Perceived Fragile Masculinity Stifles Sexual Satisfaction and Honest Communication, Study Finds

Women in sexual relationships with men may change their own sexual behavior in an effort to protect their partners’ perceived manhood, a new study finds. The more women perceived their partner’s sense of masculinity as fragile, the more they reported faking orgasms and the lower their sexual satisfaction, according to a new study published in Social Psychological and Personality Science.

Most prior research on manhood focuses on how the cultural view of masculinity affects men and their behavior. This new research examines the subject from the perspective of women who seek to protect their partners’ sense of masculinity, perhaps at their own expense.

“Women are prioritizing what they think their partners need over their own sexual needs and satisfaction,” explains lead author Jessica Jordan of the University of South Florida.

In one study that collected data from 283 women, researchers found that the more women perceived their partner’s manhood as precarious, the more anxiety and poorer communication they experienced, which in turn predicted a lower rate of orgasms and sexual satisfaction. An additional study, involving 196 women, found that participants who were asked to imagine a male partner whose manhood was fragile were also less likely to provide honest sexual communication.

“If a woman is concerned about inadvertently threatening her partner’s manhood, that could lead to a breakdown of communication,” Jordan explains.

In a third study, researchers recruited 157 women in sexual relationships with men from Facebook to complete an anonymous survey about their sex lives. The results showed that women who made more money than their partners were twice as likely as those who did not to fake orgasms.

Jordan discourages interpreting that the decrease in sexual satisfaction and honest communication as the fault of the man or woman involved. She explains that if women have been led to believe that it is their job to protect their partner’s sense of masculinity by withholding sexual feedback, it makes sense for them to do so. Likewise, if men are not made aware that their behavior (or that of men in general) gives their partner the perception that sexual feedback is not welcome, they are not given the opportunity to tell their partner otherwise.

Future research, Jordan says, should explore this phenomenon within couples, including men in same-sex couples.

While the current research focused on how women perceive and respond to masculine insecurity, Jordan notes that it is important to remember that honest communication and understanding your partners’ sexual needs benefits men as well.

“When society creates an impossible standard of masculinity to maintain,” says Jordan, “nobody wins.”

--

Author Contact: Jessica Jordan ([email protected])

Press may request an embargoed copy at [email protected].

Study: Jordan, Jessica A.; Vandello, Joseph A.; Heesacker, Martin; Larson-Konar, Dylan M. Do Women Withhold Honest Sexual Communication When They Believe Their Partner’s Manhood is Threatened?  Social Psychological and Personality Science.

Media Contact: Stephen Waldron, Society for Personality and Social Psychology, [email protected], 410.713.8360 When the article is published at 9 AM ET on Jan. 31, it will be available at the following link: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/19485506211067884

Social Psychological and Personality Science (SPPS) is an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP), the Association for Research in Personality (ARP), the European Association of Social Psychology (EASP), and the Society for Experimental Social Psychology (SESP). Social Psychological and Personality Science publishes innovative and rigorous short reports of empirical research on the latest advances in personality and social psychology.

Photo by Alex Green from Pexels

Do You Know What Makes a Man?

There are countless examples of men defying stereotypes on the red carpet and in magazines, from Harry Styles's appearance as the boy with the pearl earring at the 2019 Met Gala to Pharrell Williams's Moncler gown by Valentino on the cover of GQ. In view of these trends, can we assume that men have conquered their pressure to appear as "real men" and are free to behave as they want?

Our research tackles this question. How do cisgender men—that is, men who are assigned as male at birth and continue to identify as such—feel when they behave in ways that disregard stereotypes about gender?

Unlike femininity, masculinity has been portrayed as risky: something difficult to win and easy to lose. In turn, that reasoning supports the core norms of traditional masculinity, according to which men need to resist traditional, stereotypically feminine qualities, roles, and behaviors in order to demonstrate their masculinity. By the same token, they should behave like "real men" by performing daring, dangerous acts and even distance themselves from gay men and others in the LGBTQ community.

Researchers have indeed shown that men who act in "feminine" ways are easily perceived and classified as neither masculine nor straight and, as a consequence, are called homophobic epithets such as "faggot," and experience the withdrawal of their parent’s attention and sometimes are even rejected by them. Those reactions from family and peers appear to challenge men’s cognitive functioning and their well-being.

Thus, men are pressured to conform with traditional norms of masculinity and thus feel compelled to display hyper-masculine behavior in order to demonstrate that they are so-called "real men." However, as the world experiences social change, we wanted to investigate whether that pressure has changed and not only for celebrities.

To do that, we first assessed how much cisgender men support traditional masculinity, namely by asking them to rate their associations with "being a man"—for example, by being physically strong and aggressive. Afterwards, we exposed the men to different kinds of information. One kind, which we called social change, said that gender norms are changing and that men are becoming more "feminine" in their actions (for example, being more emotional, focusing more on their physical appearance, staying at home, doing housework, and caring for their children). In contrast, the "traditional masculinity" information said that gender norms are not changing and that men are the same as they have always been, which means that they are neither emotional nor concerned about their physical appearance, nor do they deal with housework or children. Lastly, some were in a control condition where they were not exposed to any gender-related information. The goal was to examine whether the "social change" information made the men feel more comfortable envisioning themselves performing traditionally feminine behaviors such as taking a ballet class or doing women friends' hair, and whether the men's stereotypes about masculinity made a difference.

