toxic masculinity in media essay

• April 18 Endless screentime: The cost of social media platforms ignoring teenagers’ wellbeing
• April 17 Baseball Roots Reimagined: From Players to Coaches
• April 16 Easy remedies for Senioritis
• April 15 Fast Thrifting: How fast fashion continues to harm thrift stores
• April 13 Student-led spirit group ‘The Woods’ encourages attendance at less-appreciated sporting events
• April 10 Sweet delights at San Rafael Farmers’ Market: Waffle Mania, Brittany Crêpes and KettlePop
• April 9 Ignorance breeds violence: we need diverse religious education
• April 6 Rolling the dice: The harmful effects of sports betting promotions
• April 6 Stop putting male celebrities on a pedestal
• April 5 Cocinando con Bark: Alfajores
• April 2 Photo Essay: Boys’ varsity lacrosse dominates San Rafael in blowout matchup
• April 2 Compartiendo historias: Custodios Roberto Córdoba y Tomás Herrera

Redwood Bark

The reality of toxic masculinity behind media portrayment

Jenna Beauchamp May 1, 2023

As with any other week, many students find themselves either scrolling through TikTok or watching a television (T.V.) show. However, the constant attention they pay to the internet ultimately causes them to be manipulated by celebrities, influencers and films they watch. Media is the main cause of toxic masculinity in daily life and the cause for our society constantly progressing into a more patriarchal ideology.  

A United Nations (UN) report has found almost 90 percent of men and women alike hold some sort of bias against females. The behaviors of celebrities like pop artist Kanye West and former president Donald Trump provide evidence of classic misogyny. West’s music depicts male sexual dominance, enforcing a toxic form of masculinity. On a larger scale, Trump amplifies patriarchal ideals in a video interview with Access Hollywood. In this 2005 audio recording, Trump made vulgar comments about women, claiming he could grab them by the female genitals since he is a “star.” He later insinuated that his comment was merely locker-room banter and apologized if any offense was caused.

Trump’s depthless apology and blatant objectification of women clearly displays misogynistic ideals. With celebrities like West and Trump continuously being brought into the spotlight as figureheads of antifeminism, evidently the supporters of these two people agree with their beliefs of male supremacy.

Furthermore, we can see social media influencers stirring the pot of patriarchy. Andrew Tate, a former kickboxer, online influencer and self-described misogynist, has become extremely popular in the past couple of years through social media apps. Robert Lawson, an associate professor in sociolinguistics at Birmingham City University, explained how Tate’s behavior reflects toxic masculinity.  

“[Tate] is very big on this idea of the alpha male, the man that’s in control, that always knows what he’s doing, that always gets what he wants… I think some men can see that as a particularly attractive trait… He lives a very jet-set lifestyle: fast cars, private planes, mansions [and] expensive holidays away,” Lawson said. 

Tate’s ideas belong to the past. Yet, despite his misogyny, he has more supporters than ever due to the accessibility of his content; his radical thoughts and words have spread, causing his followers to become classic patriarchs in aspiration of his lifestyle. 

Although cell phones contribute immensely to the spread of information, media is not only limited to our phones. Shows can also portray certain fictional characters in toxic ways. For example, classic shows like “Gossip Girl,” “Friends,” and new examples like “Euphoria,” and “13 Reasons Why,” all contain examples of misogynistic characters who all have the intention of being alpha males and objectifying women around them. Characters like Blair Waldorf and Chuck Bass make toxicity a constant theme throughout “Gossip Girl.” The show doesn’t even attempt to sugarcoat the amount of male supremacy it promotes when in the pilot episode, we are introduced to the notorious womanizer, Chuck Bass, age 16, who tries to seduce a 14-year-old girl. After watching Bass’s forceful actions against a young girl, fans continue on with the show and are presented with the increasingly lavish lifestyle of Bass, who seems to have a new woman each day. 

After researching the role American media plays in challenging and reinforcing society’s expectations of male masculinity, Evan Woolbright, a graduate ​​English Composition and Communication student at Central Michigan University, found that society’s views on masculinity are rooted in fear — the fear of opening up, asking for help or appearing less manly by displaying emotions other than anger. 

 “Anger and violence are acceptable emotions for men because history has embedded this idea that it is necessary for growth and progress; this translates into films, T.V. shows… and becomes part of the hero archetype. These heroes, which are meant to represent the best of society, thus impact the standards of masculinity in the real world,” Woolbright said.

Despite the media’s portrayal of toxic masculinity, as times evolve, so have many people’s opinions. More celebrities are throwing away the so-called manly behavior. Harry Styles, Timothée Chalamet, and Michael B. Jordan are examples of men switching to a more “feminine” look and looking beyond the typical male standards. Shows like “Outer Banks,” and “Ted Lasso,” also have male characters that break the boundaries of masculinity. Woolbright explained how this trend is positively affecting men.

“If the media continues portraying more complex male characters… who break the boundaries of masculinity, male audiences may feel empowered to do the same,” Woolbright said. 

 I agree. The 21st century should be a time of equality, yet male supremacy continues to be a problem in our society. Due to our generation’s fixation on social media, the more toxic masculinity is talked about, the more it is popularized. With more access to the internet, harmful ideas of people like Tate and West are being spread more easily. We must stop giving these male suppressors a platform with which they teach people the wrong ways to view masculinity. We don’t need peoples’ entitlement to hinder gender equality throughout society just because they are male.

• celebrities
• social media
• toxic masculinity

Jenna Beauchamp is a sophomore at Redwood High School and is a Cub Bark copy editor. She enjoys playing sports and hanging out with friends.

For as long as I can remember, I’ve had a phone in my pocket with some type of social media platform downloaded, whether it was TikTok, Snapchat...

Redwood baseball is a program built to win games, award hard work and develop skills that set players up for future success. Coaches Bill Benz,...

About this time every year, the same epidemic infects the Redwood senior population: Senioritis. With only five unexcused absences allowed per...

Nicole Whitty: The Redwood alum behind 22 years of local clothing boutique success

Marin organization digs towards rebirth of local tunnel

Endless screentime: The cost of social media platforms ignoring teenagers’ wellbeing

Fast Thrifting: How fast fashion continues to harm thrift stores

Ignorance breeds violence: we need diverse religious education

Rolling the dice: The harmful effects of sports betting promotions

Stop putting male celebrities on a pedestal

Let’s get psyched!

The great divide of special education: the 504 plan

We need to raise our CAASPP standards

A guide to informed college conversations

‘Toxic masculinity’: what does it mean, where did it come from – and is the term useful or harmful?

Professor of Sociology, Queensland University of Technology

Disclosure statement

Michael Flood has received funding from the Australia Research Council, Australian Primary Health Care Research Institute Foundation, Jesuit Social Services, Victorian Government, and Victorian Health Promotion Foundation.

Queensland University of Technology provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

• Bahasa Indonesia

It’s hard to avoid encountering the term “toxic masculinity” these days.

It has been linked to Australian soldiers’ war crimes in Afghanistan, the Morrison government’s low credibility with women in the lead-up to this year’s election – and further afield, the rise of Donald Trump and the Capitol riots .

It is regularly applied to pop-culture characters as diverse as the hypersensitive dinosaur nerd Ross Gellar from Friends, the alcoholic adulterer Don Draper in Mad Men, and the violent, repressed Nate in Euphoria , who regularly tells his girlfriend, “If anyone ever tried to hurt you, I’d kill them.”

The term “ toxic masculinity ” was obscure in the 1990s and early 2000s. But since around 2015, it has become pervasive in discussions of men and gender.

So what does it mean?

“Masculinity” refers to the roles, behaviours and attributes seen as appropriate for boys and men in a given society. In short, masculinity refers to society’s expectations of males.

In many societies, boys and men are expected to be strong, active, aggressive, tough, daring, heterosexual, emotionally inexpressive and dominant. This is enforced by socialisation, media, peers, and a host of other influences. And it plays out in the behaviour of many boys and men .

Read more: Friday essay: why soldiers commit war crimes – and what we can do about it

The term “toxic masculinity” points to a particular version of masculinity that is unhealthy for the men and boys who conform to it, and harmful for those around them.

The phrase emphasises the worst aspects of stereotypically masculine attributes. Toxic masculinity is represented by qualities such as violence, dominance, emotional illiteracy, sexual entitlement, and hostility to femininity.

This version of masculinity is seen as “toxic” for two reasons.

First, it is bad for women. It shapes sexist and patriarchal behaviours, including abusive or violent treatment of women. Toxic masculinity thus contributes to gender inequalities that disadvantage women and privilege men.

Second, toxic masculinity is bad for men and boys themselves. Narrow stereotypical norms constrain men’s physical and emotional health and their relations with women, other men, and children.

Read more: Sherlock Holmes and the case of toxic masculinity: what is behind the detective's appeal?

Origins of the term

The term first emerged within the mythopoetic (New Age) men’s movement of the 1980s.

The movement focused on men’s healing, using male-only workshops, wilderness retreats and rites of passage to rescue what it saw as essentially masculine qualities and archetypes (the king, the warrior, the wildman, and so on) from what it dubbed “toxic” masculinity.

In the 1990s and early 2000s, the term spread to other self-help circles and into academic work (for example, on men’s mental health ). Some US conservatives began applying the term to low-income, under-employed, marginalised men, prescribing solutions like restoring male-dominated families and family values.

“Toxic masculinity” was virtually non-existent in academic writing – including feminist scholarship – up until 2015 or so, other than in a handful of texts on men’s health and wellbeing.

But as it spread in popular culture, feminist scholars and commentators adopted the term, typically as a shorthand for misogynist talk and actions. Though the term is now associated with a feminist critique of the sexist norms of manhood, that’s not where it started.

It is virtually absent from the scholarship on men and masculinities that developed rapidly from the mid-1970s, though its use in that area has increased in the last decade. This scholarship has, however, long made the claim that culturally influential constructions of manhood exist, and that they are tied to men’s domination of women.

Merits and risks

Understood properly, the term “toxic masculinity” has some merits. It recognises that the problem is a social one, emphasising how boys and men are socialised and how their lives are organised. It steers us away from biologically essentialist or determinist perspectives that suggest the bad behaviour of men is inevitable: “boys will be boys”.

“Toxic masculinity” highlights a specific form of masculinity and a specific set of social expectations that are unhealthy or dangerous. It points (rightly) to the fact that stereotypical masculine norms shape men’s health, as well as their treatment of other people.

The term has helped to popularise feminist critiques of rigid gender norms and inequalities. It is more accessible than scholarly terms (such as hegemonic masculinity ). This has the potential to allow its use in educating boys and men, in similar ways to the concept of the “ Man Box ” (a term describing a rigid set of compulsory masculine qualities that confine men and boys) and other teaching tools on masculinity .

By emphasising the harm done to both men and women, the term has the potential to prompt less defensiveness among men than more overtly political terms such as “patriarchal” or “sexist” masculinity.

Read more: Perpetrators of family violence sometimes use threats of suicide to control their partner

Toxic risks

“Toxic masculinity” also carries some potential risks. It is too readily misheard as a suggestion that “all men are toxic”. It can make men feel blamed and attacked – the last thing we need if we want to invite men and boys to critically reflect on masculinity and gender. Persuasive public messaging aimed at men may be more effective if it avoids the language of “masculinity” altogether.

Whether it uses the term “toxic masculinity” or not, any criticism of the ugly things some men do, or of dominant norms of manhood, will provoke defensive and hostile reactions among some men. Criticisms of sexism and unequal gender relations often provoke a backlash , in the form of predictable expressions of anti-feminist sentiments.

The term might also draw attention to male disadvantage and neglect male privilege. Dominant gender norms may be “toxic” for men, but they also provide a range of unearned privileges (workplace expectations of leadership, freedom from unpaid care work, prioritising of their sexual needs over women’s) and inform some men’s harmful behaviour towards women .

“Toxic masculinity” can be used in generalising and simplistic ways. Decades of scholarship have established that constructions of masculinity are diverse, intersecting with other forms of social difference.

The term may cement the assumption that the only way to involve men in progress towards gender equality is by fostering a “ healthy ” or “ positive ” masculinity. Yes, we need to redefine norms of manhood . But we also need to encourage men to invest less in gendered identities and boundaries, stop policing manhood , and embrace ethical identities less defined by gender.

Whatever language we use, we need ways to name the influential social norms associated with manhood, critique the harmful attitudes and behaviours some men adopt, and foster healthier lives for men and boys.

• Masculinity
• Toxic masculinity
• Women's movement

Deputy Social Media Producer

Research Fellow /Senior Research Fellow – Implementation Science

Associate Professor, Occupational Therapy

GRAINS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CHAIRPERSON

Faculty of Law - Academic Appointment Opportunities

• Use quotation marks to search for an exact phrase, e.g. "Innovation Unit"
• Use a hyphen before a word to exclude pages with this word, e.g. Innovation -unit

Innovation Unit

• United Kingdom
• Australia and New Zealand
• Adopt and adapt (UK)
• Innovation programmes (UK)
• Learning partnerships and programmes (UK)
• Designing new solutions (UK)
• Co-designing solutions (ANZ)
• Building capability (ANZ)
• Learning and innovation partnerships (ANZ)
• Place-based change (ANZ)
• All our projects
• Thoughts Latest blogs, news and publications.
• Publications
• IU Newsletter
• About Innovation Unit Vision, mission and areas of impact.
• Our clients Our people and partners.
• Our people Our team of innovation experts, researchers and designers
• Work for us Working at IU might be your next big adventure
• Our race awareness journey

Get in touch using the form below. Let us know if you'd like to sign up to our newsletter at the same time.

‘Be a man’ – toxic masculinity, social media and violence

blog | 02 Apr 2020

Take a look at our more recent work on

Justice and reducing violence

Our vision for public services

generating insights

A report by Innovation Unit into youth violence in Greater Manchester reveals pressures on young males to conform to toxic images of masculinity, and the role of social media in this.

“I think a lot of them get into fights because someone looked at them wrong, it is just about what they think a man is.” 

(Young Adult Probation Manager, Central Manchester).

Being a ‘man’ can be tough. There are rules about how you should dress, behave and present yourself; how you should deal with conflict and express your emotions.

We have spoken with over 350 people from communities impacted by violent crime across Greater Manchester. We talked to young people, their parents, their teachers, youth leaders as well as offenders themselves.

We found time and time again expectations of ‘being a man’ have led to more and more young males finding their way into serious violent crime. We also heard how this pressure to uphold a masculine image based on strength is becoming intensified through the increasing influence of social media.

What do the stats say?

The statistics tell a pretty clear story: perpetrators and victims of violence are overwhelmingly male.

Nationally, 74% of offenders and 69% of victims connected with serious violent crime were male in 2018. When we look at younger males, 87% of weapon users were male  (2016/7). In Greater Manchester, 88% of perpetrators and 74% of victims were male in 2019.

Is masculinity really that bad?

It’s not that masculinity in itself is the problem, but rather that there is a version of masculinity in communities that is particularly toxic – where dangerous and toxic behaviours and attitudes are associated with ‘being a man’.

Throughout our research we heard young males using a script about becoming a man that says: ‘Do not express any emotions but aggression’, ‘reject anything feminine’ and ‘see retaliation as a strength’.

With expectations to act tough and suppress other emotions, young men are more likely to be violent, as one female pupil from Oldham describes:

“Boys don’t feel comfortable talking about violence, they don’t sit down to talk to each other, which means they can explode because they can’t show their emotions.” 

Pressure to ‘be a man’ is not new, so what’s changed?

As we discussed with Matthew Wright on his talkRADIO show, the pressure to be a man has always had toxic elements. But our research found that social media has intensified this pressure.

Before social media, young boys had times when they could let their guard down, calm down and cool off, and not have to conform to a hard man image. Now, because of the 24/7 nature of social media, there is a pressure to never stop performing the hard man role, and to keep curating and recreating online, a public image of masculinity that is associated with violence and aggression.

For example, during our research, we frequently heard about young males trying to uphold a pseudo masculine image online. 

