New Report - The Bystander Blueprint: Training Young Men for Action Against Gender-Based Violence

Our new report explores Gen Alpha perspectives on masculinity and taking action against gender-based violence

By Jillian LeBlanc, Founder Jillian LeBlanc Consulting

Executive summary

Preventing gender-based violence (GBV) in Ontario cannot rely on identifying “bad actors” alone, but requires early intervention—particularly with boys and young men—to provide the skills required to become effective bystanders. Digital Public Square, with support from the Government of Ontario, conducted a mixed-methods study to better understand how masculinity shapes bystander action and inform the development of an educational digital intervention on the subject. The findings from this research show that dominant masculine norms often create pressure and uncertainty rather than confidence, leaving many boys and men wanting to intervene but unsure how to do so safely or effectively. The evidence points to a clear gap between intentions and actions and highlights the need for early, gender-transformative, skills-based interventions that prioritize safety, reflect diverse realities, and equip users with practical tools to become active allies in preventing GBV within their communities.

Background

Since the reckoning of the #MeToo movement, which brought a major spotlight on the pervasiveness of gender-based violence (GBV) over a decade ago, we are still continuously seeing headlines of high-profile offenders engaging in gender-motivated, violent behaviour. Sexual violence is “the only violent crime in Canada not on a decline” with “87% of victims/survivors [knowing] their assailant.”¹ These statistics demonstrate that GBV is not just perpetrated by “bad guys” in dark alleys. These “bad guys” are people we work with, our friends, and who we call family. This reality is not meant to scare people, but to highlight the need to be engaged in GBV prevention starting at an early age.

But how do we really prevent GBV from happening? Do we blame all men as potential perpetrators or adjacent to perpetrators? No. While there can be justified anger at perpetrators of this violence, positioning all men as the problem will not help solve GBV. The solution starts by focusing our attention on the culture that has allowed GBV to permeate: a culture where femininity is seen as weakness, men are seen as the normative gender, and silence is valued over taking a stand. One of the starting points for dismantling the system that props up GBV is treating bystander intervention of GBV like a skill that needs to be learned.

The University of Worcester describes bystander intervention as “noticing a problematic situation and making the decision to get involved.” This “noticing” is the first step of an intervention. From there, a bystander will assess the situation and decide whether they will engage in it (active bystander) or not engage in it (passive bystander).² There are many factors that go into deciding whether or not to become an active or passive bystander, such as the actors involved, socialization, prior trauma, group dynamics, and physical fear, among others. Taking the “passive” approach over the “active” approach can sometimes be the best choice for a bystander and the actors in a given situation. However, it is critical that bystanders know how to identify a situation that requires intervening and understand what type of bystander intervention is most suitable for the incident in question. Learning effective bystander intervention, like learning any skill, needs to be informed by theory and data, and requires practice to master. Again, like most skills, the earlier in life you start learning it, the easier and more reflexive it becomes to use over time.

This is why Digital Public Square (DPS), with support from the Government of Ontario, developed Lean Forward, a new digital platform to provide boys and young men with contextually relevant and data-informed bystander intervention training. This digital experience allows boys and young men to explore active bystandership in a simulated practical environment, where users are free to make and learn from mistakes, and demystify the repercussions of a situation not ending how they would hope.

DPS designed Lean Forward based on findings from a mixed methods research project that sought to unpack how boys and young men, especially Gen Alpha, experience masculinity, GBV, and bystandership. Understanding the experiences of boys and young men and their needs will allow government, civil society, healthcare providers, and other advocates to fight back against GBV and promote healthy masculinity.

Building on existing research, focusing on regionality

The key question shaping our research was “how do boys’ experience of masculinity prevent or enable them to intervene when they witness harm?”

To answer this question, DPS used a mixed-methods approach to examine the central themes of masculinity and bystander intervention readiness from multiple perspectives.

The first step was a deep dive into the existing research via a literature review. DPS reviewed more than 30 sources, including peer reviewed academic papers, bystander intervention training materials, and social media campaigns. This helped us map out what research already exists about the relationships between masculine norms, bystander roles, early socialization, and digital behaviours. This activity allowed us to design a research plan that addressed gaps in the literature, such as the lack of Canada- and Ontario-specific use cases as well as data on teen boys within a secondary school context.

