Social Construction of Gender
*ONLY USE ATTACHED FILES FOR ASSIGNMENT*
1) One of the major myths about feminism, according to the textbook, is the idea that women have already achieved full equality in the world. How is this myth challenged by our readings so far? What issues regarding gender do you identify as being “unfinished.” Be sure to include references to specific course readings to support your answer.
2) In this chapter, the authors write that women’s studies is “not just an ‘area of study’ – meaning it is not just about ‘women’ – it is about something much deeper: a way of orienting to academic work that is attuned to power relations, both within the academy and within knowledge construction itself.” Interpret this in your own words – what does this mean? How is this idea argument related to Adrienne Rich’s Claiming and Education?
3) Reflection – Now that we’ve reached the end of this unit, I’d like to take some time for you to reflect on what we’ve learned. For this question, you’re asked to think of one memory of an event (or a series of events) in your life that you can connect to one of our class discussions/topics. Describe the event and explicitly relate it to at least one class reading. (Note: You may consult the book and other readings as much as you want during this exercise).
Pay particular attention to the way gender operated during this even. Make connections between your story and the readings and concepts discussed and developed in class. In other words, sketch a moment in your life and them make a “bigger picture” connection using material from the course. Has your understanding or recollection of that event changed in some way, after participating in the course? Do you wish there would have been a different outcome or changed that experience in some way? If yes, how?
If Men Could Menstruate
By Gloria Steinem, Ms. Magazine, October 1978
A white minority of the world has spent centuries conning us into thinking that a white skin makes
people superior—even though the only thing it really does is make them more subject to ultraviolet rays
and to wrinkles. Male human beings have built whole cultures around the idea that penis-envy is
“natural” to women—though having such an unprotected organ might be said to make men vulnerable,
and the power to give birth makes womb-envy at least as logical.
In short, the characteristics of the powerful, whatever they may be, are thought to be better than the
characteristics of the powerless—and logic has nothing to do with it.
What would happen, for instance, if suddenly, magically, men could menstruate and women could not?
The answer is clear—menstruation would become an enviable, boast-worthy, masculine event:
Men would brag about how long and how much.
Boys would mark the onset of menses, that longed-for proof of manhood, with religious ritual and stag
parties.
Congress would fund a National Institute of Dysmenorrhea to help stamp out monthly discomforts.
Sanitary supplies would be federally funded and free. (Of course, some men would still pay for the
prestige of commercial brands such as John Wayne Tampons, Muhammad Ali’s Rope-a-dope Pads,
Joe Namath Jock Shields—“For Those Light Bachelor Days,” and Robert “Baretta” Blake Maxi-Pads.)
Military men, right-wing politicians, and religious fundamentalists would cite menstruation (“men-
struation”) as proof that only men could serve in the Army (“you have to give blood to take blood”),
occupy political office (“can women be aggressive without that steadfast cycle governed by the planet
Mars?”), be priest and ministers (“how could a woman give her blood for our sins?”) or rabbis (“without
the monthly loss of impurities, women remain unclean”).
Male radicals, left-wing politicians, mystics, however, would insist that women are equal, just different,
and that any woman could enter their ranks if she were willing to self-inflict a major wound every month
(“you MUST give blood for the revolution”), recognize the preeminence of menstrual issues, or
subordinate her selfness to all men in their Cycle of Enlightenment. Street guys would brag (“I’m a three
pad man”) or answer praise from a buddy (“Man, you lookin‘ good!”) by giving fives and saying, “Yeah,
man, I’m on the rag!” TV shows would treat the subject at length. (“Happy Days”: Richie and Potsie try
to convince Fonzie that he is still “The Fonz,” though he has missed two periods in a row.) So would
newspapers. (SHARK SCARE THREATENS MENSTRUATING MEN. JUDGE CITES MONTHLY
STRESS IN PARDONING RAPIST.) And movies. (Newman and Redford in “Blood Brothers”!)
Men would convince women that intercourse was more pleasurable at “that time of the month.”
Lesbians would be said to fear blood and therefore life itself—though probably only because they
needed a good menstruating man.
Of course, male intellectuals would offer the most moral and logical arguments. How could a woman
master any discipline that demanded a sense of time, space, mathematics, or measurement, for
instance, without that in-built gift for measuring the cycles of the moon and planets—and thus for
measuring anything at all? In the rarefied fields of philosophy and religion, could women compensate
for missing the rhythm of the universe? Or for their lack of symbolic death-and-resurrection every
month?
Liberal males in every field would try to be kind: the fact that “these people” have no gift for measuring
life or connecting to the universe, the liberals would explain, should be punishment enough.
And how would women be trained to react? One can imagine traditional women agreeing to all
arguments with a staunch and smiling masochism. (“The ERA would force housewives to wound
themselves every month”: Phyllis Schlafly. “Your husband’s blood is as sacred as that of Jesus – and so
sexy, too!” Marabel Morgan.) Reformers and Queen Bees would try to imitate men, and pretend to have
a monthly cycle. All feminists would explain endlessly that men, too, needed to be liberated from the
false idea of Martian aggressiveness, just as women needed to escape the bonds of menses envy.
Radical feminists would add that the oppression of the nonmenstrual was the pattern for all other
oppressions (“Vampires were our first freedom fighters!”) Cultural feminists would develop a bloodless
imagery in art and literature. Socialist feminists would insist that only under capitalism would men be
able to monopolize menstrual blood . . . .
In fact, if men could menstruate, the power justifications could probably go on forever.
If we let them.
Journal of Men’s Studies
2017, Vol. 25(2) 150 –167
© Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1060826516661319
journals.sagepub.com/home/men
Article
The WiseGuyz Program:
Sexual Health Education as
a Pathway to Supporting
Changes in Endorsement
of Traditional Masculinity
Ideologies
Caroline Claussen1
Abstract
Given the growing interest in the impacts of gender ideology on adolescent boys’
well-being, there is a call for programs to support the development of healthy and
positive constructs of masculinity. The WiseGuyz program at the Calgary Sexual
Health Centre is a sexual health and healthy relationship program addressing the
need for interventions that promote positive and healthy constructs of masculinity
identified in the literature. Using the Male Role Norms Inventory Scale–Adolescent–
revised (MRNI-A-r) standardized scale and focus groups, data were gathered from 52
adolescent boys enrolled in the WiseGuyz program. Results suggest that participation
in the WiseGuyz program lessens boys’ endorsement of traditional masculinity
ideologies, as indicated by changes in the MRNI-A-r and focus group data.
Keywords
adolescent boy’s programming, sexual health education, masculinity, evaluation
The health and well-being of adolescent boys have been a growing area of concern,
with researchers suggesting adolescent boys are at risk academically, socially, and
emotionally (Kindlon & Thompson, 2000; Pollack, 2006; Watts & Borders, 2005).
Psychological and sociological research suggests that intense pressure on boys to
1University of Calgary, Alberta, AB, Canada
Corresponding Author:
Caroline Claussen, Department of Sociology, University of Calgary, 2500 University Dr. NW Calgary,
Alberta, T2N 1N4, Canada.
Email: ccclauss@ucalgary.ca
661319 MENXXX10.1177/1060826516661319Journal of Men’s StudiesClaussen
research-article2016
mailto:ccclauss@ucalgary.ca
http://sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
http://doi.org/10.1177/1060826516661319
http://journals.sagepub.com/home/men
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F1060826516661319&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2016-08-05
Claussen 151
conform to masculine norms emphasizing physical toughness, absence of emotion,
self-sufficiency, and heterosexual dominance may contribute to boys’ worsening aca-
demic achievement, increasing rates of suicide and distress, and propensity for vio-
lence (O’Neil & Lujan, 2009; Pollack, 2006; Tremblay & L’Heureux, 2012; Watts &
Borders, 2005).