“You see these 14-year-olds kids standing next to these cars and they can’t even drive. It is all a status thing saying ‘I am this person’” (Trafford youth worker)

“There are so many images of people with BMWs and a Vodka bottle with fire on it on holiday, like they have made it. But that is not the reality behind the screen and it just creates so much pressure” (Bolton youth worker)

The more people feel they need to fit in with a macho masculine image, the more pressure this creates for others:

“The problem is that you have everyone telling you that you need to be a certain image, but then you have no means to get there. So they end up looking for quick money [drugs] to get them there… there are things you are supposed to have, but when there is no job and you don’t go to college, it is like good luck!“ (Bolton youth worker)

Social media and younger children

Smart phones and social media are widely used by younger children at about the time they start secondary school. This means that young children are having to contend and navigate this pressure:

“The expectations are …. you are supposed to have this phone, that piece of clothing etc. which is not that much different. But the age and stage has been shifted to much younger – and physically and mentally the kids can’t cope. I think social media has definitely created this pressure earlier, where it might have 16 to 19 year olds … now it is nine to 13 year olds.” (Bolton Youth Worker)

The access to online content can be both brilliant and brutal. It offers so many social and educational opportunities which generations before could only hope for. At the same time it also exposes many young people to dangerous and worrying content that can be sexual, violent, or bullying. Many young people lack the maturity, confidence and emotional intelligence to cope and keep themselves safe. 

How are young females impacted by this pressure to ‘be a man’?

Young females are often victims of this masculinity image pressure, with young males often fighting over girls, as if they were property.

Some girls are asked by boys to carry weapons or them: “Girls carry knives but don’t use them… if you have a relationship with a dodgy boy you’re going to get dragged in… girls will do anything to please their boyfriends and they have pictures as blackmail” 

Sometimes boys will use girl’s social media accounts as a means of surveillance “You notice a girl starts following you on social media, and you think great. When really it is a guy using his girlfriend’s account to spy on you” (Salford young offender). And we met girls who were well aware that boys at their school used social media accounts to ‘rate’ the attractiveness of girls in their school.

So what are the solutions?

We are not saying social media is the sole cause of increasing youth violence. There are numerous other environmental factors such as a lack of opportunities and role models as well as family and peer influences. However, social media can exacerbate these circumstances, particularly when it comes to intensifying toxic masculinity pressure and the relentless pressure of having to ‘be a man’.

We have a few ideas of how to address this issue of toxic masculinity.

One lies in changing the curriculum in school to include: how to navigate the pressures of toxic masculinity and femininity. Lessons could include topics around male identity, fear, status, conflict management, emotional awareness, unhealthy relationships, safe social media and understanding the consequences of getting involved in serious violence.

A similar example where this has worked well is in Chicago with their “Becoming a Man programme (BAM)”. BAM is a school-based group counselling programme that guides young men between the ages of 11-18 years old through a range of mentoring, role-playing and group exercises. It currently serves 8,000 young men in 140 schools in the US and has values such as positive anger-expression, respect for womanhood and accountability.

Some places in the UK are interested in BAM. We want to see the programme adapted to the UK population and school system, and properly trialed and evaluated in the UK including how it can be delivered in single-sex groups and what the equivalent programme would be for teenage girls. We also want to see programmes targeted at primary-secondary school transition involving parents and children in courses designed to keep young people safe online and offline.

If you think these programmes could be what is needed in your community then contact Jessie Ben-Ami

You can read our full report here

See our more recent work

Always Hope: Transforming the lives of care experienced young adults in the…

Care experienced young adults (18-25 years old) are over represented in the prison system; approximately 25% of all adult prisoners have had experience of care, compared to 1% of the general population.

The future of UK public services: the Innovation Unit vision

Bridging the Gaps

What We Mean When We Say, “Toxic Masculinity”

“Toxic masculinity” is tricky. It’s a phrase that—misunderstood—can seem wildly insulting, even bigoted. Recently, after tweeting about toxic masculinity and its relationship to violence, I ended up the topic of discussion on a major nightly news show and the recipient of the online harassment that regularly follows such discussions these days. Because the term requires careful contextualization and provokes such strong reactions, our impulse may be to avoid discussing it with our classes. As educators, however, it is our responsibility not to hide from difficult topics or concepts, but to clarify them. 

This article is the first in a three-part series on toxic masculinity. Find parts two and three here:

• Part Two | Say No to “Boys Will Be Boys”
• Part Three | Toxic Masculinity Is Bad For Everyone: Why Teachers Must Disrupt Gender Norms Every Day

Before we can engage students in conversations about “masculinity” or “femininity,” toxic or otherwise, we should begin with a few key ideas about gender. Researchers have shown that there is very little difference between the brains of men and women. While gender identity is a deeply held feeling of being male, female or another gender, people of different genders often act differently, not because of biological characteristics  but because of rigid societal norms created around femininity and masculinity. Laying this groundwork requires effort, but in an age when breaking news alerts make us want to look away from our phones, the term “toxic masculinity” provides a useful tool for engaging with students, families and anyone else trying to make sense of the onslaught of news. 

The phrase is derived from studies that focus on violent behavior perpetrated by men, and—this is key—is designed to describe not masculinity itself , but a form of gendered behavior that results when expectations of “what it means to be a man” go wrong. The Good Men Project defines it this way:

Toxic masculinity is a narrow and repressive description of manhood, designating manhood as defined by violence, sex, status and aggression. It’s the cultural ideal of manliness, where strength is everything while emotions are a weakness; where sex and brutality are yardsticks by which men are measured, while supposedly “feminine” traits—which can range from emotional vulnerability to simply not being hypersexual—are the means by which your status as “man” can be taken away.

Discussing toxic masculinity is not saying men are bad or evil, and the term is NOT an assertion that men are naturally violent. In fact, this conversation was started by men. ( Jackson Katz’s TED Talk on the subject is a useful starting point.) It was also inspired by a feminist movement that had done much to unpack what might be called “toxic femininity” (think eating disorders that seek to control one’s eating and environment). After the good work feminism did to try to find better ways to teach girls about their options, men began to take notice and apply those same gender-construct theories to their own experience. 

I find myself talking more about this dangerous brand of masculinity now because I see all the hand-wringing done in the media and in classrooms after each mass shooting or killing. I saw it happening during the month of October 2017, which was bookended by the mass shooting in Las Vegas and the terror attack in New York . And on November 5, a shooter walked into a church in Texas and massacred people worshipping there . We talked and talked. 

I hear participants on one side of the debate talk about mental illness while the other side talks about gun control. In addition to conversations about mental illness and gun control, though, we need to consider a third angle regarding the mass killings of the past month: Is there a gendered component that we should be talking about? Why it is most often men perpetrating these acts of violence? 

After decades of study, I deeply believe that men are not naturally violent. But in a culture that equates masculinity with physical power, some men and boys will invariably feel like they are failing at “being a man.” For these particular men and boys, toxic masculinity has created a vacuum in their lives that can be filled through violence: through the abuse of women and of children in their care, through affiliation with the so-called “ alt-right ” or ISIS, through gun violence or any other promise of restored agency that those parties wrongly equate with manhood. 

The stakes of this conversation couldn’t be higher. When we talk about toxic masculinity, we do so not to insult or to injure. If we can talk with students as they are forming their ideas about gender, we can perhaps spare them from thinking that there is only one way to be a man—or any other gendered identity, for that matter—and give them the space to express their gender in ways that feel authentic and safe for themselves. When we talk about toxic masculinity, we are doing so out of love for the boys and men in all of our lives. 

Clemens is the associate professor of non-Western literatures and director of Women's and Gender Studies at Kutztown University in Pennsylvania.

• Gabe is Awesome
• Truth to power
• My learning plan 03/09/2017

Print this Article

Would you like to print the images in this article?

• Google Classroom

Say No to “Boys Will Be Boys”

Toxic masculinity is bad for everyone: why teachers must disrupt gender norms every day, sign in to save these resources..

Login or create an account to save resources to your bookmark collection.

New Virtual Workshops Are Available Now!

Registrations are now open for our 90-minute virtual open enrollment workshops. Explore the schedule, and register today—space is limited!

Get the Learning for Justice Newsletter

Toxic Masculinity

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 27 October 2023
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Gill Harrop 2  

14 Accesses

3 Altmetric

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

American Psychological Association (APA). (2018). APA guidelines for psychological practice with boys and men (online). Accessed at: https://www.apa.org/about/policy/boys-men-practice-guidelines.pdf

BBC. (2017). No more boys and girls: Can our kids go gender free? . BBC Media Centre. Accessed at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/proginfo/2017/33/no-more-boys-and-girls

Burrell, S. R. (2021). “Cause we’re all just part of the system really”: Complicity and resistance in young sportsmen’s responses to violence against women prevention campaigns in England. Sociological Research Online, 2021 , 13607804211049463.

Google Scholar  

Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38 (2), 217.

Article   Google Scholar  

Calvin, R. (2019). Toxic masculinity: An essay . Medium. Accessed at: https://ritchie-calvin.medium.com/toxic-masculinity-an-essay-e1066cf22c55

Chaplin, T. M., & Aldeo, A. (2013). Gender differences in emotion expression in children: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 139 (4), 735–765.

Hall, C. M. (2019). Merging efforts: The intersections of domestic violence intervention, men, and masculinities. Men and Masculinities, 22 (1), 104–112.

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.

Innovation. (2019). Community views on violence affecting young people in Central Manchester. Community report. Accessed at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/17gU2UczVi-6Ba5QMyMKdxVJMYaAN0QZQ/view

Kupers, T. A. (2005). Toxic masculinity as a barrier to mental health treatment in prison. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61 (6), 713–724.

Mahalik, J. R. (2000). Gender role conflict in men as a predictor of self-ratings of behavior on the interpersonal circle. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19 (2), 276.

Mahalik, J. R., Locke, B. D., Ludlow, L. H., Diemer, M. A., Scott, R. P., Gottfried, M., & Freitas, G. (2003). Development of the conformity to masculine norms inventory. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 4 (1), 3.

Mahalik, J. R., Burns, S. M., & Syzdek, M. (2007). Masculinity and perceived normative health behaviors as predictors of men’s health behaviors. Social Science and Medicine, 64 (11), 2201–2209.

Malamuth, N. M., Sockloskie, R. J., Koss, M. P., & Tanaka, J. S. (1991). Characteristics of aggressors against women: Testing a model using a national sample of college students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59 (5), 670.

Morin, A. (2020). What is toxic masculinity? Very Well Mind. Accessed at: https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-toxic-masculinity-5075107#:~:text=Toxic%20masculinity%20refers%20to%20the,and%20men%20in%20some%20fashion . [5 June 2023].

Mosher, D. L., & Sirkin, M. (1984). Measuring a macho personality constellation. Journal of Research in Personality, 18 (2), 150–163.

Murnen, S. K., Wright, C., & Kaluzny, G. (2002). If “boys will be boys,” then girls will be victims? A meta-analytic review of the research that relates masculine ideology to sexual aggression. Sex Roles, 46 (11), 359–375.

Pappas, S. (2019). APA issues first ever guidance for practice with men and boys. American Psychological Association: CE Corner, 50 (1), 34. Accessed at: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2019/01/ce-corner

Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1984). The Duluth model. In E. Pence, M. Paymar, & T. Ritmeester (Eds.), Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth model . Springer.

Salter. M. (2019, February). The problem with a fight against toxic masculinity . The Atlantic. Accessed at: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/02/toxic-masculinity-history/583411/

Sculos, B. W. (2017). Who’s afraid of “toxic masculinity”? Class, Race, and Corporate Power, 5 (3), Article 6.

Southey, R. (1821). What are little boys made of? In P. Opie & I. Opie (Eds.), The Oxford dictionary of nursery rhymes (2nd ed., pp. 100–101). Oxford University Press.

Springer, K. W., & Mouzon, D. M. (2011). “Macho men” and preventive health care: Implications for older men in different social classes. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 52 (2), 212–227.

Traub, S. (2019). Be a man: Society’s role in domestic violence (report) . Wyoming Advocacy & Resource Centre.

Yousaf, O., Popat, A., & Hunter, M. S. (2015). An investigation of masculinity attitudes, gender, and attitudes toward psychological help-seeking. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 16 (2), 234.

Youth Guidance. (2001). Becoming a Man programme (BAM) (online). Accessed at: https://www.youth-guidance.org/bam-becoming-a-man/

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Worcester, Worcester, UK

Gill Harrop

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gill Harrop .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Oakland University, Rochester, MI, USA

Todd K. Shackelford

Section Editor information

Department of Psychology, Oakland University, Rochester, MI, USA

Gavin Vance

Department of Psychology, Oakland University, Rochester Hills, MI, USA

Madeleine K. Meehan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Harrop, G. (2023). Toxic Masculinity. In: Shackelford, T.K. (eds) Encyclopedia of Domestic Violence. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85493-5_1653-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85493-5_1653-1

Received : 08 August 2022

Accepted : 11 August 2022

Published : 27 October 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-85493-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-85493-5

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Behavioral Science and Psychology Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Greater Good Science Center • Magazine • In Action • In Education

Society Articles & More

Is it actually helpful to talk about toxic masculinity, research suggests that men are changing their behavior in positive ways, including around emotions..

There seem to be as many interpretations of what “ toxic masculinity ” means as there are uses of the term.

Some believe it’s a way to criticize what they see as specific negative behavior and attitudes often associated with men. Others, such as broadcaster Piers Morgan, claim that media interest in toxic masculinity is part of a “ woke culture ” that aims to emasculate men. Others believe toxic masculinity is a fundamental part of manhood .

My research into working-class young men in south Wales shows how masculinity is changing. Some men remain hostile to the notion of toxic masculinity and see the term as a vehicle for shaming men. And some are caught in a conflict between changing ideas of masculinity and traditional, unhealthy expressions of manhood. This is further complicated by the term itself.

In its simplest sense, toxic masculinity refers to an overemphasis or exaggerated expression of characteristics commonly associated with masculinity. These include traits such as competition, self-reliance, and being stoic, which produce behaviors such as risk taking, fear of showing weakness, and an inability to discuss emotions. These have negative implications for both men and women.

For example, a rejection of weakness and vulnerability may prevent some men from discussing issues such as mental health. Similarly, an inability to express emotion may expose itself through frustration, anger, and acts of physical violence.

But masculine traits such as being stoic can equally be valuable in some circumstances, such as emergencies and making lifesaving decisions. In essence, masculinity is complex and diverse, and can be expressed in multiple ways.

More than one type of masculinity

However, masculinity that involves courage, toughness, and physical strength has historically been held in high regard by society.

Masculinity is socially, historically, culturally, and individually determined, and subject to change. It can be influenced by a person’s status, power, place, social class, and ethnicity. So, a person’s differing circumstances establish or enable different expressions of masculinity.

For example, traditionally high rates of manual employment in heavy industries and family relationships helped establish the gender roles of the male breadwinner and female homemaker. This reinforced masculine traits such as toughness and stoicism in men.

In recent decades, though, the way people in Western countries work has changed a lot. Manual jobs have decreased while service sector work has increased. These alterations have contributed to the increase in the number of women working, and their wages have became an important part of household incomes.

Movements like #MeToo and brands like Gillette and its “We Believe: The Best Men Can Be” advert have led to further examination of masculinity. They have challenged negative expressions of masculinity, encouraging men to change their behavior and instead adopt a more positive version of masculinity.

Against this backdrop, we urgently need to reassess what the current research tells us about men and masculinity.

Men are changing

Some studies suggest that men are changing their behavior as society and the economy change. For example, studies of white, middle-class men who attend university have found that they are more likely to express their emotions verbally and physically.

But critics of that idea say that such young men can transgress typical notions of masculinity because of their higher social status.

A new wave of qualitative research has shown that some working-class young men are changing their behavior. They are more open about their emotions, admit to feeling vulnerable, and have more egalitarian views on housework. However, they still sometimes use sexist and homophobic language.

My recent study is part of a growing criticism of how masculinity is defined and talked about. I carried out my research at a youth center and focused on a group of working-class young men aged between 12 and 21. I talked to the young men about their school experiences and work ambitions, and looked at their behavior.

The study was based in the Gwent valleys, a former coal mining community. It is a place known for its traditional ideas of masculinity, such as being strong and tough. But also I found that these young men showed softer sides of masculinity, such as empathy, compassion, and sensitivity.

These changes and softer sides of masculinity coexisted with behaviors often linked with negative expressions of masculinity, such as violence and crime. I describe this as “ amalgamated masculinities .”

My findings strengthen the idea that positive changes in masculinity are happening socially.

