Chapter 4: Navigating pressures and conflicts about what it means to be a man

In this chapter, we explore the ways that focus group participants navigate pressures to conform with masculine norms in their interpersonal relationships, across different settings and in their interactions with institutional structures. Men’s norms, attitudes, beliefs and behaviours manifest differently in different contexts. However, all are tethered to dominant stereotypes about how men should act and the roles that they should play in relationships, peer groups, families and across society. These attitudes and beliefs are captured in the Man Box rules (13).  

The dynamics that shape how men behave and the attitudes they express are captured in Our Watch’s Men in focus – Evidence review.  

Men’s choices [about how to position themselves against masculine norms] are shaped by social and structural constraints, as well as other internalised processes … A range of displays of masculinity may be performed in different contexts, but performances are nevertheless constrained by what are deemed acceptable types of masculinity, and these different contexts allow for different types of performances (10 p 31).  

Here, we start by recognising the importance of keeping this complexity visible when thinking about ‘engaging’ men in primary prevention of violence against women and gender-based violence. In considering why men might act in ways that address or reinforce the gendered drivers of men’s violence against women, we foreground that:

• men make choices about and have agency over their behaviour
• these choices are often influenced by their perception of pressures to conform to or resist masculine norms, as well as their own personal beliefs in those norms
• normative scripts about more and less acceptable ways of being a man can be different across different settings and social contexts
• men’s assessment of potential consequences for resisting pressures to perform masculinity in prescribed ways can shape their behaviours and encourage reflection on their own attitudes and beliefs.

Throughout this chapter, we focus particularly on this last point: men’s assessment of potential consequences of how they align with or challenge different gendered norms or behaviours. This provides a frame from which to consider why men might make decisions about the attitudes and behaviours they express, challenge, avoid, agree with or ignore in different aspects of their lives.  

We use the term ‘social safety’ to refer to the ways men modulate their behaviours to protect their social position with different audiences and in different contexts. Participants across all focus groups described the ways that social dynamics influence their decisions about what forms of masculinity they want to align with in different contexts. They described the often-deliberate ways that they altered the attitudes they express and the ways they behave in response to different social settings or relational dynamics. For example, one participant expressed feeling like he was ‘wearing two masks’ when he navigated interactions with groups of men who had varying levels of gender-equitable beliefs.  

I think we’re also very good, our generation is – not playing both sides, but sort of wearing two sort of masks, like knowing when and who to sort of challenge it with. 

Fathers; moderate Man Box endorsement

Other participants also shared that they would choose not to challenge harmful or less equitable expressions of masculinity in some social groups or family relationships, whereas they actively sought to challenge rigid or harmful masculinities in other contexts. They described how they navigate their position in relation to masculine norms and how they present themselves – choose which ‘mask’ to wear’ – across two broad categories:

• through expressing resistance to gender equality and violence prevention, which generally resulted in aligning with some rigid masculine norms
• by deliberately challenging and disrupting rigid and inequitable gender norms in their words, interactions and behaviours.

In this chapter, we consider focus group participants’ reflections on their or their peers’ resistance to some actions to address gendered drivers of violence, and what makes it easier or more difficult to take action in different contexts. It is important to note that these categories do not represent a fixed binary and they often overlapped as study participants discussed making sense of their experiences navigating masculine norms. Their perspectives show the ways in which men might grapple with their resistance to some issues but still profess their alignment with efforts to progress gender equality and end gender-based violence. They might be willing, capable and confident to actively challenge sexist or homophobic commentary in some settings or social dynamics but need more support and strategies to take action in others.  

Here, we explore the ways that focus group participants described how they express, police or challenge rigid or inequitable gender norms in different contexts and why. We do so to consider what this can tell us about engaging men more effectively in actions to prevent violence against women and gender-based violence.  

4.1 Navigating resistance to addressing the gendered drivers of men's violence against women and homophobia

Resistance encompasses a range of behaviours, discourses, practices and structures that deliberately undermine actions to address the gendered drivers of men’s violence against women and broader gender equality efforts (33, 97). VicHealth describes eight types of resistance to gender equality, ranging from passive to active: denial, disavowal, inaction, appeasement, appropriation, co-option, repression and backlash. This framework can be used to understand resistance to other social change efforts, including actions necessary to prevent violence against women (34).  

The 2021 National Community Attitudes towards Violence against Women Survey (NCAS) found that many Australian men disagree that gender inequality still exists in Australia (17). This aligns with findings from The Man Box 2024, which shows that many men deny the existence of gender inequality and also hold attitudes that support violence against women (see Box 13).

Focus group participants described using or observing two main forms of resistance when navigating pressures or conflicts to do with masculine norms: denial of the problem and disavowal of responsibility (footnote 1). We discuss each of these in turn. 

Denial as minimising violence against women and homophobia

Denial of the harms resulting from the drivers of gender-based violence can include minimising their significance, impact or severity (34, 97). In the focus group discussions, some participants minimised the nature and impact of some forms of violence and harassment, as well as the existence and problematic nature of the underpinning beliefs and norms that drive it. For example, some street harassment or homophobic commentary was framed as harmless ‘joking’ rather than discrimination or expressions of violence. Participants were asked how they or their peers might respond if they saw their peers yelling suggestive comments to women on the street.  

