V men pp-revised-2

Editor's Notes

• #2: DETAILS:\nThis slide should be up as people are entering the room for the workshop.\nWe ask that, if at all possible, you record (audio, video, notes) the workshop to send in to us for use in developing “10 Ways to Be a Man.”\nEach participant will need to sign a disclaimer if you are recording the workshop. (You can find a printable version on V-Spot)\nSome of these slides will steer the workshop, while others will simply provide the backdrop for the questions & breakout groups that will happen throughout the day.\nLet the workshop flow organically. This PowerPoint should be used as a guide to lead the conversation. \nTALKING NOTES:\n* Welcome & thank participants for being a part of the workshop.\n
• #3: \n
• #4: \n
• #5: \n
• #6: \n
• #7: \n
• #8: \n
• #9: \n
• #10: \n
• #11: \n
• #12: \n
• #13: \n
• #14: \n
• #15: \n
• #16: TALKING NOTES:\nAmong the men that have loved and supported V-Day over the years there are policemen, basketball players, mayors, attorney generals, college students & professors and many more!! \nThough men have always played a supporting role in the V-Day movement, it was not until 2008 that we really began stepping up to the plate in the movement to end violence against women and girls. \n
• #17: TALKING NOTES:\nDr. Denis Mukwege is the figurative godfather of the V-Men Campaign.\nHe is an heroic Congolese gynaecologist and surgeon who labours tirelessly at Panzi Hospital in Bukavu, Democratic Republic of Congo, where he specializes in the treatment of women who have been brutally raped.\nDr. Mukwege is among the world's leading experts on how to repair the internal physical damage, called fistula, sometimes caused by exceptionally viscous rapes and gang rapes.\n He has treated some 21,000 women during the Congo's 12-year war, some of them more than once, performing up to 10 surgeries a day. \n
• #18: \n
• #19: \n
• #20: \n
• #21: \n
• #22: \n
• #23: \n
• #24: \n
• #25: \n
• #26: \n
• #27: \n
• #28: \n
• #29: DETAILS:\nThis will be where you begin to guide the course of the workshop from here out. \nTALKING NOTES:\nHow many among us have known a woman who has been abused in some way, be it emotionally, physically, economically or spiritually? \nViolence against women, indeed violence in general, is so much a part of our male-dominated world that we hardly see that it is there. Only when it hits us close to home do we tend to pay serious attention. We find ourselves appalled – but paralyzed. What kind of man could do that to a woman, we ask? However this is generally where the questions stop. \nThis is a critical point. In our moment of judgment, we tend to draw a line in our minds between “us” and “them,” “good men” and “bad men.” Not only is this line an illusion, but it enables us to distance ourselves from the problem. This is the problem of “bad men”, we think, stepping back – not “us,” “them” – and though we may mean no harm in thinking this, we do great harm to our integrity as men by not being our brothers’ keepers. \nThis is how men help to make violence against women a woman’s issue – which it is not. It is a human issue. \n“All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing,” said Edmund Burke, the British philosopher.\n As 21st century men, we’re being called upon to embody a new type of upgraded manhood – kinder, smarter, easier to work with. \nAs men, we ourselves are tired of male violence toward one another; we’re sick of dog eat dog aggression and abusing ourselves in the quest for manhood. We’re ready to end the charade of dominance and evolve as a species beyond this madness. But to do this, we must look within.\n\nSTATISTICAL SOURCES:\n1. (http://www.unifem.org/campaigns/vaw/facts_figures.php: General Assembly. In-Depth Study on All Forms of Violence against Women: Report of the Secretary General, 2006. A/61/122/Add.1. 6 July 2006.) \n2. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/crime/rape-sexual-violence/victims-perpetrators.htm: Kilpatrick, Resnick, Ruggiero, Conoscenti, and McCauley, 2007. Drug-facilitated, Incapacitated, and Forcible Rape: A National Study. Final report submitted to the National Institute of Justice, May 2007, NCJ 219181.) \n3. (National Council On Crime & Delinquency Focus, http://www.nccdcrc.org/nccd/search.asp?zoom_query=dating+violence&zoom_and=0&zoom_per_page=10: 2008 Focus Teen Dating Violence) \n4. (Family Violence Interventions for the Justice System, 1993 – www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/171666.pdf-1998 version) \n5. (http://www.unifem.org/campaigns/vaw/facts_figures.php?page=5: UNESCO Trafficking Statistics Project. 2004. http://www.unescobkk.org/fileadmin/user_upload/culture/Trafficking/project/Graph_Worldwide_Sept_2004.pdf) \n6. (http://www.unifem.org/campaigns/vaw/facts_figures.php?page=4: Referred to by General Assembly. In-Depth Study on All Forms of Violence against Women: Report of the Secretary-General, 2006. A/61/122/Add.1. 6 July 2006. 39.) \n7. (http://www.unifem.org/campaigns/vaw/facts_figures.php: Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe 2002, Recommendation 1582 (2002) on Domestic Violence against Women.) \n8. (http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates: U.S. Department of Justice.2005 National Crime Victimization Study. 2005.) \n9. (http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-offenders: U.S. Department of Justice. 2005 National Crime Victimization Study. 2005.) \n\nDomestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women between the age of 15 and 44.\nFewer than half of all rapes are reported to police.\nApproximately 2/3 of rapes are committed by someone known to the victim.\n
• #30: DETAILS:\nThis will be where you begin to guide the course of the workshop from here out. \nTALKING NOTES:\nHow many among us have known a woman who has been abused in some way, be it emotionally, physically, economically or spiritually? \nViolence against women, indeed violence in general, is so much a part of our male-dominated world that we hardly see that it is there. Only when it hits us close to home do we tend to pay serious attention. We find ourselves appalled – but paralyzed. What kind of man could do that to a woman, we ask? However this is generally where the questions stop. \nThis is a critical point. In our moment of judgment, we tend to draw a line in our minds between “us” and “them,” “good men” and “bad men.” Not only is this line an illusion, but it enables us to distance ourselves from the problem. This is the problem of “bad men”, we think, stepping back – not “us,” “them” – and though we may mean no harm in thinking this, we do great harm to our integrity as men by not being our brothers’ keepers. \nThis is how men help to make violence against women a woman’s issue – which it is not. It is a human issue. \n“All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing,” said Edmund Burke, the British philosopher.\n As 21st century men, we’re being called upon to embody a new type of upgraded manhood – kinder, smarter, easier to work with. \nAs men, we ourselves are tired of male violence toward one another; we’re sick of dog eat dog aggression and abusing ourselves in the quest for manhood. We’re ready to end the charade of dominance and evolve as a species beyond this madness. But to do this, we must look within.\n\nSTATISTICAL SOURCES:\n1. (http://www.unifem.org/campaigns/vaw/facts_figures.php: General Assembly. In-Depth Study on All Forms of Violence against Women: Report of the Secretary General, 2006. A/61/122/Add.1. 