masculinity synthesis essay

• Experiences

Scan to download

What, exactly, is masculinity?

September 18th, 2024

It can be quite difficult to know, as we tend to only wonder once it’s turned toxic. For answers, we turned to 5 photographers, experienced in the art of expressing the masculine.

Masc Off is our week dedicated to expressions of masculinity as a quality. Has there ever been a better time to ask the big questions? Like: What, exactly, is a man? What was masculinity, and what could it become? In this series, our contributors pull apart the tenuously constructed structure of masculinity to unearth what lies beneath the masc. 

Our era is marked by a particular nostalgia for male dominance. Certain expressions of masculinity are on the rise while others are policed—along with the actual rights of actual people—in the service of a single story, a rigid imposition of qualities and characteristics. And, often enough, a consolidation of power as aesthetic.

The photographs of these five artists are an antidote to a flattened expression of masculinity. Through their work and words, a more complex and varied picture begins to emerge. In soft sun-soaked color portraits, Clifford Prince King documents intimacy informed by his experiences as a queer black man. Anne Schwartz photographs their trans masc Brooklyn community in stunning and surreal black-and-white. Hannah Price, known for her portraits of the men who cat-called her in Philadelphia, shares tender new pictures that also emphasize the primacy of the gaze. One of Wynne Neilly’s striking photos of Elliot Page famously made the cover of TIME, and his broader work on queer and trans people speaks to expansive beauty and community. Of their ongoing project, Every Breath We Drew , begun in 2011 , the portrait photographer Jess T. Dugan has said, “ The people I was drawn to photograph embody a gentle kind of a masculinity, whether they are male or female, gay or straight.”

These insightful and close-looking photographers shared two images each to exemplify their recent work. Feeld spoke to them about inspiration and pursuits of happiness; their perspective on capturing gender expression; the relationship between looking and desire; and what masculinity means to them. 

CLIFFORD PRINCE KING

Masc Mirror: A Short History of A Likeness

From being boys together in girlhood, to before and behind the camera.

You might find it hot

Do you know what you like? Are you sure? Writer Joe Brace makes a case for questioning your erotic identity and remaking your world, over and over again.

A State of Affairs

The formation of masculinity helps us to understand how its influences are being both felt and opposed today. Collier Meyerson looks at a brief, complex history of masculinity.

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance articles
• Themed Collections
• Editor's Choice
• Ilona Kickbusch Award
• Supplements
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Online
• Open Access Option
• Self-Archiving Policy
• About Health Promotion International
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, identity development among boys and young men, positive school-based development programs for boys, aims of the current review, debate surrounding positive masculinity, theoretical foundations of a positive masculinity framework.

• < Previous

Operationalizing positive masculinity: a theoretical synthesis and school-based framework to engage boys and young men

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Michael Wilson, Kate Gwyther, Ray Swann, Kate Casey, Ross Featherston, John L Oliffe, Matt Englar-Carlson, Simon M Rice, Operationalizing positive masculinity: a theoretical synthesis and school-based framework to engage boys and young men, Health Promotion International , Volume 37, Issue 1, February 2022, daab031, https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daab031

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Scholars have consistently documented the relationship between conformity to traditional masculine norms and maladaptive psychosocial outcomes among boys and young men. Given current social commentary, including debate around ‘toxic masculinity’, intervention is needed to encourage boys to embody healthy expressions and identities of masculinity. Whilst new approaches grounded in positive masculinity show promise, the construct requires further definition and phenomenological clarity. Here we review divergent perspectives on positive masculinity, and forward a refined definition, specific to psychosocial health promotion among boys and young men. We then outline the theoretical basis of a positive masculinity framework to guide the content of future interventions, aiming to achieve positive identity development among boys and young men for the good of all. This framework represents a necessary unification of scholarship around male adolescent development, education and health. Future health promotion interventions may benefit from applying the framework to support a positive psychosocial trajectory among boys and young men, with a focus on connection, motivation and authenticity.

Divergent perspectives exist regarding the contribution of masculinity to psychosocial adjustment problems among boys and young men ( Lomas, 2013 ). Whilst some have appraised scholarship surrounding the maladaptive psychosocial sequelae of masculinity as reductive and essentialist ( Addis et al. , 2010 ), others have argued the behaviour of boys and young men cannot be understood completely free from socially constructed idealized masculine relations, roles and identities ( Johnson and Repta, 2010 ). With this article, we aim to review these perspectives regarding the theoretical construct of positive masculinity. Given the current dominant discourse around the term ‘toxic masculinity’ ( Ging, 2019 ), interventions for school-age boys and young men grounded in positive masculinity are urgently needed provided this concept is appropriately operationalized. We aim to advance the conceptualization of positive masculinity that reflects a developmental process towards healthy masculine identities that are supportive of gender equality and grounded in three key domains that represent a conglomerate of strengths-based positive psychology ( Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, 2000 ). The development of this framework represents a necessary step forward in ensuring health promotion efforts for boys and young men are theoretically grounded.

Research investigating psychosocial development, wellbeing and educational outcomes of boys and young men consistently highlights gendered patterns recursively flowing to, and from, difficulties in particular areas during adolescence ( Schofield et al. , 2000 ; Wong et al. , 2017 ; Rice et al. , 2018 ). Among boys and young men, this can manifest in poor school engagement and outcomes ( Ueno and McWilliams, 2010 ) and heightened risk of doing and experiencing harm. This is evidenced by rates of aggression and violence ( Ravn, 2018 ), problematic substance misuse ( Young et al. , 2002 ), perpetration of sexual and gender-based harassment and assault ( Niolon et al. , 2015 ; Casey et al. , 2017 ), and markedly higher rates of suicide compared to females ( Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2019 ). For instance, male suicide accounts for 24.4% of all deaths of Australian young people aged 15–24 ( Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2016 ), with similar statistics reported internationally ( Kõlves and De Leo, 2016 ). A recent systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based longitudinal studies also found young males were consistently at greater risk of death by suicide relative to young females ( Miranda-Mendizabal et al. , 2019 ).

These gendered patterns have led to investigations of the role of gender socialization in these issues, particularly the development of a masculine identity and adherence to social expectations of boys and young men ( Patton et al. , 2018 ). According to a social constructionist perspective, masculinity is broadly understood as patterns of expected behaviours that cultures use to construct generally accepted meanings of ‘being a man’ ( Levant, 2008 ). While somewhat dynamic and changeable, these expectations typically reflect behaviours and attitudes that are often characterized by demonstrations of control and agency, stoicism, emotional rigidity and inhibition, and an aversion to character traits associated with femininity ( Kierski and Blazina, 2009 ). Substantial research has documented associations between measures of traditional masculine role adherence and a host of psychological and educational problems among boys and young men ( Wong et al. , 2017 ; Vogel et al. , 2011 ; American Psychological Association, 2018). The negative impact of masculine role norm adherence on health promotion behaviours, such as help-seeking in the context of distress, is widely documented ( Mahalik et al. , 2007 ; Levant et al. , 2009 ). Turning to the school context, scholars have documented the perceived feminization of academic success among school-age boys ( Epstein, 1998 ; Renold, 2001 ), where boys avoid commitment to schoolwork for fear of being labelled weak or feminine ( Jackson, 2003 ).

Arguably one of the strongest influences on the shaping of adolescent identity is the gendered structures and norms of a young person’s surroundings. Willis argued that as part of the development process ( Willis, 1991 ), young people actively shape their own lives, both as individuals and through dynamic interpersonal influence. As Connell highlights, the interpersonal relations that ( Connell, 2005 ) characterize the lives of adolescent boys are not categorically distinct from girls. Yet in reality, boys grow in a society that expects inherent difference based on gender, especially with the onset of puberty ( Hill and Lynch, 1983 ). This is theorized (with empirical support) to result in a developmental dilemma for boys, where there are strong social pressures to enact and embody dominant masculine ideals in order to prove their difference from girls ( Galambos et al. , 1990 ; Connell, 2005 ). Rice et al. also found that conformity to traditional masculine norms ( Rice et al. , 2011 ) is most prominent for young men in emerging adulthood. This is not to imply biologically guaranteed differences in the social construction of boys and girls, or that there is only one masculine identity. In truth boys can assume a host of characteristics that represent their bourgeoning masculine self ( Mac an Ghaill, 1994 ). Yet it is clear social influences on gender identity development that require some form of manhood are particularly salient for boys, and adolescence represents a crucial window of opportunity to help boys assume a masculine identity in which positive characteristics are highlighted ( Way et al. , 2014 ).

In order to address rates of psychosocial problems and low school engagement among young males, various health-promotion programmes have been conducted with boys, primarily in school-based settings. A common theme in these programmes is encouragement for boys to think critically about the breadth of positive human qualities that can characterize masculine identities, in attempts to reduce the pressure to conform to a rigid, often unhealthy, archetype of masculinity ( Vandello et al. , 2008 ). A recent systematic review of existing academic literature of school and community-based programmes highlighted that psychoeducational initiatives for boys and young men incorporating a masculinity focus demonstrated beneficial outcomes across a broad range of domains, including self-efficacy, anger and perceptions of manhood ( Gwyther et al. , 2019 ). A focus on masculinity in these programmes commonly reflects the WHO’s classification of initiatives as gender transformative (aiming to rework maladaptive or harmful gender roles) or gender sensitive (tailored to the needs of males in response to socialized gender roles; WHO, 2007 ). Programmes aiming to specifically prevent engagement in problematic behaviour, such as perpetration of aggression, intimate partner violence and sexual harassment among boys and young men have also shown promising results, attributable at least in part to a theoretical grounding in healthy expressions of masculinity ( Edwards et al. , 2017 ; Banyard et al. , 2019 ). Such initiatives also aim to work holistically by encouraging boys and young men to reflect critically on male gender norms and their positive and negative impacts, to reshape what it means to be and become a man ( Namy et al. , 2015 ). Importantly, whilst these programmes commonly include a focus on socialized masculine role norms, rarely is masculine-specific theory included as an overarching framework, which limits understanding of mechanisms of change ( Gwyther et al. , 2019 ).

Patton et al. discussed the merging of health and education priorities ( Patton et al. , 2000 ), with schools representing an ideal medium for delivery of (mental) health promotion initiatives, given the profound influence of the school climate on the psychosocial development of young people. More specifically, the implementation of young men’s health promotion programmes via schools is fitting, as schools themselves are a site for the production, negotiation and regulation of certain male-coded behaviours ( Martino and Meyenn, 2001 ). Within schools, there are masculinizing practices and structures (e.g. dress codes, physical space design, male role models) through which boys and young men learn the parameters and expectations of being male ( Reichert, 2001 ). As boys interact with their peers, teachers and class curriculum, they may behave according to these expectations inherent within school systems. At present, masculinity and health promotion programmes are being implemented in schools, and with student groups ( Gwyther et al. , 2019 ). Yet the degree to which these programmes incorporate discussion regarding how masculinity is constructed, produced and regulated by school structures and systems is poorly understood.

The field stands to benefit from greater phenomenological clarity regarding the construct of positive masculinity, alongside an accompanying framework that encapsulates this definition. The aim from here on is to conduct a two-stage targeted integrative theoretical review. First, we provide a selective review of specific theoretical argument related to the concept of positive masculinity. This then leads to establishment of phenomenological clarity around the utility of the construct of positive masculinity, with a refined definition offered. Second, a further targeted integrative review leads to a novel, theory- and evidence-driven framework based on the refined definition of positive masculinity, with face validity in preventing the onset of maladaptive psychosocial outcomes associated with subscription to problematic notions of masculinity. The framework is conceptualized to guide development of psychosocial interventions for boys and young men in secondary education (i.e. ages 12–18). This age range represents a prime opportunity for intervention, given the development of masculine identities at this age ( Reigeluth and Addis, 2016 ).

