(Re)constructing Healthier Masculinities: A Comparative Analysis of Two School-Based, Positive Masculinity Programs

In recent years, the topic of masculinity has received considerable attention within both mainstream and academic discourses. Increasingly, people have come to understand traditional manifestations of masculinity as harmful or "toxic" - to others and to men and boys themselves. Indeed, a broad literature of research suggests that adhering to (hegemonic) masculine norms is associated with violence and aggression (including gender-based and sexual violence) as well as sexism, homophobia, and other forms of prejudice. Additionally, masculinity has been implicated in mens and boys' mental health issues (e.g. depression, anxiety, and suicidality), their aversion to help seeking, and their relative academic struggles. As a result of these well documented issues, many have come to the conclusion that we are in a "crisis of masculinity." Logically, this perception has inspired greater interest in programs that seek to promote healthier versions of masculinity, particularly among boys and young men. Though such programs have existed for upwards of three decades, they vary greatly in terms of their aims, approaches, and populations served. Additionally, many of these programs have never or rarely been properly assessed for effectiveness, and the evaluation literature which does exist is relatively limited. As such, the purpose of my study was to shed light on this under-explored field by describing and comparatively analyzing two school-based, positive masculinity programs: Building Men (Syracuse, NY) and Maine Boys to Men (Portland, ME). In order to better understand the unique characteristics of each program, I conducted in-person observations of programming delivered by each organization with middle and/or high-school students. I then used these observations to generate rich, narrative descriptions detailing everything I witnessed and experienced. I also conducted interviews with program directors, program facilitators, and prior participants. These data were then used to construct a comparative analysis of the educational messages, programmatic techniques, and theoretical foundations of each program. This analysis revealed key differences in how the organizations define the problem(s) they seek to address and explained how these differences inform their respective approaches. Thus, this study helped better our understanding of school-based positive masculinity programs by describing and analyzing two under-documented examples of such efforts.