The Double Edged Sword of Hypermasculinity
Photo by Tristan Frank
The relationship between men, masculinity and violence is as tumultuous as it is enduring. Our penal institutions are bursting with young men—with men owning an almost total monopoly on violent offending in the prison population (around 96% in the UK, if you’re interested). Throughout our short history, numerous and various strategies have been employed to deal with men’s seemingly close relationship with violence—one of the most common tactics was the forced military conscription of men at their most ‘dangerous’ and ‘disruptive’ (typically in their late teens and early twenties), where they were removed from their communities.
The aggression and societal threat were thus removed (albeit temporarily) and instead sent off to some far-off land to be inflicted upon the unfortunate inhabitants there, where it was hoped they would grow out of this risk, or assumedly, not return at all.
Let’s not get ahead of ourselves though, let’s start with what gender is, then we can start to see the problem as it stands.
What is hypermasculinity and why should we care?
When iconic social scientists like Don Zimmerman talked about gender, they typically wrote about gender as something you do, as opposed to something you are inherently. Gender (in contrast to sex which is typically a biological designation) is revealed through our attitudes, our behaviour and the relationships we have with each other (e.g. division of labour).
Raewyn Connell with others helped conceptualize gender as a socially constructed spectrum of performance with extreme and potentially harmful presentations on either side of this imagined line of behaviour—coining the term of hegemonic/hypermasculinity. Men that define themselves on these extreme gendered edges tend to perform their identity with domination, aggression, more readily use forms of violence, engage in risk-taking behaviours, repress their emotions (the myth of the unfeeling stoic male) and tend to have more ‘traditional’ stereotypical views on gender roles. As performing gendered creatures, we are all placed upon this line somewhere, with some embodying more ‘traditional’ or ‘masculine’ attitudes than others.
What do we do with these extreme aspects of masculinity? Surely such attitudes go against social norms, where violence is rightly frowned upon and criminalized in most contexts.
There are already countless ‘constructive’ avenues that have been created for the socially acceptable expression or reduction of (let’s be honest) male aggression, from competitive martial arts to violent video games. Although if Steven Pinker is to be believed, women are one of the primary ways that male aggression is curtailed, referring to it as ‘the civilizing process’—the indirect but beneficial result of a stable family unit.
But what is worth digging down here, is what it is about men that causes so much apprehension?
Inherent in all men is the fear of violence, either actual or imagined. Regardless of their morals, faculties of reason and logic, the potential remains lurking like an awkward dinner guest, in the room, but not spoken to. Research around hypermasculinity can be an effective tool in not only understanding violence but also its underlying roots. In my experience, real-life examples are the best mode of learning so let’s take a look at some cases of what we in this area of research often referred to as ‘problematic’ masculinity.
What does hypermasculinity look like in action?
Let’s first take the instance of the warrior, the fighter, the modern-day soldier—a profession still emphatically male-dominated and one that has a total monopoly on ‘legitimate violence.’
Soldiers are praised for their resilience, their tolerance and minimisation of pain and hardship. They are trained to commit state-sanctioned acts of violence against other men and routinely engage in risk-taking behaviours —by any stretch of the imagination they embody a gender presentation that is far from typical or every day. Military life allows for the construction of a gendered identity of discipline, independence, domination and mental and physical toughness. Through the power of the institution, the individual can legitimatize this dominant form of masculinity. Provided the male remains within this context this aggression is not only tolerated but venerated in most societies, such traits are understood as entirely positive and performed as a service to the state.
The second example we find is the prison environment.
Prisons are spaces like no other, they can frequently be inhumane unforgiving environments that push inmates past their physical and psychological limits. They are extreme places in many respects and as a consequence often result in extreme presentations of behaviour, but just like any other, it has its own set of rules. It almost seems not worthy of discussion that crime and masculinity are intimately connected, but surprisingly there has been a lack of research explaining the masculine nature of crime. In David Maquire’s work Male, Failed, Jailed, he explores the role of gender within incarcerated individuals. Penal institutions provide unique sociological insights into the extreme presentations of gender, where ambiguity is rarely tolerated between inmates and a rigid code of conduct is required to regulate themselves in these carceral spaces. In his work, many of the men followed the now outdated ‘breadwinner’ model of masculinity, which meant that these men now lacked the necessary capital (e.g. economic, skills deficits, etc.), and they felt they had failed the ‘man test’ so they found other more aggressive ways to produce self-esteem (often criminal methods). For these men, violence became the primary way of gaining resources.
