Eveline, 1996; Fawcett, 1996; Harlow, 1996; and Wajcman, 1998). Gender constitutes, denes and constrains relations in even the most ordinary settings and most commonly it does so in ways that are both mundane and unremarkable. Gender is implicated in every aspect of life; as power relations through social domination are embedded as much in the personal sphere as in formal institutions (Sawicki, 1991, p. 49). Gendered power in its material, patriarchal, institutional, personal, embodied and corporate forms, inltrates and controls gender relations (Wearing, 1996, p. 222). Gender, gendered subjectivity and the gendered categorizations of man/woman and masculinity/ femininity are fundamental to the everyday relations and conduct of normal life (Grosz, 1994). Thus, the exercise of power and control is inextricably linked to gendered identity and experience. Issues of gender, power and the specically gendered structure, nature and effects of power are a continuous theme in the research interviews, highlighting the connections between everyday activities and broader social structural conditions and, critically, the interconnections between gender and power at both the individual and the institutional level (Bosworth and Carrabine, 2001, p. 512). Gender, as argued by Connell (2000, p. 18) is not simply an individual trait, but a complex and powerfully effective domain of social practice. Martin (2004) proposes that gender is best understood as a social institution, thus drawing attention to its multiple features ideology, practices, constraints, conicts, power and its complexities and multifacetness (p. 1264). Importantly, by noting the practices through which gender is continuously constituted Martins conceptualization counters the tendency to reify gender as xed (p. 1262).

Masculinities and violence


Connell (2000, p. 29) conceptualizes masculinities as congurations of practice within gender relations which are basic to all structures, from institutions and economic relations to individual relationships and sexuality. To a large extent dominant constructions of masculinity dictate that men should be unemotional, logical, independent, hard but fair, benevolent but not vulnerable, physically strong, heterosexual and sexually dominant (OLeary, 1998, p. 26). In particular, the everyday bracketing of the terms masculinity
Volume 16 Number 2 March 2009
2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

WOMEN, GENDERED WORK AND GENDERED VIOLENCE

241

and violence, as discussed by Morgan (1987, p. 180), is related to a construction of masculinity based on widely held dominant and persuasive notions about what men are and, by implication, what women are. As Edwards (1989, p. 25) notes, violence and sexuality are intertwined and both are fundamental to male power. Thus an analytical approach, such as that advocated by Connell (1996, 2000), Morgan (1987) and Hearn (1996c, 1998), recognizing violence as culturally constructed and encompassing both individual and collective masculinities, and individual men and gendered institutions, reveals that it is social masculinities, rather than biological differences, that are critical to gendered violence. Gendered power relations are fundamental to violence. In discussing the cultural coupling of sex and violence, Eardley (1995, p. 136) notes that in cultural imagery violence is constantly intertwined with sexuality; the cultural fact of womens sexual victimization is locked into a sexviolence nexus. The association of masculinity with power and femininity with passivity thus constitutes and perpetuates a pattern of gendered violence, positioning man as predator and woman as, invariably, his victim (Nafne, 1997, p. 102). The link between masculinity(ies) and violence is, nonetheless, complex: masculinity may be dened through the performance of violence, the potential for violence, the emulation of others violence, the denial of violence, or even opposition to violence (Hearn, 1996b, p. 51). Working to intervene in violent behaviour, in this case in mens use of violence, must therefore be understood as work that is specically and substantially gendered. While all work and work organizations are gendered in ways that are both fundamental and comprehensive, in the context of work involving mens violence the prevailing elements are especially manifest. What we see here is, in a sense, a double whammy: the work is gendered in terms of the target for intervention and the work and workplace is, in terms of work as usual, gendered in a general, and thoroughly ordinary, sense.

The study
This article is based on the ndings of a relatively small qualitative study investigating the beliefs, attitudes and professional practice of men and women engaged in work with men who are violent. A primary aim of the study was to explore the proposition that gender is a substantial and highly signicant factor for workers in the violence intervention eld, both in terms of their practice, the ways that they do their work, and their personal/ professional identity. While the initial focus of the project was on the gendered subjectivity of workers in terms of the potential for reinforcing prooffending, that is, masculinist, beliefs and behaviour, it became clear in the course of the interviews that this area of practice impacts very differently on male and female workers. This issue is the basis for discussion in this article.
2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Volume 16 Number 2 March 2009

242

GENDER, WORK AND ORGANIZATION

Snowball sampling (Bryman, 2004, pp. 1002) was used to identify and solicit participants for the study. Potential participants were initially identied through the authors own connections with the Department for Correctional Services1 in South Australia. The research participants (four women and six men) include social workers and allied professionals employed in a range of organizations including government (the Department for Correctional Services) and non-government sectors (such as community health and related agencies). Thus, a diverse range of workplaces (seven in total, including distinct units in the Department for Correctional Services) and professional groups are represented in this study. The interviews were conducted with the approval of the Department for Correctional Services, via their research management committee. All the participants are trained and accredited facilitators of the Stopping Violence2 programme, a practice model of group work for men who wish to stop violent and abusive behaviour towards their women partners and family (Northern Metropolitan Community Health Service [NMCHS], 1997). The age range of the participants is broad, from 25 to over 46 years of age, as is the employment experience represented by the sample, ranging from 2 years to over 15 years. The data were collected using open-ended questions in semi-structured interviews in order to obtain qualitative data. The participants were provided with an explanatory statement outlining the aims and process of the project, including an assurance of condentiality and anonymity. The questions focused on individuals attitudes and beliefs regarding the nature and experience of the work and its impacts, with particular reference to gendered subjectivity. Each interview was audio-taped. Transcribed interview data were coded inductively using NVIVO computer software, with a focus on identifying analytical categories as these emerge from the data (Pope et al., 2000, p. 114). Key themes and patterns were thus identied, consistent with a grounded theory approach to qualitative research (Bryman, 2004; Pope et al., 2000; Shank, 2006). The participants names and any identifying information have been changed or omitted in order to achieve anonymity.

The elephant in the room ...


Having outlined the nuts and bolts of the project, it is important that I now comment briey on the progressive development of this research. I have indicated that the focus of this article is different from, though related to, what I initially intended to investigate. I did not set out with the intention of exploring participants normal, everyday experience of the workplace, although a recognition of the gendered nature of the workplace and its impacts was certainly implicit in my conceptualization of the context for this research. The specic impact and implications of this work for women workers in particular, took me rather by surprise, and especially given my own background in this area. Given my own background in this area, having
Volume 16 Number 2 March 2009
2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

WOMEN, GENDERED WORK AND GENDERED VIOLENCE

243

worked closely with workers in the domestic violence eld, both as a colleague and as a manager, I was am alarmed at my own failure to recognize these issues, especially given my sense of myself as having been a supportive and aware manager. Not only did I fail to notice but, it seems, so did everyone else; at least, it was never spoken of or openly acknowledged. Knowledge and experience are inevitably subjective, contingent and valueladen; layers of meaning and subjectivity are embedded in the everyday of ordinary existence. In my startling omission I am confronted with my own embeddedness in the gendered status quo, together with my own complicity in the maintenance of damaging gender practices. Martin (2003) argues for a conceptualization of gender dynamics as twosided, constituting gendering practices and practising gender, which although interrelated are conceptually distinct. Gendering practices are those activities that are available to be done, asserted, performed, in any encounter in accord with (or in violation of) the gender institution (p. 354). In contrast, practising gender refers to the literal activities of gender, ... the doing, displaying, asserting, narrating, performing, mobilizing, maneuvering. The practising of gender is the focus of this article because it is this, as Martin contends, that enables the gender order to be (re)constituted in the work context. In this respect I am guided by Martins call to nd ways to see, name, and understand such micro-interactional practising dynamics in order not to miss the immediacy, complexities, and subtleties of gendering dynamics (p. 354).

