What this thesis demonstrates is that the current 'What About the Boys?' debate surrounding the alleged decline in the education of boys is part of a backlash politics informed by 'mythopoetic' and men's rights' perspectives. These are attempts to re-entrench those traditional hegemonic ideals of masculinity which have reinforced and reproduced inequality in gender relationships, and have led to benefits accruing to men simply for being men - the 'patriarchal dividend'. However, commitments to masculinist ways of being have also led to costs to some men in the form of poor health, lower life expectancy, more distant relationships and, more specifically for the purposes of this thesis, lower academic outcomes for some boys. Using a pro- feminist framework and informed by post-structural and social constructionist perspectives, this thesis posits that men can take up alternative constructions of masculinity. It argues that a more equitable, democratic, socially just version of 'manhood' is possible at both an individual and a societal level. It is proposed here that the feminist movement has achieved some gains for women and girls over the past two or three decades, and that this has constituted a perceived threat to pakeha, middle-class patriarchy. Although these gains have been overstated, in order to preserve male privilege attempts have been made to capture the discourse within crucial, contested sites, such as within education. All boys are constructed as victims of a 'feminised' education system by homogenising statistics which conceal stark differences between groups of boys based on ethnicity and class. This position is reinforced by the notion that male 'victims' of the education system then become threats to wider society as disenfranchised, angry young men at the mercy of their genes and hormones. Boys are constructed as 'victims' despite many girls remaining disadvantaged in schools, whether it is through the ways schools are administered and teaching and learning are conducted, or whether it is through the actions of boys committed to 'hegemonic' forms of masculinity. These actions include various forms of harassment, intimidation and violence as some boys strive to prove their allegiance to a dominant type of masculinity. Unfortunately, some schools and staff members are often complicit in reinforcing this type of masculinity in various ways. This includes the ways staff and others relate to each other, the way they value some activities and attitudes over others, and in the ways schools are structured. This reinforcement of conservative masculinities occurs despite the introduction of measures such as programs to combat bullying, those which provide authoritarian role models perceived to be 'positive', or those which attempt to make schools more 'boy-friendly' at the expense of girls. Such programs fail to contribute towards a more socially just society. However, the media-driven 'poor boys' discourse has created a space for other programs for boys which have a very different approach. Using an action-research approach, this thesis describes and analyses a program designed, implemented and managed following a 'pro-feminist' politics, and informed by post-structural and social constructionist theories. The FLAMES (Fostering Learning And Motivation in Education through Sport) program, which continues to operate today, was designed to challenge hegemonic constructions of masculinity at every opportunity in a boys-only class within a co-educational school in a rural area in New Zealand, in order to work towards a more positive environment at school for girls, other boys, staff, and the FLAMES students themselves. Over a four year period, the program used a specific pedagogy based on care, respect, physical activity and high quality relationships to answer Connell's call for gender programs in schools based on three aspects. First, he calls for 'knowledge'. In addition to basic curriculum knowledge, Connell includes the learning of gender inequities and male privilege, and the attainment of skills to critical y examine existing culture and knowledge. Second, Connell argues that such programs should be based on developing positive human relationships. Third, they should strive to work within a social justice framework. The FLAMES program demonstrated that all three of these were achievable in the rural, conservative environment in which it was based. This was as a result of the blend of pro-feminist content introduced using a liberatory pedagogical framework involving activities taken from PE, adventure-based learning and kapahaka. Data gathered indicated that in specific situations, thirteen and fourteen year-old boys who had previously performed hegemonic forms of masculinity were able to problematise the notion of 'essentialist' or 'natural' masculinity, and were able to demonstrate an understanding of the 'constructed' nature of 'masculinities'. Although their performance of gender was often contradictory, in specific situations they were able to take up alternative forms of masculine performance which were far more democratic and egalitarian. However, the external pressures placed upon the students to enact traditional forms of manhood by others such as members of the school community, older siblings and other family members, friends and through the media made it very difficult for students to maintain alternative forms of masculinity in all situations. Indeed, it was often dangerous for them to do so, as the threat of violence and/or social isolation towards anyone attempting to 'break ranks' with the 'pack' was very real. This demonstrates the need for programs such as FLAMES to be embedded within a school-wide intervention which has widespread community support. This would assist students in reconciling the conflict between the democratic nature of the FLAMES classroom, the hierarchical and authoritarian nature of the wider school, and the pressures placed upon them by other parts of society to perform hegemonic masculinities damaging to themselves and others.