6 July 2006.) \n2. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/crime/rape-sexual-violence/victims-perpetrators.htm: Kilpatrick, Resnick, Ruggiero, Conoscenti, and McCauley, 2007. Drug-facilitated, Incapacitated, and Forcible Rape: A National Study. Final report submitted to the National Institute of Justice, May 2007, NCJ 219181.) \n3. (National Council On Crime & Delinquency Focus, http://www.nccdcrc.org/nccd/search.asp?zoom_query=dating+violence&zoom_and=0&zoom_per_page=10: 2008 Focus Teen Dating Violence) \n4. (Family Violence Interventions for the Justice System, 1993 – www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/171666.pdf-1998 version) \n5. (http://www.unifem.org/campaigns/vaw/facts_figures.php?page=5: UNESCO Trafficking Statistics Project. 2004. http://www.unescobkk.org/fileadmin/user_upload/culture/Trafficking/project/Graph_Worldwide_Sept_2004.pdf) \n6. (http://www.unifem.org/campaigns/vaw/facts_figures.php?page=4: Referred to by General Assembly. In-Depth Study on All Forms of Violence against Women: Report of the Secretary-General, 2006. A/61/122/Add.1. 6 July 2006. 39.) \n7. (http://www.unifem.org/campaigns/vaw/facts_figures.php: Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe 2002, Recommendation 1582 (2002) on Domestic Violence against Women.) \n8. (http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates: U.S. Department of Justice.2005 National Crime Victimization Study. 2005.) \n9. (http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-offenders: U.S. Department of Justice. 2005 National Crime Victimization Study. 2005.) \n\nDomestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women between the age of 15 and 44.\nFewer than half of all rapes are reported to police.\nApproximately 2/3 of rapes are committed by someone known to the victim.\n
• #31: DETAILS:\nThis will be where you begin to guide the course of the workshop from here out. \nTALKING NOTES:\nHow many among us have known a woman who has been abused in some way, be it emotionally, physically, economically or spiritually? \nViolence against women, indeed violence in general, is so much a part of our male-dominated world that we hardly see that it is there. Only when it hits us close to home do we tend to pay serious attention. We find ourselves appalled – but paralyzed. What kind of man could do that to a woman, we ask? However this is generally where the questions stop. \nThis is a critical point. In our moment of judgment, we tend to draw a line in our minds between “us” and “them,” “good men” and “bad men.” Not only is this line an illusion, but it enables us to distance ourselves from the problem. This is the problem of “bad men”, we think, stepping back – not “us,” “them” – and though we may mean no harm in thinking this, we do great harm to our integrity as men by not being our brothers’ keepers. \nThis is how men help to make violence against women a woman’s issue – which it is not. It is a human issue. \n“All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing,” said Edmund Burke, the British philosopher.\n As 21st century men, we’re being called upon to embody a new type of upgraded manhood – kinder, smarter, easier to work with. \nAs men, we ourselves are tired of male violence toward one another; we’re sick of dog eat dog aggression and abusing ourselves in the quest for manhood. We’re ready to end the charade of dominance and evolve as a species beyond this madness. But to do this, we must look within.\n\nSTATISTICAL SOURCES:\n1. (http://www.unifem.org/campaigns/vaw/facts_figures.php: General Assembly. In-Depth Study on All Forms of Violence against Women: Report of the Secretary General, 2006. A/61/122/Add.1. 6 July 2006.) \n2. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/crime/rape-sexual-violence/victims-perpetrators.htm: Kilpatrick, Resnick, Ruggiero, Conoscenti, and McCauley, 2007. Drug-facilitated, Incapacitated, and Forcible Rape: A National Study. Final report submitted to the National Institute of Justice, May 2007, NCJ 219181.) \n3. (National Council On Crime & Delinquency Focus, http://www.nccdcrc.org/nccd/search.asp?zoom_query=dating+violence&zoom_and=0&zoom_per_page=10: 2008 Focus Teen Dating Violence) \n4. (Family Violence Interventions for the Justice System, 1993 – www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/171666.pdf-1998 version) \n5. (http://www.unifem.org/campaigns/vaw/facts_figures.php?page=5: UNESCO Trafficking Statistics Project. 2004. http://www.unescobkk.org/fileadmin/user_upload/culture/Trafficking/project/Graph_Worldwide_Sept_2004.pdf) \n6. (http://www.unifem.org/campaigns/vaw/facts_figures.php?page=4: Referred to by General Assembly. In-Depth Study on All Forms of Violence against Women: Report of the Secretary-General, 2006. A/61/122/Add.1. 6 July 2006. 39.) \n7. (http://www.unifem.org/campaigns/vaw/facts_figures.php: Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe 2002, Recommendation 1582 (2002) on Domestic Violence against Women.) \n8. (http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates: U.S. Department of Justice.2005 National Crime Victimization Study. 2005.) \n9. (http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-offenders: U.S. Department of Justice. 2005 National Crime Victimization Study. 2005.) \n\nDomestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women between the age of 15 and 44.\nFewer than half of all rapes are reported to police.\nApproximately 2/3 of rapes are committed by someone known to the victim.\n
• #32: DETAILS:\nThis will be where you begin to guide the course of the workshop from here out. \nTALKING NOTES:\nHow many among us have known a woman who has been abused in some way, be it emotionally, physically, economically or spiritually? \nViolence against women, indeed violence in general, is so much a part of our male-dominated world that we hardly see that it is there. Only when it hits us close to home do we tend to pay serious attention. We find ourselves appalled – but paralyzed. What kind of man could do that to a woman, we ask? However this is generally where the questions stop. \nThis is a critical point. In our moment of judgment, we tend to draw a line in our minds between “us” and “them,” “good men” and “bad men.” Not only is this line an illusion, but it enables us to distance ourselves from the problem. This is the problem of “bad men”, we think, stepping back – not “us,” “them” – and though we may mean no harm in thinking this, we do great harm to our integrity as men by not being our brothers’ keepers. \nThis is how men help to make violence against women a woman’s issue – which it is not. It is a human issue. \n“All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing,” said Edmund Burke, the British philosopher.\n As 21st century men, we’re being called upon to embody a new type of upgraded manhood – kinder, smarter, easier to work with. \nAs men, we ourselves are tired of male violence toward one another; we’re sick of dog eat dog aggression and abusing ourselves in the quest for manhood. We’re ready to end the charade of dominance and evolve as a species beyond this madness. But to do this, we must look within.\n\nSTATISTICAL SOURCES:\n1. (http://www.unifem.org/campaigns/vaw/facts_figures.php: General Assembly. In-Depth Study on All Forms of Violence against Women: Report of the Secretary General, 2006. A/61/122/Add.1. 6 July 2006.) \n2. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/crime/rape-sexual-violence/victims-perpetrators.htm: Kilpatrick, Resnick, Ruggiero, Conoscenti, and McCauley, 2007. Drug-facilitated, Incapacitated, and Forcible Rape: A National Study. Final report submitted to the National Institute of Justice, May 2007, NCJ 219181.) \n3. (National Council On Crime & Delinquency Focus, http://www.nccdcrc.org/nccd/search.asp?zoom_query=dating+violence&zoom_and=0&zoom_per_page=10: 2008 Focus Teen Dating Violence) \n4. (Family Violence Interventions for the Justice System, 1993 – www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/171666.pdf-1998 version) \n5. (http://www.unifem.org/campaigns/vaw/facts_figures.php?page=5: UNESCO Trafficking Statistics Project. 2004. http://www.unescobkk.org/fileadmin/user_upload/culture/Trafficking/project/Graph_Worldwide_Sept_2004.pdf) \n6. (http://www.unifem.org/campaigns/vaw/facts_figures.php?page=4: Referred to by General Assembly. In-Depth Study on All Forms of Violence against Women: Report of the Secretary-General, 2006. A/61/122/Add.1. 6 July 2006. 39.) \n7. (http://www.unifem.org/campaigns/vaw/facts_figures.php: Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe 2002, Recommendation 1582 (2002) on Domestic Violence against Women.) \n8. (http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates: U.S. Department of Justice.2005 National Crime Victimization Study. 2005.) \n9. (http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-offenders: U.S. Department of Justice. 2005 National Crime Victimization Study. 2005.) \n\nDomestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women between the age of 15 and 44.\nFewer than half of all rapes are reported to police.\nApproximately 2/3 of rapes are committed by someone known to the victim.\n
• #33: DETAILS:\nHave the group form into a circle. \nGo around the group to allow everyone to share what brought them to the workshop. \nThis will be wide open to interpretation. Some may simply say who invited them or where they work. \nOthers may share experiences of violence in their lives (Girlfriend that has been sexually assaulted, raped, incested.Mother, sister, friend that has been beaten, and so on).\n\nTALKING NOTES:\nHow, if at all, has violence against women directly affected us?\n
• #34: TALKING NOTES:\nThe challenge before us is to determine “10 Ways to be a Man” with the knowledge of the impact these ways have on women and how we may shape a different future for our own mothers, sisters, wives & daughters.\nBut before we can begin to identify WAYS to be a man, we must ask ourselves “What does it mean to BE a man?”\nWhat assumptions do we accept about masculinity that may be false or obsolete?\nHow are we trained to see ourselves – as opposed to who we really are?\nHow are we educated to see women in relation to men, in ways that may be harmful to us both?\nUntil we understand our male wiring, both biological and cultural, we will not be able to end this violence, in ourselves or in the world. \nMany of us are sick and tired of the male stereotypes we inherit. \n
• #35: DETAILS:\nAfter reviewing & defining the 7 P’s, open the room to a natural dialogue on the issues raised by these theories.\n\nTALKING NOTES:\n1. Patriarchal Power:\nMale-dominated societies are not only based on a hierarchy of men over women, but some are based on a hierarchy of men over other men. Violence or the threat of violence among men is a mechanism used from childhood to establish a pecking order. One result of this is that men "internalize" violence - or perhaps, the demands of patriarchal society encourage biological instincts that otherwise might be more relatively dormant or benign. The result is not only that boys and men learn to selectively use violence, but also redirect a range of emotions into rage, which sometimes takes the form of self-directed violence (EG: substance abuse)\n\n2. The Sense of Entitlement to Privilege: \nViolence is often the logical outcome of a sense of entitlement to certain privileges. If a man beats his wife for not having dinner on the table on time, it is not only to make sure that it doesn't happen again, it is an indication of his sense of entitlement to be waited on. Or, say a man sexually assaults a woman on a date, it is about his sense of entitlement to his physical pleasure even if that pleasure is entirely one sided. \n\n3. Permission: \nWhatever the complex social and psychological causes of men's violence, it wouldn't continue if there weren't explicit or tacit permission in social customs, legal codes, law enforcement, and certain religious teachings. (EG: Countries where laws against wife assault or sexual assault are lax or non-existent or violence in sports & cinema are glamorized and rewarded.)\n\n4. The Paradox of Men's Power:\nIf power is constructed as a capacity to dominate and control, if the capacity to act in "powerful" ways requires the construction of a personal suit of armor and a fearful distance from others, if the very world of power and privilege removes us from the world of child-rearing and nurturance, then we are creating men whose own experience of power is fraught with crippling problems. The personal insecurities conferred by a failure (or threat of failure) to make the masculine grade is enough to propel many men, particularly when they are young, into a vortex of fear, isolation, anger, self-punishment, self-hatred, and aggression. \n\n5. The Psychic Armor of Manhood\nMen's violence is also the result of a character structure that is typically based on emotional distance from others. This distance is formed in early childhood with an absence of a male figure or one that typifies the rejection of “femininity” or the associated qualities of caregiving and nurturance. This creates rigid ego barriers and results in an inability to empathize with others. This resulting lack of empathy allows men to cause pain or violence to another person without understanding what they have done or how it is impacting others.\n\n6. Masculinity as a Psychic Pressure Cooker:\nIt is typical for boys to learn from an early age to repress feelings of fear and pain. Common results of this repression are: fear; hurt; insecurity; pain; rejection, or belittlement.\n\n7. Past experiences:\nStudies have shown that boys and girls who grow up witnessing violence are far more likely to be violent themselves. Such violence may be a way of getting attention; it may be a coping mechanism, a way of externalizing impossible-to-cope-with feelings. Such patterns of behaviour continue beyond childhood: most men who end up in programs for men who use violence either witnessed abuse against their mother or experienced abuse themselves.\n