We discovered that men who held less stereotyped views about what it meant to "be a man" were less uncomfortable with performing feminine behaviors in the social change condition than in the traditional masculinity condition or control condition. The reason why was that the social change condition freed them from social pressure and potential sexual orientation misclassification, so they were comfortable performing feminine behaviors. However, such was not the case for men who held more stereotyped views about what it meant to "be a man" regardless of the information they read.

These findings suggest that having less stereotyped views about masculinity and believing that gender norms are changing may be beneficial. After all, the belief may motivate men (at least those with fewer gender stereotypes) to feel less intimidated by society's judgment and thus more capable of dismissing or ignoring it. The findings also highlight the work that remains to be done in contexts where norms of traditional masculinity prevail and where social change is limited.


For Further Reading

Borinca, I., Iacoviello, V., & Valsecchi, G. (2020). Men’s discomfort and anticipated sexual misclassification due to counter-stereotypical behaviors: The interplay between traditional masculinity norms and perceived men’s femininization. Sex Roles. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01210-5


Islam Borinca is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Limerick in Ireland. His research focuses on intergroup relations, gender norms, behaviors, diversity, and health.

Acting Out to Man Up

“Stop being such a wimp. Grow up. Be a man.” Boys and men all over the United States have encountered these insults. For some men, these “manhood threats” cause them to become aggressive as a way to defend their manhood, while other men seem to not care. Yet we still don’t understand why manhood threats cause aggression for certain men but not others.

In our study, we explored whether certain factors that might lead to men’s aggression when their manhood is threatened. Based on past research, we hypothesized that two key elements might be at play: manhood threatening contexts (like ones described above) in conjunction with a second important factor, fragile masculinity.

Fragile masculinity happens when a man acts masculine because of pressure from outside sources—again, this pressure could come from himself, family, friends, the media, or society at large. It doesn’t so much matter where the pressure comes from as much as the extent to which a men’s masculinity (i.e., stereotypically masculine behavior) is pressured. Men with fragile masculinities may appear on the outside as though they are “masculine,” yet they actually are performing masculinity (almost as an act) because they’re trying please others. If this sounds strange, research has shown that this pressure commonly affects many boys and men. We tested how exactly these two things—threat and fragile masculinity—combined may predict men’s aggression.

Across two experiments, we measured men’s pressure and then how they responded to a gender identity threat. To measure gender pressure, the men answered questions such as, “I’m masculine because I want other people’s acceptance and approval.” Being masculine due to social pressure would indicate that men have a fragile masculinity, one that is susceptible to social threat. We then simulated a real-world manhood threat by giving participants a fake gender quiz on the computer and telling them it was assessing their “gender knowledge.” One example question was, “In 1982, who won the Super Bowl’s MVP award?” to make participants very aware that their masculinity was being questioned.

In reality, we didn’t care about their answers to the quiz. The purpose of the quiz was to give them fake feedback, regardless of how they answered: half of the participants received fake threatening feedback—to simulate a manhood threatening context—while the other half receiving fake non-threatening feedback. The threatening feedback said, “You’re much less masculine than the average man,” and also displayed a graph where their score was plotted alongside other men’s (much higher) scores. The non-threatening feedback told participants that they were just as masculine as other men (also with a corresponding graph).

After they received their feedback, participants completed what they believed was a word game. In reality, this word game was a task we used to measure how aggressively the men were thinking based on how they completed a series of word stems. For example, if a participant saw “GU_” and completed it as “GUM,” they were thinking non-aggressively. However, if they completed it as “GUN,” they were scored as thinking more aggressively. A participant’s aggressive cognition score was how many words they completed aggressively compared to non-aggressively. Lastly, before participants left the study, we told them that the study was actually about people’s responses to gender identity threat, that their gender feedback was entirely fake, and that there is no right or wrong way to be a man.

The results supported our hypothesis: it was not just a manhood threat that caused men’s aggression, but also the amount of pressure men felt to be masculine that played a vital role. In other words, men who experienced high levels of pressure to be stereotypically masculine—those with fragile masculinities—felt the most aggressive after being threatened. Men without fragile masculinities felt no more aggressive than the men who weren’t threatened!

Importantly, we also found that age matters. Fragile masculinity seems to become less consequential as men age. In other words, the younger men in our sample felt more pressure than older men to be masculine, and in turn, felt more aggressive when we threatened them. We believe that this is because younger men are under more pressure to prove themselves “as men” (for example as strong leaders) in their relationships, at work, at school, and so forth. When they can’t live up to these unrealistic expectations, young men feel the need to re-assert their manhood. Older men, then, may be more secure in their identities because they have outgrown or removed themselves from harmful societal pressures that we think cause fragile masculinity.

Overall, this research paints a different picture than what we often hear about men, toxic masculinity, and the harmful behaviors associated with both. In fact, our research shows that masculinity isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Masculinity becomes harmful when it is pressured upon boys and men: we show that men’s “acting out” is directly related to the pressure we place on them be manly. So, if we care about the well-being of our boys (and those around them), we should work to challenge these harmful norms and facilitate boys’ healthy identity development.  


