The Affective Intensities of Gender Transformative Work: An Actionable Framework for Facilitators Working with Boys and Young Men

Abstract

Facilitating critical discussions with young men about issues of masculinity is not easy work. Gender transformative programs must engage with difficult conversations about issues such as heterosexism, homophobia, and masculine entitlement. The affective force of these issues tends to be downplayed in the pedagogic approaches within these programs, as does the complex facilitation skills required to engage boys and men in these difficult conversations. This paper draws on interview data gathered from a broader study that sought to identify new educative approaches to gender justice in four different sites in the United States. The data were generated through discussions with facilitators and researchers involved in the delivery and evaluation of a gender transformative program for disadvantaged boys and young men. The paper presents four stories that foreground concerns expressed in the interviews about facilitator bias and the feminist delivery of the program. These stories highlight the affective intensities involved in gender transformative work with young men. The paper brings together important work in the area of critical pedagogies, affect, and feminist theory to offer an actionable framework to support facilitators and participants to critically engage with the affective intensities of gender transformative work.

‘Men Actually Need to Practice the Conversation’: Collective Learnings from Australian Programs Seeking to Challenge Outdated Masculine Stereotypes and Norms

“…The nature of the survey questions did not allow for a more in-depth exploration of why the facilitators were such a key part of participants’ experience. However, corresponding with the literature, these observations support the idea that those developing and delivering sessions play a prominent role in participant engagement (Barker et al, 2007; Keddie & Bartel, 2020; Stewart et al, 2021).…”

“…Interviewees discussed the need to strike the right balance between discussing masculinity and the negative impact of rigid stereotypes and norms, and avoiding being ‘preachy’, lecturing, or using phrases like ‘toxic masculinity’, which were seen as barriers to authentic conversation. Managing this tension is, as above, a key concern for feminist scholars, with the risk of inequalities rooted in gender-based power and privilege being overlooked in order to ensure comfort of participants (Keddie, 2021a; Keddie & Bartel, 2020). One approach identified across interviews, that could potentially address these concerns, is the idea of authenticity and ‘real talk’.…”

“…The premise of theme one, to create and maintain a safe and respectful environment or atmosphere, is well-established as necessary when working with men and boys, including in relation to gender inequality (Barker et al, 2007), gender-transformative pedagogy (Keddie & Bartel, 2020) and from the perspectives of therapists working with men in clinical settings (Beel et al, 2020). One of the key insights to come out of this study, however, is around the identified need to assess the established group culture, in order to ‘meet them where they are at’, but also determine what boundaries are necessary and the extent to which they can be challenged.…”

A new feminist materialist analysis of girls and the sexual violence assemblage

“…The everyday lives of girls in school affects and is affected by the politics of gender. While it may be easy to condemn boys' conduct through arguments based on toxic masculinity, we argue with Keddie and Bartel (2021) that blaming boys in working class contexts has the effect of reifying racist tropes that position black men experiencing poverty as violent and hypersexual without understanding the social-material and cultural realities that produce particular understandings of masculinity. Indeed, masculinities are complex, fluid, and contextual and to reduce the experience of the sexual violence assemblage to toxic masculinity alienates boys further while diminishing the dynamic ways in which the assemblage makes certain plays of power possible while curtailing others.…”

Gender segregation in culturally feminized work: Theory and evidence of boys’ capacity for care.

“…Peers have the potential to support behaviors that are commonly viewed as gender atypical, and researchers should work to understand how to facilitate more support and less victimization of boys' who show nontraditional occupational interests. There is also a growing body of work on pedagogical tools for teachers seeking to nurture alternative masculinities in boys, and we encourage readers to consult the work of Keddie and Bartel (2020) for potential strategies that could be applied to occupational interest. These cascading positive influences from across boys' early development contexts can encourage caring masculinities early in development and circumvent the need to "restore" these capacities later on.…”