CHAPTER 15
‘Deepening the Dialogue—Strengthening
Domestic Violence Policy and Charting aWay
Forward’
Oscar Noel Ocho
Introduction
Domestic violence is not a new phenomenon, but a sociocultural issue
that has affected individuals across ethic divides, socioeconomic groups,
and cultural beliefs systems. Within recent times, this phenomenon has
caused an increase in awareness among policy makers as well as social
activist groups as a result of the increasing incidence of homicide among
women in intimate partner relationships. With the increased level of
homicide, domestic violence has taken on a worldwide emphasis bearing
in mind the sociocultural nuances associated with the problem.
For the most part, authors, activists, and policy makers have focused
on the issue of domestic violence as a behavioural action targeted against
O. N. Ocho (B)
Faculty of Medical Sciences, School of Nursing, UWI, St Augustine, Trinidad
and Tobago
e-mail: oscar.ocho@sta.uwi.edu
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 257
Switzerland AG 2021
A. M. Bissessar and C. Huggins (eds.), Gender and Domestic Violence
in the Caribbean, Gender, Development and Social Change,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73472-5_15
258 O. N. OCHO
females by men. There is a tacit, as well as, an overt sociocultural discourse
that expects and facilitates the dialogue that is stereotypical in nature.
Such a dialogue facilitates the discourse that males are perpetrators while
women are the victims of the most heinous acts associated with domestic
violence. However, this dialogue fails to take into consideration the multi-
faceted nature of domestic violence. While domestic violence extends
beyond the physical abuse, it is the experience of physical assault that
is perpetrated by the male towards the female that allows the issue to take
on such a potent reaction.
This perspective continues to position the argument from a very
simplistic perspective as it is focused on the epidemiology of domestic
violence and not the antecedent factors that contribute to the
phenomenon. The focus on the antecedent factors could unearth perspec-
tives that may be uncomfortable to deal with from a socialization
perspective. This argument is posited within the context that domestic
violence is not as dichotomous as the average person would like to believe
but a real and nuanced sociocultural phenomenon. As a consequence,
consideration should be given to the multifaceted nature of domestic
violence since both men and women are victims as well as perpetrators.
Gender Based Violence Affects Males and Females
From a global perspective, domestic violence is a phenomenon that affects
women more than men (World Health Organization 2013; Stöckl et al.
2013; Smith et al. 2017). The World Health Organization (2013) in its
global estimates of domestic violence against women indicate at least one
third of women who are in intimate partner relationships have experi-
enced domestic violence that is either physical or sexual in nature. The
report suggests that the problem of violence against women is a glob-
ally pervasive and requires decided action among all stakeholders since a
violence free environment is a fundamental right for all genders.
It has been normative to accept that gender based violence or inti-
mate partner violence is usually synonymous with violence against women
with little consideration or thought being given to violence against men.
Considerable data are available that shows that 33% of women experi-
ence domestic violence at some time during their lifetime (WHO 2013).
By extension, there has been little acknowledgement of the existence of
gender based or intimate partner violence that is perpetrated by women.
This may be as a result of the sociocultural nuances that makes it easier
15 ‘DEEPENING THE DIALOGUE—STRENGTHENING … 259
to identify with the existence of such a problem from the perspective of
females as victims rather than perpetrators. Intimate partner homicide is
more likely to be perpetrated by men although it is perpetrated by women
less frequently (Stöckl et al. 2013; Smith et al. 2017). This phenomenon
is not associated with any specific country since it is a global epidemic
that is evident across continents with the statistics showing similar inci-
dence among women and men with women more likely to be killed by an
intimate partner (Stöckl et al. 2013; Smith et al. 2011, 2017; Abrahams
et al. 2013).