Changing the narrative

We must be aware of the harm caused by exaggerated masculine traits, but language like “toxic masculinity” can be unhelpful. We should focus on promoting the benefits of positive expressions of manhood, such as emotional openness and empathy.

We should also do more work to try to understand why positive changes in masculinity are happening. Once we understand this, we can think about how to encourage these positive changes to make them more common in society. This could help to make masculinity better for everyone.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article .

About the Author

Richard Gater

Richard Gater, Ph.D. , is a postdoctoral research fellow at the Wales Institute of Social and Economic Research and Data, Cardiff University. His research interests include social class, education, employment, and masculinities.

You May Also Enjoy

• Is the Drive to Be Masculine Hurting Your Mental Health? By Jeremy Adam Smith December 21, 2016

This article — and everything on this site — is funded by readers like you.

Become a subscribing member today. Help us continue to bring “the science of a meaningful life” to you and to millions around the globe.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts
• PMC10798810

Social Media Behavior, Toxic Masculinity, and Depression

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.

Social media/social network (SM/SN) use is increasingly a predominant means of communication and interaction. Facebook, for example, is used by 68% of adults in the United States for information seeking and social exchange ( Greenwood, Perrin, & Duggan, 2016 ), including communicating with other users, maintaining relationships, and exchanging news ( Gottfried & Shearer, 2016 ; Nadkarni & Hofmann, 2012 ). Youtube has more than one billion users, and 80% of adults aged 18–49 watch Youtube at least once a month ( Donchev, 2016 ). Reddit, a forum site with subforums devoted to thousands of topics, has an estimated 16 million users in the United States ( Barthel, Stocking, Holcomb, & Mitchell, 2010 ). Instagram, used to post photos and videos, is used by 32% of online adults in the United States ( Greenwood et al., 2016 ). The ubiquity of SM/SNs to modern life and their integration with an enormous range of human behaviors speaks to the need to better integrate SM/SN use with theories of human behavior. Specific domains of SM/SN use may be especially relevant to men. Online interactions may be a fertile ground for the enactment of toxic masculinity due to the anonymity, asynchronous interaction, and impersonal interactions that characterize SM/SN use. The present study sought to explore relations among SM/SN use, toxic masculinity, and depression.

SM/SN Use and Depression

There is a growing body of research exploring the relationship between Internet use in general, and SM/SN use in particular, and depression. However, explorations of the relationship between Internet use and depression have yielded mixed results. One study examined rates of depression among 312 Internet users seeking help for Internet addiction. Depression was higher among those seeking information about Internet addiction, compared with norms for the depression measure ( Young & Rogers, 1998 ). In another study of 1,319 residents of the United Kingdom between the ages of 16 and 59, individuals who were heavy Internet users reported more symptoms of depression ( d = 1.92) compared with matched nonheavy users ( Morrison & Gore, 2010 ). At the same time, other studies have found no relationship between Internet use and depression symptoms ( Sanders, Field, Diego, & Kaplan, 2000 ).

Regarding use of SM/SNs in particular, several studies have reported a positive association between SM/SN use and depression. One investigation of SM/SN use and depression among a sample of 1,787 U.S. adults compared those within the highest and lowest quartiles of SM/SN use (defined as self-reported minutes on SM/SN sites per day). Participants in the highest quartile had increased odds of having depression (adjusted odds ratio = 1.66) compared with those in the lowest quartile of SM/SN use ( Lin et al., 2016 ). However, as with general Internet use, findings of a link between SM/SN use and depression are not consistently supported. A study on SM/SN use and depression among 200 Filipino young adults found no link between SM/SN use and depression ( r = .04; Datu, Valdez, & Datu, 2012 ).

The mixed findings on the association between Internet use, or SM/SN use, and depression have prompted the undertaking of more nuanced examinations of depression and SM/SN use. One study of U.S. college students examined depression and SM/SN use by assessing whether individuals who experience a feeling of subordination in response to viewing SM/SN posts from others (called “Facebook envy”) had higher rates of depression. Facebook envy was hypothesized to arise from viewing others’ posts and photos and comparing idealized portrayals of friends’ lives to one’s own, resulting in a sense of inferiority. This study found no direct relationship between SM/SN use frequency and depression ( r = .01). However, Facebook envy did mediate the relationship between SM/SN use frequency and depression. In addition, both the relationships from Facebook use to Facebook envy, and from Facebook envy to depression, were positive ( Tandoc, Ferrucci, & Duffy, 2015 ).

Another study assessed the sense of loss of control over SM/SN use, dubbed “Facebook intrusion,” among a sample of 672 Polish Facebook users. Facebook intrusion was operationalized as problematic engagement in Facebook that disrupted daily activities and relationships. There was a positive association between self-reported time spent using the Internet and Facebook intrusion ( r = .24), and Facebook intrusion was positively associated with symptoms of depression ( r = .24). Men were more likely than women to experience Facebook intrusion (effect sizes not reported). However, there was no direct relationship between time on the Internet in general and depression ( r = .08), suggesting that the affective valance of SM/SN behaviors influences the relationship between frequency of daily Internet use and depression ( Błachnio, Przepiórka, & Pantic, 2015 ).

Based on these findings, we hypothesized that the manner in which one engages with SM/SN would mediate the relationship between SM/SN use frequency and depression. Two paradigms that may be relevant to understanding the relationship between SM/SN use and depression are toxic masculinity and affect-biased attention.

Toxic Masculinity

Hegemonic masculinity is a manifestation of masculinities that is characterized by the enforcement of restrictions in behavior based on gender roles that serves to reinforce existing power structures that favor the dominance of men ( Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005 ; Courtenay, 2000 ). A subset of hegemonic masculinity is toxic masculinity. Similar to hegemonic masculinity, toxic masculinity is characterized by the enforcement of rigid gender roles, but also involves the “need to aggressively compete [with others] and dominate others” ( Kupers, 2005 , p. 713). Although toxic masculinity has been the subject of considerable theoretical work, quantitative studies in this area have been limited. Arguably, toxic masculinity has been insufficiently integrated into models of behaviors related to health.

Toxic masculinity is characterized by a drive to dominate and by endorsement of misogynistic and homophobic views. A large body of literature has linked endorsement of misogynistic and homophobic attitudes with scores on measures of masculinity ideology and adherence to masculine gender role conformity ( Parent & Moradi, 2011 ; Wade & Brittan-Powell, 2001 ). However, limited tools exist with which to measure toxic masculinity. Nevertheless, some aspects of masculinities assessed with existing measures map onto the concept of toxic masculinity. In particular, during the development of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory–46 (CMNI-46), the subscales Winning, Power Over Women, and Heterosexual Self-Presentation, as a set, displayed higher subscale intercorrelations than other pairs of subscales ( Parent & Moradi, 2009 ). This finding has been replicated in other samples of men ( Iwamoto, Corbin, Lejuez, & MacPherson, 2014 ; Parent, Moradi, Rummell, & Tokar, 2011 ; Parent, Torrey, & Michaels, 2012 ; Wong, Owen, & Shea, 2012 ). Parent and Moradi (2011) posited that this triad of aspects of masculinities are united in their emphasis on dominance over others—a particularly harmful aspect of hegemonic masculinity and the basis of toxic masculinity.

Online interactions are a potential fertile ground for the proliferation of toxic masculinity. Many online environments are anonymous, with user names taking the place of actual names and users themselves being generally unidentifiable ( Christopherson, 2007 ; Santana, 2014 ). Even when online interactions are not anonymous, such as on Facebook, asynchronous and non-face-to-face interactions may be more disinhibited, more volatile, and more prone to toxicity than live, in-person communication ( Lapidot-Lefler & Barak, 2012 ). Such disinhibition toward negative interactions may be further exacerbated by the accessibility of a wide range of online opinions and the ease with which one may be exposed to opposing opinions. For example: Were an individual to be anti-feminist, enacting those attitudes in person would require finding a feminist group, being available during the time it meets to travel to it, and directly interacting negatively with members of the group.

Online, groups with which one disagrees are readily available. Some persons may easily seek out such material to engage with, or “troll,” an individual for expressing opinions contrary to their own ( Buckels, Trapnell, & Paulhus, 2014 ; Herring, Job-Sluder, Scheckler, & Barab, 2002 ). Even if one does not seek out material with which one disagrees, such material could easily be encountered online. Adherence to toxic masculinity may promote engagement with, and dwelling upon, such negative interactions, as one component of toxic masculinity is a need to dominate interactions. Such negative interactions constitute a form of affect-based attention, and may promote the occurrence of depressive symptoms ( Robinson & Alloy, 2003 ).

Affect-Biased Attention in Emotion Regulation

Cognitive–behavioral therapies have increasingly framed emotion regulation as a key component to handling stressful moments ( Aldao, Nolen-Hoeksema, & Schweizer, 2010 ; Berking et al., 2011 ). Within such frameworks an important aspect of emotional regulation is affect-biased attention, a process by which “sensory systems are tuned to favor certain categories of affectively salient stimuli before they are encountered” ( Todd, Cunningham, Anderson, & Thompson, 2012 , p. 365). That is, individuals may be attuned to, initially attend to, and maintain attention to, stimuli that elicit a specific emotional response. Affect-biased attention promotes the maintenance of maladaptive behaviors and cognitions by attuning one to stimuli in the environment that would support the bias. This attunement promotes attentional tracking toward objects known to cause extreme affect, for example, hypervigilance in posttraumatic stress disorder, or anticipatory fear of contact with a particular stimulus in specific phobias.

Morales, Fu, and Pérez-Edgar (2016) proposed a developmental neuroscience model to explain the basis of affect-biased attention. This model focuses on the development of affect-biased attention as a response to threats or rewards. In the context of toxic masculinity, a pervasive need to dominate and control may promote negative engagement with online materials (e.g., reading, responding to, and ruminating over SM/SN content with which one disagrees); successfully enacting toxic masculinity, then, may result in greater negative affect-biased attention, greater negative interactions online, and, ultimately, greater mood disturbances for men. Indeed, in an eye-tracking study of 57 depressed adults, participants who spent more time visually attending to negative words showed worse symptoms of depression during a 5-week longitudinal study ( Disner, Shumake, & Beevers, 2017 ). Toxic masculinity, due to a focus on dominance, may promote attending to material with which one disagrees. As such, we expect a positive association between toxic masculinity and negative online interactions.

Pursuant to the present study, affect-biased cognitions may mediate the relationship between SM/SN use and depression. In particular, individuals may encounter both positive and negative material in various online contexts. Greater attending to negative material (e.g., seeking out material that one will find aggravating or ruminating about a negative interaction online) may be associated with greater levels of distress. At the same time, bias toward positive interactions (e.g., actively seeking out affirming material or reminding oneself of a positive interaction online) may help to buffer against negative emotions. Thus, time spent online may not be an adequate means by which to assess quality of SM/SN interactions. Rather, engagement in self-enhancing SM/SN use (e.g., seeking out supportive interactions) may be associated with lower levels of psychological distress. In contrast, engagement in antagonistic or confrontational SM/SN use (e.g., seeking out confrontation and discord) may be associated with higher levels of psychological distress.

Some aspects of masculinities may also influence engagement in greater attending to negative material online. Although no research has explored the relationship between masculinities and negative interactions online, there is evidence that adherence to masculine gender roles is associated with more hostile or antagonistic interpersonal attitudes toward others, particularly women ( Gallagher & Parrott, 2011 ; Murnen, Wright, & Kaluzny, 2002 ). Subsequently, it is probable that specific aspects of masculine gender role conformity are associated with greater proclivity toward interpersonal hostility. One such aspect may be toxic masculinity.

Masculinity and Depression

Endorsement of traditional masculine norms and depression have been associated positively in myriad studies ( Nadeau, Balsan, & Rochlen, 2016 ; Rice, Fallon, Aucote, & Möller-Leimkühler, 2013 ; Rice, Fallon, & Bambling, 2011 ). However, many investigations of the link between masculinity and depression have focused on examining masculinity broadly, rather than examining theoretically relevant, specific aspects of masculinity. This is inconsistent with more nuanced assessments of masculinity as composed of multiple components. Toxic masculinity is one such form of expression of masculinity, and focuses on a drive to win, homophobia, and misogyny. Adherence to this constellation of masculine norms may increase the frequency or intensity of maladaptive or hostile behaviors, and ultimately men’s experiences of depression. For example, in previous studies, scores on the CMNI-46 Winning subscale, which assesses a need to succeed and dominate, have been associated with a variety of negative outcomes, including depression ( Wong, Ho, Wang, & Miller, 2017 ). Scores on the CMNI-46 Heterosexual Self-Presentations subscale, which assesses a desire to present oneself as heterosexual, have been associated with homophobia, restricted affect, and restriction of expression of friendship between men ( Parent & Moradi, 2011 ; Rankin, 2013 ). Scores on the CMNI-46 Power Over Women subscale, which assesses a desire to maintain patriarchal power structures within one’s own life, have been associated with perpetrating unwanted sexual advances ( Kupers, 2005 ; Mikorski & Szymanski, 2017 ). The relationship between masculinity and depression may be particularly relevant when applied to masculine variations of depression symptoms.

Masculine variations of typical presentations of depression have been termed masculine depression . Masculine depression is characterized by pressures felt by men to limit certain emotional expressions. Expressions of vulnerability and introspection are avoided to adhere more closely to masculine norms ( Magovcevic & Addis, 2008 ). The restriction of the expression of depression to stay within the confines of masculine norms can result in deviation from symptoms of prototypic depression (e.g., tearfulness, sadness). Such deviations may be internalizing or externalizing, with externalizing symptoms including behaviors such as outbursts of anger, increases in substance use, and isolation, whereas internalizing symptoms might include feeling numbness, feeling as though one is a failure, or reporting somatic symptoms ( Magovcevic & Addis, 2008 ). Because endorsement of toxic masculinity norms may also be linked to emotional inhibition, assessment of masculine depression as well as traditional expressions of depression is important to capture the range of potential consequences of toxic masculinity and online behaviors. Men who endorse toxic masculinity may seek out negative interactions online, driven by affect-biased attention. Such exposure to negative online interactions may, in turn, encourage the development of both traditional and masculine forms of depression.

The Present Study

The aim of the present study was to undertake an initial exploration of the relations among SM/SN use, toxic masculinity, and depression among men. The theoretical model was primarily informed by research on affect-biased attention and toxic masculinity. Work on affect-biased attention and depression suggests that the relationship between SM/SN use and depression would be mediated by the valence of interactions online, such that positive interactions would be associated with lower depression and negative interactions would be associated with higher depression. Work on toxic masculinity would suggest that higher levels of toxic masculinity would be associated with greater levels of negative interactions online, which in turn would be associated with higher levels of depression. Figure 1 presents the hypothesized and tested direct relationships. Specifically, we anticipated the following hypotheses:

• Hypothesis 1: Time spent on SM/SNs would be associated positively with positive and negative online behaviors.
• Hypothesis 2: Toxic masculinity would be associated positively with negative online behaviors.
• Hypothesis 3: Positive online behaviors would be associated negatively with typical and masculine depression.
• Hypothesis 4: Negative online behaviors would be associated positively with typical and masculine depression.
• Hypothesis 5: Positive and negative online behaviors would mediate the relationships between time spent on SM/SNs, and typical and masculine depression.

Standardized path coefficients and standard errors.

Participants

Participants were recruited via Mturk, a resource for crowd-sourced task completion. Mturk contains numerous opportunities for paid task completion and is a commonly used source of data for research ( Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011 ). Mturk workers complete tasks online, including marketing surveys, research, or text or image evaluation, and are compensated for completed tasks. Although some concerns have been raised about issues such as participant attentiveness during task completion, these concerns can be minimized through the use of attention check items, restriction of access to the task to individuals in the United States, and setting a high threshold for Mturk worker’s previous task completions ( Goodman, Cryder, & Cheema, 2013 ; Ipeirotis, Provost, & Wang, 2010 ; Rouse, 2015 ), all of which were undertaken in this study.

Participants were a sample of 402 men who ranged in age from 18 to 74 ( M = 33.36, SD = 10.98). Participants identified as White (71%), Asian American (10%), Hispanic/Latino (8%), Black or African American (6%), multiracial (4%), Native American (1%), or another identity (<1%). Most participants identified as heterosexual (89%), gay (5%), bisexual (4%), or another identity (<1%). On a 101-point Subjective Socioeconomic Status scale, participants rated themselves on average 44.90 ( SD = 19.44; range = 0–93).

