ArticlePDF Available

What is “Toxic Masculinity” and Why Does it Matter?

Authors:

Abstract

Coined in late 20th-century men’s movements, “toxic masculinity” spread to therapeutic and social policy settings in the early 21st century. Since 2013, feminists began attributing misogyny, homophobia, and men’s violence to toxic masculinity. Around the same time, feminism enjoyed renewed popularization. While some feminist scholars use the concept, it is often left under-defined. I argue that talk of toxic masculinity provides an intriguing window into gender politics in any given context. However, feminists should not adopt toxic masculinity as an analytical concept. I consider the term’s origins, history, and usage, arguing that it appears in individualizing discourses that have historically targeted marginalized men. Thus, accusations of toxic masculinity often work to maintain gender hierarchies and individualize responsibility for gender inequalities to certain bad men.
1
This was accepted for publication and appeared in Men and Masculinities, vol. 24, issue 2, June
2021, pp. 345-352. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X20943254
What is “Toxic Masculinity” and Why Does it Matter?
Abstract
Coined in late 20th century men’s movements, “toxic masculinity” spread to therapeutic and social
policy settings in the early 21st century. Since 2013, feminists began attributing misogyny, homophobia
and men’s violence to toxic masculinity. Around the same time, feminism enjoyed renewed
popularization. While some feminist scholars use the concept, it is often left under-defined. I argue that
talk of toxic masculinity provides an intriguing window into gender politics in any given context.
However, feminists should not adopt toxic masculinity as an analytical concept. I consider the term’s
origins, history, and usage, arguing that it appears in individualising discourses that have historically
targeted marginalized men. Thus, accusations of toxic masculinity often work to maintain gender
hierarchies and individualise responsibility for gender inequalities to certain bad men.
I’ve been teaching and studying gender-based violence since around 2000. For most of that time I rarely
encountered the term “toxic masculinity, despite relying on the concept of masculinity in my research
and teaching. In my undergraduate course, “Reflecting on Violence, I introduce students to the concept
of masculinity and teach them that gender-based violence is historically and culturally specific,
involving both structural and situational power relations. However toxic masculinity is not part of the
sociological or feminist theories I have drawn on to analyse gender-based violence.
This changed in 2018 when during a discussion of mass rampage shootings in my Violence class, one
student commented that the weekly reading’s analysis of mass shooters described “toxic masculinity,
although it did not use the phrase. I was struck by the confidence with which the student referenced the
term as a concept anyone would know. On my way home that day, I tuned into a radio interview with
Clementine Ford discussing toxic masculinity as the theme of her book Boys Will be Boys. I wondered
where this term had come from and why everyone was suddenly talking about it.
2
I searched academic databases to learn more about toxic masculinity. My searches confirmed that the
term had suddenly exploded into popular feminist usage: Between 1990 and 2011 texts referring to
toxic masculinity never numbered above 20 a year. Academic texts made up the largest proportion of
returns until 2014; after 2017 returns numbered in the thousands, mostly non-academic. Nevertheless,
toxic masculinity increasingly appeared in academic texts after 2016.
The term took off as part of what some scholars have called a new feminist moment, intensifying
after 2014 (e.g. Banet-Weiser and Portwood-Stacer 2017, 885) with Beyoncé’s MTV Video Music
Awards performance in front of a giant, glowing sign reading, FEMINIST. This performance
prompted Jessica Valenti (2014) to write that today’s zeitgeist is irrefutably feminist: its name literally
in bright lights.Critics argue that this newly popularized feminism conflates political resistance with
women’s individual defiance and achievement, but distracts us from making structural changes (Gill,
2016). Rosalind Gill (2016) argues that popular feminist media articulates a post-feminist sensibility: a
neo-liberal relegation of gender inequality to the past.
Toxic masculinity appears as a key term within this newly “post-femininst” popular feminist vernacular,
treating sexism as a character flaw of some men. The term has shaped conversations about Trumpism
and the #metoo movement (Pettyjohn et al., 2019). It appears in feminist scholarship on issues such as
sexual harassment (McGinley, 2018) and mass shootings (Blair, 2016). Indeed, toxic masculinity has
become a framework for popular and scholarly understandings of the gender factor in social problems.
However, scholars who use the concept frequently fail to define it or integrate it within broader
theorization of masculinity. I surveyed 60 scholarly articles published since 2016 mentioning toxic
masculinity. More than half of those did not define it, relying on it to signal disapproval. The book
Toxic Geek Masculinity (Salter & Blodgett, 2017), for instance, uses the term frequently without
definition.