Levant and Pollack’s new psychology of men framework ( Levant and Pollack, 1995 ) represented an early attempt to appraise the role of male developmental socialization in the health problems of boys and young men. Levant and Pollack’s approach resulted in a largely deficit-based model, wherein masculinity was presented as a unitary construct with primarily negative effects on the health and wellbeing of men ( Levant and Pollack, 1995 ). Scholars have since aimed to incorporate positive psychology principles to support the development of initiatives that help boys and men embrace healthy and constructive aspects of masculinity ( Kiselica et al. , 2008 ). Davies et al. furthered this initiative by proposing ( Davies et al. , 2010 ) the possible masculinities approach, which envisioned what men need in order to be healthy, responsible and nurturing of themselves and others. Grounded in a strengths-based positive psychology ( Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, 2000 ), positive masculinity is understood as a perspective that accentuates the strengths and beneficial aspects of a masculine identity ( Aspinwall and Staudinger, 2003 ; Kiselica et al. , 2008 ). Interventions grounded in this construct are important, given the majority of discourse focusing on the negative aspects of masculinity could eclipse efforts to intervene early and establish a positive developmental trajectory for boys. The positive psychology/positive masculinity approach to psychotherapy conceptualized by Kiselica and Englar-Carlson has demonstrable benefits to engaging men ( Kiselica and Englar-Carlson, 2010 ) in counselling who have been socialized to conform to traditional masculine norms, where otherwise their socialized avoidance of vulnerability could present a key barrier to therapeutic engagement. The male strengths discussed by Kiselica and Englar-Carlson in their approach represent a positive reframe ( Kiselica and Englar-Carlson, 2010 ) of traditional masculine states and traits, to engage men who identify with these qualities. Whilst intuitively appealing and clearly beneficial at engaging adult males in therapy, an extended approach is needed to assist boys to grow towards a healthy masculine identity. Of note, psychoeducation interventions delivered to boys regarding positive identity development have shown promising results, involving forums and questionnaire activities to explain to boys some of the challenges associated with growing up male, alongside empowering boys’ strengths and emotional resilience ( O’Neil et al. , 2013 ; O’Neil and Lujan, 2009 ). Yet more work is needed to operationalize key theoretical and practical considerations of positive masculinity as applied within an educational setting, before the content of future interventions is developed. Indeed, Oliffe et al. have called for a clearer definition ( Oliffe et al., 2019 ) of characteristics that constitute positive masculinity prior to development of future efforts to promote healthy psychosocial development among boys and young men.

Prior to exploring the qualities constituent of positive masculinity among boys, it is important to interrogate contention surrounding the utility and lack of phenomenological clarity of the construct of positive masculinity. An important caveat to Kiselica and Englar-Carlson’s conceptualization of positive masculinity is that ( Kiselica and Englar-Carlson, 2010 ) the qualities presented are social constructions that are neither male specific nor based on biologically driven sex differences between males and females. Rather, Kiselica and Englar-Carlson view these qualities as arising ( Kiselica and Englar-Carlson, 2010 ) through intergenerational socialization processes which communicate patterns of expected behaviour among boys, and subsequently men, resulting in the expression of positive human qualities in specific ‘male ways’ ( Brotherson and White, 2007 ; Snarey, 1993 ). To illustrate, McDermott et al. found direct support for the assertion that positive masculinity ( McDermott et al. , 2019 ) can be promoted through masculine gender role socialization. Critiquing this, Addis et al. argue that the concept of positive masculinity ( Addis et al. , 2010 ) itself borders on essentialism and lacks empirical rigour, and question whether there is anything uniquely masculine about the enactment of positive qualities which are simply ‘human’. Addis et al. ’s view is that when processes of gendered social learning ( Addis et al. , 2010 ) lead to maladjustment, the role of masculinity in negative psychosocial outcomes needs to be critically deconstructed. Yet when social learning has positive effects, they argue that these effects should not be necessarily associated with masculinity, in order to promote positive human potential regardless of gender ( Addis et al. , 2010 ; Addis and Hoffman, 2019 ). This perspective is echoed by Lomas, with the concept of critical positive masculinity ( Lomas, 2013 ). This perspective aims to promote healthy enactments of masculinity, whilst also emphasizing a realistic understanding of the problems with traditional notions of masculinity and the breadth of change required by men. Finally, O’Neil has affirmed the utility of the concept of positive masculinity ( O’Neil, 2010 ). Given that in modern society, the enactment of human qualities by males is always imbued with a degree of masculinity, O’Neil argued that it is an idealistic cause to shift public perception of men’s positive behaviour to purely the enactment of human strengths, free from gendered lensing. O’Neil also argued that promoting scholarship around positive masculinity ( O’Neil, 2010 ) can effectively address the futility cast over any attempts to improve the health inequalities experienced by boys and young men, when the vast majority of discourse depicts young men as damaged, and damage doing ( Mac an Ghaill and Haywood, 2012 ).

New directions in positive masculinity for boys and young men

The breadth of psychosocial adjustment problems linked to adherence to problematic manifestations of masculinity are particularly salient during adolescence ( Erikson, 1950 ; Connell, 2005 ; Way et al. , 2014 ). Yet to date, commensurate understanding of the role of positive masculinity in addressing these problems specifically among boys and young men is scant. Based on the preceding review of theoretical perspectives, we conceptualize positive masculinity to represent developmental progress towards the embodiment of key human strengths by males, in particular male ways . This emphasis on progress is particularly relevant for boys and young men, as we aim to move beyond viewing positive masculinity as a fixed state. Rather, it is an ongoing developmental process towards one’s embodiment of positive human qualities in ways that resonate for male youth. Furthermore, we seek to extend previous perspectives [e.g. ( Kiselica and Englar-Carlson, 2010 ; O’Neil, 2010 ; Lomas, 2013 )] and argue that for boys in particular, intervention grounded in the development of positive masculinity is urgently needed. Whilst that which represents manhood changes over time, and the social politics of masculinity are constantly shifting ( Elliott, 2019 ), the pressure or perception of the need to achieve, prove and maintain one’s masculinity remains largely constant for boys and young men ( Kimmel, 2006 ; Vandello and Bosson, 2013 ; Myrttinen et al. , 2019 ). Developmental programmes grounded in positive masculinity are therefore paramount, particularly given current social commentary surrounding dominant conceptions of masculinity as ‘toxic’ ( Kupers, 2005 ), where men are almost universally depicted as violent, unemotional and non-nurturing ( Collier, 1998 ; Connell and Messerschmidt, 2005 ).

Creighton and Oliffe called for a framework ( Creighton and Oliffe, 2010 ) that is able to account for both individual agency and the social structures that influence and shape the health practices of young men and boys. The need for authentic and considered representations of the gendered experiences of boys and young men is also required so that the potential solutions are relevant to this population. Any framework that seeks to transform harmful or restrictive role norms for boys and young men—and sustain wide-spread social change—will need to involve and engage with both the targets of the framework (in this case young men), but also their peers, families, schools and broader communities ( Creighton and Oliffe, 2010 ). A wealth of research has substantiated the argument that socialization towards a more positive and prosocial masculine identity is likely to contribute to ameliorating harms perpetrated and experienced by boys and young men, not limited to interpersonal violence and unfulfilling social connections ( Messerschmidt, 2000 ; McKenzie et al. , 2018 ); suicidality and a lack of help-seeking in the context of distress ( Seidler et al. , 2016 ; King et al. , 2020 ); and academic and occupational disengagement ( Rogers et al. , 2017a , b ). Substantiation of our refined definition of positive masculinity via an evidence-informed framework is therefore an important next step for the field.

It is important to note that male gender socialization intersects with other forms of social diversity (e.g. race, class, sexual orientation), and this can impact both the development of masculinity and the problematic psychosocial outcomes of male gender role norms ( Choo and Ferree, 2010 ). For example, recent work from an intersectionality perspective has shown that dominant culture does not generally recognize the masculinity of gay men as legitimate relative to heterosexual men, which can compound marginalization experienced by this group ( Mitchell and Ellis, 2011 ; Coston and Kimmel, 2012 ). Moreover, Mukandi et al. report a qualitative examination of Indigenous Australian masculinities ( Mukandi et al., 2019 ), often characterized for Aboriginal youth as indelibly tied to stoicism, alongside upholding intergenerational responsibilities towards elders. It is therefore important to be mindful of incorporating intersectionality of key social determinants into new attempts to operationalize positive masculinity, in order to avoid re-entrenching existing power structures that overlay gender and define dominant masculinities. Griffith has nevertheless noted methodological difficulties with operationalizing ( Griffith, 2012 ) intersectionality in practice, as scholarship presenting practical application of these largely theoretical ideas is in its infancy. A novel positive masculinity framework should therefore articulate a number of positive characteristics for boys and young men to aspire towards, that ideally resonate for students regardless of the intersection of social categories with their masculinity, whilst recognizing the overarching influence of intersectional masculinities. An area of future enquiry will be to test and refine the framework and ensure engagement with boys and young men from varying social backgrounds.

The following theories inform the development of the proposed positive masculinity framework, and take into account the call for an individual and social systems approach. Ecological systems theory describes the relationship between an individual and the broader social and cultural context in which they exist ( Bronfenbrenner, 1992 ). The framework will recognize how young men interact with, influence, and are influenced by their microsystems (family, peers, teachers), exosystems (school boards, social media) and macrosystems (culture, laws). Indeed, adolescent masculinity is thought to be manifested as occasioned and situated identities ( Blackbeard and Lindegger, 2007 ). Young men are able to acknowledge how their behaviours shift in response to gendered social norms attached to different environments. In a school context, boys often master their public-facing identity to achieve social inclusion, while recognizing they are eschewing certain normative human practices in order to uphold their masculinity ( Reichert, 2001 ). Similarly, there is a need to recognize how one context can impact individuals differently. As Connell notes, within the school system ( Connell, 2005 ) there will be different ways of portraying masculinity, learning to be a man, and different conceptions of the self. In this regard, the framework needs to recognize that boys and young men develop their identity in a collective context (see ‘communities of practice’; Wenger, 1998 ).

It is also important to understand how young males identify with those around them. Certain aspects of the male reference group identity dependence theory (MRGID; Wade, 1998 ) are pertinent to the development of this framework. MRGID theory suggests that male identity development is influenced by the degree that males rely on others (a reference group) to form their own identity. Of note, when young men are reference group dependent they will model and adopt the characteristics and attitudes of a reference group to define their own masculine identity. Boys and young men are accordingly more likely to have rigid gendered attitudes, and reject the characteristics of males that are unlike the reference group ( Wade, 1998 ). Alternatively, males that are non-dependent on a reference group will be more likely to have personally defined gender role self-concepts that are integrated into their overall identity. This is associated with more flexible gendered attitudes, and an ability to recognize and appreciate individual differences and diversity in other males ( Wade, 1998 ).

Consideration of the motives behind certain (male) behaviours can be explored through both precarious manhood theory, and self-determination theory (SDT). Precarious manhood theory is based upon the belief that manhood is a ‘status’ that must be earned, and continuously demonstrated in public so that it is not lost or taken away ( Vandello and Bosson, 2013 ). Manhood is therefore a tenuous and impermanent state. In this view, certain behaviours occur as a way to demonstrate manhood status, and can be provoked by perceived threats to one’s masculinity ( Vandello et al. , 2008 ). This aligns with the concept of controlled motivation in SDT ( Deci and Ryan, 2008 ). Controlled motivation combines external regulation, where behaviour is a function of external reward/punishment, and introjected regulation, where behaviour regulation is partly internalized and influenced by avoidance of shame, approval, contingent self-esteem and ego-involvements ( Deci and Ryan, 2008 ). For example, a young male may not seek help for an emotional problem to avoid (expected) punishment from peers and feelings of shame. Alternatively, promotion of intrinsic motivation, whereby behaviour is motivated by the action itself, is associated with increased educational engagement and achievement, and positive indicators of wellbeing in young men ( Whitehead, 2003 ; Deci and Ryan, 2008 ).

