Unpacking Masculinity: Social Constructs and Gender Identities

What does it mean to “be a man”? Across cultures and centuries, the answer to this question has varied dramatically. The traits we associate with masculinity-strength, aggression, emotional control, dominance-are not hardwired into biology. They are learned. They are taught, reinforced, and sometimes imposed through the social systems we grow up in. Understanding how masculinity is constructed, and how it shapes not just men but entire societies, is a critical step toward building more equitable gender relationships.

Masculinity and femininity: two sides of a social coin
How is masculinity socially constructed?
Family: the first classroom of gender
Educational institutions: the hidden curriculum
Media: scripting masculinity on screen
Religion and cultural traditions
Raewyn Connell and the theory of hegemonic masculinity
The Indian context: tradition, modernity, and evolving masculinities
The cost of rigid masculinity
Moving toward healthier masculinities
What do you think?

At the heart of gender studies lies a key insight: masculinity and femininity are not natural opposites rooted in biology. They are social constructs-sets of traits, behaviours, and expectations that societies assign to people based on their perceived gender. Research on gender in India shows that these constructs are deeply shaped by historical traditions, patriarchal norms, and cultural discourses rather than by any innate biological blueprint.

Masculine traits typically include assertiveness, competitiveness, physical strength, emotional restraint, and independence. Feminine traits, on the other hand, are usually associated with nurturing, empathy, dependency, and emotional expressiveness. These categories are not neutral descriptions-they exist in a hierarchy. In most patriarchal societies, masculine traits are valued more highly in public life, while feminine traits are confined to the domestic sphere. This binary opposition means that masculinity is often defined by what it is not: to be masculine is to be “not feminine.”

Sociologists Jan E. Stets and Peter J. Burke have argued that femininity and masculinity are not innate qualities but performances learned through socialisation. People do not simply possess gender-they do gender, constantly enacting and reinforcing these roles in everyday interactions.

How is masculinity socially constructed?

If masculinity is not biologically determined, how does it come into being? The answer lies in gendered socialisation-the lifelong process through which individuals learn what their society considers appropriate behaviour for their gender. This process begins at birth and continues through every stage of life, operating through several key institutions.

Family: the first classroom of gender

The family is the earliest and most powerful agent of gendered socialisation. From the colours chosen for a nursery to the toys placed in a child’s hands, families send constant signals about what boys and girls are “supposed” to do. Boys are encouraged to be brave, competitive, and physically active. They are discouraged from crying, expressing vulnerability, or showing interest in activities coded as feminine.

Phrases like “boys don’t cry” or “be a man” are among the earliest lessons boys receive about emotional restraint. These messages establish that a boy’s worth depends on suppressing feelings and projecting toughness. In many households, women themselves sometimes act as custodians of these patriarchal values. As scholars have noted, mothers, partners, and other women in the family often encourage and reproduce traditional masculine ideals within their social circles, reinforcing the cultural model of manhood that prizes strength and dominance.

Son preference remains a tangible indicator of how deeply gender norms are embedded within families. According to NFHS data, a woman’s desire for more children is strongly influenced by the number of sons she already has. Among women with two children, those with two sons are far more likely to want no more children compared to those with two daughters. This preference reveals how families internalise the idea that male children carry greater social value-an idea rooted in constructed notions of masculine worth.

Educational institutions: the hidden curriculum

Schools are not gender-neutral spaces. Beyond the formal syllabus, a hidden curriculum of gendered expectations operates in classrooms, playgrounds, and extracurricular activities. Teachers may unconsciously treat boys and girls differently-praising boys for assertiveness and girls for compliance. Textbooks often reinforce traditional gender roles through their choice of examples and illustrations.

Peer dynamics in schools can be especially powerful in enforcing masculine norms. Boys who show interest in the arts, who are not competitive in sports, or who express emotions openly often face bullying or social exclusion. This peer policing ensures that deviation from the masculine script carries social costs, pushing boys to conform even when the script does not suit them.

