Defining Masculinity: Beyond Stereotypes

When someone says “be a man,” what exactly do they mean? Does it mean being tough and never showing emotion? Does it mean being the sole breadwinner? Or does it mean something entirely different depending on who is saying it, where, and when? The truth is, masculinity is not a fixed, universal idea. It is a concept shaped by culture, society, history, and personal experience. And once we understand that, we open the door to a much richer – and more honest – conversation about gender.

What is masculinity? 🔗

At its simplest, masculinity refers to the set of roles, behaviours, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for boys and men. According to the National Democratic Institute’s resource on masculinities, it is constructed socially, historically, and politically – rather than being driven by biology alone. We can think of it as a shorthand for the social expectations and everyday practices of manhood.

Traditionally, masculinity has been associated with traits like physical strength, emotional restraint, assertiveness, dominance, and competitiveness. These traits are often treated as though they are natural to men – as if boys are born wanting to suppress their tears and dominate every room they enter. But a closer look shows that these expectations are learned, not innate.

Masculinity as a social construct 🔗

One of the most important ideas in gender studies is that masculinity is a social construct. This means it is not something biologically hardwired into men but rather something that societies create, teach, and reinforce through various institutions – families, schools, peer groups, media, religious institutions, and the law.

From a very young age, boys receive messages about what counts as “appropriate” male behaviour. Parents may encourage rough play and discourage crying. Peer groups may ridicule behaviour seen as “feminine.” Films, advertisements, and television present idealised masculine figures that set expectations. These lessons are absorbed gradually and often unconsciously, shaping how boys and men see themselves and how they relate to the world around them.

The social constructionist view of gender holds that people produce and reproduce gender through everyday interactions – a process sociologists Candace West and Don Zimmerman famously called “doing gender” in 1987. How you sit, how you speak, how much space you occupy, how you express (or suppress) emotion – all of these reflect socially learned gender norms. Through constant repetition and social reinforcement, these behaviours come to feel natural, even though they are constructed.

Sex versus gender: an important distinction 🔗

It is crucial to distinguish between biological sex and gender. Biological sex refers to physical and chromosomal characteristics. Gender, on the other hand, is a social identity – it is about how cultures define what is “masculine” or “feminine.” A person of any biological sex can exhibit traits that a society labels as masculine. Recognising this distinction helps us see that masculine traits are not the exclusive domain of men, and that men are not bound to embody every traditionally masculine trait.

Masculinity is not one thing – it is many things 🔗

One of the most influential contributions to masculinity studies comes from Australian sociologist Raewyn Connell. Connell argued that because masculinity varies so significantly across time, place, and social context, it is more accurate to speak of “masculinities” in the plural rather than a single, overarching masculinity.

As Encyclopedia.com’s entry on masculinity notes, the concept varies across at least four dimensions – across cultures, over historical time within a single society, among different groups of men within the same society at the same time, and over the course of an individual’s own life. What it means to be a man among Aboriginal communities in Australia is vastly different from what it means in urban France – and the gap between two different cultural definitions of masculinity can be even larger than the gap between men and women within a single culture.

Hegemonic masculinity 🔗

A central concept in Connell’s framework is hegemonic masculinity. This refers to the dominant, most socially valued form of masculinity in any given social system – the version that sits at the top of the hierarchy and is held up as the standard against which all other expressions of manhood are measured. The concept draws from Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony, which explains how dominant groups maintain power not through force alone, but through the willing consent and participation of the majority.

In most societies, hegemonic masculinity tends to prize traits like toughness, heterosexuality, economic success, emotional control, and physical dominance. Men who do not conform to this ideal – whether because of their sexuality, emotional expressiveness, physical characteristics, or social position – are often marginalised or subordinated. Importantly, Connell emphasised that hegemonic masculinity is not static. It shifts when conditions change, making it a historically mobile relation.

Other forms of masculinity 🔗

Alongside hegemonic masculinity, Connell identified several other positions. Complicit masculinity describes men who may not fully embody the hegemonic ideal but still benefit from the advantages it creates. Subordinated masculinity applies to men who are marginalised within the gender hierarchy – for example, gay men in societies where heterosexuality is a key component of the masculine ideal. Marginalised masculinity refers to those who are pushed to the periphery by intersecting inequalities like race, caste, or class, even if they otherwise conform to masculine norms.

How class, caste, ethnicity, and sexuality shape masculinity 🔗

Masculinity does not exist in a vacuum. It is constantly shaped and reshaped by its intersection with other dimensions of identity – class, caste, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation. This intersectional understanding is especially important in the Indian context, where these social categories carry deep historical weight.

Caste and masculinity in India 🔗

In a caste-based society, ideals of manhood are inseparable from one’s position in the caste hierarchy. Research published in the World Journal of English Language explores how masculinity in rural Tamil Nadu is deeply shaped by the interplay of gender and caste. Upper-caste men may assert their masculinity through ownership of land and exercise of social authority, while Dalit men may be systematically denied access to those very markers of manhood. In some cases, Dalit men are taunted about their perceived inability to “protect” their community – a form of emasculation rooted in caste power, not individual failing.

A critique of Connell’s theory by scholar Urvashi Singh argues that to truly understand masculinity in India, we must pay close attention to how caste intersects with gender. The relationship between caste and masculinity is not just additive – it is mutually conditioning. The way a Dalit man experiences and performs masculinity is qualitatively different from how an upper-caste man does, and neither experience can be fully understood without accounting for caste.