I’ll be dead honest with you. I think being younger … and being pretty immature, I reckon everyone would think it’s funny or whatever [if a friend yells a suggestive comment to a woman on the street]. But I think a certain few and I feel like myself, obviously depending on what it is but you might think, ‘Fuck, that was funny’. But then you’d go, ‘Come on, mate. You’re not gaining. You’re just putting someone down’. You’d tell them to pull their head in. You know what I mean? 

Male-dominated trade; moderate Man Box endorsement

Similarly, participants were asked how they or their peers would respond if they observed homophobic commentary from someone in their peer group.

If it was a very disrespectful and in-their-face [homophobic] comment, publicly being violent [to someone], then yeah, I’d step in respectfully to say, ‘That’s not cool, step back’. If it was a joking banter thing, then you’d just be like, okay, that’s touch and go. 

Male-dominated trade; low Man Box endorsement

These quotes suggest that some forms of harassment or discrimination are viewed as acceptable because they are perceived as harmless humour, whereas other forms might be seen as going too far. However, the suggestion that there might be an acceptable threshold for street harassment and homophobia minimises their inherent harm and neglects the fact that these behaviours also drive, reinforce and enable other forms of violence and abuse (6).  

These examples highlight the ways that men may seek to use sexist or homophobic humour to maintain their masculine status (82). When cisgender heterosexual men are willing to step in to challenge this humour, it can help reduce the social acceptability of sexist and homophobic jokes in peer groups, or the perception that such jokes are benign. On the other hand, affirming responses, such as laughing at a derogatory joke, can demonstrate acceptance of harmful attitudes and behaviours, and make them more difficult to shift (98). If the person being mocked or harassed hears it, laughter might also compound their sense of unsafety, humiliation or other negative effects, as it signals that they may be being targeted by the group who are encouraging the behaviour rather than one person (99). Positive reactions from a group of male peers can also encourage escalation in behaviours informed by harmful gender norms, if men perceive that they will gain approval and acceptance from their peer group as a result (98).

Some participants spoke about the ongoing effort and self-reflection required to become aware of the harms of comments they might previously have viewed as humorous, and to actively challenge these comments. One participant described how, despite having changed his own attitudes and beliefs, he sometimes found himself reverting to the culture of his peer group. He provided an example of joining in with racist jokes.  

If I get around certain crowds, certain people, you know, I can slip into some of that bit of old school type of thinking and be a little bit, you know, racial in some aspects, the jokes and that. But then when you think about it and stop in the time, you’re like, ‘Hang on, no, no. The new lens, we’re looking through things now, you shouldn’t be like that’. So, it’s a bit of a mix. 

Fathers; moderate Man Box endorsement

The participant acknowledges that it can be easy to reflexively join in discussions reflecting a prevailing culture of racism – ‘old school type of thinking’ – as a way to participate in a social group. However, he described his own discomfort and the increasing unacceptability of racist humour, and his process of reflection about looking at racist ‘jokes’ through a new way of thinking – a ‘new lens’.  

These examples illustrate some of the ways that men balance their personal progress towards addressing resistance and recognition of harms related to discriminatory views with efforts to protect their social safety within a group where such views might be expressed. Some participants indicated that they might be willing to intervene and speak to a peer who made a discriminatory joke or comment, but most suggested that they might catch themselves laughing and then recognise the implications of affirming their friend’s discriminatory views. That is, they may not yet feel capable or confident to take more deliberate, prosocial action to intervene.  

Some cisgender heterosexual focus group participants demonstrated minimisation as a form of resistance when discussing LGBTIQA+ identities and relationships. These participants expressed the heteronormative and homophobic view that only heterosexual relationships are ‘normal’ and ‘natural’ (6, 100). This sentiment was particularly common in moderate Man Box endorsement groups. Rather than positioning intimate relationships between men as normal expressions of care, love and desire, some participants described these relationships in terms that minimised their value, or inferred that public displays of homosexuality are a disagreeable but inevitable fact of life.  

If I was with my kids and saw two men kissing, [I would] take [my kids] away and just say, ‘Look, it is what it is’, you know, like, each, each to their own, basically. 

Male-dominated trade; moderate Man Box endorsement

All of my group of friends, for example, they sort of agree that it’s supposed to be men and women only [in a romantic relationship with each other]. But at the same time, they just don’t care. Each to their own. 

Male-dominated trade; moderate Man Box endorsement

‘Each to their own’ or ‘it is what it is’ were used by these participants to attempt to communicate a pose of neutrality with regard to homosexuality: they acknowledge the existence of gay men and relationships and express that they tolerate their existence. However, rather than helping to address homophobia, positioning gay men as people whose relationships and personhood need to be ‘tolerated’ enables their continued marginalisation. These attitudes and resulting behaviours perpetuate social conditions where LGBTIQA+ people and communities face hostility and exclusion (6). This highlights the need for ongoing efforts to shift masculine norms in ways that encourage widespread public acceptance and celebration of LGBTIQA+ relationships and challenge homophobic views (6, 15). Such efforts align with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) and with federal legislation such as the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), which protect gay men and gay relationships (and more broadly LGBTIQA+ people and relationships) and legislate against discrimination and marginalisation of LGBTIQA+ people (101–103).

Resistance framed as tolerance can mask more discriminatory attitudes, which may be expressed in overtly harmful ways in other settings. Some participants in moderate Man Box endorsement groups shared the ways that they perform ‘tolerance’ and self-censor inequitable views when they know those around them would not respond well to them.  