The research showed that traditional masculinity rooted in toughness, dominance, and emotional restraint is treated as a precarious status that must be continuously proven.³ Essentialist narratives suggesting men are “naturally aggressive” risk reinforcing harmful norms when unchallenged.⁴ Studies on bystander behaviour highlight the strong influence of social context, including diffusion of responsibility, which emerges early in childhood, and distinctions between passive bystanders who freeze and active bystanders who intervene or seek help.⁵ Research into digital behaviours shows that youth spend extensive time online and are shaped by those environments, and will respond favourably to digital micro-learning interventions on challenging topics.⁶ Across the research conducted, evidence confirms that peer norms significantly shape men’s willingness to intervene when witnessing gender-based violence or harms.⁷ Further, gender-transformative approaches consistently outperform gender-neutral programs—especially when they offer concrete, accessible skills using models such as the 4 D’s and the DESC framework.⁸

DPS wanted to ensure that the data it was using to inform the development of our skills tool was regionally relevant and tied to the right age group. These two data pieces were a gap that DPS identified through the literature review: there was a lack of Canada- and Ontario-specific data, and much of the research focused on young children or older adults, not on teens.

Next, DPS surveyed 503 men across Ontario in August 2025 to better understand how they think about gender identity, the expectations they feel, how confident they are in different settings, and where they turn for information. The survey also highlighted how masculine norms shift across generations, helping us contextualize the experiences of Gen Alpha boys today.

The survey findings showed variation in how participants described their identities as men. Some participants expressed a straightforward understanding of their gender identity, while others were defensive in tone. Overall, the responses showed that men have a strong understanding of their own gender shaped by their age, ethnicity, sexuality, regionality, religion, and other factors. Some answers signaled the validity of other genders through the understanding of their own masculinity, while some reinforced the gender binary by ‘othering’ other genders to strengthen the claim of their own.

Most respondents agreed that masculinity shapes how and when they intervene, yet many hesitated to do so due to uncertainty. These respondents said they were unsure whether a situation was serious enough to intervene, whether it was their place to do so, or how others might react. Learning preferences leaned strongly toward independent, online formats, highlighting the importance of accessible digital intervention tools. However, when looking for information on these topics, respondents pointed to a strong tendency to engage in person with friends and family.

Sample responses on gender identity

“Nothing special. Just a regular straight male.”

“I’m a natural man… I have a penis.”

“A male human being not brainwashed by leftist teachers.”

“I enjoy being a cisgender man but I accept and advocate for all genders.”

Sample responses on understanding masculinities connection to bystander intervention

“People of different genders act differently when they have to help someone in need.”

“I feel expected to act a certain way because I’m a man.”

“The expectations of how to be a man control the way I act.”

Sample responses on bystander invention awareness

“I never know whether it’s really my place to intervene.”

“I find it difficult to know whether what is happening is really something bad enough to get involved in.”

Finally, DPS crafted semi-structured focus groups with boys under 18 to dive even deeper into these questions. Through five focus groups held in both rural and urban communities, these sessions offered rich, honest reflections on how boys define masculinity, the pressures they feel from family and peers, what holds them back from intervening, and how they understand harm online and offline. They also shared what kinds of learning formats feel accessible and whether app-based tools could genuinely support them in real moments of uncertainty.

Across the focus groups, boys described masculinity as a confusing and highly policed set of expectations with contradictory rules about being confident but not “cocky” and strong rather than “soft”, which aligns with existing feminist scholarship on masculinity as a strict and socially enforced status. Although boys overwhelmingly want to step in when they see harm, fear and uncertainty often stop them. Boys worry about becoming the next target of an attack, escalating the situation, appearing weak, or misjudging whether something is serious, and many feel guilty afterward for not intervening. Their behaviours and comfort levels shift across contexts, including rural vs. urban environments, family and cultural expectations, peer groups, and online spaces, demonstrating that masculinity is deeply situational rather than static. Across all groups, boys emphasized that learning must feel real and relevant: they respond to honest, small-scale examples delivered through platforms they already use, and they reject forced slang, stereotypes, overly dramatic scenarios, and content designed to comfort adults rather than reflect their realities.

Sample responses on perspectives of masculinity

“Being a boy is hard right now.”

“Being a man is very confusing.”

“Guys have to be funny but not weird… confident but not cocky.”

“Being soft is seen as less masculine.”

Sample responses on gendered expectations

“Confusing to switch who you are at school/home/dating.”

“Teachers expect a lot… assume guys can handle stress.”

“Dad says step up, work, don’t be lazy.”

“Uncles and dad make jokes about being soft.”

Sample responses on bystander intervention

“People will think I’m soft.”

“You could become the next target.”

“I didn’t want to start drama.”

“It’s easy to freeze.”

“Later you wish you said something.”

Sample responses on learning preferences

“Use our language and traditions.”

“Not preachy, straight-up.”

“Examples that aren’t too extreme… need small stuff.”

Content on “Snap, IG, TikTok, Discord.”

“[No] fake teen slang.”

“Youth-friendly is code for cringe.”

“[Not] filtered to make old people comfortable.”

