The Myth of Biological Masculinity: Understanding Social Constructs

Walk into any playground, and you will likely spot a familiar pattern. Boys are expected to be rough, competitive, and loud. Girls are expected to be gentle, cooperative, and quiet. These expectations feel so natural that many people assume they are simply “how things are”-hardwired into biology. But are they? The idea that masculinity is a fixed, biologically determined set of traits is one of the most persistent myths in gender discourse. In reality, what we call masculinity is largely a product of social conditioning, cultural norms, and power hierarchies. Understanding this distinction is not just an academic exercise-it has real implications for policy, education, and how society treats people who do not fit neatly into traditional gender boxes.

What do we mean by masculinity? 🔗

At its most basic, masculinity refers to a set of behaviours, roles, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and boys. These typically include traits like physical strength, emotional restraint, assertiveness, independence, and dominance. But here is the important part: these expectations are not universal. They change across cultures, historical periods, and social settings.

As research published in the American Journal of Men’s Health notes, masculinity is a social construct encompassing behaviours, practices, and language that exist in specific cultural and organisational settings. These traits are defined primarily in contrast to what a culture considers feminine. The sociologist Raewyn Connell, one of the foremost scholars in this field, has argued that it is more accurate to speak of “masculinities” in the plural because the concept varies so much across time and place. A warrior in ancient Sparta, a Mughal courtier, and a software engineer in Bengaluru would all be considered “masculine” by their respective societies-yet their expected behaviours would look entirely different.

The myth of biological determinism 🔗

Biological determinism is the idea that traits like aggression, dominance, and risk-taking are innate to men because of testosterone, brain structure, or evolutionary programming. This argument has popular appeal. After all, men on average do have higher levels of testosterone, and certain behavioural tendencies do show statistical sex differences.

But here is where the myth breaks down. Statistical averages tell us very little about individual behaviour. There is enormous overlap between men and women on virtually every psychological trait. More importantly, the specific ways aggression and dominance manifest are clearly shaped by social context, not just hormones.

Consider a simple example. A man in a position of authority-say, a senior bureaucrat or a corporate executive-may display assertiveness, decisiveness, and even aggression in the workplace. The same man may be gentle and nurturing at home with his children. Studies in social psychology have demonstrated that men shift between traditionally masculine and non-masculine behaviours depending on the social context they are in. If masculinity were truly biological and fixed, such context-dependent behaviour would not exist. The fact that men perform masculinity differently in different settings is itself powerful evidence that these traits are learned and situational, not hardwired.

Power dynamics and masculine behaviour 🔗

One of the most telling arguments against biological determinism comes from examining how power structures influence behaviour. Traits like dominance and aggression are not exclusive to men-they tend to emerge in whoever holds power, regardless of gender. A female district collector exercising authority in the field may display the same assertiveness and command that is typically labelled “masculine.”

The National Democratic Institute’s research on masculinities puts it plainly: having power over political, economic, and social affairs is associated with masculinity. The roles and behaviours linked with maleness typically bring greater social status, economic reward, and political power. This means that so-called masculine traits are better understood as power traits-they belong to whoever occupies positions of authority, not exclusively to men.

This is a crucial insight for public administration. When we design policies around the assumption that men are “naturally” aggressive or dominant, we fail to see how institutional structures and hierarchies create and reinforce those behaviours.

How masculinity is socially constructed 🔗

If masculinity is not biologically determined, how does it come into being? The answer lies in socialisation-the lifelong process through which individuals learn the norms and expectations of their society.

Childhood and family 🔗

The process begins early. From the moment a child is born, families begin treating boys and girls differently. Boys are encouraged to be physically active, competitive, and emotionally restrained. Phrases like “boys don’t cry” or “be a man” are drilled into children long before they can critically evaluate what those phrases mean. Parents may unconsciously give boys more freedom to take risks while being more protective of girls.