It’s a [homophobic] comment maybe between the boys or our mates walking, I feel it’d be pretty unlikely for someone to say something to an oncoming person or someone walking past. I think for us, it’d be like, whether you think it or not, you can’t say it. As bad as that sounds. I think there’d definitely be more of a chance that it would be said within the group to each other. As opposed to another person. 

Male-dominated trade; moderate Man Box endorsement

I feel like the expectation is for me to say that [certain comments are] wrong, even if your personal opinion might be different. 

University-educated; moderate Man Box endorsement

These quotes illustrate how men may respond to perceived risk of judgement from others by hiding their views when they recognise that these views may diverge from prevailing social norms. Attitudes towards same-sex relationships in Australia are shifting towards increasing acceptance and representation of LGBTIQA+ relationships and communities (20, 104). As these quotes show, men’s peer to peer relationships can still foster homophobia (1, 105). In Australia and globally, homophobia and sexism are promoted through virtual communities such as the ‘manosphere’, where men connect through sharing harmful and discriminatory views (72, 73). These examples demonstrate the possibilities for inequitable attitudes to be reinforced in men’s peer relationships, even when they are openly rejected by a growing proportion of Australian society.

Enough about women, what about men? Denial as renaming and redefining violence against women

Some study participants denied the severity and impact of violence against women by focusing on men’s own experiences of violence or their vilification as perpetrators. Others suggested that men’s experiences of harassment perpetrated by women is an equally or even more compelling social problem.

On the flip side of the argument, have you ever seen girls making comments to guys? This is where the perception of men gets looked down upon because it also happens the other way around, and that’d be perfectly acceptable or laughed at … It can be taken a lot more displeased if a man does it to a female. But I’ve seen it happen the other way around, and nobody thought anything bad when the woman said it. 

Male-dominated trade; low Man Box endorsement

When a girl does it [sexual harassment] to a guy, is he going to accept it? Most likely yes. If a guy calls out to a female, will she accept it? No. If it’s becoming forceful or if it’s not being received, then it shouldn’t be done. But if a female does it to a guy, if it’s being received, then it’s deemed acceptable. 

Male-dominated trade; low Man Box endorsement

These quotes imply that men and women experience sexual harassment in uniformly similar ways, and as such do not recognise power differentials in these forms of harassment based on gender. However, population-level surveys and workplace studies demonstrate that while both men and women experience harassment and other forms of gendered violence, women are overrepresented as victims of harassment (106). This is compounded for women whose harassment is informed by other forms of structural discrimination including colonialism and racism; homophobia, biphobia, transphobia, transmisogyny and intersexphobia; ableism; ageism; and classism (20, 106). Women are also more likely than men to report feeling fearful for their safety as a result of harassment (107). Nonetheless, to help understand the logic that informs resistance narratives that seem to deny the gendered nature of sexual harassment, it is worth examining the concerns the participant raises in the first quote.

In the quote, this participant suggests that men’s experiences of sexual harassment are not taken seriously in public discourse. There are two ways of understanding this concern. First, by examining the suggestion that complaints of sexual harassment made by men may not be heard with sufficient gravity by peers, loved ones or even service providers. In terms of institutional responses, research by the Australian Human Rights Commission found that workplace complaints of harassment made by men are in fact more likely to result in disciplinary action than complaints made by women (106). This suggests that men’s experiences are likely to be attended to when men seek help. Nonetheless, the participant’s perception that bystanders may not intervene to help a man being harassed by a woman relates to the Man Box rules associated with hypersexuality. These describe the ways that men may feel pressure to always welcome sexualised attention and ‘never say no to sex’ (13). Pressure to conform to these norms, and experiences of peers policing or enacting behaviours aligned with these norms may inform this participant’s perception that men are not taken seriously as victims of harassment. This highlights again that addressing the gendered drivers of men’s violence against women, as well as the overlapping drivers of heteronormativity and cisnormativity, are likely to result in improvements in preventing harm to men as well as women and gender diverse people.  

Second, responding to a discussion about the widespread issue of women’s experiences of sexual harassment across various settings by asking ‘What about men?’ is consistent with well-documented narratives of resistance to acknowledging the relationship between gender inequality and violence against women (34). That is, resistance in this example is demonstrated through the participant’s implication that men’s experiences of harassment by women are necessarily equivalent to women’s experiences of harassment perpetrated by men. This framing both refocuses attention away from women’s experiences of violence and contributes to denial of the gendered nature of violence (1).

These two interpretations of the focus group participant’s views should be seen as complementary rather than contradictory. Everyone has the right to reject unwelcome sexual attention regardless of their gender, and men’s reports of sexual harassment and resulting harms ought to be taken seriously. This coexists with the fact that the social determinants of sexual harassment are clearly gendered, which is evidenced in studies about patterns of perpetration and the higher risk of greater harm and prevalence that women face when compared to men (106). Reframing a discussion to focus on proving equivalency between the overall experience of harassment by women victimised by men and the relatively small number of men harassed by women creates a straw man argument that diverts attention away from what men can do to address the gendered drivers and prevent street harassment and other forms of gender-based violence.  