Using this mixed methods research approach allowed us to build a more holistic understanding of how masculinity influences bystander behaviour and what skills are needed to participate in GBV prevention. The findings directly informed the development of an evidence-based digital skills tool designed to promote positive bystander intervention suited to the context of boys and young men in Ontario.

Summary of key findings

Literature review

Across the literature, masculinity consistently emerges as a source of gender stress for boys and men rather than stability. Dominant masculine norms—particularly those emphasizing toughness, dominance, emotional control, and anti-femininity—are linked to lower rates of male bystander intervention. Masculinity is framed not as a fixed identity, but as a precarious social status that must be constantly performed and defended, increasing men’s perceived social and physical risk when intervening. The evidence also shows that bystander behaviour is shaped early, through socialization, diffusion of responsibility, and exposure to everyday microaggressions. Importantly, gender-transformative approaches are shown to be more effective than gender-neutral ones, particularly when they address underlying norms, teach concrete intervention skills, and leverage peer influence within the digital spaces youth already occupy.

Quantitative survey

The survey data reinforce that men’s identities are not monolithic, but shaped by age, context, and social positioning. While many respondents provided minimal identity descriptions or dismissive identity descriptions altogether, others provided inclusive understandings of gender, situating themselves as allies across the gender spectrum despite their self-identification with masculinity. Across the sample, men somewhat agreed that masculine expectations shape how they behave as bystanders, yet many were uncertain about when or how to intervene, whether it was their place to act, and how others would respond. Confidence was highest in in-person settings and lowest online, and there was no shared understanding of what constitutes “active bystander” behaviour. Learning preferences leaned strongly toward private, online formats, pointing to both discomfort with public engagement and a clear opportunity for self-directed digital intervention tools.

Qualitative focus groups

Boys described masculinity as confusing, contradictory, and closely monitored, with pressure to perform confidence and toughness while suppressing emotion. Despite a strong desire to help others and “be good people,” fear of social fallout, escalation, or misreading situations often led to freezing and, later, guilt. Identity and behaviour shifted across contexts (home, school, sports, rural and urban communities), highlighting the situational nature of masculinity and bystandership. Boys were also highly attuned to gender double standards. Across groups, they were clear that effective learning materials should feel authentic, feature realistic scenarios, use straightforward language, and have content embedded in platforms they already use, rather than containing preachy, stereotyped, or adult-filtered messaging.

Cross-cutting themes

Taken together, our research shows that men and boys want to intervene, but existing masculine norms create pressure without providing skills, clarity, or protection. Fear of social consequences, uncertainty about responsibility, and lack of practical skills limit action across contexts. Across all methods, the evidence underscores the need for gender-transformative, skills-based interventions that are context-sensitive, digitally embedded, and designed to build confidence without shame.

How our research can strengthen youth GBV interventions

DPS’s research offers a clear message for allies working to prevent GBV: Gen Alpha boys are not disengaged, resistant, or unaware. They are paying attention. They care about harm. They want to be good people. What they are missing is not values, but guidance, skills, and confidence to act effectively without putting themselves at risk. For those currently engaged in anti-GBV work, this requires a shift away from framing boys as problems to be managed toward recognizing them as capable participants in prevention when given the right tools. DPS urges its allies who are already committed to this work to engage with the following recommendations and take seriously the information provided by boys and men about their own identities in order to chart a path forward that is responsive to their needs.

1. Take masculinity seriously, without demonizing it.
   Across methods, masculinity emerged as confusing, contradictory, and closely policed. Boys experience constant pressure to perform strength, confidence, and emotional control, while knowing that missteps can carry social costs. Prevention efforts that ignore masculinity, or treat it only as harmful, fail to engage boys where they actually are.

Proposed action: Name the pressure boys feel and work with them to build healthier, strength-based alternatives that align care, responsibility, and courage with masculinity rather than positioning intervention as a threat to identity.

2. Stop relying on awareness alone and start teaching skills.
   Boys overwhelmingly want to intervene when they see harm but fear, uncertainty, and lack of clarity often stop them. Many freeze in the moment and feel guilt afterward. This gap between intention and action cannot be closed through messaging or moral appeals alone. Bystander intervention must be treated as a skill that can be learned, practiced, and adapted to context.

Proposed action: Prioritize micro-interventions—small, realistic actions such as checking in, redirecting, offering peer support, or delegating to adults—rather than heroic or high-risk responses that are unrealistic for everyday situations.

3. Safety must be centred, not treated as an afterthought.
   Fear of escalation, social backlash, or becoming the next target is real and rational. Boys repeatedly emphasized concern about making things worse or being judged as “soft.” Allies should explicitly validate these fears and design prevention efforts that prioritize self-protection alongside harm reduction.

Proposed action: Teach boys how to assess risk and choose safer options. Emphasize that knowing when not to intervene directly is essential; it is not a failure of courage, but a responsible form of allyship.