For Further Reading

Stanaland, A., & Gaither, S. (2021). “Be a Man”: The role of social pressure in eliciting men’s aggressive cognition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220984298

Vandello, J. A., & Bosson, J. K. (2013). Hard won and easily lost: A review and synthesis of theory and research on precarious manhood. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14(2), 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029826

Way, N., Cressen, J., Bodian, S., Preston, J., Nelson, J., & Hughes, D. (2014). “It might be nice to be a girl... Then you wouldn’t have to be emotionless”: Boys' resistance to norms of masculinity during adolescence. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 15(3), 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037262


Adam Stanaland is doctoral candidate at Duke University pursuing a joint PhD in Psychology & Neuroscience and Public Policy. His research explores identity development, well-being, and behavior. He’s also interested in using this research to address large-scale, policy relevant societal problems like men’s disproportionate aggression and violence.

Sarah Gaither is an assistant professor of Psychology & Neuroscience and faculty affiliate in the Samuel Dubois Cook Center on Social Equity at Duke University. Her research focuses on how a person’s social identities and experiences across the lifespan motivate their social perceptions and behaviors in diverse settings.

 

Is it Better to Part your Hair on the Left or the Right?

In the classic Superman film starring Christopher Reeves, there was something strange about Reeves’ character’s hair. When he was in the bumbling Clark Kent character, his hair was parted on his right. But when he was in the powerful Superman character, his hair was parted on his left! Reversing his hair part every time he changed personas would have been logistically difficult for the film crew. So why do it?

It turns out that there is a widespread cultural belief circulating in fashion websites and magazines concerning how hair parts change a person’s looks. The general consensus seems to be that parting on one’s left makes a person look competent and masculine, whereas parting on the right makes a person look warm and feminine.

I learned about this while listening to one of my favorite podcasts, Radiolab (I’m a podcast junkie). The hosts put the notion to the test in front of a live audience by showing a classic picture of Abraham Lincoln and then left-right reversing the image to see if it looked different. The audience erupted into laughter as the co-host Robert Krulwich uttered disbelief, “Oh that… wait wait wait... No no no. Is that the same picture?... That’s so weird!”

I had a look for myself. Krulwich was right. Lincoln really did look different in the reversed image. But as a scientist, I wasn’t convinced that it was the hair part that made the difference. Sure, Lincoln’s hair part was reversed but so was his body position, his characteristic facial mark, the shadows on his face, and so on. Which of these features was making him look different wasn’t obvious to me.

To get to the bottom of this, I figured that one would need to leave the face and body unchanged while reversing only the hair part. Using photo editing software, I did just this (see Figures 1 and 2). I then asked 800 Americans to look at the original and another 800, determined by random assignment, to look at the doctored image and judge how feminine, competent, warm, and attractive she looked.

Figure 1. The process that reversed the hair part without changing the face.

Image of The process that reversed the hair part without changing the face


Figure 2. Portraits the participants judged.

Portraits the participants judged


The results were surprising. I found virtually identical and statistically indistinguishable appearance ratings for the photos with left-parted and right-parted hair. It didn’t matter if the subject was male or female, or had a neutral expression or was smiling. I then computed the odds that the location of the hair parts matter, and, statistically speaking, the odds that they don’t matter was 25 times more likely than the popular belief that hair parts do matter.

Viewing these results with healthy skepticism, I wondered if participants might have not been paying attention and that’s why I didn’t find any differences. But that explanation didn’t seem to pan out. Every other factor—whether the model was male versus female, had a neutral expression, or was smiling, and which trait was being rated—had a huge effect on ratings. Participants were paying attention alright. But whether the hair was parted on the left or the right didn’t seem to matter.

Another possible explanation for not finding a difference is that participants didn’t notice the person’s hair in the first place. To test this idea, I presented a new set of 900 Americans with both the left-part and the right-part versions of the female in Figure 2, side by side. Their task was to indicate which looks better: the left part, the right part, or there’s no difference. In spite of blatantly drawing participants’ attention to the way the hair was parted in the two images, the most common response was to indicate there was no difference (50% of responses). The remaining half was evenly split between choosing the right and left parts. These results lent even stronger support for the conclusion that, when it comes to appearance, hair parts matter not. The pop culture idea seems to be a myth.

Psychological scientists’ reactions to these findings have been as intriguing as the findings themselves. The biggest point of contention seems to be that the article that I published about this research offered no new psychological theory. After all, a theory is not needed to explain the absence of a thing. The journal editor who handled this article recognized this fact but still decided that putting widespread cultural beliefs to a rigorous test is a worthwhile objective.

Others saw it differently. An editor at another journal (hilariously) decided to not even send the paper out for review, writing “I personally find this research interesting and useful (my own hair parts naturally on the right and many barbers and stylists have unsuccessfully tried to change it to the left in efforts reminiscent of asking a left-handed child to write with his right hand)… Unfortunately, [this journal] puts a premium on the theoretical contribution of its published articles, and so I must regretfully inform you that we can’t move forward…” 

I often wonder whether the primary goal of psychological research is to learn about the real world or whether the goal is to advance psychological theory. Some psychologists seem to be reluctant to test pop culture beliefs when the stakes for psychological theory are low. This reluctance may explain why, prior to my paper, the only definitive statement regarding hair parts coming from scientists was from a nuclear physicist and cultural anthropologist team (I’m not making this up), who claimed that hair parts matter and created a spin-off company selling non-reversing mirrors, which range in price from $225 to $1995. The methods and data presented in their article fell well short of current scientific standards. If it weren’t for a brave editor willing to publish an atheoretical null finding, psychology would remain reticent on a widely held false belief about psychology.