Practising gender at work: business as usual


Work is a highly signicant resource for doing gender: gender is situationally accomplished in and through social interactions, structures and practices (Connell, 2000) and work is a means to this end. In the work context gender constructions are both shaped by and reproduce the existing social structural divisions of labour, power and culture hierarchies (Martin and Jurik, 1996, p. 31). The production of gender in the workplace is intricately connected to the wider context of gender relations in the family, state and labour market. Thus the construction, negotiation and reconstruction of gender, the, micropolitical operations of [gender] hierarchy and advantage, are fundamental to gendered power relations in all organizational life (Eveline, 1996, p. 68). Gendered power and control is reproduced through the hierarchical structure of organizations and through everyday relations between individuals. As indicated earlier, I did not set out with the intention of exploring participants normal, everyday experience of the workplace, partly because my focus was rmly on violence, and the experience of working with violence in particular, and partly because I took for granted the gendered nature of the workplace so thoroughly that I overlooked it altogether. This, nonetheless emerges as a
2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Volume 16 Number 2 March 2009

244

GENDER, WORK AND ORGANIZATION

strong theme, albeit in very different ways, throughout the interviews. The male participants tend to highlight their general discomfort with aspects of the hierarchical structure in terms of the power relations associated with dominance, status and competition; whereas the female participants focus on their individual and profoundly personal struggles to be recognized as having a legitimate and valued position in the workplace. As noted by Hearn and Parkin (1987, p. 92), the valuation of men over women in the work context parallels the tendency to value mens sexuality, which is associated with the properties of valued labour and hierarchy, over womens sexuality. Thus women at work are individually managed and assessed as sexualized beings and are, generically, perhaps even collectively, under-valued, unvalued (p. 92). Mary, for example, discusses the conventional differentiation between womens and mens (work) skills which, in her experience, continues to shape relations in the workplace and beyond: I think I grew up, and probably like most women denitely like most women with an ideal view of men as having something that I didnt have. You know, that they had access to thoughts and skills that I wouldnt have.... I dont think that any more; in fact, what I recognize really very strongly now is womens skills and ways of doing things that I think is invisible to a lot of men. I see men, or I hear or hear about mens account of women, where ... theres a whole other element to her that they just havent recognized thats invisible to [them]. Theyre not working at not seeing it they just dont see it.... I hear women incessantly talking about their limitations but theres not many men that I hear talking about their limitations. Yeah, its obviously invisible to them as well. The intersection of difference and dominance, in this case regarding the combined effects of gender and age, is also highlighted, as expressed here by Joan: As a young woman ... I feel that I had to work particularly hard to get [the] respect of other people. I feel that I need to work really hard at that [still] now. Further, Karen describes her experience that So many males are just not really grasping the knowledge that a young female would have and I think theres a bit of an age issue with that too.... its just obvious everywhere and it just takes so much more effort to try and get that image to people, that youd be somebody thats in control of something, or knowledgeable about an issue. I just think its a lot harder for females. The workplace may constitute a range of settings, experiences and interactions. This is particularly so in the case of violence intervention in which the work may be undertaken in a range of work settings, including correctional
Volume 16 Number 2 March 2009
2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

WOMEN, GENDERED WORK AND GENDERED VIOLENCE

245

settings and institutions, non-government and community health agencies, the courts and so on. Thus, the work experiences, as discussed here by the participants, represent a variety of distinct, though linked, realms including direct, face-to-face, work with men (the clients) in individual and group intervention programmes, administrative and other work (such as recordkeeping, team meetings, supervision and so on), community and inter- or intra-agency liaison, and work in and with other agencies of the criminal justice system, such as the courts. While the female participants draw attention to the structures of power and advantage associated with gender and difference across each of these work contexts, it is clear that in some organizations the power of gender difference is concentrated and is manifested in particular ways. Carol, for example, in discussing the court system as one aspect of her workplace, observes that: Within the legal system it became quite evident that there was a hierarchy, or pecking order ... it was mainly from the legal profession in terms of, Whos this woman, coming into my court and telling me what to do? The observations of Karen, Joan, Carol and Mary strongly suggest that gendered difference and disadvantage persists as a fundamental, structural feature of the workplace. Women continue to experience outsider status in this context and the effects of gender are compounded by other factors, such as age, as is evident here. This is not to say that they are resigned to this lesser status. In terms of the more everyday, unremarkable experiences of sexism, Mary identies particular strategies that she had developed in order to safeguard her own energy levels and sanity: [O]ne shift Ive made is that I choose when I confront [issues], I think, now whereas I used to always name it and confront it, or often name it and confront it, I often, I probably often dont now. I walk away from it. Thus Mary is clear that she has not come to take a more passive stand in relation to the everyday disadvantage associated with gender, but rather that she has become more self-protective and strategic in this regard. The discursive foundations underlying gender, work and violence are closely connected and intermeshed. Hearn (1996b, p. 44) argues that (work) organizations, because they are usually formed in the context of the structural relations of domination, control, and violence, are likely to contribute to the reproduction of those very relations. In drawing attention to organizations as sites or structures of violence (p. 43) Hearn draws attention, in particular, to the ways in which violence is embedded in organizations: in managerial and work cultures, in the ordinary enactment of authority, in normalized harassment, in dealing with the violence of others, [and] in talking about violences (p. 55). The male participants, in discussing their experiences of the workplace, focus on the competitive, aggressive aspects of organizational structure and processes which they recognize in inherently
2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Volume 16 Number 2 March 2009

246

GENDER, WORK AND ORGANIZATION

masculine terms. They describe their awareness of, and discomfort with, the hierarchical nature of the organizational environment, most having become aware of this later in life, and for some, only when they had experienced a different type of workplace. For example, Thomas contrasts his present employment with prior experiences, describing his previous workplace, in an unrelated area, as Very blokey, very aggressive. The few women who got into senior positions tended to have to be blokey, or they got there because they were blokey. It discouraged initiative. It discouraged co-operation. Probably the exact opposite of the workplace that Im in now. While organizations vary in the extent to which the forms and sources of authority are gendered and made explicit, obedience to authority is a fundamental aspect of organizational functioning. However this authority is usually mens authority and is to a greater or lesser degree unaccountable and unjustiable, and thus, in itself, violating (Hearn, 1996b, p. 46). Indeed hierarchy can function as a source of violence in itself (Connell, 2000, p. 216), as noted here by Thomas: The language that was used, the structure of the place I mean, it was men in positions of power, it was the you do as I want, and if you did something that the hierarchy didnt like, you were just blasted for it. Thus, as central organizational concerns, power, domination and control can be seen as euphemisms for violence (Hearn, 1996b, p. 44). Hearn (1996b, p. 55) draws particular attention to the enactment of ordinary authority, the normalization of harassment, and the ways in which violence is embedded in conversations and explanations in the organizational context. Thomas, again, acknowledges this explicitly when he says: [W]ell, that work place was a form of violence, pure and simple. It was verbally abusive and the experience that we know, from our clients, is that its often the most damaging. Interestingly, whilst Thomas draws a parallel between the institutional violence of the workplace and the use of violence by individual men, his focus here is on the violence of other men, including the criminal violence of male clients. What appears to be missing here, and was generally so across all of the interviews with the male participants, is recognition of the gendered, institutionalized violence implicit in their own (present) workplace and work practices, as well as the specic impacts and implications it had on their female work colleagues. That is, while recognizing the negative impacts of hierarchical masculinity embedded in and reproduced through organizational practices and everyday relations, they tended to see these as being conned to particular organizations or individuals. Thus, Thomas distinguishes between the central role of violence in his previous workplace and the absence, or
Volume 16 Number 2 March 2009
2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

