Social Construction of Gender

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: [email protected]

661319 MENXXX10.1177/1060826516661319Journal of Men’s StudiesClaussen research-article2016

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.

MRNI-A-r Subscales

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.pdf

Chu, J. Y. (2005). Adolescent boys’ friendships and peer group culture. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 107, 7-22.

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.pdf

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.