For Further Reading:

Frimer, J. A. (2019). Does the left hair part look better (or worse) than the right? Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(3), 326-334doi: 10.1177/1948550618762500

Jeremy Frimer is an Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Winnipeg, Canada. His main area of research focuses on the weaponization of incivility in U.S. politics. This research on hair parts was a mental vacation from his primary research.

Are Men Seen as ‘More American’ Than Women?

Women make up 50.8 percent of the U.S. population and have equal voting rights, yet are politically underrepresented. The country has never had a female president or vice president. Only 3.5 percent of Supreme Court justices have been women, and women make up only 20 percent of Congress.

Studies have shown that within a country, groups with more power often feel greater ownership over it. Because they control actual resources, like money, and symbolic resources, like writing history, they’re better able to shape the culture in their image. For example, because Christianity is the most prominent religion in the United States, Christmas is a federal holiday.

Because men hold more power than women in the United States, we wanted to explore a simple question: Would people tend to think of men as “more American” than women? And, if so, how does this influence the way American women identify with their country?

A masculine national ethos

We tested these questions in two studies.

First, we looked at the connection between national identity and gender-specific traits, asking 382 American adults the extent to which they thought of certain traits as “American.” Among these traits, some were stereotypically feminine (helpful, friendly) while others were stereotypically masculine (outgoing, ambitious). (We used results from previous studies to designate certain traits as “masculine” or “feminine.”)

We found that both men and women rated masculine traits – like “independent” and “competitive” – as significantly more American than feminine ones.

Because attaching gender stereotypes to certain traits can be relatively subjective, we also asked our subjects to simply tell us how central they thought masculinity and femininity were to American identity. Sure enough, people thought masculinity was more important than femininity.

Finally, participants listed five people they considered examples of Americans. They could include anyone, from celebrities (Oprah) to historical figures (George Washington) to family members (my dad). The participants were seven times more likely to list a man than a woman.

Building on the results of our first study, we asked participants questions about their identity: how important their gender was to them, and how important they felt it was to be an American.

Their answers revealed that the more men identified with their gender, the more they identified as American. This association wasn’t as strong for women.

A roadblock to political power

Our research suggests that group memberships – in this case, gender – play a big role in determining who is viewed as a “true” American. Yes, all citizens technically have equal standing under the law. But because the nation’s identity seems to elevate masculinity, the interests of women – even though they’re numerically equal with men – might not be adequately represented or addressed.

And because women identify with the nation less if they think they don’t fit a masculine representation of a U.S. citizen, it also might help explain why they’re more hesitant to run for political office.

Meanwhile, the country’s preference for masculine traits could explain why the female candidates who do run face an uphill battle. In order to demonstrate patriotism, women might feel the need to act masculine. But this creates a Catch-22, with female candidates risking backlash for acting in ways that violate stereotypical expectations.

Can this change?

One reason men might be viewed as more American is because we see male political leaders representing the country in domestic and foreign affairs. For citizens, this exposure connects “male” with “America.” But if more women appear as representatives of American policy and interests, ideas of national identity might accordingly shift.

Studies have shown that female politicians in the U.S. receive less media coverage than their male counterparts; those that do appear tend to be described and depicted through the lens of gender stereotypes: weak and emotional, with an emphasis on their role as a wife or mother and on their appearance. Rarely do they appear as independent, strong leaders.

A national ethos that incorporates the positive traits that tend to be associated with each gender could create a stronger society, in which the needs of men and women are voiced, valued and addressed equally.

The ConversationWe’re already starting to see more female candidates throw their hats into the ring. If more win – which will increase the visibility of women in the public sphere – masculinity’s grip on national identity might loosen.


Written by Laura Van Berkel, Postdoctoral Researcher, University of CologneLudwin Molina, Associate Professor of Psychology, University of Kansas, and Sahana Mukherjee, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Gettysburg College

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Overlooking the Sexual Misconduct of U.S. Government Figures

Despite allegations of sexual misconduct, politicians have gone on to have successful careers while maintaining support from their constituents. Even after openly bragging about and being accused of sexual assault, Donald Trump went on to win the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. And despite his recent conviction of sexually assaulting E. Jean Carroll, Trump remains the Republican frontrunner for the 2024 Presidential election. In addition, Trump successfully appointed Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court in 2018 after a public and contentious hearing that focused on allegations that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Dr. Christine Blasey Ford when the two were in high school.

Donald Trump and Brett Kavanaugh represent neither isolated nor rare instances of government figures being successful despite allegations of sexual misconduct. Nor are allegations of sexual misconduct unique to conservative officeholders. In fact, the Associated Press counts over 90 state lawmakers—both Democratic and Republican—who have been accused of sexual misconduct since 2017.

Why, especially in the era of #metoo, do people continue to support politicians accused of, and sometimes even convicted of, sexual misconduct?

Political Loyalty

According to research, partisanship matters. People are more likely to defend and continue to support a politician accused of sexual misconduct if they share a political party affiliation with that politician. In fact, the more strongly one identifies with their political party (both Republicans and Democrats), the more likely they are to believe in myths surrounding sexual assault (such as victim blaming) and downplay the severity of sexual assault as a problem in the U.S.