Hypermasculinity here provides an advantage to survival when incarcerated, where men create an exaggerated masculine public face that is carefully constructed to prevent victimization from other men.
How are these lessons useful for men today?
In the case of the soldier, it’s revealing to see what happens to these warriors when there is no longer an assigned war to fight and when their particular brand of man is no longer appropriate.
Such individuals who are willing and indeed taught to engage in risk and violence, emotional suppression, independence at all costs find themselves in a gendered conflict once discharged. According to the veteran charity, the British Legion, male soldiers are far more likely to experience homelessness and for longer periods than other populations due to their reluctance to seek help from services. They are also more likely to have experienced traumatic events while serving, have alcohol abuse problems following discharge due to poor help-seeking strategies and have mental health difficulties. The picture for hypermasculine male prisoners can also be equally as grim, as in prison they are unable to display emotion in public without the risk of attack—imagine for a moment not being able to mourn the death of a loved one.
Both groups suffer increased rates of suicide, and homelessness, which is also a problem for prisoners once released. What both of these examples show is how unpalatable these ideas are for incorporation in everyday life. Both prisoner and soldier masculinities are in a sense excluded from civilian life by their masculine ideas.
One of the most interesting things about these forms of gendered behaviour is the zero-sum nature of the game.
Violence and aggression often cut both ways—men that have been socialized into these extreme aspects of masculinity don’t just harm their victims but also themselves. Their lives are ruled by a constant fear of being exposed as vulnerable, as weak. Every day is another day they must prove their status or defend their unrealistic and unreachable sense of masculine honour before they are exposed as flawed and vulnerable just like everyone else. This ideology, and make no mistake masculinity is an ideology like any other, in some forms can harm every aspect of your life. Even many ‘non extreme’ men can struggle with emotional expression (myself included) which can often create difficulties in developing deep and meaningful relationships, a frustration many friends and partners can relate to.
I would argue that any man that incorporates problematic masculinity is engaging in a form of self-harm that reduces their health outcomes in all sorts of ways. We all know the depressingly high suicide rates of males due to their treatment resistance, but few realize the much wider poor health outcomes across the board for men, from cancer to heart disease to disease diagnosis. Few men introspect and try to challenge these internal ideas.
As a male researcher that studies gender one of the first things you notice when you are working in the field is the level of introspection you do about yourself, and your apparent limitations. We are all the result of the socialization we are exposed to and academics are no exception to this. Such extreme examples above may seem quite a contrast to the typical man (if that term means anything), however, we can all be host to countless unhelpful and problematic ideas concerning our masculinity and what we think it means to be a man.
Identity is not a predetermined part of ourselves, it can not only be questioned but can be changed, aspects that are no longer working can be replaced with attitudes that improve health and well-being. As a tool, we can use this understanding to challenge problematic gender ideas wherever we see them. This change starts with the men you know, with your friends and colleagues where your words carry the greatest weight. Ask them the honest questions: ‘Is this working for you?’ ‘Would you like to be closer to those you love?’ ‘Would you like to be able to respond differently than just with aggression?’ ‘Is this an appropriate way for a man to behave?’
If you feel they have acted in a misogynist way, ask them to justify it, approaching them in a curious but not judgmental way as any norm appears certain until questioned.
When we talk about risk and acts of directed violence, we need to frame it not in what the victim can or should do, but instead to expose negative masculinity wherever we see it while also promoting more positive, inclusive forms of masculinity.
From the Future of Masculinity weekly newsletter, where our community’s hearts and minds come together each week to do the work, tell the stories, and build the blueprint for a future where men and boys experience less pain and cause less harm.
Prior to being an academic, Anton Roberts was an experienced mentor working with children and young adults with severe psychological and behavioural barriers of one form or another. Through his decade long career in education, he became fascinated at how much of his (predominantly male) ‘hard to reach’ students were struggling with their identity as males and what that meant to them. This ignited his passion for gender and its potential for improving the well-being of those that perform it. This began first with his master’s degree in mental health, to his eventual journey as a PhD student and researcher based in Manchester in the UK. His area of research is hypermasculinity typically referred to as toxic masculinity in mainstream media – he looks at populations from prisoners, soldiers, extremists to rough sleepers. He also runs a research-based podcast called End of the World, which features academics from all over the world, covering all kinds of subjects and is free to all.
Anton can be reached on Twitter @social_nomad.