Understanding Toxic Masculinity: A Spectrum, Not a Monolith

For about a decade, the term “toxic masculinity” has circulated through cultural discussions, often used to label various troubling male behaviors. It has ranged from crude locker-room talk to more radicalized expressions of misogyny. However, the broader cultural use of this term has started to feel less like a precise diagnosis and more like a blanket criticism of men as a whole. This nuanced issue calls for an in-depth understanding, especially as recent findings suggest that the bulk of men aren’t “toxic” at all.

Defining Toxic Masculinity

Despite the proliferation of literature—over 10,000 papers mentioning “toxic masculinity” since 2020—empirical definitions have been scarce. A recent comprehensive study led by Deborah Hill Cone from the University of Auckland attempted to refine what we mean by “toxic masculinity.” The researchers identified eight specific indicators:

1. Gender identity centrality: The importance a man attaches to being a man.
2. Sexual prejudice: Bias against sexual minorities.
3. Narcissism: An excessive focus on oneself.
4. Disagreeableness: Difficulty in interpersonal relationships.
5. Hostile sexism: Antipathy toward women.
6. Benevolent sexism: A paternalistic view of women.
7. Opposition to domestic violence prevention: Resistance to initiatives that protect against abuse.
8. Social dominance: The desire for power over others.

Utilizing a technique called Latent Profile Analysis, the researchers grouped men according to these indicators, revealing a spectrum of identities instead of a monolithic type of toxicity.

The Categories of Male Identity

The study identified five distinct groups based on their responses:

• The Atoxics (35.4%): This largest group scores low across all problematic behaviors. They are confident in their masculinity but do not feel the need to dominate or disparage women.
• The LGBT-Tolerant Moderates (27.2%): These men exhibit low-to-moderate levels of various traits but are notably accepting of sexual minorities.
• The Anti-LGBT Moderates (26.6%): Similar to the tolerant moderators but with underlying sexual prejudice.
• The Benevolent Toxics (7.6%): Characterized by high scores on benevolent sexism, these individuals may express paternalistic attitudes toward women while still restricting their roles.
• The Hostile Toxics (3.2%): This small group embodies the traits usually associated with toxic masculinity, such as narcissism and hostile sexism, and often opposes domestic violence prevention measures.

Being Manly vs. Being Mean

A key insight from the study is the separation of “manliness” from “toxicity.” The prevailing assumption in popular discourse often suggests that a strong identification with masculinity correlates with toxic behavior. However, the research challenges this notion. It reveals that a man’s gender identity centrality is a weak predictor of problematic behavior.

For example, both the “Atoxics” and the “Hostile Toxics” groups identified strongly as men, contradicting the idea that identifying as a male inevitably leads to toxic behaviors. The researchers assert, “Men can be ‘manly’ without being toxic,” emphasizing that positive aspects of masculinity—such as loyalty and bravery—can be expressed without oppressive undertones.

Context and Class Matters

Understanding who comprises the “Hostile Toxic” group provides further insight into the complexities surrounding toxic masculinity. The study indicates that toxic behaviors often correlate with structural disadvantages. Men who are older, unemployed, single, and less educated are more likely to fall into this category. These individuals may feel societal pressures or personal losses that push them toward rigid, hostile forms of masculinity as a defensive response.

Interestingly, the study notes that being in a stable, intimate relationship significantly mitigates the risk of adopting hostile views. This relationship dynamic serves as a grounding factor, disarming the resentment that fuels toxic ideologies.

Being Masculine Isn’t the Problem

While the findings are valuable, they come with caveats. The results are based on self-reported measures, which may not capture the full complexity of male behavior, particularly among those less willing to acknowledge their toxic tendencies. Additionally, this study was conducted in New Zealand, a largely Western context that may not represent global perspectives on masculinity.

Nonetheless, it’s essential to reconsider how we use the term “toxic masculinity.” To address the harm caused by the small percentage of men exhibiting toxic behaviors, we must focus on the underlying conditions—like isolation, lack of education, and economic disadvantage—that may contribute to feelings of hostility.

By differentiating between “manly” and “toxic,” we may find pathways to support men struggling with their identity while also addressing the real issues associated with toxic behaviors.