Politics in the U.S. have long been intertwined with performances of masculinity. Furthermore, certain conceptualizations of masculinity presuppose sexual violence as a tool of maintaining men's dominance over women. Therefore, we sought to examine if, beyond political party affiliation, endorsement of the culturally idealized form of masculinity would predict support for politicians accused of sexual misconduct.

Masculinity

"Hegemonic masculinity" refers to the culturally idealized form of masculinity that inspires gendered attitudes and behaviors that maintain men's dominance over women (and over marginalized men). In the U.S., this culturally idealized form of masculinity requires that "good men" be high in power/status; be emotionally, physically, and mentally tough; and reject anything associated with femininity. Research has found associations between men's endorsement of these characteristics and proclivities toward sexual harassment and violence.

In three studies, my colleagues and I surveyed U.S. adults. Participants answered questions that measured their endorsement of hegemonic masculinity, evaluations of Brett Kavanaugh and the women who accused him of sexual assault, and their evaluations of then-President Donald Trump. In addition, each study included a measure of attitudes associated with the perpetuation of sexual misconduct—sexism (Study 1), acceptance of rape myths (Study 2), and one's self-reported likelihood to sexually harass (Study 3).

Participants who more strongly endorsed hegemonic masculinity more positively evaluated Kavanaugh and more negatively evaluated the women who came forward to accuse him of sexual misconduct. In addition, stronger endorsement of hegemonic masculinity was associated with more positive evaluations of Trump.

Importantly, this pattern of results existed independent of political party affiliation, gender identity, racial identity, and level of education. Put differently, the strength with which one believes men should be (1) high in power/status, (2) tough, and (3) nothing like women, is uniquely and independently associated with their support for government figures who have been accused of sexual misconduct.

The extent to which participants reported stronger sexist attitudes and belief in rape myths was also associated with greater support for Kavanaugh and less support for his accusers. However, across studies and analyses, endorsement of hegemonic masculinity remained a unique predictor of these evaluations.

An Ongoing Cycle

Social scientists have long argued that people want to elect masculine figures to political leadership. When a person's notion of masculinity is tied to allowances of sexual harassment and violence (think "boys will be boys" and "locker room talk"), it allows people to overlook (and sometimes even justify) these behaviors, so that the acceptance and perpetuation of sexual misconduct becomes embedded in political and social institutions.


For Further Reading

Fahlberg, A., & Pepper, M. (2016). Masculinity and sexual violence: Assessing the state of the field. Sociology Compass10(8), 673-683. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12397

Katz, J. (2016). Man enough? Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and the politics of presidential masculinity. Interlink Books.

Savani, M. M., & Collignon, S. (2023). Values and candidate evaluation: How voters respond to allegations of sexual harassment. Electoral Studies83, 102613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2023.102613

Schermerhorn, N. E., Vescio, T. K., & Lewis, K. A. (2023). Hegemonic masculinity predicts support for US political figures accused of sexual assault. Social Psychological and Personality Science14(5), 475-486. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506221077861


Nathaniel Schermerhorn is a Lecturer of Psychology at the University of Essex. He studies the ways in which people reinforce the status quo.

Like Father, Like Son

These days, the issue of masculinity—or "masculinities"—gets talked about a lot. Masculinity is often invoked in public debates on domestic and family violence and men's well-being; terms such as "toxic masculinity" and the "manosphere" are becoming part of everyday language; and polarizing commentators like Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, and Andrew Tate have rapidly risen to fame.

Regardless of people's diverse and diverging opinions on masculinity, it is clear that today's men express their maleness in different ways. While some adhere to more traditional ideas of masculinity, others embrace less traditional stances. But why is this the case? Our research focused on one important factor: fathers' masculinity.

Measuring Fathers' and Sons' Masculinities

Do young men "copy" their fathers' masculinity? To find out, we analyzed data from 839 pairs of 15-to-20-year-old teenagers and their fathers who had taken part in a large, Australian national survey—Ten to Men: The Australian Longitudinal Study on Male Health.

The survey asked men 22 questions about how they felt and behaved in relation to many issues related to masculinity. For example, they were asked about:

  • the significance of work and social status for their sense of identity
  • their take on showing emotions and being self-reliant
  • their endorsement of risk-taking and violent behaviors
  • the importance they assigned to appearing heterosexual and having multiple sex partners, and
  • their beliefs about winning, dominance over others, and men's power over women

The answers to these questions offered us a window into whether the men adopted more or less traditional masculinities. Critically, they also enabled us to compare fathers' and sons' masculinity expressions.

What Was Similar Between Fathers and Sons

When looking at the relationship between a father's masculinity and their son's, we took into account other factors that may shape young men's expressions of masculinity. These included their age, education, sexual orientation, religion, household income, and place of residence—to name a few.

The results were clear: there was a credible association between fathers' and sons' masculinity for most of the items they rated. Young men who scored higher on the traditional masculinity measures had fathers who also scored higher, and those who scored lower had fathers who also scored lower.

Nearly all of the 22 individual masculinity items showed the same similarity between fathers and sons. The strongest father-son associations emerged for items about the endorsement of violence, importance of appearing heterosexual, and desirability of having multiple sexual partners. An item that was not connected between them was "I never ask for help." This indicates that some aspects of masculinity are more likely than others to be passed on from fathers to sons.

Our findings are a reminder that familial social learning is important in shaping young people's attitudes and behaviors. While fathers are not the only influence, our study suggests that young men "learn" a lot about how to be a man from their dads. This is surely an intuitive finding, yet we had little empirical evidence of it until now.