This example highlights ways that resistance might reveal commonality between men who are unengaged with primary prevention efforts and primary prevention policy and practice. This common ground can be leveraged to help challenge misconceptions about the gendered nature of violence and men’s role in primary prevention. The study participant has identified that harmful masculine norms across different levels of society can make it difficult for men to seek and receive help from services or friends. An opportunity for better engagement with primary prevention in this example might therefore be affirming the ways that harmful gender norms have negative consequences for men but emphasising that this fact does not equate to a need to deny the ways that they also – and disproportionately – harm women.

Not all men

In addition to attempts to reframe discussion about violence against women to focus on men’s experiences of violence, other participants denied the culpability of ‘most men’ in the perpetration of violence or in facilitating social dynamics that allow gender-based violence to occur. These participants did not deny the gendered nature of violence perpetration outright, but they refocused discussion of harm on what they viewed as men’s vilification in the media.  

I’ve [felt] so belittled as a male, feeling that I’m a monster … The way it is presented on the media, you know, these [men are bad] people that do commit domestic violence … There’s way too much of it [family violence], don’t get me wrong … [But] it’s the minority [of men] … being represented in news coverage … We need to … not slam down your children’s throat that, ‘Hey, men are these horrible blokes that commit murder and, you know, rape and domestic violence’. 

Fathers; moderate Man Box endorsement

[All] men in the media are the villains, the murderers, the domestic violence perpetrators, all this kind of stuff. 

Fathers; moderate Man Box endorsement  

Many focus group participants’ awareness of the gendered patterns of family violence highlight ways that better quality media reporting can contribute to community understandings of how and why violence occurs (108). However, better understanding of the nature of the problem does not immediately lead to understanding one’s own role in taking action to address the gendered drivers of violence (17). Throughout this study, participants demonstrated that they were not always aware of the variety of ways they could help to prevent violence against women. Similarly, even if they were aware of what they might do, the perspectives they shared indicated that they were not always confident in how to take action. This was true even when participants described recognising the harmful effects of gender norms playing out in families, workplaces, social settings and in institutions.  

As the quotes above illustrate, some individuals were predominantly concerned with showing that they were not like men in media reports about family violence. Reflecting widespread patterns in public discourse over recent years, this preoccupation could eclipse discussions about the different ways they could contribute to collective efforts, through actions to address the gendered drivers, to make sure violence is less likely to happen (109).  

This indicates participants’ desire to ensure their social safety. Several were eager to create distance between who they were as people, and as men, and the perpetrators accused or convicted of violent crimes that attract significant media coverage – egregious, usually physically or sexually violent crimes against women, intimate partners of other genders, or children. This theme of men distancing themselves from other men who they see as less progressive or more violent is explored more in the discussion of ‘disavowal’ below.

Disavowal of responsibility for violence against women

Disavowal of responsibility for violence against women refers to someone’s unwillingness to take responsibility for, or see their own role in, addressing violence against women or the gendered drivers of violence (34). Across multiple focus groups, several participants made statements of disavowal by distancing themselves from men whose behaviour and adherence to harmful gender norms they characterised as worse than their own.

Distancing is defined as ‘discursive separation or dissociation’ from a behaviour or belief system, ‘based on perceptions and interpretations of the appropriateness of a given practice or personal perspectives within a particular … context’ (110 p 701). As well as efforts to show distance from perpetrators of violence reported on in the media, focus group participants drew comparisons between their own attitudes and behaviours and those of older men.

Many participants expressed their disapproval of what they described as outdated and gender inequitable beliefs held by men from previous generations. They did so as a means of demonstrating the progressiveness of their own attitudes and behaviours. These participants described their own generation as less aligned with harmful masculine norms in terms of attending to their mental health, being less emotionally repressed, contributing to healthier workplace cultures, being less homophobic, and seeking more gender-equitable dynamics in their households and families. For example, one participant compared the dynamics in his intimate partnership to those of relationships in the past.

We share the workload, but it’s not … you hear of these things from bygone eras of, your wife’s getting allowances and stuff. Like, it’s messed up. It’s archaic. I don’t see it anymore, but you do hear of it … from bygone eras. 

Fathers; moderate Man Box endorsement

In this quote, the participant positions the idea of men controlling finances as a problem of the past. While this may reflect the participant’s anecdotal knowledge and personal experience, men’s control of finances remains a problem both in private and public life (75). In addition, 1 in 5 Australians still believe that men should take control in intimate relationships (17).

The idea that unhealthy gender norms are a problem of the past can encourage complacency about the need for ongoing efforts to address the gendered drivers of men’s violence against women and gender inequality more broadly. This form of distancing enables men to absolve themselves of responsibility for taking action (32). As discussed throughout this report and in national prevention frameworks, shifting norms that drive gender-based violence requires ongoing, cumulative efforts by individuals, organisations, communities and systemic change (1). Encouraging men to be curious and proactive about the ongoing harms resulting from gender inequality and about the ways they can keep contributing to collective, reparative action is therefore critical to prevention of violence against women and gender-based violence.

Focus group participants described the ways that they employed distancing logic to excuse choices not to address examples of sexist, homophobic or violence-supporting attitudes encountered across various social, familial and work settings. Several men shared how they sometimes find it difficult to challenge other men’s discriminatory views or harmful behaviours. This may be due to a combination of wanting to protect their relationship with the person causing offence, or justifying their decision to not enter an uncomfortable encounter because they do not believe they will change that person’s point of view.  