Furthermore, the successful implementation of these models within different environments warrants consideration. To ensure that a framework can be effectively applied and integrated, the three major indicators in the implementation process need to be considered: dosage (quantity of framework components), fidelity (degree to which a framework is implemented as intended) and quality of delivery (degree of engagement and responsiveness from target recipients and related members in the target’s ecology; Domitrovich et al. , 2008 ). For instance, in schools, it is important to identify and understand how contextual factors, such as the current practices held by school personnel, may impact the dosage, fidelity and quality of delivery. Further, implementation strategies should be made at the individual student, classroom and whole of school levels, as evidenced by established models of education with boys and young men ( Munns et al. 2006 ). Consideration of individuals best-placed to deliver health promotion and identity development initiatives, such as teachers ( Durlak et al. , 2011 ), will also impact the quality of framework delivery. Beyond what the student brings to the learning environment, teachers account for 30% of the variance in student learning and achievement, followed by the home, peers, school characteristics (size, attributes) and principals ( Hattie, 2003 ). Such learning is interconnected with development of social, cognitive and emotional skills.

Positive masculinity framework foundations

On the basis of the preceding refined definition of positive masculinity, here we offer a novel positive masculinity framework, to provide a basis for the future conceptualization of psychosocial development programmes for boys and young men. The process of condensing pertinent themes from the above research utilized an outcome-based approach in guiding the development of a new framework. This involved consideration of that which positive masculinity could represent among boys and young men, and ensuring this was both embedded in the framework and supported by past scholarship. Similarly, practical outcomes were considered in conceptualizing framework components with face validity in their capacity to negate current patterns of poor health-related outcomes among male adolescents (e.g. male suicide, violence and conduct problems, and school disengagement). Based on the theoretical foundations and evidence base in young men’s research, the following framework is proposed (see Figure 1 ).

The positive masculinity framework.

Foremost, the framework recognizes the overarching influence of intersectionality on masculinities, which both directly impacts one’s sense of masculinity, alongside more diffuse impacts via interpersonal relations. The positive masculinity framework base comprises two pillars; knowing and being . The aspect of knowing relates to learning and the pragmatic processes for disseminating information to boys and young men, their parents, teachers and the broader community. Knowing is a key factor in developing positive masculinity as there is widespread misunderstanding and a lack of consensus regarding the concept and its potential value in the health promotion of boys and young men ( Addis et al. , 2010 ). Extensions of the framework will provide dedicated curriculum, positive examples of masculinity across developmental stages (in life and fiction), spaces for idea sharing, tools for self-reflection and direction to relevant services, supports and resources. This facet also encompasses the transmission of essential knowledge to boys as they develop, concerning current gendered issues in society including: men’s violence towards women and other men, male suicide and problematic expectations of men housed in out-dated, yet widely regarded as ‘normal’, conceptions of masculinity. We intend to provide boys with this knowledge such that they can critically appraise gendered social development, and forge their own positive path according to the three human strengths encapsulated by the second pillar: being . Being encourages promotion of three key human strengths that are relevant to the current experiences of boys and young men. The framework seeks to guide boys’ development towards becoming (i) connected, (ii) motivated, and (iii) authentic.

The concept of becoming connected is related to building social relationships, and engagement with an array of individuals and systems in a young man’s ‘ecology’. To be ‘connected’ is to have respectful, tolerant, equal, empathetic, kind and non-violent relationships with a variety of people, systems and the self. Further, to be connected to one ‘group’ or system should not promote disconnection, isolation or intolerance of other groups (see MRGID theory; Wade, 1998 ). This concept is proposed as a key strength in response to the understanding that traditional masculinity expects boys to deny their emotional investment in interpersonal connections ( Way et al. , 2014 ; Chu and Gilligan, 2019 ; Way, 2019 ), often leading to difficulties forming close and trusting relationships, and alienation and loneliness ( Connell and Messerschmidt, 2005 ; Pollack, 2006 ). Further, promoting connection in equal relationships is proposed to address the rates of intimate partner violence and dating violence in young and adult men. This concept reflects engagement with others, where the end goal of improvements to connectedness in this sense is an increase in positive social support and a reduction in boys’ likelihood of perpetrating unhealthy behaviours in future relationships.

The concept of motivation represents the drive to continually grow as a human, contribute to one’s society and feel a sense of purpose. This factor is not necessarily concerned with the specifics of what boys are motivated to be, do, or achieve (given that their motivations are not harmful to themselves or others). Rather, it is concerned with recognizing and modifying the underlying causes of young men’s motivation to think and behave in certain ways. Application of the framework will aim to reduce over-reliance on external motivators of behaviour, namely, acting on the basis of how young men believe or perceive that their peers want them to act (see SDT, precarious manhood). For example, men’s aggression is often driven by false expectations about what their peers prefer, or expect from a ‘man’ ( Vandello et al. , 2008 ). Moreover, promoting intrinsic motivation may respond to the high levels of disengagement with school evidenced in young men ( Ueno and McWilliams, 2010 ). Enabling boys and young men to find their own motivations in school and in their aspirations will be a key element of the framework that we hope will lead to improvements in school engagement, alongside positive engagement with one’s future.

To be authentic is to know, and be comfortable in one’s own (masculine) identity. We conceptualize authenticity as boys and young men having the willingness, courage and comfort to be inclusive of all people, having the ability and flexibility to express their true identity, attitudes and emotions. To be authentic may promote openness, honesty, integrity, kindness (to the self and others), compassion and humility. This concept responds to the notion that young men are often facing confusion and confliction regarding what is expected from them, resulting in a compelling need to mask this confusion by appearing increasingly more manly ( Martino and Meyenn, 2001 ; Pollack, 2006 ; Edwards and Jones, 2009 ). This process of masking hides the authentic self. Demonstrating authenticity in attitudes and behaviour may protect against the anxiety associated with perceived threats to manhood ( Vandello and Bosson, 2013 ). Further, it may promote health behaviours, such as the utilization of health services, increased help-seeking or providing support to others, alongside norming the experience of difficulty and seeking support as strengths ( Lynch et al. , 2018 ). Similarly, authenticity is aligned with the notion of student voice, where students have space for personal agency and an active ability to meaningfully contribute to their school environment ( Quaglia and Fox, 2018 ). Feeling comfortable to use one’s authentic voice in the school community is positively related to school engagement and academic achievement ( Quaglia and Fox, 2018 ). This concept could promote engagement with the self, where the development of an authentic (male) identity may help to increase boys’ comfort in expressing their emotions, and seeking help in the context of distress.

With shifting expectations of boys and men in today’s social climate, a rigorous theoretical framework guiding positive masculinity interventions for boys and young men will likely further scholarship and practice for the field. Given contention surrounding the concept of positive masculinity as it applies to engagement of adults, a new definition is offered for boys and young men. Positive masculinity therefore represents progress towards the embodiment of key human strengths by males. The proposed framework base designates two key factors, knowing and being . Knowing represents the processes of learning and self-reflection, and being promotes development of three broad human strengths that are responsive to current experiences of boys and young men. Future work will entail validation of this framework with boys and young men directly, with a critical focus being to refine the concept of positive masculinity across diverse and minority male youth populations. For example, articulating positive masculinity among Indigenous young men will likely require localized operationalization to ensure the construct appropriately acknowledges beliefs, traditions and practices where there are important gendered expectations and considerations. Future health promotion interventions may benefit from applying the framework to support a positive psychosocial trajectory among boys and young men, in particular facilitating connectedness, motivation and authenticity.

This work was generously funded by a philanthropic donation from the John and Elaine King Foundation.

Addis M. , Hoffman E. ( 2019 ) The Psychology of Men in Context . Routledge , New York .

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Addis M. , Mansfield A. , Syzdek M. ( 2010 ) Is “masculinity” a problem?: framing the effects of gendered social learning in men . Psychology of Men & Masculinity , 11 , 77 – 90 .

American Psychological Association, Boys and Men Guidelines Group. ( 2018 ) APA guidelines for psychological practice with boys and men. http://www.apa.org/about/policy/psychological-practice-boys-men-guidelines.pdf . (last accessed 31 August 2020).

Aspinwall L. , Staudinger U. ( 2003 ) A psychology of human strengths: some central issues of an emerging field. In Aspinwall L. , Staudinger U. (eds), A Psychology of Human Strengths: Fundamental Questions and Future Directions for a Positive Psychology . American Psychological Association , Washington, DC , pp. 9 – 22 .

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). ( 2016 ) Causes of death, Australia, 2015. ABS. https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/3303.0Main+Features100012015?OpenDocument . (last accessed 31 August 2020).

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). ( 2019 ) 3303.0 - causes of death, Australia, 2018 .   https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/3303.0 . (last accessed 31 August 2020).

Banyard V. , Edwards K. , Rizzo A. , Theodores M. , Tardiff R. , Lee K.  et al.  ( 2019 ) Evaluating a gender transformative violence prevention program for middle school boys: a pilot study . Children and Youth Services Review , 101 , 165 – 173 .

Blackbeard D. , Lindegger G. ( 2007 ) “Building a wall around themselves”: exploring adolescent masculinity and abjection with photo-biographical research . South African Journal of Psychology , 37 , 25 – 46 .

Bronfenbrenner U. ( 1992 ) Ecological Systems Theory . Jessica Kingsley Publishers , London, UK .

Brotherson S. , White J. ( 2007 ) Fathers as Mentors: Bridging the Gap between Generations . Men’s Studies Press , Harriman, TN .

Casey E. A. , Masters N. T. , Beadnell B. , Hoppe M. J. , Morrison D. M. , Wells E. A. ( 2017 ) Predicting sexual assault perpetration among heterosexually active young men . Violence against Women , 23 , 3 – 27 .

Choo H. Y. , Ferree M. M. ( 2010 ) Practicing intersectionality in sociological research: a critical analysis of inclusions, interactions, and institutions in the study of inequalities . Sociological Theory , 28 , 129 – 149 .

Chu J. , Gilligan C. ( 2019 ) Boys’ development in a new era of APA guidelines . Men and Masculinities , 22 , 905 – 909 .

Collier R. ( 1998 ) Masculinities, Crime and Criminology . Sage . London, UK .

Connell R. ( 2005 ) Growing up masculine: rethinking the significance of adolescence in the making of masculinities . Irish Journal of Sociology , 14 , 11 – 28 .

Connell R. , Messerschmidt J. ( 2005 ) Hegemonic masculinity: rethinking the concept . Gender & Society , 19 , 829 – 859 .

Coston B. M. , Kimmel M. ( 2012 ) Seeing privilege where it isn’t: marginalized masculinities and the intersectionality of privilege . Journal of Social Issues , 68 , 97 – 111 .

Creighton G. , Oliffe J. ( 2010 ) Theorising masculinities and men’s health: a brief history with a view to practice . Health Sociology Review , 19 , 409 – 418 .

Davies J. A. , Shen-Miller D. S. , Isacco A. ( 2010 ) The men's center approach to addressing the health crisis of college men . Professional Psychology: Research and Practice , 41 , 347 – 354 .

Deci E. , Ryan R. ( 2008 ) Self-determination theory: a macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health . Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne , 49 , 182 – 185 .

Durlak J. A. , Weissberg R. P. , Dymnicki A. B. , Taylor R. D. , Schellinger K. B. ( 2011 ) The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: a meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions . Child Development , 82 , 405 – 432 .

Domitrovich C. , Bradshaw C. , Poduska J. , Hoagwood K. , Buckley J. , Olin S.  et al.  ( 2008 ) Maximizing the implementation quality of evidence-based preventive interventions in schools: a conceptual framework . Advances in School Mental Health Promotion , 1 , 6 – 28 .

Edwards K. , Jones S. ( 2009 ) “Putting my man face on”: a grounded theory of college men's gender identity development . Journal of College Student Development , 50 , 210 – 228 .

Edwards P. , van de Mortel T. , Stevens J. ( 2017 ) Addressing engagement, anger and aggression through the Rock Water Program: rural adolescent males’ perceptions . The Australian Journal of Rural Health , 25 , 241 – 245 .

Elliott K. ( 2019 ) Negotiations between progressive and ‘traditional’ expressions of masculinity among young Australian men . Journal of Sociology , 55 , 108 – 123 .

Epstein D. ( 1998 ) Real boys don’t work: underachievement, masculinity and the harassment of sissies. In Elwood J. , Hey V. , Epstein D. , Maw J. (eds), Failing Boys? Issues in Gender and Achievement . Open University Press , Buckingham , pp. 96 – 109 .

Erikson E. ( 1950 ) Childhood and Society . Imago , London, UK .