A National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey Report from
the United States showed that women are more than twice likely to
experience sexual violence than men, in that 1:3 women and 1:6 men
experience intimate partner violence (Smith et al. 2017). The report
stated further that approximately 6 in 10 females and 4 in 10 males were
stalked by a current or former intimate partner or 1 in 4 women and
1 in 9 men have experienced contact sexual violence, physical violence,
and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime and reported an
IPV-related impact. An important observation from the national report
was that most cases of rape among men were perpetrated by another male
however, those who reported being coerced to perform sexual penetra-
tion was facilitated by females. In a systematic review on intimate partner
homicide, Stöckl et al. (2013) concluded that women are six times more
likely than men to be victims of homicide and this is more evident among
high income countries and Southeast Asia.
Data from the Caribbean, as well as Trinidad and Tobago, support
the evidence that intimate partner violence is generally perpetrated by
males on females (Pembreton and Joseph 2018). While the evidence
supports physical violence and homicide as the major facets of domestic
and intimate partner violence, men also suffer violence from women,
albeit differently, in that it is usually emotional. When one considers
the homicide statistics in Trinidad and Tobago for 2018, women repre-
sented 47/516 or 9% of the homicides yet the response from the women’s
groups was centred on women being murdered with little to no consid-
eration that men are dying violently, albeit under the hands of other
men.
Complexity of Domestic Violence
The World Health Organization (2013) also argues that some of the
factors that contribute to the continuation of violence against women
260 O. N. OCHO
relate to sociocultural, as well as, economic factors. These include low
academic achievement among males and females, unequal gender status,
and lower socioeconomic status. While these may be so from a global
perspective, oftentimes analysis fails to take into consideration the unique
sociocultural nuances associated with socialization and relationships. This
chapter is not advocating the excusing of male domestic violence on
women but is posited within a context that challenges the stereotypical
norms and narratives that continue to inform the dialogue on domestic
violence as a phenomenon.
Societies, including the Caribbean, use stereotypical and dichoto-
mous language for domestic violence which makes this a simplistic social
dialogue. In the absence of a commensurate appreciation and acknowl-
edgement of the complexities associated with such a phenomenon, the
arguments may continue to be one sided. In such contexts, the argu-
ments are presented as if there is a battle of the sexes from the ‘us vs.
them’, and ‘male vs. female’ divide. In such circumstances, it is easy to
see men as perpetrators and women as victims which does not allow for
greater levels of interrogation of sociocultural complexities associated with
the phenomenon.
Cook (2009) offers insightful perspectives on the epidemiology of
domestic violence that is not rooted in mainstream literature from a soci-
ological perspective. His book is centred on the experiences of both men
and women who have been affected by domestic violence. However, there
is a deliberate attempt to broaden the dialogue by arguing the domestic
violence against men is a silent epidemic. Such a discourse is not only
welcomed but a needed response to deliberately change the narrative
in an attempt to examine the sociocultural imperatives that affect the
continuation of this phenomenon. In doing so, it does not negate the
reality that women are more likely to be affected by domestic violence
but offers a pragmatic attempt to broaden the dialogue in examining this
phenomenon from a holistic perspective.
From a global perspective when the reporting of domestic violence
experiences are considered, women are by far more likely to report having
experienced intimate partner violence than men. On an average, women
are more than ten times more likely to report their experiences than men
(Cook 2009). This may be associated with the availability of social and
legal supportive frameworks and services that are sensitive to women. By
extension, men may be more unlikely to report having been a ‘victim’
of domestic violence since they are not expected to be a ‘victim’ or allow
15 ‘DEEPENING THE DIALOGUE—STRENGTHENING … 261
themselves to be victims of such abuse. While domestic violence is not the
major factor that contributes to male admissions in the emergency room,
Cook (2009) contends, an average of one-fifth of male admissions is as a
result of having experienced a domestic violence episode. However, this
is more likely to occur in a heterosexual than same gender relationship.
Sociocultural Construction of Masculinity
How men project themselves within a society has its roots and identity
in slavery. Some Caribbean researchers are of the view that Caribbean
masculinity has its antecedents in slavery and colonization since plea-
sure, power, economic, and domestic domination are core elements in the
development of masculine identity (Lewis 2003, 2004; Beckles 1996).