• #36: DETAILS:\nAfter reviewing & defining the 7 P’s, open the room to a natural dialogue on the issues raised by these theories.\n\nTALKING NOTES:\n1. Patriarchal Power:\nMale-dominated societies are not only based on a hierarchy of men over women, but some are based on a hierarchy of men over other men. Violence or the threat of violence among men is a mechanism used from childhood to establish a pecking order. One result of this is that men "internalize" violence - or perhaps, the demands of patriarchal society encourage biological instincts that otherwise might be more relatively dormant or benign. The result is not only that boys and men learn to selectively use violence, but also redirect a range of emotions into rage, which sometimes takes the form of self-directed violence (EG: substance abuse)\n\n2. The Sense of Entitlement to Privilege: \nViolence is often the logical outcome of a sense of entitlement to certain privileges. If a man beats his wife for not having dinner on the table on time, it is not only to make sure that it doesn't happen again, it is an indication of his sense of entitlement to be waited on. Or, say a man sexually assaults a woman on a date, it is about his sense of entitlement to his physical pleasure even if that pleasure is entirely one sided. \n\n3. Permission: \nWhatever the complex social and psychological causes of men's violence, it wouldn't continue if there weren't explicit or tacit permission in social customs, legal codes, law enforcement, and certain religious teachings. (EG: Countries where laws against wife assault or sexual assault are lax or non-existent or violence in sports & cinema are glamorized and rewarded.)\n\n4. The Paradox of Men's Power:\nIf power is constructed as a capacity to dominate and control, if the capacity to act in "powerful" ways requires the construction of a personal suit of armor and a fearful distance from others, if the very world of power and privilege removes us from the world of child-rearing and nurturance, then we are creating men whose own experience of power is fraught with crippling problems. The personal insecurities conferred by a failure (or threat of failure) to make the masculine grade is enough to propel many men, particularly when they are young, into a vortex of fear, isolation, anger, self-punishment, self-hatred, and aggression. \n\n5. The Psychic Armor of Manhood\nMen's violence is also the result of a character structure that is typically based on emotional distance from others. This distance is formed in early childhood with an absence of a male figure or one that typifies the rejection of “femininity” or the associated qualities of caregiving and nurturance. This creates rigid ego barriers and results in an inability to empathize with others. This resulting lack of empathy allows men to cause pain or violence to another person without understanding what they have done or how it is impacting others.\n\n6. Masculinity as a Psychic Pressure Cooker:\nIt is typical for boys to learn from an early age to repress feelings of fear and pain. Common results of this repression are: fear; hurt; insecurity; pain; rejection, or belittlement.\n\n7. Past experiences:\nStudies have shown that boys and girls who grow up witnessing violence are far more likely to be violent themselves. Such violence may be a way of getting attention; it may be a coping mechanism, a way of externalizing impossible-to-cope-with feelings. Such patterns of behaviour continue beyond childhood: most men who end up in programs for men who use violence either witnessed abuse against their mother or experienced abuse themselves.\n
• #37: DETAILS:\nAfter reviewing & defining the 7 P’s, open the room to a natural dialogue on the issues raised by these theories.\n\nTALKING NOTES:\n1. Patriarchal Power:\nMale-dominated societies are not only based on a hierarchy of men over women, but some are based on a hierarchy of men over other men. Violence or the threat of violence among men is a mechanism used from childhood to establish a pecking order. One result of this is that men "internalize" violence - or perhaps, the demands of patriarchal society encourage biological instincts that otherwise might be more relatively dormant or benign. The result is not only that boys and men learn to selectively use violence, but also redirect a range of emotions into rage, which sometimes takes the form of self-directed violence (EG: substance abuse)\n\n2. The Sense of Entitlement to Privilege: \nViolence is often the logical outcome of a sense of entitlement to certain privileges. If a man beats his wife for not having dinner on the table on time, it is not only to make sure that it doesn't happen again, it is an indication of his sense of entitlement to be waited on. Or, say a man sexually assaults a woman on a date, it is about his sense of entitlement to his physical pleasure even if that pleasure is entirely one sided. \n\n3. Permission: \nWhatever the complex social and psychological causes of men's violence, it wouldn't continue if there weren't explicit or tacit permission in social customs, legal codes, law enforcement, and certain religious teachings. (EG: Countries where laws against wife assault or sexual assault are lax or non-existent or violence in sports & cinema are glamorized and rewarded.)\n\n4. The Paradox of Men's Power:\nIf power is constructed as a capacity to dominate and control, if the capacity to act in "powerful" ways requires the construction of a personal suit of armor and a fearful distance from others, if the very world of power and privilege removes us from the world of child-rearing and nurturance, then we are creating men whose own experience of power is fraught with crippling problems. The personal insecurities conferred by a failure (or threat of failure) to make the masculine grade is enough to propel many men, particularly when they are young, into a vortex of fear, isolation, anger, self-punishment, self-hatred, and aggression. \n\n5. The Psychic Armor of Manhood\nMen's violence is also the result of a character structure that is typically based on emotional distance from others. This distance is formed in early childhood with an absence of a male figure or one that typifies the rejection of “femininity” or the associated qualities of caregiving and nurturance. This creates rigid ego barriers and results in an inability to empathize with others. This resulting lack of empathy allows men to cause pain or violence to another person without understanding what they have done or how it is impacting others.\n\n6. Masculinity as a Psychic Pressure Cooker:\nIt is typical for boys to learn from an early age to repress feelings of fear and pain. Common results of this repression are: fear; hurt; insecurity; pain; rejection, or belittlement.\n\n7. Past experiences:\nStudies have shown that boys and girls who grow up witnessing violence are far more likely to be violent themselves. Such violence may be a way of getting attention; it may be a coping mechanism, a way of externalizing impossible-to-cope-with feelings. Such patterns of behaviour continue beyond childhood: most men who end up in programs for men who use violence either witnessed abuse against their mother or experienced abuse themselves.\n