Gender-sensitive education has emerged as an important tool for disrupting this cycle. Several educational initiatives now incorporate critical thinking about gender assumptions into their curricula, teaching students to question stereotypes rather than absorb them passively. Research on gender dichotomies has emphasised that such programmes can help students recognise the harmful effects of rigid gender categories.

Media: scripting masculinity on screen

Media-films, television, advertising, and social media-plays a massive role in shaping what masculinity looks and feels like. Bollywood, for instance, has long presented a specific template: the hero is physically powerful, emotionally controlled, persistent in romantic pursuit, and dominant in relationships. This template tells audiences, especially young men, what a “real man” should be.

Advertising reinforces these ideas further. Products marketed to men frequently emphasise power, control, sexual prowess, and rugged individualism. Sports coverage celebrates aggression, dominance, and the ability to endure pain without complaint. Even social media, despite its potential for diverse expression, often perpetuates idealised masculine body types and behaviours through influencer culture.

The impact on children is significant. Young people absorb these media messages long before they have the critical thinking skills to analyse them. Studies on gender norms confirm that these norms are critical in constructing gender identities and lead to behaviours that people consider appropriate for males and females.

Religion and cultural traditions

Religious institutions and cultural traditions also play a role in constructing and maintaining masculine ideals. Concepts like honour (izzat), family prestige, and the man-as-protector archetype are deeply embedded in religious and cultural narratives. Men are often expected to be the guardians of family honour, the primary decision-makers, and the breadwinners-roles that are framed not just as social expectations but as moral duties.

However, religious and cultural frameworks are not monolithic. Progressive voices within various faith traditions have reinterpreted texts and practices to support more egalitarian gender relations, challenging traditional dichotomies from within cultural systems that remain meaningful to many communities.

Raewyn Connell and the theory of hegemonic masculinity

No discussion of masculinity as a social construct is complete without engaging with the work of Raewyn Connell, the Australian sociologist who co-founded the field of masculinity studies. Connell’s landmark book Masculinities (1995) remains the most widely cited work in the field and introduced a framework that transformed how scholars think about gender.

Connell’s central argument is that masculinity is not singular. There is no one way to be a man. Instead, there are multiple masculinities that exist in hierarchical relationships with one another. At the top of this hierarchy sits what Connell calls hegemonic masculinity-the culturally dominant ideal of manhood that claims the highest status and authority in a given society.

Hegemonic masculinity is associated with traits like toughness, heterosexuality, authority, aggression, competitiveness, and being the breadwinner. It sets the standard against which other men are judged. Most men may not fully embody this ideal, but they are encouraged to aspire to it. Crucially, this dominant form of masculinity also legitimises male power over women and over men who do not conform to the ideal.

Connell identified several other positions within the masculinity hierarchy:

Complicit masculinity describes men who do not fully match the hegemonic ideal but still benefit from the overall system of male dominance. Subordinate masculinity refers to men who are actively oppressed by hegemonic norms-gay men being a prominent example. Marginalised masculinity applies to men who face disadvantage due to other social structures like caste or class, even as they may perform aspects of hegemonic manhood.

Connell’s concept serves as an analytical tool to identify attitudes and practices among men that perpetuate gender inequality-both men’s dominance over women and the power of some men over other men. The concept draws on Antonio Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony, which explains how dominant groups maintain power not primarily through force but by making their values seem like common sense.

The Indian context: tradition, modernity, and evolving masculinities

Masculinity in India is shaped by a unique interplay of tradition, modernity, caste, class, religion, and regional identity. Traditional concepts like mardangi (manliness) have historically emphasised the man’s role as protector, breadwinner, and decision-maker. Honour-based systems tie masculine identity closely to the control of women’s behaviour and sexuality, especially in rural and conservative communities.