Men are expected to be powerful and in control of their environment,
which includes their relationships. Any shift in this level of control could
be the basis of how the notion of masculine identity is questioned. Mascu-
line identity assumes centrality in this discourse since it is the meanings
that are associated with ‘being a man’ rather than just ‘being male’
that acts as the pendulum upon which men negotiate their notions of
manhood and masculinity.
Lewis (2003, p. 103) argues that the ‘European male domination
of the social relations within Caribbean society laid the foundation for
institutionalization of gender inequality in the region’ thus allowing the
privileging of masculinity. He further propositioned that the institution-
alization of patriarchy, as an extension of slavery, not only allows for the
domination of women but the domination of men who are considered as
representing masculine identities that are inconsistent with hegemony. In
this regard, there is little acceptance for any representation of masculinity
that is inconsistent with ‘ideal’ masculine behaviour. Beckles (1996,
p. 3) contends that Caribbean masculinity developed consistent with
“(P)olitical authority, economic power, and domestic dominance held
together the values of white elite masculinity that was culturally familiar
to black men”. He also argues that Caribbean men ‘were relegated and
negated to otherness’; however they understood that ‘(T)he possession of
power, profits, glory and pleasure was specified as a core element in the
articulation of masculine ideologies’ (p. 3).
This complexity is further exacerbated by Barriteau (2000) who postu-
lated that masculinity is easy to define but difficult to achieve. This is
intensified by the notion of masculinity as a fluid concept supported
262 O. N. OCHO
by the seminal work by Connell (2005) when he posited the concept
of masculinities. However, within recent times, this representation of
masculinity as a fluid concept has been challenged from a practical
perspective (Jewkes et al. 2015). The concept of masculinity in the
Caribbean may be similar to other societies, in that it is not a fluid but
more of a static concept. Nevertheless; there may be some unique charac-
teristics of masculinity in the Caribbean which is facilitated and nuanced
by socialization.
Lewis (2003) noted that masculinity has had a limited focus by
social scientists in the Caribbean region since gender issues have been
synonymous with women’s issues. He contends that, in the Caribbean,
hegemonic masculinity is predominant and provided with higher social
acceptability which contributes to the high level of homophobia expe-
rienced by men who do not subscribe to the notion of a hegemonic
sexual identity. It could be argued that the small population sizes of the
Caribbean islands place psychological pressure on men to conform to the
hegemonic construct of masculinity since they all function in social envi-
ronments that do not allow for anonymity. Lewis (2004, p. 262) also
argues that masculinity ‘is not merely about how men relate to women,
but about how men relate to other men, how they seek approval, honor
and respect of other men, and how they weigh and ponder the sanctions
of other men’.
Other Caribbean social scientists argue that masculinity is a multilay-
ered phenomenon (Lewis 2003), practiced differently by different men
(Lewis 2006), is rarely static or unchanging (Parker 2003) and not
a homogenous construct (Lewis 2004). The heterogeneous construct
of Caribbean masculinity is a source of ideological contention since
masculinity is viewed as a privileged ideology over femininity (Lewis
2003). Beckles (2004) argues that not all men espouse hegemonic
masculinity hence this ideological position is contested across ethnic,
cultural, and social classes. Lewis (2003, p. 122) also notes that the ‘mul-
tilayered phenomenon’ of Caribbean masculinity transcends sociocultural
boundaries. While this ‘multilayered phenomenon’ may be explained from
a theoretical perspective, in real life experiences it presents challenges
for men in the Caribbean since hegemonic masculinity is considered the
culturally ‘ideal’ representation of masculinity.
One of the contentious factors that exacerbates the tension associ-
ated with masculinity as fluid as opposed to fixed relates to the policing
of masculine behaviour. In this regard, men who do not subscribe to
15 ‘DEEPENING THE DIALOGUE—STRENGTHENING … 263
an identity that is associated with hegemony are often ridiculed and
called ‘disparaging names’ in an attempt to register their disaffection and
demand for compliance with the masculine ‘ideal’. In exploring the social
construction of masculinity from a Trinidad and Tobago perspective, find-
ings showed that masculinity was not a fluid but more of a static and
illusionary concept among men (Ocho unpublished).