Peer groups and school 🔗

In school, peer groups become powerful enforcers of gender norms. Boys who display traits considered “feminine”-such as sensitivity or artistic inclination-may face ridicule or social exclusion. This creates a feedback loop: boys learn to suppress certain behaviours and exaggerate others to earn acceptance. Sports culture, in particular, plays a significant role. Connell has emphasised how sports serve as training grounds for masculine behaviour by promoting competition, physical dominance, and the suppression of pain.

Media and popular culture 🔗

Films, advertisements, and social media constantly reinforce a particular image of masculinity. The “hero” is typically physically strong, emotionally stoic, and dominant. These portrayals set a benchmark that men feel pressure to meet, even when it conflicts with their actual personalities and capabilities.

Institutional reinforcement 🔗

Institutions-including the legal system, the military, religious organisations, and even the bureaucracy-reinforce masculine norms through their structures and cultures. The expectation that a “strong leader” must be decisive, unemotional, and commanding reflects deeply embedded ideas about what masculinity should look like in positions of authority.

Hegemonic masculinity: the dominant standard 🔗

Not all forms of masculinity carry equal weight. Connell introduced the concept of hegemonic masculinity to describe the version of masculinity that a society values most highly and holds up as the ideal. A 2026 review in a leading sociology journal confirmed that hegemonic masculinity continues to sustain gender inequality and has negative consequences for both men and women.

In the Indian context, hegemonic masculinity often looks like the upper-caste, heterosexual, economically successful man who controls family decisions, maintains emotional distance, and demonstrates physical authority. Men who do not meet this standard-whether because of their caste, economic position, sexual orientation, or temperament-are marginalised within the hierarchy of masculinities.

This is an important point. Masculinity does not oppress only women. It also creates a hierarchy among men, where those who do not conform to the dominant model face social penalties. A Dalit man, a man from a lower-income background, or a man who is openly emotional may all find themselves positioned as “less masculine” within this framework-not because of any biological deficiency, but because of social power structures.

Masculinism: the ideology of male superiority 🔗

Closely related to hegemonic masculinity is the concept of masculinism. This is an ideology that justifies and promotes male dominance in society. Gender studies scholar Julia Wood describes masculinism as an ideology asserting that men and women should have different roles and rights due to fundamental differences between them. Sociologist Arthur Brittan has similarly characterised it as an ideology that justifies male domination and rejects feminist arguments that gender relations are political constructs.

Masculinism operates on three core assumptions. First, gender polarisation: the idea that men and women are fundamentally different and that their roles should be rigidly separated. Second, authoritarianism: the belief that men should hold decision-making power in the family, community, and state. Third, male egotism: the assumption that male experiences, perspectives, and interests should be treated as the default or the norm.

In practice, masculinism manifests in many familiar patterns. It shows up in arguments that women should not work outside the home, that men are “naturally” better leaders, or that affirmative action for women undermines a supposedly natural order. It also shows up in resistance to policies like paternity leave, shared household responsibilities, or gender-sensitive public services.

For students of public administration, recognising masculinism is critical. Many policy frameworks and bureaucratic cultures are built on masculinist assumptions-often invisibly. When a government programme assumes that “head of household” means a man, or when police training emphasises aggression over empathy, masculinist ideology is at work.

Androgyny: beyond the binary 🔗

If masculinity is not a fixed biological trait, is it possible for individuals to possess both masculine and feminine qualities? The concept of androgyny says yes.

The term comes from the Greek words andro (male) and gyny (female). In psychology, androgyny refers to the presence of both traditionally masculine and traditionally feminine traits within the same individual. American psychologist Sandra Bem was a pioneer in this area. In 1974, she developed the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI), a psychological tool that measures the degree to which individuals identify with masculine and feminine personality traits. Bem recognised that masculinity and femininity are not opposite ends of a single spectrum but rather two independent dimensions.