Increasingly, there is a call for programs and initiatives that not only engage adoles-
cent boys in masculinity issues but also promote positive constructs of masculinity
(Kaufman, 2001; O’Neil, Challenger, Renzulli, Crasper, & Webster, 2013; Wolfe &
Jaffe, 2003). Unfortunately, recent research identifies a lack of gender-specific pro-
gramming for adolescent boys (O’Neil et al., 2013; O’Neil & Lujan, 2009), particu-
larly interventions focused on promoting healthy and positive constructs of masculinity
(O’Neil et al., 2013; Tharinger, 2008).
This article addresses the noted gap in the literature about gender-specific program-
ming for adolescent boys that focuses on healthy masculinity by exploring preliminary
findings from WiseGuyz, a sexual health and healthy relationships program offered in
Alberta, Canada. The following sections will overview current considerations of ado-
lescence and masculinity, and explore the need for programs to address the influence
of traditional masculinity ideologies on adolescent boys and their relationships and
sexual health. Preliminary findings are presented from the WiseGuyz program evalu-
ation, and the implications of those findings for gender-specific sexual health pro-
gramming for adolescent boys and further research are considered.
Adolescent Boys and Masculinity
According to Connell (2005), masculinity can be defined as a social and cultural struc-
ture that influences men’s identities and practices. Hegemonic masculinity represents
the most socially dominant masculinity, and is often positioned as an idealized mascu-
linity that is largely out of reach for many boys and men (Knight et al., 2012; Tharinger,
2008). Pressures to conform to the prevailing hegemonic standards have detrimental
effects for many boys and men. Boys face an adolescent culture of cruelty (Kindlon &
Thompson, 2000), violence from other boys and men (Abelson, 2016), emotional iso-
lation (Way, 2012), and detrimental physical and mental health outcomes (Courtenay,
2000, 2003; Knight et al., 2012).
Research suggests that as many boys enter middle to late adolescence, they begin
to more strongly adhere to gender stereotypes and norms (Chu, 2005; Kimmel, 2008;
Pollack, 2006; Way, 2012). As demonstrated by Niobe Way’s (2011) extensive research
on boys’ friendships, starting at age 15 and 16, boys become less emotionally articu-
late, more distrustful of their male peers, and generally disconnect from others in
attempts to become independent and self-reliant. As many boys move into later ado-
lescence, the struggle to prove manhood and rigidly adhere to the prevailing hege-
monic standard intensifies (Cote & Allahar, 1996; Kimmel, 2008).
In recent years, however, the notions of inclusive masculinity (Anderson, 2013,
2016; McCormack, 2012), socially just masculinity (Knight et al., 2012), and positive
and healthy constructs of masculinity are found in the literature (Englar-Carlson &
152 Journal of Men’s Studies 25(2)
Kiselica, 2013; Kiselica & Englar-Carlson, 2010; O’Neil, 2010; Zeglin, 2016). This
body of literature brings attention to the ways in which boys and men are actively
resisting (and in some cases, changing) idealized forms of masculinity.
Inclusive masculinity has emerged from studies that suggest adolescent boys are
moving away from rigid hegemonic standards toward a redefined and softer form of
heterosexual masculinity (Anderson, 2013, 2016; McCormack, 2012). Although
promising, these studies have been conducted primarily in the United Kingdom, and
might not translate to the Canadian context. Furthermore, the literature on inclusive
masculinity is countered by other, more recent literature suggesting the continued
existence of hegemonic masculine norms on adolescent boys’ lives (Reigeluth &
Addis, 2016).
In their study of how young men talk about sexual health, Knight et al. (2012)
found support for instances where masculinity discourses provided opportunities for
more socially just interactions. “Manning up” was enacted by using one’s personal
power to help others (Knight et al., 2012, p. 1257). They suggest there are instances
where hegemonic masculinity can be disrupted, and reinstated to create another, more
socially just masculinity (Knight et al., 2012). The authors suggest further research is
needed examining interventions that attempt to produce more socially just masculini-
ties (Knight et al., 2012).
Positive and/or healthy constructs of masculinity have recently been examined by
several scholars as a way to address the existing, problem-focused knowledge base of
the difficulties and deficits experienced by men (Englar-Carlson & Kiselica, 2013;
Kiselica & Englar-Carlson, 2010; O’Neil, 2010). In addition to the suggestion that
some masculine norms be considered (or developed to be) adaptive in some contexts
(Englar-Carlson & Kiselica, 2013; Kiselica & Englar-Carlson, 2010; Zeglin, 2016),
emphasis has been placed on boys’ strengths and the capacity to empower themselves
(O’Neil et al., 2013). These particular aspects of positive masculinity, the emphasis on
boys’ strength, and the capacity to empower oneself are particularly salient for gender-
specific programming seeking to support boys in being conscious, critical, and self-
aware of the traditional masculinity ideologies contributing to the development of
their identity and relationships.
Gender and Sexual Health
Interest in the impact of gender ideologies on adolescent boys’ well-being has been
echoed more broadly by those in the field of sexual health promotion. Although there is
an understanding that gender plays a key role in sexuality, some researchers suggest that
gender influences on sexual health have not been considered in a substantive way
(Carmody, 2009; Saewyc, 2012; Schalet et al., 2014; Tolman, Striepe, & Harmon, 2003).
Gender ideologies influence not only how youth view themselves but also how they
view and interact with others (Schalet et al., 2014). Sexual experiences may be viewed
as achievements or accomplishments to impress and maintain status with peers as
opposed to building intimacy and connection (Knight et al., 2012; Schalet et al., 2014;
World Health Organization, 2000). Traditional masculine norms tend to prescribe
Claussen 153
heterosexuality, high sex drive, sexual prowess and initiation, and total lack of emotional
engagement in relationships (Hall & Applewhite, 2013; Knight et al., 2012; Pleck,
Sonenstein, & Ku, 1993; Schalet et al., 2014). Although societal norms about idealized
masculine behavior affect a broad range of men, the literature suggests that those adoles-
cent boys who adhere most strongly to traditional beliefs about masculinity (e.g., tough-
ness, heterosexuality, high status, etc.) are most at risk of negative consequences such as
depression, poor academic achievement, and engaging in unsafe sexual practices (Pleck
et al., 1993; Schalet et al., 2014).
Sexual Health Education Programs
Research in the area of sexual health also suggests gender plays a prominent role in
adolescent responses to, and engagement with, sex, sexuality, and relationship educa-
tion (Buston & Wight, 2006; Hilton, 2007; Measor, 2004). The literature identifies the
tendency for school-based sexual health education to be focused on girls and young
women while appealing less to boys and young men (Buston & Wight, 2006; Hilton,
2007; Saewyc, 2012; World Health Organization, 2000). Most school-based sexual
health programs focus on offering information around fertility and reproduction (e.g.,
menstruation, physical development, etc.), and equipping girls and young women to
be the gatekeepers in sexual matters (Meaney, Rye, Wood, & Solovieva, 2009; Quinlan
& Bute, 2013; Saewyc, 2012).
Some studies of sexual health education indicate that boys want more content on
communication (particularly around discussing sexual issues with girls), dealing with
feelings and peer pressure, and pornography (Buston & Wight, 2006; Hilton, 2007).
Additional findings suggest that boys value and desire explicit and specific informa-
tion on sex, and feel that sexual education programs should be offered to boys early in
their teen years (as opposed to waiting until later adolescence; Buston & Wight, 2006;
Hilton, 2007).
Given that boys have often been largely overlooked by school-based sexual health
programs (due to the framing of sexual and reproductive health content as the primary
concern of girls and young women; Quinlan & Bute, 2013), there is an urgent need for
school-based programs to not only provide the sexual health content boys want and
need but also integrate curriculum that supports exploration of the ways in which tra-
ditional masculinity ideologies increase sexual health risks (both for boys themselves
and for their partners; Aggleton & Campbell, 2000). Research highlights the need for
comprehensive sexual health education to challenge highly gendered expectations of
intimacy and include strategies that help students reflect on and challenge these beliefs
(Carmody, 2009; Keel, 2005; Schalet et al., 2014).
Conceptualization and Implementation of WiseGuyz
Although teen pregnancy rates have fallen significantly in the past decade (McKay &
Barrett, 2010), reported rates of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) have risen and
are highest among youth and young adults (McKay, Bissell, & Sex Information and
154 Journal of Men’s Studies 25(2)
Education Council of Canada, 2010). Alberta-specific data point to adolescent boys as
being the fastest growing group for STIs (Government of Alberta, 2011). These facts
prompted a local community-based organization, Calgary Sexual Health Centre
(CSHC), to further explore this phenomenon and review how boys have been served
by sexual health programming. Their investigations aligned with other research iden-
tifying the lack of focus on boys in current iterations of sexual health programming
and available resources (Buston & Wight, 2006; Hilton, 2007; Schalet et al., 2014;
World Health Organization, 2000). This re-examination of current sexual health pro-
gramming prompted the organization to investigate available sexual health curricula to
address the lack of focus on boys. Although there was a boys-only sexual health pro-
gram identified (Gruchow & Brown, 2011), the organization decided to develop its
own program to incorporate curricula that would address gender influences on sexual-
ity and relationships.
Theoretical Foundation
WiseGuyz is a participatory school-based program that strategically targets boys in
Grade 9 (ages 13-15). There are several reasons for the focus on these particular boys.
In Calgary, many youth start high school in Grade 10, switching schools in the pro-
cess. As such, many of the boys are on the cusp of a significant transition in their lives.
Research suggests that early adolescence is a key time to address topics such as gender
socialization and sexuality because there is a natural curiosity at this age (Wolfe &
Jaffe, 2003).
Since its inception, there has been a focus within WiseGuyz on the importance of
understanding masculinity ideologies and the influence they have on adolescent boys
in relation to their sexuality, sexual health, gender equity, and relationships.
“Masculinity ideology” refers to “internalized beliefs regarding culturally defined
standards or norms for males’ roles and behaviours” (Levant et al., 2012, p. 1).
Masculinity is viewed as a cultural construction that is internalized from the surround-
ing culture (Levant et al., 2012; Pleck et al., 1993). Social interactions act as either
punishment or reinforcement of masculinity ideologies, thereby informing, encourag-
ing, and constraining boys and men to adhere to the culturally prevailing masculine
norms (Levant et al., 2012). With regard to sexual health, for example, Knight et al.
(2012) found that masculine discourses and codes acted to filter, censor, and govern
men’s sexual health talk with each other. Furthermore, they found that sexual health
disclosures (both in the moment and in the aftermath) risked invoking a subordinate or
suspect masculine status (Knight et al., 2012).
The WiseGuyz program educates boys to be conscious, critical, and self-aware of
the masculinity ideologies contributing to the development of their identity and rela-
tionships. Through the pathway of sexual health education, WiseGuyz seeks to change
the set of beliefs and expectations about what adolescent boys are like and should do
with regard to sexual relationships. By critically examining (through group-based dis-
cussions) the dominant forms of masculinity, WiseGuyz seeks to counter damaging
influences and stigmatization of sexuality, gender, and relationships that can result in
Claussen 155
negative peer and dating relationships and unsafe sexual practices (Hurlock, 2013;
Kirby, 2007). This program evaluation is guided by the question of whether WiseGuyz
can change boys’ endorsement of traditional masculinity ideologies.
General Method
Overview
As part of a larger community-based research project examining the impacts of the
WiseGuyz program, this study specifically focuses on whether WiseGuyz is effective
in changing boys’ endorsement of masculinity ideologies. The hypothesis is that there
will be a significant difference between pre-test and posttest endorsement of tradi-
tional masculinity ideology average scores. Qualitative focus group data are discussed
as they support quantitative findings.
Curriculum and Delivery
There are four core modules facilitated over 14 sessions that are 90 min in length,
occurring once per week. As a result of school holidays affecting scheduling, these
sessions occur over an 8-month span. The sequence of the modules plays a critical
role, given that each one builds into the next. The four modules are (a) human rights,
(b) sexual health, (c) gender, and (d) healthy relationships (see Table 1 for more infor-
mation on sessions within each module). Each module incorporates key activities
designed to support boys in critically examining the dominant forms of masculinity.
For example, in the Gender component, facilitators use the “Gender Box” activity.
This is designed to get the boys thinking about gender socialization and gender roles.
Facilitators ask them to list pressures or stereotypes about being a man or a woman.
The group compares the lists and discusses how the pressures and stereotypes set up
power dynamics, gender inequality, and can lead to bullying, harassment, and vio-
lence. Facilitators also work with the boys to explore the insults, put downs, and “gen-
der policing” words people use to essentially tell someone to get back in the box or to
perform their gender better (Reigeluth & Addis, 2016).
The WiseGuyz program was piloted in September 2010 and, since then, a total of
218 participants have completed the program. Since 2010, the program has been
implemented in six public junior high schools in Calgary. The program participants
join voluntarily after receiving information about the program through teachers,
administrators, and presentations by WiseGuyz facilitators in the school.
Sample
Data from 52 boys in 2014 were collected in all participating schools (three). Boys
ranged in age from 13 to 15, with the average age of the boys being 14.5 years. Of the
52 boys, 74% were Caucasian and most identified as heterosexual (10% of the boys
identified as not sure with regard to their sexuality, and 4% answered they would
156 Journal of Men’s Studies 25(2)
rather not say). Although more than half of the boys had begun dating (52%), only 6%
stated they were sexually active.
Procedure
Ethics approval was obtained from both the University of Calgary’s Conjoint Faculties
Research Ethics Board and the Calgary Public School Board. Informed consent was
obtained from both the boys and their parents prior to data collection. Demographic
and pre-test data were collected at the first session of WiseGuyz, and posttest data
were collected at the final session of WiseGuyz at the end of the school year (June).
Focus group data were collected at the end of the school year after the final session of
WiseGuyz. Data collection included the WiseGuyz Intake Form, the MRNI-A-r
(Levant et al., 2012), and the Sexual Health Practices Self-Efficacy Scale (Koch,
Colaco, & Porter, 2010), as well as focus groups with a sample of boys in the program
(N = 15). For the purposes of this report, only data from the Intake Form, the MRNI-
A-r, and focus groups are reported.
Measures
The MRNI-A-r. This instrument was chosen as a result of the WiseGuyz developmental
research conducted by CSHC, which pointed to the need for the program to engage
adolescent boys in critically thinking about and discussing the construction of mascu-
linity ideologies to better understand sexuality, sexual health, gender equity, and
healthy relationships. The instrument is used to assess WiseGuyz participants’
Table 1. Module Content.
Module name Session Content
Human rights 1 Program Introduction and Rapport Building
(Hang-Out)
2 Values
3 Equality, Equity and Human Rights
Sexual health 4 Male and Female Anatomy
5 Pregnancy, Birth Control and Fatherhood
6 Sexually Transmitted Infections
Gender 7 Gender Socialization
8 Gender in the Media
9 Gender and Sexual Diversity
10 Gender-Based Violence
Healthy
relationships
11 Healthy Decision Making and Boundaries
12 Consent and Communication
13 Emotions and Stress Management
14 Conflict Resolution and Healthy
Relationships Review
Claussen 157
Table 2. Focus Group Question Guide.
1. Why did you decide to join WiseGuyz?
2. What do you remember (what stands out for you) most about the WiseGuyz program?
(What first comes to mind?)
3. What is the most important thing you learned in WiseGuyz? (What did you learn about
yourself through WiseGuyz?)
4. Did the program influence your relationships? If so, how?
5. How has WiseGuyz changed the way you interact with your friends and with other
people in your life?
6. Who in your life do you think has benefited most from WiseGuyz? (Prompts: If so,
how? Which relationships: friends, romantic, familiar? Did you meet new friends through
WiseGuyz?)
7. Do you feel your behavior has changed because of WiseGuyz (Prompts: if so how and if
not why?)
8. Did your understanding/beliefs about masculinity change? If so, how?
9. Do you think it is important to have a program like WiseGuyz? (Why, please explain?)
What would you say to the boys in Grade 8?
endorsements of traditional masculinity ideologies. Permission to use the validated
survey was obtained from the survey developer.
Recent research points to a robust three-factor structure for the scale, as opposed to
the five-factor scale hypothesized in earlier iterations (Levant et al., 2012; Thompson
& Bennett, 2015). The three subscales used in the WiseGuyz instrument include
Emotionally Detached Dominance, Toughness, and Avoidance of Femininity (Levant
et al., 2012). Boys indicate their agreement with statements (e.g., “Guys should play
with trucks rather than dolls”) on a 7-point Likert-type scale (e.g., 1 = strongly dis-
agree and 7 = strongly agree; Levant et al., 2012). A total MRNI-A-r score is obtained
through the averaging of scores on all 29 items. Higher scores indicate more agree-
ment with traditional masculinity ideologies, and lower scores indicate less agreement
with traditional masculinity ideologies.
Focus groups with WiseGuyz. Boys were recruited for focus groups through a recruit-
ment notice distributed through their facilitators and through a Facebook group
page that participants of the WiseGuyz program can join to be connected to alumni
of the program. Three focus groups were held (School A, n = 6, School B, n = 4,
and School C, n = 5) with a total of 15 participants. A semi-structured focus group
guide (see Table 2 for focus group questions) was developed based on earlier devel-
opmental research from the program that qualitatively identified changes in empa-
thy and acceptance, finding a voice, and being curious and asking questions
(Hurlock, 2013). Questions were related to participants’ perspectives on the Wise-
Guyz program, the process of the program, and how their knowledge and behavior
may have changed as a result of the WiseGuyz program. Each focus group lasted
approximately 60 min. The conversations were audio-recorded and later transcribed
verbatim.
158 Journal of Men’s Studies 25(2)
Analysis
For the MRNI-A-r Scale, missing data were removed, resulting in 37 cases with com-
plete data. The analysis was twofold. The first part of the analysis used a repeated-
measures ANOVA (RM-ANOVA) to determine the effect of time on boys’ endorsement
of traditional masculinity ideologies. The second stage applied a repeated-measures
MANOVA (RM-MANOVA) approach to the same data to determine significant differ-
ences in the three subscales. Significance was determined at the 0.05 level. Data were
analyzed using SPSS Statistics Software (24.0). Unless otherwise noted, data are pre-
sented as mean ± standard deviation.
For the focus group data, thematic analysis was used, whereby researchers interpret
raw text data to apply codes and subsequently develop themes (Namey, Guest, Thairu,
& Johnson, 2008). Thematic analysis was chosen because it is a flexible qualitative
method that enables exploration of meaningful patterns within a data set (Reigeluth &
Addis, 2016). Thematic analysis provided the opportunity to look for patterns in boys’
responses and investigate changes in behavior and beliefs with regard to masculinity.
Codes were developed for focus group data based on the patterns of the boys’ responses,
and data reduction techniques were utilized to identify key themes (Guest, MacQueen,
& Namey, 2012).
Results
As can be seen in Table 3, the RM-ANOVA results showed that the difference in total
average MRNI-A-r scores between the beginning of the program (M = 3.18, SD =
1.03) and the end of the program (M = 2.73, SD = 0.95) was statistically significant,
F(1, 36) = 9.61, p = .004, partial η2 = .211. Power to detect the effect was .855. These
results support the hypothesis of a significant difference in pre-test and posttest aver-
age scores on endorsement of traditional masculinity ideologies, thereby suggesting
that the WiseGuyz program is lessening adolescent endorsement of traditional mascu-
linity ideologies.
An RM-MANOVA was conducted with the three subscales as dependent variables. As
shown in Table 4, results show a significant multivariate main effect for time, Wilks’
Table 3. Repeated-Measures ANOVA for total MRNI-A-r score changes.
Variable
Pre-program Post-program
F(1, 36) p
Partial eta
squared
Observed
powerM (SD) M (SD)
MRNI-A-r
Score
3.18 1.03 2.73 .95 9.61 .004 .211 .722
Note. MRNI-A-r = Male Role Norms Inventory Scale–Adolescent–revised.
Claussen 159
Table 4. Repeated-Measures MANOVA Data for MRNI-A-r.
Effect Wilks’ λ F(1, 36) p Partial eta squared
Time .817 8.039 .007a .18
F(2, 35)
Scales .357 31.47 .000b .64
Time × Scales .991 .162 .851 .009
Note. MRNI-A-r = Male Role Norms Inventory Scale–Adolescent–revised.
aSignificant difference (p < .05) for time.
bSignificant difference (p < .05) for scales.
λ = .817, F(1, 36) = 8.039, p < .05, partial η2 = .18, as well as for Scales, Wilks’ λ =
.357, F(2, 35) = 31.46, p < .05, partial η2 = .64. Interaction of scale and time were not
found to be significant, Wilks’ λ = .991, F(2, 35) = .152, p > .05, partial η2 = .009. This
result suggests the effect of time, overall, is the same across all three of the
subscales.
Given the significant main effect of time, repeated-measures ANOVA was run
on each of the three subscales, and the level of significance was adjusted to take
into consideration the running of multiple ANOVAS (0.05/3 = 0.017). As shown
in Table 5, the greatest average change in scoring was in the Emotionally Detached
Dominance subscale, improving 16% (M = 2.81, SD = 1.11 at pre-test to M =
2.37, SD = .85 at posttest, p = .012). Toughness showed an improvement in scor-
ing of 13% (M = 3.65, SD = 1.07 at pre-test to M = 3.16, SD = 1.14 at posttest, p =
.007). Avoidance of Femininity, which did decrease 11% (M = 3.58, SD = 1.46 at
pre-test to M = 3.18, SD = 1.34 at posttest), was not found to be statistically sig-
nificant (p = .071).
Focus Groups
Given the call for comprehensive sexual health education to challenge highly gendered
expectations of intimacy and include strategies that help students reflect on and chal-
lenge these beliefs (Carmody, 2009; Keel, 2005; Schalet et al., 2014), the above find-
ings suggesting that WiseGuyz could be lessening boys’ endorsement of traditional
Table 5. Percentage Change in MRNI-A-r Subscale Scores From Pre-Test to PostTest.
Item
Pre-program Post-program
% changeM (SD) M (SD)
Emotionally Detached Dominance 2.81 1.11 2.37 .85 16
Toughness 3.65 1.07 3.16 1.14 13
Avoidance of Femininity 3.58 1.46 3.18 1.34 11
Note. MRNI-A-r = Male Role Norms Inventory Scale–Adolescent–revised.
160 Journal of Men’s Studies 25(2)
masculinity ideologies are promising. Focus group data support and add to the survey
findings by identifying not only qualitative changes in how boys think about masculin-
ity but also the process by which the program supports them to do so. In exploring the
boys’ thoughts on the importance of a program like WiseGuyz and whether or not the
program influenced their behaviors and beliefs about masculinity, several dominant
themes emerged, which point to both the process and outcomes of change. Process-
related themes include building safe spaces and unpacking traditional masculinity ide-
ologies, while opening doors to inclusivity points to the changes supported by the
program.
Building safe spaces. Data suggest that prior to critically examining how masculinity
ideologies contribute to the boys’ identity and relationships, developing a sense of
safety with the group is an important pre-condition. Boys discussed how the program
structure allowed them to feel “safe” and discuss topics regarding sexuality and mascu-
linity without the fear of being judged. Boys valued the fact that they could ask seem-
ingly “silly” or uncomfortable questions, and felt that “they could trust the guys in
WiseGuyz with anything.” As explained by one of the boys from School B focus group,
. . . you’re in an environment with only guys and you don’t have to worry that it might
be awkward . . . like another girl [being] in your class, like they might judge you, and so
being with just a small group of guys you could express more and talk about more.
Creating a sense of safety within the program appears to be critically important, as it
supports an environment whereby the boys can begin to openly discuss masculine
stereotypes, pressures, and expectations. One of the boys in School A’s focus group
likened WiseGuyz to a “therapy group,” explaining “all the guys know what you’re
going through and what it’s all about.” The program cultivates a space where the boys
can talk and connect without judgment.
Unpacking traditional masculinity ideologies. A central focus of the WiseGuyz program is
to educate boys to be conscious, critical, and self-aware of the masculinity ideologies
that contribute to the development of their identity and relationships. According to the
boys in the focus groups, once they began to critically examine masculinity ideologies,
they began to understand how they were influenced by them. Several of the boys dis-
cussed the importance of the activities used in the program in supporting them to think
critically about traditional masculinity ideologies. As described by one boy from the
School C focus group,
The man box (activity), I found that the most interesting of all of them [in reference to the
program modules] . . . it stood out to me because I never really thought about society
put[ting] us in a box . . . .
This awareness that societal expectations for masculine behavior exist, and that they
are potentially harmful, was also discussed by the boys. They specifically referenced
damaging discourse and the ways in which language is used to police masculine
Claussen 161
behavior. As explained by one boy from the School A focus group, “I’m pretty sure at
one point in every guy’s life they’ve been called a pussy or a chicken . . . you don’t
realize the destruction that it does.”
In spite of an awareness of the harmfulness of certain masculinity ideologies, one
of the boys in the School C focus group wanted to emphasize that “not all things about
masculinity are bad.” His comments serve as a valuable reminder that there are proso-
cial iterations of masculinity, acknowledged in literature exploring male strengths and
positive aspects of being a man (Englar-Carlson & Kiselica, 2013; Kiselica & Englar-
Carlson, 2010; O’Neil, 2010).
Opening doors to inclusivity. Boys discussed how the program allowed them to “see the
world differently,” particularly with regard to the differences within masculinities.
Many boys discussed how, instead of getting hung up on the differences between the
boys participating in WiseGuyz, they came to respect their differences. Focus group
participants discussed how everyone came into the program aware of the differences
between them, especially in terms of social status. According to the boys from School
A, some were recognized as “social giants” or as “social outcasts.” Many of the boys
felt that the program created a sense of “inclusion” for everyone. This increased aware-
ness of, and respect for, differences between the boys appeared to translate into under-
standing and accepting a range of masculinities. As one boy from the School B focus
group expressed,
I mean, everyone’s different, but my brother he’s a bit nerdy. He likes these video games
and all those things. I used to kind of give him heck for it because personally, I was never
really into that stuff. But now looking back on it and seeing how that’s how father-son
things work. Like where they push them to be something that they don’t wanna be . . . I
looked back on it, I totally changed the way I treat him and stuff.
Two important points emerge from this participant’s reference: First, he has reflected
on his own behavior, and the way in which he placed certain expectations on his
brother. Second, he extends his critical thinking to the father–son dynamic, acknowl-
edging how fathers consciously and unconsciously shape their son’s identity and
behaviors.
Another example of boys coming to respect the differences between each other can
be seen in the following comment from a boy in School B focus group:
At the beginning of every class we do something called the check in and you explain what
you did in the past week and the last time you guys saw each other. And explain anything
that’s been happening or anything you want to talk about. You go around the circle saying
that. That was kind of a big thing because you kind of learned more about the other
people who you might not have been as close to. But in our group a lot, most of us we
knew each other because we were all in like the French Program, but then there was 2
PLP’s and one English program person and it was kinda interesting like having, like one
of the guys had autism and it’s really cool to like see how he learns. Just like, he’s a part
just like anyone else. Just like being a part of everyone.
162 Journal of Men’s Studies 25(2)
In the above quote, the participant explains how the boys in the program are discerning
social differences among the group, yet these differences are not separating them.
Instead, they are respected differences. Being able to see difference in the world and
to understand the power that is at play within difference is critical to the development
of a more socially just masculinity (Knight et al., 2012).
Discussion
This study, which evaluated the WiseGuyz program, indicates that a sexual health
promotion program with a central focus on the importance of understanding masculin-
ity ideologies, and the ways in which they influence adolescent boys in relation to
sexuality, sexual health, gender equity, and relationships, may be an effective pathway
for lessening boys’ endorsement of traditional masculinity ideologies. The format of
the program addresses many aspects that have been identified in the literature, such as
including a focus on feelings and communication, being open to explicit conversations
about sex, and dealing with peer pressure.
Qualitative data identify important program pre-conditions that support the pro-
gram outcomes toward lessening boys’ endorsement of traditional masculinity ideolo-
gies. Findings from the focus groups suggest that developing a sense of safety for the
boys within the program is one of the most important parts of the program process,
allowing them to engage with the program content. Building a sense of safety appears
to be an important pre-condition for boys to successfully engage with the curriculum
and should be considered when developing other gender-specific programming.
The changes in MRNI-A-r average scores seen from pre-test to posttest and focus
group findings on opening doors to inclusivity suggest that this sexual health educa-
tion program consciously focused on the critical examination of masculinity is sup-
porting changes in participants’ beliefs about how adolescent boys ought to behave
and what masculinity should “look” like. The focus on and inclusion of tools to
address, examine, and challenge beliefs around traditional masculinity ideologies
address a noted gap in the literature, which identifies the lack of sexual health pro-
gramming that challenges highly gendered expectations of intimacy (Carmody, 2009;
Keel, 2005; Schalet et al., 2014). These preliminary findings do suggest that WiseGuyz,
one example of a sexual health and healthy relationship program, can lessen boys’
endorsement of traditional masculinity ideologies. This is an important finding, given
that research identifies adolescent boys who adhere most strongly to traditional beliefs
about masculinity (e.g., toughness, heterosexuality, high status, etc.) as being most at
risk of negative consequences such as depression, poor academic achievement, and
engaging in unsafe sexual practices (e.g., having more sexual partners and less self-
efficacy and consistency in condom use; Pleck et al., 1993; Schalet et al., 2014).
The significant differences in pre-test and posttest scores on the MRNI-A-r also
suggest that WiseGuyz may be appropriately timed developmentally. Given the
research suggesting that as boys move into later adolescence, the struggle to prove
manhood and rigidly adhere to exaggerated gendered notions intensifies (Cote &
Allahar, 1996; Kimmel, 2008), participation in WiseGuyz during early adolescence
Claussen 163
may provide boys with some degree of “inoculation” from this intensification (Crooks,
Goodall, Hughes, Jaffe, & Baker, 2007, p. 228).
The scoring change seen in the subscales “Emotionally Detached Dominance,”
“Toughness,” and “Avoidance of Femininity” are suggestive. Although more recent
research shows boys to be more emotional and empathetic than stereotypes portray
them to be (Pollack, 2006; Way, 2011), there still exists tremendous pressure for boys
to adhere to rigid gender guidelines (Kimmel, 2008; Pollack, 2006). It may be that the
WiseGuyz program is providing an opportunity for boys to question traditional gender
norms and behaviors, particularly regarding the relational aspects of the boys’ lives.
Both the quantitative results and the focus group data for WiseGuyz participants sug-
gest there is a definitive change in agreement around emotional vulnerability. Focus
group findings suggest boys are questioning traditional masculine norms and reflect-
ing on the impact those norms have on their lives. By providing boys with a safe and
supportive space to examine gendered expectations around emotionality and vulnera-
bility, the program is supporting boys in their journey toward emotionally healthy
adulthood.
A major focus of the WiseGuyz program is to develop the consciousness required
to critically examine the constructions of masculinity. Focus group data highlight how
the boys’ critical thinking about the program’s activities (such as the man box) extends
to thinking about relationship dynamics that may influence boys’ identities and behav-
iors. Supporting boys to see the world differently and understand the power at play is
an important aim of the program.
Furthermore, focus group data suggest that the program may be encouraging the
boys to be more open to a range of masculinities, as indicated by their discussion of
respecting each other’s difference and creating a sense of inclusion for everyone. This
movement toward a more inclusive masculinity warrants further examination, particu-
larly in consideration of other research that suggests boys are moving toward a soft-
ened form of heterosexual masculinity (Anderson, 2013, 2016; McCormack, 2012).
This study is limited by virtue of the research design used. There is no control
group for comparison, which makes it difficult to say with complete confidence that it
is the program that is creating the changes in masculinity scoring in the boys. Future
research on the WiseGuyz program would be well-placed to incorporate a control
group of boys, which would allow for the investigation of causal relationships.
Maturation of the boys is another factor at play. This can include any psychological
and/or physical changes that take place within subjects over time. Given that the pre-
test and posttest occur over the course of 8 months, maturation could be a possible
explanation for the survey data findings. However, the combination of findings from
both quantitative and qualitative data lessens the concern of a maturation effect having
taken place.
Given the identified lack of gender-specific programming for adolescent boys, the
findings of this study are promising. The WiseGuyz program appears to be success-
fully engaging selected boys in sexual health education programming. Not only are
boys engaged, but they are supported to critically examine masculine norms at a cru-
cial period in their sexual and relational development. The program appears to be
164 Journal of Men’s Studies 25(2)
lessening boys’ endorsement of traditional masculine ideologies. By changing partici-
pants’ beliefs in these ideologies, boys in the program might feel less pressure pertain-
ing to their sexuality and masculinity as they enter late adolescence and eventually
adulthood.
Author’s Note
Access to underlying research material: Permission to access data to be obtained through
Calgary Sexual Health Centre, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Acknowledgment
The author would like to thank Calgary Sexual Health Centre for providing access to the
WiseGuyz data.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
References
Abelson, M. J. (2016). Negotiating vulnerability and fear: Rethinking the relationship between
violence and contemporary masculinity. In C. J. Pascoe & T. Bridges (Eds.), Exploring
masculinities: Identity, inequality, continuity, and change (pp. 394-401). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Adams, H. L., & Williams, L. R. (2011). What they wish they would have known: Support for
comprehensive sexual education from Mexican American and White adolescents’ dating
and sexual desires. Children and Youth Services Review, 33, 1875-1885. doi:10.1016/j.
childyouth.2011.05.013
Aggleton, P., & Campbell, C. (2000). Working with young people—Towards an agenda for
sexual health. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 15, 283-296.
Anderson, E. (2013). Adolescent masculinity in an age of decreased homohysteria. THYMOS:
Journal of Boyhood Studies, 7, 79-93.
Anderson, E. (2016). Inclusive masculinities. In C. J. Pascoe & T. Bridges (Eds.), Exploring
masculinities: Identity, inequality, continuity, and change (pp. 178-187). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Buston, K., & Wight, D. (2006). The salience and utility of school sex education to young men. Sex
Education: Sexuality, Society and Learning, 6, 135-150. doi:10.1080/14681810600578818
Carmody, M. (2009). Conceptualizing the prevention of sexual assault and the role of education
(Issues No. 10). Melbourne: Australian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault. Retrieved
from http://www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/pubs/issue/acssa_issues10
Chu, J. Y. (2005). Adolescent boys’ friendships and peer group culture. New Directions for
Child and Adolescent Development, 107, 7-22.
http://www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/pubs/issue/acssa_issues10
Claussen 165
Connell, R. W. (2005). Masculinities (2nd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Cote, J. E., & Allahar, A. L. (1996). Generation on hold: Coming of age in the late twentieth
century. New York: New York University Press.
Courtenay, W. H. (2000). Constructions of masculinity and their influence on men’s wellbeing:
A theory of gender and health. Social Science & Medicine, 50, 1385-1401.
Courtenay, W. H. (2003). Key determinants of the health and the well-being of men and boys.
International Journal of Men’s Health, 2, 1-17.
Crooks, C. V., Goodall, G. R., Hughes, R., Jaffe, P. G., & Baker, L. (2007). Engaging men
and boys in preventing violence against women: Applying a cognitive-behaviour model.
Violence Against Women, 13, 217-239. doi:10.1177/1077801206297336
DiCenso, A., Borthwick, V. W., Busca, C. A., Creatura, C., Homes, J., Kalagian, W. F., &
Partington, B. M. (2001). Completing the picture: Adolescents talk about what’s missing in
sexual health services. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 92, 35-38.
DiClemente, R. (Ed.). (2009). Emerging theories in health promotion, practice and research.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Englar-Carlson, M., & Kiselica, M. S. (2013). Affirming the strengths in men: A positive mas-
culinity approach to assisting male clients. Journal of Counseling & Development, 91,
399-409. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2013.00111.x
Government of Alberta. (2011). Notifiable sexually transmitted diseases: 2010 Annual report.
Edmonton, Canada: Author.
Gruchow, H. W., & Brown, R. K. (2011). Evaluation of the wise guys male responsibility cur-
riculum: Participant-control comparisons. Journal of School Health, 83, 152-158.
Guest, G. S., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2012). Applied thematic analysis. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Hall, N. M., & Applewhite, S. (2013). Masculine ideology, norms, and HIV prevention among
young black men. Journal of HIV/AIDS & Social Services, 12, 384-403. doi:10.1080/
15381501.2013.781974
Hilton, G. L. S. (2007). Listening to the boys again: An exploration of what boys want to learn
in sex education classes and how they want to be taught. Sex Education: Sexuality, Society
and Learning, 7, 161-174. doi:10.1080/14681810701264508
Hurlock, D. (2013). Re-imagined masculinities: Unfolding the meaning and effect of the
WiseGuyz program. Calgary, Alberta, Canada: Calgary Sexual Health Centre.
Kaufman, M. (2001). Building a movement of men working to end violence against women.
Development, 44, 9-14. doi:10.1057/palgrave.development.1110254
Keel, M. (2005). Working with adolescents in the education system to prevent sexual assault.
Family Matters, 71, 36-39.
Kimmel, M. (2008). Guyland: The perilous world where boys become men. New York, NY:
HarperCollins.
Kindlon, D., & Thompson, M. (2000). Raising Cain: Protecting the emotional life of boys. New
York, NY: Random House.
Kiselica, M. S., & Englar-Carlson, M. (2010). Identifying, affirming, and building upon male
strengths: The positive psychology/positive masculinity model of psychotherapy with boys
and men. Psychotherapy Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 47, 276-287. doi:10.1037/
a0021159
Knight, R., Shoveller, J. A., Oliffe, J. L., Gilbert, M., Frank, B., & Ogilvie, G. (2012).
Masculinities, “guy talk” and “manning up”: A discourse analysis of how young men talk
about sexual health. Sociology of Health & Illness, 34, 1246-1261.
166 Journal of Men’s Studies 25(2)
Koch, P., Colaco, C., & Porter, A. W. (2010). Sexual Health Practices Self-Efficacy Scale. In T.
D. Fisher, C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related
measures, pp 345 – 347. New York, NY: Routledge.
Levant, R. F., Rogers, B. K., Cruickshank, B., Rankin, T. J., Kurtz, B. A., Rummell, C. M., . . .
Colbow, A. J. (2012). Exploratory factor analysis and construct validity of the Male Role
Norms Inventory-Adolescent-revised (MRNI-A-r). Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 13,
354-366. doi:10.1037/a0029102
McCormack, M. (2012). The declining significance of homophobia: How teenage boys are
redefining masculinity and heterosexuality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
McKay, L., & Barrett, M. (2010). Trends in teen pregnancy rates from 1996-2006: A com-
parison of Canada, Sweden, U.S.A., and England/Wales. The Canadian Journal of Human
Sexuality, 19, 43-52.
McKay, L., Bissell, M., & Sex Information and Education Council of Canada. (2010). Sexual
health education in the schools: Questions and answers (3rd ed.). Toronto, Ontario: Sex
Information and Education Council of Canada.
Meaney, G.J., Rye, B.J., Wood, E., & Solovieva, E. (2009). Satisfaction with school-based
sexual health education in a sample of university students recently graduated from Ontario
high schools. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 18, 107-125.
Measor, L. (2004). Young people’s view of sex education: Gender, information and
knowledge. Sex Education: Sexuality, Society and Learning, 4, 153-166. doi:10.1080/
14681810410001678338
Namey, E., Guest, G., Thairu, L., & Johnson, L. (2008). Data reduction techniques for large
qualitative data sets. In G. Guest & K. M. MacQueen (Eds.), Handbook for team-based
qualitative research (pp. 137-162). New York, NY: Altamira Press
O’Neil, J. M. (2010). Is criticism of generic masculinity, essentialism, and positive-healthy-
masculinity a problem for the psychology of men? Psychology of Men & Masculinities,
11, 98-106.
O’Neil, J. M., Challenger, C., Renzulli, S., Crasper, B., & Webster, E. (2013). The Boy’s Forum:
An evaluation of a brief intervention to empower middle-school urban boys. The Journal of
Men’s Studies, 21, 191-205. doi:10.3149/jms.2102.191
O’Neil, J. M., & Lujan, M. L. (2009). Preventing boys problems in school through psychoeduca-
tional programming: A call to action. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 257-266. doi:10.1002/
pits.20371
Phoenix, A., Frosh, S., & Pattman, R. (2003). Producing contradictory masculine subject posi-
tions: Narratives of threat, homophobia and bullying in 11-14 year old boys. Journal of
Social Issues, 59, 179-195.
Pleck, J. H., Sonenstein, F. L., & Ku, L. C. (1993). Masculinity ideology: Its impact on adoles-
cent males’ heterosexual relationships. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 11-29.
Pollack, W. S. (2006). The “war” for boys: Hearing “real boys” voices, healing their pain.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37, 190-195.
Powell, A. (2007). Youth “at risk”? Young people, sexual health and consent. Youth Studies
Australia, 26, 21-28.
Quinlan, M. M., & Bute, J. J. (2013). “Where are all the men?” A post-structural feminist analy-
sis of university’s sexual health seminar. Sex Education: Sexuality, Society and Learning,
13, 54-67. doi:10.1080/14681811.2012.677205
Rashotte, L. (2011). Social influence in encyclopedia of sociology online. Blackwell.
Claussen 167
Reigeluth, C. S., & Addis, M. E. (2016). Adolescent boys’ experiences with policing of mascu-
linity: Forms, functions, and consequences. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 17, 74-83.
doi:10.1037/a0039342
Saewyc, E. M. (2012). What about the boys? The importance of including boys and young
men in sexual and reproductive health research. Journal of Adolescent Health, 51, 1-2.
doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.05.002
Schalet, A. T., Santelli, J. S., Russell, S. T., Halpern, C. T., Miller, S. A., Pickering, S. S.,
. . . Hoenig, J. M. (2014). Invited commentary: Broadening the evidence for adolescent
sexual and reproductive health and education in the United States. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 43, 1595-1610. doi:10.1007/s10964-014-0178-8
Stevens, J. P. (2007). A modern approach: Intermediate statistics (3rd ed.). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Tharinger, D. (2008). Maintaining hegemonic masculinity through selective attachment,
homophobia and gay-baiting in schools: Challenges to intervention. School Psychology
Review, 37, 202-216.
Thompson, E. H., & Bennett, K. M. (2015). Measurement of masculinity ideologies: A critical
review. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 16, 115-133. doi:10.1037/a0038609
Tolman, D. L., Striepe, M. I., & Harmon, T. (2003). Gender matters: Constructing a model of ado-
lescent sexual health. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 4-12. doi:10.1080/00224490309552162
Tremblay, G., & L’Heureux, P. (2012). The genesis of the construction of the male identity. In J.
A. Laker (Ed.), Canadian perspectives on men & masculinities: An interdisciplinary reader
(pp. 13-31). Don Mills, Ontario, Canada: Oxford University Press.
Watts, R. H., & Borders, L. D. (2005). Boys’ perceptions of the male role: Understanding gen-
der role conflict in adolescent males. Journal of Men’s Studies, 13, 267-280.
Way, N. (2011). Deep secrets. Boys’ friendships and the crisis of connection. Cambridge, UK:
Harvard University Press.
Way, N. (2012). Close friendships among adolescent boys. THYMOS: Journal of Boyhood
Studies, 6, 116-136. doi:10.3149/thy.0602.116
Wolfe, D. A., & Jaffe, P.G. (2003). Prevention of domestic violence and sexual assault (A proj-
ect of the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence/Pennsylvania Coalition Against
Domestic Violence). Harrisburg, PA: VAWnet. Available from http://www.vawnet.org
World Health Organization. (2000). What about boys? A literature review on the health and
development of adolescent boys. Geneva, Switzerland: Department of Child and Adolescent
Health and Development, World Health Organization. Retrieved from http://apps.who.int/
iris/bitstream/10665/66487/1/WHO_FCH_CAH_00.7
Zeglin, R. J. (2016). Portrayals of masculinity in “guy movies”: Exploring viewer-character dis-
sonance. Journal of Men’s Studies, 24, 42-59. doi:10.1177/106082651562439
Author Biography
Caroline Claussen is a doctoral student in the department of Sociology at the University of
Calgary, specializing in the areas of masculinity, youth, and sexuality. Her work is focused on
conducting applied research in community-based settings with non-profit organizations.
http://www.vawnet.org
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/66487/1/WHO_FCH_CAH_00.7
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/66487/1/WHO_FCH_CAH_00.7
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296597224
The myth of pink and blue brains
Article in Educational leadership: journal of the Department of Supervision and Curriculum Development, N.E.A ·
November 2010
CITATIONS
8
READS
1,739
1 author:
Lise Eliot
Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science
12 PUBLICATIONS 317 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Lise Eliot on 12 December 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296597224_The_myth_of_pink_and_blue_brains?enrichId=rgreq-8dd056368770eac6cc1431ba2c1fa277-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5NjU5NzIyNDtBUzo0Mzg0NjAwNzE4NDU4ODlAMTQ4MTU0ODQzNTU3Mw%3D%3D&el=1_x_2&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296597224_The_myth_of_pink_and_blue_brains?enrichId=rgreq-8dd056368770eac6cc1431ba2c1fa277-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5NjU5NzIyNDtBUzo0Mzg0NjAwNzE4NDU4ODlAMTQ4MTU0ODQzNTU3Mw%3D%3D&el=1_x_3&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
https://www.researchgate.net/?enrichId=rgreq-8dd056368770eac6cc1431ba2c1fa277-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5NjU5NzIyNDtBUzo0Mzg0NjAwNzE4NDU4ODlAMTQ4MTU0ODQzNTU3Mw%3D%3D&el=1_x_1&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lise_Eliot?enrichId=rgreq-8dd056368770eac6cc1431ba2c1fa277-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5NjU5NzIyNDtBUzo0Mzg0NjAwNzE4NDU4ODlAMTQ4MTU0ODQzNTU3Mw%3D%3D&el=1_x_4&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lise_Eliot?enrichId=rgreq-8dd056368770eac6cc1431ba2c1fa277-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5NjU5NzIyNDtBUzo0Mzg0NjAwNzE4NDU4ODlAMTQ4MTU0ODQzNTU3Mw%3D%3D&el=1_x_5&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
https://www.researchgate.net/institution/Rosalind_Franklin_University_of_Medicine_and_Science?enrichId=rgreq-8dd056368770eac6cc1431ba2c1fa277-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5NjU5NzIyNDtBUzo0Mzg0NjAwNzE4NDU4ODlAMTQ4MTU0ODQzNTU3Mw%3D%3D&el=1_x_6&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lise_Eliot?enrichId=rgreq-8dd056368770eac6cc1431ba2c1fa277-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5NjU5NzIyNDtBUzo0Mzg0NjAwNzE4NDU4ODlAMTQ4MTU0ODQzNTU3Mw%3D%3D&el=1_x_7&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lise_Eliot?enrichId=rgreq-8dd056368770eac6cc1431ba2c1fa277-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5NjU5NzIyNDtBUzo0Mzg0NjAwNzE4NDU4ODlAMTQ4MTU0ODQzNTU3Mw%3D%3D&el=1_x_10&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
Page 1 of 3November 2010- Print Pages
11/2/2010http://www.educationalleadership-digital.com/educationalleadership/201011/Print_submit….
Page 2 of 3November 2010- Print Pages
11/2/2010http://www.educationalleadership-digital.com/educationalleadership/201011/Print_submit….
