School workshops aimed at boys need to listen to boys

Oct 28

In 2021 the inspector for education in England, Ofsted, held focus groups with over 900 children and young people in 32 schools and colleges, and found various types of sexual harassment were rated as occurring “a lot or sometimes”. For example, “nearly 90% of girls, and nearly 50% of boys” said they or their peers were sent “explicit pictures or videos of things they did not want to see”, and “92% of girls, and 74% of boys” said they or their peers were sent “sexist name-calling”.

The shocking Ofsted report was conducted in response to concerns about the sexual abuse of schoolgirls highlighted by the Everyone’s Invited website in 2020. Obviously, nobody wants to tolerate the sexual abuse of schoolgirls, and understandably there has been a rush to create school workshops that will address this issue, often involving the idea of challenging ‘masculinity norms’.

Regarding the school workshops on this topic available in 2020, the Ofsted report heard “Children and young people were rarely positive about the RSHE [Relationships, Sex and Health Education] they had received. They felt that it was too little, too late and that the curriculum was not equipping them with the information and advice they needed to navigate the reality of their lives”. Ofsted recommended schools create an environment where children “are confident to ask for help and support when they need it. Central to this should be a carefully planned and implemented RSHE curriculum” which should include “listening to pupil voice.”

I have been very interested in how masculinity is discussed in school workshops for a number of years. Athough these workshops come from good intentions, I think there is good reason to doubt that challenging masculinity norms is an effective strategy. One of my concerns is that such workshops can be prone to unintended consequences, or may even backfire. A pilot survey in 2020 by myself and colleagues found 85% of adults agreed that boys might be harmed by exposure to ideas like ‘toxic masculinity’. My survey with over 4,000 men found that thinking masculinity makes you do bad things is associated with lower mental wellbeing. Even without mentioning masculinity, there is a risk that if boys feel browbeaten, the workshops might backfire, as has been found with male college students where a programme designed to improve attitudes to sexual harassment actually made some young men’s attitudes worse.

However my attempts to locate the contents of school workshops related to masculinity have usually found very little information is forthcoming. This might be related to the recent newspaper article reporting that people in this field have been distancing themselves from the term ‘toxic masculinity’ for the past year or two precisely because so many people find it offensive.

In my search, I have found myself directed to various assessments of educational workshops, but found these tend to have limited relevance to school-aged children, especially boys. That’s because many of the studies are of college-age or older males, the number of participants is small, and the analysis is qualitative rather than quantitative (e.g. interviews rather than statistics). Furthermore the assessments usually measure what participants have learned about gender stereotypes, but don’t measure the impact on boys, for example, changes in self-esteem before and after attending a workshop designed to reshape their view of masculinity.

“The best safeguard we have that our good intentions will lead to good outcomes is to test our ideas with good research. Unfortunately good research is a much rarer thing than you would guess.”

I generally believe that the best safeguard we have that our good intentions will lead to good outcomes is to test our ideas with good research. Unfortunately good research on school masculinity workshops is a much rarer thing than you would guess, and the reality is a cottage industry of workshop providers – often independent of the schools - running free with little or no empirical evidence of the safety or efficacy of what they are doing. For this reason I was pleasantly surprised to find a paper by Ringrose et al (2025) that ticked at least some of the boxes that other research misses.

The paper describes a intervention workshop about sexual violence and bystanders, aimed at school pupils aged 13–18. This was run in three countries with respectably large number of attendees (England, n=1000; Ireland, n=60; and Canada, n=108). The main focus wasn’t masculinity, but is of relevance because masculinity was a prominent theme in the paper.

The paper starts on a cautionary note, stating that for previous studies on this topic “the degree of success of interventions varies considerably”. Ringrose et al suggest that part of the lack of success is because “sexist assumptions and sexual double standards are held not only by students, but are part of wider school cultures, including being condoned by some teachers”. In other words, it’s not just boys who attend the workshops that need to change, the advocate a ‘whole school approach’ where everyone needs to change.