Confirming that dads "pass on" their masculinity expressions to their sons has far-reaching implications. For example, it goes a long way in explaining why traditional ideas of masculinity, characterized by beliefs in male superiority and endorsement of risky or violent behavior, remain entrenched in today's society. Our study indicates that breaking this cycle requires bringing fathers into the mix. Policies, interventions, and programs aimed at promoting healthy masculinities among young people are more likely to work if they also target their dads. And, it is likely that as the young men themselves become fathers, their own children's masculinities will also be positively affected.


For Further Reading

Perales, F., Kuskoff, E., Flood, M., & King, T. (2023). Like father, like son: Empirical insights into the intergenerational continuity of masculinity ideology. Sex Roles, 88 (9-10) 399-412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-023-01364-y


Francisco Perales is Adjunct Associate Professor at The University of Queensland. His research examines socio-economic inequalities from a life-course perspective, particularly those based on gender, sexual orientation, and socio-economic background.

Ella Kuskoff is a Research Fellow at The University of Queensland. Her research focuses on social and policy responses to inequality and disadvantage, particularly domestic violence, gender, and homelessness.

Michael Flood is a Professor in the School of Justice at Queensland University of Technology. His research agenda focuses on gender, sexuality, and interpersonal violence.

Tania King is an Associate Professor, ARC DECRA and Dame Kate Campbell Principal Research Fellow at the University of Melbourne. Her work broadly examines the social and structural determinants of health, with a particular interest in social and health inequalities.

The Red Pill, Incels, and the Perils of Traditional Masculinity

The term incel (short for involuntarily celibate) was originally coined 25 years ago by a queer female scientist for whom romance was elusive. Headline-grabbing violent incidents like the Toronto van attack and the Tallahassee yoga studio shooting (both were committed by incel men) show how this group has morphed drastically since its start. Nonetheless, most people don't have a clear idea of what members of the incel community believe.

Also compelling is how many of the misogynistic beliefs found in incel online communities are found on sites that give dating advice to men, such as The Red Pill. If you're actively dating now, you may have even run into people who believe in the ideas discussed on these sites. So how concerned should one be about the pervasive entitlement and misogyny found online?

To answer this question, we read and analyzed about 400,000 words posted on Incel.is and The Red Pill, looking to summarize the beliefs about women, men, and dating presented there. What we found is that men in both communities believe that women and men are fundamentally different as a result of biology and evolution: men are rational and logical, and women are fickle and emotional. Posters present their advice as new, secret knowledge, but these beliefs are just a more extreme version of traditional gender stereotypes that have been around for years.

On both sites, the belief that men and women naturally develop into rigid gender roles means women are unable to escape their alleged subconscious motivation to be selfish in their interactions with men. Again and again, posters made it clear that they saw women as motivated to manipulate men, promiscuously satisfy their own sexual needs, and, most troubling, to trade sex for power.

The Red Pill divided all men into either Alphas or Betas. Alphas are men who are attractive and powerful and therefore sexually successful, truly the ideal of traditional masculinity.  Betas are men who give women either financial support or, worse in their minds, emotional support.  Betas are seen as men attempting to seduce women the wrong way, giving away their power instead of using it to seize a woman's attraction.

The Red Pill sees Alpha and Beta statuses within manhood as a choice, with nothing impossible for the man willing to put in the work. Because of this belief, most posters on The Red Pill tended to share advice to encourage others in their self-improvement journeys, both for improving physical fitness and dominating women.

The Incel community considers incels a third type of man, one who aspires to be an Alpha, but can never succeed due to physical or mental deficiencies beyond their control. Incels consider themselves impossible to shape into an Alpha and have internalized The Red Pill's misogynistic worldview too much to stoop to the behaviors of a Beta. So, they feel stuck: alone, miserable, and angry at the world for having to exist this way. Incel posters sometimes endorsed suicide, as well as sexual violence against women and mass violence, referencing past incel perpetrators like Elliot Roger and Alek Minassian.

The Red Pill and Incel are examples of how men face negative consequences no matter what their relationship with traditional masculinity is. Men who try to live up to the ideals of traditional masculinity endorse violating others. Violations like sexual aggressiveness are justified on The Red Pill, as seen in comments like these: "Because they [women] are the submissive inferior and thus you can do what you want with them & they take it. They're the doormats, you're the superior…"

On the Incel posts we read, men egged each other on to turn their hatred towards women and society into violence. As much can be seen in this comment encouraging others to commit mass violence as Elliot Roger (ER) did in 2014: "I wouldn't rest until every incel gets his revenge. Go ER or f**k  with the femoids [women] for the sake of good ol' times."

This is where the mass violence that incels commit comes from: a community that turns this loathing into an endorsement of violence against others.

Clearly women are at risk from men who are part of the Red Pill or Incel communities, but there are negative consequences for men, too. Violating traditional masculinity norms can lead men to experience more depression and suicide. We saw this among Incel board members either plainly stating 'I want to kill myself' or going into more detail as in this comment: "i need to f**king die already. i live for nothing, and base pleasures do nothing for me. my fear of death is nothing compared to the fear of waking up in the morning."