For example, several participants described contexts where they were interacting with older men.

I feel like [for] the majority of their life [older generations’] gender roles have been pretty fixed. And it’s only been the last 20 years or so that a lot of this progress has been made. Then you are like, ‘They are stuck in their own ways’ and you will probably avoid the topic because they are not going to be understanding of what has changed since they were younger. 

University-educated; moderate Man Box endorsement

I suppose I don’t challenge them [older men] enough with that, either. I just sort of let it slide, because I think, you know, ‘You grew up in a different time in a different era’. I would definitely challenge my mates about it, though, and I do. So, but yeah, I’ll let the older father figures sort of slide with that sort of stuff, but yeah. 

Fathers; moderate Man Box endorsement

These quotes capture the idea that people’s willingness to challenge rigid masculine norms and beliefs can be contextual, and as part of the decision-making about when to challenge harmful ideas, people might gauge the likelihood of success in changing someone’s mind. They also suggest that some participants considered that openly resisting an idea that they know to be sexist, homophobic or that condones violence, and bearing the social discomfort or conflict that might result from such an exchange, is less worthwhile if they feel that they are unlikely to change someone’s mind. However, bystander action can also be an important way to signal support to others in the group who might also take issue with the views in question – or be actively harmed as a result of them being aired (55).

Other focus group participants also constructed their reluctance to challenge the traditional gendered beliefs of older family members as a demonstration of respect, which was described as something that is owed to older men.  

I’ve watched … a younger cousin … [who is a] very progressive sort of bloke, like, challenge his father on stereotypes … And it, like, it sort of didn’t sit well with me. I know that he’s doing the right thing, but I was like, that’s your dad … Me personally, it’s just sort of, you know, disagree inside and not speaking up about it … I just don’t think that’s respectful to the older generations. 

Fathers; moderate Man Box endorsement

This quote illustrates how participants balanced acting on different values when interacting with older men, particularly in their families. It shows how ‘respect’ can be constructed in ways that reinforce the hierarchical status quo that perpetuates rigid masculine norms. This framing can allow men to disavow themselves of the responsibility for challenging the harmful norms they hear older men reinforce. Although not discussed in the focus groups, it is worth noting that women of the same age may not have access to the same unchallenged respect given the context of patriarchy and the ways it encourages devaluing of women in relation to men (111). Further, this quote again sets up a binary between challenging an older man in a way that feels disrespectful or not challenging harmful views at all.

However, there are many ways to consider approaches to modelling examples of and having conversations about healthier masculinities and gender dynamics that can be tailored to different contexts. In the next section, we consider strategies shared by focus group participants that made them feel more capable and confident to take action against the gendered drivers of violence, while managing risks or feared consequences to their physical and social safety.

↑ Return to the top of this page ↑ 

4.2 Understanding men's action to challenge rigid gender norms

The Man Box 2024 found that a majority of survey participants aged 18 to 30 said they would be bothered and take action in relation to witnessing both peer violence and intimate partner violence (see Box 14) (13). Similarly, in the focus groups, some men said they would seek to challenge harmful expressions of masculinity among their peers and workmates. For example, and in contrast to the participants quoted in the previous section, one man insisted that he would intervene to address homophobic commentary from peers, even if it was shared under the guise of a joke.

[In relation to homophobic commentary] I’d call them out. If that’s something they’ve said out loud, even as a joke, I’d say that’s uncool. 

Male-dominated trade; low Man Box endorsement

Participants described making strategic decisions around the most appropriate and effective ways to intervene to challenge harmful behaviours by other men. These included thinking about their timing and tone of engagement, and the context in which the harmful behaviour took place and possible consequences of speaking up to address it. They also spoke about how their confidence in practising freer expressions of masculinity had changed across their different life stages, including their positioning against some masculine norms. Each of these are discussed in turn below.

Timing and tone

When asked about challenging other men’s harmful behaviours and attitudes, several focus group participants shared how they considered the best moment to intervene and the best way to deliver the message, as well as contextual factors such as the make-up of the group. Box 14 shows that a majority of survey participants in the Man Box 2024 study said they would intervene immediately as opposed to later. The focus group participants gave nuance to this finding, describing their considerations for acting in the moment or choosing a different time.

I think probably I would tell them in the moment, in the context of the situation, and I would prefer to act in that point. Because later the effect has probably gone down, and they may not understand the situation. I think if I tell them at that particular point, it can stick better. 

University-educated; moderate Man Box endorsement

I think it would also be something to bring up at a different time, but I wouldn’t bring it up in the situation. At another stage, where it’s a different environment, where it’s more calm and collected, you will be like, ‘I noticed you said this, and I don’t think you should be saying that’. 

University-educated; moderate Man Box endorsement

Some participants talked about how they would adapt their tone or delivery when seeking to address attitudes or behaviours of different men in their life.

I wouldn’t sit down with him and say, you know, ‘Mate, where does your root homophobia stem from?’ Like, it's just constant, like, a little quick reminder of, ‘Mate, you know, in this day and age, we don’t sort of … that’s not what we talk about’. 

Fathers; moderate Man Box endorsement

It’s the way we sort of deal with it in a group of jesters. ‘I didn’t know we were living in the 1960s, mate’. I was like, it’s just a little jab back, ‘Oh, you’re a homophobe? Like, literally, it’s frowned upon now’. 