According to Lewis (2003, p. 107), unique characteristics of Caribbean
males including being ‘powerful, exceeding promiscuous, derelict in his
parental duties, often absent from the household and, if present, unwilling
to undertake his share of domestic responsibilities … possessing a propen-
sity for female battering and a demonstrated valorization of alcohol
consumption’. They are also expected to provide physical protection for
their families, be fearless, the breadwinner of the family as well as sexu-
ally virile and competent (Lewis 2006). ‘Trinbagonian’ calypsonians also
encourage men who are not as sexually virile or do not have the economic
wherewithal ascribed to the hegemonic form of masculinity to avail them-
selves of aphrodisiacs to ensure optimal sexual functioning with their
female partners (Lewis 2006). Lewis (2003, p. 95) also observes that
‘(F)ew acts are more threatening to men than a public interrogation or
ridicule of their masculinity by a woman’. To be sexually virile is an impor-
tant part of the social construction of Caribbean masculine identity since
it assists in defining masculine behaviour.
Nevertheless, there are tensions about masculinity as a construct as
opposed to what is experienced. Barriteau (2000, p. 24) highlights this
tension by stating that ‘(M)anhood is clearly defined but increasingly
difficult to achieve and comprised almost exclusively on three elements
sexuality/sexual identity, man’s primary role as economic provider and
scriptural authority for man as family head’. The perpetuation of negative
stereotypes about Caribbean men as being sexually irresponsible may be
more perception than reality. Chevannes (2001) studied male socializa-
tion in five Caribbean communities and reported Caribbean males were
assuming responsibility in nurturing their children as well as their commit-
ment to their families. This suggests that Caribbean men may be more
proactive in redefining masculine identity based on performance than is
readily admitted. However, men may find it difficult to break commonly
held negative characterizations in the absence of a supportive environment
that challenges stereotypes as normative.
From a theoretical perspective, masculinity in the Caribbean has
been identified as a plural concept; in reality, it has been described as
264 O. N. OCHO
almost ‘fixed’. The almost ‘fixed’ notion of masculinity contributes to
the negative response to subordinated forms of masculinity throughout
the Caribbean. While some islands including Trinidad and Tobago and
Barbados have been identified as less homophobic than Jamaica, St. Lucia,
and Guyana (Lewis 2003, 2006), cultural art forms have been used to
express homophobic sanctions against individuals who adopt subordi-
nated masculinity. This includes overt calls among Jamaican reggae artists
to coalesce and express the wrath of men from the hegemonic mascu-
line community to physically destroy and annihilate homosexuals (Lewis
2003). By extension, the policing of masculine behaviours also acts as
a sociocultural buffer in having men redirect and renegotiate notions of
masculine identity (Ocho unpublished).
One of the critical observations associated with males as perpetrators
of intimate partner homicide relate to the sociocultural nuances including
lower literacy and income as well as multiple relationships and the level
of discord within the primary relationship (Abrahams et al. 2013). This
argument resonates with individuals at all levels of society since there is an
attempt to not only continue the projection of the stereotype of men as
perpetrators but to rationalize the antecedents to male abusive behaviours.
However, a similar level of emphasis on profiling or conducting similar
socio-demographic analyses on women who are perpetrators of intimate
partner violence and homicide could not be found. There is general
consensus that intimate partner violence is rooted in gender inequity espe-
cially in situations where male domination over women is the dominant
narrative (Abrahams et al. 2013). By extension, women who subscribe
to the sociocultural narrative that justifies female subservience and males
who accept their hierarchical position of superiority over females act as a
framework for the perpetuation of domestic violence.
From a Caribbean perspective, intimate partner violence is almost
always expected to be exclusively male perpetrated since this is the projec-
tion that resonates more readily from a sociocultural context. However,
it does not negate the fact that men also experience intimate partner
violence that is perpetrated by females.