• #38: DETAILS:\nAfter reviewing & defining the 7 P’s, open the room to a natural dialogue on the issues raised by these theories.\n\nTALKING NOTES:\n1. Patriarchal Power:\nMale-dominated societies are not only based on a hierarchy of men over women, but some are based on a hierarchy of men over other men. Violence or the threat of violence among men is a mechanism used from childhood to establish a pecking order. One result of this is that men "internalize" violence - or perhaps, the demands of patriarchal society encourage biological instincts that otherwise might be more relatively dormant or benign. The result is not only that boys and men learn to selectively use violence, but also redirect a range of emotions into rage, which sometimes takes the form of self-directed violence (EG: substance abuse)\n\n2. The Sense of Entitlement to Privilege: \nViolence is often the logical outcome of a sense of entitlement to certain privileges. If a man beats his wife for not having dinner on the table on time, it is not only to make sure that it doesn't happen again, it is an indication of his sense of entitlement to be waited on. Or, say a man sexually assaults a woman on a date, it is about his sense of entitlement to his physical pleasure even if that pleasure is entirely one sided. \n\n3. Permission: \nWhatever the complex social and psychological causes of men's violence, it wouldn't continue if there weren't explicit or tacit permission in social customs, legal codes, law enforcement, and certain religious teachings. (EG: Countries where laws against wife assault or sexual assault are lax or non-existent or violence in sports & cinema are glamorized and rewarded.)\n\n4. The Paradox of Men's Power:\nIf power is constructed as a capacity to dominate and control, if the capacity to act in "powerful" ways requires the construction of a personal suit of armor and a fearful distance from others, if the very world of power and privilege removes us from the world of child-rearing and nurturance, then we are creating men whose own experience of power is fraught with crippling problems. The personal insecurities conferred by a failure (or threat of failure) to make the masculine grade is enough to propel many men, particularly when they are young, into a vortex of fear, isolation, anger, self-punishment, self-hatred, and aggression. \n\n5. The Psychic Armor of Manhood\nMen's violence is also the result of a character structure that is typically based on emotional distance from others. This distance is formed in early childhood with an absence of a male figure or one that typifies the rejection of “femininity” or the associated qualities of caregiving and nurturance. This creates rigid ego barriers and results in an inability to empathize with others. This resulting lack of empathy allows men to cause pain or violence to another person without understanding what they have done or how it is impacting others.\n\n6. Masculinity as a Psychic Pressure Cooker:\nIt is typical for boys to learn from an early age to repress feelings of fear and pain. Common results of this repression are: fear; hurt; insecurity; pain; rejection, or belittlement.\n\n7. Past experiences:\nStudies have shown that boys and girls who grow up witnessing violence are far more likely to be violent themselves. Such violence may be a way of getting attention; it may be a coping mechanism, a way of externalizing impossible-to-cope-with feelings. Such patterns of behaviour continue beyond childhood: most men who end up in programs for men who use violence either witnessed abuse against their mother or experienced abuse themselves.\n
• #39: DETAILS:\nAfter reviewing & defining the 7 P’s, open the room to a natural dialogue on the issues raised by these theories.\n\nTALKING NOTES:\n1. Patriarchal Power:\nMale-dominated societies are not only based on a hierarchy of men over women, but some are based on a hierarchy of men over other men. Violence or the threat of violence among men is a mechanism used from childhood to establish a pecking order. One result of this is that men "internalize" violence - or perhaps, the demands of patriarchal society encourage biological instincts that otherwise might be more relatively dormant or benign. The result is not only that boys and men learn to selectively use violence, but also redirect a range of emotions into rage, which sometimes takes the form of self-directed violence (EG: substance abuse)\n\n2. The Sense of Entitlement to Privilege: \nViolence is often the logical outcome of a sense of entitlement to certain privileges. If a man beats his wife for not having dinner on the table on time, it is not only to make sure that it doesn't happen again, it is an indication of his sense of entitlement to be waited on. Or, say a man sexually assaults a woman on a date, it is about his sense of entitlement to his physical pleasure even if that pleasure is entirely one sided. \n\n3. Permission: \nWhatever the complex social and psychological causes of men's violence, it wouldn't continue if there weren't explicit or tacit permission in social customs, legal codes, law enforcement, and certain religious teachings. (EG: Countries where laws against wife assault or sexual assault are lax or non-existent or violence in sports & cinema are glamorized and rewarded.)\n\n4. The Paradox of Men's Power:\nIf power is constructed as a capacity to dominate and control, if the capacity to act in "powerful" ways requires the construction of a personal suit of armor and a fearful distance from others, if the very world of power and privilege removes us from the world of child-rearing and nurturance, then we are creating men whose own experience of power is fraught with crippling problems. The personal insecurities conferred by a failure (or threat of failure) to make the masculine grade is enough to propel many men, particularly when they are young, into a vortex of fear, isolation, anger, self-punishment, self-hatred, and aggression. \n\n5. The Psychic Armor of Manhood\nMen's violence is also the result of a character structure that is typically based on emotional distance from others. This distance is formed in early childhood with an absence of a male figure or one that typifies the rejection of “femininity” or the associated qualities of caregiving and nurturance. This creates rigid ego barriers and results in an inability to empathize with others. This resulting lack of empathy allows men to cause pain or violence to another person without understanding what they have done or how it is impacting others.\n\n6. Masculinity as a Psychic Pressure Cooker:\nIt is typical for boys to learn from an early age to repress feelings of fear and pain. Common results of this repression are: fear; hurt; insecurity; pain; rejection, or belittlement.\n\n7. Past experiences:\nStudies have shown that boys and girls who grow up witnessing violence are far more likely to be violent themselves. Such violence may be a way of getting attention; it may be a coping mechanism, a way of externalizing impossible-to-cope-with feelings. Such patterns of behaviour continue beyond childhood: most men who end up in programs for men who use violence either witnessed abuse against their mother or experienced abuse themselves.\n
• #40: DETAILS:\nAfter reviewing & defining the 7 P’s, open the room to a natural dialogue on the issues raised by these theories.\n\nTALKING NOTES:\n1. Patriarchal Power:\nMale-dominated societies are not only based on a hierarchy of men over women, but some are based on a hierarchy of men over other men. Violence or the threat of violence among men is a mechanism used from childhood to establish a pecking order. One result of this is that men "internalize" violence - or perhaps, the demands of patriarchal society encourage biological instincts that otherwise might be more relatively dormant or benign. The result is not only that boys and men learn to selectively use violence, but also redirect a range of emotions into rage, which sometimes takes the form of self-directed violence (EG: substance abuse)\n\n2. The Sense of Entitlement to Privilege: \nViolence is often the logical outcome of a sense of entitlement to certain privileges. If a man beats his wife for not having dinner on the table on time, it is not only to make sure that it doesn't happen again, it is an indication of his sense of entitlement to be waited on. Or, say a man sexually assaults a woman on a date, it is about his sense of entitlement to his physical pleasure even if that pleasure is entirely one sided. \n\n3. Permission: \nWhatever the complex social and psychological causes of men's violence, it wouldn't continue if there weren't explicit or tacit permission in social customs, legal codes, law enforcement, and certain religious teachings. (EG: Countries where laws against wife assault or sexual assault are lax or non-existent or violence in sports & cinema are glamorized and rewarded.)