Paper presented to AARE Conference

Brisbane

December, 1997

Martin Mills

Graduate School of Education

The University of Queensland

Brisbane, 4072

e-mail: m.mills@mailbox.uq.edu.au

MILLM97.048

Paper presented to AARE Conference

Brisbane

December, 1997

Martin Mills

The University of Queensland

This paper considers some of the issues involved in the implementation of (pro)feminist programs designed for boys in schools on the topic of "gender and violence". Such programs, often referred to by the neologism "boyswork", are becoming increasingly popular in schools as feminist, and feminist inspired, discourses which make links between dominant representations of masculinity and violence acquire increasing degrees of legitimacy in the education arena (for example, through policy documents such as the National Action Plan for the Education of Girls and Gender Equity: A Framework for Australian Schools). The existence of (pro)feminist programs for boys in schools is testament to the extent to which feminist movements over the last thirty years have been successful in making gender equity issues a concern in schools (for examples of work in this area see Curriculum & Gender Equity Policy Unit, 1995; Reay, 1990; Denborough, 1995; Denborough, 1996; Salisbury and Jackson, 1996; Friedman, 1995). However, the introduction of gender and violence programs for boys into schools does not occur unproblematically. Discourses which represent a male backlash against many of the gains of feminism (for example, Farrell, 1993; Biddulph, 1995; Biddulph, 1997; Bly, 1991; see Mills, 1997a, for a discussion of these texts) work to constrain the impact of (pro)feminist programs (Kenway, 1995; Kenway, 1996). These backlash politics, represented by both men’s right and men’s mythopoetic politics (Connell, 1995; Kimmel, 1995), have also been instrumental in creating "boyswork" programs. Thus, these programs are often in competition with (pro)feminist programs for space within the school curriculum. Unfortunately many of the programs rooted in these backlash politics have struck a chord with those seeking to deal with the issue of "boys in schools". (Pro)feminist programs for boys need to address some of the concerns raised through these backlash politics and programs in order to counter their claims that boys as boys are an oppressed group and to disrupt the appeal which these backlash programs have for educators.

In this paper I want to focus on two of the issues raised through a backlash politics (Faludi, 1992), that boys need male teachers (mentors) and that boys in schools need to be empowered, and _to discuss the relevance of these issues to the implementation of programs dealing with gender and violence in schools. It is my contention here that men do need to be involved in working with boys on gender and violence issues. However, this is not because boys require male figures in their lives in order to develop into balanced men, as suggested by Bly and Biddulph and Queensland’s Education Minister, but because it is men’s responsibility to address the privileged position in which they are situated in gendered relations of power. One area in which men can fulfil this responsibility is by working with boys on issues such as gender and violence. Thus, unlike those who advocate for boys from the standpoint that males are an oppressed group, this work needs to begin from the premise that men as men are privileged within the current "gender order" (Connell, 1987).

Adopting this premise makes the issue of empowerment problematic. Backlash politics in schools have constructed boys and men as disempowered groups within society, using statistics which relate to things such as rates of suicide, mortality and imprisonment, and suggest that the answer to this lack of power is to improve boys’ self esteem through a therapeutic approach to boys’ education. However, a similar notion of empowerment is also found in some forms of liberatory or critical pedagogical practice which seek to address issues of power and domination (see for example, Giroux, 1992; Giroux, 1994; Giroux and McLaren, 1989; Giroux and Simon, 1989; McLaren, 1994; and Kanpol, 1994). A consideration of the role which empowerment should play in the education of boys raises important pedagogical issues for teachers who want to avoid authoritarian teaching methods, but who do not have as their primary intent the empowerment of boys. For it needs to be acknowledged that the empowerment of boys as boys does not confront the issue of boys’ privileged positioning in schools, and society in general, but instead works to ensure that this privileged position is protected. Thus, I argue here that whilst a consideration of power dynamics is important in the delivery of gender and violence programs for boys the answer is not the empowerment of boys. Rather, as suggested by Denborough (1995; Denborough, 1996), respect should form the basis of this type of work being done with boys.

In order to explore the roles of men in boys’ education and the notion of empowerment in such programs, I draw on work I have done with boys in schools on gender and violence issues. In 1996 I was involved in constructing and delivering gender and violence programs for boys in two Queensland State High Schools: Mountainview and Tamville. Programs examining the relationship between gender and violence were conducted with girls in these schools during this same period. Mountainview State High is situated in Queensland’s Sunshine Coast hinterland and Tamville State High is located in a reasonably affluent suburb of Brisbane. The program at Mountainview was conducted with a grade twelve class of boys; and at Tamville with boys in a grade nine class and a grade 11 class. The material for this paper draws on interview data collected from boys in those classes; teachers who had _assisted in the delivery of the programs, who had been instrumental in introducing the programs into the school or who had participated in the classes; and an Education Queensland gender equity policy officer who had played a significant role in the development of the program at Mountainview High.