WOMEN, GENDERED WORK AND GENDERED VIOLENCE

247

non-violence, of his current environment. Similarly, Robert and Simon, whose responses are explored further in the next section, discuss the problems associated with the behaviour of other men either that of male clients or of male workers in other parts of the organization but present this as a problem that exists elsewhere, not in their own, immediate work setting. Further they position this behaviour as damaging or unhealthy in only general terms, failing to recognize its specically gendered content and effects. Consider, for example, this statement by Robert: Im comfortable in myself with who I am, but Im not comfortable in my t in a lot of other areas.... I refuse to function in the same way; theres no desire in me to function in the same way as I perceive that a lot of other men are functioning in a department such as this, for example. Theres some sense of mist ... Here Robert identies his discomfort with the gendered norms associated with being a man in his workplace and stresses his unwillingness, indeed, his refusal, to comply with them. His focus however is on the personal t for himself as an individual man. What seems to be missing is an acknowledgement of, or sensitivity to, the experiences of women in this environment. In this respect, the routine and thoroughly ordinary nature of gender, power and hierarchical relations of mens collective mobilization of masculinities is obscured in favour of the performance of destructive forms of dominant masculinity by individual men (Martin, 2001, p. 607). However, as Martin (2003) stresses, it is these [s]ubtle, interactional, non-intentional masculinity practices by men, (or gender slights), that impact critically on women, undermining their self-esteem and making them question their competence (p. 359). In the next section I explore these issues further, with particular reference to working with violence.

Practising gender at work: working with violence


Martin (2006) draws our attention to the ways that intentionality and agency intersect in practising gender. In distinguishing between reexive and unreexive modes of practice, she observes that to practice gender reexively requires awareness and intention, obligating individuals to consider carefully or meditate on their actions and their likely effects prior to behaving (p. 260). Martin considers that such reexivity is rare in the workplace; instead people routinely practise gender without being reexive about it and without consciously intending to do so (p. 260). She nonetheless acknowledges that some people, some of the time are reexive about gender (Martin, 2003, p. 356), and identies a need for research that focuses on work situations in which men and women are more reexive about their practising of gender (p. 357). This is the context for the following discussion.
2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Volume 16 Number 2 March 2009

248

GENDER, WORK AND ORGANIZATION

Efforts to intervene in violence are increasingly shaped by a recognition of the cultural association between violence and masculinity (Flood, 2003). Flood (2002, p. 11) argues that reducing violence necessitates profound changes in mens lives, gendered power relations and the social construction of masculinity. This recognition is reected relatively consistently by all the participants in this research. Mary, for example, notes that this is not gender neutral work. And, as argued by Jenks (1999), nor should it be: neutrality is neither possible nor desirable when working with violence (p. 134). The meaning and implications of working with male violence, for women workers in particular, is a key theme running throughout the interviews. The women are clear that gender is central, not incidental or peripheral, to the impacts of this work on them. They discuss the ways in which the work has impacted on them personally and professionally, both as women and as women workers. They see these effects as specically gendered, that is they recognize that their experiences have been shaped by gender but also that the impact of these experiences is uniquely gendered. This is consistent with Martins (2006) argument that subtle forms of sexism and gender bias, constituted through non-reexive practising, and more prevalent in the work setting than intentional (reexive) practising, are rarely recognized or condemned. Thus, as a rule, only members who experience them at the raw end of power even know they exist (p. 255). Consider, for example, Joans account of the everyday pressures associated with her work: [In other jobs people] dont have to have boundaries, you know; they dont need to, its not as scary as working with men. I think that thats something you have to do when working with men, being a female worker I have to work ten times as hard to get respect of somebody and to make sure that Im working in a way that doesnt at all invite men to behave in a manner thats inappropriate.... Ive always had to be really conscious of that stuff. [Ive] also had to be conscious about the clothes that I wear, and thats impacted on me personally, not in a very good way. The notion of boundaries raised by Joan brings to mind Franzways (2000) discussion of greedy institutions, characterized by the demands of commitment, workload and emotional labour. Working in a greedy institution implies commitment to something that is more than just a job, with connotations of personal sacrice and a strong allegiance to the possibility of achieving goals based on particular values (p. 262). Whilst Franzways discussion concerns womens involvement in the trade union movement, it provides a context for considering the range of other occupations that might be considered greedy institutions, in which the discourses and practices of commitment, workloads and emotional labour (p. 267) have gendered effects and high personal costs (p. 264) which are particular to women. Joan discusses the impact of this work on her self-identity, as the negative and objectifying views of her male clients have come, increasingly, to shape
Volume 16 Number 2 March 2009
2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

WOMEN, GENDERED WORK AND GENDERED VIOLENCE

249

and inform her self-image. Thus, when asked whether she has come to see herself differently through her work in this area, Joan replies, I think that I was seeing me in similar ways as [did] those groups of men. Karen is also clear about the personal impact of working with men who use violence. Reecting Franzways (2000, p. 264) observation regarding the ways in which work in greedy institutions can expand to ll all the time available, Karen emphasizes that these issues are not, and cannot be, contained within her working life. In her opinion, involvement in this area of work has changed who she is in a more fundamental sense: certainly, my behaviour has changed personally.... So, in my daily life, it affects who I am, wherever I am. Mary is equally clear that working in the violence intervention eld has inuenced her perception of gender relations and, in particular, how she sees everyday relationships between men and women. She says: Its hard to not to [see men and womens relationships differently] ... I certainly see examples of, you know, gendered domination where other people dont see it, I think. Maintaining a clear division between work and personal life, leaving work at work, is often cited as a primary survival strategy for those who work in stressful occupations, indeed it has become almost like a motto in certain work settings (see, for example, Zubrzycki, 1999). Hearn and Parkin (1987, p. 89) explain that in occupations involved in people work or people changing, such as caring, nursing and social work, the emotional nature of the work ... affects the emotional life of the organization and its members. In such conditions the members may respond by attempting to control their emotions through professionalism [and] institutional defences . Although the female participants appear to support this ideal by expressing their belief in the importance of maintaining a separate, untainted personal life using professional boundaries, it becomes clear as each interview progresses that this stance is, at the least, problematic and, in practical terms, unsustainable in terms of their actual lived experiences, as exemplied here by Joan: [T]he stories [about mens use of violence] ... they are quite detailed and horric and you know, where else would you get to hear those stories? Stuff that you see at the movies you can separate from that and its not real. I think that just having a real ability to separate from work and stuff that you hear here, from your private life [is important] ... but I dont know to what extent you can do that. I know that, for me, I wonder if I would be a bit different if I hadnt been exposed to those sorts of stories. Joan reects here on the personal impact of hearing these stories of, and about, violence on a regular basis, explaining that the work has changed her as a person and not just as a worker. This theme was consistent across all the interviews. As reported by the women participants, the impact of the work on them is signicant, whether or not they have personally experienced mens
2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Volume 16 Number 2 March 2009