The project consisted of workshops, which were compulsory as part of the schools regular RSE (Relationship and Sex Education) sessions. In the workshops, issues around being an active and effective bystander were discussed and debated with school pupils. Ringrose et al make the good point that the ‘real world’ and online world overlap more than most previous research takes account of, and students need to learn how to react as a bystander in the digital world as well as the real world. The workshops use various scenarios for discussion, for example, a schoolboy who sees nudes of girls being shared on a WhatsApp group, but he doesn’t speak up because he fears being called gay.

Another strategy used in workshops was interactive post-it notes, asking participants to write ideas for ways that social media platforms, schools, families, and government, society, and the participants themselves, can challenge sexual violence. Participants were also told about ‘digital defence strategies’, such as how to report content, and “self-care strategies when using social media, including an arts-based pedagogy task where young people can create their own social media campaign to challenge everyday sexual violence”. (I have concerns this is encouraging activism rather than self-care, and might even backfire by inciting heated online exchanges resulting in distress, but perhaps this is too pessimistic). The workshops were supplemented by focus groups and interviews, which were optional based on parental consent for pupils who volunteered.

“Rather than disciplinary measures of reporting and punishment, young people appreciated learning that they can respond [by] helping the victim”.

Ringrose et al grouped the key findings from their workshops under three themes: 1/ the benefits of the workshop, 2/ challenges to it working (which were subgrouped into “a. sexism; b. masculine defensiveness; c. elitism; d. racism; e. reluctance to report digital issues”), and 3/ ideas for making schools safer.

1/ The benefits were that participants learned what to do when they saw sexual harassment or abuse. Knowledge increased enormously among participants e.g. in England from 58% to 98%. “Rather than disciplinary measures of reporting and punishment, young people appreciated learning that they can respond [by] helping the victim”. For example, Helena (all names in the paper are pseudonyms) said: “Yeah, a lot of the time it’s more like you’re trying to stop the perpetration. You kind of forget that maybe the victim needs support, and you say it’s not ok for the person to do that, and if you need help, I’m here.” I think this is a very positive aspect of the study, and I am guessing there is probably a higher success rate in successfully supporting a victim than successfully punishing a perpetrator.

2/ Ringrose et al report several challenges to being a bystander. I will comment on each below.

(a) Sexism. For example, in one English school “there was a notable ‘lad culture,’ a British term which refers to a form of homosocial masculinity in group dynamics, which normalises sexism through humour and banter… female teachers explained that the male PE (Physical Education) and sport coaches …displayed overt sexism”. Furthermore, “girls discussed reports made about the school to a popular website, Everyone’s Invited, which was founded in 2020 to expose rape culture in British schools. Tamara explains that the online testimonial was minimised by the Head Teacher.”

“The young people felt the school’s sexism and lack of awareness of gendered power imbalances stemmed from a lack of up-to-date comprehensive sex education. […]“Jane: More needs to be done when things do happen. … It’s normally the same sort of people that do it over and over again … if we had more lessons…the people who are doing it would be more educated and then probably would be less likely to do it.”

“The boys discuss the perils of being seen as a ‘snitch’, which could create further risk and harm for the victim. These types of scenarios came up several times during our visits to this school. For instance, when an abuser and the victim were brought into a room to go over the reported image-based sexual abuse in an incident in which the girls’ nudes had been non-consensually shared, the victim found the experience re-traumatising rather than supportive, suggesting that the safeguarding procedures at the school were not working well.”

““While two of these boys suggest that bystanding is related to ‘being a gentleman’ and turning away from ‘toxic masculinity’, they also feel defensive about how attention to sexual violence is painting men as ‘rubbish’ and ‘bad’”

Pupils in one English school “complained about teachers lacking sensitivity and inclusivity in sex education […] for example, recounting an assembly where rules about skirt length were discussed on the same slide as sexual harassment [...] The girls felt this was ‘slut shaming’ and ‘victim blaming’, and that this undermined any helpful discussion of sexual violence.”