Toxic masculinity.

Toxic masculinity was assessed using three subscales of the CMNI-46 ( Parent & Moradi, 2011 ) that reflect the core aspects of toxic masculinity: sexism, heterosexism, and competitiveness. These subscales were Winning (six items; sample item: “In general, I will do anything to win”), Heterosexual Self-Presentation (six items; sample item: “I would be furious if someone thought I was gay”), and Power Over Women (four items; sample item: “In general, I control the women in my life”). Responses were made on a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 4 ( strongly agree ). Validity of the three subscales has been demonstrated through correlations with relevant constructs. For example, in previous research using samples of U.S. college men, the Winning subscale demonstrated positive correlations with measures of masculinity as agency ( Bogaert & McCreary, 2011 ; Parent & Moradi, 2011 ); the Heterosexual Self-Presentation subscale demonstrated positive correlations with measures of homophobia ( Keiller, 2010 ; Parent et al., 2011 ); and the Power Over Women subscale demonstrated positive correlation with measures of sexism ( Levant, Rankin, Williams, Hasan, & Smalley, 2010 ; Parent et al., 2011 ). In the present study, Cronbach’s αs for responses to items on each of the subscales were .78 for Winning, .90 for Heterosexual Self-Presentation, and .81 for Power Over Women.

Affect-biased attention in online interactions.

Because no measures exist to assess affect-biased attention in online interactions, we developed a short assessment of positive and negative online behaviors. Positive and negative behaviors were each assessed with four items pertaining specifically to SM/SN use (Item stem: “How often do you …”; Item: “See and read [positive/negative] comments posted in response to things you post online?”; “Respond to [positive/negative] comments posted in response to things you post online?”; “Think about [positive/negative] things people have said to you online, after you go offline?”; and “Watch videos or listen to audio shows about topics you [like and agree with/don’t like and disagree with]”?). Responses were made on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 ( never ) to 5 ( very often ). We verified the intended factor structure using a principal axis factor analysis, using direct oblimin rotation. The scree plot suggested two factors, and all items loaded primarily onto their intended factor (i.e., all positive-valence items onto one factor, and all negative-valence items onto the other). Cronbach’s αs for responses to the positive and negative item sets were .78 and .77, respectively.

Depression symptoms.

The Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ-9; Kroenke, Spitzer, & Williams, 2001 ) was used to assess depressive symptoms (sample item: “Poor appetite or overeating”). Responses were made reflecting the past 2 weeks for the respondent, on a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 ( not at all ) to 4 ( almost every day ). In previous research using samples of college students, adolescents, adult populations, and participants seeking mental health services, the PHQ-9 demonstrated validity via positive correlations with established depression screening tools and clinical interviews ( Gilbody, Richards, Brealey, & Hewitt, 2007 ; Kroenke et al., 2001 ; Martin, Rief, Klaiberg, & Braehler, 2006 ). In the current study, the Cronbach’s α for responses to items on the PHQ-9 was .91.

Internalizing and externalizing masculine depression.

The Masculine Depression Scale (MDS; Magovcevic & Addis, 2008 ) was used to measure internalizing cognitions and symptoms, and externalizing behaviors, characteristic of masculine depression. The 44-item scale (sample item: “I’ve felt trapped.”) measures occurrence of symptoms during a 2-week period. Responses were made on a 4-point response scale, ranging from 1 ( none or little of the time ) to 4 ( all of the time ). In previous research using a sample collected from Mturk, total scale scores on the MDS were correlated with scores on measures of depression and masculine gender role conformity ( Nadeau et al., 2016 ). In this study, the Cronbach’s α was .87 for the MDS-Externalizing scale, and .97 for the MDS-Internalizing scale.

This study was approved by the institutional review board at the first author’s institution. Participants were recruited via Mturk. Mturk participants were eligible to participate if they identified as male in their Mturk profile, were located in the United States, and had a previous Mturk task approval rating of at least 95%. All measures were completed online. The survey contained two validity check items (e.g., “Please check strongly disagree”); participants who failed the validity check items were removed from the data set before analyses and are not included in any reporting in the present study. Participants were compensated with $1.50 to their Mturk accounts.

Data Analysis

Data were inspected for univariate and multivariate normality. All variables used in the structural equation modeling analysis met guidelines for univariate normality ( Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007 ); highest skew = 1.48, highest kurtosis = 1.84. To assess multivariate normality, we used DeCarlo’s implementation of Mardia’s test ( DeCarlo, 1997 ). This test was significant, and five participants were identified as multivariate outliers with Mahalanobis distances significant at p < .001. Removing these five participants had no effect on the results of the analysis. Subsequently, their responses were retained in the data set, and maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors was used to estimate the model. Missing data were minimal; a total of seven data points of 10,050 were missing, representing a missing data rate of 0.07%. We used full information maximum likelihood estimation in Mplus to handle missing data in the structural equation modeling and available item analysis ( Parent, 2013 ) to handle missing data in the calculation of descriptive statistics and Cronbach’s α coefficients.

Primary Analyses

Table 1 displays the correlations among the variables, means, and standard deviations. Most correlations fell within the moderate range (i.e., near .30). Higher correlations were present for the associations between the three depression indices, consistent with those three measures assessing different aspects of depression. Before conducting the primary analysis in Mplus ( Muthén & Muthén, 2012 ), we constructed item parcels using methods consistent with recommended practices ( Little, Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002 ). Specifically, for hegemonic masculinity, we used mean scores on the three CMNI-46 subscales as indicators of the latent variable. For positive and negative interactions, we used all four individual items for each of the two latent variables as indicators of the latent variables. For the PHQ-9 and the two subscales of the MDS, we entered all items into individual principal axis factoring factor analyses, constraining the solution to one factor. We examined factor loading values, and assigned items to parcels in countervailing order.

Construct Intercorrelations

Note . CMNI = Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory-46; PHQ-9 = Patient Health Questionniare–9.

Primary analyses were run using Mplus. We assessed fit using the confirmatory fit index (CFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR). Adequate fit would be indicated by CFI > .90, RMSEA < .10, and SRMR < .10, and good fit by CFI > .95, RMSEA < .06, and SRMR < .08 ( Weston & Gore, 2006 ). First, we assessed the measurement model, which fit the data very well; χ 2 (170) = 354.73, p < .001; CFI = .96; RMSEA = 0.05, 0.04, 0.06; SRMR = 0.05. All latent variable indicators loaded onto their intended latent variables at p < .001. Most of the covariances in the measurement model were significant at p < .001. Exceptions were the covariances between: positive interactions and depression as assessed with the PHQ-9 ( p = .73), toxic masculinity and depression as assessed by the PHQ-9 ( p = .12), and positive interactions and externalizing masculine depression ( p = .62).

Next, we tested the structural model. This model also demonstrated good fit; χ 2 (173) = 380.82, p < .001; CFI = .96; RMSEA = 0.06, 0.05, 0.06; SRMR = 0.05. Direct path coefficients are displayed in Figure 1 . Time spent on SM/SNs was associated positively with positive and negative online behaviors, supporting Hypothesis 1. Toxic masculinity was associated positively with negative online behaviors, consistent with Hypothesis 2. Positive online behaviors were associated negatively with typical and masculine depression, consistent with Hypothesis 3, and negative online behaviors were associated positively with typical and masculine depression, consistent with Hypothesis 4. Table 2 displays indirect paths from hours of SM/SN use to each of the three dependent variables; all indirect paths were significant, indicating that all posited mediation hypotheses were supported, consistent with Hypothesis 5. R 2 values were .14 for masculine externalizing depression, .27 for masculine internalizing depression, and .09 for depression as assessed with the PHQ-9.

Indirect Effects From Hours of Social Media and Toxic Masculinity to Depression

Note . PHQ-9 = Patient Health Questionnaire–9; MDS = Masculine Depression Scale; CI = confidence interval. All 95% CIs do not cross 1, and as such all paths are significant at p < .05.

The findings of the present study extend research on men’s SM/SN use, toxic masculinity, and depression. Relationships between SM/SN use and toxic masculinity to depression, via quality of SM/SN interactions, were consistent with theories of affect-biased attention and toxic masculinity as applied to models of depression. Overall, the results emphasized the mediating roles of positive and negative SM/SN interactions in the relations between SM/SN use/toxic masculinity and depressive symptoms. These findings, outlined in the following text, can be used to advance research and practice with men in the digital age.

First, consistent with some of the past research on SM/SN use, more frequent SM/SN use was associated with higher levels of depression. In addition, SM/SN use was associated directly with traditional depression and masculine externalizing depression, and indirectly associated with both of those forms of depression and masculine internalizing depression via positive and negative interactions on SM/SN sites. Regarding the indirect relations, more frequent SM/SN use was indirectly associated with all three indicators of depression via negative and positive online interactions (i.e., the affect-biased attention measures mediated the relationship between SM/SN use and depression). The affect-biased attention variables mediated the SM/SN use/depression relationships in different directions, such that positive online behaviors appeared to buffer the relationship, whereas negative online behaviors exacerbated it. These results suggest that simple evaluation of time spent on SM/SN sites, without assessment of the valence of interactions, is likely insufficient to understand the role SM/SN use has in men’s mood disturbances. Rather, it appears important to understand the ways in which men interact online.

As anticipated, toxic masculinity was directly associated with affect-biased attention, here defined as negative online behaviors. That is, men who more strongly endorsed the dominance–heterosexism–misogyny triad of aspects of conformity to masculine norms were more likely to report negative online interactions. This finding is consistent with past research and theoretical work on toxic masculinity that suggests that adherence to traditional masculinity is associated with maladaptive communication and interaction styles ( Burn & Ward, 2005 ; Coughlin & Wade, 2012 ; Jakupcak, Lisak, & Roemer, 2002 ; Rochlen, McKelley, Suizzo, & Scaringi, 2008 ). The relation between toxic masculinity and affect-biased attention is one of the most notable aspects of this study. In essence, this finding suggests that men who adhere to toxic masculinity may engage in reliably more negative SM/SN behaviors. For example, toxic masculinity may be associated with increased propensity to seek out and read content with which one disagrees, ruminate about disagreements or arguments on SM/SN sites, or make hostile responses to such disagreements. Toxic masculinity is characterized by a need to dominate, antifemininity, and homophobia ( Kupers, 2005 , 2010 ; Lorde, 1984 ; Parent & Moradi, 2011 ), which were three aspects of masculinity assessed in the present study. It is possible that these three aspects of masculinity interact in online SM/SN behavior to engender mood disturbances. SM/SN sites are often an outlet for expressing political or ideological positions ( Kushin & Yamamoto, 2010 ; Rainie, Smith, Schlozman, Brady, & Verba, 2012 ; Shah et al., 2012 ), sometimes anonymously, generating a limitless stream of stimuli for affect-biased attention to fixate on. A position of antifeminism and homophobia, combined with a hyperfocus on a need to dominate or win interactions, may promote engagement with SM/SN material with which one disagrees, leading to negative SM/SN interactions ( Herring et al., 2002 ; Shaw, 2014 ).

The indirect relationships from toxic masculinity to the three indicators of depression were also significant, suggesting that negative online interactions mediate the relationship between toxic masculinity and symptoms of depression. This finding is consistent with previous research on affect-biased attention and depression, in that attunement to messages perceived to be negative is associated with mood disturbance ( Todd et al., 2012 ). It is notable that negative online behaviors were associated uniquely and positively with traditional depression, masculinized internalizing depression, and masculinizing externalizing depression. This robust association suggests the need to further assess the role of affect-biased attention in SM/SN involvement as it relates to mood disturbances. In contrast, positive online behaviors, suggestive of a more adaptive affect-biased attention attunement, were associated negatively with all three facets of depression assessed here. This occurred despite the strong positive correlation between negative and positive online behaviors, and suggests that the cultivation of a more positive affect-biased attention may help individuals to reduce mood disturbances.

Implications for Practice

The present results also have tentative clinical implications. First, our hypothesis that toxic masculinity would be associated with higher levels of depression via affect-biased attention (i.e., negative online interactions) was supported. That is, men who more strongly endorse the aspects of toxic masculinity assessed in this study may be more likely to engage with and ruminate on negative interactions online, and may benefit from examination of the purpose and implications of such behavior. Efforts have been made to address affect-biased attention through clinical interventions for a range of topics, including anxiety, pain, obesity, and substance use ( Castellanos et al., 2009 ; McGeary, Meadows, Amir, & Gibb, 2014 ; Roy, Dennis, & Warner, 2015 ). Such interventions have principally involved direct practice in shifting attention away from stimuli seen as anxiety provoking, and has shown promise as a novel behavioral treatment approach.

Yet, endorsement of masculine norms is associated with more negative attitudes toward help seeking ( Galdas, Cheater, & Marshall, 2005 ; Möller-Leimkühler, 2002 ; Shepherd & Rickard, 2012 ), and as such men high in these norms would be unlikely to seek psychological help for mood disturbances. It may be more effective to engage in outreach either in person or via SM/SNs to address toxic masculinity in online contexts. On college campuses, psychologists might work with student groups involved in either online activities (e.g., gaming student groups) or political groups whose members may be active in online forums. As well, SM/SNs themselves may be harnessed to conduct broad public health interventions aimed to raise the level of online discourse and discourage negative rumination over material viewed online, using models of successful online public health or awareness interventions ( Guo & Saxton, 2014 ; Obar, Zube, & Lampe, 2012 ).

Research on SM/SN interaction and depression has led to mixed results over numerous studies. The present study suggests that quality of interactions rather than raw amount of time on SM/SN sites is associated with depression among men. At the same time, our findings are more nuanced with the moderate positive correlation that emerged between positive and negative online interactions. Rather than individuals being divisible into groups of those who primarily interact positively and those who react negatively online, there may be underlying individual personality or circumstance characteristics that promote fixation on online interactions, both positive and negative. Online interactions can be helpful to a range of presenting concerns, including depression ( Griffiths et al., 2012 ; Houston, Cooper, & Ford, 2002 ), and simply recommending reduced SM/SN time may not be beneficial to patients with depressive symptoms.

Recommendations that patients reduce SM/SN use are unlikely to be successful. Terminating SM/SN use may be highly negatively reinforcing, as such disconnect may inhibit the development and maintenance of real-world friendships (e.g., missing social events that are posted on SM/SNs with the assumption that everyone who might be interested is on a SM/SN site). Further, SM/SN sites do allow for unique social connections and maintenance of relationships, for example, with distant relatives or geographically dispersed friends ( Coyne, Padilla-Walker, Day, Harper, & Stockdale, 2014 ; Dekker & Engbersen, 2014 ; Shklovski, Barkhuus, Bornoe, & Kaye, 2015 ; Sosik & Bazarova, 2014 ). Given the ubiquity of SM/SN sites in modern life, abstaining from their use may not be a reasonable goal for most patients.

Given the integration of SM/SN use into everyday life, it may be reasonable to assess the frequency and valence of SM/SN behaviors at intake with patients. SM/SN use can be assessed as a source of support, connection, or personal development (e.g., using SM/SN sites to maintain connections with family and friends, as a bridge to engage in real-world activities with friends, or to learn about new topics). SM/SN use can also be assessed as a source of negative interactions (e.g., regularly commenting negatively on others’ postings or having one’s own postings be negatively commented upon, engaging in anonymous online behavior that is antagonistic toward others, regularly choosing to view media that one finds aggravating and frustrating). Modifications to SM/SN use can be implemented in the context of empirically supported interventions. For example, if patients find that they engage in rapid, angered responses to SM/SN posts with which they disagree, they might turn on a mobile device in session, seek out such a post, and go over their reactions in real time with the therapist (akin to an exposure and response prevention paradigm; Abramowitz, 1996 ).

In another circumstance, a patient may find themselves ruminating over online posts, or being distracted from daily activities by mentally composing responses in their mind while away from a computer. Such behaviors may be amenable to thought-stopping from cognitive–behavioral intervention paradigms ( Bakker, 2009 ), or mindfulness/present-focus interventions from acceptance and commitment therapy ( McCracken & Vowles, 2014 ). As well, SM/SNs can be leveraged for social support ( Merolli, Gray, & Martin-Sanchez, 2013 ; Oh, Ozkaya, & LaRose, 2014 ), particularly among individuals who may have limited access to real-world networks (e.g., rural men; Stern & Adams, 2010 ). Anonymity may also be useful to reducing barriers to help seeking, such as in the use of anonymous support forums for various issues ( Powell, Inglis, Ronnie, & Large, 2011 ; Tsui, Cheung, & Leung, 2010 ). Providers might encourage patients to leverage such positive aspects of SM/SN use to bolster treatment.