Erikson et al. (2017) argues that while men experience violence that
is perpetrated by women, this is generally not treated with the same level
of disaffection as if it was perpetrated by other men. In fact, such an
experience can be construed as being justified since it may have been
facilitated as a response to some kind of emotional or physical pressure.
This may be exacerbated by a perception that women are not as strong
15 ‘DEEPENING THE DIALOGUE—STRENGTHENING … 265
as men and it may not be possible for them to have the same effect on
men should they perpetrate any act of violence. This may be attributed
to the position that it is more likely to excuse the behaviour of women
since men may have been more likely to have behaved in such a way that
justifies their behaviour (Erikson et al. 2017).
The ‘#Me Too’ movement has done much to reposition the argument
that women are the victims of domestic and intimate partner violence. It
has empowered women to assume a position of resilience in getting their
message of abuse in the forefront so that they could receive the necessary
social, political, and legal support in confronting this socially unacceptable
practice. Little attention has been given to addressing this challenge from
a gender neutral perspective since the underlying assumption is that it is
not perpetrated by women against men. While there is sensitivity of the
need to involve men and boys in the movement, the focus remains more
on their resocialization about being better able to respect women without
a commensurate level of sensitivity that such a level of respect should be
mutual.
When consideration is given to a woman who murders a man, there
is some sociological explanation or justification she may have been a
victim of ‘battered wife syndrome’ or may have suffered ‘temporary
insanity’. However, there is no such support for men in similar situa-
tions although they may have been victims of gender based violence,
albeit emotional/psychological. Such violence acts may not leave any
physical marks but the psychological wounds may have left indelible
marks that may be extremely difficult to erase. While such behaviours
should never be excused, a need exists to dissect the social construction
of masculinity from a Caribbean perspective to develop an appreciation
and understanding of how gender based violence is constructed and
portrayed.
Complexity of Men as Victims
While women clamour for equal rights and equity, the social structures
are geared towards women and their needs. For a man to reach out for
help is to be considered less than manly. Inherent in this analysis is the
power differential which is consistent with Barriteau’s (2000) contention
about masculinity as defined may be different from masculinity as expe-
rienced. This is a complex perspective since men are not defined based
on their biological but the sociological imperatives that are evident by
266 O. N. OCHO
their behaviours or their alignment to sociocultural norms. Since men
are expected to demonstrate control and dominance in matters related to
sexual roles which exacerbates the notion that women are subservient, any
indication that men are victims of gender based violence is diametrically
opposed to such a notion.
What is even more challenging that intensifies such a level of
complexity is the notion that men should not acknowledge that women,
who are supposed to be the weaker sex, do perpetrate gender based or
intimate partner violence. To do so may be construed as an acknowledge-
ment that as a man, he is the weaker sex and does not ascribe to the socio-
cultural expectation of masculinity. In an environment where masculinity
is policed to ensure that men align to the sociocultural nuances associated
with masculinity as performative, this further compounds the dilemma.
In such circumstances, men may be forced to be constantly negotiating,
renegotiating, and redefining notions of masculinity to determine some
level of comfort with their masculine identity. In this regard, men may be
more inclined to adopt behaviours that are socially acceptable by showing
restraint and self-control since both are what is expected of him. In so
doing, he may be able to demonstrate a position of feeling that he is in
charge of his environment.
Demonstrating constraint or control, could be extremely challenging
especially if, in his estimation, his manhood is not respected. This can
be exacerbated by the expectation of his peers that any woman who is
disrespectful of his masculine identity deserves to feel the extent of his
ire. In such circumstances, he may experience some measure of cognitive
dissonance in satisfying the expectation of his peers to demand that his
female companion subjects herself to his authority or respect his partner
as someone whom he loves.