\n\n4. The Paradox of Men's Power:\nIf power is constructed as a capacity to dominate and control, if the capacity to act in "powerful" ways requires the construction of a personal suit of armor and a fearful distance from others, if the very world of power and privilege removes us from the world of child-rearing and nurturance, then we are creating men whose own experience of power is fraught with crippling problems. The personal insecurities conferred by a failure (or threat of failure) to make the masculine grade is enough to propel many men, particularly when they are young, into a vortex of fear, isolation, anger, self-punishment, self-hatred, and aggression. \n\n5. The Psychic Armor of Manhood\nMen's violence is also the result of a character structure that is typically based on emotional distance from others. This distance is formed in early childhood with an absence of a male figure or one that typifies the rejection of “femininity” or the associated qualities of caregiving and nurturance. This creates rigid ego barriers and results in an inability to empathize with others. This resulting lack of empathy allows men to cause pain or violence to another person without understanding what they have done or how it is impacting others.\n\n6. Masculinity as a Psychic Pressure Cooker:\nIt is typical for boys to learn from an early age to repress feelings of fear and pain. Common results of this repression are: fear; hurt; insecurity; pain; rejection, or belittlement.\n\n7. Past experiences:\nStudies have shown that boys and girls who grow up witnessing violence are far more likely to be violent themselves. Such violence may be a way of getting attention; it may be a coping mechanism, a way of externalizing impossible-to-cope-with feelings. Such patterns of behaviour continue beyond childhood: most men who end up in programs for men who use violence either witnessed abuse against their mother or experienced abuse themselves.\n
• #41: DETAILS:\nAfter reviewing & defining the 7 P’s, open the room to a natural dialogue on the issues raised by these theories.\n\nTALKING NOTES:\n1. Patriarchal Power:\nMale-dominated societies are not only based on a hierarchy of men over women, but some are based on a hierarchy of men over other men. Violence or the threat of violence among men is a mechanism used from childhood to establish a pecking order. One result of this is that men "internalize" violence - or perhaps, the demands of patriarchal society encourage biological instincts that otherwise might be more relatively dormant or benign. The result is not only that boys and men learn to selectively use violence, but also redirect a range of emotions into rage, which sometimes takes the form of self-directed violence (EG: substance abuse)\n\n2. The Sense of Entitlement to Privilege: \nViolence is often the logical outcome of a sense of entitlement to certain privileges. If a man beats his wife for not having dinner on the table on time, it is not only to make sure that it doesn't happen again, it is an indication of his sense of entitlement to be waited on. Or, say a man sexually assaults a woman on a date, it is about his sense of entitlement to his physical pleasure even if that pleasure is entirely one sided. \n\n3. Permission: \nWhatever the complex social and psychological causes of men's violence, it wouldn't continue if there weren't explicit or tacit permission in social customs, legal codes, law enforcement, and certain religious teachings. (EG: Countries where laws against wife assault or sexual assault are lax or non-existent or violence in sports & cinema are glamorized and rewarded.)\n\n4. The Paradox of Men's Power:\nIf power is constructed as a capacity to dominate and control, if the capacity to act in "powerful" ways requires the construction of a personal suit of armor and a fearful distance from others, if the very world of power and privilege removes us from the world of child-rearing and nurturance, then we are creating men whose own experience of power is fraught with crippling problems. The personal insecurities conferred by a failure (or threat of failure) to make the masculine grade is enough to propel many men, particularly when they are young, into a vortex of fear, isolation, anger, self-punishment, self-hatred, and aggression. \n\n5. The Psychic Armor of Manhood\nMen's violence is also the result of a character structure that is typically based on emotional distance from others. This distance is formed in early childhood with an absence of a male figure or one that typifies the rejection of “femininity” or the associated qualities of caregiving and nurturance. This creates rigid ego barriers and results in an inability to empathize with others. This resulting lack of empathy allows men to cause pain or violence to another person without understanding what they have done or how it is impacting others.\n\n6. Masculinity as a Psychic Pressure Cooker:\nIt is typical for boys to learn from an early age to repress feelings of fear and pain. Common results of this repression are: fear; hurt; insecurity; pain; rejection, or belittlement.\n\n7. Past experiences:\nStudies have shown that boys and girls who grow up witnessing violence are far more likely to be violent themselves. Such violence may be a way of getting attention; it may be a coping mechanism, a way of externalizing impossible-to-cope-with feelings. Such patterns of behaviour continue beyond childhood: most men who end up in programs for men who use violence either witnessed abuse against their mother or experienced abuse themselves.\n
• #42: DETAILS:\nAfter reviewing & defining the 7 P’s, open the room to a natural dialogue on the issues raised by these theories.\n\nTALKING NOTES:\n1. Patriarchal Power:\nMale-dominated societies are not only based on a hierarchy of men over women, but some are based on a hierarchy of men over other men. Violence or the threat of violence among men is a mechanism used from childhood to establish a pecking order. One result of this is that men "internalize" violence - or perhaps, the demands of patriarchal society encourage biological instincts that otherwise might be more relatively dormant or benign. The result is not only that boys and men learn to selectively use violence, but also redirect a range of emotions into rage, which sometimes takes the form of self-directed violence (EG: substance abuse)\n\n2. The Sense of Entitlement to Privilege: \nViolence is often the logical outcome of a sense of entitlement to certain privileges. If a man beats his wife for not having dinner on the table on time, it is not only to make sure that it doesn't happen again, it is an indication of his sense of entitlement to be waited on. Or, say a man sexually assaults a woman on a date, it is about his sense of entitlement to his physical pleasure even if that pleasure is entirely one sided. \n\n3. Permission: \nWhatever the complex social and psychological causes of men's violence, it wouldn't continue if there weren't explicit or tacit permission in social customs, legal codes, law enforcement, and certain religious teachings. (EG: Countries where laws against wife assault or sexual assault are lax or non-existent or violence in sports & cinema are glamorized and rewarded.)