Negative online interactions may also be incorporated into treatment planning. For example, individuals who regularly engage in negative or antagonistic behaviors online could explore the motivation for such behaviors from developmental, dynamic, or social learning paradigms. Such behaviors could also be altered cognitively and behaviorally. For example, if a patient regularly gets into heated discussions online (sometimes called “flame wars”) over various issues, these could be addressed in a therapeutic setting. The nature of such postings would allow for the patient to open their SM/SN program and view the material that prompted their reaction in session, and process through how they reacted to it in the moment rather than rely completely on recall and reconstruction of events. Individuals prone to antagonistic interactions online may view stimuli that would provoke such reactions in session, and use in-session opportunities to engage in response prevention and practice emotional regulation.

Given the negative association between conformity to traditional masculinity and attitudes toward psychological help seeking, men high in toxic masculinity are unlikely to present in therapy ( Berger, Levant, McMillan, Kelleher, & Sellers, 2005 ; Galdas et al., 2005 ; Hammer, Vogel, & Heimerdinger-Edwards, 2013 ; Möller-Leimkühler, 2002 ; Vogel, Heimerdinger-Edwards, Hammer, & Hubbard, 2011 ). However, patients who endorse toxic masculinity and high levels of SM/SN use may also be encouraged to explore their motivations for maladaptive SM/SN use and how such use may negatively influence them or others. Consistent with modern approaches to treating affect-biased attention, patients may be helped to learn to intentionally alter their attentional focus. As well, mental energy and time devoted to antagonistic or aggressive online behaviors might be worked on in therapy to be funneled toward more adaptive or growth-oriented outlets ( Jennings & Apsche, 2014 ).

Limitations and Future Directions

The results of the present study must be interpreted in light of its limitations. First, the data are cross-sectional and thus causality cannot be inferred. There are likely reciprocal relationships present among these variables. For example, externalizing depression may be linked to greater propensity to seek out and respond to aggravating material on SM/SN sites. Longitudinal and experimental research could be used to further explore causality among the variables in the study. Second, we used data collected online from Mturk. Although this allows us to avoid concerns that may be raised with convenience samples of undergraduate men, sampling from Mturk does have limitations. Although extant research on Mturk has suggested that with protocols such as those included in this study (e.g., restricting participation to people from the United States, including validity check items) data integrity can be improved ( Rouse, 2015 ), there is still a risk that participants are paying minimal attention to items as they complete a study or are engaged in other behaviors (e.g., watching TV) while completing a study. Third, we assessed SM/SN involvement broadly. We made this decision consciously, as SM/SN sites are broad interactive mediums and no validated measures exist of nuanced interactions on SM/SN. Further, assessing the type of social network used (e.g., Facebook, Reddit, Instagram, etc.) may not itself be meaningful. For example, some individuals may use Reddit’s active and often volatile political forums, whereas others may use other forums dedicated to funny pictures, science, world news, music, video games, or photographs of baby animals (all subforums with more than 10 million subscribers worldwide). Thus, the medium is not the manner in Internet interaction. The present study would have been augmented by, and speaks to the need for, modern measures of social interaction that address Internet and SM/SN behaviors. Fourth, we relied on use of subscales of the CMNI-46 to assess toxic masculinity; the present study speaks to the need to develop a dedicated measure of toxic masculinity. Finally, our broad assessment of the affective bias in attention in SM/SN use also suggests the need for a dedicated measure that more clearly delineates the use of SM/SN. For example, reactive and hostile responding to online material may have different antecedents and consequences than ruminating carefully for hours over a response. Further, affect-biased attention research often includes behavioral components, such as eye movement tracking. Extension of the current research to such methodologies could be informative. For example, research may assess whether individuals who endorse toxic masculinity also attend visually to stimuli that is perceived as a threat (e.g., to a fake SM/SN post with which they disagree, compared with one with which they agree).

The current research suggests a host of potential future research endeavors. Research on men’s online interactions, and the relationships between those behaviors and mental and physical health, is lacking. Further research may explore differences among SM/SN sites, such as relationships between toxic masculinity and interactions on anonymous versus nonanonymous Internet sites, or how toxic masculinity relates to different forms of negative interactions. For example, are individuals who endorse toxic masculinity more likely to “invade” forums or sites with ideologies separate from their own and post antagonistic content (what are called “raids” or “brigading”)? Are they more likely to respond antagonistically to, rather than ignore, individuals intentionally trying to antagonize others (i.e., “trolls”)? When others disagree with them online, are they more likely to engage in heated and antagonistic discussions (“flame wars”)? Given the ubiquity of SM/SN in everyday life, and the anonymity of SM/SN that provides fertile ground for the enactment of toxic masculinity, further investigation of men’s online behaviors can be informative to research, clinical work, and advocacy with men.

• Abramowitz JS (1996). Variants of exposure and response prevention in the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder: A meta-analysis . Behavior Therapy , 27 , 583–600. 10.1016/S0005-7894(96)80045-1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aldao A, Nolen-Hoeksema S, & Schweizer S (2010). Emotion-regulation strategies across psychopathology: A meta-analytic review . Clinical Psychology Review , 30 , 217–237. 10.1016/)cpr.2009.11.004 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bakker GM (2009). In defence of thought stopping . Clinical Psychologist , 13 , 59–68. 10.1080/13284200902810452 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barthel M, Stocking G, Holcomb J, & Mitchell A (2010). Nearly eight-in-ten Reddit users get news on the site . Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/handle/2292/8354 [ Google Scholar ]
• Berger JM, Levant RF, McMillan KK, Kelleher W, & Sellers A (2005). Impact of gender role conflict, traditional masculinity ideology, alexithymia, and age on men’s attitudes toward psychological help seeking . Psychology of Men and Masculinity , 6 , 73–78. 10.1037/1524-9220.6.1.73 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berking M, Margraf M, Ebert D, Wupperman P, Hofmann SG, & Junghanns K (2011). Deficits in emotion-regulation skills predict alcohol use during and after cognitive-behavioral therapy for alcohol dependence . Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 79 , 307–318. 10.1037/a0023421 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Błachnio A, Przepiórka A, & Pantic I (2015). Internet use, Facebook intrusion, and depression: Results of a cross-sectional study . European Psychiatry: The Journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists , 30 , 681–684. 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2015.04.002 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bogaert AF, & McCreary DR (2011). Masculinity and the distortion of self-reported height in men . Sex Roles , 65 , 548–556. 10.1007/s11199-011-0003-8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buckels EE, Trapnell PD, & Paulhus DL (2014). Trolls just want to have fun . Personality and Individual Differences , 67 , 97–102. 10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.016 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buhrmester M, Kwang T, & Gosling SD (2011). Amazon’s mechanical turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science , 6 , 3–5. 10.1177/1745691610393980 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Burn SM, & Ward AZ (2005). Men’s conformity to traditional masculinity and relationship satisfaction . Psychology of Men and Masculinity , 6 , 254–263. 10.1037/1524-9220.6A254 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Castellanos EH, Charboneau E, Dietrich MS, Park S, Bradley BP, Mogg K, & Cowan RL (2009). Obese adults have visual attention bias for food cue images: Evidence for altered reward system function . International Journal of Obesity , 33 , 1063–1073. 10.1038/ijo.2009.138 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Christopherson KM (2007). The positive and negative implications of anonymity in Internet social interactions: “On the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog . Computers in Human Behavior , 23 , 3038–3056. 10.1016/j.chb.2006.09.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Connell RW, & Messerschmidt JW (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept . Gender and Society , 19 , 829–859. 10.1177/0891243205278639 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Coughlin P, & Wade JC (2012). Masculinity ideology, income disparity, and romantic relationship quality among men with higher earning female partners . Sex Roles , 67 , 311–322. 10.1007/s11199-012-0187-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Courtenay WH (2000). Constructions of masculinity and their influence on men’s well-being: A theory of gender and health . Social Science and Medicine , 50 , 1385–1401. 10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00390-1 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Coyne SM, Padilla-Walker LM, Day RD, Harper J, & Stockdale L (2014). A friend request from dear old dad: Associations between parent-child social networking and adolescent outcomes . Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking , 17 , 8–13. 10.1089/cyber.2012.0623 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Datu JAD, Valdez JP, & Datu N (2012). Does Facebooking make us sad? Hunting relationship between Facebook use and depression among Filipino adolescents . International Journal of Research Studies in Educational Technology , 1 , 83–91. 10.5861/ijrset.2012.202 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DeCarlo LT (1997). Mardia’s multivariate skew (b1p) and multivariate kurtosis (b2p) . Retrieved from http://www.columbia.edu/~ld208/Mardia.sps [ Google Scholar ]
• Dekker R, & Engbersen G (2014). How social media transform migrant networks and facilitate migration . Global Networks , 14 , 401–418. 10.1111/glob12040 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Disner SG, Shumake JD, & Beevers CG (2017). Self-referential schemas and attentional bias predict severity and naturalistic course of depression symptoms . Cognition and Emotion , 31 , 632–644. 10.1080/02699931.2016.1146123 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Donchev D (2016, March 19). Youtube Statistics - 2017 . Retrieved July 26, 2017, from https://fortunelords.com/youtube-statistics/ [ Google Scholar ]
• Galdas PM, Cheater F, & Marshall P (2005). Men and health help-seeking behaviour: Literature review . Journal of Advanced Nursing , 49 , 616–623. 10.1111/j1365-2648200403331x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gallagher KE, & Parrott DJ (2011). What accounts for men’s hostile attitudes toward women? The influence of hegemonic male role norms and masculine gender role stress . Violence Against Women , 17 , 568–583. 10.1177/1077801211407296 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gilbody S, Richards D, Brealey S, & Hewitt C (2007). Screening for depression in medical settings with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ): A diagnostic meta-analysis . Journal of General Internal Medicine , 22 , 1596–1602. 10.1007/s11606-007-0333-y [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodman JK, Cryder CE, & Cheema A (2013). Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples . Journal of Behavioral Decision Making , 26 , 213–224. 10.1002/bdm.1753 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gottfried J, & Shearer E (2016). News use across social media platforms 2016 . Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org/2016/05/26/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2016/ [ Google Scholar ]
• Greenwood S, Perrin A, & Duggan M (2016). Social Media Update 2016 . Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/11/11/social-media-update-2016/ [ Google Scholar ]
• Griffiths KM, Mackinnon AJ, Crisp DA, Christensen H, Bennett K, & Farrer L (2012). The effectiveness of an online support group for members of the community with depression: A randomised controlled trial . PLoS ONE , 7 , e53244. 10.1371/journal.pone.0053244 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guo C, & Saxton GD (2014). Tweeting social change: How social media are changing nonprofit advocacy . Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly , 43 , 57–79. 10.1177/0899764012471585 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammer JH, Vogel DL, & Heimerdinger-Edwards SR (2013). Men’s help seeking: Examination of differences across community size, education, and income . Psychology of Men and Masculinity , 14 , 65–75. 10.1037/a0026813 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Herring S, Job-Sluder K, Scheckler R, & Barab S (2002). Searching for safety online: Managing “trolling” in a feminist forum . The Information Society , 18 , 371–384. 10.1080/01972240290108186 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Houston TK, Cooper LA, & Ford DE (2002). Internet support groups for depression: A 1-year prospective cohort study . The American Journal of Psychiatry , 159 , 2062–2068. 10.1176/appiajp15912.2062 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ipeirotis PG, Provost F, & Wang J (2010). Quality management on amazon mechanical turk. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD workshop on human computation (pp. 64–67). New York, NY: ACM. [ Google Scholar ]
• Iwamoto DK, Corbin W, Lejuez C, & MacPherson L (2014). College men and alcohol use: Positive alcohol expectancies as a mediator between distinct masculine norms and alcohol use . Psychology of Men and Masculinity , 15 , 29–39. 10.1037/a0031594 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jakupcak M, Lisak D, & Roemer L (2002). The role of masculine ideology and masculine gender role stress in men’s perpetration of relationship violence . Psychology of Men and Masculinity , 3 , 97–106. 10.1037/1524-9220.3.2.97 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jennings JL, & Apsche JA (2014). The evolution of a fundamentally mindfulness-based treatment methodology: From DBT and ACT to MDT and beyond . International Journal of Behavioral and Consultation Therapy , 9 , 1–3. 10.1037/h0100990 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Keiller SW (2010). Masculine norms as correlates ofheterosexual men’s attitudes toward gay men and lesbian women . Psychology of Men and Masculinity , 11 , 38–52. 10.1037/a0017540 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, & Williams JB (2001). The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure . Journal of General Internal Medicine , 16 , 606–613. 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kupers TA (2005). Toxic masculinity as a barrier to mental health treatment in prison . Journal of Clinical Psychology , 61 , 713–724. 10.1002/jclp.20105 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kupers TA (2010). Role of misogyny and homophobia in prison sexual abuse . UCLA Women’s Law Journal , 18 , 107–130. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kushin MJ, & Yamamoto M (2010). Did social media really matter? College students’ use of online media and political decision making in the 2008 election . Mass Communication and Society , 13 , 608–630. 10.1080/15205436.2010.516863 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lapidot-Lefler N, & Barak A (2012). Effects of anonymity, invisibility, and lack of eye-contact on toxic online disinhibition . Computers in Human Behavior , 28 , 434–443. 10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.014 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Levant RF, Rankin TJ, Williams CM, Hasan NT, & Smalley KB (2010). Evaluation of the factor structure and construct validity of scores on the Male Role Norms Inventory–Revised (MRNI-R) . Psychology of Men and Masculinity , 11 , 25–37. 10.1037/a0017637 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lin LY, Sidani JE, Shensa A, Radovic A, Miller E, Colditz JB, … Primack BA (2016). Association between social media use and depression among U.S. young adults . Depression and Anxiety , 33 , 323–331. 10.1002/da.22466 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Little TD, Cunningham WA, Shahar G, & Widaman KF (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits . Structural Equation Modeling , 9 , 151–173. 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lorde A (1984). Sister outsider: Essays and speeches by Audrey Lorde . Berkeley, CA: Crossing Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Magovcevic M, & Addis ME (2008). The Masculine Depression Scale: Development and psychometric evaluation . Psychology of Men and Masculinity , 9 , 117–132. 10.1037/1524-9220.9.3.117 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin A, Rief W, Klaiberg A, & Braehler E (2006). Validity of the Brief Patient Health Questionnaire Mood Scale (PHQ-9) in the general population . General Hospital Psychiatry , 28 , 71–77. 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2005.07.003 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCracken LM, & Vowles KE (2014). Acceptance and commitment therapy and mindfulness for chronic pain: Model, process, and progress . American Psychologist , 69 , 178–187. 10.1037/a0035623 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McGeary JE, Meadows SP, Amir N, & Gibb BE (2014). Computer-delivered, home-based, attentional retraining reduces drinking behavior in heavy drinkers . Psychology of Addictive Behaviors , 28 , 559–562. 10.1037/a0036086 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Merolli M, Gray K, & Martin-Sanchez F (2013). Health outcomes and related effects of using social media in chronic disease management: A literature review and analysis of affordances . Journal of Biomedical Informatics , 46 , 957–969. 10.1016/j.jbi.2013.04.010 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mikorski R, & Szymanski DM (2017). Masculine norms, peer group, pornography, Facebook, and men’s sexual objectification of women . Psychology of Men and Masculinity , 18 , 257–267. 10.1037/men0000058 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Möller-Leimkühler AM (2002). Barriers to help-seeking by men: A review of sociocultural and clinical literature with particular reference to depression . Journal of Affective Disorders , 71 , 1–9. 10.1016/S0165-0327(01)00379-2 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morales S, Fu X, & Pérez-Edgar KE (2016). A developmental neuroscience perspective on affect-biased attention . Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience , 21 , 26–41. 10.1016/j.dcn.2016.08.001 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morrison CM, & Gore H (2010). The relationship between excessive Internet use and depression: A questionnaire-based study of 1,319 young people and adults . Psychopathology , 43 , 121–126. 10.1159/000277001 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Murnen SK, Wright C, & Kaluzny G (2002). If “boys will be boys,” then girls will be victims? A meta-analytic review of the research that relates masculine ideology to sexual aggression . Sex Roles , 46 , 359–375. 10.1023/A:1020488928736 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Muthén LK, & Muthén BO (2012). Mplus user’s guide . Los Angeles, CA: Author. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nadeau MM, Balsan MJ, & Rochlen AB (2016). Men’s depression: Endorsed experiences and expressions . Psychology of Men and Masculinity , 17 , 328–335. 10.1037/men0000027 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nadkarni A, & Hofmann SG (2012). Why do people use Facebook? Personality and Individual Differences , 52 , 243–249. 10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.007 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Obar JA, Zube P, & Lampe C (2012). Advocacy 2.0: An analysis of how advocacy groups in the United States perceive and use social media as tools for facilitating civic engagement and collective action . Journal of Information Policy , 2 , 1–25. 10.5325/jinfopoli.2.2012.0001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oh HJ, Ozkaya E, & LaRose R (2014). How does online social networking enhance life satisfaction? The relationships among online supportive interaction, affect, perceived social support, sense of community, and life satisfaction . Computers in Human Behavior , 30 , 69–78. 10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.053 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Parent MC (2013). Handling item-level missing data: Simpler is just as good . The Counseling Psychologist , 41 , 568–600. 10.1177/0011000012445176 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Parent MC, & Moradi B (2009). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory and development of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory-46 . Psychology of Men and Masculinity , 10 , 175–189. 10.1037/a0015481 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Parent MC, & Moradi B (2011). An abbreviated tool for assessing conformity to masculine norms: Psychometric properties of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory-46 . Psychology of Men and Masculinity , 12 , 339–353. 10.1037/a0021904 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Parent MC, Moradi B, Rummell CM, & Tokar DM (2011). Evidence of construct distinctiveness for conformity to masculine norms . Psychology of Men and Masculinity , 12 , 354–367. 10.1037/a0023837 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Parent MC, Torrey C, & Michaels MS (2012). “ HIV testing is so gay”: The role of masculine gender role conformity in HIV testing among men who have sex with men . Journal of Counseling Psychology , 59 , 465–470. 10.1037/a0028067 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Powell J, Inglis N, Ronnie J, & Large S (2011). The characteristics and motivations of online health information seekers: Cross-sectional survey and qualitative interview study . Journal of Medical Internet Research , 13 , e20. 10.2196/jmir.1600 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rainie L, Smith A, Schlozman KL, Brady H, & Verba S (2012). Social media and political engagement . Washington DC: Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/files/old-media/Files/Reports/2012/PIP_SocialMediaAndPoliticalEngagement_PDF.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Rankin Z (2013). Conformity to masculine norms, gender role conflict and relationship satisfaction in inter-male friendships . Arcata, CA: Humboldt State University. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rice SM, Fallon BJ, Aucote HM, & Möller-Leimkühler AM (2013). Development and preliminary validation of the Male Depression Risk scale: Furthering the assessment of depression in men . Journal of Affective Disorders , 151 , 950–958. 10.1016/j.jad.2013.08.013 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rice SM, Fallon BJ, & Bambling M (2011). Men and depression: The impact of masculine role norms throughout the lifespan . The Educational and Developmental Psychologist , 28 , 133–144. 10.1375/aedp282133 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Robinson MS, & Alloy LB (2003). Negative cognitive styles and stress-reactive rumination interact to predict depression: A prospective study . Cognitive Therapy and Research , 27 , 275–291. 10.1023/A:1023914416469 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rochlen AB, McKelley RA, Suizzo M-A, & Scaringi V (2008). Predictors of relationship satisfaction, psychological well-being, and life satisfaction among stay-at-home fathers . Psychology of Men and Masculinity , 9 , 17–28. 10.1037/1524-9220.9.1.17 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rouse SV (2015). A reliability analysis of Mechanical Turk data . Computers in Human Behavior , 43 , 304–307. 10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roy AK, Dennis TA, & Warner CM (2015). A critical review of attentional threat bias and its role in the treatment of pediatric anxiety disorders . Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy , 29 , 171–184. 10.1891/0889-8391.29.3.171 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sanders CE, Field TM, Diego M, & Kaplan M (2000). The relationship of Internet use to depression and social isolation among adolescents . Adolescence , 35 , 237–242. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Santana AD (2014). Virtuous or vitriolic: The effect of anonymity on civility in online newspaper reader comment boards . Journalism Practice , 8 , 18–33. 10.1080/17512786.2013.813194 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shah DV, Friedland LA, Wells C, Kim YM, Rojas H, & Bennett WL (2012). The personalization of politics: Political identity, social media, and changing patterns of participation . The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 644 , 20–39. 10.1177/0002716212451428 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shaw A (2014). The internet is full of jerks, because the world is full of jerks: What feminist theory teaches us about the internet . Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies , 11 , 273–277. 10.1080/14791420.2014.926245 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shepherd CB, & Rickard KM (2012). Drive for muscularity and help-seeking: The mediational role of gender role conflict, self-stigma, and attitudes . Psychology of Men and Masculinity , 13 , 379–392. 10.1037/a0025923 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shklovski I, Barkhuus L, Bornoe N, & Kaye J (2015). Friendship maintenance in the digital age: Applying a relational lens to online social interaction . In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 1477–1487). New York, NY: ACM. 10.1145/2675133.2675294 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sosik VS, & Bazarova NN (2014). Relational maintenance on social network sites: How Facebook communication predicts relational escalation . Computers in Human Behavior , 35 , 124–131. 10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.044 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stern MJ, & Adams AE (2010). Do rural residents really use the internet to build social capital? An empirical investigation . American Behavioral Scientist , 53 , 1389–1422. 10.1177/0002764210361692 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tabachnick BG, & Fidell LS (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tandoc EC Jr., Ferrucci P, & Duffy M (2015). Facebook use, envy, and depression among college students . Computers in Human Behavior , 43 , 139–146. 10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.053 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Todd RM, Cunningham WA, Anderson AK, & Thompson E (2012). Affect-biased attention as emotion regulation . Trends in Cognitive Sciences , 16 , 365–372. 10.1016/j.tics.2012.06.003 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tsui V, Cheung M, & Leung P (2010). Help-seeking among male victims of partner abuse: Men’s hard times . Journal of Community Psychology , 38 , 769–780. 10.1002/jcop.20394 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vogel DL, Heimerdinger-Edwards SR, Hammer JH, & Hubbard A (2011). “ Boys don’t cry”: Examination of the links between endorsement of masculine norms, self-stigma, and help-seeking attitudes for men from diverse backgrounds . Journal of Counseling Psychology , 58 , 368–382. 10.1037/a0023688 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wade J, & Brittan-Powell C (2001). Men’s attitudes toward race and gender equity: The importance of masculinity ideology, gender-related traits, and reference group identity dependence . Psychology of Men and Masculinity , 2 , 42–50. 10.1037/1524-9220.2.1.42 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weston R, & Gore PA Jr. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation modeling . The Counseling Psychologist , 34 , 719–751. 10.1177/0011000006286345 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wong YJ, Ho MR, Wang S-Y, & Miller IS (2017). Meta-analyses of the relationship between conformity to masculine norms and mental health-related outcomes . Journal of Counseling Psychology , 64 , 80–93. 10.1037/cou0000176 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wong YJ, Owen J, & Shea M (2012). A latent class regression analysis of men’s conformity to masculine norms and psychological distress . Journal of Counseling Psychology , 59 , 176–183. 10.1037/a0026206 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Young KS, & Rogers RC (1998). The relationship between depression and Internet addiction . CyberPsychology and Behavior , 1 , 25–28. 10.1089/cpb.1998.1.25 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