(b) Masculine Defensiveness. “A different set of contextual factors around masculinity emerged in an all-boys school in a wealthy area of Hertfordshire in England. Here, the boys seemed to particularly struggle with bystanding discussions which they felt were targeting them as ‘bad’ and ‘toxic’, and they became defensive:

William: I feel like all over in the media, just men are always portrayed as bad.”

“While two of these boys suggest that bystanding is related to ‘being a gentleman’ and turning away from ‘toxic masculinity’, they also feel defensive about how attention to sexual violence is painting men as ‘rubbish’ and ‘bad’, which complicates their reception to sexual violence prevention work. They suggested that the workshop needed to better in showing something affirmative”.

Regarding being a good bystander: “…the idea of being able to intervene in the homosocial masculinity peer group and stand up to other boys at school in this all boys’ setting was viewed as particularly daunting. Similar to the previous discussion of snitch culture, the boys’ fear of seeming ‘weak’ and putting one’s relationship with other boys at risk, often leaves them unwilling to say anything to other boys. This contradicts the discussion of being a ‘gentleman’ above”.

“boys opted out because attending the workshops was “’uncool’ and there was no incentive to do so”.”

(c) Elitism: Opting Out. Two schools in Ireland were compared. One was fee-paying, where pupils could opt out of the workshop if they wanted to. The other was a comprehensive school where students could opt out if their parents signed a form. Although none of the boys at the comprehensive school opted out, it seemed that around half of the boys in the fee-paying school opted out. A similar thing happened at a private Canadian school. Although Ringrose et al put this down to elitism, several comments from the participants in this section did not support this idea, saying boys opted out because attending the workshops was “’uncool’ and there was no incentive to do so”, “they would feel ‘judged’”, or they were the “‘more ignorant’ ‘male aligned’ students”. Another explanation was that some parents were put off by the term ‘sexual harassment’ which might entail their children seeing graphic images. One participant said this was especially a problem if the parents didn’t speak English as a first language.

(d) Racism. “One school site in Southwark London was located in a highly diverse area with a majority Black British population… one boy noted in the workshop “Rosa Parks and was made to sit at the back of the bus. Who are the bystanders—the white people in the bus”. (Note: the reference to Rosa Parks regards the famous incident that occurred in racially segregated Alabama in 1955).

There was also a general sense that for the Southwark participants, “bystanding will not work for them… The young people repeatedly discuss wanting to help, but feeling like it is not possible because of structural factors which make it difficult to intervene in conflicts in their school amongst their peer groups, since confrontation could easily escalate into further violence.”

(e) Reluctance to Report Digital Issues.

Confidentiality was a big issue: pupils “knew teachers could not keep such matters confidential and would have to involve parents” because of, for example, “categorising youth sexting as child pornography”. Another issue was the feeling that the female victim would “not tell anyone at school is because she felt the school will blame the victim, in this case the girl, and even if the boy was excluded (suspended), the issues will continue to impact the girl. […] The students portray a situation in which there are disproportionate responses to digital issues, with schools consistently involving the police and leading to what the young person above calls ‘extreme measures’. Given statistics on disproportionate criminalisation of black boys and young men in England, these concerns are warranted”.

The report concludes with some suggestions for improvements from the participants. “One student suggests that schools need to ‘educate the harasser’. This corresponds to research on girls’ experiences of being the focal point of gender and sexual violence awareness training, rather than cis gendered and heterosexual boys and masculinity practices”.

Evaluation of the study

The overall aim of the study – reducing sexual violence against schoolgirls - is undoubtedly to be supported. In terms of methodology, this study has several strengths e.g. large sample size, multinational, diverse demographics, an interesting outcome measure for workshops re post-it notes etc. However there are methodological limitations of this study too. There were no quantitative assessments; assessments were qualitative: interviews, focus groups and post-it notes, and “activism drawings”. Also it would have been very useful to find out (qualitatively or quantitively) how boys felt about the programme pre and post, and about themselves (e.g. self-esteem) compared to the same outcome measures for girls.

“where boys complained or showed signs of dissent, their concerns were minimised through categorisation as masculine defensiveness or dismissed as elitism.”