\n\n4. The Paradox of Men's Power:\nIf power is constructed as a capacity to dominate and control, if the capacity to act in "powerful" ways requires the construction of a personal suit of armor and a fearful distance from others, if the very world of power and privilege removes us from the world of child-rearing and nurturance, then we are creating men whose own experience of power is fraught with crippling problems. The personal insecurities conferred by a failure (or threat of failure) to make the masculine grade is enough to propel many men, particularly when they are young, into a vortex of fear, isolation, anger, self-punishment, self-hatred, and aggression. \n\n5. The Psychic Armor of Manhood\nMen's violence is also the result of a character structure that is typically based on emotional distance from others. This distance is formed in early childhood with an absence of a male figure or one that typifies the rejection of “femininity” or the associated qualities of caregiving and nurturance. This creates rigid ego barriers and results in an inability to empathize with others. This resulting lack of empathy allows men to cause pain or violence to another person without understanding what they have done or how it is impacting others.\n\n6. Masculinity as a Psychic Pressure Cooker:\nIt is typical for boys to learn from an early age to repress feelings of fear and pain. Common results of this repression are: fear; hurt; insecurity; pain; rejection, or belittlement.\n\n7. Past experiences:\nStudies have shown that boys and girls who grow up witnessing violence are far more likely to be violent themselves. Such violence may be a way of getting attention; it may be a coping mechanism, a way of externalizing impossible-to-cope-with feelings. Such patterns of behaviour continue beyond childhood: most men who end up in programs for men who use violence either witnessed abuse against their mother or experienced abuse themselves.\n
• #43: DETAILS:\nAfter reviewing & defining the 7 P’s, open the room to a natural dialogue on the issues raised by these theories.\n\nTALKING NOTES:\n1. Patriarchal Power:\nMale-dominated societies are not only based on a hierarchy of men over women, but some are based on a hierarchy of men over other men. Violence or the threat of violence among men is a mechanism used from childhood to establish a pecking order. One result of this is that men "internalize" violence - or perhaps, the demands of patriarchal society encourage biological instincts that otherwise might be more relatively dormant or benign. The result is not only that boys and men learn to selectively use violence, but also redirect a range of emotions into rage, which sometimes takes the form of self-directed violence (EG: substance abuse)\n\n2. The Sense of Entitlement to Privilege: \nViolence is often the logical outcome of a sense of entitlement to certain privileges. If a man beats his wife for not having dinner on the table on time, it is not only to make sure that it doesn't happen again, it is an indication of his sense of entitlement to be waited on. Or, say a man sexually assaults a woman on a date, it is about his sense of entitlement to his physical pleasure even if that pleasure is entirely one sided. \n\n3. Permission: \nWhatever the complex social and psychological causes of men's violence, it wouldn't continue if there weren't explicit or tacit permission in social customs, legal codes, law enforcement, and certain religious teachings. (EG: Countries where laws against wife assault or sexual assault are lax or non-existent or violence in sports & cinema are glamorized and rewarded.)\n\n4. The Paradox of Men's Power:\nIf power is constructed as a capacity to dominate and control, if the capacity to act in "powerful" ways requires the construction of a personal suit of armor and a fearful distance from others, if the very world of power and privilege removes us from the world of child-rearing and nurturance, then we are creating men whose own experience of power is fraught with crippling problems. The personal insecurities conferred by a failure (or threat of failure) to make the masculine grade is enough to propel many men, particularly when they are young, into a vortex of fear, isolation, anger, self-punishment, self-hatred, and aggression. \n\n5. The Psychic Armor of Manhood\nMen's violence is also the result of a character structure that is typically based on emotional distance from others. This distance is formed in early childhood with an absence of a male figure or one that typifies the rejection of “femininity” or the associated qualities of caregiving and nurturance. This creates rigid ego barriers and results in an inability to empathize with others. This resulting lack of empathy allows men to cause pain or violence to another person without understanding what they have done or how it is impacting others.\n\n6. Masculinity as a Psychic Pressure Cooker:\nIt is typical for boys to learn from an early age to repress feelings of fear and pain. Common results of this repression are: fear; hurt; insecurity; pain; rejection, or belittlement.\n\n7. Past experiences:\nStudies have shown that boys and girls who grow up witnessing violence are far more likely to be violent themselves. Such violence may be a way of getting attention; it may be a coping mechanism, a way of externalizing impossible-to-cope-with feelings. Such patterns of behaviour continue beyond childhood: most men who end up in programs for men who use violence either witnessed abuse against their mother or experienced abuse themselves.\n
• #44: DETAILS:\nAfter reviewing & defining the 7 P’s, open the room to a natural dialogue on the issues raised by these theories.\n\nTALKING NOTES:\n1. Patriarchal Power:\nMale-dominated societies are not only based on a hierarchy of men over women, but some are based on a hierarchy of men over other men. Violence or the threat of violence among men is a mechanism used from childhood to establish a pecking order. One result of this is that men "internalize" violence - or perhaps, the demands of patriarchal society encourage biological instincts that otherwise might be more relatively dormant or benign. The result is not only that boys and men learn to selectively use violence, but also redirect a range of emotions into rage, which sometimes takes the form of self-directed violence (EG: substance abuse)\n\n2. The Sense of Entitlement to Privilege: \nViolence is often the logical outcome of a sense of entitlement to certain privileges. If a man beats his wife for not having dinner on the table on time, it is not only to make sure that it doesn't happen again, it is an indication of his sense of entitlement to be waited on. Or, say a man sexually assaults a woman on a date, it is about his sense of entitlement to his physical pleasure even if that pleasure is entirely one sided. \n\n3. Permission: \nWhatever the complex social and psychological causes of men's violence, it wouldn't continue if there weren't explicit or tacit permission in social customs, legal codes, law enforcement, and certain religious teachings. (EG: Countries where laws against wife assault or sexual assault are lax or non-existent or violence in sports & cinema are glamorized and rewarded.)