250

GENDER, WORK AND ORGANIZATION

use of violence outside the work environment. They talk, for example, about their concerns that the experience of working with men who use violence will impact on their personal relationships with men. As Joan says: I think its really hard not to change your view about men, I think that when you work with men, and men who are violent and abusive ... it does impact on the way that you view men. I think that it would be difcult not to, even though my experiences with men in my personal life has been very good. Working in the eld of violence intervention is also experienced by male workers as difcult and, at times, challenging. Simon explains: Ive found it the most mentally draining work that Ive done, ... but it is quite rewarding [when you feel like] youre making a difference. It can be quite confronting [in terms of] the frustration and the things that you hear in groups men can be really honest, up front, about their violence. All the male interviewees perceived that they had changed signicantly since doing the work. Thomas, describing the personal changes that have arisen from his experiences, says: I worked in [previous workplace] for quite a few years and I found that to be an increasingly abusive place ... [Since then] Ive had this sort of rethink and I suppose changed a lot of my views about women and life and stuff like that. Some have difculty articulating these changes, as indicated here in Simons response: I suppose since working here ... Ive certainly changed, but how, Im not sure. I think Ive become a better listener and I try and understand people better. Its a very hard thing for me to put a nger on, how Ive changed. He is condent, though, that other people have noticed these changes: Ive had a lot of my friends say to me that Ive changed. They think Ive changed a lot over the years, but theyre still my friends so Im assuming that I havent changed that much! [laughs] Martins (2006) discussion of reexivity in terms of practising gender is useful here. Because practising gender is informed by tacit knowledge, associated with liminal consciousness or knowledge that is below the level of full consciousness it is entirely possible, indeed probable, that men will routinely and more or less constantly [do] things associated with acting like a man without reecting upon them (p. 261). Hence, one way of understanding Simons difculty in expressing the ways that the work has impacted on him is that my questioning presumed a level of reexivity that he lacked (p. 266). This attests to the familiarity, invisibility and persistence of the practices and practising of gender.
Volume 16 Number 2 March 2009
2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

WOMEN, GENDERED WORK AND GENDERED VIOLENCE

251

The mens accounts of their work do not, however, reect the extent or depth of personal and professional impacts expressed by the women. In their study of men working in non-traditional occupations Cross and Bagilhole (2002, p. 219) note the ways that men in their study in this context construct and dene a sense of gender identity. They observe that men either attempted to maintain a traditional masculinity by distancing themselves from female colleagues, and/or partially (re)constructed a different masculinity. A strong tendency towards the latter, that of seeking to embody an alternative model of masculinity, is evident in the mens responses in the current research. As Robert, for example, explains: I see it as being a healthy male, with a healthy understanding of what it means to be male,3 and its a case of helping other men go through that transition ... so I suppose all Im doing is a bit of a catalyst, helping them to think about and work through some of those issues a bit faster than what they would have otherwise. Christie (2006, p. 399) has noted the representation of male social workers in their professional practice as either heroic men of action or gentle-men, as a means of positively identifying with a social work professional identity. Both of these idealizing discourses of masculinity perform an important function in distancing male workers from male clients and their violence. In relation to the former heroic mode, the differentiation between men as violent or protecting, (in the context of male workers dealing with or managing violence), is central to the everyday practice of social/welfare work and the reproduction of acceptable and unacceptable masculinities (pp. 4023). Discourses of the gentle-man, as evident in Roberts statement, represent male workers as honourable, abiding by a higher set of moral standards than those guiding other mens behaviour (p. 404). As observed by Christie (2006, p. 404), this language of exceptionalism may help men, and male workers in particular, to overcome the many contradictions that characterize their identities. In their study Cross and Bagilhole (2002, p. 220) observe an explicit acknowledgement by men that their embrace of the feminine side of their personality through their work in non-traditional occupations, enables them to become more complete as a person. Although the men who participated in this research would not necessarily be understood as working in non-traditional occupations (indeed, violence intervention might, in many respects, be considered mens work: see, for example, Christie [2006]), the impression that the work has an empowering impact in terms of what it means to be a man that they have come to identify as being better indications of their true self (p. 219) is evident. As exemplied here by Thomas, there is a strong sense that the men experience the work as enriching:
2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Volume 16 Number 2 March 2009

252

GENDER, WORK AND ORGANIZATION

I think essentially Ive probably always been the same person, but when I was doing the previous work I was in the wrong place ... so I was being two different people. Now I can be, essentially, the same person.... I feel better about myself. I feel better because Im doing something thats, if you like, more honest. This statement stands in stark contrast to the responses of women workers who, when describing their experiences of working in violence intervention, talk about having to give up or hide aspects of their femininity: feeling a loss and less than complete (Cross and Bagilhole, 2002, p. 220). Despite the representation of organizations as gender neutral and asexual, the interconnection of sexuality and power is basic to all organizations (Hearn and Parkin, 1987). Nonetheless it is generally assumed and held as self-evident that sexuality has no place in organizational life. In the workplace the sexual specicity of the worker presupposes the male body; mens (hetero)sexuality is not seen as signicant, nor considered problematic, in this context. Women workers, on the other hand, due to their association with (hetero)sexuality, are understood as bringing the distractions and disruptions associated with (their) sexuality into the work context (Harlow, 1996, p. 68). Thus, in order to be granted credibility in the workplace, women must strive to blend in, managing their sexuality by a process of desexualization (Fawcett, 1996, p. 84). As observed by Hearn and Parkin (1987, p. 82) the social production of the gender role includes numerous aspects of the person that bear on sexuality: appearance, dress, emotionality, desire for others. Joan, for example, speaks at length about the efforts she makes to defeminize herself in order to make sure that there is nothing about her appearance or behaviour that could be interpreted as invit[ing] men to behave in a manner thats inappropriate. She explains that she has become increasingly self-conscious regarding her clothing and appearance, and that a lot of care goes into getting ready for work in the morning. Similarly, although from a slightly different angle, Carol talks about becoming known amongst her social group as being a bit too independent, a bit too stroppy because, in the eyes of some people, she doesnt t some of the norms of normal middle-aged women. Here Carol highlights the constraints of femininity and the struggles associated with negotiating these effects in both personal and professional realms.

