Sexual violence is a widespread health problem in Australian society and is mainly committed against women by men. This is a serious crime that affects not only the integrity of the victim, but also their human rights (Queensland Government, 2015). To understand why men commit sexual violence against women, this article will use Connell's concept of hegemonic masculinity (HM) to explain its presence. To this end, Connell's crime and HM concept will be defined. Then, current research discussing the connection between HM and sexual violence against women will be explored to understand how it explains the crime. Finally, this article will explore other possible explanations for why sexual violence against women is committed by men, such as routine activity theory (RAT) and evolutionary perspective theory. Then we will understand how the concept of HM explains why men can commit sexual violence against women. First, this article will explore the crime itself by defining it and briefly examining its impact on victims. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Sexual violence is known by many different names in the legislation of Australian states and territories, which this document will use interchangeably. Some of these names include sexual intercourse without consent, rape, sexual assault, and sexual penetration without consent. Sexual violence can include a wide range of behaviors, including when a person forces another person to have sex with them, to perform sexual acts, to view or engage in pornography, unwanted sexual advances or harassment, and sexual coercion. An individual can still be forced to commit an act, even if he or she has not protested or physically resisted the aggressor (DSS, 2019). Current research from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2019) reveals that 1 in 5 women in Australia (1.7 million in total) have experienced sexual violence since the age of 15. Other research on sexual assault has also revealed that women experience this violence primarily at the hands of men. Experiencing sexual violence can have a great impact on an individual and can have serious and long-lasting effects on their health, psychological well-being and relationships (AIHW, 2018). Now that sexual violence against women has been clearly defined and the impacts of the crime have been briefly explored, Connell's concept of HM will now be discussed to understand how it explains why men commit rape. explains sexual violence against women, the concept will be discussed and explored. The concept of HM was first discussed in a field study conducted by Kessler, Ashenden, Connell, and Dowsett (1982) in which they examined social inequality in the context of Australian high schools. The results of the study were then systematized in an article by Carrigan, Connell, and Lee (1985) before Connell (1987) integrated the model described in the article into a sociological theory of gender describing the concept of HM. Connell's HM theory has since become the most cited source for the concept (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). It is described by Connell and Messerschmidt (2005) as the current idealized way of being a socially dominant man compared to other types of masculinity, which are marginalized (Esplen & Greig, 2007). When understood as a form of social practice, HM enables men's dominance over women, as well as supporting a rape-friendly environment in which male violence is encouraged through patriarchal beliefs (Connell, 1987; Connell &Messerschmidt, 2005; Truman, Toaker and Fischer, 1996). How HM promotes a rape-friendly environment is the three social practices, procreation, protection, and provision, that must be practiced for men to achieve HM (Kersten, 1996). Procreation refers to the enactment of heterosexuality and sexual domination of women, protection refers to physical control over all sexes, whether as enemies or as property, and provision refers to a man providing resources to his family (Kersten, 1996). Achieving these three areas of social action allows a man to achieve idealized masculinity, or HM (Kersten, 1996). Levant, Rankin, Williams, Hasan, and Smalley (2010) also identified different dimensions and roles that men must adhere to in order to assert their dominance, which encourages behaviors and beliefs that support rape. Some of these dimensions include restrictive emotionality, negativity toward sexual minorities, avoidance of femininity, and the importance of sex, toughness, and dominance (Levant et al., 2010). Viewed simply, the idea of ​​HM refers to the normative ideology that in order for men to be a “real man,” they must be dominant, both in society and over women (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; Mankowski & Maton, 2010) . After a brief exploration of HM, one can clearly see that it supports the domination of a minority of men over other men and all women. To understand how this may lead men to sexually assault women, this article will review current research that discusses the connection between HM and this crime. Current research exploring the connection between HM and sexual violence against women will now be discussed to understand how the concept helps explain the crime. Messerschmidt (1993) describes sexual violence against women as a public representation of HM. Current research supports this as it has been consistently found that men who strongly adhere to HM norms may feel compelled to commit sexual violence to maintain their need for dominance (Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994; Malamuth, Heavy & Linz, 1996; Moore et al., 2008; Further research has also found that men who endorse aspects of HM are at greater risk of perpetrating sexual assaults against women (Murnen et al., 2002; Zurbriggen, 2010). Previously identified dimensions of male role norms promoted through HM, such as female avoidance, are independently, as well as collectively, related to sexual violence against women (Zurbriggen, 2010). ) conducted a meta-analytic review of research discussing the link between masculine ideology, which can also be understood as HM, and sexual aggression and found that extreme adherence to the ideology was linked to men committing violence sex on women. Clearly current research has found a connection between adherence to the concept of HM and sexual aggression against women. This article will now attempt to explain how this connection could lead men to commit this crime. Using the current literature surrounding the concept of HM, this essay will now explain how it helps us understand sexual violence against women. It has previously been identified that some men strongly adhere to idealized masculine norms in HM, such as procreation, protection, and support (Smith et al., 2015; Kersten, 1996). When these men feel that their dominance is weakened and they need to maintain it, they may be forced to be sexually aggressive towards women to do so (Smith et al., 2015). Strict adherence to HM