Fathers; moderate Man Box endorsement

In these quotes, men describe moderating their approach to minimising social discomfort for a group and defensiveness from the man being corrected. They also emphasise that their objective in speaking up is to add to cumulative reinforcing signals that sexist and homophobic behaviour are not acceptable. This indicates there is public awareness among some men that normative change is a long-term project that requires consistent reinforcement. Using humour for bystander action, as the second quote above describes, created social dynamics that minimised risk of confrontation or tension. In these instances, men maintained the balance between protecting group social dynamics – and potentially therefore their place and ability to maintain status in that group – and intervening against harmful behaviours. This approach to bystander action is illustrative of a larger conversation about how to communicate prevention messaging to men in ways that balance being resonant and effective, without colluding with men who hold harmful views or seeking to appease the discomfort that might result from reflection on one’s own behaviours (10, 29, 50).

Context and anticipated peer responses

Men described the ways that peer supports helped them to take action against rigid gender norms and feel more confident to resist pressure to conform to rigid masculine norms. This was demonstrated in accounts from focus group participants about social consequences for peers whose sexist or homophobic views sat in opposition to the majority of their social group. For instance, some participants said that they or their peer group would collectively signal their distance from men who perpetrated sexual harassment or were homophobic in a public setting.

They [the peer group] wouldn’t be happy at all, mate [if their friend catcalled a woman]. I think a big part of that is because one friend [does] something, now that girl or that group of girls is going to have an assumption about the whole group of mates. Even though he’s the only fucking dickhead in there. So, yeah, that’s a no go. That’s disrespectful. 

Male-dominated trade; moderate Man Box endorsement

If [homophobic commentary is] affecting the people around you, I don’t want to be associated with that person or that same person’s ideologies. Because you don’t know who is out in public or who is going to see, and I don’t want that connection with that person’s thoughts or values … In those situations, I would definitely either bring it up on the spot or distance myself from the group to disassociate myself from them. 

University-educated; moderate Man Box endorsement

These responses show that the participants see the harms of sexual harassment and homophobic commentary and do not want to participate in these behaviours. Moreover, these men sound assured and confident in taking action to show that such behaviour is unacceptable.  

The quotes also suggest that the study participants’ desire to differentiate themselves from the poor behaviour of peers is influenced by their awareness of their audience and a desire to protect their public image as well as their personal values. This includes avoiding likely rejection from women by virtue of being associated with a friend’s disrespectful and harassing behaviour towards women. This highlights that men’s interest in distancing themselves from the harmful attitudes and behaviours of other men can originate from more than individual ethics or altruism.

Participants identified settings and peer relationships where they felt safer and more confident to act in ways that helped them to explore healthier expressions of masculinity with greater freedom. For example, some participants articulated a deliberate approach to choosing who they talked to about their vulnerabilities. One participant described how they read social cues to decide whether a group is safe to be open with.

There are certain topics you can only talk to some groups of people [about]. As you approach certain people, get the vibe that they’re understanding, their acceptance and knowledge, then you can share more. I also feel restricted with some people, you can’t share that much. They may make you feel like a failure for sharing that. 

Male-dominated trade; low Man Box endorsement  

Several participants described a sense of freedom within those peer groups where they felt a greater ability to talk through challenges that they were experiencing or to express emotional vulnerability.

Only a year or two ago, I found the perfect group of people to hang around with, who allowed me to be vulnerable and expose my inner self. I couldn’t do that around my family. I couldn’t go to them with relationship troubles, or if I was going through a hard time in life. None of them were really on the same level of mindset … It’s all about having the right people around you. 

Male-dominated trade; low Man Box endorsement  

In this quote, finding the ‘right people’ reflects genuine social safety: having friends that allowed the participant to be open about who they are, in all their complexity and fallibility, without fear of judgement or being stigmatised as weak or unmasculine. Several participants described the ways in which finding some degree of this kind of support and common values helped them to feel more capable and confident to address sexist or homophobic commentary in different settings.  

Some men recounted times when they were less confident in their ability to address sexist or homophobic comments or behaviour without facing negative consequences. They described the factors that they might consider before deciding to act. These included potential risks related to physical and social safety or work security as a result of speaking out or intervening, and the likelihood that their intervention would successfully change someone’s beliefs or behaviour.

Maintaining group cohesion and men’s acceptance within a peer group were often highly prioritised in participants’ considerations about whether to act to address another man’s sexist or homophobic behaviour. Several participants suggested that they may not intervene if it was likely to risk their status in and membership of a peer group.  

There’s sometimes also fear that if you do step in, are the rest of the group going to back you on it or are you going to be the one person that is sticking up or telling the other person to stop and alienating yourself? 

University-educated; moderate Man Box endorsement

The majority of the times I’ve heard it [catcalling], it’s been said within a group, and most of the guys join in … You’re a team, in a sense. If you don’t have the same goals, or thoughts, as a team, you’re most likely going to get booted out. Whether that’s guys not talking to you anymore, not giving you as many tasks to do, or you lose your job altogether. It’s a reverse punishment for doing the right thing. 

Male-dominated trade; low Man Box endorsement

Similarly, some men said that the fear of losing social connections and relationships with their friends might limit their willingness to intervene in homophobic commentary or street harassment in their peer groups.