Galambos N. , Almeida D. , Petersen A. ( 1990 ) Masculinity, femininity and sex role attitudes in early adolescence: exploring gender intensification . Child Development , 61 , 1905 – 1914 .

Ging D. ( 2019 ) Alphas, betas, and incels: theorising the masculinities of the manosphere . Men and Masculinities , 22 , 638 – 657 .

Griffith D. M. ( 2012 ) An intersectional approach to men's health . Journal of Men's Health , 9 , 106 – 112 .

Gwyther K. , Swann R. , Casey K. , Purcell R. , Rice S. ( 2019 ) Developing young men’s wellbeing through community and school-based programs: a systematic review . PLoS One , 14 , e0216955 .

Hattie J. ( 2003 ) Teachers Make a Difference: What Is The Research Evidence? Paper presented at ACER Research Conference, Melbourne, Australia, October 2003. https://research.acer.edu.au/research_conference_2003/4 . (last accessed 31 August 2020).

Hill J. , Lynch M. ( 1983 ) The intensification of gender-related role expectations during early adolescence. In Brooks-Cunn J. , Petersen A. (eds), Girls at Puberty: Biological and Psychosocial Perspectives . Plenum , New York , pp. 201 – 228 .

Jackson C. ( 2003 ) Motives for ‘laddishness’ at school: fear of failure and fear of the ‘feminine’ . British Educational Research Journal , 29 , 583 – 598 .

Johnson J. , Repta R. ( 2010 ) Sex and gender: beyond the binaries. In Oliffe J. , Greaves L. (eds), Designing and Conducting Gender, Sex and Health Research . SAGE , California , pp. 17 – 39 .

Kierski W. , Blazina C. ( 2009 ) The male fear of femininity and its effects on counseling and psychotherapy . The Journal of Men's Studies , 17 , 155 – 172 .

Kimmel M. ( 2006 ) Manhood in America: A Cultural History , 2nd edition.   Oxford University Press , New York .

King T. L. , Shields M. , Sojo V. , Daraganova G. , Currier D. , O’Neil A.  et al.  ( 2020 ) Expressions of masculinity and associations with suicidal ideation among young males . BMC Psychiatry , 20 , 10 .

Kiselica M. , Englar-Carlson M. ( 2010 ) Identifying, affirming, and building upon male strengths: the positive psychology/positive masculinity model of psychotherapy with boys and men . Psychotherapy , 47 , 276 – 287 .

Kiselica M. , Englar-Carlson M. , Horne A. , Fisher M. ( 2008 ). A positive psychology perspective on helping boys. In Kiselica M. , Englar-Carlson M. , Horne A. (eds), Counseling Troubled Boys: A Guidebook for Professionals . Routledge , New York, pp. 31–48 .

Kõlves K. , De Leo D. ( 2016 ) Adolescent suicide rates between 1990 and 2009: analysis of age group 15–19 years worldwide . The Journal of Adolescent Health , 58 , 69 – 77 .

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

Levant R. F. and , Pollack W. S. ( 1995 ) A New Psychology of Men , Basic Books , New York

Levant R. ( 2008 ) How do we understand masculinity? An editorial . Psychology of Men & Masculinity , 9 , 1 – 4 .

Levant R. , Wimer D. J. , Williams C. M. , Smalley K. B. , Noronha D. ( 2009 ) The relationships between masculinity variables, health risk behaviors and attitudes toward seeking psychological help . International Journal of Men's Health , 8 , 3 – 21 .

Lomas T. ( 2013 ) Critical positive masculinity . Masculinities and Social Change , 2 , 167 – 193 .

Lynch L. , Long M. , Moorhead A. ( 2018 ) Young men, help-seeking, and mental health services: exploring barriers and solutions . American Journal of Men's Health , 12 , 138 – 149 .

Mac an Ghaill M. ( 1994 ) The Making of Men: Masculinities, Sexualities and Schooling . Open University Press , Buckingham .

Mac an Ghaill M. , Haywood C. ( 2012 ) Understanding boys: thinking through boys, masculinity and suicide . Social Science & Medicine , 74 , 482 – 489 .

Mahalik J. R. , Levi-Minzi M. , Walker G. ( 2007 ) Masculinity and health behaviors in Australian men . Psychology of Men & Masculinity , 8 , 240 – 249 .

Martino W. , Meyenn B. ( 2001 ) What about the Boys?: Issues of Masculinity in Schools . Open University Press , Philadelphia, PA .

McDermott R. , Pietrantonio K. , Browning B. , McKelvey D. , Jones Z. , Booth N.  et al.  ( 2019 ) In search of positive masculine role norms: testing the positive psychology positive masculinity paradigm . Psychology of Men & Masculinities , 20 , 12 – 22 .

McKenzie S. K. , Collings S. , Jenkin G. , River J. ( 2018 ) Masculinity, social connectedness, and mental health: men’s diverse patterns of practice . American Journal of Men's Health , 12 , 1247 – 1261 .

Messerschmidt J. W. ( 2000 ) Becoming “real men” adolescent masculinity challenges and sexual violence . Men and Masculinities , 2 , 286 – 307 .

Miranda-Mendizabal A. , Castellví P. , Parés-Badell O. , Alayo I. , Almenara J. , Alonso I.  et al.  ( 2019 ) Gender differences in suicidal behavior in adolescents and young adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies . International Journal of Public Health , 64 , 265 – 283 .

Mitchell R. W. , Ellis A. L. ( 2011 ) In the eye of the beholder: knowledge that a man is gay promotes American college students’ attributions of cross-gender characteristics . Sexuality & Culture , 15 , 80 – 99 .

Mukandi B. , , Singh D. , , Brady K. , , Willis J. , , Sinha T. , , Askew D  et al. . ( 2019 ) “So we tell them”: Articulating strong black masculinities in an urban Indigenous community . AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples , 15 , 253 – 260 .

Munns G. , Arthur L. , Downes T. , Gregson R. , Power A. , Sawyer W.  et al.  ( 2006 ) Motivation and engagement of boys: evidence-based teaching practices. Main report. Australian Government Department of Education, Science and Training. Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Myrttinen H. , Starck K. , Luyt R. ( 2019 ) Stabilising or challenging patriarchy? Sketches of selected “new” political masculinities . Men and Masculinities , 22 , 563 – 581 .

Namy S. , Heilman B. , Stich S. , Crownover J. , Leka B. , Edmeades J. ( 2015 ) Changing what it means to ‘become a man’: participants’ reflections on a school-based programme to redefine masculinity in the Balkans . Culture, Health & Sexuality , 17 , 206 – 222 .

Niolon P. , Vivolo-Kantor A. , Latzman N. , Valle L. , Kuoh H. , Burton T.  et al.  ( 2015 ) Prevalence of teen dating violence and co-occurring risk factors among middle school youth in high-risk urban communities . The Journal of Adolescent Health , 56 , S5 – S13 .

O’Neil J. ( 2010 ) Is criticism of generic masculinity, essentialism, and positive-healthy-masculinity a problem for the psychology of men?   Psychology of Men & Masculinity , 11 , 98 – 106 .

O’Neil J. , Lujan M. ( 2009 ) Preventing boys’ problems in schools through psychoeducational programming: A call to action . Psychology in the Schools , 46 , 257 – 266 .

O’Neil J. M. , Challenger C. , Renzulli S. , Crapser B. , Webster E. ( 2013 ) The boy’s forum: an evaluation of a brief intervention to empower middle-school urban boys . The Journal of Men's Studies , 21 , 191 – 205 .

Oliffe J. L. , , Rice S. , , Kelly M. T. , , Ogrodniczuk J. S. , , Broom A. , , Robertson S  et al. . ( 2019 ) A mixed-methods study of the health-related masculine values among young Canadian men . Psychology of Men & Masculinities , 20 , 310 – 323 .

Patton G. , Darmstadt G. , Petroni S. , Sawyer S. ( 2018 ) A gender lens on the health and well-being of young males . The Journal of Adolescent Health , 62 , S6 – S8 .

Patton G. , Glover S. , Bond L. , Butler H. , Godfrey C. , Pietro G. D.  et al. , ( 2000 ) The Gatehouse Project: A systematic approach to mental health promotion in secondary schools . Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry , 34 , 586 – 593 .

Pollack W. ( 2006 ) The “war” for boys: hearing “real boys’” voices, healing their pain . Professional Psychology: Research and Practice , 37 , 190 – 195 .

Quaglia R. , Fox K. ( 2018 ) Student voice: a way of being . Australian Educational Leader , 40 , 14 – 18 .

Ravn S. ( 2018 ) “I would never start a fight but …”: Young masculinities, perceptions of violence, and symbolic boundary work in focus groups . Men and Masculinities , 21 , 291 – 309 .

Reichert M. ( 2001 ) Rethinking masculinities: new ideas for schooling boys. In Martino W. , Meyenn B. (eds), What about the Boys ? McGraw-Hill Education , Buckingham, UK , pp. 38 – 52 .

Reigeluth C. S. , Addis M. E. ( 2016 ) Adolescent boys’ experiences with policing of masculinity: forms, functions, and consequences . Psychology of Men & Masculinity , 17 , 74 – 83 .

Renold E. ( 2001 ) Learning the ‘hard’ way: boys, hegemonic masculinity and the negotiation of learner identities in the primary school . British Journal of Sociology of Education , 22 , 369 – 385 .

Rice S. , Fallon B. , Bambling M. ( 2011 ) Men and depression: the impact of masculine role norms throughout the lifespan . The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist , 28 , 133 – 144 .

Rice S. , Purcell R. , McGorry P. ( 2018 ) Adolescent and young adult male mental health: transforming system failures into proactive models of engagement . The Journal of Adolescent Health , 62 , S9 – S17 .

Rogers A. , Delay D. , Martin C. L. ( 2017a ) Traditional masculinity during the middle school transition: associations with depressive symptoms and academic engagement . Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 46 , 709 – 724 .

Rogers A. , Updegraff K. A. , Santos C. E. , Martin C. L. ( 2017b ) Masculinity and school adjustment in middle school . Psychology of Men & Masculinity , 18 , 50 – 61 .

Schofield T. , Connell R. , Walker L. , Wood J. , Butland D. ( 2000 ) Understanding men’s health and illness: a gender-relations approach to policy, research, and practice . Journal of American College Health , 48 , 247 – 256 .

Seidler Z. E. , Dawes A. J. , Rice S. M. , Oliffe J. L. , Dhillon H. M. ( 2016 ) The role of masculinity in men’s help-seeking for depression: a systematic review . Clinical Psychology Review , 49 , 106 – 118 .

Seligman M. , Csikszentmihalyi M. ( 2000 ) “Positive psychology: an introduction.” In Csikszentmihalyi M. (ed.), Flow and the Foundations of Positive Psychology . Springer , Dordrecht, Netherlands , 279 – 298 .

Snarey J. ( 1993 ) How Fathers Care for the Next Generation: A Four-Decade Study . Harvard University Press , Cambridge, MA .

Ueno K. , McWilliams S. ( 2010 ) Gender-typed behaviors and school adjustment . Sex Roles , 63 , 580 – 591 .

Vandello J. , Bosson J. ( 2013 ) Hard won and easily lost: a review and synthesis of theory and research on precarious manhood . Psychology of Men & Masculinity , 14 , 101 – 113 .

Vandello J. , Bosson J. , Cohen D. , Burnaford R. , Weaver J. ( 2008 ) Precarious manhood . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 95 , 1325 – 1339 .

Vandello J. , Cohen D. , Ransom S. ( 2008 ) US southern and northern differences in perceptions of norms about aggression: mechanisms for the perpetuation of a culture of honor . Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , 39 , 162 – 177 .

Vogel D. , Heimerdinger-Edwards S. , Hammer J. , 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 .

Wade J. ( 1998 ) Male reference group identity dependence: a theory of male identity . The Counseling Psychologist , 26 , 349 – 383 .

Way N. , Cressen J. , Bodian S. , Preston J. , Nelson J. , Hughes D. ( 2014 ) “It might be nice to be a girl… then you wouldn't have to be emotionless”: boys’ resistance to norms of masculinity during adolescence . Psychology of Men & Masculinity , 15 , 241 – 252 .