Women and men working together


In this research the signicance of gender emerges most strongly in men and womens accounts of working together. This is particularly interesting given the strong emphasis placed on men and women working together as co-leaders in violence intervention. As stated in the Stopping Violence Groups manual, the preferred position is that of a female and male leader because
Volume 16 Number 2 March 2009
2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

WOMEN, GENDERED WORK AND GENDERED VIOLENCE

253

this offers the opportunity to demonstrate ways of relating between genders that are based on equity and respect as well as adding accountability between genders (NMCHS, 1997, p. 57). This is consistent with national and international literature in which the practice of men and women working together in group work situations with male clients is widely advocated, on the basis that women can not only identify but also challenge discriminatory behaviour from workers and men (Wright, 1996, p. 144). In this study however, it is clear that the issues associated with this practice are profoundly different in their nature, signicance and, crucially, impact on women compared to men. The literature is strangely silent on this matter. While as Wright (1996, pp. 1445), for example, acknowledges that this role is not an easy one for women to adopt, she stresses that it is nonetheless essential before quickly moving on to other, presumably more pressing, matters. In this study the participants present their understanding of the rationale for male and female co-working relationships in a manner that is generally consistent with the literature. They are uniformly committed to the idea of men and women working together and express both their philosophical and practical support for this. As Karen says: We should be very encouraging of females wanting to work in an area of violence and I guess that thats the exact reason why I do it, because there are not many young females doing it.... [T]heres a point of view that men obviously cant offer that a female can and the female voice is rarely being heard. Joan also supports this practice when she says: Men and women are different and their experiences are different and so in some ways it might be difcult for [men] to have an understanding of some of the systems that support those ideas. Further, both male and female participants are able to identify specic instances in which the malefemale co-working relationship has contributed to improved practice. Joan explains that In observing groups and hearing about some of the mens stories, the things that I picked up on were probably a bit different to him [male colleague] because of my experiences as a woman and when I spoke to him about that afterwards, he, um, you know, was really appreciative of the feedback, saying that wasnt something hed thought about in that way before.... and thats why I think its important for it to be men and women co-facilitating the groups.... Being a woman, you can offer a different insight you can offer something different to a therapeutic relationship because of the gender differences.
2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Volume 16 Number 2 March 2009

254

GENDER, WORK AND ORGANIZATION

Similarly Thomas recalls a particular instance when a female colleague pointed out some things that I could have done better, um, and they werent things that I was aware of so I would have gone on making, you know, doing the same things. A picture also emerges, however, through the interviews with female participants, of the ipside of this practice, drawing attention to other aspects of the work. Joan, for example, speaks about the difculties and responsibilities associated with her position as a lone voice for women. Here, she refers explicitly to the power imbalance and the gender imbalance, noting that Just trying to get them [male colleagues] to sort of see that that does [have an] impact.... there are lots of things that contribute to that fear for a woman and so for me, coming from my thoughts, my values and beliefs around that, men wouldnt have that same experience. Joan recalls an incident when she raised an issue with her male co-worker which really stood out at the time and, for me, I thought, how could you not pick up on that? Similarly, Karen states clearly her perception of the pressures placed on the female worker, who is expected to somehow represent all women (an impossible task in any case) and may also become responsible for maintaining the integrity of the group in terms of its faithfulness to programme philosophy and principles: In my experience, it certainly comes down to me and I could well imagine that it would often come down to being the females responsibility, in that shell be recognizing it, um, and I dont think that the male would necessary recognize something thats outside of his understanding and experiences. Karen goes on to explain that I think it places, again, a huge amount of responsibility on the female facilitator ... so that in itself is a problem. I think that particularly with the whole nature of what youre trying to achieve in the programme, I nd it exceptionally ironic that its down to the female to be the one thats carrying it.... That its up to a female to be just explaining continuously, which I think is just.... Yeah, its a problem. Thus the responsibilities for a woman in this context multiply. Her tasks include not only raising an issue but also having to explain and justify why it is an issue, with the ever-present risk that this may be perceived by the male worker (and the male group members) as an individual quibble or idiosyncratic complaint, or even that time of the month. As Karen points out, the task for the female co-worker can easily become that of taking responsibility for not only the behaviour of the men in the group (the clients) but also that of the male worker:
Volume 16 Number 2 March 2009
2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

WOMEN, GENDERED WORK AND GENDERED VIOLENCE

255

Its a huge task to be paying attention to what the participants are doing, your co-workers doing and what youre doing yourself. [Its] overwhelmingly draining but its ... the female presenter is the one thats doing that in every group, I would imagine. Thus, while Joan is clear in her positioning of the female contribution as critical to the therapeutic or change process, she is equally clear about the costs of this in terms of the additional load carried by women working in this area: I felt that I really needed to work at that, [her male colleagues gender awareness] I think he did [try], but he would never know what it was like to have to either walk into a unit full of men or to try and interact with a group of men, say, in a programme where you really had to work hard to make sure ... that stuff was appropriate and you couldnt be, maybe, as casual around things.... I think thats whats shaped a lot of my work, is putting a lot of boundaries in place around my work practices and so I dont think men have to work as hard at that. Mary is a strong advocate for the role of women in ensuring accountability but also acknowledges the difculties associated with this: Yeah, the responsibility comes back to women again, but I dont know that there is any other way for the men who are working in this area to be genuinely saying that they are open to feedback from women, and for women in this area to be prepared to honestly give them that. Now, how often does that happen? I dont know, you know, I cant say that. Here Mary raises a crucial issue: just as men are unaccustomed to being challenged and censored, so are women unaccustomed to doing the challenging (Arshad, 1996, pp. 1534). Because women have, over their lifetime, subliminally internalized the message that women should be around but silent (p. 154) the process of women and men working together in this context is very problematic, no matter how much (or how little) good will exists between them. Women have traditionally been associated with the domestic realm, and thus are seen as having a natural afnity and therefore responsibility for emotions, caring and nurturing. These are the very beliefs that domestic violence intervention programmes, underpinned by pro-feminist and feminist principles, claim to be countering. The introduction to the Stopping Violence Group manual, for example, states that steps taken to address the issue of domestic violence must address the issue of power imbalance between the genders and the practices which perpetuate this (NMCHS, 1997, p. 10). However, in the female participants accounts of their experiences in doing this work, I am struck by what seems to be the reproduction and reinforcement of gendered power relations. The risk, which seems dangerously close
2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Volume 16 Number 2 March 2009

256

GENDER, WORK AND ORGANIZATION

to being realized, is that in this context women are placed in a position in which they become responsible for managing the emotional tone by stepping into the vulnerable family members roles as domestic dirty workers (Blyth and Milner, 1990, cited in Milner, 1996, p. 125). As argued by Milner (2001, p. 86): Yes, I do want men to listen to women but is it womens responsibility to help them do this? Can they really not think of this for themselves? And when will they start listening anyway? Thus while ensuring that womens voices are heard is undoubtedly important, it is equally critical to recognize the potential for male workers to depend on women to do their dirty work.

Challenging masculinities
The area of violence intervention, particularly in the context of domestic violence, is intense and challenging work. As the responses of the male and female participants in this study make clear, this is so both personally and professionally. The self-knowledge that results from the exploration of critical questions about gender and masculinity cannot be contained in the workplace. As noted by Robert: Youre not the same after, when you really get involved in this work. Nor, as Simon says, can its effects be contained within the working day, Once you do care about those issues, how do you then stop that? Obviously you dont, you cant. The participants acknowledge that their work values, particularly concerning the links between dominant forms of masculinity and violence, carry over into the rest of their lives and have also become their personal values. As demonstrated by Simon, the men are able to identify a range of ways in which these beliefs and values are manifest in both their personal and professional lives: Like, in my private time, I dont look for things, judge people or anything, but if it was clear that it was coming across to me that somebody had different views about violence or family violence than I did, I would certainly be in their face with it.... Once upon a time I would have let them have their view; now I dont think we can do that any more: people need to speak up. Simons response is especially signicant in highlighting the contestability of dominant masculinity. While it is enacted by individual men, masculinity is established in a larger social group and can thus be understood as a social practice. In this respect Connells (2000, p. 10) use of the term masculinities is useful, acknowledging the differences among men and the existence of multiple denitions and dynamics. Thus, particular forms or enactments of
Volume 16 Number 2 March 2009
2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