The Red Pill and Incel communities are troubling and can be dangerous, but the purpose of this research was not just to better understand these men as the outliers that media, policing agencies, and counter-terrorism experts often frame them as, but to connect the ideologies of these men to its patriarchal, if not misogynistic, foundations. Addressing these dangers cannot stop at internet moderation and policing interventions. The solution requires all of us to look deeper at harmful traditional masculinity and misogyny that runs rampant on these sites, but also through our culture more broadly.


For Further Reading

Malamuth, N. (2003). Criminal and noncriminal sexual aggressors: Integrating psychopathy in a hierarchical-mediational confluence model. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 989, 33–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2003.tb07292.x

Vallerga, M., & Zurbriggen, E. L. (2022). Hegemonic masculinities in the 'Manosphere': A thematic analysis of beliefs about men and women on The Red Pill and Incel. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 22(1), 602-625. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12308


Michael Vallerga is a PhD candidate in the Department of Psychology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, where he studies authoritarianism, masculinity, and conspiracy beliefs and how they are connected.

Eileen L. Zurbriggen is a Distinguished Professor of Psychology at the University of California, Santa Cruz where she is also affiliated with the Feminist Studies department. Her research focuses on the intersections between power, objectification, sexuality, and gender, with an interest in connecting interpersonal interactions to larger social structures and issues.

Women Work to Protect Men’s Ego in Bed, But at What Cost?

One day I was sitting with some male colleagues. We all study gender, and how our beliefs about gender get in the way of living our best lives. We were discussing the orgasm gap, in which heterosexual women have orgasms less than men. One colleague pitches a hypothesis. "Do you think," he asks, "that men who are insecure in their masculinity don't ask women for feedback on their sexual performance? And that's why women who sleep with them aren't having orgasms?"

"It doesn't matter," I mutter before I can stop myself, "No woman is going to tell an insecure guy that he's not good in bed." Three male heads swivel to face me. I feel nervous I'm giving away some feminine trade secret with this explanation, but I continue. "If a woman senses that the guy she is sleeping with is insecure in his masculinity, she isn't going to risk doing more damage to his male ego. Or if she is, she's pretty brave."

Later, I ran the idea past another female colleague. Women do this, right? She confirmed. Absolutely. Then I asked another woman. And another. Whether or not the woman I was speaking to actually participated in holding back sexual feedback to protect her partner, they all recognized that a woman might choose to do this, specifically to protect her partner's sense of manhood.

Why would women do this? Because in our society—and societies around the world—manhood must be earned, but it can also be lost, a phenomenon termed precarious manhood. Previous research finds that men will go to great lengths to demonstrate their masculinity, and that when they fail to prove they are a "real" man, they struggle, psychologically and physically, and will take action to regain their man card. Unsurprisingly, women are also aware of this challenge for men.

We reasoned that women's awareness of the precarious nature of manhood creates a barrier for women in their sexual communication. If a woman feels her partner is already struggling with a lost sense of masculinity, or if she senses he is particularly vulnerable to threats to his masculinity, she will opt to not share sexual feedback with him.

This is because sexual performance is a critical aspect of society's vision of what it means to be a man. Men are expected to be virile, experienced, and sexually competent. Men are supposed to "give" their partners orgasms. So what happens when a man fails to do that? His partner is faced with two choices: tell him the truth, so he can do better next time, or lie.

Of course, the lie can take many different forms. They can opt to not share they had been left sexually unsatisfied (a lie of omission), tell their partner they had enjoyed the experience when they didn't, and, of course, fake their orgasms. Whether overt or subtle, each is a means of censoring feedback. We decided to explore if indeed women use these censorship methods when they perceive their male partners' manhood as easily threatened (more precarious), to avoid harming his sense of masculinity.

In the first study, we examined the masculinity threat of not being the household breadwinner. Masculine roles dictate that men ought to support their household, and when men fail to live up to this pressure, they are more likely to experience anxiety, insomnia, and even erectile dysfunction. We hypothesized that if women are aware of this societal pressure on men, and the toll it may take, then women who made more money than their male partners—effectively stripping men of their breadwinner status—may be reluctant to add to that masculinity threat by admitting their sex life was less than stellar. Supporting this hypothesis, we found that women who out-earned their boyfriends and husbands were more likely to fake their orgasms than women who made less than their partners.

In our second study, we directly measured women's sense that their partner's manhood was precarious. We found that women experience a sort of domino effect. When they believed their partners were more insecure in their masculinity, they were more anxious about sexual communication. When they were anxious, they communicated their needs less. Finally, communicating their needs less meant less overall sexual satisfaction and fewer orgasms.

And in the third study, we found that when women imagined a partner who was insecure about their masculinity, they were less likely to be open and honest about what they wanted in bed. This was because they were worried about hurting their partner's feelings and thus felt anxious about communicating their needs. On the other hand, women who imagined a secure partner were much more likely to share sexual feedback.

All in all, our findings paint a fairly clear picture: when women feel like their partner's masculinity is on the line, it can lead to a whole host of issues in the bedroom. They might hold back on what they really want, fake orgasms, or just accept being less satisfied. When that happens, men don't get the feedback they need and the cycle keeps going.

But here's the thing, this doesn't have to be the case! Understanding that the precarious nature of manhood may get in the way of sexual communication—for men and women—can help couples talk more openly and honestly about sex. And when that happens, everyone wins.


