Prejudice, discrimination, racism, homophobia and harassment are harmful attitudes and behaviours that negatively affect individuals and whole communities — often by marginalising people based on some aspect of who they are. Understanding and challenging gender-based violence specifically means examining the attitudes (like unequal ideas about power between genders) that can lead to some people excusing, minimising or condoning harmful behaviour, rather than treating it as a problem specific to a small number of individuals. Proposing and supporting countermeasures — speaking up when it's safe to, supporting people who are targeted, and challenging harmful jokes or comments rather than staying silent — helps shift attitudes at a community level, not just an individual one.
Example
A group making jokes that trivialise discrimination or violence might seem harmless in the moment, but research shows this kind of "casual" reinforcement of harmful attitudes can make more serious behaviour seem more acceptable over time — which is part of why challenging it, even in small moments, matters.
Key terms
Discrimination:
Treating a person or group unfairly based on a characteristic like race, gender or sexuality.
Marginalisation:
The process of pushing a person or group to the edges of society, limiting their power, resources or voice.
Questions
1. Discrimination means:
Treating a person or group unfairly based on a characteristic
Treating everyone completely equally
A type of compliment
Something with no negative impact
2. Marginalisation refers to:
Pushing a person or group to the edges of society
Giving a person or group more power and voice
A type of celebration
Something with no real-world effect
3. Prejudice, racism and homophobia are examples of:
Harmful attitudes that negatively affect individuals and communities
Positive, helpful attitudes
Attitudes with no real impact on anyone
Legally required behaviours
4. Gender-based violence is linked to attitudes about:
Unequal power between genders
Nothing related to power or equality
Only physical strength differences
A topic unrelated to gender
5. Speaking up when it is safe to challenge a harmful comment is an example of:
A countermeasure against harmful attitudes
Making the situation worse
Something with no real effect
A form of discrimination itself
6. Casual jokes that trivialise violence or discrimination can:
Make more serious harmful behaviour seem more acceptable over time
Always have zero real-world effect on attitudes
Only ever be seen as completely harmless
Reduce discrimination automatically
7. Challenging harmful attitudes at a community level (not just individually) can help:
Shift broader social attitudes over time
Have no effect on anyone beyond a single conversation
Only ever work for one person at a time with no wider impact
Make discrimination more common
8. Why might treating gender-based violence as an issue of "a few bad individuals" rather than examining broader attitudes be an incomplete way of understanding the problem?
Broader attitudes and social norms can enable, excuse or minimise harmful behaviour, not just individual choices in isolation
Broader social attitudes never actually have any connection to individual behaviour
Individual behaviour is always completely disconnected from any wider social attitudes
This is always the single most complete way to understand and address the issue
9. Why might staying silent when witnessing a discriminatory comment unintentionally reinforce the behaviour, even without directly agreeing with it?
Silence can be interpreted as tacit acceptance, potentially signalling that the behaviour is socially acceptable
Staying silent always actively challenges and reduces harmful behaviour
Silence has no relationship to how behaviour is perceived by others present
Witnesses to discrimination have no influence on a situation either way
10. Why might marginalisation have effects that go beyond the individuals directly targeted?
It can shape whether an entire community feels safe, respected and able to participate fully in society
Marginalisation only ever affects the specific individual targeted, with no wider community impact
Marginalisation has no measurable effect on communities or society
Only individuals, never communities, can experience the effects of marginalisation
11. Why might understanding the connection between power imbalances and gender-based violence be important for genuinely addressing the issue?
Addressing root causes (like attitudes about power and equality) is more effective than only responding to individual incidents after they occur
Power and equality have no real connection to gender-based violence
Only responding after an incident occurs is always the most effective approach
This connection has no bearing on how the issue should be addressed
12. Why might a "countermeasure" (like supporting someone who has been targeted by discrimination) be considered an active response rather than a passive one?
It involves a deliberate action to support and push back against harm, rather than simply not participating in it
Supporting a targeted person has no real effect on the situation
Active and passive responses to discrimination are always exactly the same thing
Countermeasures require no genuine action or effort of any kind
13. Why might checking in privately with someone who was targeted by a harmful comment (even if you didn't challenge it publicly) still be a meaningful form of support?
It shows the person they are not alone and their experience was noticed, even without a public confrontation
Private support has no meaningful value compared to public confrontation
Only public challenges to harmful behaviour ever count as genuine support
A person targeted by discrimination never benefits from private acknowledgement or support
14. Why might it be safer and more effective to challenge a harmful comment through a calm question ("why would you say that?") rather than an aggressive confrontation?