Masculine identity is central to men’s understanding of themselves in
relation to other men as well as women. Within the Caribbean context,
men’s identity is also intricately linked to their sexual identity which
supports the notion that men are not the weaker sex. To ignore emotional
pressure is a complex issue since it is rooted in a level of cognitive
dissonance that is supported, but not validated by his peers and the
wider society. The very notion of walking away from conflicts could be
construed as strength in one context and as weakness in another. This
constant renegotiation of his masculine identity often forms the basis for
his actions in an attempt to align him to masculine normative behaviours
or demonstrating control.
15 ‘DEEPENING THE DIALOGUE—STRENGTHENING … 267
The complexity of gender based violence must therefore be exam-
ined within the context of men’s reaction to emotional pressure. For
the most part, men perpetrate sexual and physical violence within inti-
mate partner relationships; however, women are more likely to perpetrate
emotional and verbal violence against men. Part of this reasoning may be
attributed to the notion of women’s understanding and acceptance of the
notion that they are ‘weaker’ than men from a physiological perspective.
Women may be more potent with the use of language. It is the potency of
language that provides a basis for women to assume a position of power
since words that are used at appropriate time could prove more debil-
itating to a man’s ego than any act of physical violence. What is even
more complex in this context is the difference in perspectives of men as
opposed to women perpetrating violence on each other. In the case of
women, evidence of the perpetration of abuse may not be as serious or
warrant action if it was done from the other perspective.
Social Support Systems Female
Rather Than Gender Sensitive
In reviewing the literature on women as perpetrators of intimate partner
violence, Camey et al. (2007) argue that in spite of the evidence which
shows that women perpetrate intimate partner violence there is not
a commensurate level of seriousness with which men, as victims, is
addressed. Part of the challenge with being able to develop an apprecia-
tion for the epidemiology of the problem from a male perspective relates
to how data are collected and whether men are asked the appropriate
questions during emergency room interventions (Camey et al. 2007).
There is a likelihood that the way questions are framed creates oppor-
tunities to solicit information that could be considered as intrusive for
identifying whether the woman’s presentation was related to an intimate
partner, violence related incident. On the contrary, even when there may
be attempts to solicit information from men in this regard, it may be more
likely to be skewed towards a non-intimate partner violent encounter.
This, in and of itself, poses some measure of cognitive dissonance for
men, especially if the predisposing encounter and evidence of trauma were
perpetrated by a female partner. It is this apparent sensitivity to the needs
of women that continues to facilitate the perpetuation of the social system
being skewed towards female rather than gender neutral.
268 O. N. OCHO
In this regard, social support services available to men as separate
and apart from women are not gender sensitive, especially in the way
men are catered for whenever they encounter a violent experience. A
case in point relates to the level of support that a man can expect
to receive from the protective services if he chooses to make a formal
report. There are countless stories that have been told anecdotally about
men who felt emasculated and dehumanized whenever they presented
themselves for protection and support after encountering a domestic or
intimate partner violence experience. The central theme of their stories
has been about how their masculine identity was perceived by those who
should have been there to provide some level of protection and valida-
tion about their masculine identity. Further, there is a tacit view that to
restrain oneself from being violent and abusive to one’s partner could
be construed as evidence of strength to be men with the capacity to
control their responses to unwanted and unwarranted attacks by female
partners. Rather than leaving with a sense of validation for their almost
heroic efforts to confront the sociocultural imperatives of hegemonic
masculinity, they are further emasculated for not living up to the norms
that exacerbates the perpetuation of violence, as a response, as normative.
One of the greatest challenges experienced by some men within the
context of the Caribbean is the perceived sensitivity of the legal system
towards females rather than males. In many instances, it is much easier to
receive protective orders against men than it is against women. Further,
this often results in men having to either remove themselves or having
to be forcibly removed from their homes in an attempt to provide some
measure of physical and emotional protection for the women. This could
be extremely challenging in situations where he may still be required
to continue payments as a result of loan arrangements or may have
lost his investment, especially in situations where he may have invested
his earnings after retirement. The emotional trauma associated with this
seemingly unfair treatment before the law can be viewed as a gender
sensitive response rather than equity before the law.