Caste adds another layer of complexity. Upper-caste dominance has shaped public perceptions of authority, while lower-caste resistance movements have fostered alternative masculinities rooted in justice and equality. The masculine ideal for an upper-caste, urban professional looks very different from that of a rural agricultural worker or a Dalit activist.

Urbanisation, globalisation, and media exposure are reshaping these dynamics. Young urban men increasingly participate in household tasks, support their partners’ career aspirations, and express emotions more openly. However, these changes are far from uniform. NFHS-5 findings indicate that where women need to negotiate change with men and family members, progress remains slow. Spousal violence rates have barely declined, and women’s economic participation remains low, reflecting the persistent grip of traditional masculine authority within households.

Social media plays a dual role in this evolution. On one hand, it provides a platform for exploring non-normative identities and challenging traditional stereotypes. On the other, it can amplify toxic masculinity and online misogyny, creating new arenas for the enforcement of harmful gender norms.

The cost of rigid masculinity

Rigid masculine norms do not just harm women-they exact a significant toll on men themselves. The expectation that men must suppress emotions leads to higher rates of depression, anxiety, and substance abuse. Research in psychology has documented how men who strongly adhere to traditional masculine norms are less likely to seek professional help, viewing it as a sign of weakness that conflicts with self-reliance.

The consequences extend beyond individual health. When aggression is normalised as a masculine trait, it can manifest as domestic violence, workplace hostility, and even political authoritarianism. When risk-taking is rewarded as masculine behaviour, men engage in dangerous activities to prove their credentials. When emotional connection is discouraged, relationships suffer and communities lose the benefits of male caregiving and empathy.

UNFPA’s analysis of NFHS-5 has called for engaging men and boys, particularly during their formative years, to promote positive masculinity and gender-equal values. Addressing discriminatory social norms requires working with men not as the “problem” to be fixed, but as partners in creating more equitable relationships.

Moving toward healthier masculinities

Recognising masculinity as a social construct-rather than a biological given-is the essential first step toward change. If masculine traits are learned, they can be unlearned, relearned, and expanded.

Several approaches are already making a difference. Gender-transformative programmes engage men and boys as active agents of change through men’s support groups, school-based gender sensitisation, and media literacy campaigns that teach critical analysis of gendered messages. Organisations working in this space aim to help men recognise the constraints traditional masculinity places on them while encouraging healthier expressions of gender.

Healthier masculinities include emotional wholeness-allowing men the full range of human emotions without stigma. They include relational equality, where partnerships are based on mutual respect rather than dominance. They include diverse expressions, where multiple ways of being masculine are accepted without hierarchy. And they include self-determination, where individuals are free to define their own gender expression.

Gender intervention research highlights that while men are structurally positioned above women and benefit from what Connell called the “patriarchal dividend,” they still have a choice about whether to occupy oppressive positions or to resist them. That choice may be constrained by a lack of exposure to alternative ideas, but it remains a genuine target for change.

Public policy also has a role to play. Parental leave policies that encourage men’s involvement in childcare, curricula that promote critical gender thinking, and media regulations that challenge harmful stereotyping can all contribute to shifting the culture of masculinity from rigidity toward flexibility.

What do you think?

If masculinity is socially constructed and not biologically fixed, what would it take for families, schools, and media to actively promote healthier versions of it? And in your own experience, have you noticed the expectations placed on men changing over the past decade-or do the old scripts still hold strong?

References

PDF 📄

Table of Contents

Masculinity and femininity: two sides of a social coin 🔗

How is masculinity socially constructed? 🔗

Family: the first classroom of gender 🔗

Educational institutions: the hidden curriculum 🔗

Media: scripting masculinity on screen 🔗

Religion and cultural traditions 🔗

Raewyn Connell and the theory of hegemonic masculinity 🔗

The Indian context: tradition, modernity, and evolving masculinities 🔗

The cost of rigid masculinity 🔗

Moving toward healthier masculinities 🔗

What do you think? 🔗