The Dangerous Effects of Toxic Masculinity

Carly Snyder, MD is a reproductive and perinatal psychiatrist who combines traditional psychiatry with integrative medicine-based treatments.

Tim Tadder / Getty Images

Traditional Gender Roles and Toxic Masculinity

Effects of toxic masculinity, mental health effects of toxic masculinity, combatting toxic masculinity.

Toxic masculinity is a concept used to define unhealthy and often traditional characteristics or attributes associated with men.

From being unemotional and power-hungry to narcissistic and violent, men are often defined by these outdated and unfounded stereotypes, which create an unhealthy and unrealistic understanding of what it means to be a man in today’s society.

Assuming men should be protectors, breadwinners, or leaders, or associating men with anger, selfishness, and aggression can be problematic and damaging.

When those beliefs are based on unproven biases that we, as both individuals and a society, perpetuate, boys and men are taught to believe them falsely or to try to measure up to them, ultimately harming themselves and others in the process. 

In many ways, “manhood,” like “womanhood,” comes with many expectations in the United States. As a society, we value kindness, compassion, and care in women more than we do in men. We also positively associate men with being protective and negatively associate men with being emotional, according to the Pew Research Center.

This does not mean that men aren’t caring, compassionate, or emotional, but we, as a society, don’t value these traits in men and that can lead men to believe these traits aren’t valuable.

Ron Blake, Social Justice Activist, Public Speaker

Men tend to keep so much bottled up inside. This includes all the traumas and heart-breaking moments. Eventually there has to be a release. And too often that is in an explosive way.

“Fragile masculinity,” a term referring to the unrealistic cultural standards placed on men, exists because many men feel they have to overcompensate or act in a certain way to meet these traditional standards, but we are all human. As human beings, regardless of gender, we have a combination of masculine and feminine traits. 

While feminism has pushed America to redefine and reconsider the role of girls and women, it has also raised questions about boys and men, and what their role is in society.

Rather than defining boys or men as “good” or “bad,” or “tough” or “weak,” it’s important to recognize that men, like women, have many facets that extend far beyond the traditional roles of their gender.

Traditional societal views of masculinity have a negative impact on every member of society, but studies show they have a greater impact on the self-image, relationships, and overall mental health of gay men.   

What our society needs to remember is that being a man doesn’t mean you have to like sports or women. Being a strong man doesn’t mean you can’t show weakness or cry. Being a successful man doesn’t mean you have to marry or become a c-suite executive. Sexual preferences and gender identities, just like career choices and lifestyle choices, don’t make you any less of a man. 

“The truth is being a man can mean whatever you want it to mean,” says Britt East, author of A Gay Man's Guide to Life . “You get to decide.”

When men actively avoid vulnerability, act on homophobic beliefs, ignore personal traumas, or exhibit prejudice behaviors against women , this contributes to many larger societal problems. Effects of toxic masculinity:

• Domestic abuse
• Gender-based violence
• Gun violence
• Rape culture
• Sexual assault

Violence and Aggression

“Masculinity becomes fragile through its rigidity. When it cannot afford to hold the panoply of gender expressions, sexual cultural orientations, or feminine strength intrinsic to any pluralistic society, then it must lash out, or risk crumbling under the weight of its own culturally-constituted expectations,” says East.

“Whatever the cause, the response is [almost] always a form of violence…Sometimes this violence is outwardly expressed through physical dominance or aggression. Other times it is inwardly expressed, through depression, addiction, or suicide,” East writes.

Men are perceived as more violent than women and as evidenced by the crime rates, they are. Most criminal offenses are committed by men, and most crimes (with the exception of sexual assault) are committed against men.

Sexual Assault and Sexual Violence

Though men are often the perpetrators of sexual assault, we often forget that millions of men in this country have also been victims of sexual assault. Male violence is a problem, but so is male victimization. Statistically, 5-10% of girls are subjected to penetrative sexual abuse, but 5% of boys are also subjected to penetrative sexual abuse and this is rarely discussed. 

When men and women are accused of similar crimes, men are more likely to receive longer sentences than women, with women being twice as likely to avoid incarceration upon conviction.

“Every behavior is connected to a need,” says Mack Exilus, MA, EDM, MHC-LP, a mental health clinician at Citron Hennessey Therapy. “One thing I’ve seen with men with anger issues and violent paths is that these are behaviors that are learned. A lot of times that violence or that anger is a way to protect vulnerability.”

Inability to Express Vulnerability

Unfortunately, many men aren’t taught how to be vulnerable, how to overcome trauma, or how to embrace every aspect of themselves. Take Aaron Hernandez, for instance, who battled numerous traumas in his childhood, and ultimately grew up to become a professional football player and larger-than-life man. He ended up in prison, was convicted of murder, and ultimately committed suicide. 

“He had been asking for help for so long on so many occasions,” says Blake. “I feel like part of my role in life is to help the world know Aaron was a good guy. We all failed him in life.”

Society often puts pressure on men to “be men” in the traditional sense, rather than simply be human. For men, vulnerability is often neglected, dismissed, or combated. When men push down emotions, ignore feelings, or dismiss their feminine traits, their mental health will suffer.

The mental health effects of toxic masculinity can include: 

• Higher risk for suicide
• Increase loneliness
• Increased risky behavior
• Increased substance and alcohol use

As of 2018, significantly more men than women died from an opioid overdose. Men are far more likely to die by suicide than women. 

Men, like women, experience anxiety, depression, and mental illness. However, men are more likely than women to underutilize mental health services and are more reluctant to seek help, especially regarding mental health.

As a country, we often fail to address the many traumas faced by boys and men and we often punish behaviors without addressing the underlying issues that lead to those behaviors.

We need to eliminate the stigma around mental illness and remind men that asking for help, expressing emotions, and seeking therapy isn’t just beneficial, it’s necessary for the betterment of our society.

“Most men are simply in survival mode,” says Dan Doty, co-founder of EVRYMAN.

When Michael Kimmel, the founder and director of the Center for the Study of Men and Masculinities at Stony Brook University, asked his students what it means to be a “real man,” he received answers like “authoritative,” and “suppressing any kind of weakness.”

BIPOC Boys and Men

Traditionally, boys are taught to “act like men,” and in many cases, treated like men, which can greatly impact their understanding of themselves and their place in the world.

For Black boys, in particular, the expectations and misconceptions can be dangerous. Studies have shown that Black children are seen as less “childlike” than white children and are often perceived as being older than they are.  

Exilus points out that minority men, in particular, have to do a lot more work every day. They need space, time to rest, and the opportunity to share and/or express their anger. Whether you join group therapy, or individual therapy, or visit an organization like Black Men Heal , the goal is to better understand yourself and your emotions and prioritize your mental well-being. 

Press Play for Advice on Undefining Masculinity

This episode of The Verywell Mind Podcast shares the value of undefining what it means to be a man, featuring author and actor Justin Baldoni. Click below to listen now.

Follow Now : Apple Podcasts / Spotify / Google Podcasts / Amazon Music

Boys Should Learn That Emotions Are Healthy

When we treat boys as men and teach them to be emotionless, tough, and secure, we strip them of their innocence and we place unrealistic and unhealthy expectations on them. 

“We need to teach young men from an early age that it’s good to express emotions,” says Exilus. In both our education system and at home, we need to help boys and men label their feelings and understand them. By approaching this in a non-judgmental, curious way, we can eliminate the fears surrounding therapy and mental health.

“Boys and young men are, by nature, in great need of guidance,” says Doty.

“We need men to be role models for the new generation. It all starts with teaching boys to not be men, but to be humans,” says Blake. “This should not be a gender issue. Once we make this a human issue, toxic masculinity will fade.”

Boys Must Be Taught How to Deal With Negative Feelings

“Anger is judged upon. Bottling it up doesn’t do anything,” says Exilus. We need to offer men ways to deal with that anger.

Exilus recommends focusing on five sensations and counting down if you’re feeling angry or frustrated. Focus on five things you can hear, four things you can see, three things you can smell, two things you can touch, one thing you can taste. 

Mack Exilus, MA, EDM, MHC-LP

This gets you out of your head, into your body, and tuned into your environment. Sit with the breath and be wherever you are without having to drain yourself of energy. You can also take a nap, go for a run, drink some tea, or splash cold water on your face.

A Word From Verywell

Toxic masculinity is something that still needs to be addressed and the only way to help men learn that emotions don't devalue them or make them weak is by instilling that mindset within them from a young age. The dangers of toxic masculinity are clear and, as a society, it's important to remember that everyone is human and finding healthy ways to process emotions is important for all us, especially men.