Strengthening Domestic Violence
Policy and Charting the Way Forward
It is clear that there are no easy answers as to the proactive response
of national systems to address the issues associated with gender based or
intimate partner violence from a gender neutral perspective. This is partic-
ularly challenging as a consequence of greater emphasis being placed on
15 ‘DEEPENING THE DIALOGUE—STRENGTHENING … 269
protecting women as vulnerable species. Even the involvement of men in
the lives and experiences of women that was conceptualized by the Inter-
national Conference of Population and Development (ICPD) focused
on greater responsibility among men while calling for greater empow-
erment of women (United Nations Population Fund 2014). This is of
particular concern bearing in mind that from an international perspec-
tive, gender equity is almost always associated with women empowerment
with little or no attention being placed on equity in relationships and
reciprocity. In a global environment where women are being exposed
to empowerment opportunities from an academic as well as socioeco-
nomic perspective there could be greater levels of challenge in ensuring
that there is common ground and respect in relationships.
This could be exacerbated by the global economic situation where
women may be able to achieve greater economic viability which can act
as a framework for repositioning them with the power differentials within
relationships that hitherto was the domain of men. While this should not
be construed as a negative social reality there are inherent challenges that,
as a society, calls for policy action to address this reality from a policy
perspective. As a consequence, there must be a redefinition of gender
equity that is truly sensitive to the repositioning of gender relations that
challenges social norms and prescriptions. In so doing, gender equity will
not be addressed from the perspective of power differentials but comple-
mentarity and reciprocal responsibility. By extension, this may be one of
the most challenging gender normative perspectives held by men within
a sociocultural context that accentuates male domination over women.
Such a perspective will necessitate a change in the communication
strategy where men continue to be portrayed as perpetrators of violence
with little sense of sensitivity to the needs of women. This may result in
greater levels of cognitive dissonance within communities as they grapple
with changing stereotypical images of men within the context of family
and social relationships. This will require more than the use of ‘role
models’ to present social messages as a public relations strategy. It must
encompass a deliberate attempt to change conversations and a resocial-
ization of both men and women about the imperatives of gender based
empowerment within relationships. There is a likelihood that can result in
relationship building that will encompass validation of men and women
without having to resort to determining the bases for power differentials.
270 O. N. OCHO
Governments, as well as social organizations must play their part in
changing the agenda with a view to developing more neutral and sensi-
tive gender based policies. In an environment where there are strong
social networks that facilitate interactions among women, there should
be attempts to encourage greater levels of male engagement that is not
construed as superficial but deliberate. By extension, international orga-
nizations must commit to a change in policy recommendations that goes
beyond female empowerment at the expense of male involvement.
The socialization of males must also entail a deliberate attempt to
re-socialize men that is inconsistent with gender norms and beliefs. No
longer could societies be content to facilitate the dialogue of male power
and domination over women but accentuate the importance of comple-
mentarity and functionality within social spheres. However, this will result
in a renegotiation of perspectives that have been accepted as normative
for generations. While there are no prescriptions that will satisfy all soci-
eties, there must be a commensurate level of sensitivity that it may take
generations to recalibrate the imperative of gender normative relations.
Nevertheless, we cannot afford to lose hope and succumb to the negative
perceptions that continue to exacerbate the notion that through dialogue
we can create a new normative perspective of gender equity in relation-
ships. This is not the responsibility of an individual but the society as a
collective.
References
Abrahams Naeemah, Mathews Shanaaz, Martin Lorna J, Lombard Carl, Jewkes
Rachel. 2013. Intimate Partner Femicide in South Africa in 1999 and 2009.
PLOS Medicine 10(4): e1001412. Published online 2013 Apr 2. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001412.
Barriteau Violet Eudine. 2000. Re-Examining issues of “male marginalization”
and “masculinity” in the Caribbean: The need for a new policy approach.
Working Paper 4, Center for Gender and Development Studies. Barbados.
Beckles H. 1996. Black masculinity in Caribbean Slavery. WAND Occasional
Paper 2: 1–14.
