Brush and Miller have provided an astute critique of “gender-transformative” antiviolence programming, encouraging us to take more seriously the effects of history, gender, and social structure. In this commentary, we extend their analysis in four directions by highlighting the everydayness of gendered violence, the relationship between masculinity and social legibility, the seductive rewards of masculine conformity, and the way norms are enforced through nets of accountability. We elaborate on the model provided by women’s empowerment self-defense training to suggest a potential way forward for these programs.