\n\n4. The Paradox of Men's Power:\nIf power is constructed as a capacity to dominate and control, if the capacity to act in "powerful" ways requires the construction of a personal suit of armor and a fearful distance from others, if the very world of power and privilege removes us from the world of child-rearing and nurturance, then we are creating men whose own experience of power is fraught with crippling problems. The personal insecurities conferred by a failure (or threat of failure) to make the masculine grade is enough to propel many men, particularly when they are young, into a vortex of fear, isolation, anger, self-punishment, self-hatred, and aggression. \n\n5. The Psychic Armor of Manhood\nMen's violence is also the result of a character structure that is typically based on emotional distance from others. This distance is formed in early childhood with an absence of a male figure or one that typifies the rejection of “femininity” or the associated qualities of caregiving and nurturance. This creates rigid ego barriers and results in an inability to empathize with others. This resulting lack of empathy allows men to cause pain or violence to another person without understanding what they have done or how it is impacting others.\n\n6. Masculinity as a Psychic Pressure Cooker:\nIt is typical for boys to learn from an early age to repress feelings of fear and pain. Common results of this repression are: fear; hurt; insecurity; pain; rejection, or belittlement.\n\n7. Past experiences:\nStudies have shown that boys and girls who grow up witnessing violence are far more likely to be violent themselves. Such violence may be a way of getting attention; it may be a coping mechanism, a way of externalizing impossible-to-cope-with feelings. Such patterns of behaviour continue beyond childhood: most men who end up in programs for men who use violence either witnessed abuse against their mother or experienced abuse themselves.\n
• #45: DETAILS:\nTake a 10 minute break\n
• #46: DETAILS:\nDivide group into pairs if attendance is small, or into groups of 4-5 if larger. \nAsk participants to explore the best and worst things learned from their fathers (or primary male role models) about how to be a man. \nMen should be assured that there will be more time to share these stories with the larger group (at which time they will be recorded). \nAllow 20 minutes.\n
• #47: DETAILS:\nInvite the group to talk about how they think about strength, and how this concept affects their approach to masculinity. \n\nTALKING NOTES:\nIs strength a macho, John Wayne type of quality? \nIs it flexible, cooperative, creative? \n
• #48: What are the qualities of femininity, pros and cons? \nHow do men respond to these qualities in women? \nHow do men respond to these qualities in other men (and within themselves)? \nWhat is their comfort level with women? (this pertains as much to gay men) \nWhat do they dislike about women (or would change if they could)? \n What makes them angry?\n\nTen minute break. \n\nGroup reassembles for recorded session, seated in a circle around tape recorder. The rest of the workshop will happen in this circle, with men telling their stories.\n
• #49: TALKING NOTES:\nHow is testosterone connected to the issue of violence against women? \nDo men struggle with aggression in the bedroom?\nHave we, or anyone we've known ever used pressure to make someone have sex with us?\n
• #50: TALKING NOTES:\nDo we ever feel guilty for being men?\nDo we ever feel guilty for not intervening if we see another man being violent with a woman?\nDo we ever feel shame when we think about masculinity?\nDo we ever resent the dependency of others on us? Do we feel guilty for this resentment, as if we're shirking our masculinity?\nWhat aspects of your life as a man are you not proud of?\n
• #51: TALKING NOTES:\nHave we ever witnessed physical violence against a woman?\nHow have we responded?\nHave we witnessed abuses of other kinds of violence?\n How have we responded?\n
• #52: DETAILS:\nThis is a reprise of the opening question, “what brought you here today.” \nEncourage men to talk about what in their life has brought them to want to actively contribute to ending violence against women. \nHow can men help to end the violence?\nHow can men be re-educated?\nAsk the group to imagine a world without violence against women- what do they envision it would look like? \nDo participants believe that violence against women can be ended in our lifetime? If so, how? Or why not?\n
• #53: DETAILS:\nThis is a reprise of the opening question, “what brought you here today.” \nEncourage men to talk about what in their life has brought them to want to actively contribute to ending violence against women. \nHow can men help to end the violence?\nHow can men be re-educated?\nAsk the group to imagine a world without violence against women- what do they envision it would look like? \nDo participants believe that violence against women can be ended in our lifetime? If so, how? Or why not?\n
• #54: DETAILS:\nThis is a reprise of the opening question, “what brought you here today.” \nEncourage men to talk about what in their life has brought them to want to actively contribute to ending violence against women. \nHow can men help to end the violence?\nHow can men be re-educated?\nAsk the group to imagine a world without violence against women- what do they envision it would look like? \nDo participants believe that violence against women can be ended in our lifetime? If so, how? Or why not?\n
• #55: DETAILS:\nThis is a reprise of the opening question, “what brought you here today.” \nEncourage men to talk about what in their life has brought them to want to actively contribute to ending violence against women. \nHow can men help to end the violence?\nHow can men be re-educated?\nAsk the group to imagine a world without violence against women- what do they envision it would look like? \nDo participants believe that violence against women can be ended in our lifetime? If so, how? Or why not?\n
• #56: DETAILS:\nThis is a reprise of the opening question, “what brought you here today.” \nEncourage men to talk about what in their life has brought them to want to actively contribute to ending violence against women. \nHow can men help to end the violence?\nHow can men be re-educated?\nAsk the group to imagine a world without violence against women- what do they envision it would look like? \nDo participants believe that violence against women can be ended in our lifetime? If so, how? Or why not?\n
• #57: DETAILS:\nThis is a reprise of the opening question, “what brought you here today.” \nEncourage men to talk about what in their life has brought them to want to actively contribute to ending violence against women. \nHow can men help to end the violence?\nHow can men be re-educated?\nAsk the group to imagine a world without violence against women- what do they envision it would look like? \nDo participants believe that violence against women can be ended in our lifetime? If so, how? Or why not?\n
• #58: DETAILS:\nThis is a reprise of the opening question, “what brought you here today.” \nEncourage men to talk about what in their life has brought them to want to actively contribute to ending violence against women. \nHow can men help to end the violence?\nHow can men be re-educated?\nAsk the group to imagine a world without violence against women- what do they envision it would look like? \nDo participants believe that violence against women can be ended in our lifetime? If so, how? Or why not?\n