The core limitation of the Ringrose et al study is gamma bias, a common cognitive distortion in how issues related to sex or gender are viewed. This distortion has several facets, but the main issue of relevance here is that girls were seen only as victims and boys were seen only as perpetrators. The Ofsted figures cited at the start of this article suggest there are potentially a large number of male victims of sexual harassment (“92% of girls, and 74% of boys” said they or their peers were sent “sexist name-calling”), although the wording obscures how many victims were male (future research should aim to discover the experiences of male victims as well as female, for example, what type of harassment they experience, and who the perpetrators are). However the Ringrose et al paper concluded that sexual violence awareness training should focus not on girls but on “cis gendered and heterosexual boys and masculinity practices”. This approach would probably be seen by schoolboys as evidence of how boys in general are viewed negatively, or as one boy put it, “men are always portrayed as bad”. Interestingly, where boys complained or showed signs of dissent, their concerns were minimised through categorisation as masculine defensiveness or dismissed as elitism. Such minimisation of boys’ problems while focusing only on the problems of girls is another sign of gamma bias.

In contrast, the 2021 Ofsted report gave weight to the opinions of boys as well as girls: “girls told us that sexual harassment was ‘a big deal’ but boys did not recognise that it was happening or identify it as abuse. Girls in this school described routine name-calling, sexual comments and objectification. Boys described jokes and compliments”. I would suggest that future research should explore ways in which boys and girls communicate differently, how these miscommunications can lead to misunderstandings, and how a better understanding between boys and girls can be facilitated.

The sense that the perpetrators are always male is undermined by evidence that relational aggression (e.g. bullying someone by spreading rumours) is higher in adolescent girls than boys, and that much of the online bullying of girls is by other girls. Although Ringrose et al note there is “sexism and lack of awareness of gendered power imbalances” against women, future studies should recognise that boys are often powerless in the face of false allegations of abuse, which are not uncommon. Investigations of this topic should of course be careful not to minimise the problems women and girls might have of their genuine complaints being believed or inadequately dealt with.

“The Ofsted report also heard “Children and young people were rarely positive about the RSHE they had received. They felt that it was too little, too late and that the curriculum was not equipping them with the information and advice they needed to navigate the reality of their lives”.

Despite the problem of gamma bias, the workshops had some good outcomes. They appeared to increase participants’ knowledge of what to do if they become aware of abuse, including focusing on supporting the victim rather than focusing on prosecuting the offender. The study also highlighted other important issues, such as the risk of retraumatising victims in the process of trying to help them.

The final paragraph of the Ringrose et al paper says “our research underscores the need to take seriously and listen to young people’s ideas about how we can better support them. It follows that our main recommendation is to listen to youth.” But how successful was the study in doing this? One boy said: “the workshop needed to better in showing something affirmative” about men, but this was dismissed as masculine defensiveness. The boys in fee-paying schools communicated their view of workshops by opting out of attending the workshops, but this was dismissed as elitism. These two examples suggest the concerns of boys were not truly listened to. The Ofsted recommendation was not about ‘listening to half the pupil voice’, so I highly recommend future research consciously and actively listens to the views and concerns of boys. If a whole-school approach is to be achieved, as advocated by Ringrose at al, then surely making everyone feel included in discussions is an important element of this.

The 2021 Ofsted report found “Children and young people were rarely positive about the RSHE they had received. They felt that it was too little, too late and that the curriculum was not equipping them with the information and advice they needed to navigate the reality of their lives”. If sexual violence in schools is to be dealt with effectively, the boys who are perpetrators, bystanders, and victims of such acts need to be involved. This means not only listening to them, but creating spaces where they know they will genuinely be heard without undue judgement.

Disclaimer: This article is for information purposes only and is not a substitute for therapy, legal advice, or other professional opinion. Never disregard such advice because of this article or anything else you have read from the Centre for Male Psychology. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of, or are endorsed by, The Centre for Male Psychology, and we cannot be held responsible for these views. Read our full disclaimer here.