Whether implicitly or explicitly, authors use the notion of safe social

Whether implicitly or explicitly, authors use the notion of safe social spaces to examine how men may be supported to change attitudes and behaviours and to contest hegemonic masculinities. Namy et al. (this issue), for example, describe the theory of change underpinning the Young Men’s Initiative in the Balkans, outlining the theorised role of safe social spaces. Their analysis notes that safe social spaces enabled participants to question dominant masculinities, to think more critically about `what it means to be a man’ and to reflect on the consequences of dominant masculine ideals. Further, they emphasise that much of the dialogue and change work occurred in informal PD173074 structure interactions outside the formal safe social spaces that the Young Men’s Initiative fostered through workshops andSEditorialstructured activities. This resonates with others who have highlighted the importance of what happens on the peripheries of formal interventions, in `in-between spaces’, expanding our understanding of what a `safe social space’ actually is (Jones and SPEECH 2001; Vaughan 2014). In her analysis of group work with young, economically marginalised men in London, UK, McGeeney (this issue) reflects on how safe social spaces can also provide opportunities for collusion so as to reinforce the forms of masculinity that an intervention might be trying to challenge. Through her close reading of the interactions of these young men, who were from a deprived inner-city borough and out of formal education and employment, McGeeney highlights the ways a social environment functioned to maintain certain forms of power through the very logic of a safe discursive space. The group setting enabled a type of hypermasculinity (Herek 1986) to be performed and limited participants’ ability to engage in critical discussion. McGeeney’s reflections on her limited ability to challenge oppressive talk in this setting point towards the challenges for practitioners in encountering resistance (see also Dworkin et al. this issue; Jewkes et al. this issue; Ratele this issue). In other contexts, researchers have noted that safe social spaces may be necessary for facilitating collective action towards social change, but are not in and of themselves sufficient (Campbell 2003; Campbell and Cornish 2010; Vaughan 2014). Men and boys may be supported to reflect on the costs of hegemonic masculinity and the benefits of gender-equitable attitudes and behaviours, and to practise behaviours associated with the democratising of gender relations in the safe social spaces developed by an intervention (such as workshops, group meetings, retreats or sports camps). However, whether and how men can be supported to sustain new attitudes and behaviours in the `unsafe’ environments to which they return is much less clear. The subordinated men who are most often engaged in interventions seeking to promote gender transformation live in particularly `unsafe’ environments, settings where performance of hegemonic masculinity may be protective in interactions with peers and local structures. This AvasimibeMedChemExpress PD-148515 reinforces the belief that theories of social change underpinning interventions with men and boys need to consider the wider structural impediments to change. Another set of research in this special edition draws on more post-structuralist approaches to change. Specifically Shefer et al. (this issue) use Butler’s idea of precariousness to suggest that only through men acknowledging their vulnerability may they start.Whether implicitly or explicitly, authors use the notion of safe social spaces to examine how men may be supported to change attitudes and behaviours and to contest hegemonic masculinities. Namy et al. (this issue), for example, describe the theory of change underpinning the Young Men’s Initiative in the Balkans, outlining the theorised role of safe social spaces. Their analysis notes that safe social spaces enabled participants to question dominant masculinities, to think more critically about `what it means to be a man’ and to reflect on the consequences of dominant masculine ideals. Further, they emphasise that much of the dialogue and change work occurred in informal interactions outside the formal safe social spaces that the Young Men’s Initiative fostered through workshops andSEditorialstructured activities. This resonates with others who have highlighted the importance of what happens on the peripheries of formal interventions, in `in-between spaces’, expanding our understanding of what a `safe social space’ actually is (Jones and SPEECH 2001; Vaughan 2014). In her analysis of group work with young, economically marginalised men in London, UK, McGeeney (this issue) reflects on how safe social spaces can also provide opportunities for collusion so as to reinforce the forms of masculinity that an intervention might be trying to challenge. Through her close reading of the interactions of these young men, who were from a deprived inner-city borough and out of formal education and employment, McGeeney highlights the ways a social environment functioned to maintain certain forms of power through the very logic of a safe discursive space. The group setting enabled a type of hypermasculinity (Herek 1986) to be performed and limited participants’ ability to engage in critical discussion. McGeeney’s reflections on her limited ability to challenge oppressive talk in this setting point towards the challenges for practitioners in encountering resistance (see also Dworkin et al. this issue; Jewkes et al. this issue; Ratele this issue). In other contexts, researchers have noted that safe social spaces may be necessary for facilitating collective action towards social change, but are not in and of themselves sufficient (Campbell 2003; Campbell and Cornish 2010; Vaughan 2014). Men and boys may be supported to reflect on the costs of hegemonic masculinity and the benefits of gender-equitable attitudes and behaviours, and to practise behaviours associated with the democratising of gender relations in the safe social spaces developed by an intervention (such as workshops, group meetings, retreats or sports camps). However, whether and how men can be supported to sustain new attitudes and behaviours in the `unsafe’ environments to which they return is much less clear. The subordinated men who are most often engaged in interventions seeking to promote gender transformation live in particularly `unsafe’ environments, settings where performance of hegemonic masculinity may be protective in interactions with peers and local structures. This reinforces the belief that theories of social change underpinning interventions with men and boys need to consider the wider structural impediments to change. Another set of research in this special edition draws on more post-structuralist approaches to change. Specifically Shefer et al. (this issue) use Butler’s idea of precariousness to suggest that only through men acknowledging their vulnerability may they start.