This essay suggests that feminists should treat talk of toxic masculinity as a window into
contemporary gender politics but not adopt the term as an analytical concept. I argue, in agreement with
Andrea Waling (2019), that the term depends on an individualizing toxic/healthy binary that serves to
reproduce gender hierarchies. Here, I do not define the concept, but rather articulate how it has been
3
understood and used since it first appeared. I trace the term’s origins in late twentieth century men’s
movements and its adoption by, often conservative, policy makers, therapists, and others engaged in
working with troubled/troubling men. I argue that the therapeutic concerns of such actors produced an
individualizing discourse that sought to reform marginalized men labelled as “toxic,” because of
violence, lack of engagement in family life, and employment. I then unpack feminists’ scholarly
adoption of the term, highlighting the lack of conceptual clarity. Finally, I discuss feminist research
which analyses how condemnation of toxic masculinity by elite men can bolster gender hegemony. I
conclude that feminists should critically analyse the meanings attributed to toxic masculinity but not
assume those meanings are stable, well-conceptualised, or even feminist.
Origins
Toxic masculinity emerged within the mythopoetic men’s movement of the 1980s, coined by Shepherd
Bliss. Bliss confirmed to me in a 2019 email that he coined the term to characterize his father’s
militarized, authoritarian masculinity. In a 1990 interview, Bliss told Daniel Gross: “I use a medical
term because I believe that like every sickness, toxic masculinity has an antidote” (Gross, 1990, p. 14).
During the 1990s and early 2000s, toxic masculinity spread from men’s movements to wider self-help,
academic and policy literature. This literature posited that emotionally distant father-son relationships
produced toxically masculine men. In Man Enough: Fathers, Sons, and the Search for Masculinity
(1993), family therapist Frank Pittman argues that men who lack adequate fathering pursue unrealistic
cultural images of masculinity and feel a constant need to prove their manhood. Pittman’s regular
column on men’s issues in New Women Magazine may have helped popularize the term. Family
therapist Steve Biddulph (1997) similarly argued that boys need a strong bond with a father figure/male
mentor to avoid becoming toxically masculine men. Boys need the right kind of masculinity, the idea
goes, and mothers can’t give this to them.
These psychologists posited toxic masculinity as culturally normative but curable through engaging
men with fatherhood, positing an essentialist notion of masculine emotional development. Turn-of-the-
century policy discourse picked up on this prescription. For example, the founder of the U.S. National
Fatherhood Initiative, Don Eberly (1999a, 1999b), cited Pittman on fathering as an antidote to toxic
4
masculinity in both his 1999 testimony to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee on youth culture and
violence (called to discuss the Columbine school massacre), and in his edited book, Renewing the
Sacred Vocation of Fathering (Eberly 1999a). Eberly suggested that emotionally absent fathers
contributed to young men’s violence and was likely a factor in the Columbine shootings: Young men
badly need to see mature masculinity modeled (sic) out. Well seasoned masculinity fundamentally
transforms the aggression of young males by capturing their masculine energy and directing it toward
socially constructive pursuits (Eberly, 1999b). For Eberly, if young men turn to violence, they probably
grew up with single mothers or at least had emotionally absent fathers.
The prescription of engaged fatherhood as an antidote to toxic masculinity harmonized with 21st century
recommendations for heteronormative family life in an era of neoliberal globalization. Toxic
masculinity provided a discourse for diagnosing men’s problems in the face of the gendered fall-out
from deindustrialization, during which well-paid jobs in “masculine” occupational sectors disappeared
while feminized service sector occupations expanded. Influential organizations, such as the OECD,
recommended increasing household incomes in such conditions by drawing mothers into paid work,
while promoting shared parenting (OECD 2007). There were calls for welfare systems to include fathers
when offering family services. An Irish family policy report argued for engaging men with fatherhood
so that their wildness is tamed to the extent that they can adjust to the discipline of domestic routines
and remain with their children and partners and in their families (as opposed to prison, for instance)
(Ferguson & Hogan, 2004, p.8). Similarly, Jennifer Randles’ (2013, p.869) research on the U.S.
“Thriving Families” programme for low-income, mostly minority, parents found it promoted
heterosexual marriage and engaged fatherhood as, in the words of the programme’s executive director,
“a civilizing influence on men.