Way N. ( 2019 ) Reimagining boys in the 21st century . Men and Masculinities , 22 , 926 – 924 .

Wenger E. ( 1998 ) Communities of practice: learning as a social system . Systems Thinker , 9 , 2 – 3 .

Whitehead J. ( 2003 ) Masculinity, motivation and academic success: a paradox . Teacher Development , 7 , 287 – 309 .

Willis P. ( 1991 ) Common Culture: symbolic Work at Play in the Everyday Cultures of the Young . Open University Press , Milton Keynes, UK .

Wong J. , Ho M. , Wang S. , Miller I. ( 2017 ) Meta-analyses of the relationship between conformity to masculine norms and mental health-related outcomes . Journal of Counseling Psychology , 64 , 80 – 93 .

World Health Organization. ( 2007 ) Engaging men and boys in changing gender-based inequity in health: Evidence from programme interventions. World Health Organisation, Geneva.

Young S. , Corley R. , Stallings M. , Rhee S. , Crowley T. , Hewitt J. ( 2002 ) Substance use, abuse and dependence in adolescence: Prevalence, symptom profiles and correlates . Drug and Alcohol Dependence , 68 , 309 – 322 .

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• X (formerly Twitter)
• Recommend to Your Librarian
• Journals Career Network

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1460-2245
• Print ISSN 0957-4824
• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

It’s a Man’s World: The Effect of Traditional Masculinity on Gender Equality

Public and international discourse on the debate for gender equality focuses on the oppression of women, as it rightly should. However, the influence that traditional male stereotypes have on the perpetuation of gender inequality, at a transnational scale, also needs to be addressed. This essay asks how do male stereotypes affect the manner in which males engage with gender equality? By encouraging males to analyse their socially constructed gender profiles, it is possible to educate them on how their social roles may impact gender equality. This will involve analysing the entrenchment of traditional male stereotypes in society and their consequent impact on women. Firstly, the essay will establish that male stereotypes operate within a larger structure of the gender paradigm. Then, it will define gender equality and its various interpretations. This will then lead the essay to discuss the trajectory of the progress towards gender equality and why males must be viewed as fundamental actors. Certain masculinities preserve and promote the inequalities experienced between men and women, and, in order to achieve gender equality, they must be dismantled.

When analysing male stereotypes, in the context of gender equality, it is important to recognise that they do not operate in isolation. Male stereotypes, or masculinities , function ‘… as an aspect of a larger structure’. [1] This structure is gender . Gender denotes the social phenomenon of distinguishing males and females based on a set of identity traits. The gendering of the sexes produces and sustains socially constructed differences. [2] Men and women are constructed to behave and interact in ways that perpetuate their gendered identities. However, there is a vital distinction at work here, one that will underpin this essay — the difference between sex and gender. Although this difference is highly contentious and widely contested, it will inform the essay’s discussion of gender equality. Sex and gender are classifications for differentiating between men and women. Sex, in contrast to gender, refers to the determination made based upon scientifically accepted biological criteria. The distinction of sex can be made through the classification of ‘… genitalia at birth or chromosomal typing before birth’. [3]

The terms gender and sex are often understood to be the same thing and used interchangeably. [4] However, this only serves to conflate biological anatomy with socially constructed identities. The problem with this misconception is that in societies, such as those in the West, it is assumed that the reproductive function of males and females is a sufficient basis for prescribing psychological and behavioural characteristics onto members of society. [5] In response to this, Peterson and Runyan assert that:

‘… gender should be understood as a social, not physiological, construction: Femininity and masculinity, the terms that denote one’s gender, refer to a complex set of characteristics and behaviours prescribed for a particular sex by society and learned through the socialisation process’. [6]

In other words, society, not biology, confines males and females to particular masculine and feminine character profiles. This means that gender is not fixed. Christian states that ‘… it is perfectly feasible for gender to change while biological sex remains the same’. [7] Gender should be considered an adjustable and fluid concept, as opposed to the more static disposition of biology.

According to Freud, the human subject has always been sexed , and that despite the biological differences, males and females have become particular social subjects. [8] The biological individual can be viewed as a blank canvas upon which gendered identities are projected and performed through socialisation. Therefore, the supposed differences between men and women are accentuated through the legitimisation of social stereotypes. These stereotypes, presented as inherent, are influenced by the social environment to which one is subjected. Male and female gender profiles are normalised to the extent that they appear natural, biological. Freud, who pioneered early psychoanalysis of the unconscious, was able to examine the ‘… continuity between normal and neurotic mental life, the concepts of repression and the unconscious, and the metal process to be ‘read’ through dreams, jokes, slips of the tongue and symptoms’. [9]

His work provided much needed insight into understanding inherent and normative views of gender identities. By definition, psychoanalytic theory aims to deconstruct what is explicitly or unintentionally communicated to illuminate the latent ‘… fantasies, anxieties, and desires of the speaking subject’. [10] In relation to gender, psychoanalysis stresses that our biology is experienced within culture, not nature, and ‘… that the effect of culture is to transform and channel biology and instinct in particular ways’. [11] Thus, the psychological differences between males and females are mostly, if not entirely, socially constructed.

This view, however, is not universally shared. In his paper titled, Feminism Against Science , Goldberg argues that the cognitive and behavioural differences between men and women are established through their respective physiologies, and that society and gender are a reflection of biological realities. [12] Moir and Jessel also advocate for biological determinism, arguing that to proclaim that men and women ‘… are the same in aptitude, skill, or behaviour is to build a society based on a biological and scientific lie’, and that biological reality reveals a comparative relationship of sexual asymmetry. [13] The argument raised by Goldberg, Moir, and Jessel is allegedly based on solid scientific findings. The ethos offered by ‘science’ is easy to succumb to. However, these ‘findings’ and results are often filtered and manipulated to strengthen the author’s argument. In her book, Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities , Halpern contends that throughout her study, the most important lesson she learnt was that ‘… researchers, like the rest of us, maintain a particular world view that they use in interpreting research findings’. [14] So when analysis arguments about gender, nothing should be unquestioningly accepts as irrefutable, scientific fact.

Discussions about gender are often adjacent to discussions that attempt to determine the intellectual capacities of either sex. Debates of this nature were generated in the late nineteenth century, when it was determined, with scientific vindication, that the challenges and complexities of academia were deemed too overwhelming for the female mind. [15] This attempt to distinguish sex difference on the basis of physiology is one found in evolutionary theory. The theory argues that men and women ‘… pursue distinctive strategies to achieve reproductive effectiveness, with sometimes significant divergence’. [16] This view reduces human existence to the reproductive function. It supports the idea that the only factor of sexual differentiation that needs to be considered is the reproductive process. [17] The pursuit of survival is thus contingent upon successful reproduction, which creates a lineage of evolution for both men and women. Wilson, a Darwinist evolutionary theorist argues in his book, The Great Sex Divide , that for individuals who ‘… perform their sex role more successfully, their genes would have superior survival value, and so we would expect progressive differentiation of physical and mental equipment as parallel evolutionary developments’. [18] That is to say, human evolution is based on the propensity of an individual to fulfil their biological function. Therefore, sex differences are of vital importance to survival. Wilson also contends that the differences between men and women ‘… are observed, fairly universally, regardless of species or culture, time or place’. [19] This kind of argument lies at the very centre of gender inequality. Differentiation can unintentionally, and intentionally, cultivate a culture of discrimination. In categorising the differences between two subjects, one is automatically participating in a process of judgment. This judgment can manifest as a destructive bias or a positive comparison.

Sex difference has been biologically substantiated, and, in some cases, justified in the development of evolution. However, some argue that males and females are increasingly similar than different. For example, Epstein, in her book Deceptive Distinctions , maintains that distinctions based on gender identities serve more harm than good, and that attempts to divide the sexes based on intelligence present dysfunctional consequences for society. [20] In many ways, the argument returns to the age-old question: Are women mentally inferior to men? Some scholars argue in the affirmative, that men and women exhibit asymmetrical cognitive capabilities. However, scholars such as Seligman answer in the negative: ‘no, [women] are not. Data are now being laid on the table that show that, on average, men and women are equal in mental ability’. [21] Since the late nineteenth-century, research has studied sex difference across a plethora of psychological planes, such as mental abilities, attitudes, interest, personality traits, and emotions. Moreover, Connell, like Seligman, states that ‘… sex differences, on almost every psychological trait measured, are either non-existent or fairly small’. [22]

Across many social and academic spheres, the question of who is the smarter sex is deemed unanswerable. Given the tendency of researchers to favour a sex, most concede then that men and women are ‘even’ [23] Researchers are gendered subjects, conditioned by sociocultural gender constructs. They may support the superiority of a particular sex, which in turn, is deliberately or intuitively reflected in their respective research. This is why psychoanalysis ‘… does not assume the existence of an a priori “self” or “ego”’, but asserts that personal identity is contingent upon social conditioning. [24] Researchers do not operate, nor conduct their research, in isolation of reality. They are thus influenced by universal social discourses such as race, gender, and class. Absolute scientific objectivity is a standard difficult to uphold. Halpern warns of the existence of researchers that allow their bias for either sex to direct their study outcomes, such as Rushton and Jenson who ‘… steadfastly maintain that women are less intelligent than men’. [25] Views such as this intensify the gender divide by supporting the notion of male dominance, which further solidifies gender disparities. As Gaitanidis states, the conditions, which produce gender identities, are not quasi-universal; sociocultural and historical forces intrude in our lives to shape our personal identities. [26] Therefore, favouring certain data can be a symptom of cultural influences, such as gendered sex roles.

Sex difference has been largely debunked, or at the very least, considered inconclusive. The general consensus is that neither sex is psychologically superior. The emphasis is rather on the socialisation of difference, where the male and female gender constructs are influenced by worldviews, perceived norms and the unconscious. The variation of positions on sex difference indicates how pervasive the gender paradigm is, and how even purportedly objective areas of study, like science, can be skewed to perpetuate the idea of male intellectual dominance. The revolutionary work of feminists and social constructivists over the past four decades has highlighted the impact and influence of gender constructs on sociocultural life and knowledge. [27] Kimmel summarises the scale and influence of gender as an organising principle of society by stating, ‘virtually every society known to us is founded upon assumptions of gender difference and the politics of gender inequality’. [28] This point becomes foundational when answering the question of how traditional masculinity affects the manner in which men engage with gender equality. At this juncture, the essay needs to address this question.

Debates about gender equality refer to the asymmetrical power balance experienced between men and women due to differences in their gendered identities. [29] On this, Peterson and Runyan contend that:

‘… the social construction of gender is actually a system of power that not only divides men and women as masculine and feminine but typically also places men and masculinity above women and femininity and operates to value more highly those institutions and practices that are male dominated and/or representative of masculine traits and styles’. [30]

This is a contemporary analysis of modern gender constructs and the relations between the sexes, yet the idea of gender equality has been a major international principle of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [31] Despite this, Grossman and McClain argue that progress towards achieving gender equality have failed to substantially materialise, and that there still exists ‘… a stark gap between formal commitments to the equal rights and responsibilities of men and women and against discrimination and subordination based on sex the gendered realities of women’s lives’. [32]

The term ‘gender equality’, when deconstructed in isolation, unveils fundamental problems. Some argue the term is a paradox; gender is a system based on difference, and thus could never transform into a state of equivalence. [33] Parvikko frames equality ‘… as a concept which obscures differences’, and states that in contemporary liberal political thought, equality and difference are incommensurate. [34] Such difficulties in the application of the term have resulted in some people proclaiming that gender equality should be considered a discourse rather than a fixed term. This approach is much more constructive, as it recognises gender equality as a fluid concept that responds to the unique requirements of specific contexts. [35] Gender equality has many variants and interpretations, such as formal substantive equality. [36] This essay will consider equality as a system that facilitates equal opportunity. As echoed by men and women across all continents, in the World Development Report conducted by The World Bank, gender equality was seen to encompass three key elements: ‘the accumulation of endowments (education, health, and physical assets); the use of those endowments to take up economic opportunity and generate incomes; and the application of those endowments to take actions, or agency , affecting individual and household well-being’. [37] This is not an exhaustive list of what constitutes gender equality, but it provides a solid foundation for what it should entail. With this in mind, the essay will now discuss the relationship between masculinity and gender equality.