WOMEN, GENDERED WORK AND GENDERED VIOLENCE

257

masculinity serve to establish and communicate gender identity, pointing to the potential for change. Consider, for example, Roberts observation regarding his growing awareness of the damaging aspects of dominant masculinity: I couldnt name it all [but] there was a lot of things at that stage that I wasnt seeing.... I think for a long time Ive had at least an understanding of some of the very demeaning behaviour, even ... talk, that men would have towards women, and at least some sense that that issue of control over women [is] very damaging because I experienced that. I saw my own Mum, really become someone who didnt have her own identity. Both of them [his parents] are still alive and I can see where shes ended up. Here Robert draws attention to the ways in which talk can constitute violence. As observed by Hearn (1996c, p. 106), as forms of social talk, the ways that men speak about gender difference and violence contribute to an environment of objectication that diminishes humanity and makes violence possible. While they are seemingly small-scale and insignicant, individual challenges to dominant masculinities thus represent a particularly profound way to question and resist the violence that inltrates everyday life. Individual men can play a major role in social change by promoting cultural intolerance for unethical and exploitative practices (Carmody and Carrington, 2000, p. 356). The behaviour of individuals can make a signicant impact and can ultimately lead to social and structural change. Although the structure of gender relations is complex and may seem unyielding, different masculinities arise from within the same social context as dominant forms of masculinity do (Connell, 1996, p. 56). Masculinity (and femininity) is internally complex, even contradictory, and is constantly in a state of reconstitution. Inconsistencies symbolize different ways of thinking and being and thus represent critical opportunities for individual change and structural reform (Connell, 1996). This requires that men scrutinize their values, attitudes, and behaviour as men. Many of the beliefs that are fundamental to mens socialization actively promote abusive behaviour including aggression, competitiveness and physical and emotional hardness (Pease, 2001, p. 16). Thus, the assessment and exploration of these very beliefs must be the starting point for work with men. This implies that men, all men, must be prepared to engage in critical reection about their own socialization, images and ideals of masculinity, and gendered subjectivity. A particularly encouraging aspect of the current research is the extent to which this stance, that is, a willingness to be selfreective and critical, is evident in the male participants responses. As asserted by James (2001), awareness of ones own gender reaction (p. 44), that is, in terms of the inuence of embodied status and power (p. 45) on ones perceptions of and interactions with clients is essential for effective therapeutic interventions. Although this is true for both men and women
2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Volume 16 Number 2 March 2009

258

GENDER, WORK AND ORGANIZATION

who are engaged in work with men, she argues that the situation is particularly complex when the practitioner is a member of the dominant culture. The potential for collusion is a theme consistently raised by the male interviewees, together with the importance of being constantly aware and ever-vigilant in this regard. As Simon explains: [Y]ouve got to watch that you dont collude with the perpetrators. They might say something inappropriate, like a joke or something ... because youre a man and yes, youve got to be really aware of yourself, that youre not falling into that, because then youre actually colluding. Theyll bring you in with them against the female facilitator, so youve got to be very careful that that doesnt happen. Robert says: The invitations to collude with the perpetrators are absolutely extensive, exhaustive you will nd some new invitation just about every visit and it will suddenly come out of the blue. Collusion can mean many different things depending on the circumstances; in this context, as explained by Robert, it is likely to relate to the invitation just to connect as a male to a male.... Theres a real invitation [from the client to] to try and connect with me as another bloke that, as a bloke, you would understand what I go through. They would try and get you, invite you, to look at some of the worst situations youve been in, in your life, perhaps in a relationship with a woman, and seek to have you connect with that experience, that youve had yourself, and join with them to normalize it and say, okay, yes, that is a problem, yes, we do face that with some women; some women can be bitches or whatever.... It doesnt have to [be to] do with gender. But weve [all] had situations and relationships and ... all sorts of ... misuse of power, in all sorts of different situations, and we can easily draw on a whole lot of negative baggage. And thats the invitation all the time; to connect with some of your own stuff and then join with them on that. Then you just reinforce their position as soon as youve done that and you can do that with your eye contact and your body language; you can do it with a whole range of subtleties. Although the men present as acutely self-conscious regarding their own vulnerability to collusion there is little acknowledgement of the particular impact and issues associated with the experience for their female colleagues. Simon does, at least, broach the topic: I havent really thought a lot about it but, I guess, now [Im] thinking about it, it must be very hard for a woman to have to go in and listen to some of the things that come out in a group like the Stopping Violence programme. I guess that could be very confronting.... Im also sure that if the
Volume 16 Number 2 March 2009
2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

WOMEN, GENDERED WORK AND GENDERED VIOLENCE

259

co-facilitator is a man who isnt playing their role properly it could be really quite confronting and to the extent that the person [female facilitator] may not feel safe. Even here though, womens presence is closely linked to whether or not the male worker is playing his role properly, reecting the implicit positioning of women as central to gender accountability. This supports the observations made by the female participants. Consider, for example, Roberts acknowledgement that I think Ive been diverted at times, I think Ive colluded at times ... I think that Ive lost some of my power at times to work with men because I have not had that strong voice from the woman I think that is really important. This emphasis on womens voice, and ensuring that womens voices are heard and heeded, is critical, as is widely asserted in the relevant literature. Reference to accountability in this context is both specic to women as the immediate victims of male violence (as previous or current partners) and, more generally, to womens collective experiences in a patriarchal culture (NMCHS, 1997, p. 59). The participants stated commitment to this principle, as noted here by Robert, is thus both necessary and appropriate: Listening to the womans voice in domestic violence is so fundamental.... The point is that theyre not to be ignored, their voice has to be heard. However what is missing in this insistence that women have a voice is the recognition that this is an incredibly heavy load for individual women to carry. There is little recognition of the inherently gendered dimensions and implications of womens experience in this context. Thus we should not be surprised when Karen says: I guess what Id personally be saying to a person, a female, that would want to work in the area is that its just a million times harder work than if you were a male.... When it comes to violence, its much harder for females. It is clear that the question of how to access the experience of women (and children) without implying that they are responsible for mens abusive behaviour or that they have any responsibility for changing or monitoring mens behaviour (Hall, 2001, p. 127) is far from resolved. Further, the question of how to ameliorate the unique impacts of their work on women who have chosen to be involved in changing mens behaviour does not yet appear to have been given the serious consideration it deserves.