4. Prevention must reflect diverse and situated realities.
   There is no single way boys experience masculinity or bystander responsibility. Context matters: rural versus urban settings, family expectations, cultural norms, peer groups, sports environments, and online spaces all shape how boys show up and what feels possible.

Proposed action: Resist one-size-fits-all narratives and instead support multiple pathways to intervention that recognize different levels of readiness, confidence, and risk.

5. Meet boys where they already are, online and offline.
   Boys consistently reported turning first to friends and family for guidance, and preferring to learn privately, online, and at their own pace. Confidence is highest in in-person contexts and lowest online, even though much harm occurs digitally. This points to a clear opportunity: digitally embedded tools that build confidence and skills in low-risk ways.

Proposed action: Leverage platforms boys already use (Snapchat, Instagram, TikTok, Discord), use short and engaging formats that feel like conversations, not lessons at school.

Gen Alpha boys do not need to be convinced that GBV is wrong. The hard news for anti-GBV practitioners is that we may need to change the way we support learning around GBV to focus more on guidance for acting in moments that feel uncertain, risky, or socially complicated. By continuing to invest in authenticity, safety, skills-building, and context-sensitive digital tools, boys can become not just future allies in GBV prevention, but take action now to interrupt the cycle of harm in their communities.

About the author

Jillian LeBlanc is an internationally recognized intersectional feminist, policy leader, and decolonial legal scholar based in Paris, France. She is the Founder and Lead Consultant of Jillian LeBlanc Consulting, where she advises governments, multilateral institutions, and civil society organizations on gender-transformative policy, intersectional evaluation, and rights-based governance.

1. Women and Gender Equality Canada. (2024). Sexual violence: How things are. Government of Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/women-gender-equality/campaigns/gender-based-violence-its-not-just/infographic-sexual-violence-how-things-are.html

2. University of Worcester. (n.d.). What is bystander intervention? https://www.worcester.ac.uk/about/academic-schools/school-of-health-and-wellbeing/health-and-wellbeing-research/bystander-intervention-programme/what-is-bystander-intervention.aspx

3. Ingram, K. M., Davis, J. P., Espelage, D. L., Hatchel, T., Merrin, G. J., Valido, A., & Torgal, C. (2019). Longitudinal associations between features of toxic masculinity and bystander willingness to intervene in bullying among middle school boys. Journal of School Psychology, 77, 139–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2019.10.007

Carlson, M. (2008). I’d rather go along and be considered a man: Masculinity and bystander intervention. Men and Masculinities, 16(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.3149/jms.1601.3

Vandello, J. A., & Bosson, J. K. (2013). Hard won and easily lost: A review and synthesis of theory and research on precarious manhood. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14(2), 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029826

4. Tomsen, S. (2024). Masculinities and the lived understandings of bystander responses to everyday violence. In J. L. Williams & P. A. L. Johnson (Eds.), Crime, violence and masculinities: Research paths and understanding (pp. 239–257). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003372141-20

5. Staub, E. (2021, August 11). Dr. Ervin Staub: Q&A at 2021 Law Enforcement Active Bystandership Conference [Video]. YouTube.

Plötner, M., Over, H., Carpenter, M., & Tomasello, M. (2015). Young children show the bystander effect in helping situations. Psychological Science, 26(4), 499–506. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615569579

Donà, G. (2017). “Situated bystandership” during and after the Rwandan genocide. Journal of Genocide Research, 19(3), 306–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623528.2017.1376413

6. Awad, M. N., & Connors, E. H. (2023). Active bystandership by youth in the digital era: Microintervention strategies for responding to social media-based microaggressions and cyberbullying. Psychological Services, 20(3), 423–434. https://doi.org/10.1037/ser0000749

7. Ingram, K. M., Davis, J. P., Espelage, D. L., Hatchel, T., Merrin, G. J., Valido, A., & Torgal, C. (2019). Longitudinal associations between features of toxic masculinity and bystander willingness to intervene in bullying among middle school boys. Journal of School Psychology, 77, 139–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2019.10.007

8. Kettrey, H. H., & Marx, R. A. (2019). Does the gendered approach of bystander programs matter in the prevention of sexual assault among adolescents and college students? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48(7), 2037–2053. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-01503-1

The 4 D’s framework:

1. Direct: Address the situation head on.

2. Distract: Indirectly de-escalate the situation.

3. Delegate: Get someone else involved.

4. Delay: Follow-up with the person experiencing harm to check in and offer support.

The DESC framework:

D Describe the situation

E Express why you’re concerned

S Specify what you want them to do

C Consequence – highlight the positive consequence for listening to you

For more information on the 4 D’s and DESC frameworks: https://www.sace.ca/learn/bystander-intervention/