Gender is an organising principle of social life, and change towards equality will require exceptional institutional and gender identity reform. [38] Realising gender equality is strongly weighted on the contribution of males, because ‘… the very gender inequalities in economic assets, political power, cultural authority, and means of coercion that gender reform intend to change (ultimately) mean that men control most of the resources required to implement women’s claims for justice’. [39] In Australia, men make up the overwhelming majority of key decision-makers. In 2012, women comprised only 26.5% of Federal Parliament, and in the private sector constituted approximately 10% of company board members and 24.7% of managers. [40] Thus, men are an essential enabler for gender reform. Masculinities and male stereotypes must be studied and deconstructed in order to effect change in how men relate to women.

Stereotypes, or gender profiles, play an important role in the discussion of gender equality. They attribute certain characteristics to whole segments of society with the intention of presenting perception as truth. [41] In relation to gender, stereotypes form the basis of how society believes men and women should act. The scale to which gender stereotypes impact society is articulated by Epstein who argues:

‘no aspect of social life — whether the gathering of crops, the ritual of religion, the formal dinner party, or the organisation of government — is free from the dichotomous thinking that casts the world in categories of “male” and “female”‘. [42]

Gender stereotypes are inherently political; they can be used as tools for manipulating power relations between men and women. They are naturalised within society through a process of reproduction and maintenance. To this end, gender stereotypes become ‘… self-fulfilling: if we expect certain behaviours, we may act in ways that in fact create and reinforce such behaviours’. [43]

Masculinities, as is the case with femininities for women, are socially constructed gender profiles under which men are categorised. However, they are not created equal. For men, there is ‘… a culturally preferred version that is held up as the model against which we [men] are to measure ourselves’. [44] The dominant model to which men must aspire is what Connell describes as hegemonic masculinity. It is a location within the male gender hierarchy that occupies the hegemonic, or top position. [45] However, hegemonic masculinity is not a fixed position, and occupying the position is contestable. Masculinity can be viewed as a social order that lends analysis and structure from Gramsci’s notion of class relations. As such, hegemonic masculinity retains the dominant position of social life, while other masculinities, such as homosexual masculinity, [46] and women are subordinated. [47] The current, and historical, occupier of this hegemonic position is traditional masculinity, which:

‘… refers to the stereotypical twentieth-century male-chauvinist outlook and activities resulting from the kinds of gender socialisation conventionally seen as appropriate to males in Western societies since at least the late Victorian times’. [48]

An example of how gender stereotypes are cultivated in society, and how hegemonic masculinity is highly valued, is in New Zealand where some schools are pressured to employ male teachers. The rationale for this is to preserve boys’ masculinity through the appointment of ‘real men’ teachers who exhibit characteristics consistent with hegemonic masculinity. [49]

Men who exhibit the traits of traditional masculinity are considered to possess hegemonic masculinity. In order to aspire to this social classification, there is a particular set of core features that a man must demonstrate. These include: power/strength, rationality, heterosexuality, risk-taking, dominance, leadership, control, and repression of emotions. [50] Given that identities, and indeed gender profiles, must be defined, reconstructed, and performed, it is argued that the construction of masculine identities by men is a conscious attempt to maintain their power within the gender hierarchy. [51] This may be true in some cases, however, to apply this universally is problematic. New contends that while ‘men are frequently the agents of the oppression of women, and in many cases benefit from it, their interests in the gender order are not pre-given but constructed by and within it’. [52] To achieve gender equality, it must be recognised that hegemonic masculinities can be altered, or even replaced, through the socialisation process from which they are initially constructed.

Public and private engagement with gender equality is scarce among males, which often obscures the issue and manifests dismissive attitudes. One of the main issues regarding gender equality is that men do not comprehensively understand how traditional masculinities disadvantage women. Many men are unaware they exist within socially constructed gender structures that disenfranchise subordinated gender profiles, and therefore do not recognise a problem. [53] Thus, engaging in discussion about gender equality is often a pointless experience for men who find it challenging to appreciate how entrenched the issue is in society. Fortunately, attitudes, and the gender profiles they are associated with, are subject to social construction and transformation. Christian argues that:

‘sexist attitudes and actions are currently an integral part of the dominant masculinity, but if masculinities are socially constructed by and for each generation of males growing up, rather than genetically inherited, then masculinities can change and sexism can in principle be eradicated’. [54]

However, social construction and indeed, deconstruction, is contingent upon the participation of relevant stakeholders. The supportive involvement of all those affected by gender is required to effect gender equality. In other words, the global community as a whole.

Worldwide, Plan International found three general categories for men’s attitudes towards gender equality: those who recognise gender inequality and seek to address it — the smallest group; those who acknowledge gender inequality but are afraid that empowering girls will come at the expense of boys; and, those who either do not perceive an imbalance, or do not believe in equal rights — the largest group. [55] The significance of this research highlights the overwhelming percentage of men who do not recognise a problem, or do not believe in equal opportunity. These attitudes present a considerable hurdle in reaching gender equality, as they are taught to children and carried on through the generations. A research program commissioned by Plan of over 4,000 adolescent children in different countries including the United Kingdom (UK), Rwanda, and India, found that: 83% of boys and 87% of girls in India and 67% of girls and 71% of boys in Rwanda agree with the statement ‘changing diapers, giving kids a bath and feeding kids are the mother’s responsibility’. More than 60% of participants agreed that ‘if resources are scarce it is better to educate a boy instead of a girl’ and 65% of children in Rwanda and India agreed that ‘a woman should tolerate violence in order to keep her family together’. [56] While this research was conducted among a limited sample, it highlights the startling reality of gender inequality and the continuity of male dominance.

One of the major principles of traditional masculinity that harms gender equality is that women are fundamentally inferior to men. This view can be traced back to the Greek philosopher Aristotle, who based this claim on the principles of reason. He surmised that ‘masculinity was equated with the human rationality of men, and women were marked by sexuality, emotion, and their bodies’. [57] The notion that men are intellectually superior has already been disproved; however, what Aristotle articulates about women and their bodies remains relevant. According to the French feminist philosopher, Beauvoir, men consider humanity to be constructed in their image: ‘it is clear that in dreaming of himself as donor, liberator, redeemer, man still desires the subjection of women’. [58] This idea of male superiority and female inferiority is one that must be maintained by traditional masculinity if it is to occupy the hegemonic gender identity. Attitudes that stem from traditional masculinity, such as ‘… the notion that “real men” are tough and hard and that the only appropriate emotion for them to display is anger’, [59] present a significant barrier towards gender equality.

Due to the fact that traditional masculinity discourages the expression of emotion, men rarely discuss their feelings. Evidence of this is presented in the positive relationship between traditional masculinity and depression among male university students in the UK and United States. It was ‘… found that conformity to Western masculine norms in and of itself is a risk factor for developing depression’. [60] Men compound the issue of depression by aligning with traditional masculinity. Hanninen and Valkonen argue that the principles of masculinity inhibit the expression of weakness or emotional distress and the seeking of help to remedy it. [61] In addition, analysis into the individual accounts of men’s depression ‘… reveals how depression threatened a man’s masculine identity and how recovery presupposed reconstructing one’s self-image and masculinity’. [62] This identifies a lack of openness to change in traditional masculinity. In other words, traditional masculinity is not equipped to respond to challenges that threaten its integrity, such as depression (perceived as emotional weakness) and gender equality.

Changing or altering traditional masculinity should be more widely recognised as an important step towards realising gender equality. In light of this, some gender equality advocate groups around the world have identified the need to promote masculinities that are more conducive of change. MenEngage is a group for boys and men whose primary function is to advocate for equality between males and females. [63] To this end, they have identified that ‘… questioning men’s and women’s attitudes and expectations about gender roles is crucial to achieving gender equality’. Those who acknowledge the existence of gender equality, and seek to address it, agree that equality cannot progress without the contribution of males. [64] It is increasingly evident that the deconstruction of traditional masculinity presents a primary concern, as its uncompromising nature makes it less responsive to revolution. [65]

By encouraging males to become more open and discuss their masculinities, it is possible to educate them on how their social roles and responsibilities impact women. Developing male attitudes towards open acknowledgement of the gender profiles they operate within is an important step in reaching gender equality. The absence of such progress would only serve to maintain the ‘… disempowerment of girls and young women down the generations — and the restriction of boys and young men to traditional “male roles”’. [66] Efforts in this approach to gender equality have yielded that: according to the United Nations Population Fund, boys that grow up with positive male role models are found to be more critical towards negative gender stereotypes and inequalities; men who maintain a healthy engagement with their children are less inclined to be depressed, suicidal or violent; and, boys that have more engaging fathers are less inclined to exhibit risky sexual behaviour. [67] Latin American NGOs also found similar character traits in young men who supported gender equality. These similarities included: having a peer-group or group of friends that were more accepting of gender-equitable attitudes; having personally suffered the negative impacts of traditional masculinity such as domestic violence; and, having a positive adult role model that represented an alternative to traditional gender roles. [68] This indicates that positive, nurturing, and engaging character traits exhibited by males are constructive towards gender equality. Furthermore, this suggests that gender equality is achievable through the deconstruction of traditional masculinity as the hegemonic masculinity.

Male stereotypes affect the manner in which males engage with gender equality, and traditional masculinity acts as the dominant masculinity for men. Although different masculinities exist for men, the idea of traditional masculinity remains the most influential. Realising gender equality is difficult, because the fundamental characteristics exhibited by traditional masculinity defend against change. For global gender equality to progress, males must recognise themselves as fundamental actors and actively work to change the patriarchal structures, which benefit them to the exclusion of all others. Without the supportive contribution of males, gender equality is doomed to perpetuate existing power imbalances that favour traditional masculinity. To progress towards gender equality, efforts must be made to deconstruct traditional masculinity.

[1] R. W. Connell, Masculinities , 2 nd ed. (Australia: Allen & Unwin, 2005), p. 67.

[2] M. Hughs and P. Paxton, Women, Politics, and Power: A Global Perspective , 2 nd ed. (London: SAGE Publications, Inc., 2014), pp. 24-25.

[3] D. Zimmerman and C. West, ‘Doing Gender’, in A. Aronson and M.Kimmel (eds.), The Gendered Society Reader , 5 th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), p. 122.

[4] V. S. Peterson and A. Runyan, Global Gender Issues (Oxford: Westview Press, 1993), p. 17.

[5] Zimmerman and West, op. cit. (2014), p. 122.

[6] Peterson and Runyan, op. cit. (1993), p. 17.

[7] H. Christian, The Making of Anti-Sexist Men (London: Routledge, 1994), p. 6.

[8] M. Gatens, Feminism and Philosophy: Perspectives on Difference and Equality (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991), p. 102.

[9] Connell, op. cit. (2005), pp. 8-9.

[10] D. Britzman, ‘Psychoanalytic Theory’, in Encyclopaedia of Curriculum Studies (Online: Sage Publications, Inc., 2010), p. 693.

[11] Gatens, op. cit. (1991), p. 103.

[12] S. Goldberg, ‘Feminism Against Science’, National Review, vol. 43, no. 21 (1991), p. 30.

[13] A. Moir and D. Jessel, Brain Sex: the real difference between men and women (London: Mandarin, 1997), p. 6.

[14] D. Halpern, Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities, 4 th ed. (New York: Psychology Press, 2012), pp. 97-98.

[15] Connell, op. cit. (2005), p. 21.

[16] J. Ashfield, The Making of a Man: reclaiming masculinity and manhood in the light of reason, 2 nd ed. (Australia: Peacock Publications, 2004), p. 154.

[17] G. Wilson, The Great Sex Divide (Washington, D.C.: Scott-Townsend Publishers, 1992), p. 20.

[18] Ibid., p. 19.

[20] G. Sharwell, ‘Review of Deceptive Distinctions: Sex, Gender, and the Social Order by Cynthia Fuchs Epstein; A Woman’s Wage: Historical Meanings and Social Consequences by Alice Kessler-Harris’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences , vol. 517 (1991), p. 229.