Conclusion
As exploratory and relatively small in scale, this study offers a depth of insight made possible only through the willingness and openness of
2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Volume 16 Number 2 March 2009

260

GENDER, WORK AND ORGANIZATION

participants to engage in focused and self-reective conversation. The interview data are rich and multilayered, containing a number of intriguing strands and themes that demand further scrutiny; I have focused on just one of these here. In the men and womens accounts of their lived experiences, the embeddedness of gender is conrmed, revealing the ways in which occupations require different kinds of work from men and women (even when they are doing the same job) and how men and women, themselves, do their work in gendered ways. (Dellinger, 2002, p. 4) Particularly evident in the current context, however, are both the resilience of gender effects in the workplace and the profound impacts of these on individual workers. As argued by Martin (1998, p. 2), because men generally do not perceive that their gender matters they may fail to see the signicance of gender in organizations. Of particular relevance for women is that they continue to be the unmarked, unacknowledged and unnamed targets, struggling to negotiate and manage these effects in an environment marked by increasingly fragmented feminist and backlash politics (Breckenridge, 1999, p. 25). Men working in this area, as argued by Pringle (2001, p. 46), have a particular responsibility to challenge those relations of power from which (to lesser or greater extents) they benet. Power is exercised through gendered, sexualized and culturally specic processes and interactions in the personal sphere as well as through and within institutions and structures. Recalling Foucaults (1980) insights regarding the micro-levels of power, this implies that the focus of attention must turn to the individual and routinized, since power is embedded in everyday practices. This is as important, if not more important, than the bigger picture of policy structures and best practice models. It is clear that both women and men are challenged and changed through their work in this area. But the demands, implications and related effects are gendered not just incidentally but profoundly so, and it seems that women are bearing the brunt of these pressures. Further, it seems that women are, to a large extent, suffering in silence. Whilst much has been written and said about the importance of gender accountability and listening to womens voices in relation to women as victims of domestic violence, there appears to be a deafening silence when it comes to the needs of, and accountability to, women as workers in this area. One element of this silence is the apparent goodwill that exists amongst the relatively small network of workers. There is a sense that men are trying (as indeed, they are) and that everyone is working towards a worthy cause. Carol, for example, refers to the malefemale co-working relationship as some of the delight of working in this area, noting that she has great respect for (some of) her male colleagues. What is not commonly spoken of, either in the literature or in the workplace, is the impact this work has on women: how does it feel for them? While
Volume 16 Number 2 March 2009
2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

WOMEN, GENDERED WORK AND GENDERED VIOLENCE

261

the male participants report feeling challenged and at times stressed and frustrated by their work, they also talk about its empowering effects and the opportunities it provides for personal growth. There is a sense of value adding, that their identity as men has evolved, their conceptualization of masculinity, of what it means to be a man, has been enriched, offering them a greater sense of freedom: they are more comfortable in their (male) skin. Notions of empowerment do not, however, resonate with womens accounts of their experiences. While the women participants talk about becoming more conscious of gendered structure and oppression, and it might be argued that this could be, in itself, empowering knowledge, a common experience is that of being diminished as women, in terms of feeling less free and more burdened. Feeling angry, for example, is a strong theme, as reported by Mary who talks of her real anger, overwhelming anger, at the impact of mens violence on women. Joan expands on this theme: [T]hats what really makes me angry, actually. If you go back to all that stuff about being a woman in society and not being able to do the stuff that men can do. Women who, um, jog around the parklands and the way thats portrayed, you know, that You shouldnt really be running after dark, youre a woman, and there has been rapes in the parklands.... Women are so constrained by all that stuff and when I talk to men about that, what they say is that Well, you know, its about you being responsible for that stuff.... And so, for me, I just think that doesnt t well for me and it doesnt t well coming from a man because I just think, Well, you dont have to experience it; you dont have to not be able to go for a jog late at night because something might happen to you.... So, how I feel about gender differences, thats a particularly big thing for me. And I dont think men will ever know about that stuff, what that feels like. Thus, as stressed by Karen, the women working in this eld face unique stresses and dilemmas. In order for a woman to survive, she says: You need to be extremely secure within yourself and with your own belief systems and your own understanding and knowledge in order to take the responsibility of helping somebody else understand. So yeah, denitely, for a person doing that it can be very damaging, and very confronting. There is a pressing need to both recognize and address these issues. At the most basic level this can begin by talking openly about them. Hearn (1996a) remarks that discourses about violence serve to either reproduce violence or to counter violence. Given Hearns (1996a) insight regarding the purposes served by silence in particular, that is, as a way of denying, threatening, or stopping violence, it is worth considering the role of silence in the experiences of women workers in this eld. What is clear in the common themes running throughout the interviews is that women who work in this
2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Volume 16 Number 2 March 2009

262

GENDER, WORK AND ORGANIZATION

area are not alone in their thoughts and experiences, even though they may feel as if they are. Indeed, it is this silence that is the most insidious and destructive aspect. It isolates women from each other and encourages them to hold their cards close to their respective chests, perhaps assuming that their struggles are theirs alone, that their weaknesses are individual rather than structural. This research will, I hope, go some way towards breaking the silence regarding the (metaphorical) elephant in the room.

Acknowledgements
I am grateful to the participants whose great patience and generosity, in the context of their time-pressured and demanding working lives, made this study possible. I would also like to acknowledge Jeff Hearn for his assistance and encouragement, as well as the anonymous Gender, Work & Organization reviewers for their insightful comments on an earlier draft of this article.

Notes
1. The views expressed in this report are not necessarily those of the Department for Correctional Services. 2. The Northern Metropolitan Community Health Service in South Australia (SA) developed the Stopping Violence Groups model of best practice in 1997. This model was subsequently adopted as an accredited offender development programme (as the core programme for domestic violence offenders) by the Department for Correctional Services (SA). Stopping Violence groups also form the basis of the inter-agency Central Violence Intervention Programme attached to the family violence courts in central and northern Adelaide (SA). For further information, see Central Violence Intervention Team (2002). 3. Although Roberts use of the term healthy demands analysis, in terms of what might constitute a healthy man or healthy masculinity, it is beyond the scope of this article to explore this further. The notion of positive or constructive masculinity, as conceptualized by men and in this context in particular, is, I believe, critical for progressing knowledge and practice in relation to gendered relations and gendered violence and requires further research and debate.

References
Acker, J. (1990) Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: a theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4,2, 13958. Arshad, R. (1996) Building fragile bridges: educating for change. In Cavanagh, K. and Cree, V.E. (eds) Working with Men: Feminism and Social Work, pp. 14769. London: Routledge.
Volume 16 Number 2 March 2009
2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