For Further Reading

Jordan, J. A., Vandello, J. A., Heesacker, M., & Larson-Konar, D. M. (2022). Do women withhold honest sexual communication when they believe their partner's manhood is threatened? Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(8), 1210-1220. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211067884

Murray, S. H. (2018). Heterosexual men's sexual desire: Supported by, or deviating from, traditional masculinity norms and sexual scripts? Sex Roles, 78, 130-141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0766-7

Sanchez, D. T., Kiefer, A. K., & Ybarra, O. (2006). Sexual submissiveness in women: Costs for sexual autonomy and arousal. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 512–524. https://doi-org.esearch.ut.edu/10.1177/0146167205282154

Salisbury, C. M. A., & Fisher, W. A. (2014).  "Did you come?" A qualitative exploration of gender differences in beliefs, experiences, and concerns regarding female orgasm occurrence during heterosexual sexual interactions. Journal of Sex Research, 51, 616-631. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2013.838934


Jessica Jordan is an Assistant Teaching Professor at the University of Tampa. Her research examines how people's beliefs about gender impact their sexual communication and behavior.

Men Get Depressed, but It Is Often Overlooked

Are women more depressed than men? Research shows that women are more likely to experience what is known as "internalizing" kinds of symptoms such as depression and anxiety, conditions in which symptoms are thought to be turned against the self. The same line of research shows that men are more likely to experience "externalizing" kinds of symptoms (turned outward), which involves things like anger and aggression, and men are also more likely to abuse substances. By the numbers, this is true. Even though it is diagnosed less often in men, millions of them experience depressive symptoms each year. And men are often lost in the conversation.

What about the men who are depressed? Which men are at risk of depression and what predicts their symptoms? Knowing this would be a first step in thinking about the kinds of resources they might need. In our research, we examine what might predict depression (a classic internalizing symptom) and anger (a classic externalizing symptom) in men. Instead of comparing men to women, we consider what dynamics of masculinity and of being a man might explain why some men do indeed become depressed (and why they are angry).

We find that men who are more traditionally "masculine"—who endorse strict gendered norms discouraging emotional expression and encouraging independence and financial success—are at greater risk of both internalizing and externalizing mental health troubles.

We focus on older White men as a starting point for this investigation and examine which men among them have greater chances of experiencing depression and anger. This is a vital question since the extreme result of depression—suicide—is more common for older White men. In this population, it is clear that particular types of masculinity beliefs ("hegemonic" masculinity) predict much greater chances of experiencing anger, which is in line with expectations. Surprisingly, they are also more likely to experience depressive symptoms, prompting us to suggest that the sources of anger and depression may be similar. Hegemonic Masculinity is a rigid, traditional set of beliefs like men should be breadwinners and solve conflicts with their fists and it is especially predictive of sadness for older men in the face of difficult life circumstances like health or wealth decline.

When we look at two direct threats to masculinity beliefs—health decline and loss of wealth—we find that the original relationship between masculinity beliefs and negative mental health outcomes is even stronger among men who face these threats. In other words, men who feel as though they ought to be tough, independent, and able to handle things on their own are more likely to feel angry and suffer from depressive symptoms when they face a health challenge or when their financial security is challenged. Why is this the case? Declining health and wealth both threaten men's sense of independence and self-sufficiency, directly contradicting the tenets of hegemonic masculinity. Men whose masculinity beliefs are threatened may hide their emotions and avoid seeking help, which exacerbates their symptoms.

Our research suggests that it is important not only to compare men to women, but to think beyond the traditional notion that gender per se predicts who is more likely to experience which kind of mental health outcomes. Instead we look at what characteristics (or which men) are more likely to experience which kind of mental health outcomes. Again, why might some men and not others experience these kinds of problems?

It is critical to continue investigating how certain types of masculine ideals lead to symptoms of depression and anger (and potentially other outcomes) for older White men, and also to test whether this holds true across a range of men who vary in race, class, sexual orientation, and age. The answers to these questions would have broad implications for treatment and for how services should be aimed toward different subgroups of men.


For Further Reading

Smith, D. T., Mouzon, D. M., & Elliott, M. (2022). Hegemonic masculinity and mental health among older white men in the U.S.: The role of health and wealth decline. Sex Roles, 86, 605–619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-022-01291-4

Smith, D. T., Mouzon, D. M., & Elliott, M. (2018). Reviewing the assumptions about men's mental health: An exploration of the gender binary. American Journal of Men's Health, 12(1), 78-89. doi:10.1177/1557988316630953

Powell, W. (Host) (2016, June). How masculinity can hurt mental health (No. 38). [Audio podcast episode]. In Speaking of psychology. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/research/action/speaking-of-psychology/men-boys-health-disparities

Pudrovska, T. (2010). Why is cancer more depressing for men than women among older White adults? Social Forces, 89(2), 535–558. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2010.0102


Dena T. Smith is Associate Professor of Sociology and director of The Graduate Program in Applied Sociology in the Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Public Health at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. She studies mental health professionals, specifically those who practice talk therapy, as well as gender and mental health.

Dawne M. Mouzon is Associate Professor of Sociology at Rutgers University. She studies Black families, Black aging, and the interplay between psychosocial stressors, coping, trauma, and resilience among Black American populations.

Marta Elliott is Professor and Chair of the Department of Sociology at the University of Nevada, Reno. She studies causal attributions of behavior consistent with psychiatric diagnoses and stigma, the curious and problematic overlap between diagnostic criteria for bipolar and borderline personality disorders, and the mental health impacts of the global pandemic.