Not excusing harmful behaviour

In lucid and accessible language Dr King-Hill describes how public understanding of crime is often shaped by simplified narratives about dangerous men and criminal behaviour. She draws on the evidence base to show that masculinity itself, how it is socially constructed, performed and experienced, is a critical but under-recognised driver of offending, vulnerability and engagement with the justice system.

Reframing how we view the impacts of masculinity is important when building more effective, evidence informed public narratives about crime and justice. Dr King-Hill makes it very clear that reframing masculinity is not about excusing harmful behaviour and that clear consequences and accountability remain central. However, she argues that this reframing helps ensure that our responses address the underlying drivers of that behaviour.

Precarious masculinity

Central to this reframing is the concept of precarious masculinity, in which masculine identity is experienced as something that must be continually achieved and maintained and proven to other males. This insecurity of identity can drive behaviours frequently encountered within the justice system, including risk taking, aggression and resistance to authority.

When viewed through this lens, these behaviours can be understood not solely as individual failings, but as attempts to navigate social expectations of masculinity under conditions of pressure and uncertainty.

Reframing also involves shifting away from blame based narratives. Broad brush portrayals of boys and men as inherently problematic can reinforce shame, defensiveness and disengagement, particularly among those already experiencing marginalisation.

These approaches risk pushing individuals toward harmful identities and ideologies, including those found within (rapidly growing) online misogynistic communities, now often referred to as the “manosphere”. These communities offer simplistic explanations for complex experiences of exclusion and grievance.

The reframing approach sees boys and men as participants in solutions rather than problems to be managed. Critically, it also highlights that these restrictive masculine norms are harmful not only to others, but also to men themselves. Expectations around emotional suppression, dominance and self-reliance are closely linked to poor mental health outcomes, reduced help-seeking behaviours and increased vulnerability to harm.

Interventions: Practical guidance for professionals

For me, the real value of this briefing is the way that the concept of reframing masculinity leads directly to a practical new approach to working with men and boys who offend against women and girls. Dr King-Hill highlights the key components of a new approach:

• A gendered lens – recognising how rigid and often harmful masculine norms can underpin patterns of aggression, risk taking, harmful sexual behaviours and resistance to help seeking. When understood as socially reinforced responses, these patterns can be challenged and reshaped.
• Engaging with harmful narratives – interventions can create space to explore and challenge beliefs associated with misogyny, entitlement and peer dynamics that underpin offences such as domestic abuse and sexual harm. By undertaking this work in a way that avoids reinforcing shame and defensiveness, practitioners can facilitate critical reflection, enabling boys and young men to recognise the impact of their behaviour while developing alternative, pro-social ways of understanding themselves and others.
• Positive identities – helping individuals to develop the skills to recognise and regulate emotions, engage in perspective taking, and take responsibility for harm caused can support them to construct identities that incorporate empathy, emotional literacy and accountability. Focusing on strengths is key to plan interventions that build on individuals’ potential to develop lives that are more fulfilling for themselves and those around them.
• Trauma-informed – many behaviours linked to offending are connected to unresolved trauma, identity conflict and unmet emotional needs. Traditional punitive only responses risk exacerbating these issues by reinforcing shame and harmful norms.
• Joint work with mental health – early and sustained engagement with mental health services can support more integrated and holistic interventions, reducing the risk of escalation and enabling a more coordinated response to complex needs.

Conclusion

Dr King-Hill argues that our current blame based approaches are ineffective as they reinforce shame and defensiveness, pushing some individuals further from support and, in certain cases, toward harmful ideologies. Instead, she advocates for  responses recognise boys and men as partners in change, not problems to be managed. Adopting the holistic approach outlined above is a practical way to try to change the misogynistic behaviour that does so much damage to so many women and girls – and, more often than not, to the men and boys who harm them.