It is perhaps important to note at the outset that I do not regard tackling the issue of masculinity and violence through one-off gender and violence programs, as occurred in the research schools, as the most complete way of confronting these issues. In each of the schools the programs were conducted on a limited basis, one lesson per week over the length of one school term, and were initiated through the school subject Human Relationships Education (HRE). This is not an ideal situation. For as a number of teachers commented there is little which can be achieved within the short periods of time over which these programs are normally run. For example, Simon states:

and Victoria remarks:

The ineffectiveness of such program is further compounded when they are introduced through personal development type subjects such as HRE. For as a senior policy officer with Education Queensland’s Gender Equity Unit stated in relation to this:

The marginality of HRE is evidenced in some of the comments made by boys in both of the schools. For instance, a boy from Mountainview made the following comment in relation to how serious HRE was taken at his school:

And Sean from Tamville remarked

As suggested by a number of the teachers in the schools and by Julie above, to deal with these issues most effectively these concerns need to be integrated into school structures and processes (see also Equity Unit, 1997). Whole school approaches have been successful in a number of instances (Ord & Quigley, 1985; Patrick & Sanders, 1994). However, it is subjects such as HRE which tend to be the most popular point of entry into schools for these issues, and at times have met with some success (Mills, 1997b). Thus, whilst not providing an ideal scenario for instigating educative processes which deal with the relationships between masculinity and violence, aspects of these programs require consideration, and also have wider implications for dealing with the issue of boys in schools.

One of the issues raised in boys’ programs is the place of male teachers in a boy’s education. Central to men’s mythopoetic politics is the importance of men in boys’ lives (Bly, 1991; Biddulph, 1995; Biddulph, 1997; Fletcher, 1995; for critical assessments of such politics see Kenway, 1995; Kenway, 1996; Connell, 1995; Kimmel, 1995; Mills & Lingard, 1997). This concern has been picked up by the current Queensland Education Minister, Bob Quinn, and is regularly raised as an issue in newspapers. This can be seen in some recent headlines which suggest that men are being driven away from teaching…" Wanted: male teachers" (Meryant, 14.3.1996:3); "Men and young shun teaching, principals told" (Aldred & Butler, 1996, Oct., 5:15); "It’s goodbye Mr Chips: Guys give our schools a miss" (Griffith, 1997, Jan., 12:19); "No panic, guys, kindies need you – lecturer" (O’Chee, 1997, Feb. 20:11); and "Even fewer men on the roll" (O’Chee,1997, Nov., 27:7). One of the dominant arguments found within such sources is that boys need more male role models. This is often founded upon either the belief that schools have become a feminised domain causing boys to miss out on acquiring the discipline necessary to control their disruptive behaviour or the interrelated belief that the education of boys is a form of men’s business. These two beliefs underpin men’s rights and mythopoetic men’s politics respectively. Those who argue for more male teachers upon these grounds, that is that men either should have or do have more authority or influence when it comes to educating boys, are reinforcing gendered power relations. Unfortunately there are a number of men writing in the field of boys’ schooling who work from such a perspective (Fletcher, 1995; Biddulph, _1995; Biddulph, 1997; West, 1995). It is a perspective which is often constructs men as victims, often of feminism. For example, West (1995:12) claims: "What my research shows consistently is that men have been afraid to voice their opinions in mixed company because they feel they will be attacked for the inhumanity of man to woman in centuries past." And Biddulph (1995:24) says, in relation to feminism: "Any move to change the order of things which does not address the fact that men are equally lost, trapped and miserable will only create its own resistance."

The creation of all-male situations in which men, such as West and Biddulph, have the responsibility for educating boys, thus has the potential to create a dangerous environment for gender justice (Hagan, 1992). This is implicitly recognised in some of the comments made by boys in the research schools. For instance, Bryce comments in relation to whether or not programs for boys on gender and violence issues are best conducted by men or women:

It is significant here that Bryce makes it sound as if the homo-social environments being created for these programs provide spaces where boys can articulate anti-feminist or anti-female comments without raising the ire of women. This has often been a (pro)feminist criticism of all-male gatherings and is obviously one of the big concerns feminists have about males working together without some form of accountability to feminists (Cannan & Griffin, 1990).

This does not mean that there is no place for men in working with boys. I would suggest that the contrary is the case. However, the men’s politics which is required in order to bring about greater gender justice is a politics which is accountable to feminism. Profeminism is such a politics. Profeminist politics are based upon the premise that it is men’s responsibility to tackle those issues which are the source of their own privilege as well as those of other males. A profeminist approach to boys’ education thus does not seek to exclude women from gender programs, and indeed argues that it is crucial that boys listen to girls and women about their views on gender issues. At times temporary homo-social environments maybe useful in order to allow boys to discuss issues which they would feel uncomfortable discussing with women or girls present. However, any attempt to silence women’s and girls contributions to debates on gender and violence will serve to _preserve dominant relations of power.