Also, if you're struggling with the mental health effects of toxic masculinity or you need someone to express your emotions to, there is no shame in reaching out for help from a mental health professional.

Walker K, Bialik K, van Kessel P. Strong men, caring women: How Americans describe what society values (and doesn’t) in each gender . Pew Research Center.

Sánchez FJ, Greenberg ST, Liu WM, Vilain E. Reported Effects of Masculine Ideals on Gay Men .  Psychol Men Masc . 2009;10(1):73-87. doi:10.1037/a0013513

East B.  A Gay Man’s Guide to Life: Get Real, Stand Tall, and Take Your Place . Houndstooth Press; 2020.

U.S Department of Justice. Criminal Victimization, 2018 . 

Starr SB. Law & Economics Working Papers. Estimating Gender Disparities in Federal Criminal Cases .

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About Multiple Cause of Death, 1999-2018 . 2018.

Ogrodniczuk J, Oliffe J, Kuhl D, Gross PA. Men's mental health: Spaces and places that work for men .  Can Fam Physician . 2016;62(6):463-464.

Bennett J. A Master's Degree in ... Masculinity? . The New York Times ..

Goff PA, Jackson MC, Di Leone BAL, Culotta CM, DiTomasso NA. The essence of innocence: Consequences of dehumanizing Black children .  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2014;106(4), 526-545.

By Sarah Sheppard Sarah Sheppard is a writer, editor, ghostwriter, writing instructor, and advocate for mental health, women's issues, and more.

Home — Essay Samples — Sociology — Gender Roles — The Concept of Toxic Masculinity

Toxic Masculinity and Rape Culture: a Connection

• Categories: Gender Roles Masculinity

About this sample

Words: 1221 |

Published: Mar 14, 2019

Words: 1221 | Pages: 3 | 7 min read

Table of contents

The endless spread of toxic masculinity, final thoughts, works cited.

• Buchwald, E. (1993). Transforming a rape culture. Milkweed Editions.
• Filipovic, J. (2018, October 2). The party of unapologetic misogyny. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/02/opinion/republican-party-kavanaugh-women-vote.html
• Hines, S. R. (2007). The cultural basis of gendered violence. Journal of interpersonal violence, 22(7), 856-871.
• Kimmel, M. S. (2013). Angry white men: American masculinity at the end of an era. Nation Books.
• Messner, M. A., & Levitas, M. (2014). Gay athletes and the ‘de-masculinization’of sport. Sex Roles, 71(11-12), 393-405.
• National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2018, July). Substance use and misuse among older adults. https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/substance-use-in-older-adults/sex-gender-differences-in-substance-use
• Pringle, R., & Haimowitz, S. (2016). Toxic masculinity as a barrier to mental health treatment in prison. Journal of prison education and reentry, 3(1), 1-12.
• Richards, C., Bouman, W. P., Seal, L., Barker, M. J., & Nieder, T. O. (2016). Non-binary or genderqueer genders. International Review of Psychiatry, 28(1), 95-102.
• Seto, M. C., Wood, J. M., & Babchishin, K. M. (2015). Sex offender types: A typology based on offender motivation and behavior. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(10), 1099-1118.
• Williams, R. (2015, October 9). Fewer rape convictions because plea bargains prevail, report suggests. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/09/fewer-rape-convictions-because-plea-bargains-prevail-report-suggests

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Sociology

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

5 pages / 2058 words

2 pages / 994 words

2 pages / 744 words

2.5 pages / 1185 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Gender norms and roles have been a part of society for centuries, shaping the way that individuals perceive themselves and interact with others. Despite notable progress in challenging traditional gender norms, society continues [...]

Jackson, S. (1948). The Lottery. The New Yorker. Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1948/06/26/the-lottery

Communication is a fundamental aspect of human interaction, serving as a means to convey thoughts, emotions, and information. The way individuals communicate is greatly influenced by their gender, resulting in variations in [...]

James Joyce is a prominent Irish writer whose works are celebrated for their modernist techniques and exploration of the human condition. His short story, "Eveline," is a prime example of his writing style and themes. It [...]

Since the beginning of the era, women’s roles have taken a front-row seat in the modern twentieth century to the current day, which has since been ever-changing. Raymond Chandler’s works have proven this time and time again as [...]

Women have faced various forms of institutionalized discrimination throughout history and across different cultures. This undeniable truth has been the driving force behind the feminist movement, which has had both positive and [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Newsletters

Site search

• Israel-Hamas war
• 2024 election
• Solar eclipse
• Supreme Court
• All explainers
• Future Perfect

Filed under:

• The Gray Area

The new crisis of masculinity

What’s the matter with men — and how do we fix it?

Share this story

• Share this on Facebook
• Share this on Twitter
• Share this on Reddit
• Share All sharing options

Share All sharing options for: The new crisis of masculinity

What’s going on with men?

It’s a strange question, but it’s one people are asking more and more, and for good reasons. Whether you look at education or the labor market or addiction rates or suicide attempts , it’s not a pretty picture for men — especially working-class men.

Normally, more attention on a problem is a precursor to solving it. But in this case, for whatever reason, the added awareness doesn’t seem all that helpful. The “masculinity” conversation feels stuck, rarely moving beyond banal observations or reflexive dismissals.

A recent essay by the Washington Post columnist Christine Emba on this topic was different. It was — apologies for the cliché — one of those pieces that “broke through.” Besides being well done, Emba’s treatment of the topic was uncommonly nuanced, which is increasingly hard to do when tackling “controversial” topics.

So I invited Emba onto The Gray Area to talk about the state of men and what she thinks the way forward might look like. Below is an excerpt of our conversation, edited for length and clarity.

As always, there’s much more in the full podcast, so listen and follow The Gray Area on Apple Podcasts , Google Podcasts , Spotify , Stitcher , or wherever you find podcasts. New episodes drop every Monday and Thursday.

Sean Illing

Worrying about the “state of men,” as you say in your piece, is an old American pastime, so what makes this moment different?

Christine Emba

I think that now we have actual data showing that men do seem to be in a real crisis, and we also have data on how the world has changed. We can all see this in our own lives. Our social structure, our work structure, our economy, has changed really significantly over the past 30 to 40 years. And that necessarily changes how people fit into the world.

A lot of the changes have had a direct effect on men specifically. So we can look at the stats that we have right now about how men are doing, and we see that for every 100 bachelor’s degrees awarded to women, only 74 are awarded to men . We know that when you’re looking at deaths of despair, which is a more recent phenomenon, 3 out of 4 of those deaths are males .

And then there are social factors, too. There’s been a change in who the high earners in our society are. In 2020, nearly half of women reported in a survey that they out-earn or make the same amount as their husband or romantic partner. And in 1960, that was fewer than 4 percent of women.

So we’ve seen the economy change in ways that have moved away from the strength jobs, from traditional union jobs and factory and labor jobs that were mostly seen as male jobs and helped promote this idea of the man as the provider who can take care of a whole family on one income. Now it’s more about soft-skilled credentialism and that favors jobs that tend to skew toward women. Because of the feminist movement and women’s advances — which, to be clear, is a great thing — women have entered schools and the economy in force and they’re doing really well. And I think men are beginning to feel a little bit worried and lost in comparison.

Why is this such a difficult problem to talk about, especially for people on the left?

This was actually one of the major inspirations for writing this piece, because I was trying to get at that question, and I even felt as I was working on this piece my own reluctance to attend to it empathetically. I theorize that there are a couple reasons for this.

First of all, justifiably I think, progressives and people on the left want to preserve the gains that have been made for women over the past several decades. The feminist movement and movements for women’s equality are still pretty fragile. We saw during the Covid-19 pandemic that suddenly it was women dropping out of the workforce en masse. It’s really easy, on the left and just in politics generally, to think of things as being zero-sum. So there’s this fear that if we start helping men, then we’ll just have forgotten about women and there won’t be space or time for women anymore. I think that’s a mistake. We should be able to do two things at once. We can recognize that both women and men are members of our society and we should want to help everyone.

I think there’s also something really appealing to someone with a progressive mindset about the idea of gender neutrality, or gender neutrality as an ethos that we should aspire to and avoid making distinctions between men and women or masculine and feminine. We’ve moved in liberal society toward a real ideal of individualization; the idea that there could be one form of masculinity or manhood that’s good risks alienating people who don’t necessarily fit into that box. And then ascribing certain traits to men, especially if they’re positive traits, might create worries that we’re subtracting those traits from women. If we say that men are leaders, does that mean that women are always going to be followers? Or if men are strong, are we actually saying that women are weak? I think there’s a fear of doing that.

Finally, I think there’s a generalized resentment, especially after the Me Too moment — but also after a feminist movement in the 2010s that encouraged a pretty silly and uncritical form of man-hating and misandry where it was cool to be like, Men are trash, men suck. Wouldn’t the world be better without men? What are they even for? It was a feeling that you needed to do this sort of thing to prove your liberal bona fides that you love women enough.

There’s also the fact that because progressives in the mainstream have not really taken up the masculinity question, the people who have taken it up tend to be on the right and often they tend to be problematic figures. You see incels and men’s rights activists and Ben Shapiro burning Barbies, and there’s a fear that if you speak up for men, everyone’s going to be like, You seem too interested in this. Are you one of them? It’s a branding problem.

It’s definitely true that the left, for all of these reasons, has ceded this space to the right and the right has happily filled the vacuum. So what do you see happening with people like Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate ? These are very different people, I’m not equating them, but they inhabit this space in revealing ways.

It’s a super interesting question. I do think that it’s important to try and draw distinctions here. There’s sort of a spectrum of what I call in the piece “the manfluencers” — a ridiculous word for a ridiculous phenomenon. But there is a range of people who are maybe slightly more benign. I think Jordan Peterson started out as more benign, although he’s gotten fringier since, to people like Andrew Tate, who I think are just straightforwardly bad people. And you have also people like Josh Hawley and Joe Rogan and Bronze Age Pervert and all of these people in between.

I think it’s just factually accurate that conservatives and the right have always been more invested in — and more clear about — gender roles. So it’s almost natural that they have a clearer vision of what manhood is and what men should do. But I think they realize that there was an opening here. Young men especially are looking for role models and realizing that they feel unsure and uncomfortable of their place in the world.

There’s a young man who I interviewed for the piece, who was like, I just want someone to tell me how to be. If the progressive left is like, We’re not going to tell you that, just be a good person, you don’t need rules. And then young men are like, No, I’m really asking you. I really want rules, actually , the right is happy to give them those rules.

If people have an identity as a man or masculine, the right is not going to say it’s toxic and only talk about toxic masculinity. They’re positive about it and they frame it as something that you want to aspire to, that’s actually transgressive and great and historically superior to whatever’s going on today, for better or worse. And being told that your identity is a positive thing, and here’s a road map to how to fulfill it, whether it’s actually good or bad, that something is going to beat out nothing anytime.

I think there’s something earnest about Peterson’s project, or there certainly was, but the Tate phenomenon is different. To me, this is what happens when masculinity becomes steeped in fear and resentment. With Tate, unlike Peterson, there’s no pretension to anything virtuous. It’s just, Hey, the world hates you. The world wants to make you weak, wants to make you soft, so take what you can get, crush your enemies, abuse women, double down on everything they hate about you. It’s the weak person’s vision of a strong person. It’s the 19-year-old Nietzsche reader who didn’t make it past the preface.

But I still don’t think a lot of people quite understand Tate’s reach. Do you see him as a creature of a very particular moment or do you think he represents something bigger and more enduring?

The Tate phenomenon, as you say, isn’t just about Tate. There’s a whole space with very online figures like Bronze Age Pervert, or BAP, who wrote this book, Bronze Age Mindset , that’s become a very conservative phenomenon. I think you’re exactly right. This is a vision of masculinity that’s super basic and sort of tailored to a 15-year-old who doesn’t know any better. It’s all about just shouting and showing off your cars and your women and your money, and that’s what being a man is. It’s very clear: just work out and be mean. It’s simple and it’s superficially appealing because there are a lot of fast cars and pretty girls. And I guess that appeals especially to young men who haven’t thought about it very much.

But I do think, in the absence of better road maps, in the absence of other models, people like Tate present a very clear, visible model. He’s everywhere. You see him everywhere if you’re a kid online. I think that’s also part of what has let him be underestimated. His reach is enormous among younger men, like middle school through high school-aged kids. They’ve all heard of Andrew Tate, to the point that, actually, in Britain, where he’s from, there was a campaign last year where teachers in high schools and middle schools were talking amongst themselves about how to combat Tateism in the classroom because these middle schoolers who had watched Andrew Tate videos were getting up in class and telling their female teachers to shut up, because they don’t listen to women, and that’s what Tate taught them.

His videos spread on TikTok and YouTube and Facebook before he was banned from all of those sites. Fifty-five-year-old dads weren’t necessarily on TikTok, and I think didn’t realize how much reach he had and how much of a hold he had. And the same with all of these online figures who are sort of flying under the radar because they’re online. But I do think it’s important what you point out about their immorality.

Jordan Peterson, and even to some extent the Josh Hawley figures, are saying, Well, it’s good to be a man, but also being a man means being responsible in some way, contributing to society in some way. The Tateist version of masculinity is totally divorced from anything positive. It’s just about defining yourself in opposition to women and taking what you can get. But it’s a clear path and it feels almost transgressive, which I think is part of its appeal because he’s like, Call me toxic. I love being toxic. I am toxic masculinity. To a 15-year-old edgelord, that is aspirational, I guess. But it’s really ugly and it’s not good for society in any way.

What do you think a truly healthy masculinity looks like? You identify three traits in the piece — protector, provider, and procreator — and I know a lot of people will hear that and, not without reason, immediately think of the patriarchy of yesterday. Do you think that’s a mistake?

Another great question. Even when I was writing the piece, I was wrestling with my reluctance to try and define masculinity or cheer on masculinity too much and my belief that we actually need to do just that. One of the things about the piece that seemed to strike a lot of people was the fact that I admitted that I like men. I want them to be happy. And I also do think that there is something distinctive that one could call manhood or masculinity that is a different thing than womanhood or femininity.

So you pulled out the concepts of protector, provider, procreator, and I got those from the anthropologist, David Gilmore, who did this cross-country study a couple decades ago looking at what it meant to be a man in all of these different groups across several continents. He found out that almost every society did have a concept of masculinity that was distinctive from just being male. It was something that you earned and was also distinctive from being female. It had to do with being someone who protected the people around you in your community, who provided in some way for your family. That often looked like not just providing, but creating surplus in some ways and sharing that with others. And then there was the idea that procreating, having a family, was what being a successful male looked like.

In our modern moment, I think that can look like a lot of different things. In my essay, there’s a callout where I ask people to write in and tell me about their ideal of masculinity. When I think about masculinity myself, there are a couple of attributes that seem to come up a lot, and it’s stuff like strength used well and responsibility, performing your duties, looking out for people who are weaker than you.

The pushback that I get very often when I talk about this is what I was saying earlier, people are like, Why do you have to say that’s being a good man? Why is leadership or ambition or adventurousness a male trait? Aren’t women leaders? And of course, yes, but I do think that being a good person is not a clear enough road map. It’s not a strong enough, clear enough norm, and that’s what younger people especially are looking for.

I think what it means to be a good person is in some ways tied to your embodiment, to your human form as a male person or a female person. For instance, [younger] men tend to be — though not always — much stronger than the average woman or old person. So being a good person, if that is your embodiment, necessarily means thinking about what that says about your responsibilities. What do you do with that strength?

Richard Reeves, who wrote the book Of Boys and Men , talks about how masculinity and femininity, or male and female, overlap a lot. But on the far ends of the spectrum, there are very big differences, and that tends to be where our definitions of male and female come from.

It’s true that you can’t talk about masculinity and femininity without acknowledging some differences between the sexes. And yet, that acknowledgment is utterly compatible with the reality that much of what we call gender is a performance, is a cultural construct. And I don’t know why we seem unable to avoid this zero-sum trap. You see this in lots of other cultures where there’s a respect for the masculine and feminine ideal. There’s no zero-sum relationship. These are poles at opposite ends of the continuum, and possessing virtues at both ends of the spectrum is seen as wise and healthy. I don’t know why we can’t do that.