A calm approach can prompt reflection without escalating the situation into conflict, while still clearly signalling disagreement
Aggressive confrontation is always the only effective way to challenge harmful comments
The way a comment is challenged has no bearing on how the situation unfolds
Calm responses always guarantee the harmful attitude changes immediately
15. Why might attitudes that "excuse or condone" harmful behaviour (rather than directly causing it) still be considered part of the problem?
Excusing or minimising harmful behaviour can remove accountability and make the behaviour more likely to continue or be repeated
Only directly causing harm can ever be considered part of a problem
Excusing behaviour has no real connection to whether it continues
Attitudes that excuse harm are always completely separate from the harm itself
16. Why might genuine cultural change around gender-based violence require both individual behaviour change AND broader shifts in social attitudes?
Individual choices are shaped by wider social norms, so lasting change often needs both personal accountability and shifts in what a community accepts as normal
Individual behaviour and broader social attitudes are always completely unconnected to each other
Only individual behaviour change is ever necessary, with no role for broader attitudes
Cultural change has no real connection to either individual behaviour or social attitudes
17. Why might young people challenging harmful jokes or comments among their own peer group be a particularly effective way to shift attitudes, compared to only adults addressing it?
Peer influence can carry significant weight within a peer group, potentially shifting norms more effectively than an outside adult voice alone
Peer influence never has any effect on group attitudes or behaviour
Only adult intervention can ever meaningfully influence a peer group's attitudes
There is no difference in effectiveness between peer and adult influence on group norms
18. Why might understanding marginalisation as a systemic issue (affecting access to resources, safety and voice) rather than just individual unkindness change how it should be addressed?
A systemic understanding points toward addressing structures and norms, not just individual acts of unkindness in isolation
Marginalisation is always best understood as nothing more than isolated, individual unkindness
Systemic and individual understandings of marginalisation always lead to identical responses
Structures and social norms have no real connection to how marginalisation operates
19. Why might schools and communities increasingly focus on bystander intervention training (teaching people how to safely challenge harmful behaviour they witness) rather than relying only on formal rules or punishments?
Most harmful behaviour happens in everyday moments where a peer's in-the-moment response can have more immediate impact than a later formal process
Bystander intervention has no meaningful effect compared to relying solely on formal rules or punishments
Formal rules and punishments alone are always sufficient to prevent harmful behaviour
Everyday peer moments have no real connection to how harmful behaviour is prevented
20. Why might it be important to distinguish between challenging a harmful comment safely and putting yourself at risk by escalating a confrontation?
The goal is to reduce harm, so choosing a safe, calm approach (or seeking support) is often more effective and responsible than direct confrontation
Escalating a confrontation directly is always the safest and most effective response available
There is no meaningful difference between a safe response and an escalating confrontation
Personal safety has no bearing on how a person should choose to respond to harmful behaviour
21. Understanding how to challenge discrimination and harmful attitudes mainly helps you to:
Recognise and respond to harmful attitudes at both an individual and community level
Assume harmful attitudes only ever affect a small number of isolated individuals
Ignore the connection between social attitudes and harmful behaviour
Treat silence in the face of discrimination as a neutral, harmless response
Answer key (parent copy)
1. Treating a person or group unfairly based on a characteristic
2. Pushing a person or group to the edges of society
3. Harmful attitudes that negatively affect individuals and communities
4. Unequal power between genders
5. A countermeasure against harmful attitudes
6. Make more serious harmful behaviour seem more acceptable over time
7. Shift broader social attitudes over time
8. Broader attitudes and social norms can enable, excuse or minimise harmful behaviour, not just individual choices in isolation
9. Silence can be interpreted as tacit acceptance, potentially signalling that the behaviour is socially acceptable
10. It can shape whether an entire community feels safe, respected and able to participate fully in society
11. Addressing root causes (like attitudes about power and equality) is more effective than only responding to individual incidents after they occur
12. It involves a deliberate action to support and push back against harm, rather than simply not participating in it
13. It shows the person they are not alone and their experience was noticed, even without a public confrontation
14. A calm approach can prompt reflection without escalating the situation into conflict, while still clearly signalling disagreement
15. Excusing or minimising harmful behaviour can remove accountability and make the behaviour more likely to continue or be repeated
16. Individual choices are shaped by wider social norms, so lasting change often needs both personal accountability and shifts in what a community accepts as normal
17. Peer influence can carry significant weight within a peer group, potentially shifting norms more effectively than an outside adult voice alone
18. A systemic understanding points toward addressing structures and norms, not just individual acts of unkindness in isolation
19. Most harmful behaviour happens in everyday moments where a peer's in-the-moment response can have more immediate impact than a later formal process
20. The goal is to reduce harm, so choosing a safe, calm approach (or seeking support) is often more effective and responsible than direct confrontation
21. Recognise and respond to harmful attitudes at both an individual and community level