Finding men to staff these programs, though, can often be problematic. There are not many men working in schools who identify with a profeminist politics. Thus, whilst it is important that men take on the responsibility of implementing profeminist gender and violence programs in schools, there is often a lack of willing male staff to take on such programs (Dunn, 1995). This was a view held by a number of women teachers interviewed at the two schools. For instance, Sarah, from Mountainview, states in response to a question about whether or not it had been difficult to find male teachers to be involved in these types of program at the school

Donna from the same school comments:

The issue of a lack of male teachers was significant for Mountainview High School. A number of teachers there were feeling quite positive about the successful ways in which the boys’ programs had developed, and had thus planned to implement a similar program with the year elevens, leading into grade twelve. However, the plans had to be shelved because Craig, the male teacher who had worked in the grade twelve program had been granted long service leave for the last term of the year. This created a situation where there were no male staff members prepared to take on this responsibility.

The situation is perhaps a little different at Tamville, which is a much larger school. Simon, who had sat in on the grade nine’s program, thought that it would not be difficult to find male teachers at Tamville who would take on the responsibility of dealing with such issues:

_

Victoria supported this:

The important point here is not that women could or should not conduct these programs. The work of Dianne Reay (1990) with primary school boys in England is evidence of the very positive and successful ways in which women can work with boys on gender projects. And there was general agreement amongst most of the teachers that women were quite capable of teaching these programs. For instance:

and

The point is more whether women should have to carry the responsibility for making gender and violence considerations an issue in their schools, as was the case at the two research schools. It is probably not coincidental, or atypical, that the guidance officer responsible for initiating Mountainview’s program was female, that the HRE coordinator who organised the program at Tamville was female, or that the gender equity officer who was also instrumental in the setting up of the Mountainview program was female. It is important that men in schools take some responsibility for _acknowledging their own privileges and relieve female teachers of much of this burden whilst remaining open and accountable to feminists working in this area.

There are also important other reasons why men need to be working with boys on these issues. For example, there are some experiences which boys face that men may have once faced or are still facing. This is sometimes important for boys. For example, a number of the boys stated that women would not understand their points of view on some topics and that this could lead to discomfort for the boys, for instance:

and:

It is interesting that Peter has recognised that there is perhaps a problem with essentialist notions of gender. Peter, at various times goes to great pains to not be "sexist" or a "Nazi". However, what he taps into here is the social dimension of gender. There are things that women do not understand about the ways in which some discourses impact upon men’s gender construction, as there are those that men do not understand in relation to female gender constructions. This is also picked up by some of the female teachers. For example:

And Donna made a similar comment:

However, despite their belief in the importance of men working with boys on these issues there is a degree of uncertainty in their voices. Neither woman seems prepared to state definitively that it should be only males conducting these programs. It has often been asked by feminists whether men can be trusted to deal with gender issues without the presence of women (Hagan, 1992; Cannan & Griffin, 1990). This is quite understandable given the politics of some of the men who argue for the need for more male teachers (see in particular Biddulph, 1997). Furthermore, it is also possible to point to the ways in which homo-social environments have often been used to reinvest males with patriarchal privileges. Donna’s comment that she wonders whether "so and so would not have said that had a woman been in the room" is a telling one. Men getting together in all-male environments can have dangerous consequences for women, and of course for some boys and men (Epstein & Johnson, 1994:204). It is thus important that men who engage in these programs need to be able to deploy (pro)feminist analyses to make sense of their shared experiences with boys.

Another reason for men to be involved in such programs is that their involvement serves to carry an important message to students. Boys do need to be made aware that it is a legitimate activity for men to take a stand on these issues. As Victoria states:

And Simon provides a similar response:

Simon’s point here, though, raises some problematical issues, notably that of the perceived authority of men. It is sometimes argued that boys will listen to men about these issues more than they will women. The argument suggests that women articulating the same concerns that men do in these programs are written off by the boys as feminists who distort the reality of existing gender relations. However, it is argued, it is often a little harder for these boys, although far from being impossible, to position men in such a way. This is a dilemma for programs in schools. Bowing to arguments that boys will listen to men better than women reinforces existing patriarchal gender relations of power where men are constructed as authority figures. However, it is important for men to not use this an excuse for avoiding dealing with this issue in schools.

It also needs to be recognised that the resentment which faces those attempting to implement such programs may be greater for women than for men. For instance, the boys at Mountainview were already articulating an anti-feminist language when the program was first introduced. This may have made it more difficult for a woman to present ideas without some of the boys utilising their "femiNazi" discourse. The potential for antagonism to women is suggested in some of the comments made by boys from the different classes. Oscar a grade twelve Mountainview student commented:

and Jason, a grade nine Tamville boy:

This issue of behaviour is an important one. It is critical that boys do not interpret men’s involvement in these programs as a consequence of men’s greater ability to control classroom behaviours. Such an interpretation serves to reinforce dominant constructions of masculinity. Thus, it is important that men consider how they will exercise their authority over the class in ways which do not valorise hegemonic masculine practices. However, it ought to be recognised that in some _situations men will probably need to use what might seem to be authoritarian pedagogical approaches. For, in some instance seemingly democratic pedagogical approaches can have oppressive consequences for others (see for instance Walkerdine, ). This came out in a discussion with one grade nine boy with a Vietnamese background from Tamville. He had concluded that these programs were better run by teachers than outsiders to the school, because:

For some students, they want oppressive behaviours repressed. However, pedagogical approaches which presuppose that the teacher has all the answers are also problematic, as noted by a grade eleven boy from Tamville, in a similar discussion about the merits of teachers versus outsiders conducting these programs. Julian comments:

Teachers thus tread a fine line in the ways they conduct these programs. A didactic authoritarian approach to the education of boys, especially when conducted by men, may reinforce the legitimacy of domineering and oppressive tactics to achieve one’s ends: perhaps this is not the most appropriate tactics to be valorising in a gender and violence program for boys. However, a more flexible, student-centred, democratic process may allow students to oppress others and to articulate repressive discourses unchallenged. Male teachers working with boys in this area will need to be sensitive to the balancing act they perform when working with boys and will need to consider how their work impacts upon and enages with existing relations of power. In the next section I want to note some of the ways the concept of empowerment should form part of this consideration.

Gender equity programs for girls have often had the "empowerment" of girls as a central focus. So too have approaches to education which seek to challenge various dominant relations of power (Giroux, 1992; Kanpol, 1994; McLaren, 1994). In many ways such approaches make sense when they are being deployed in situations where it is in the students’ own interests to challenge those relations of power. Thus, for instance, the concept of empowerment, whilst problematic for a number of other reasons (Gore, 1992; Ellsworth, 1992), can legitimately be an important aspect of gender equity programs for girls. It makes sense to strive to empower girls _to resist the oppressions they face as girls, because it is in their interests to challenge existing gendered relations of power (this is not to deny that powerful hegemonic processes work to ensure that girls comply with dominant constructions of femininity). However, such an approach makes less sense when applied to boys.

(Pro)feminist boys’ programs, unlike girls’ programs, are based upon a premise which suggests that the current gendered relations of power favour boys’ interests over those of girls, thus such programs are asking the participants to work against their own interests. It would, therefore, seem to be a little paradoxical to be seeking to empower boys in these programs, for this would amount to an attempt to empower boys to disempower themselves. Most boys are aware that (pro)feminist program are not about empowering boys. It is this which often precipitates the poor behaviour mentioned at the end of the previous section of this paper. And which also makes programs run by men, such as Biddulph, seeking to empower boys, in order to improve their social positioning within society, more compelling to boys, and to those who feel that feminism has made victims of boys. In the last section of this paper I want to consider why it is, given the privileged position from which boys as boys operate, that backlash approaches to boys’ education which stress the need to empower boys have resonated with those concerned about issues relating to boys in schools; and to consider the implications this has for teaching boys about issues of gender and violence.

Backlash boys’ programs which are grounded in a mythopoetic politics suggest that an answer to improving the welfare of boys requires the empowerment of boys. This arguments is usually founded upon what Foster (1994) has referred to as a "presumptive equality". The three interrelated aspects of which are:

These presumptions are evident in the ways in which some men utilise the concept of empowerment within approaches to boys’ education. Biddulph (1995:25) provides a good example of this when he argues that: "What we must do now is make comparable changes in the empowerment of men to those that have begun to happen for women." This use of empowerment implies that boys are trapped within gender roles, rather than engaged in an active negotiation and contestation with gendering discourses (see Connell, 1995:21-27 for discussion of role theory). This concern for the well being of boys is also found in the New South Wales O’Doherty (1994) report, Inquiry into Boys’ Education – Challenges and opportunities A Discussion Paper, a report which has been much lauded by sections of the men’s movement (Biddulph, 1995:141; Fletcher, 1995:119). Within this _report, role theory occupies a prominent place. In a similar manner to girls, boys are seen to be trapped within oppressive roles. For instance, the report argues that male roles whilst oppressive to women also limit boys:

Such a theoretical perspective ignores issues of power and privilege and instead emphasises problems facing boys as a consequence of particular roles which have been imposed upon them. It thus works to deny the existence of the political and social advantages which boys are receiving as members of a society which serves patriarchal interests, and also suggests that it is girls who are currently favoured by existing relations of power.

This suggestion has found receptive audiences in schools, both on the part of male teachers and students (Mills, 1997b; Kenway, et al., 1997). One of the reasons for this is that many boys, and some men, in schools do not feel overly privileged or powerful, thus as McLean (1996:19) has stated: "One of the central paradoxes of masculinity is that while men, as a group, clearly hold the reins of power, the majority of men experience themselves as powerless." This paradox is what Kaufman (1994) has referred to as men’s "contradictory experience of power", and consequently what makes (pro)feminist programs which suggest males should consider giving up privileges and the desire to be a powerful actor in the social order not particularly convincing for many men. In order to engage boys with a profeminist politics an examination of why it is that boys feel powerless in a world imbued with patriarchal relations of power is important.