The label toxic masculinity tended to be applied to marginalized men. Terry Kupers research on men
in prisons argued toxic masculinity involves the need to aggressively compete and dominate others
and encompasses the most problematic proclivities in men. ... Toxic masculinity also includes a strong
measure of the male proclivities that lead to resistance in psychotherapy (Kupers 2005, p.713-714).
Similarly, Deevia Bhana’s (2005, p.206) study of Black South African schoolboys linked their violence
5
with both toxic masculinity and poverty, describing them as valuing “an oppositional street masculinity
associated with a flashily dressed black male street thug frequently a member of a gang and armed
with a knife or weapon.
Used in the above ways, toxic masculinity provided a framework that essentialized marginalized men
as aggressive and criminal, discursively packaged in a way that it was presented as concern for men’s
wellbeing. The idea of toxic masculinity harmonized with conservative political agendas concerned
with the social control of low-income, under-employed men and with patriarchal family values.
Reliance on toxic masculinity, thus, did not reject the gender hierarchy or a binary gender order as anti-
feminists often assume. Instead, therapeutic discourses on toxic masculinity typically invoked notions
of natural male dispositions.
Nevertheless, critics of those like Eberly who, for example, linked school shootings to toxic masculinity
imagined the label as part of a feminist project motivated by misandry. Christina Hoff Sommers (2003),
complained that “gender equality experts” in government wanted to socialize boys away from “toxic
masculinity” out of misguided rejection of differences in the character, interests, and abilities of men
and women. Likewise, an article on family therapy argued that the phrase had become “part and parcel
of the scholarly and popular clinical literature” that represented a “deficit perspective” toward men
(Dollahite, Marks, & Olsonm, 2002, p. 262). From this perspective, talk of toxic masculinity indicates
a feminist anti-male bias even though proponents of the term were often conservatives seeking to
“reform” marginalized men and stabilise patriarchal heterosexual family norms.
Feminism and toxic masculinity
Feminists have adopted toxic masculinity as shorthand for characterizing homophobic and misogynist
speech and violence by men. Since 2016, a notable number of media stories used toxic masculinity
in discussions of U.S. President Trump and the #MeToo movement to describe the poor behaviour of
powerful white elite men in contrast to its earlier applications to marginalized men. Indeed, feminist
scholars have adopted toxic masculinity as a useful frame for responding to resurgent masculinist right-
wing politics. For instance, anti-feminism’s long history has been reinvigorated within what media
6
studies scholars label “networked misogyny, defined as “an especially virulent strain of violence and
hostility towards women in online environments sometimes linked with off-line violence; toxic
masculinity sums-up this strain (Banet-Weiser and Miltner, 2016, p. 171).
According to my count, feminist scholars’ use of toxic masculinity increased as the term became more
publicly popular. Academic databases show that, since 2016, scholars across disciplines have used the
term. Surprisingly, more than half of the top sixty returns provide no definition: the term is used
descriptively, without theorization or operationalization. Many linked toxic masculinity with other
disparaging labels. An analysis of the TV show Game of Thrones (Askey 2018, p.50), for example,
notes in its abstract that the show reflects “western misogyny, hetero- and cissexism, and toxic
masculinity.Those who provided a definition most often mentioned violence, domination, aggression,
misogyny, and homophobia.
Few scholars discuss how to conceptualize toxic masculinity in relation to feminist theories of
masculinity. Bryant Sculos (2017) describes Kupers’ (2005) article as providing one of the most
prominent scholarly usages of the concept.” My survey of feminist articles published since 2016
confirmed the popularity of Kupers (2005) use as a subset (Parent et al. 2019) of hegemonic
masculinity surfacing in specific contexts, such as prisons or imagined national threats. Thus, the
toxic/healthy therapeutic understanding of masculinity carried into feminist scholarship via citation.
As an alternative, I suggest analysing condemnations of certain forms of masculinity for their political
effects. James Messerschmidt (2010) and Betül Ekşi (2017) have both shown how male elites can
bolster their power by condemning toxically masculine men. Messerschmidt shows how Presidents
Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. depicted themselves as masculine heroes rescuing feminized victims from
the toxically masculine villain, Saadam Hussein. Ekşi (2017) shows how branches of the Turkish
National Police disparaged other branches as toxically masculine, situating their own violence as
restrained. However, neither of the Bushes nor the Turkish Police use the term “toxic masculinity”;
rather, Messerschmidt and Ekşi apply it as shorthand. Nevertheless, their approach of analysing what
condemnation of other men’s masculinities achieves politically seems promising.