canalso cause male gender role stress for men when they experience situations in which their masculinity is threatened. Kimmel (2000) explains that men who experience this type of stress may perform a wide variety of actions to reassert their dominance and masculinity and subordinate others. Sexual aggression, particularly against women, is considered the most effective method of doing so as it is commonly seen as the most obvious symbol of masculinity (Kimmel, 2000; Smith et al., 2015). Many other scholars also support the finding that the act of sexual aggression against women is the ultimate demonstration of masculinity for men who feel they must embody HM. Men may also commit sexual violence because of the masculine ideals they should live and act in ways promoted through HM, also known as the “four rules of manhood,” identified by Kimmel (2000). These are antifemininity, status attainment, inexpressiveness-independence, and adventurousness-aggression (Kimmel, 2000). To achieve HM, men should aim to embody these four rules of manhood, however, in doing so, they are socialized into behaviors that promote support for sexual aggression against women (Kimmel, 2000). For example, antifemininity refers to the idea that men should avoid exhibiting feminine traits or behaviors, while status attainment refers to the status that men should achieve through sport and work, which puts pressure on men for them to be successful. Inexpressiveness-independence refers to the concept that men should be emotionally detached and should be able to handle any crisis with composure, while adventurousness-aggression refers to the idea that men should be willing to take physical risks, with particular attention to physical feats of aggression. Kilmartin and Allison (2007) propose that adherence to adventurousness-aggression commonly results in violent behavior. One can easily see how each rule is recognizable in the manifestations of HM and how it can lead men to commit sexual violence against women. While the concept of HM helps explain why men may commit sexual assaults against women, others have proposed alternative theories as to why this crime is committed. While the concept of HM can be used to explain why men commit sexual assaults against women, other theories have also attempted to provide an explanation for why the crime occurs. RAT is a theory that proposes that the occurrence of sexual violence is influenced by three factors: the presence of likely offenders, the presence of guardians, and the availability of appropriate targets (Cohen & Felson, 1979). The first condition, the presence of motivated offenders, can certainly be established when examining sexual violence against women, as Schwartz and Pitts (1995) explain that high victimization rates are indicative of motivated offenders. According to Schwartz and Pitts (1995), the second condition of the RAT, namely the absence of suitable guardians, is also present in the examination of the crime. The third condition, the availability of adequate objectives, can also be established in the case of sexual violence against women. When researchers discuss “suitable targets,” they generally mean male offenders and female targets, but also the legitimacy of potential offenders' use of violence against women in their culture (Schwartz & Pitts, 1995). RAT theorists also propose that certain situations and locations may increase a woman's risk of being targeted,such as being drunk or being in contact with sexually predatory men (Schwartz & Pitts, 1995). If these three conditions are met, sexual violence against women is likely to be committed. Another theory that attempts to explain crime is the Evolutionary Perspective, which argues that men may commit sexual violence against women because of their masculine psychology, which is designed to maximize their reproductive success (Quinsey & Lalumiere, 1995). Crime is proposed to be the result of manifestations of men's male sexual psychology (Quinsey & Lalumiere, 1995). As can be seen, two alternative theories of RAT and Evolutionary Perspective propose alternative explanations for why men commit sexual violence against women in addition to Connell's concept of HM. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay This article defined sexual violence against women, as well as discussed Connell's concept of HM. Research literature investigating the connection between HM and sexual violence against women was explored to explain how the concept could help us understand why this crime occurs. Other plausible explanations for why sexual violence against women are also discussed, such as RAT and evolutionary perspective theory. It can now be clearly seen how Connell's concept of HM helps to explain sexual violence against women. References Australian Institute of Family Studies. (2019). Research on sexual violence. Canberra: AIHWAustralian Institute of Health and Wellbeing. (2018). Family, Domestic and Sexual Violence in Australia 2018. Canberra: AIHWBlack, M.C., Basile, K.C., Breiding, M.J., Smith, S.G., Walters, M.L., Merrick, M.T., Chen, J., & Stevens, M.R. (2011). National Sexual and Intimate Partner Violence Survey (NISVS): Summary Report 2010. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and PreventionCarrigan, T., Connell, B. and Lee, J. (1985). Towards a new sociology of masculinity. Theory and Society, 14(5), 551-604. doi:10.1007/BF00160017Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Journal, 44, 588-608. doi:10.2307/2094589.Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power. Sydney, Australia: Allen and Unwin. Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: rethinking the concept. Gender and Society, 19, 829-859. doi:10.1177/0891243205278639Department of Social Services. (2019). Sexual assault. Retrieved from https://www.dss.gov.au/women/publications-articles/reducing-violence/sexual-assaultDerraugh, L. S. (2018). Hegemonic masculinity and rape culture: Negotiating manhood in a Canadian university (Master's thesis, Memorial University, Newfoundland). Retrieved from https://research.library.mun.ca/13251/1/thesis.pdfEisler, R. M., Skidmore, J. R., & Ward, C. H. (1988). Male gender role stress: Predictor of anger, anxiety, and health risk behaviors. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 133-141. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa5201_12Esplen, E., & Greig, A. (2007). Politicizing masculinities: Beyond the personal. In Cornwall, A., & Edstrom, J. (eds.), Politicizing Masculinities Symposium. Dakar, Senegal: Institute of Development Studies. Kersten, J. (1996). Culture, masculinity and violence against women. The British Journal of Criminology, 36(3), 381-395. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjc.a014101Kessler, S. J., Ashenden, D. J., Connell, R. W., & Dowsett, G. W. (1982). Ockers and disomaniacs. Sydney, Australia: Inner City Education Centre. Kilmartin, C., & Allison, J. (2007). Men's violence against women: theory, research and., &