One source of this powerlessness stems from what Connell (1995) has referred to as the "social organisation of masculinity". In this organisation most boys are happy being boys, they recognise the status that goes with being a man in today’s society - hence the use of the term "girl" or "woman" as an insult to be deployed against other men and boys. However, a number of factors impact upon males to produce hierachised masculine relationships. In schools, as elsewhere, these factors relate to the extent to which boys can measure up to criteria designated by dominant representations of masculinity, often referred to as "hegemonic masculinity" (Connell, 1995; see Donaldson, 1993, for a discussion of some of the problematics associated with this concept), and also to factors such as class, race/ethnicity, sexuality and age.

Few boys or men can meet the standards constructed as the "ideal". Hegemonic versions of masculinity require the performance of particular physical and _emotional attributes, characterised by such things as toughness, stoicism and stamina. However, even these attributes are not always enough to guarantee that a man or boy will not experience any form of oppression. For, it is only a few men who are privileged in every sense, that is not only are they male, but also white, middle class, middle aged, heterosexual and able bodied. As Kimmel (1994) has said in relation to American men:

The important point here though is that whilst most men experience oppression of some form or other they do not experience it because they are men, but because they are particular types of men. This is a feature of masculinity politics which is ignored in men’s backlash politics. A sleight of hand is employed which seeks to cohere the social group of men together in such a way that those who experience oppressions primarily along axes other than gender are used to represent the oppression of men as a whole. For instance, those who advocate for more "boy-friendly schools" (Fletcher, 1995) utilise things such as boys’ school suspensions and literacy levels without disaggregating the data, to see which of those boys are, for example, from low socio-econmoic and/or Aboriginal background, in order to demonstrate how schools serve the needs of girls more than they do those of boys. Arguments such as these serve to construct institutions such as schools as having been captured by feminist interests. This has the effect of not problematising masculinity but of suggesting that something external to masculinity has occurred to cause boys and men to have become disadvantaged. This occurs because most boys want to construct themselves as powerful, that is as potential men who will make their mark on the world. There is little status in constructing oneself as a victim. Indeed, status usually comes from demonstrating power which has the potential to make others victims. Julie, the gender equity policy officer, makes some useful comments upon this:

The difficulty in admitting that there are problems associated with being a man may well grow out of the unwillingness to admit that one has failed to acquire the attributes and social status associated with hegemonic masculinity. It is often easier to lay the blame at the feet of something external to oneself. Feminism has served as such a scapegoat.

Thus, the uncertainties and pains which confront many boys have made anti-feminist masculine politics rooted in mythopoetic and men’s rights discourses more appealing than a profeminist politics to boys, and to those implementing boys’ programs in schools. In order for (pro)feminist programs to capture the imagination of male students they will need to acknowledge that men and boys experience pain in their lives. However, acknowledging that men and boys experience pain is not the same as asserting that men are oppressed group. The pain that boys often feel is the price that some boys pay in order to ensure that patriarchal privileges for males as a "social group" are maintained, and it is a price some boys are prepared to pay in order to gain societal respect. Thus, as Kaufman (1994) has argued, power and pain are not separate issues, but interrelated. Consequently, the pain which many boys feel should not be highlighted at the expense of dealing with issues of boys’ privileged positioning within patriarchal relations of power. It is an adherence to the premise that boys as boys are privileged which raises a number of difficult pedagogical issues for those implementing boys’ (pro)feminist programs.

Teachers delivering such programs, will have to deal with the reality that a number of boys are unlikely to be willing participants in the program. Some implementors of boys’ programs only deliver their programs to students who have not been coerced into participating (Denborough, 1995; Denborough, 1996). This is one way of heading off resistances to the program, and the attempt to respect students’ "rights" is commendable. However, in only working with volunteers opportunities can be missed. For example many of the Mountainview grade twelve boys who in the early days of their program were very disruptive and resistant to the program’s aims were later instrumental in constructing a similar program for the grade eight boys in their school (see Mills, 1997b). Indeed, their work with the grade eights was stimulated out of hostility to their own program. At the same time, though, it is important not to contribute to the sense of powerlessness many boys feel, or to contribute to their antagonism towards feminism by taking an authoritarian approach to the teaching of these issues or by ignoring the issues which many boys face. It is important to remember that on the basis of age, all boys experiences oppression. For instance, the hierarchical nature of schools and the positioning of youth in society often work to ensure that young people have little influence in the day to day running of their lives. In schools boys, like female students, have every move monitored and they are under constant surveillance as they are expected to conform to the dictates of the education system (Foucault, 1977). Society generally constructs youth as irresponsible and of needing to be kept under tight controls. In these instances boys experience oppression, however, they do so not as males but as young males. Furthermore, as yo_ung males they cannot be held fully accountable for existing gendered relations of power.

It is this which has led David Denborough to suggest that approaches to the teaching of boys about gender and violence issues ought to be respectful. This entails not attributing the blame for the high levels of gendered violence at the feet of the students. For as he says:

I am in accord with Denborough here. I find the notion of respect very useful when working with boys. It is an organising principle which is far more appropriate in this work than is that of empowerment. I want to illustrate by drawing on some comments made to me by a grade nine boy, Peter, who had had a big impact upon me whilst I had been working at Tamville. He had described the violence in his family to me:

And he later concludes our discussion with the following advice:

I think it is crucial that men working with boys on gender and violence issues, consider some of the consequences of what Peter has raised here. Peter is clearly not a privileged boy. Yet at times he is a boy who oppresses others. Does Peter need to be empowered?

My tentative response to such a question is, no. Rather, my suggestion is that Peter needs to be treated with respect. I also tend to feel that any attempt to empower Peter would amount to disrespect. A number of feminist researchers have picked up on the ways that empowerment may have repressive consequences for those who a teacher is intending to empower (see Luke & Gore, 1992). For instance, the concept of empowerment presupposes that some voices tell the Truth more than others do. It also presupposes that it is the teacher who speaks with such a voice. Thus, there is an implication that the enlightened teacher is to be the person who will set the gender-trapped student free. Ellsworth (1992:98) comments on critical pedagogy in relation to this point: "The literature explores only one reason for expecting the teacher to ‘re-learn’ an object of study through the student’s less adequate understanding, and that is to enable the teacher to devise more effective strategies for bringing the student ‘up’ to the teacher’s level of understanding." Peter clearly has an understanding of issues related to violence, perhaps often a much better understanding than do some teachers conducting these programs for boys. Furthermore, Peter is grappling with many of the issues found in gender and violence programs. This can be seen in his earlier comment about men and women’s nature when he says, he does not want to sound like a "Nazi" or "sexist" and also in his comment " that’s why I’d never hit a girl or a woman or anything like that. Just, it’s just not on." To assume that one necessarily has a greater knowledge of violence and its consequences because one is older strikes me as disrespectful of Peter’s interpretations of his own life experiences. It is also bad pedagogy.

A respectful pedagogical approach to these issues does not mean that teachers should not try to provide students with alternative ways of reading existing relations of power. A socially just approach to the education of boys cannot afford to ignore the privileges which boys accrue as a result of being male, and the behaviours which are implemented in order to shore up resistance to any challenges to those privileges. However, it must also recognise that the problem of gender and violence is not a pathological one but a systemic- structural problem. Treating students with respect, therefore, means not engaging with _a politics of blame where the agency of students is exaggerated to the point of ignoring the pressures facing students. In working with students in schools it is often too easy to identify them as the problem. The problem is bigger than the students (Denborough, 1995:79). There is thus, as Fitzclarence (1993) has argued, a need for a collective ownership of the behaviours which represent the negative aspects of our culture. This is important. Adults in schools need to acknowledge their own complicity in existing gender relations. This is especially important for male teachers working on gender issues. Perhaps a way of doing this is to reflect upon the times when we have stayed silent on issues of gender and violence because we were too scared or embarrassed to say anything. It might also be equally, important is to also reflect on the times when we have been prepared to speak out about issues relating to masculinity and violence, for example, in conferences such as this where doing so has the possibility of enhancing one’s academic reputation and kudos.

Reflections such as these can help male teachers acknowledge the fears and anxieties we face as adults in confronting these issues in many contexts. Further, they will help us to acknowledge our own privileges as men are protected by the collective silences of men. These acknowledgments will help us to treat boys with respect by considering how much harder it is for boys to "step out of line" given the levels of homophobic abuse present in most schools (for example, Martino, 1997); by not treating boys as the problem; and by recognising the significance of creating a school context which is supportive of difference.

In this paper I have sought to explore some of the complexities of working with boys on gender and violence issues. I have stressed the importance of men owning up to the privileged positions from which they operate in gendered relations of power. As part of this owning up process I have suggested that men need to actively engage with a politics which seeks to undermine their privileged positions in the existing gender order. One aspect of that engagement, for male teachers, can be effected through working with boys on issues which problematise the relationship between hegemonic masculinity and violence.

However, I have not wanted to utilise backlash discourses which argue that boys need men. My argument for men’s involvement with boys on these issues springs not from a belief that women are less able than men to conduct such work, but from a belief that they should not have to. Indeed, I would argue further that feminist work ought to underpin the approaches which men utilise in their work with boys. Unlike men, such as Biddulph, Bly and Fletcher, I believe that feminism has applications to the work being done with boys on violence issues. Men’s struggles to create a more gender just world by working with boys on gender and violence issues are intertwined with women’s struggles in this area. For as Jane Kenway states:

However, whilst feminist analyses provide valuable insights into the ways in which existing gendered relations of power are constructed and maintained, feminist approaches to the education of girls can not be replicated with boys. Feminist programs for girls work in the interests of girls. Boys’ programs on the other hand have the task of encouraging boys to challenge their right to gendered privileges, or as Connell (1995) says to their "patriarchal dividend". This presents major obstacles for those intending to implement (pro)feminist programs with boys, for on the one hand boys’ self-interest works against this task, and on the other many boys do not feel privileged.

I have suggested here that this contradiction renders the concept of "empowerment" problematic when used in the education of boys. Boys as boys are privileged within gender relations, thus it would seem that they do not need empowering but disempowering. However, factors other than gender operate, often in tandem with gender, to make boys feel powerless. An important one of these factor is age. Thus, whilst I think that boys have to be held accountable for their actions, they should not be held responsible for the ways in which masculinity has become associated with violence. I thus suggest that rather than male teachers adopting an arrogant stance with boys whereby they seek to empower boys to be like them, that, in accordance with Denborough, teachers adopt a respectful approach towards the boys with who they are working. Such an approach will recognise boys’ privileged position in gender relations. However, it will also recognise the complexities involved in being a boy growing up in a society where particular, often violent, masculine qualities are valued over others, and where factors such as class, sexuality, race/ethnicity and age are also implicated in the ways boys come to see the world.

ALDRED, D. & BUTLER, G. (1996) "Men and young shun teaching, principals told", Courier Mail, Oct., 5, p15.

BIDDULPH, S. (1995) Manhood: An Action Plan for Changing Men’s Lives, (second edition), Sydney: Finch.

BIDDULPH, S. (1997) Raising Boys, Sydney: Finch.

BLY, R. (1991) Iron John: A Book About Men, Dorset: Element.

CANNAN, J. & GRIFFIN, C. (1990) "The new men’s studies: part of the problem or part of the solution?" in Hearn, J. & Morgan, D. (Eds) Men, _Masculinities and Social Theory, London: Unwin Hyman. pp206-214.

CONNELL, R.W. (1987) Gender and Power: Society, the Person and Sexual Politics, Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

CONNELL, R.W. (1995) Masculinities, St Leonards: Allen & Unwin.

CURRICULUM & GENDER EQUITY POLICY UNIT (1995) No Fear Kit, Canberra: Commonwealth department of Employment, Education and Training.

DENBOROUGH, D. (1995) "Step by Step: developing respectful and effective ways of working with young men to reduce violence", Dulwich Centre Newsletter, Nos 2 & 3, pp 73- 89.

DENBOROUGH, D. (1996) "Step by Step: developing respectful and effective ways of working with young men to reduce violence" in Mclean, C., Carey, M. & White, C. (Eds) (1996) Men’s Ways of Being, Colarado: Westview Press, pp 91-115.

DONALDSON, M. (1993) "What is hegemonic masculinity?" Theory and Society, 22, pp 643-657.

DUNN, J. (1995) "Gender awareness programs for boys: reflections on an ACT school-based program", Unicorn, Vol.21, No.4, pp 55-62

ELLSWORTH, E. (1992) "Why doesn’t this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy" in Luke, C. & Gore, J. (Eds) Feminisms and Critical Pedagogy. New York: Routledge. 90-119.

EQUITY UNIT, QUEENSLAND DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (1997) Gender and Violence Position Paper, Brisbane.

FALUDI, S. (1992) Backlash: The Undeclared War Against Women, London: Chatto & Windus.

FARRELL, W. (1993) The Myth of Male Power: Why Men are the Disposable Sex, New York: Simon & Schuster.

FITZCLARENCE, L ( 1993 ) "Violence in schools", Education Links, 46, pp16-18.

FLETCHER, R. (1995) "Looking to fathers" in Browne, R. & Fletcher, R. (Eds) Boys in Schools: Addressing the real issues - behaviour, values and relationships, Sydney: Finch. pp114-122.

FOSTER, V. (1994b) "What _about the Boys!" Presumptive Equality and Obfuscation of Concerns about Theory, Research, Policy, Resources and Curriculum in the Education of Boys and Girls. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education Annual Conference, Newcastle University.

FOUCAULT, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, London: Penguin.

FRIEDMAN, B., (1995) Boys-Talk: a program for young men about masculinity, non-violence and relationships (draft) Adelaide: Men Against Sexual Assault.

GENDER EQUITY TASKFORCE for MINISTERIAL COUNCIL for EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION, TRAINING and YOUTH AFFAIRS (1997) Gender Equity: A Framework for Australian Schools, Canberra: Publications and Public Communication, Department of Urban Services, ACT Government.

GIROUX, H. (1992b) "Resisting difference: cultural studies and the discourse of critical pedagogy" in Grossberg, L., Nelson, G. & Treichler, P. (Eds) Cultural Studies. New York: Routledge.

GIROUX, H. & McLAREN, P. (1989) "Introduction: schooling, cultural politics, and the struggle for democracy" in Giroux, H.A. & McLaren, P. (Eds) Critical Pedagogy, the State and Cultural Struggle. New York: State University of New York. xi-xxxv.

GIROUX, H. & SIMON, R. (1989) "Popular culture and critical pedagogy: everyday life as a basis for curriculum knowledge" in Giroux, H.A. & McLaren, P. (Eds) Critical Pedagogy, the State and Cultural Struggle. New York: State University of New York. 236-252.

GORE, J. (1992) "What we can do for you! What can "we" do for "you"? Struggling over empowerment in critical and feminist pedagogy" in Luke, C. & Gore, J. (Eds) Feminisms and Critical Pedagogy. New York: Routledge. 54-73.

GORE, J. (1993) The Struggle for Pedagogies: Critical and Feminist Discourses as Regimes of Truth New York: Routledge.

GRIFFITH, C. (1997) "It’s goodbye Mr Chips: Guys give our schools a miss", Sunday Mail, Jan., 12, p. 19.

HAGAN, K. (Ed) (1992) Women Respond to the Men’s Movement: A Feminist Collection, San Francisco: Harper.

HOUGHTON, K. (1996) "Men Under Siege", Courier Mail, October 5, p 27.

_

KANPOL B. (1994) Critical Pedagogy: An Introduction. Westport: Begin & Garvey.

KENWAY, J (1995) "Masculinities in schools: under siege, on the defensive and under reconstruction?" Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education, Vol. 16, No.1, pp59-79.

KENWAY, J. (1996) "Reasserting masculininty in Australian schools", Women’s Studies International Forum, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp 447-466.

KENWAY, J., WILLIS, S., BLACKMORE, J. & RENNIE, L. (1997) "Are boys victims of feminism in schools? Some answers from Australia", International Journal of Inclusive Education, Vol.1, No.1, pp19-35.

KIMMEL, M. (1994) "Masculinity as homophobia: fear, shame, and silence in the construction of gender identity" in Brod, H. & Kaufman, M. (Eds) Theorising Masculinities, Thousand Oaks: Sage. pp119-141.

KIMMEL, M. (Ed) (1995) The Politics of Manhood: Profeminist Men Respond to the Mythopoetic Men’s Movement (And the Mythopoetic Leaders Answer), Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

LUKE, C. & GORE, J. (Eds) Feminisms and Critical Pedagogy. New York: Routledge. 25-53.

MCLAREN, P. (1994) "Multiculturalism and the postmodern critique: towards a pedagogy of resistance and transformation" in Giroux, H.A. & McLaren, P. (Eds) Between Borders: Pedagogy and the Politics of Cultural Studies" New York: Routledge. 192-222.

MCLEAN, C. (1995) "Boys and Education in Australia", Dulwich Centre Newsletter, Nos 2 & 3, pp29-42.

MCLEAN, C. (1997) "Engaging with boys’ experiences of masculinity: implications for gender reform in schools", Curriculum Perspectives, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp 61-64.

MAHER, S. (1996) "Men wanted as teachers", Sunday Mail, Oct., 6, p29.

MARTINO, W. (1997) "‘A buch of arseholes’: Exploring the politics of masculinity for adolescent boys in schools" Social Alternatives, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp39-43.

MATTHEWS, J. (1994) "...if Radical Education is to be anything more than Radical Pedagogy", Discourse Vol. 15, No2 December. 60-72.

MERYMANT, E. (1996) "Wanted: male teachers" Courier Mail, Mar., _14, p.3.

MILLS, M. (1997a) "Wild men: looking back and lashing out" Social Alternatives, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp 11-14.

MILLS, M. (1997b) "Boys and masculinities in schools" Education Links, 54, pp. 22-24.

MILLS, M. & LINGARD, B. (1997) "Masculinity politics, myths and boys’s schooling", British Journal of Educational Studies, Vol. 45, No. 3, pp276-292.

NEW SOUTH WALES GOVERNMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION TRAINING AND TOURISM (O’Doherty Report) (1994) Inquiry into Boys’ Education – Challenges and opportunities: A Discussion Paper, Sydney: Ministry of Education and Youth Affairs.

O’CHEE, A. (1997) "No panic, guys, kindies need you - lecturer", Courier Mail, Feb., 20, p.11.

O’CHEE, A. (1997) "Even fewer men on the roll", Courier Mail, Nov. 27, p. 7

ORD, F. & QUIGLEY, J. (1985) "Anti-sexism as good educational practice: What can feminists realistically achieve? in Weiner, G. (Ed) Just a Bunch of Girls, Milton Keynes: Open University Press. pp104-119.

PATRICK, P. & SANDERS, S. (1994) "Lesbian and gay issues in the curriculum" in Epstein, D (Ed) Challenging Lesbian and Gay Inequalities in Education, Buckingham: Open University Press. pp118-130.

REAY, D. (1990) "Working with boys" Gender and Education, Vol.2, No.3, pp269-282.

RUDDUCK, J. (1994) Developing a Gender Policy in Secondary Schools: Individuals and Institutions, Buckingham: Open University.

SALISBURY, J. & JACKSON, D. (1996) Challenging Macho Values: Practical ways of working with adolescent boys, London: Falmer Press.

WEST, P. (1995) Giving Boys a Ray of Hope: Masculinity and Education, Discussion Paper for Gender Equity Taskforce Australia.