[21] D. Seligman, ‘Gender Mender’, Forbes (41998), available online: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1998/0406/6107072a.html (accessed 22 October 2013).

[22] Connell, op. cit. (2005), p. 21.

[23] Halpern, op. cit. (2012), p. 96.

[24] Gatens, op. cit. (1991), p. 100.

[25] Halpern, op. cit. (2012), p. 96.

[26] N. Gaitanidis, ‘Benign Masculinity and Critical Reason’, Psychotherapy and Politics International , vol. 10, no. 3 (2012), p. 220.

[27] M. Kimmel, ‘Introduction’, in A. Aronson and M. Kimmel (eds.), The Gendered Society Reader, 5 th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), p. 1.

[28] Ibid, p. 2.

[29] World Bank, World Development Report 2012: Gender Equality and Development (Washington D.C.: The World Bank, 2012), p. 4.

[30] Peterson and Runyan, op. cit. (1993), p. 18.

[31] R. Connell, Confronting equality: gender, knowledge and global change (UK: Polity Press, 2011), p. 15.

[32] J. Grossman and L. McClain (eds.), Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women’s Equal Citizenship (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011), p. 1.

[33] J. Flax, ‘Gender Equality’, in M. Horowitz (ed.), New Dictionary of the History of Ideas (Detroit: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2005), p. 701.

[34] T. Parvikko, ‘Conceptions of Gender Equality: Similarity and Difference’, in E. Meehan and S. Sevenhuijsen (eds.), Equality Politics and Gender (London: SAGE Publications, Inc., 1991), p. 36.

[35] C. Bacchi, ‘Review of Promblematizing “Gender Equality” by Magnusson, Eva, Malin Ronnblom and Harriet Silius, eds,’ Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research , vol. 17, no. 4 (2009), p. 304.

[36] Parvikko, op. cit. (1991), p. 48.

[37] World Bank, op. cit. (2012), p. 4.

[38] Connell, op. cit. (2011), p. 17.

[40] Department of Social Services, ‘Background Paper: ‘The role of men and boys in gender equality’ (2013), available online: http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/our-responsibilities/women/programs-services/international-engagement/united-nations-commission-on-the-status-of-women/background-paper-the-role-of-men-and-boys-in-gender-equality (accessed 21 October 2013).

[41] Peterson and Runyan, op. cit. (1994), p. 21.

[42] C. Epstein, Deceptive Distinctions (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), p. 232.

[43] Peterson and Yunyan, op. cit. (1994), p. 22.

[44] Kimmel, op. cit. (2014), p. 4.

[45] Connell, op. cit. (2005), p. 76.

[46] Homosexual masculinity is considered to be a gender profile that is subordinated in relation to the hegemonic masculinity. — R. Connell, ‘A Very Straight Gay: Masculinity, Homosexual Experience, and the Dynamics of Gender’, American Sociological Review, vol. 57, no. 6 (1992), p. 735-737.

[47] Christian, op. cit. (1994), p. 7; and Connell, op. cit. (2005), p. 77.

[48] Christian, op. cit. (1994), p. 7.

[49] J. Clarke and P. Cushman, ‘Masculinities and Femininities: Student-Teachers Changing Perceptions of Gender Advantages and Disadvantages in the New Zealand Primary School Environment’, in J. Aston and E. Vasquez (eds.), Masculinity and Femininity: Stereotypes/myths, Psychology and Role of Culture (New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc., 2013), p. 2.

[50] H. Mansfield, Manliness (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), p. 23; and Clarke and Cushman, op. cit. (2013), p. 2.

[51] D. Collison and J. Hearn. 1996. ‘”Men” at “work”: multiple masculinities/multiple workplaces’, in M. Mac an Ghaill (ed.), Understanding Masculinities: Social Relations and Cultural Arenas (Buckingham: Open University Press, 1996), p. 65.

[52] New as quoted in O. G. Holter, ‘Social Theories for Researching Men and Masculinities: Direct Gender Hierarchy and Structural Inequality’, in R.W. Connell, J. Hearn and M. Kimmel (eds.), Handbook of Studies on Men and Masculinities (Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc., 2005), p. 15.

[53] Department of Social Services, op. cit. (2013).

[54] Christian, op. cit. (1994), pp. 7-8.

[55] IRIN, ‘Gender Equality: Why involving men is crucial’ (2011), available online: http://www.irinnews.org/report/93870/gender-equality-why-involving-men-is-crucial (accessed 18 October 2013).

[56] Plan, Because I am a Girl: The State of the World’s Girls 2011 – So, what about boys? (Plan International, 2011), p. 3.

[57] J. Gardner, ‘Men, Masculinities, and Feminist Theory’, in R.W. Connell, J. Hearn and M. Kimmel (eds.), Handbook of Studies on Men and Masculinities (Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc., 2005), p. 36.

[58] S. de Beauvoir and H. Parshley (trans. ed.), The Second Sex (New York: Bantam Books, 1968), p. 172.

[59] Plan, op. cit. (2011), p. 4.

[60] J. Oliffe et al., 2010. ‘Masculinities and college men’s depression: Recursive relationships’, Health Sociology Review, vol. 19, no. 4 (2010), p. 466.

[61] V. Hanninen and J. Valkonen, ‘Narratives of Masculinity and Depression’, Men and Masculinities , vol. 16 (2012), p. 161.

[62] Ibid, pp. 161-162.

[63] MenEngage, ‘What we believe’ (2008), available online: http://www.menengage.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12:what-we-believe&catid=4:about-us&Itemid=10 (accessed 20 October 2013).

[65] Mansfield, op. cit. (2006), pp. 31-32.

[66] IRIN, op. cit. (2011).

[67] Plan, op. cit. (2012), p. 4.

[68] V. Fonseca et al., ‘Program H and Program M: Engaging young men and empowering young women to promote gender equality and health’ (2010), available online: http://www.promundo.org.br/en/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/OPASINGLES_WEB.pdf (accessed 21 October 2013).

— Written by: Aydon Edwards Written at: University of Queensland Written for: Dr. Samid Suliman Date written: November 2013

Further Reading on E-International Relations

• How Does Hegemonic Masculinity Influence Wartime Sexual Violence?
• Gender Quotas: Towards an Improved Democracy
• Trump‘24 or Before: Militias and the Marketplace of Masculinity
• The Impotent Man: How Constructed UK/EU Gender Identities Legitimised Brexit
• The Gendered Dimensions of Anti-Nuclear Weapons Policy
• Re-Framing Gender Relations in Conflict Settings: UNSCR 1325 in Sierra Leone

Please Consider Donating

Before you download your free e-book, please consider donating to support open access publishing.

E-IR is an independent non-profit publisher run by an all volunteer team. Your donations allow us to invest in new open access titles and pay our bandwidth bills to ensure we keep our existing titles free to view. Any amount, in any currency, is appreciated. Many thanks!

Donations are voluntary and not required to download the e-book - your link to download is below.

What is masculinity?

• Original Research
• Published: 15 September 2023
• Volume 202 , article number  101 , ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Matthew Andler 1  

819 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This paper initiates analytic inquiry into the metaphysics of masculinity. I argue that individual masculinities (such as clone masculinity and incel masculinity ) are distinct homeostatic property cluster kinds related to gender structures via processes of adherence, failed-adherence, selective adherence, and/or reinterpretation with respect to male-coded social norms

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Positive Masculinity: Including Masculinity as a Valued Aspect of Humanity

Contemporary Masculinities in the UK and the US: Between Bodies and Systems

What Threatens, Defines: Tracing the Symbolic Boundaries of Contemporary Masculinity

Data availability.

I do not analyze or generate any datasets. All referenced texts are publicly available.

P. Carl, Becoming a Man (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2020 ), p. 75.

See R. A. Briggs & B. R. George, What Even Is Gender? (Routledge: London, 2023 ); Robin Dembroff, “Beyond Binary: Genderqueer as Critical Gender Kind, Philosophers’ Imprint ( 2020 ); Katharine Jenkins, “Toward an Account of Gender Identity,” Ergo ( 2018 ); Talia Mae Bettcher, “Trans Identities and First-Person Authority,” in You’ve Changed”: Sex Reassignment and Personal Identity , ed. Laurie J. Shrage (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009 ).

For related normative discussion, see esp. Olúfẹmi Táíwò, “Stoicism (as Emotional Compression) is Emotional Labor,” Feminist Philosophy Quarterly ( 2020 ).

See R.W. Connell, Masculinities (University of California Press: Berkeley and Los Angeles, 2005 ), p. 76.

See Amia Srinivasan, The Right to Sex: Feminism in the Twenty-First Century (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2021 ), pp. 73–91.

Richard Boyd, “Homeostasis, Species, and Higher Taxa” in Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays , ed. R.A. Wilson (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1999 ), p. 143.

Here I remain agnostic about the causal non-redundancy of homeostatic property cluster kinds. Instead, I focus on the theoretical role of masculinity concepts in explanation and induction. For discussion of explanatory kinds in the context of social ontology, see Sally Haslanger, “Theorizing with a Purpose: The Many Kinds of Sex,” in Natural Kinds and Classification in Scientific Practice , ed. Catherine Kendig (New York: Routledge, 2016), pp. 129-132. See also Richard Boyd, “Homeostasis, Species, and Higher Taxa,” in Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays , 143.

Thanks to Ross Cameron for the example.

See Richard Boyd, “Homeostasis, Species, and Higher Taxa,” in Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays , pp. 164–168; Robert Wilson, Matthew Barker, and Ingo Brigandt, “When Traditional Essentialism Fails: Biological Natural Kinds,” Philosophical Topics (2007), pp. 202–204. Note that I don’t endorse any particular theory of species in the context of this paper.

Ibid., p. 202.

Catalogue of Life, Certhidea fusca , www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/T4V2 .

Robert Wilson, Matthew Barker, and Ingo Brigandt, “When Traditional Essentialism Fails: Biological Natural Kinds,” Philosophical Topics , p. 202.

Ibid., pp. 202–3.

Ibid., p. 203.

Peter Grant, Ecology and Evolution of Darwin’s Finches (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2017), pp. 116–117.

The specification to biological class is important because instantiating the property being an eater of small arthropods and nectar doesn’t universally create conditions favorable to instantiating the property being small beaked . Birds who eat small arthropods and nectar tend to have sharp beaks as opposed to hooked beaks or short beaks.

Peter Grant, Ecology and Evolution of Darwin’s Finches (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2017), pp. 364–371. Furthermore: “Geographical variation in warbler finch colors may possibly be adaptively related to geographical variation in the colors of the dry season vegetation in which they feed,” ibid., p. 374.

For example, Ron Mallon argues that social kinds are homeostatic property cluster kinds in which property co-occurrence is due to complex patterns of representational activity among individuals, see Ron Mallon, The Construction of Human Kinds (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), pp. 92–93. While I expect that Mallon would agree that masculinities are homeostatic property cluster kinds, I emphasize that a theory of masculinity needs to explain why certain social kinds such as incel masculinity are masculinities, as opposed to other social kinds. Section (§2) provides a candidate explanation.

David M. Halperin, “How to Do the History of Male Homosexuality,” Gay and Lesbian Quarterly ( 2000 ), p. 93.

See Natalie Coulter, “Selling the Male Consumer the Playboy Way,” Popular Communication (2014), p. 144.

Ibid., p. 147.

Ibid., p. 149.

There are several reasons to avoid directly quoting this sort of content, but I cite the following as a characteristic tweet (accessed May 2023) that has been viewed over half a million times: https://twitter.com/DanBilzerian/status/1642915650212605954?s=20

On this point, I follow Erin Beeghly, who argues that it is permissible, under certain conditions, to make predictions on the basis of group membership; see Erin Beeghly, “Failing to Treat Persons as Individuals,” Ergo ( 2018 ), pp. 697–700; Erin Beeghly, “What is a Stereotype? What is Stereotyping?” Hypatia (2015), pp. 686–688. For further discussion of identity-based social cognition, see Carolina Flores and Elisabeth Camp, “‘That’s All You Really Are’: Centering Identities without Essentialist Beliefs,” in Mind, Language, and Social Hierarchy (Oxford University Press, forthcoming).

