Collaborative participatory action strategies for re-envisioning young men’s masculinities

Action strategy: Integrate women

In contrast to empathy-elicitations or curricula in which primarily men are held responsible for belief-change (e.g. ‘White Ribbon Campaign’ or ‘Walk a Mile in Her Shoes’), women in this program participated several times, for a portion of weekly sessions. In addition to providing men with an opportunity to hear women’s perspectives regarding different masculinities (which women comply with, support, or enforce), this strategy also functioned ideally in male-female collaboration at a curricular level, as recommended by Berkowitz (2002) for program planning.

To illustrate, for a session on the derogatory potential of language, each sex-group separately ranked behaviors according to perceived severity of harm. The behavior ‘using phrases like ‘‘to get some’’, ‘‘to hit it’’, ‘‘to bang’’, or ‘‘to tap that ass’’ to describe sex’ was seen as harmful by neither group. Participants rationalized these phrases as common sexual slang and therefore unproblematic. After gentle questioning from facilitators, men and women discussed the phrases as equating sex with mechanics, commodities, or violence; the students themselves then suggested their usage as harmful. While mostly converging, groups diverged on sexual norms; the men evaluated ‘using alcohol or drugs to ‘‘loosen up’’ a partner’ as trivial while the women saw it as very harmful. In heated debate, some men excused it as ‘women having a good time’ while some women protested it implied manipulation.

In this activity, as with all sessions, the use of a participant-informed approach is crucial, because only the stakeholders are familiar with actual terms and behaviors used by peers. Facilitators – no matter how ‘in touch’ they are ⁵ – will sound ‘corny’ or ‘lame’ if they themselves introduce words/behaviors as culturally popular or ‘in’ common parlance. In this program, the men were asked not only to participate in their own learning, but also to act as advisors in shaping future sessions and large-scale programs. From a research perspective, a limitation (or contributing factor) to these men’s change processes could have been the sense of empowerment they felt to influence others in future iterations of the program. Removing that aspect of ‘participant-as-expert’ in future full-scale implementation may reduce the amount of self-efficacy felt by these men given a piloting role. An essential consideration of resources for implementing large-scale program-versions: facilitators must possess enough immediacy and similarity with their audience to connect, but specific examples and language-content should be constantly updated by youths for youth culture.

Ultimately, men and women glimpsed how their perspectives converged (to the men’s surprise, and reinforcing the need for female groups on masculinity on a larger scale) and diverged along gendered and sexed lines. We did not plan this strategy to create empathy, but it may have done so, as suggested in post-assessments; almost all of the men voluntarily indicated they had, since the program began, consciously participated in a situation where they chose to not endorse (e.g. laugh at a sexist joke, agree with derogatory slang) sexist language used in their outside peer groups. As illustrated in the follow-up from one man, ‘Now, even if I slip up and say ‘‘fag’’ or ‘‘that’s so gay’’, I immediately remember I’m not supposed to. I think about how it can hurt somebody who’s not even there. I still forget and say it sometimes, but at least now I see what I’m doing.’ At its most fundamental, this action strategy is inescapable. Having young men and women realize – just once, through personal encounters, as opposed to didactic methods – the potential consequences of their language triggers an inability to ever view certain words or behaviors the same (as un-sexed) again (i.e. automaticity). They may not always act or speak up against sexist language in every situation, but these men and women now have become incapable of ignorance about its potential to harm.

Action strategy: Expose to extended and incremental, stage-specific intensity

For young men in particular, social pressures to conform to gender-communication norms and relational-identity struggles may be exacerbated by transitional periods in their lives (Bem, 1993). It is an immense onus to add expectations to practice different masculinities and to change violent systems. Further, using uncomfortable and/or challenging topics can cause program attrition; thus, we were cognizant that personal and organizational biases ⁶ not ‘take over’ the curriculum or otherwise ‘scare away’ participants (e.g. strategic mindfulness; Snoeren, Niessen, & Abma, 2012). At times, we silenced our own beliefs to facilitate the men’s ways of knowing. Post-program, this ‘mindsight’ was recognized by participants as effective. Men commented on the unexpected ‘tone’ of the training, noting ‘it wasn’t as bad’ as they had anticipated, especially ‘coming from feminists. . . nothing like what they said to us in high school’ (referencing former community education experiences).

Knowing that limited-session programming can thwart sustained opportunities to address concerns in interpersonal contexts, because restricted exposure to ideas may cause participants to feel culpable, helpless, and/or hostile (Townsend & Campbell, 2008), we piloted nine sessions (M = 83.33 minutes) over a 15-week semester to address potential frustration, hesitancy, or resistance, and to increase feelings of efficacy. Participants confirmed once-a-week implementation as ideal for content absorption and reinforcement. We also desired to moderate the intense involvement according to men’s readiness.

Applying the Stages of Change Model (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1984) to primary prevention efforts (as discussed by Berkowitz, 2002), we first introduced topics targeted to men who were precontemplative or contemplative (e.g. beginning to see their role in the problem). Later, after the men felt involved in program-shaping, we included issues tailored to preparation, action, or maintenance (e.g. communicating or being ready to intervene in violent situations) stages. The curriculum sequence was based on understandings that a) men’s comfort discussing certain topics would increase in conjunction with their familiarity with one another, and b) foundational concepts must be laid before inclusion of challenging ideas.

This action strategy – incremental exposure through gradual topic incorporation based on change-readiness – was rewarded by the program’s end. However, men were initially defeatist, viewing changing violence against women and restrictive masculinities as an impossible goal (e.g. ‘I’m not gonna change how other people think or do things, so why bother?’ or ‘I agree this is a huge problem, but none of us here can change that’). Although it is possible that larger groups would create an esprit de corps to reduce men’s feelings of isolation, larger groups also introduce potential for negative groupthink reinforcing pessimism. We acknowledged that our encouraging ‘nudges’ toward self-efficacy played less of a collaborative role (and more of an advisory/mentoring one), but by moving beyond what the men thought possible, we solicited active involvement when they might have otherwise quit (psychologically or physically). By the end of the semester, individual men had in fact become optimistic about their change-potential.

As an exemplar of progress, we used in later sessions (i.e. suited for later Stages of Change; Prochaska & DiClemente, 1984) an activity to inculcate situational awareness (e.g. Snoeren et al., 2012) in the stakeholders. Each man was challenged to wear in outside contexts a purple ‘bracelet’ and/or a bright pink pin labeled with rape statistics as visual reminders of gendered relationships in daily life. After one week of public display, the men returned to debrief. Each man had worn the items throughout the week, when not precluded by work uniforms, and reported having had at least one conversation with others about what the accessory meant. One man described, ‘Everyone I ran into at the bar asked about the bracelet. So I told them it was about violence against women. They asked me stuff about women’s experiences and then just thought it was cool.’ Rather than feeling sent out into the world as evangelists for the group cause, the men felt their personal topic-expertise was less important than the conversations initiated, because ‘it was more about letting them know I give a damn, personally, than about preaching to them about all the facts or stats of rape.’ Perhaps less altruistically, some men noticed that while other males were more likely to confront them individually with ‘Why are you wearing that?’, women would approach them ‘after I explained to the dude how I cared’. The group’s all-male environment, previously established as non-judgmental and supportive in earlier program stages, provided practice space for using strategies or conveying ideas that were challenged by others later in their change process. This particular activity showed the men that although they faced particular situations independently, other men were striving for change with them – separate, but not alone. As another participant observed, ‘I told them I was wearing it for this group and that other guys were too.’

Without foundational knowledge and the confidence it instilled, it is unlikely most of these men (some self-identified as ‘shy’ or ‘laid-back’) would have ultimately felt empowered. Gradual exposure and practice in a safe space addressed, if not completely eliminated, the challenge of defeatism initially raised by participants. We observed incremental, stage-specific exposure as successful in micro-level alterations of these men’s willingness to communicate.

Action strategy: Employ all-male group and facilitator

We demonstrated myriad possibilities for gender enactment through use of an all-male peer group and primary facilitator. We privileged some types of masculine enactment (e.g. those that challenge sexism, like inclusive masculinity; Anderson, 2012) as positive and highly functional in interpersonal relationships. Although Berkowitz (2002) noted some men’s preference for all-male members may be indicative of exclusionist beliefs on which they should be challenged, we were conscious of an ideological balancing act. On the one hand, we wanted to avoid explicit overtones of a ‘correct’ view of masculinity, as men can actively resist or feel silenced by this approach (Davis & Laker, 2004). Conversely, we avoided a ‘man’s club’ mentality and implicit hero-ization of men as saviors of women. Based on prior research and formative interview data, we resolved that these two perspectives could appropriately be tackled in a same-sex group. Exposing young men in small groups, which closely mirror everyday peer culture where unproductive masculinities and sexist stereotypes are reinforced (Kimmel, 2006), to constructive foci can benefit men, who have expressed preference for being challenged in these supportive, yet confrontational settings (Berkowitz, 2002).

Although men’s programs can be led effectively by females, our program was built around primary use of a male facilitator – something the men continually appreciated. Self-reflectively, we were a heterosexual male facilitator with a relatively relational orientation and a heterosexual female researcher with a relatively instrumental approach to interpersonal interactions (Bem, 1993); these were features of our gender communication styles, not related to our physical embodiments. It is possible that our gender-sex-contradictory communication confounded expectations in this context, provided nuance to our encounters, and allowed us to minimize the extent of stereotypical behaviors sometimes exhibited by facilitators and stakeholders. Further, our cross-gendered communication styles capitalized oppositional perspective-taking; we balanced ‘communicative space’ (inclusion, control, intimacy phases; Wicks & Reason, 2009) establishment with less empathic/identity-validating approaches such as argumentativeness and non-hostile antagonism.

Due to the graphic, sensitive, and purposefully intense nature of our program, it was essential that the facilitator, state-certified in crisis counseling and equipped to provide referrals and conduct safety planning, be professionally trained to deal with sensitive disclosures, prepare the group for provoking themes, and provide external support for the men. Davis and Laker (2004) highlight the importance of providing a forum for constructive confrontation or open dispute, along with male support, in campus programs for men. Thus, an essential tactic of our implementation was to challenge all beliefs – not merely the ones considered derogatory to women. Even men with ‘positive’ anti-sexist perspectives benefit from reinforcement through critical thinking, argumentation (as opposed to aggression), and rational defense strategies. Analyses of group feedback and individual assessments support our perceived success in fostering this space.

Opinions were shared enthusiastically; the men were frequently animated in their discussions, with friendly shouting, joking, and exaggerated movement around the room. They comfortably disagreed with one another; hearing ‘No, dude, that’s not right!’, ‘Ha ha! That’s sick!’, and ‘Seriously? That’s fucked up, man!’ was common. They heard other men who supported their own ‘positive’ views: ‘Of course no one’s gonna say rape is a good thing. It’s not socially acceptable to say it. That’s why you have to go out of the way to say something about how bad it is’ (emphases by speaker). They also were exposed to men who disagreed with their ‘negative’ (e.g. sexual consent as conquerable) beliefs: ‘Wow, that’s really messed up. You should be stopping that shit right away!’ Although the ‘communicative space’ no doubt aided, we attributed their openness to the same-sex nature of the group; men were noticeably politer in speech patterns on the co-ed occasions.

The men freely expressed themselves in terms of race, class, sex, and sexuality. Garnering fervent agreement from all, one White heterosexual man noted, ‘I’m so fucking sick of being seen the same as every other guy.’ Members shared a spectrum of relationship experiences and beliefs: contradictions of others’ veneration of sexual ‘hook-up’ culture; conflicts about what constituted (un)healthy romantic relationships; arguments about (non)verbal behaviors indicating sexual consent; differences in personal-familiarity with intervening in aggressive situations; and disputes of appropriate dress, behavior, and communication for men and women. The all-male forum seemed to increase their willingness to express thoughts, no matter how offensive or culturally specific to their own lives. This openness may have fostered visualization of men’s own masculinities as unique and as fluid and open to change.

We observed this change over time. Men were initially disparaging or avoidant during role-plays to intervene in others’ unhealthy behaviors. Consistent with dominant social norms, even men who never commit violence or are rarely blatantly sexist may still be hesitant to interfere in other men’s offenses. Instead, these men exhibit their own ‘benevolent’ or ‘ambivalent’ form of sexism (Anderson, 2012). After a few weeks of practicing with the male-group, men not only demonstrated effectively, but also reported feeling comfortable using tactics of distraction, checking-in, and addressing abuse non-confrontationally. In the pre-test, one man expressed trying to avoid conflict whenever possible (‘I don’t like to fight. It makes me uncomfortable when people disagree.’) and another stated, in reference to other men’s inappropriate behavior, ‘It’s usually not my business.’ It is unrealistic to expect one program to change a man’s conflict style. Nonetheless, weekly and post-test self-reports of outside behaviors suggest men gradually increased abilities to recognize unhealthy situations, communicative changes, and occasional follow-through of learned techniques in their own peer groups, even while acknowledging, ‘I admit, [it] wasn’t easy.’