WOMEN, GENDERED WORK AND GENDERED VIOLENCE

263

Blyth, E. and Milner, J. (1990) The Process of Inter-agency Work In the Violence against Children Study Group Taking Child Abuse Seriously: Contemporary Issues in Child Protection Theory and Practice. London: Unwin Hyman. Bosworth, M. and Carrabine, E. (2001) Reassessing resistance: race, gender and sexuality in prison. Punishment and Society, 3,4, 50115. Breckenridge, J. (1999) Subjugation and silences: the role of professions in silencing victims of sexual and domestic violence. In Breckenridge, J. and Laing, L. (eds) Challenging Silence: Innovative Responses to Sexual and Domestic Violence, pp. 632. St Leonards: Allen & Unwin. Bryman, A. (2004) Social Research Methods. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Carmody, M. and Carrington, K. (2000) Preventing sexual violence? Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 33,3, 34161. Central Violence Intervention Team (2002) Central Violence Intervention Program Manual, available online at http://www.corrections.sa.gov.au/pdf_docs/cvipmanu.pdf Last consulted 1 December 2008. Christie, A. (2006) Negotiating the uncomfortable intersections between gender and professional identities in social work. Critical Social Policy, 26,2, 390411. Collinson, D. and Hearn, J. (1996) Men at work: multiple masculinities/multiple workplaces. In Mac an Ghaill, M. (ed.) Understanding Masculinities, pp. 6176. Buckingham: Open University Press. Connell, R.W. (1996) Politics of changing men. Arena Journal, 6, 5372. Connell, R.W. (2000) The Men and the Boys. St Leonards: Allen & Unwin. Cranny-Francis, A. (1992) Engendered Fiction Analysing Gender in the Production and Reception of Texts. Sydney: UNSW University Press. Cross, S. and Bagilhole, B. (2002) Girls jobs for the boys? Men, masculinity and non-traditional occupations. Gender, Work & Organization, 9,2, 20426. Dellinger, K. (2002) Wearing gender and sexuality on your sleeve: dress norms and the importance of occupational and organisational culture at work. Gender Issues, 20,1, 325. Eardley, T. (1995) Violence and sexuality. In Caffrey, S. and Mundy, G. (eds) The Sociology of Crime and Deviance: Selected Issues, pp. 13550. Greenwich: Greenwich University Press. Edwards, A. (1989) Male violence in feminist theory: an analysis of the changing conceptions of sex/gender violence and male dominance. In Hanmer, J. and Maynard, M. (eds) Women, Violence and Social Control, pp. 1329. Houndsmill: Macmillan. Eveline, J. (1996) The worry of going limp: are you keeping up in senior management? Australian Feminist Studies, 11,23, 6579. Fawcett, B. (1996) Women, mental health and community care: an abusive combination? In Fawcett, B., Featherstone, B., Hearn, J. and Toft, C. (eds) Violence and Gender Relations: Theories and Interventions, pp. 8197. London: Sage. Flood, M. (2002) Engaging men in ending mens violence against women. Paper presented at the Expanding our Horizons: Understanding the Complexities of Violence against Women conference. University of Sydney, 1822 February. Flood, M. (2003) Deconstructing the culture of sexual assault: violence prevention education among men. Paper presented at the Practice and Prevention: Contemporary Issues in Adult Sexual Assault Conference. University of Technology, Sydney NSW, 1214 February. Foucault, M. (1980) Truth and power. In Gordon, C. (ed.) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 19721977. New York: Pantheon Books. Franzway, S. (2000) Women working in a greedy institution: commitment and emotional labour in the union movement. Gender, Work & Organization, 7,4, 25868.

2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Volume 16 Number 2 March 2009

264

GENDER, WORK AND ORGANIZATION

Goldblatt, H. and Buchbinder, E. (2003) Challenging gender roles: the impact on female social work students of working with abused women. Journal of Social Work Education, 39,2, 25575. Grosz, E. (1994) Volatile Bodies Towards a Corporeal Feminism. St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin. Hall, R. (2001) Pitfalls and challenges in work with men who use violence against their partners. In Pease, B. and Camilleri, P. (eds) Working with Men in the Human Services, pp. 122133. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin. Harlow, E. (1996) Gender, violence and social work organizations. In Fawcett, B., Featherstone, B., Hearn, J. and Toft, C. (eds) Violence and Gender Relations: Theories and Interventions, pp. 7184. London: Sage. Hearn, J. (1996a) Mens violence to known women: historical, everyday and theoretical constructions by men. In Fawcett, B., Featherstone, B., Hearn, J. and Toft, C. (eds) Violence and Gender Relations: Theories and Interventions, pp. 2337. London: Sage. Hearn, J. (1996b) The organization(s) of violence: men, gender relations, organizations and violences. In Fawcett, B., Featherstone, B., Hearn, J. and Toft, C. (eds) Violence and Gender Relations: Theories and Interventions, pp. 3959. London: Sage. Hearn, J. (1996c) Mens violence to known women: mens accounts and mens policy developments. In Fawcett, B., Featherstone, B., Hearn, J. and Toft, C. (eds) Violence and Gender Relations: Theories and Interventions, 99114. London: Sage. Hearn, J. (1998) The Violences of Men. London: Sage. Hearn, J. and Parkin, W. (1987) Sex at Work: the Power and Paradox of Organisation Sexuality. Hemmel Hempstead: Wheatsheaf. James, K. (2001) Making connections: working with males in families. In Pease, B. and Camilleri, P. (eds) Working with Men in the Human Services, pp. 3753. Crows Nest: NSW: Allen & Unwin. Jenks, A.E. (1999) Men who Batter Women. London: Routledge. Lewis, I. (2004) Gender and professional identity: a qualitative study of social workers practising as counsellors and psychotherapists. Australian Social Work, 57,4, 394 407. Martin, P.Y. (1998) Gender and organizations: converging theory, research and practice. In Organizations, Occupations, and Work, a section of the American Sociological Association Newsletter Fall, pp. 24. Martin, P.Y. (2001) Mobilizing masculinities: womens experiences of men at work. Organization, 8,4, 587618. Martin, P.Y. (2003). Said and done versus saying and doing: gendering practices, practicing gender at work. Gender & Society, 17,3, 342366. Martin, P.Y. (2004) Gender as social institution. Social Forces, 82,4, 124973. Martin, P.Y. (2006) Practising gender at work: further thoughts on reexivity, Gender, Work & Organization, 13,3, 25476. Martin, S.E. and Jurik, N. (1996) Doing Justice, Doing Gender: Women in Law and Criminal Justice Occupations. Newbury Park: CA: Sage. Milner, J. (1996) Mens resistance to social workers. In Fawcett, B., Featherstone, B., Hearn, J. and Toft, C. (eds) Violence and Gender Relations: Theories and Interventions, pp. 11529. London: Sage. Milner, J. (2001) Women and Social Work: Narrative Approaches. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Morgan, D.H. (1987) Masculinity and violence. In Hanmer, J. and Maynard, M. (eds), Women, Violence and Social Control, pp. 18092. London: Macmillan. Nafne, N. (1997) Feminism and Criminology. St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Volume 16 Number 2 March 2009

2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

WOMEN, GENDERED WORK AND GENDERED VIOLENCE

265

Northern Metropolitan Community Health Service (NMCHS) (1997) Stopping Violence Groups: A Model of Best Practice for Group Work with Men who Wish to Stop Violent and Abusive Behaviour towards their Women Partners and Family. South Australia. OLeary, P. (1998) Liberation from self-blame: working with men who have experienced child sexual abuse. Dulwich Centre Journal, 4, 2440. Pease, B. (2001) Theoretical issues and political dilemmas in working with men. In Pease, B. and Camilleri, P. (eds) Working with Men in the Human Services, pp. 1524. St Leonards: Allen & Unwin. Pope, C., Ziebland, S. and Mays, N. (2000) Qualitative research in health care: analysing qualitative data, British Medical Journal, 320,7227, 11416. Pringle, K. (2001) Men in social work: the double-edge. In Christie, A. (ed.) Men and Social Work: Theories and Practices, pp. 3548. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Sawicki, J. (1991) Disciplining Foucault: Feminism, Power and the Body. New York: Routledge. Shank, G.D. (2006) Qualitative Research: A Personal Skills Approach. 2nd edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Wajcman, J. (1998) Gender and power in organisations. In Alexander, M., Harding, S., Harrison, P., Kendall, G., Skrbis, Z. and Wesern, J. (eds) Refashioning Sociology: Responses to a New World Order. TASA Conference Proceedings, Brisbane. Brisbane: Australian Sociological Association and Queensland University of Technology. Wearing, B. (1996) Gender: The Pain and Pleasure of Difference. Melbourne: Longman. Wright, C. (1996) Sexuality, feminism and work with men. In Cavanagh, K. and Cree, V.E. (eds) Working with Men: Feminism and Social Work, pp. 12846. London: Routledge. Zubrzycki, J. (1999) The inuence of the personal on the professional: a preliminary investigation of work and family issues for social workers. Australian Social Work, 52,4, 1116.

2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Volume 16 Number 2 March 2009