The pub test is that we should be standing up for the right thing, but it’s the confrontation and the friendship and the relationship. I don’t want to ruin the relationship. 

University-educated; moderate Man Box endorsement

These quotes show the critical role that men’s relationships play in successful prevention efforts. Focus group participants placed great value on belonging and acceptance, group membership, group cohesion, and loyalty to their friends (112, 113). In the first quote, the participant describes pressure to demonstrate loyalty and earn acceptance through upholding the status quo of the group, even if it does not align with an individual’s own ethics or morals.  

In peer or group settings where hypermasculine traits are highly valued, men’s efforts to assert belonging or even power can mean that they assert harmful attitudes and behaviours, including condoning or enacting violence against women or LGBTIQA+ people (114). This is apparent in the ways that belonging and loyalty are conceived of in the context of men’s sporting culture (115) as well as within highly masculinised professions such as police, the military and the security industry (116). The masculinities that are represented in these contexts often overemphasise in-group cohesion and the desirability of heteronormativity, cisnormativity, dominance, risk-taking, aggression and other dominant masculine norms (115).  

It is important to emphasise that the pressures to conform to harmful masculinities created in these contexts are at issue, rather than men’s desire to maintain strong social relationships. Fostering supportive social connections is valuable in many ways, including to help mitigate risk of men’s social isolation and loneliness. Isolation and feelings of rejection are correlated with some men’s vulnerability to grooming by extremist groups, including misogynist online movements that actively condone and, in some cases, perpetrate violence against women and LGBTIQA+ people (73). They are also correlated with poorer mental health and wellbeing outcomes for men (117). However, these quotes show how prioritising group cohesion over personal values may perpetuate unhealthy male peer group cultures in which men are not confident to challenge views that are contrary to the perceived consensus of the peer group.  

They also highlight how tensions between men’s personal beliefs and values and their experiences of pressure to conform to unhealthy masculine norms can play out. As discussed early in this chapter, the decision to act is not limited to a binary choice between staying silent or confronting harmful attitudes in a way that ‘ruin[s] the relationship’. Helping men to understand the variety of ways that they can take action is an ongoing aim for primary prevention efforts focused on encouraging bystander action (55).  

Focus group participants talked about how considerations of their physical safety factored into their decisions to intervene in sexist or homophobic commentary. They identified this as particularly pertinent when study participants did not have a personal relationship with those who were being offensive or harassing others. In these situations, men discussed how they would weigh up their desire to intervene against the likelihood of aggressive confrontation and possible risks to their physical safety.

[In relation to the homophobic scenario] say if it’s someone that looks dangerous, then I’d be less likely to intervene, mainly because safety for myself and others out there. ‘Cause, chances are they could lash out or make the situation worse than what it is already. 

University-educated; low Man Box endorsement

The findings of the 2021 NCAS similarly show that men limited their bystander actions with strangers because of considerations for their own safety (17). These findings, along with the findings from the focus groups, point to the need to facilitate men’s safety and confidence to take prosocial bystander intervention within their communities and peer groups. VicHealth’s ‘Stepping in’: a bystander action toolkit to support equality and respect at work provides additional insights on bystander safety, stressing the need to assess physical safety (55).

The focus group findings on bystander action presented in this section underscore the importance of understanding men’s relationships with their friends and peers as a crucial site for action against violence against women and LGBTIQA+ people (1, 6). The research and the focus group findings in The Man Box 2024 suggest a high level of willingness among many men to actively address sexist, homophobic and violence-supporting attitudes and behaviours. Focus group participants also described various barriers to acting on this intent that stem from wanting to protect their relationships and status in a peer group, family, team or workplace. This highlights the importance of engaging with men as friends, brothers, sons, cousins, teammates, partners, lovers and colleagues – and as people who value these relationships and the people in their lives – rather than engaging them solely as individuals whose attitudes and behaviours need to be changed as participants in primary prevention interventions. Strategies to affect and communicate broad-based normative change will help to reduce men’s perceived pressure to conform to harmful masculine norms. This in turn is likely to strengthen men’s confidence and capability to intervene in sexist and homophobic behaviour when it happens in different settings where they live, work, learn, socialise and play.  

Men’s confidence in their gender identity

Some focus group participants described how their confidence in their own masculinity and strong sense of self helped them to navigate social pressure to adhere to rigid ideas of how they should behave as men.

If someone makes any weird comments about [my less ‘masculine’ hobbies], I just play into it and say, ‘Yeah, I like to do this’, and I will share a bit about motivations, and they might acknowledge that, and that’s nice … I think it’s much more about being yourself, being unique and standing up for yourself and being confident in whatever you believe in or who you are. 

University-educated; moderate Man Box endorsement

This quote shows how the participant intentionally and confidently shares the activities that he enjoys. He describes how his self-assuredness provides tools to address and neutralise judgement from peers and their efforts to police adherence to more stereotypical masculine norms. This contrasts with some examples discussed in Chapter 3 in which some men hid, or made excuses for, behaviours that their peers may code as feminine. In this example, the participant describes how he presents a counterpoint to pressure to conform to prescriptive gender norms through sharing with peers the pleasure he gains from his hobbies.  