7
Thus, we might analyse the politics behind condemnations of toxic masculinity. Recent theorizations
of inclusive masculinities suggest shifts away from homophobia and misogyny especially among white,
masculine elites. While Eric Anderson (2009) hails such shifts as indicating a weakening of gender
hierarchies, others have argued that normative masculine disavowal of homophobia and sexism can
disguise ongoing gender inequalities (Bridges & Pascoe, 2014). By distancing themselves from such
“toxic” elements of masculinity, men may represent heterosexual masculine privilege as a thing of the
past even as it continues to structure institutions.
Conclusion
Following Raewyn Connell’s (1995) discussion of masculine hegemony as a field of discursive
positions and practices, we can see how disavowal of toxic masculinity can serve the interests of already
privileged men. Feminist applications of the term to the likes of Trump and Weinstein depart from a
conservative focus on marginalized men’s toxic masculinity. However, such condemnation still
individualises the problem to the character traits of specific men. Condemnation of toxic masculinity
allows men to position themselves as against misogyny, homophobia and violence, while
simultaneously acknowledging masculinity as implicated in such problems. Sexual violence and
harassment can then be discussed as features of “backward” and “mentally unwell” men. Thus, the
institutional and structural privileges men accrue (what Connell terms the “patriarchal dividend”) are
systematically obscured. Toxic masculinity carries inflections of postfeminist relegation of patriarchy
to the past and individualizes sexism as a question of personal attitudes. Feminist scholars should thus
be wary of using toxic masculinity as an analytic category.
Toxic masculinity continues to appear in media and scholarship. I’ve caught myself using it as a
shorthand: I understand that its appeal lies in its ability to summon a recognisable character type.
However, I take care not to use the term as a scholarly concept. In 2019, for the first time, the term
appeared in some of my students essays, although I do not use it in my teaching. I noticed that students
who didn’t use it gave fuller analyses of masculinity and different forms of violence. Possibly, the term
has spread into feminist scholarship to an extent that it should be addressed in the classroom. Indeed,
8
explaining why it is not a useful concept could highlight the value of less individualised approaches to
gender and power.
References.
Anderson, E. (2009). Inclusive Masculinity: The Changing Nature of Masculinities. London, UK:
Routledge.
Askey, B. (2018). “I’d Rather Have No Brains and Two Balls”: Eunuchs, Masculinity, and Power in
Game of Thrones. The Journal of Popular Culture, 51(1), 5067.
Banet-Weiser, S., & Portwood-Stacer, L. (2017). The traffic in feminism: An introduction to the
commentary and criticism on popular feminism. Feminist Media Studies, 17(5), 884888.
Bhana, D. (2005). Violence and the Gendered Negotiation of Masculinity Among Young Black
School Boys in South Africa. In L. Ouzgane & R. Morrell (Eds.), African Masculinities: Men
in Africa from the Late Nineteenth Century to the Present (pp. 205220). London, UK:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Biddulph, S. (1997). Raising Boys: Why Boys are Different-- and how to Help Them Become Happy
and Well-balanced Men. Sydney, NSW: Finch Publishing.
Blair, Z. S. K. (2016). The Pulse Nightclub Shooting: Connecting Militarism, Neoliberalism, and
Multiculturalism to Understand Violence. North American Dialogue, 19(2), 102116.
Bridges, T., & Pascoe, C. J. (2014). Hybrid Masculinities: New Directions in the Sociology of Men
and Masculinities. Sociology Compass, 8(3), 246258.
Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. LA: University of California Press.
Dollahite, D. C., Marks, L. D., & Olsonm, M. M. (2002). Fathering, Faith, and Family Therapy.
Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 13(34), 259289.
Eberly, D. (1999a). The Collapse and Recovery of Fatherhood. In D. Eberly (Ed.), The Faith Factor
in Fatherhood: Renewing the Sacred Vocation of Fathering (pp. 320). Maryland: Lexington
Books.
Eberly, D. (1999b, May 13). Prepared Testimony by Don Eberly Founder, Chairman and Ceo,
National Fatherhood Initiative Director, the Civil Society Project Before the House Judiciary
9
Committee SubjectYouth Culture and Violence Thursday, May 13, 1999. Federal News
Service - Congressional Hearing Prepared Testimonies; Washington,
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju62441.000/hju62441_0f.htm
Ekşi, B. (2017). The myth of the tough men’s burden: Reproducing a hegemonic masculinity at the
Turkish National Police. NORMA, 12(1), 522.
Ferguson, H., & Hogan, F. (2004). Strengthening families through fathers: Developing policy and
practice in relation to vulnerable fathers and their families [Report or Working Paper].