According to the BSRI, individuals who score high on both masculine and feminine scales are classified as androgynous. Those who score high on only one scale are classified as sex-typed (either masculine or feminine), and those who score low on both are classified as undifferentiated.

Bem’s research produced a striking finding: androgynous individuals tend to be more psychologically adaptable than those who are rigidly sex-typed. They are more flexible in their responses to different situations, less constrained by gender-based expectations, and generally report better psychological wellbeing. A study conducted in India with 100 married women found that those with higher masculinity scores reported lower depression levels, while those with exclusively high femininity scores reported higher depression-supporting the idea that psychological flexibility across gender traits is beneficial.

The concept of androgyny is not about erasing differences between men and women. Rather, it suggests that healthy human functioning involves access to a full range of traits-empathy and assertiveness, nurturing and decisiveness, vulnerability and strength-regardless of one’s biological sex.

Why does this matter for governance and policy? 🔗

Understanding masculinity as a social construct is not just a theoretical exercise. It has practical implications for how governments design policies, train civil servants, and deliver public services.

Gender-sensitive policymaking 🔗

If masculinity is socially constructed, it can be deconstructed and reshaped. Policies can be designed to challenge harmful masculine norms-for instance, by promoting shared parenting responsibilities, encouraging men to participate in health and nutrition programmes, or integrating gender sensitisation into civil services training. Research published on PubMed has shown that health-related behaviours are deeply connected to how men construct their masculinity, with men who conform to traditional norms often taking greater health risks and avoiding medical care.

Addressing violence 🔗

Much of the violence in society-from domestic abuse to communal riots-is connected to rigid masculine norms that equate manhood with dominance and control. Policies that address the root causes of violence must engage with how masculinity is constructed and reinforced, rather than treating aggression as an inevitable male trait.

Inclusive administration 🔗

A bureaucracy that recognises multiple masculinities is better positioned to serve a diverse population. Officers trained to understand that gender norms are social products rather than biological facts are more likely to approach issues like dowry, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and LGBTQ+ rights with nuance and empathy.

Challenging the construct: the way forward 🔗

Deconstructing masculinity does not mean attacking men or denying that biological differences between sexes exist. It means recognising that the social meanings attached to those differences are not inevitable. They are created by culture and sustained by institutions-and they can be changed.

Progressive approaches to masculinity focus on expanding what is considered acceptable for men. This includes normalising emotional expression, encouraging caregiving roles, challenging the equation of power with manhood, and creating institutional cultures that value collaboration over domination. Organisations like the National Organization for Men Against Sexism (NOMAS) advocate for moving beyond all traditional sex-role assignments and encouraging individuals to develop whatever personality traits they choose, free from gendered expectations.

In the Indian context, this is particularly urgent. Rapid social change-urbanisation, education, digital connectivity-is already disrupting traditional gender norms. But these changes are uneven and often resisted. The task for governance and civil society is to create spaces where healthier, more inclusive forms of masculinity can take root without backlash or stigma.

What do you think? If masculinity is truly a social construct, what role should schools and public institutions play in reshaping masculine norms for future generations? And can a society genuinely achieve gender equality without actively engaging men in rethinking what it means to be “masculine”?

References

1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8674484/
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculinity
3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10689301/
4. https://www.ndi.org/sites/default/files/ACFrOgAZ9X_S2Bl-K9iPv3XhiQ140Fw6QWeUNSQwJwuNXzShO1b_Wv9-Vbsw1KX0rkmdxRZ-nlwzPhL-WIQLh1agPgzn5s70jFg-wYO0cIafAvyfqfNvFQQX_UYSZKGjzuPLlyl2J_UFqRjaCxNs.pdf
5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2452292926000032
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculism
7. https://www.britannica.com/science/Bem-Sex-Role-Inventory
8. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00289930
9. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10741575/
10. https://nomas.org/redefining-masculinity-a-revised-definition-must-undo-the-ideology-of-male-supremacy/