Martin P. Levine, Gay Macho: The Life and Death of the Homosexual Clone (New York University Press: New York and London, 1998 ), 62. For related philosophical discussion, see Matthew Andler, “Queer and Straight,” in The Routledge Handbook of the Philosophy of Sex and Sexuality , eds. Clare Chambers, Brian Earp, and Lori Watson (New York: Routledge, 2022).

Instead of ‘being disposed to recognize members of the kind clone masculinity as members of the kind clone masculinity ’, which would quickly become unwieldy, I’ll use phrases such as ‘being disposed to recognize members of the clone kind’.

Martin P. Levine, Gay Macho: The Life and Death of the Homosexual Clone (New York University Press: New York and London, 1998 ), pp. 58–65.

Ibid., p. 39.

Ibid., p. 70.

Ibid., p. 75.

Ibid., pp. 71–73.

For discussion of camp as a response to marginalization, see José Esteban Muñoz, Disidentifications: Queers of Color and the Performance of Politics (University of Minnesota Press: London, 1999 ), pp. 128–135.

Sally Haslanger, “Systemic and Structural Injustice: Is There a Difference?” Philosophy ( 2023 ), pp. 3–4.

See Robin Zheng, “What is My Role in Changing the System? A New Model of Responsibility for Structural Injustice,” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice ( 2018 ), pp. 873–875.

Margaret Robinson, “Two-Spirit Identity in a Time of Gender Fluidity,” Journal of Homosexuality ( 2020 ), p. 1678.

Ibid., p. 1679.

See Sally Haslanger, “Gender and Race: (What) Are They? (What) Do We Want Them to Be,” in Resisting Reality : Social Construction and Social Critique , pp. 227–235. My point here is neither about the nature of gender identity nor the meaning of natural language terms such as ‘woman’ but rather the membership conditions of social positions in binary gender structures; for related discussion, see Elizabeth Barnes, “Gender and Gender Terms,” Noûs ( 2020 ), pp. 711–713.

See Maria Lugones, “The Coloniality of Gender” in The Palgrave Handbook on Gender and Development , ed. Wendy Harcourt (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016 ), pp. 27–32.

See Debbie Ging, “Alphas, Betas, and Incels: Theorizing the Masculinities of the Manosphere,” Men and Masculinities ( 2019 ), pp. 11–12.

Martin P. Levine, Gay Macho: The Life and Death of the Homosexual Clone (New York University Press: New York and London, 1998 ), p. 29.

The concept of disidentification is from José Esteban Muñoz, Disidentifications: Queers of Color and the Performance of Politics (University of Minnesota Press: London, 1999).

Ibid., pp. 11–12.

For readers not yet familiar with butch expression, here is a description from Gayle Rubin: “ Butch is the lesbian vernacular term for women who are more comfortable with masculine gender codes, styles, or identities than with feminine ones. The term encompasses individuals with a broad range of investments in ‘masculinity.’ It includes, for example, women who are not at all interested in male gender identities, but who use traits associated with masculinity to signal their lesbianism or to communicate their desire to engage in the kinds of active or initiatory sexual behaviors that in this society are allowed or expected from men,” see Gayle Rubin, “Of Catamites and Kings: Reflections of Butch, Gender, and Boundaries,” in The Transgender Studies Reader , eds. Susan Stryker and Stephen Whittle (New York: Routledge, 2006 ), p. 472.

Jack Halberstam, Female Masculinity (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 1998 ), pp. 1 and 9.

Ibid., p. 276.

Jennifer McKitrick, “A Dispositional Account of Gender,” Philos Stud ( 2015 ), p. 2581.

Ibid., pp. 2586–2587.

See ibid., pp. 2582–2585.

Martin P. Levine, Gay Macho: The Life and Death of the Homosexual Clone (New York University Press: New York and London, 1998 ), p. 66.

Ibid., 62. For related discussion, see Nicholas O. Rule, “Perceptions of Sexual Orientation from Minimal Cues,” Archives of Sexual Behavior (2017).

See R.W. Connell, Masculinities (University of California Press: Berkeley and Los Angeles, 2005 ); R.W. Connell and James Messerschmidt, “Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept,” Gender and Society ( 2005 ).

R. W. Connell, Masculinities (University of California Press: Berkeley and Los Angeles, 2005 ), p. 77.

Ibid., pp. 71 and 72.

See ibid., p. 75.

Ibid., p. 164.

Ibid. pp. 180–181.

Tommy J. Curry, The Man-Not: Race, Class, Genre, and the Dilemmas of Black Manhood (Temple University Press: Philadelphia, 2017 ), pp. 211–217.

Tommy J. Curry, “Decolonizing the Intersection: Black Male Studies as a Critique of Intersectionality’s Indebtedness to Subculture of Violence Theory” in Critical Psychology Praxis: Psychosocial non-alignment to modernity/coloniality , ed. Robert Beshara (New York: Routledge, 2021 ), p. 150. Thanks to Lionel K. McPherson for the reference.

R. W. Connell, Masculinities (University of California Press: Berkeley and Los Angeles, 2005 ), p. 67.

Richard V. Reeves, Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male Is Struggling, Why It Matters, and What to Do about It (Washington, D.C., 2022 ), p. 122.

Andler, M. (2022). Queer and straight. In C. Chambers, B. Earp, & L. Watson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of the philosophy of sex and sexuality (pp. 117–130). Routledge.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Barnes, E. (2020). Gender and gender terms. Noûs, 54 (3), 704–730.

Article   Google Scholar  

Beeghly, E. (2018). Failing to treat persons as individuals. Ergo, 5 (26), 687–711.

Google Scholar  

Beeghly, E. (2015). What is a stereotype? What is stereotyping? Hypatia, 30 (4), 675–691.

Bettcher, T. M. (2009). Trans identities and first-person authority. In L. J. Shrage (Ed.), “You’ve changed”: Sex reassignment and personal identity (pp. 98–120). Oxford University Press.

Boyd, R. (1999). Homeostasis, species, and higher taxa. In R. A. Wilson (Ed.), Species: New interdisciplinary essays (pp. 141–185). MIT Press.

Briggs, R. A., & George, B. R. (2023). What even is gender? Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

Carl, P. (2020). Becoming a man . Simon and Schuster.

Catalogue of Life. Certhidea fusca , www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/T4V2 .

Connell, R. W. (2005). Masculinities . University of California Press.

Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender and Society, 19 (6), 829–859.

Coulter, N. (2014). Selling the male consumer the Playboy way. Popular Communication, 12 (3), 139–152.

Curry, T. J. (2021). Decolonizing the intersection: Black male studies as a critique of intersectionality’s indebtedness to subculture of violence theory. In R. Beshara (Ed.), Critical psychology praxis: Psychosocial non-alignment to modernity/coloniality (pp. 132–154). Routledge.

Curry, T. J. (2017). The man-not: Race, class, genre, and the dilemmas of black manhood . Temple University Press.

Dembroff, R. (2020). Beyond binary: Genderqueer as critical gender kind. Philosophers’ Imprint, 20 (9), 1–23.

Flores, C., & Camp, E. (forthcoming). “That’s all you really are”: Centering identities without essentialist beliefs. In S. Haslanger, et al. (Eds.), Mind, language, and social hierarchy . Oxford University Press.

Ging, D. (2019). Alphas, betas, and incels: Theorizing the masculinities of the manosphere. Men and Masculinities, 22 (4), 638–657.

Grant, P. (2017). Ecology and evolution of Darwin’s finches . Princeton University Press.

Halberstam, J. (1998). Female masculinity . Duke University Press.

Halperin, D. (2020). How to do the history of male homosexuality. Gay and Lesbian Quarterly, 6 (1), 87–123.

Haslanger, S. (2023). Systemic and structural injustice: Is there a difference? Philosophy, 98 (1), 1–27.

Haslanger, S. (2016). Theorizing with a purpose: The many kinds of sex. In C. Kendig (Ed.), Natural kinds and classification in scientific practice (pp. 129–144). Routledge.

Haslanger, S. (2012). Gender and race: (What) are they? (What) do we want them to be? In S. Haslanger (Ed.), Resisting reality: Social construction and social critique (pp. 221–247). Oxford University Press.

Jenkins, K. (2019). Toward an account of gender identity. Ergo, 5 (27), 713–744.

Levine, M. P. (1998). Gay macho: The life and death of the homosexual clone . New York University Press.

Lugones, M. (2016). The coloniality of gender. In W. Harcourt (Ed.), The Palgrave handbook on gender and development (pp. 13–33). Palgrave Macmillan.

Mallon, R. (2016). The construction of human kinds . Oxford University Press.

McKitrick, J. (2015). A dispositional account of gender. Philosophical Studies, 172 (10), 2575–2589.

Muñoz, J. E. (1999). Disidentifications: Queers of color and the performance of politics . University of Minnesota Press.

Reeves, R. V. (2022). Of boys and men: Why the modern male is struggling, why it matters, and what to do about it . Brookings Institution Press.

Robinson, M. (2020). Two-spirit identity in a time of gender fluidity. Journal of Homosexuality, 67 (12), 1675–1690.

Rubin, G. (2006). Of catamites and kings: Reflections of butch, gender, and boundaries. In S. Stryker & S. Whittle (Eds.), The transgender studies reader (pp. 471–481). Routledge.

Rule, N. O. (2017). Perceptions of sexual orientation from minimal cues. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46 (1), 129–139.

Srinivasan, A. (2021). The right to sex: Feminism in the twenty-first century . Farrar.

Táíwò, O. (2020). Stoicism (as emotional compression) is emotional labor. Feminist Philosophy Quarterly, 6 (2), 1–25.

Wilson, R., Barker, M., & Brigandt, I. (2007). When traditional essentialism fails: Biological natural kinds. Philosophical Topics, 35 (1/2), 189–215.

Zheng, R. (2018). What is my role in changing the system? A new model of responsibility for structural injustice. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 21 (4), 869–885.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Saint Louis University - Madrid Campus, Madrid, Spain

Matthew Andler

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew Andler .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest in my submission of this manuscript to Synthese .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Andler, M. What is masculinity?. Synthese 202 , 101 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-023-04296-y

Download citation

Received : 22 July 2022

Accepted : 02 August 2023

Published : 15 September 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-023-04296-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Masculinity
• Social ontology
• Feminist metaphysics
• Sexual orientation
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Home — Essay Samples — Literature — Macbeth — Exploring Masculinity in Shakespeare’s Macbeth

Exploring Masculinity in Shakespeare's Macbeth

• Categories: Macbeth

About this sample

Words: 651 |

Published: Jun 13, 2024

Words: 651 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Introduction

Body paragraph.

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

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

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

• Expert in: Literature

+ 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

2 pages / 769 words

2 pages / 933 words

9 pages / 3024 words

2.5 pages / 1200 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

Related Essays on Macbeth

Shakespeare's tragedy, Macbeth, delves into the consequences of ambition and the moral dilemmas that arise when one chooses to pursue power at any cost. The famous line "What's done is done" encapsulates the central theme of the [...]

In the world-renowned play "Macbeth" by William Shakespeare, the characters of Macbeth and Banquo play pivotal roles in the unfolding of the tragic events that transpire. These two characters serve as contrasting figures, with [...]

The play, Macbeth is a tragedy that explores the theme of appearance versus reality. Throughout the play, characters often deceive one another, leading to tragic consequences. This theme is central to the play and can be seen [...]

The play features a series of betrayals and acts of deceit that drive the plot and lead to the tragic downfall of the characters. This essay will explore the role of deceit and deception in the play, analyzing how it contributes [...]

In William Shakespeare's play Macbeth, ambition is a central theme that drives the actions of the characters and ultimately leads to their downfall. The play explores the dangerous consequences of unchecked ambition, [...]

In the realm of tragedy, few characters are as fascinating and complex as Macbeth. Shakespeare's play, Macbeth, tells the tale of a noble warrior who succumbs to his own ambition and ultimately meets a tragic demise. Macbeth can [...]

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