America really likes extremes. I think we like things that are very clear-cut and we’re used to seeing things that way and seeing them used to marginalize people or somehow denigrate people who don’t fit the exact norms. I think people who think of themselves as good progressives and liberals really don’t want to do that, and so shy away from espousing norms because they might leave someone out. And I understand that. But for the people who are asking for a road map, who want to be told who to be, just saying B e whoever you want to be, but be a good one is just not helpful.

There’s also an age factor here and I noticed this in the responses to the piece. There were older men who would write in and say, What’s the problem? I’m a man, I feel great about it. I don’t see the issue. That’s great for you, but for young people, who don’t have that much life experience, who are trying to figure out who to be, having some kind of norm or ideal, even if it’s loose, can be helpful. And then as you grow older and you get life experience and you figure out how you fit in the world, you make the norm up for yourself. But they’re looking for a starting point.

To hear the rest of the conversation, click here , and be sure to follow The Gray Area on Apple Podcasts , Google Podcasts , Spotify , Stitcher , or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Will you support Vox today?

We believe that everyone deserves to understand the world that they live in. That kind of knowledge helps create better citizens, neighbors, friends, parents, and stewards of this planet. Producing deeply researched, explanatory journalism takes resources. You can support this mission by making a financial gift to Vox today. Will you join us?

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via

Next Up In Podcasts

Sign up for the newsletter today, explained.

Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day.

Thanks for signing up!

Check your inbox for a welcome email.

Oops. Something went wrong. Please enter a valid email and try again.

The history of Arizona’s Civil War-era abortion ban

Your brain’s privacy is at risk. The US just took its first big step toward protecting it.

Monkey Man’s imperfect political critique still packs a punch

Everything ends. Even Bluey.

The very short Mayorkas impeachment trial, explained

Boeing’s problems were as bad as you thought

ESSAY SAUCE

FOR STUDENTS : ALL THE INGREDIENTS OF A GOOD ESSAY

Essay: Toxic masculinity – language features in Westworld

Essay details and download:.

• Subject area(s): English language essays Media essays
• Reading time: 4 minutes
• Price: Free download
• Published: 11 February 2022*
• File format: Text
• Words: 1,110 (approx)
• Number of pages: 5 (approx)

Text preview of this essay:

This page of the essay has 1,110 words. Download the full version above.

What is it to be human? Are sexism and violence what makes up our ‘human nature’? Or just male human nature. Terry Kupers a psychologist describes toxic masculinity as ‘The need to aggressively compete and dominate others…’ Can this need be filled by violent behaviours, profound language or in some cases only by being god himself? Language features such as symbolism and costume work compellingly well with each other and with the intertextuality of the television show Westworld to establish a representation of males as apart of a spectrum of violent and depraved villains. WestWorld (2016) by Jonathan Nolan is a television series about a futuristic theme park intended for rich vacationers, the futuristic park – which is looked after by robotic “hosts” – allows its visitors to live out their fantasies through artificial consciousness. No matter how illicit the fantasy may be, there are no consequences for the park’s guests, a lawless society. This essay will explore how these language features are used to represent the guests, hosts, and staff members as being part of a utopia for toxic masculinity – Westworld.

The creators of Westworld have envisioned a ludicrously odd playground where humans (The Guests) can live out their deepest fantasies amidst robots that look, feel, smell, and act like sentient human beings. But what do the flesh and blood people do in this fantasy world? They rape and murder and pillage for fun, with no consequences. The guests who go to the park spend big money to indulge in an accumulation of toxic masculine affairs. These male guests find fulfillment not in the kind-hearted ability to love and create but rather in finding the desire to dominate, even if it means destruction – particularly when it means destruction. The representation of males being violent and depraved is introduced in episode one where the Man in Black is illustrated as a villain in his relationship with Teddy and Dolores. The camera angled underneath him asserts a sense of power and dominance over the rest of the characters. When we go to the scene of him at 12:25 his dialogue to Teddy: “Any special tricks for us? Did they teach you to sit up? Beg?” And “I didn’t pay to make it easy” highlights the idea of Westworld being a toxic masculinity society for men. The Man in Black gains a sense of fulfillment in diminishing others, it is the toxic masculinity mood of the amusement park that values dominance and control over others. This scene is further carried onto the relationship between Dolores and the Man in Black. He says “Is that any way to treat an old friend? I’ve been coming here for 30 years.” Following the Man in black abusing Dolores, he drags her by her hair while she screams for help and slaps her, leading her onto her impending rape. During the scene leading to her rape, Nolan’s input of editors’ choice has Dolores’s voice plays over where she is represented as naive and oblivious through the evidence: Dolores says that she “loves the newcomers” even though they are the source of her suffering. Westworld isn’t just a place where toxic men come to play but where seemingly innocent men entering the story in their white hats to come and to turn into these black hat people – William to the Man in Black. The more time men spend in the park, the more destructive they become. To compare Man in Black to William (young man in black). It is a dark vision of humanity, one where the lowest, meanest consequences of patriarchy are their truest nature.

Intertextuality and symbolism are used to highlight the representation of violent men using toxic masculinity to oppress their subordinates. This is specifically conveyed through the characters Dolores and Maeve. By design, everything the computerised hosts do and say is what is scripted in their line of code, with just a touch of self improvisation. They’re all just there to serve, and the park simply erases their memory at the end of every ‘story’. At the park the women are strong. Maeve Millay a “host” who currently plays the part of the saloon’s madam but who previously served as a mother archetype before her daughter was killed and something inside her broke (mentally). Then we see how Dolores Abernathy who at first seems like the embodiment and symbolism of a traditional ‘damsel in distress’, fragile and feminine. She is the farmer’s daughter, the girl next door whose innocence needs protection. But Dolores is not protected. She is rxxed and she is murdered. Along the way, she turns out not to be a young, sweetheart, but rather the oldest host in the park and the first to achieve consciousness. This awakening develops a viciousness inside her. Then we are introduced to Dolores’s father, Peter Abernathy who whispered to his daughter, “These violent delights have violent ends.” (It’s from the Romeo and Juliet speech the friar delivers when he’s secretly marrying Romeo to Juliet.) This hint that people will pay for all this excessive bloodshed. The ‘violent delights’ being the toxic masculinity that oppresses these hosts. These two, the damsel in distress and the whore, are the embodiment of men’s tired view of female endeavours. The question is, what does their consciousness mean in this WestWorld of toxic masculinity? Do they become human as defined by the context of the show, or is that definition of humanity useless when it has become so associated with violence and hate?

The oppressive patriarchal values held in this text lead us to ask our own morally afflicting question. Are we doomed to live within the confines of toxic masculinity and patriarchy forever? Or can we imagine our humanity another way? And if we can, what can we do to achieve it? This analysis compares compellingly to the film 28 Days later when one discusses relevant issues in the consciousness of non-human beings and the idea of being sentient. In 28 Days Later the ‘Scientist’ (engineers in Westworld) feed the monkeys (Hosts) a stream of violent media and anarchy to which the monkeys turn into violent savages turning against everyone and not considered monkeys at all anymore but, monster. For the robots, they are not human. Their memories are lines of code, their destinies initially drafted by writers/engineers just outside the western-themed park they inhabit. And when they are rxxed, dismembered, or murdered, that violence can seemingly be erased like a dream they don’t remember, but no the case for all. So will the oppressions of toxic men on these hosts turn them into rebellious monsters? (…yes.)

2020-4-6-1586139070

...(download the rest of the essay above)

About this essay:

If you use part of this page in your own work, you need to provide a citation, as follows:

Essay Sauce, Toxic masculinity – language features in Westworld . Available from:<https://www.essaysauce.com/media-essays/toxic-masculinity-language-features-in-westworld/> [Accessed 18-04-24].

These English language essays have been submitted to us by students in order to help you with your studies.

* This essay may have been previously published on Essay.uk.com at an earlier date.

Essay Categories:

• Accounting essays
• Architecture essays
• Business essays
• Computer science essays
• Criminology essays
• Economics essays
• Education essays
• Engineering essays
• English language essays
• Environmental studies essays
• Essay examples
• Finance essays
• Geography essays
• Health essays
• History essays
• Hospitality and tourism essays
• Human rights essays
• Information technology essays
• International relations
• Leadership essays
• Linguistics essays
• Literature essays
• Management essays
• Marketing essays
• Mathematics essays
• Media essays
• Medicine essays
• Military essays
• Miscellaneous essays
• Music Essays
• Nursing essays
• Philosophy essays
• Photography and arts essays
• Politics essays
• Project management essays
• Psychology essays
• Religious studies and theology essays
• Sample essays
• Science essays
• Social work essays
• Sociology essays
• Sports essays
• Types of essay
• Zoology essays

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

Modi’s Temple of Lies

By Siddhartha Deb

Mr. Deb is the author of the novel “The Light at the End of the World.”

The sleepy pilgrimage city of Ayodhya in northern India was once home to a grand 16th-century mosque, until it was illegally demolished by a howling mob of Hindu militants in 1992. The site has since been reinvented as the centerpiece of the Hindu-chauvinist “ new India ” promised by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

In 2020, as Covid-19 raged unchecked across the country, Mr. Modi, the leader of the Hindu right, went to Ayodhya to inaugurate construction of a three-story sandstone temple to the Hindu god Ram on the site of the former mosque. Dressed in shiny, flowing clothes and wearing a white N95 mask, he offered prayers to the Ram idol and the 88-pound silver brick being inserted as the foundation stone.

I traveled to Ayodhya a year later and watched as the temple was hurriedly being built. But it seemed to me to offer not the promise of a new India so much as the seeds of its downfall.

Mr. Modi’s Hindu nationalism has fed distrust and hostility toward anything foreign, and the receptionists at my hotel were sullenly suspicious of outsiders. There was no hotel bar — a sign of Hindu virtue — and the food served was pure vegetarian, a phrase implying both Hindu caste purity and anti-Muslim prejudice.

Outside, devotional music blared on loudspeakers while bony, manure-smeared cows, protected by Hindu law, wandered waterlogged streets in the rain. The souvenir shops at the temple displayed a toxic Hindu masculinity, highlighted by garish shirts featuring images of a steroid-fed Ram, all bulging muscles and chiseled six-packs. Even Hanuman, Ram’s wise but slightly mischievous monkey companion, appeared largely in the snarling Modi-era version known as Angry Hanuman , which went viral in 2018 after Mr. Modi praised the design.

After a decade of rule by Mr. Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party, Hindu-majority India maintains the facade of a democracy and has so far avoided the overt features of a theocracy. Yet, as Ayodhya revealed, it has, for all practical purposes, become a Hindu state. Adherence to this idea is demanded from everyone, whether Hindu or not.

This is not sustainable, even if it seems likely that Mr. Modi will ride to a third victory in national parliamentary elections that begin Friday and conclude June 1. Mr. Modi’s India is marked by rampant inequality, lack of job prospects, abysmal public health and the increasing ravages of climate change. These crises cannot be addressed by turning one of the world’s most diverse countries into a claustrophobic Hindu nation.

Perhaps even the prime minister and his party can sense this. Their crackdowns on opposition political leaders, manipulation of electoral rolls and voting machines and freezing of campaign funds for opposition parties are not the actions of a confident group.

In January of this year, a wave of Hindu euphoria swept the nation as the temple I had watched being put together with cement and lies (there is no conclusive evidence supporting Hindu claims that Ram was a historical figure or that a temple to him previously stood there) was about to be inaugurated .

Newspapers devoted rapturous front pages to the coming occasion, and when I flew to my former home Kolkata on the eve of the big day, my neighbors there declared their anticipation by setting off firecrackers late into the night. The next morning, on Jan. 22, loudspeakers and television screens tracked me through the city with Sanskrit chants and images of the ceremony taking place at the temple. Mr. Modi, as usual, was at the center of every visual. Friends in Delhi and Bangalore complained about insistent neighbors and strangers knocking on their doors to share celebratory sweets. Courts, banks, schools, stock markets and other establishments in much of the country took a holiday.

The inauguration date seems to have been chosen carefully to overshadow Republic Day, on Jan. 26, which commemorates India’s adoption in 1950 of a “socialist, secular, democratic” Constitution. Those values are fiercely in opposition to what Hindu nationalism has ushered in. The temple inauguration date, which will be celebrated annually, reduces the republic to secondary status next to Mr. Modi’s Hindu utopia.

A similar effort has been underway to diminish the importance of Aug. 15, marking Indian independence in 1947. In 2021, Mr. Modi announced that Aug. 14 would henceforth be Partition Horrors Remembrance Day, referring to the bloody division of the country into Hindu-majority India and an independent Muslim Pakistan in 1947, a murderous affair for Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs alike.

This was sold to the Indian public as underlining the need for unity, but it was also a reminder from Hindu nationalists that a section of Muslims broke off to form their own nation and that the loyalties of India’s remaining 200 million Muslims were suspect. Given that Hindu rightists participated in massacres, rapes and forced displacement during the partition, Mr. Modi’s weaponization of the suffering seems particularly reprehensible. I was born to a Hindu family, and my father, a refugee from the partition, never blamed Muslims his entire life.

There have been countless other such stratagems with the Hindu right in power. The old Parliament building, whose design features refer to India’s syncretic history — Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim and Christian — was replaced last year by a new structure that explicitly reduces India’s past to a monochromatic Hindu one.

In the new Parliament, the lotus flower, common in Hindu iconography and the symbol of the Bharatiya Janata Party, runs amok as a motif. A statue atop the building of four back-to-back lions — India’s national symbol and a look back at its Buddhist past — has been altered so that the lions are no longer serene and meditative, as in the original, but snarling, hypermuscular Hindu beasts . Everywhere in India, roads and cities have been renamed to sever connections to centuries of Muslim history in favor of a manufactured Hindu one. On new highways through the state of Uttar Pradesh, where I traveled last summer, gleaming signboards pointed toward concocted Hindu sites but almost never toward the state’s rich repository of Muslim mosques, forts and shrines.

Knowledge and culture are being attacked along similar lines. Bollywood , Indian television and the publishing industry have become willing accomplices of Hindu chauvinists, churning out content based on Hindu mythology and revisionist history. In the news media, the few journalists and institutions unwilling to shill for the Hindu cause face legal threats and police raids .

In education, government institutions are run by ignorant functionaries of the ruling party , and from school textbooks to scientific research papers , the Hindu nationalist version of India is pushed forward, myth morphing into history. In the private universities that have begun to crop up in India, Mr. Modi’s government keeps a close eye on classes, panels or research that might be construed as criticizing his government or its idea of a Hindu India.

This cultural shift and the accompanying reduction of Muslims to alien intruders has been made possible by Mr. Modi delivering on his party’s three main promises to Hindu nationalists .

In 2019 he repealed the notional autonomy enjoyed for decades by the disputed Muslim-majority state of Jammu and Kashmir, which the Hindu right had assailed as favoritism toward Muslims and victimization of Hindus. Later that year, Mr. Modi delivered on a second promise by introducing a law that ostensibly opened a pathway to Indian citizenship for persecuted minorities from neighboring countries but whose true motive lay in that it pointedly excluded Muslims. In the northeastern state of Assam , a registration process had already been underway to disenfranchise Muslims if they could not provide elaborate documentation of their Indian citizenship. The Bharatiya Janata Party’s declared intention to establish a similar registration system nationwide hangs the threat of disenfranchisement over all of India’s Muslims.

The inauguration of the Ram temple delivered on the third and most important electoral promise. It announced, triumphantly, the climax of the battle to turn India into a Hindu nation. And yet after 10 years under Mr. Modi’s government, India is more unequal than it was under colonial British rule. In 2020 and 2021, it surpassed China as the largest source of international migrants to O.E.C.D. countries. Many of the undocumented migrants to be found pleading for entry on the U.S.-Mexico border are from India , and they include Hindus for whom India should be a utopia.

The Hindu right’s near-complete control of India may indeed deliver a third term for Mr. Modi, maybe even the absolute parliamentary majority his party wants in order to expand on the transformation it has begun.

But the truth is harder to hide than ever. Mr. Modi and his party are giving India the Hindu utopia they promised, and in the clear light of day, it amounts to little more than a shiny, garish temple that is a monument to majoritarian violence, surrounded by waterlogged streets, emaciated cattle and a people impoverished in every way.

Siddhartha Deb ( @debhartha ) is an Indian writer who lives in New York. His most recent novel is “The Light at the End of the World.” His new nonfiction book is “Twilight Prisoners: The Rise of the Hindu Right and the Fall of India.”

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .