Working alongside schools to address what is pulling boys away.

And helping the girls in the same rooms grow up alongside them.
The masculinity crisis in schools

This is a complicated moment to be teaching young people. Boys are being shaped by a media culture that previous generations did not have to navigate, and girls are absorbing the same culture from the other side of it.

We help schools meet this with something better than the standard responses, and with the evidence to show it is working.

What is actually happening
Something has shifted in the last few years, and the numbers are moving in the wrong direction.
The problem

A cultural shift, accelerating every year.

The boys arriving in Year 7 today have grown up on a media diet that previous generations did not have to navigate. The algorithms shaping their feeds are designed to hold attention, and one of the things that holds attention reliably is content that tells boys the world is rigged against them.

By the time the ideology reaches the classroom, it does not feel imposed to the boy holding it. It feels earned. Teachers across the country are seeing the result.

0%
of female teachers experienced sexist abuse from pupils in 2026. The figure was 17.4% in 2023.
0%
of young men regularly engage with masculinity influencers online.
0x
increase in extreme misogynistic content served to boys within five days of opening a new account.
0%
rise in Prevent referrals from education for incel and manosphere ideologies since 2017.
Why standard responses tend to backfire

The instinct to fix it can make it worse.

Schools are not careless about this. The standard responses are good-faith attempts to address what is happening. The trouble is that each one tends to deepen the problem it is trying to solve, because of how the ideology is constructed and how boys experience it.

01
Punitive exclusion
When a boy is sanctioned for behaviour rooted in this content, he often experiences the sanction not as a correction but as proof. The influencers he is following have already told him that mainstream institutions will try to silence him. Every detention, every exclusion, fits neatly into the story he has already been sold.
02
Toxic masculinity framing
Around a third of schools actively teach the concept of toxic masculinity. The intention is good, but the framing is often experienced by boys as an attack on who they are. It triggers the kind of shame response that pushes them toward communities offering unconditional validation, which is exactly what the manosphere does.
03
Silence and avoidance
When boys raise this content in class and the teacher chooses not to engage, the silence is rarely heard as neutrality. It is read as institutional cowardice, which is what the manosphere predicts. The school is then absorbed into the framework the boy already holds, rather than offering an alternative to it.
The other half of the room

It does not only affect boys.

Girls sitting in the same lessons, on the same buses, in the same group chats, are absorbing the same culture. When this kind of content becomes ambient, girls do not always experience it as ideology. They experience it as the way the world is, and they make small adjustments to fit it. Those adjustments add up.

Self-concept

Girls speak up less. They take up less space. They start to question their own judgement.

Body autonomy

Deepfakes, image-based abuse, and the gradual normalisation of female bodies as objects of commentary.

Voice

The social cost of resistance becomes high enough that quiet accommodation feels like the easier choice.

The premise

We help schools build the conditions boys need, with workshops, expeditions and resources designed against the same framework.

Three different ways for schools to work with us, depending on what fits your timetable, your budget and the kind of intervention your students need. Each one is designed against the same framework, and each one can be combined with the others over time.

Both tracks. One school.

We work with both sides of the room.

Most programmes in this space are aimed at boys, or at girls, but rarely at both. We think that is a mistake. The same culture is shaping both groups, often in the same lessons, and a school that builds confident, clear-voiced girls is also building the peer culture that boys will eventually have to meet. Doing one without the other always leaves something missing.

Track One

For the boys.

Identity work, leadership, enterprise, combat sports, expeditions, role models. Practical workshops that help boys build something on the inside that the outside cannot easily knock down.

Track Two

For the girls.

Voice work, body autonomy, digital safety, personal safety, peer dialogue. Sessions that protect what girls are quietly losing, and that rebuild the solidarity the manosphere actively undermines.

The purpose

Why this approach works.

Boys tend to thrive when their environment offers four things: a trusted adult who knows them, genuine challenge, a peer group where status is earned through character, and credible men worth following. When those things are missing, the manosphere is very good at filling the gap, because it offers a counterfeit version of all four at once. Our work is to help schools build the genuine article.

Boys don't need to be fixed. They need to be met.
The framework in one sentence
01
Known
02
Challenged
03
Belongs
04
Has Models
Condition One

Known.

A trusted adult sees this boy clearly, takes his experience seriously, and holds a genuine belief in what he can become.

When it is missing

Boys can become invisible inside busy pastoral systems that know their behaviour record but not who they are. The manosphere then offers the only relationship that feels personal.

What helps

A named adult for every at-risk boy. Pastoral relationships that function in practice, not only on paper. Reviewed every term. Genuine.

Condition Two

Challenged.

His environment makes real demands of him. The standard is high and it is held. He is taken through difficulty, not managed around it.

When it is missing

Schools sometimes lower expectations in the name of inclusion, or design programmes around managed risk. The manosphere, by contrast, offers a demanding code that asks something of boys.

What helps

Programmes built around genuine difficulty. Physical, intellectual and moral challenge that is held consistently, not softened the moment it produces discomfort.

Condition Three

Belongs.

There is a peer group available where status is earned through character, effort and accountability, rather than dominance and contempt.

When it is missing

Boys who privately want to step away from the ideology often find they have nowhere to step into. The pull is social, not intellectual, and adult intervention alone rarely shifts that.

What helps

Deliberately built peer cultures, through sport, shared challenge and meaningful work. High-status environments that are accessible to the boys most at risk, not only the boys already engaged.

Condition Four

Has Models.

Credible men in his life, adult and peer, who show him what is possible and hold him to it. Present, consistent, demanding, and genuine.

When it is missing

An algorithm fills the vacuum. When the only compelling male voices in a boy's life are online, the pipeline has no real competition.

What helps

Male practitioners who embody clear values and hold boys to them. Older peer models inside the school. Pastoral leads who connect particular boys to particular men.

What this means in practice

A few things we hold to.

01

Workshops, not assemblies

Young people change when they do something, not when they listen to something. Our sessions are practical, scenario-led and active. Students leave having taken part in the work, and the research on what actually shifts attitudes is consistent on this.

02

Evidence, not opinion

Everything we say is grounded in named research. NASUWT, Ulster University, UCL, the Department for Education's updated RSHE guidance. Our four conditions framework is closely aligned with the policy that becomes mandatory in 2025, and we are happy to show our working.

03

Measured, not assumed

Every workshop we deliver generates impact data. Schools see what shifted, who needs follow-up, and whether the work justified the spend. Programmes that cannot show their impact are programmes that should not really be running, and we hold ourselves to that.

The people

Practitioners,
not commentators.

Human / Kind is built around a network of facilitators drawn from a wider range of backgrounds than most school programmes work with. Educators, coaches, entrepreneurs, ex-military, mental health practitioners. People who have done some of the work they teach.

What they share is straightforward. They have credibility with adolescents, they are comfortable with the conversation, and they have no interest in performing.

01

Credibility, not theory

Our facilitators have lived experience of the things they talk about. The combat sports coach who runs the gym. The entrepreneur who has built the business. The mentor who has spent years working with young people that other programmes had given up on. Adolescents read credibility quickly, and our facilitators do not have to fake it.

02

A range of backgrounds

The young people in your school are not all the same, and our facilitator network is intentionally diverse across class, ethnicity, professional background and life experience. Different boys connect with different men, and we match the facilitator to the cohort rather than running a one-size-fits-all approach.

03

Trained and supervised

Every facilitator goes through our induction on the framework, the radicalisation diagnostic, and the calling-in approach we use rather than calling out. Sessions are observed, debriefed, and quality-controlled. The standard is the standard, regardless of who is in the room.

Who we work with.

Secondary schools
Years 7 to 11
Multi-Academy
Trusts
Schools serving
areas of deprivation
Pastoral teams,
DSLs and CPD leads
The proof

Built on research.
Case studies to follow.

NASUWT

Annual teacher surveys from 2023 to 2026, tracking the year-on-year increase in sexist abuse against female teachers.

Ulster University

Taking Boys Seriously, a longitudinal study of relational education across thousands of boys over five years.

UCL

2024 study mapping how social media algorithms amplify misogynistic content to adolescent users within five days.

DfE

Updated RSHE guidance, mandatory from 2025, which maps closely to our four conditions framework.

Centre for Social Justice

Lost Boys: State of the Nation, the comprehensive 2025 report on male educational disenfranchisement.

Home Office

Prevent referral data documenting the rise of incel and mixed/unstable/unclear ideology cases from education settings.

If your school is seeing this, we should probably talk.

Let's build the
genuine article.

Tell us a little about your school and what you are seeing. We will come back to you honestly about whether what we do is the right fit, and where we would suggest starting if it is.