Retrieved from The Centre for Social and Family Research, Department of Applied Arts,
Waterford Institute of Technology for the Department of Social and Family Affairs website:
http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Families-Research-programme.aspx
Gill, R. (2016). Post-postfeminism?: New feminist visibilities in postfeminist times. Feminist Media
Studies, 16(4), 610630.
Gross, D. (1990, April 16). The Gender Rap. The New Republic; Washington, 202(16), 11.
Kupers, T. A. (2005). Toxic masculinity as a barrier to mental health treatment in prison. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 61(6), 713724.
McGinley, A. C. (2018). The Masculinity Motivation. Stanford Law Review Online, 71, 4959.
Messerschmidt, J. W. (2010). Hegemonic Masculinities and Camouflaged Politics: Unmasking the
Bush Dynasty and Its War Against Iraq. Oxon: Routledge.
Mobilio, A. (1999). Angry White Knuckleheads. Fortune, 140 (10), 8686.
OECD. (2007). Babies and Bosses-Reconciling Work and Family Life: A Synthesis of Findings for
OECD Countries-OECD. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/els/family/babiesandbosses-
reconcilingworkandfamilylifeasynthesisoffindingsforoecdcountries.htm
Parent, Mike, Gobble, Teresa, Rochlen, Aaron (2019). Social media behaviour, toxic masculinity and
depression. Psychology of Men and Masculinities 20 (3), 277-287.
Pettyjohn, M., Muzzey, F., Maas, M., & McCauley, H. (2019). #HowIWillChange: Engaging men and
boys in the #MeToo movement - ProQuest. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 20 (4), 612
622.
10
Pittman, F. S. (1993). Man Enough: Fathers, Sons, and the Search for Masculinity. New York:
Putnam.
Randles, J. M. (2013). Repackaging the “Package Deal”: Promoting Marriage for Low-Income
Families by Targeting Paternal Identity and Reframing Marital Masculinity. Gender &
Society, 27 (6), 864888
Salter, A., & Blodgett, B. (2017). Toxic Geek Masculinity in Media: Sexism, Trolling, and Identity
Policing. Springer.
Sculos, B. (2017). Who’s Afraid of ‘Toxic Masculinity’? Class, Race and Corporate Power, 5(3).
Sommers, C. H. (2003, September). Men-It’s in Their Nature. The American Enterprise; Washington,
14 (6), 45.
Valenti, J. (2014). Beyoncé’s ‘Flawless’ feminist act at the VMAs leads the way for other women.
The Guardian. August 25
Waling, A. (2019). Problematising ‘Toxic’ and ‘Healthy’ Masculinity for Addressing Gender
Inequalities. Australian Feminist Studies, 34(101), 362375.
Young, C. (2000, March). The man question. Reason, 31(10), 6467.
... Toxic masculinity is a multifaceted phenomenon defined by traditional gender roles (Parent et al, 2019). The core characterisation of the term relates to male views on homophobia, misogyny and violence (Harrington, 2021); however, it also holds that men should reject emotional displays, often leading to the inability to seek help when required (De Boise, 2019). ...
Article
Background/Aims There is a paucity of evidence on how birth trauma can affect the mental health of fathers. This review aimed to determine the common psychological effects of witnessing traumatic events during birth for fathers. Methods A narrative literature review of primary research and literature reviews was conducted using the British Nursing Index, CINAHL, Maternity and Infant Care, PubMed and EBSCO. A total of 6 research articles were included. Results Data analysis generated three themes: toxic masculinity: the role of fathers in the birthing environment; unpreparedness: expectation vs reality; and relationships with partner and others. Conclusions Traumatic events during labour and birth can have a profound impact on both mother and father. Fathers may experience poor mental health in the perinatal period, which can impact their relationship with their partner and the baby. It was noted that some healthcare professionals were more supportive than others. Effective communication is essential to quality care provision, which should help to manage poor paternal mental health in the perinatal period. Implications for practice Services are needed to identify and address poor mental health in the perinatal period for both mothers and fathers. Antenatal education should include information about all potential outcomes during labour and birth. More healthcare professionals are needed with expertise in mental health, including the ability to assess and refer to specialist services where necessary.
... However, only two of the 32 schools visited were primary schools. 9. Andrew Tate is an online influencer who promotes a particular lifestyle and form of toxic masculinity (Harrington, 2020), which is generally recognised as being socially destructive, and includes extreme misogyny, homophobia and violent domination. ...
Article
Full-text available
Introduction The intersectionality of sexism, transphobia, and adverse childhood experiences (ACE) on the mental health of transgender adults is poorly understood. We assessed whether the known association between ACE and depression was modified (or differed) by adult transgender identity and by assigned sex at birth, which we used as a proxy for adults' biological (e.g., hormonal changes) and social (e.g., sexism) experiences in childhood. Methods Data from a representative sample of 519 transgender and 127,214 cisgender US adults was retrieved from the 2019 and 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys. The sample was stratified by assigned sex at birth. Adjusted, sample-weighted Poisson regressions and relative excess risk due to interaction (RERI) were used to assess whether transgender identity modified the association between ACE and depression within strata of assigned sex at birth. Results We found 42.4% of transgender compared to 24.9% of cisgender adults experienced 3+ ACE. The association between ACE and depression was stronger for transgender compared to cisgender adults, regardless of assigned sex at birth. However, transgender adults assigned female at birth with 1–2 ACE had a combined risk of depression that was higher than would be expected from the sum of the two risks alone (RERI test of interaction for transgender with 1–2 ACE vs. cisgender with zero ACE: 1.91 [95% confidence interval 0.47–3.36]; p = 0.009). The tests of interaction were not statistically significant ( p > 0.05) for those assigned male at birth. Discussion Transgender adults may benefit more from depression interventions informed by and addressing childhood trauma than their cisgender counterparts, particularly for transgender adults who were assigned female at birth. Our findings suggest a need for greater and improved data collection of gender, experiences associated with assigned sex at birth, and ACE as these relate to the transgender community. This will allow for a better understanding of the intersecting influences of sexism, transphobia, and ACE on adult depression and for identifying particularly vulnerable sub-populations in need of support.
Article
Full-text available
Recent theoretical studies on masculinity have sensitized us to deeply layered problems hidden in many literary texts, both in the modern world and in the Middle Ages. We do not always simply face ‘toxic masculinity,’ but many conflicts addressed by the various poets can now be analyzed more closely by means of the theoretical model developed by Masculinity Studies. Numerous times, masculine identity emerges as surprisingly weak, troubled, or uncertain, and when the various male protagonists endeavor to compensate for their shortcomings, new challenges emerge affecting all society. Masculinity is displayed in many different manners, reflecting on a variety of social, psychological, and physical features. In male-dominated medieval society, the ideal of masculinity was probably much more pronounced than in later centuries because feudalism, intimately tied in with patriarchy, clearly favored men and promoted a specific model, the knight. Nevertheless, medieval poets often indicated considerable concerns with this aspect and revealed noteworthy cracks in the idealistic image of the glorified male, if they did not even present the collapse of that concept. To explore this issue further, this study takes a stab at one of the most popular short verse narratives by the Middle High German poet Konrad von Würzburg, Heinrich von Kempten (ca. 1261) and examines the various roles assumed by the male protagonists.
Article
Kepercayaan diri merupakan hal yang dimiliki bagi setiap orang. Kepercayaan diri mengarah kepada suatu sikap dan keyakinan dalam diri setiap orang dalam menghadapi sesuatu. Hal ini juga masih berlaku kepada individu yang pernah mengalami pelecehan seksual. Penelitian ini dilakukan yang bertujuan untuk mengetahui gambaran percaya diri kepada para penyintas pelecehan seksual. Metode dalam pengumpulan data dalam penelitian ini menggunakan observasi, wawancara dan juga studi dokumentasi. Adapun subjek dalam penelitian ini ialah korban pelecehan seksual, psikolog dan juga pihak dari Kementrian Hukum dan HAM. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa subjek pinyintas pelecehan seksual sudah kehilangan rasa percaya dirinya, kehilangan kepercayaan kepada orang disekitarnya, mengurung diri, marah, gemetaran, setiap malam ia masih terbayang-bayang dengan kejadiannya di masa lalu, ia merasa masih ingin menangis jika mengingat hal itu. Subjek tambahan psikolog dan pihak dari Kementrian Hukum dan HAM juga menyatakan bahwa terjadinya pelecehan seksual karena adanya relasi kuasa dan sikap dari masyarakat yang belum siap dalam menangani korban pelecehan seksual. Implikasi penelitian ini sebagai data perancangan film dokumenter berjudul: Antipati.Â
Article
In recent years, feminist activism and the MeToo movement have placed a spotlight on male privilege in sexuality and raised awareness of the high prevalence of sexual violence. Within this context, men are increasingly expected to respect women’s consent in their heterosexual encounters. This study employs in-depth interviews with thirty-nine educated and economically privileged heterosexual men to examine which types of men adopt egalitarian sexual norms and how and why they do so. The findings reveal that progressive men who are shy and socially awkward employ narratives of sexual consent to legitimize their traditionally disparaged sexual behaviors, such as the wait-and-see attitudes and verbal communication strategies that do not align with traditional expectations of manhood. In doing so, they construct an image of themselves as “safe guys” who do not perpetuate sexual violence. This not only enhances their sex appeal to women but also increases their influence within their peer groups. Through the use of sexual consent narratives, shy and socially awkward men who previously embodied subordinate masculinities transition to hybrid masculinities and thus gain greater access to social resources.
Article
Norms are inherently social entities. The link between collectively shared social norms and individual well-being is an important juncture for social scientists as well as for applied social researchers. In this regard it is oftentimes contended that in a modern society the internalized norms of masculinity tend to form behavioral models that frequently contribute to young men’s forming an apathetic attitude toward their social responsibility, as well as to dissociation and indecision, and can worsen their emotional states and, eventually, lead to poorer well-being. The goals of the present research were two-fold and involved exploring the contents of the cultural norms of masculinity and evaluating their effect on mental well-being of young college males (based on a sample from National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy (N = 215)). Grounded in the operationalization of Pearson & Marr conceptual framework, a formalized instrument was designed to measure the degree of consensuality of different norms of masculinity and to investigate their relationships with the mental well-being of the study participants. The study conducted in Kyiv in Spring 2024 collected self-reported cognitive data by means of an online form. The data analysis employed techniques of multidimensional analysis operating on multi-item scales. The findings show that a more pronounced expression of the normative traits that are marked as masculine serves as a predictor of higher mental well-being levels, more salient feeling of social belonging, more positive outlook on life and perceiving life events in a more constructive way. Granted that individual correspondence to sociocultural normativity in the domain of masculinity also positively affected psychological condition and the experience of social belonging of male participants, improving their well-being, it can be surmised that the destructive criticism of masculinity per se, radical reshaping of agreed-upon norms regulating masculinity and exposing the young men to the mixed signals of “what a man should be” can have harmful consequences for social adaptation and psychological well-being of male students. On the other hand, it is important to contextualize the criticism of masculinity within collectively meaningful axiological networks of a society and their contingencies. Specifically, congruence with socially desirable repertoires can confer a greater sense of responsibility, understanding one’s role in the group and developing one’s decision-making skills.
Book
Full-text available
Celem książki jest przybliżenie najbardziej popularnych i najczęściej stosowanych teorii w obrębie krytycznych studiów nad mężczyznami i męskościami. Wybrane teorie zostały przybliżone, przeanalizowane i zobrazowane przykładami badań. W rozdziale pierwszym opisano rozwój studiów nad mężczyznami i męskościami w Polsce na tle kultury Zachodu. Ponadto wskazano perspektywy oraz teorie wykorzystywane w polskich socjologicznych studiach nad mężczyznami i męskościami. W kolejnych rozdziałach scharakteryzowano założenia kolejnych koncepcji, przedyskutowano i zniuansowano ich specyfikę, omówiono krytykę. Przybliżono: teorię męskości hegemonicznej, założenia męskości toksycznej, teorię męskości hybrydowych, męskości inkluzywnej, męskości opiekuńczych, kobiecych męskości i koncepcję „otwartych” i „zamkniętych” męskości.
Article
Full-text available
In response to the #MeToo movement, #HowIWillChange was intended to engage men and boys in the ongoing discussion about sexual violence by asking them to evaluate their role in sustaining rape culture. We collected publicly available tweets containing #HowIWillChange from Twitter’s application programming interface on October 26, 2017 via NCapture software, resulting in 3,182 tweets for analysis. Tweets were analyzed qualitatively and coded into three primary groups: (a) users committing to actively engage in dismantling rape culture, (b) users indignantly resistant to social change, and (c) users promoting hostile resistance to social change. Actions suggested by users for dismantling rape culture included the following: examining personal participation in toxic masculinity, teaching the next generation, calling out other men, listening to women’s experiences, and promoting egalitarianism. Users indignantly opposed to social change used the rhetoric of “not all men” and promoted benevolently sexist attitudes to assert that men as a group have been unfairly targeted. Other users were hostile toward the notion of social change and expressed their resistance through attacking perceived weaknesses of men supporting #HowIWillChange, hostile sexist attitudes, statements of antifeminist backlash, and rhetoric of Trump-inspired racism. The identified themes provide valuable information for prevention scientists about what holds men back from participating, and what men are willing to do to help.
Article
Full-text available
Social media/social networks (SM/SNs), while ubiquitous in their use, have not been well integrated into psychological theory or practice. Most research addressing SM/SNs has examined frequency and modality of SM/SN use, rather than the valence of online interactions or potential mental health consequences of use. Further, SM/SN use has also not been well integrated with relevant paradigms from the psychology of men and masculinities paradigms. The present study contributes to both of these research need areas by testing the associations among SM/SN use, toxic masculinity, positive or negative SM/SN interactions, and depression among a sample of 402 men. Results of a structural equation modeling analysis indicated that SM/SN use and toxic masculinity were associated with depression. Positive and negative SM/SN interactions mediated the relationship between SM/SN use and depression indicators, and negative SM/SN interactions mediated the relationship between toxic masculinity and depression. Implications for future research directions and for working with men who use SM/SNs are discussed.
Article
This article discusses the emergence of ‘toxic’ and ‘healthy masculinity’ in public discourse in addressing gender inequalities. ‘Toxic’ has emerged through greater awareness of men’s violence against women, and men’s high rates of health distress and lack of help-seeking. ‘Healthy’ is thus a response to ‘toxic masculinity’, attempting to encourage men to engage in expressions of masculinity that are not harmful to others, or themselves as a way to address gender inequalities. This article argues that in using a term such as ‘toxic masculinity’, we continue to position men as victims of a broader vague entity rather than highlighting their agency in the reproduction of masculinity. Equally, in using a term such as ‘healthy masculinity’, we continue to set masculinity up as the only expression of gender that men can legitimately engage in, thus reinforcing the notion that femininity (and by extension, androgyny) remains a less valued, and less legitimate, expression of gender. In doing so, ‘toxic’ and ‘healthy masculinity’ continue to reproduce, rather than address gender inequalities, and do not support the breaking down of gender binaries.
Article
This book examines changing representations of masculinity in geek media, during a time of transition in which “geek” has not only gone mainstream but also become a more contested space than ever, with continual clashes such as Gamergate, the Rabid and Sad Puppies’ attacks on the Hugo Awards, and battles at conventions over “fake geek girls.” Anastasia Salter and Bridget Blodgett critique both gendered depictions of geeks, including shows like Chuck and The Big Bang Theory, and aspirational geek heroes, ranging from the Winchester brothers of Supernatural to BBC’s Sherlock and the varied superheroes of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Through this analysis, the authors argue that toxic masculinity is deeply embedded in geek culture, and that the identity of geek as victimized other must be redefined before geek culture and media can ever become an inclusive space.
Article
Despite the common acceptance of masculinity as a foundation of policing, little research has explored the relation between masculinities and the police. Based on the fieldwork, including 35 in-depth interviews with police officers, this paper analyzes the construction of masculinities within the Turkish National Police (TNP). It aims to unpack how practices and discourses of hegemonic masculinity are embedded and (re)produced at a state institution, the TNP. Drawing from critical masculinity studies literature, this paper asks how does the police as a state institution reproduce an ideology of hegemonic masculinity and how do male and female officers’ concrete practices and discourses construct an order of gender relations within the institution? The findings suggest the centrality of heterosexuality and masculinities in reproducing the institutions of Turkish Republic in the context of modern police force. I also found that what I call the ‘institution of vocational brotherhood’ (mesleki abilik), and the associated ‘respectable sisterhood’ as distinctly Turkish phenomena carry significant implications for TNP members and contributes to hegemonic police masculinity in Turkey by bringing police work closer to the structure of family and making policing more paternalistic for all its members.
Chapter
By the time boys begin attending primary school in South Africa, they have already embarked on the lifelong process of acquiring and constructing their masculine identities. Masculine identities in school reach back in time into the family and, in turn, the social location of these families plays a major part in the early processes by which masculinities are formed. In South Africa, the context in which many black families function is one of poverty. Poverty and race correlate closely in South Africa with 61 percent of blacks being poor (May 2000). Three children in every five live in households characterized by unemployment, lack of access to water and electricity, crowded homes, and food insecurity. Although poverty does not cause aggression, it gives rise to conditions that make it more likely. Boys, black boys in particular, are vulnerable to violence, but at the same time, they learn that might is right. To understand the shape of school masculinities, we need to give due recognition to early life experiences of violence.