This example is an instance of bystander action that ‘supports men and boys in developing healthy masculinities and positive, supportive male peer relationships’, one of the four essential actions to prevent violence against women as set out in Change the story (1 p 60). Further, in several focus groups, participants shared the ways that they might try and police the behaviours of peers like the man quoted above if they thought they were moving ‘too far’ outside of traditional male gender norms.

At least in my group of friends, we might crack a joke at the start or give them a bit of shit [for having non-stereotypical hobbies like knitting] but I think for the most part, we wouldn’t really care. We might bring it up the first time and laugh at it or say, like, ‘What was that about?’ or ‘Are you actually doing this?’ But then we’d sort of just take it if they’re into that, and that’s sweet. 

Male-dominated trade; moderate Man Box endorsement

This instinct to communicate disapproval and judgement to a friend because of his hobbies reflects the idea of precarious manhood shared in Chapter 3, which suggests that men need to constantly earn and prove their masculinity (10, 82). Through this lens, the group of friends described here are seeking to prove their masculinity to each other by signalling that they recognise that someone in their group has moved away from dominant masculine norms. The use of humour to do so shows some of the ways in which norms can be policed using a deliberate system of rewards and punishment. The peer group ‘cracking a joke’, allowing them to initially push back against transgression of masculine norms (‘Are you actually doing this?’) before choosing to tolerate this behaviour (‘We’d sort of just take it’).  

This example contrasts with the action the man quoted above describes, in comfortably defending his chosen hobbies, taking a non-combative, confident approach to neutralising social pressure from peers and modelling the benefits of flexible and healthier masculine norms. This approach illustrates one way of inviting one’s peers to re-evaluate their own attitudes and beliefs about the ‘right’ way of being a man. Alongside structural and systemic action, the cumulative effect of such invitations to explore different ways of enacting masculinities are an important contributor to progress to address the gendered drivers and prevent violence against women.

Changes in perspective over men’s life course  

Focus group participants described fatherhood as providing increased motivation for some men to challenge rigid masculine norms and related belief systems. Some fathers described intentionally moderating the social messages that their children heard, including limiting their exposure to homophobic or sexist views. They discussed how they would consider intervening with older men who expressed or tried to enforce their adherence to stereotypical gender norms on the participants’ children.  

There’s certain people that you don’t … you kind of wouldn’t put up with it around anymore, but some of you just kind of let slide. Like dad, you’re 77, you’re not going to change him. It’s too late, you know, in that aspect of what’s acceptable. But I will call him up and go, ‘Hey, mate, you can say that in your house, but don’t say that out, you know, in public with everybody else or don’t … I don’t want you doing that with my kids’. 

Fathers; moderate Man Box endorsement

This quote illustrates how having children introduced different incentives which prompted some men to address the behaviours of older men in their families, unlike some other participants, whose reluctance to cause offence or disrespect resulted in them deciding not to challenge their elders. This highlights the potential for primary prevention efforts to encourage men to think about the purpose of bystander behaviour and to use that to shape strategies for action. For example, the participant in the fathers’ focus group above describes the purpose of his intervention as shielding his children from views that are increasingly unacceptable and contribute to social harm. This makes it a priority to address with his father, and he finds a way to do so that is more likely to result in a productive conversation. These same principles can be applied in a range of social settings as part of the calculations of risk and benefits related to bystander action discussed throughout this chapter.

Some participants reflected upon the progress towards gender equality and reduced pressure to conform to rigid masculine norms. They expressed empathy for older men in their lives who felt a higher degree of pressure, and talked with gratitude about the changes that have occurred.

It’s changed a bit, I think, from looking at the boomer generation above me, and my father, and father-in-law and that sort of era … I think we are more open to talking, I think we are more open to being vulnerable. You don’t have to be that tough, you know, tough person, I think. It might have been bred into them, because they’re obviously children of people that have been to war and seen [economic] depression. 

Fathers; moderate Man Box endorsement

Others spoke about their own progress through adulthood in building their capability and confidence in resisting pressures to conform to harmful expectations for men to be invariably stoic or tough. 

I can’t say for the younger blokes, but … growing up through the early 2000s and that, [I learned that] you don’t talk about [feelings]. You just bottle it up and move on with it … Whereas now, if you’ve got an issue, you can ask someone, you can talk to them. Which a lot of guys that are older than me struggle to understand. 

Male-dominated trade; moderate Man Box endorsement

These examples describe promising social shifts, including in individual men’s ability to recognise harmful masculine pressures and to align themselves with healthier expressions of masculinity. However, as shown throughout this chapter, these shifts are much more likely to result in sustained positive change when scaffolded by efforts to address the gendered drivers of violence, including rigid gender norms, at all levels of society. 

Conclusion

The different ways that focus group participants resist, support or express ambivalence about rigid gender norms demonstrates the contextual push and pull factors that inform men’s decisions about how to enact masculinities in different contexts. The ways that men respond to perceived social pressures about legitimate ways to be a man can vary according to circumstance, life stage and social context. All these factors can influence how willing, capable and confident men might be to actively participate in addressing the gendered drivers of violence against women, particularly shifting harmful masculine norms, heteronormativity and cisnormativity. Understanding such factors and the ways that they interrelate to cause or disrupt men’s perceptions of social pressure to conform to Man Box rules present new opportunities for helping men to choose to take action to prevent violence against women and gender-based violence.  

In the next chapter, we explore some of those opportunities and considerations for how they might be applied in future primary prevention efforts.  

Footnotes