Class and economic status 🔗

Class also plays a significant role. Working-class men may construct masculinity around physical labour, endurance, and toughness – qualities directly tied to their economic reality. Middle-class or upper-class men, on the other hand, might emphasise education, professional success, or refined behaviour as markers of manhood. Studies suggest that working-class expressions of masculinity tend to be more normatively rigid than those found among middle-class men. Economic insecurity can intensify adherence to traditional gender norms, because when other sources of status and power are unavailable, masculine identity may become one of the few things a man can claim.

Ethnicity and regional variation 🔗

Within India alone, what counts as masculine varies enormously across regions, communities, and ethnic groups. The ideals of manhood in a rural Rajasthani village differ from those in urban Bengaluru. Tribal communities may have their own gendered expectations that do not fit neatly into the mainstream understanding of masculinity. These regional variations reinforce the point that there is no universal blueprint for being a man – only locally specific expectations that evolve over time.

Sexual orientation and masculinity 🔗

Sexual orientation has a complex relationship with masculinity. In many societies, heterosexuality is treated as a core requirement of “real” manhood. Gay, bisexual, and queer men frequently face the accusation that they are somehow less masculine – a form of policing that reveals how deeply intertwined masculinity and heterosexual norms often are. As scholars have noted, when sexuality is defined in terms of partner choice, male homosexuality is often interpreted as effeminacy, even though gender expression, gender identity, and sexual orientation are widely understood to be distinct concepts.

Masculinity changes over time 🔗

One of the strongest pieces of evidence that masculinity is a social construct rather than a biological fact is its dramatic variation across history. What counted as masculine in medieval Europe – think high heels, wigs, makeup, and openly expressed emotion among aristocratic men – would be considered distinctly un-masculine by today’s standards in many parts of the world. Historians have documented that between 1918 and 1940, the colour pink was considered masculine, while blue was associated with femininity. Even something as simple as colour-coding for babies is a relatively modern invention.

In the Indian context, masculinity is undergoing significant change, driven by urbanisation, education, expanding media exposure, and evolving family structures. In many urban settings, men are increasingly participating in household tasks that were traditionally assigned to women and are more openly supportive of their partners’ careers and aspirations. However, these shifts are uneven. In many rural areas and conservative communities, traditional masculine ideals continue to exert powerful influence.

The modern rethinking of masculinity 🔗

Globally, there is a growing recognition that rigid definitions of masculinity harm not just women but men themselves. The pressure to be constantly tough, emotionally detached, and dominant takes a toll on men’s mental health, their relationships, and their overall well-being. Research published in Culture, Health & Sexuality explores how the concept of hegemonic masculinity can be actively used in gender interventions to encourage men to adopt more equitable and healthy forms of manhood. The evidence suggests that men benefit personally and socially when they move away from restrictive gender roles.

This does not mean that traditionally valued qualities like courage, responsibility, or determination need to be abandoned. Rather, the goal is to decouple these qualities from a narrow gender script and recognise that they are human qualities – available to anyone, regardless of gender.

Why understanding masculinity matters for gender sensitisation 🔗

Gender sensitisation is not just about understanding the experiences of women. It is equally about understanding how masculinity is constructed, how it operates, and how it can be reimagined. When we treat masculinity as a fixed, natural trait, we make it invisible – and invisible systems of power are the hardest to change.

By recognising masculinity as dynamic and multifaceted, we can begin to address the gender biases and stereotypes that harm everyone. Boys who are told they must not cry grow into men who struggle to process their emotions. Men who are taught that dominance equals worth may resort to aggression when their authority is challenged. Rigid masculine norms contribute to domestic violence, mental health crises, workplace toxicity, and the marginalisation of anyone who does not fit the mould.

A more inclusive understanding of masculinity creates space for men to express vulnerability, pursue interests outside traditional gender lines, and build identities that feel authentic rather than prescribed. It also benefits women and gender minorities by challenging the hierarchies that sustain inequality.

Moving towards positive masculinities 🔗

The idea of positive masculinity does not seek to replace one rigid standard with another. Instead, it encourages qualities like empathy, emotional openness, respect for others, active participation in caregiving, and a genuine commitment to gender equality. These are not inherently masculine or feminine qualities – they are simply good human qualities.

In policy terms, this means designing educational programmes that encourage boys to develop emotional literacy from a young age. It means creating media representations that show a wider range of masculine expression. It means ensuring that workplaces, legal systems, and social institutions do not reward aggressive or dominating behaviour simply because it conforms to traditional expectations of manhood.

If masculinity is learned, as the evidence overwhelmingly suggests, then it can also be unlearned and reimagined. The question is not whether masculinity should exist, but what kind of masculinity we want to encourage – and who gets a say in that conversation.

What do you think? If masculinity is shaped so profoundly by culture, history, and social position, can government policies and educational curricula play a meaningful role in redefining what it means to be a man – or is this kind of change something that can only happen organically within communities and families?

References

1. https://www.ndi.org/sites/default/files/ACFrOgAZ9X_S2Bl-K9iPv3XhiQ140Fw6QWeUNSQwJwuNXzShO1b_Wv9-Vbsw1KX0rkmdxRZ-nlwzPhL-WIQLh1agPgzn5s70jFg-wYO0cIafAvyfqfNfQQX_UYSZKGjzuPLlyl2J_UFqRjaCxNs.pdf
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_construction_of_gender
3. https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/sociology-and-social-reform/sociology-general-terms-and-concepts/masculinity
4. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/political-science/hegemonic-masculinity
5. https://www.sciedupress.com/journal/index.php/wjel/article/viewFile/24060/15509
6. https://ijgws.thebrpi.org/journals/ijgws/Vol_5_No_2_December_2017/11.pdf
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculinity
8. https://www.oneworldeducation.org/our-students-writing/gender-roles-in-modern-society/
9. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4706037/