Page 1 of 3November 2010- Print Pages
11/2/2010http://www.educationalleadership-digital.com/educationalleadership/201011/Print_submit….
Page 2 of 3November 2010- Print Pages
11/2/2010http://www.educationalleadership-digital.com/educationalleadership/201011/Print_submit….
Page 1 of 2November 2010- Print Pages
11/2/2010http://www.educationalleadership-digital.com/educationalleadership/201011/Print_submit….
2011
. _ ISTINGUISHED
CHIEV~ENT
WARD
For Excellence in Educational Publishing
Periodicals – Learned Article
The Myth of Pink and Blue Brains
Lise Eliot
Educational Leadership
ASCD
Neal Goff, President Charlene F. Gay nor, CEO Vi
e
w
p
u
b
lic
a
tio
n
s
ta
ts
V
ie
w
p
u
b
lic
a
tio
n
s
ta
ts
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296597224
Published on The Root (http://www.theroot.com)
!
Why I Am a Male Feminist
By: Byron Hurt
Posted: March 16, 2011 at 12:24 AM
The word turns off a lot of men (insert snarky comment about man-hating feminazis here) —
and women. But here’s why black men should be embracing the “f” word.
When I was a little boy, my mother and father used to argue a lot. Some mornings, I would
wake up to the alarming sound of my parents arguing loudly. The disagreement would continue
until my father would yell with finality, “That is it! I’m not talking about this anymore!” The
dispute would end right there. My mother never got the last word.
My dad’s yelling made me shrink in fear; I wanted to do something to make him stop raging
against my mother. In those moments, I felt powerless because I was too small to confront my
father. I learned early that he had an unfair advantage because of his gender. His size, strength
and power intimidated my mother. I never saw my father hit her, but I did witness how injurious
his verbal jabs could be when they landed on my mom’s psyche.
My father didn’t always mistreat my mother, but when he did, I identified with her pain, not his
bullying. When he hurt her, he hurt me, too. My mother and I had a special bond. She was
funny, smart, loving and beautiful. She was a great listener who made me feel special and
important. And whenever the going got tough, she was my rock and my foundation.
One morning, after my father yelled at my mom during an argument, she and I stood in the
bathroom together, alone, getting ready for the day ahead of us. The tension in the house was
as thick as a cloud of dark smoke. I could tell that my mother was upset. “I love you, Ma, but I
just wish that you had a little more spunk when you argue with Daddy,” I said, low enough so
my father couldn’t hear me. She looked at me, rubbed my back and forced a smile.
I so badly wanted my mother to stand up for herself. I didn’t understand why she had to submit
to him whenever they fought. Who was he to lay down the law in the household? What made
him so special?
I grew to resent my father’s dominance in the household, even though I loved him as dearly as
I loved my mother. His anger and intimidation shut down my mother, sister and me from freely
expressing our opinions whenever they didn’t sit well with his own. Something about the
inequity in their relationship felt unjust to me, but at that young age, I couldn’t articulate why.
One day, as we sat at the kitchen table after another of their many spats, my mother told me,
“Byron, don’t ever treat a woman the way your father treats me.” I wish I had listened to her
advice.
As I grew older and got into my own relationships with girls and women, I sometimes behaved
as I saw my father behave. I, too, became defensive and verbally abusive whenever the girl or
woman I was dating criticized or challenged me. I would belittle my girlfriends by scrutinizing
their weight or their choices in clothes. In one particular college relationship, I often used my
physical size to intimidate my petite girlfriend, standing over her and yelling to get my point
across during arguments.
I had internalized what I had seen in my home and was slowly becoming what I had disdained
as a young boy. Although my mother attempted to teach me better, I, like a lot of boys and
men, felt entitled to mistreat the female gender when it benefited me to do so.
http://www.theroot.com
After graduating from college, I needed a job. I learned about a new outreach program that
was set to launch. It was called the Mentors in Violence Prevention Project. As a student-
athlete, I had done community outreach, and the MVP Project seemed like a good gig until I got
a real job in my field: journalism.
Founded by Jackson Katz, the MVP Project was designed to use the status of athletes to make
gender violence socially unacceptable. When I met with Katz, I didn’t realize that the project
was a domestic violence prevention program. Had I known that, I wouldn’t have gone in for the
job interview.
So when Katz explained that they were looking to hire a man to help institutionalize curricula
about preventing gender violence at high schools and colleges around the country, I almost
walked out the door. But during my interview, Katz asked me an interesting question. “Byron,
how does African-American men’s violence against African-American women uplift the African-
American community?”
No one had ever asked me that question before. As an African-American man who was deeply
concerned about race issues, I had never given much thought about how emotional abuse,
battering, sexual assault, street harassment and rape could affect an entire community, just as
racism does.
The following day, I attended a workshop about preventing gender violence, facilitated by Katz.
There, he posed a question to all of the men in the room: “Men, what things do you do to
protect yourself from being raped or sexually assaulted?”
Not one man, including myself, could quickly answer the question. Finally, one man raised his
hand and said, “Nothing.” Then Katz asked the women, “What things do you do to protect
yourself from being raped or sexually assaulted?” Nearly all of the women in the room raised
their hand. One by one, each woman testified:
“I don’t make eye contact with men when I walk down the street,” said one.
“I don’t put my drink down at parties,” said another.
“I use the buddy system when I go to parties.”
“I cross the street when I see a group of guys walking in my direction.”
“I use my keys as a potential weapon.”
“I carry mace or pepper spray.”
“I watch what I wear.”
The women went on for several minutes, until their side of the blackboard was completely filled
with responses. The men’s side of the blackboard was blank. I was stunned. I had never heard
a group of women say these things before. I thought about all of the women in my life —
including my mother, sister and girlfriend — and realized that I had a lot to learn about gender.
Days after that workshop, Katz offered me the job as a mentor-training specialist, and I
accepted his offer. Although I didn’t know much about gender issues from an academic
standpoint, I quickly learned on the job. I read books and essays by bell hooks, Patricia Hill
Collins, Angela Davis and other feminist writers.
Like most guys, I had bought into the stereotype that all feminists were white, lesbian,
unattractive male bashers who hated all men. But after reading the work of these black
feminists, I realized that this was far from the truth. After digging into their work, I came to
really respect the intelligence, courage and honesty of these women.
Feminists did not hate men. In fact, they loved men. But just as my father had silenced my
mother during their arguments to avoid hearing her gripes, men silenced feminists by belittling
them in order to dodge hearing the truth about who we are.
http://www.jacksonkatz.com/aboutmvp.html
I learned that feminists offered an important critique about a male-dominated society that
routinely, and globally, treated women like second-class citizens. They spoke the truth, and
even though I was a man, their truth spoke to me. Through feminism, I developed a language
that helped me better articulate things that I had experienced growing up as a male.
Feminist writings about patriarchy, racism, capitalism and structural sexism resonated with me
because I had witnessed firsthand the kind of male dominance they challenged. I saw it as a
child in my home and perpetuated it as an adult. Their analysis of male culture and male
behavior helped me put my father’s patriarchy into a much larger social context, and also
helped me understand myself better.
I decided that I loved feminists and embraced feminism. Not only does feminism give women a
voice, but it also clears the way for men to free themselves from the stranglehold of traditional
masculinity. When we hurt the women in our lives, we hurt ourselves, and we hurt our
community, too.
As I became an adult, my father’s behavior toward my mother changed. As he aged he
mellowed, and stopped being so argumentative and verbally abusive. My mother grew to assert
herself more whenever they disagreed.
It shocked me to hear her get in the last word as my father listened without getting angry. That
was quite a reversal. Neither of them would consider themselves to be feminists, but I believe
they both learned over time how to be fuller individuals who treated each other with mutual
respect. By the time my father died from cancer in 2007, he was proudly sporting the baseball
cap around town that I had given him that read, “End Violence Against Women.” Who says men
can’t be feminists?
Byron Hurt is an award-winning documentary filmmaker and anti-sexist activist. Follow him on Twitter.
http://www.bhurt.com/
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/hiphop/