Beckles, H. 2004. Black masculinity in caribbean slavery. In: Reddock, R. (ed.)
Interrogating Caribbean Masciulinities Theoretical and Emperical Analyses.
Mona Jamaica: The University of the West Indies.
Camey Michelle, Buttell Fred and Dutton Don. 2007. Women who perpetrate
intimate partner violence: A review of the literature with recommendations
for treatment. Aggression and Violent Behaviour 12: 108–115.
15 ‘DEEPENING THE DIALOGUE—STRENGTHENING … 271
Chevannes B. 2001. Learning to be a man: Culture, socialization and gender
identity of five Caribbean communities. Mona, The University of the West
Indies.
Connell RW. 2005. Masculinities. Cambridge, Polity Press.
Cook Phillip W. 2009. Abused men: The hidden side of domestic violence. Westport,
CT, Praeger Publishers.
Erickson KA, Jonnson M, Langille JI, Walsh Z. 2017. Victim gender, rater atti-
tudes, and rater violence history influence perceptions of intimate partner
violence. Violence & Victims 32(3): 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1891/
0886-6708.vv-d-15-00086.
Jewkes Rachel, Robert Morrell, Jeff Hearn, Emma Lundqvist, David Blackbeard,
Graham Lindegger, Michael Quayle, Yandisa Sikweyiya & Lucas Gottzén.
2015. Hegemonic masculinity: Combining theory and practice in gender
interventions. Culture, Health & Sexuality 17(sup2): 96–111. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13691058.2015.1085094.
Lewis L. 2003. Caribbean Masculinity, Unpacking the narrative In: Lewis, L.
(ed.) The Culture of Gender and Sexuality in the Caribbean. Gainsville, FL,
University Press of Florida.
Lewis L. 2004. Caribbean masculinity at the Fin de Siecle. In: Rheddock, R. (ed.)
Interrogating Caribbean masculinities: Theoretical and empirical analyses.
Kingston, The UWI Press.
Lewis L. 2006. Unsettling masculinity in the Caribbean: Facing a future
without guarantees [Online]. The International Working Group on Gender,
Macroeconomics, and International Economics, 2012.
Ocho Oscar Noel. 2013. Masculinity, health beliefs and implications for health
policy among men in Trinidad and Tobago (Doctorate in Public Health
Thesis, unpublished).
Parker, R. 2003. Culture, political economy, and sex gender systems: Masculinity
in Latin America and the Caribbean In: Ramirez, R., Garcia-Toro, V., I &
Cunningham, I. (eds.) Caribbean Masculinities, Working paper. San Juan:
HIV/AIDS Research and Education Center (CIEVS).
Pembreton Cecile and Joseph Joel. 2018. National Women’s health survey for
Trinidad and Tobago: Final report. Inter-American Development Bank.
Smith Kevin, Coleman Kathryn, Eder Simon and Hall Philip. 2011. Homicides,
Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2009/10. Supplementary Volume 2
to Crime in England and Wales 2009/10 (2nd Edition). Crown Copyright.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/opengovernmentlicence/.
Smith Sharon G, Chen Jieru, Basile Kathleen C, Gilbert Leah K, Merrick Melissa
T, Patel Nimesh, Walling Margie and Jain Anurag. 2017. The National Inti-
mate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010–2012 State Report.
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention Atlanta, Georgia.
272 O. N. OCHO
Stöckl Heidi, Devries Karen, Rotstein Alexandra, Abrahams Naeemah, Camp-
bell Jacquelyn, Watts Charlotte, Garcia Moreno Claudia. 2013. The global
prevalence of intimate partner homicide: A systematic review. The Lancet
382(9895): 859–865. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61030-2.
United Nations Population Fund. 2014. Programme of Action of the Inter-
national Conference on Population Development, 20th Anniversary Edition.
ISBN 978-0-89714-022-5.
World Health Organization. 2013. Global and regional estimates of violence
against women: Prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence
and non-partner sexual violence. https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/
publications/violence/9789241564625/en/. ISBN 978 92 4 156462 5.