Condemning violence without rejecting sexism? Exploring how young men understand intimate partner violence in Ecuador

Figures & data

Table 1. Themes and categories emerging from each data set and the main similarities and differences between them

Comparisons between the two groups	Data set 1 general young men	Data set 2 activist young men
Connections between gender equality/inequality and IPV While general young men in the main rejected IPV but justified it as men's response to increased gender equality, activists categorically rejected violence and linked the existence of IPV with gender inequality.	Theme: Too much gender equality leads to IPV	Theme: Gender inequality is the root of IPV
Young men's level of consciousness regarding IPV Both groups recognized the existence and harmful effects of IPV on women. However, the activists showed a deeper understanding of the complexities of IPV and the difficulties that women suffering from IPV face when they seek help or want to end an abusive relationship.	Category: Acknowledging the existence of IPV	Category: Understanding the pervasiveness of IPV
Young men's position regarding IPV General young men in the main rejected IPV, but they also considered it inherent in men and understandable under certain circumstances; they did not consider controlling behaviour as IPV. Activist young men firmly rejected IPV. They considered controlling behaviour as a form of IPV and understood machismo as generating IPV.	Category: Fluctuating positions on IPV	Category: Connecting IPV with machismo
Young men's views and actions concerning the fight against IPV Although general young men agreed with institutional measures against IPV, they feared that these could give too much power to women. Activist young men were knowledgeable about the institutional responses against IPV and the social changes towards lower tolerance of IPV (pushed for by the women's movement); however, they criticized their poor implementation. Activist men felt a personal conflict between maintaining a pacifist position and avoiding responding with violence against IPV aggressors.	Category: Ambivalent positions on actions against IPV	Categories: Acknowledging (limited) social changes Becoming personally involved and rejecting violence