Action strategy: Program to subculture

Initially targeted aspects of “subculture” involved young, emerging, technology-driven interests. We incorporated personal self-tests, group discussions, role-playing, competitions, ‘take-home’ challenges, controversial and explicit (i.e. involving sexual, racial, and other controversial imagery) films, and Classroom Performance System© ‘clickers’ used to anonymously share divisive beliefs in a game-show format. Technology and popular culture were used in every session, which included films, music, web postings, blog controversies, or phone/texting usage. We used all materials, including food and beverages, to provoke and focused on evolving inquiry action, rather than didactic education. Formal theorizing and current research were used only in contexts of concrete activities or dynamic dialogue proposed by the men.

We incorporated a second aspect of ‘culture’ as understood by Berkowitz (2002), who noted very few programs exist to specifically address race or ethnicity as intersectional with masculinity. A primary feature of quality campus programs for men has been acknowledgement of different understandings of masculinity (Davis & Laker, 2004). Our community represents a type of masculine culture that values conformity, strength, stoicism, leadership, and willfulness – factors believed by some to put young men into high ‘risk’ categories for perpetrating violence. Certainly, some of the men’s culturally held viewpoints were less than constructive (e.g. most believed women innately desire children and so ‘should go be mothers’). Nonetheless, many of their convictions located them as uniquely progressive, on a continuum of personal and social change, compared to more conventionally gendered counterparts. There is an immense potential for change among this generation of men, many of whom have already begun to re-envision culturally specific masculinities (Pérez-Jiménez et al., 2010). Therefore, we saw it valuable to emphasize the unique, situated, and intersectional nature of these men’s ethnic, religious, racial, and class masculinities. We also sought to create a program inclusive of men at high or low risk for violence perpetration (based on Stephens & George, 2009). The diversity of our group was a direct result of the community in which it occurred. Each of the men socialized with different peer groups in their daily lives. Outside this assemblage, it is unlikely they would have met, let alone discussed personal topics with one another.

Men in our group highlighted physical strength/appearance (‘I look to see if I could ‘‘take’’ another guy if I had to’) as a dominant theme in their understandings of cultural representations of young masculinity. Contrasting themselves, they often positioned their own peer groups as separate from ‘typical’ US mainstream cultural understandings of these concepts. For example, when discussing physical prowess and risk-taking, these men distanced themselves from what they termed ‘stereotypical frat[ernity] boys’. To our participants, manhood was not associated with physicality or risk-taking, but rather was dependent on how one handled these situations. The rules for these men were: show your strength only when challenged and avoid risky behaviors leading to violence or conflict with other men. In other words, as Dancy (2011) found in young men’s messages about maintaining personal expectations, these men did not connect manhood with a need to ‘show off’ physicality through aggression toward men or women. Men’s bodies, they held, should be used only when strength, courage, or heterosexuality have been explicitly questioned or threatened. In keeping with the stoic American male who only fights back (Kimmel, 2006), these men exhibited their understanding of culturally appropriate masculinity as silent, strong, protectors of all (not just their ‘own’) women. In a community where jobs are frequently lost and workers are replaceable, the subcultures teach that men, who guard their families from harm and poverty, can lose everything (and thus, their masculinity) if they take risks (Dancy, 2011). From these men’s perspectives, legal culpability or jeopardized freedom were foolish risks better left to men who could ‘afford’ these liberties.

The stakeholders in this group had a pre-existing awareness of male hegemony and privilege, unexpected in our initial design. On development of the community of practice, it emerged that the subcultures of these particular men lent them resiliency. Consequently, we adapted curricula when participants illustrated it unnecessary to convince them of their dependency on/in society. As one man reported on the first day, ‘I don’t make the laws and I don’t have the money to get away with breaking them, especially’cause I’m not White.’ The men appeared to easily accept ideas that society can grant or retract benefits. Studies of other college-aged males, who resisted ideas of culture as discriminatory, included young White men who may have been unaware (or resistant to ideas) of the privileges they possessed. As Pérez-Jiménez et al. (2010) argued, culturally diverse groups who already understand racial privileges and are less defensive to the notion that hegemony exists, may be more apt to embrace concepts challenging their ‘dominance’ and to immediately begin working on change strategies. The challenge with men in our group was not fostering recognition of oppression or of violence as masculine, or even as a particular type of masculinity, but rather was in seeing gendered victimization issues, rather than solely as class or ethnic victimization of themselves. We do not believe a complete awareness of the situatedness of their attitudes and behaviors was achieved by the end of the program; however, their ability to enact reflexivity and gender-centeredness was constantly evolving.