A scoping review of gender-based violence interventions and programmes targeted at South African men.

Abstract

Background: The phenomenon of gender-based violence is a global concern (Tappis, Freeman, Glass & Doocy, 2016). Neither women nor men are immune to gender-based violence (GBV); however, the findings from different studies have found that women are more susceptible to GBV perpetrated against them by men (Peate, 2019; Radzilani-Makatu & Chauke, 2019). South African men play a vital role in perpetuating gender-based violence. Therefore, due to their role as perpetrators or potential perpetrators of gender-based violence, intervention measures targeting them should be prioritized (Navindhra & Nadvi, 2013). Aim: The focus of this study review was on interventions and programmes targeting South African men as a key means for addressing gender-based violence (GBV) against women in South Africa. The aim was to address the following question: “What was the available evidence of interventions and programmes targeting men as a key strategy for the prevention of gender-based violence against women in the South African context?” South Africa has been grappling with GBV for many years. New laws and programmes have been developed since 1994 – yet the scourge seems to worsen (Department of Higher Education and Training, 2019). Despite multiple interventions and research papers conducted on gender-based violence, it was unclear or at least unknown how men were included in these interventions (Tappis et al., 2016). Methods: To 'unlock' these interventions and programmes targeting men, the researcher utilised a scoping review approach. This study looked at 25 studies that included a total of 7 084 participants. Results: Men's participation in gender-based violence interventions had been reviewed extensively and it appeared to have significantly reduced gender-based violence (Gibbs, Dunkle,Mhlongo, Chirwa, Hatcher, Christofides & Jewkes, 2020). The findings indicate that interventions had many positive impacts on participants (Graaff & Heinecken, 2017). Conclusion: Even though the interventions produced positive impact, however, the impact of interventions appeared to be more behavioural than attitudinal, affecting specific 'problematic' behaviours rather than changing men's attitudes regarding gender inequality in general (Graaff & Heinecken, 2017). Some studies argued that this was because men had not rejected their patriarchal power, had difficulty adopting gender-equitable behaviour, as well as sustaining positive change, especially when their emotions were high (Treves-Kagan, Maman, Khoza, MacPhail, Peacock, Twine, Kahn, Lippman & Pettifor, 2020; Graaff & Heinecken, 2017).