In today’s world of increasing gender equality, women make strides everyday towards better, happier, more productive lives. However, the same cannot be said for men. Men, as a group, show a disturbing trend of living shorter, sadder, more traumatic lives. Men perpetrate the majority of violent crimes; they are more likely to commit suicide; and they are more susceptible to addiction and substance abuse (Holloway). Men experience more severe chronic illness, have higher death rates from the top fifteen causes of death, and die nearly seven years younger than women (Courtenay 1385). Psychologists, sociologists, gender theorists, and other experts think that these discrepancies between men and women are due toxic masculinity. Toxic masculinity can be defined as “a narrow and repressive description of manhood, designating manhood as defined by violence, sex, status and aggression” (O’Malley). According to theory, toxic masculinity demands that men maintain a very specific and restrictive type of masculinity, one that causes significant emotional trauma and takes measurable tolls on their lives and the lives of others. Masculinity controls the emotions and actions of just under half the population and yet is rarely analyzed or criticized in mainstream culture. 

Few places demonstrate the effects of toxic masculinity as obviously as college campuses. Every news cycle sees an emerging story of hazing, suicide, sexual assault, and drug and alcohol abuse on college campuses. The university environment is the ground on which many young adults develop their identities. It is their first time without parental or authority figure supervision, they are still developing physically, emotionally, and mentally, and often the behaviors and beliefs they develop in college last the rest of their lives. Additionally, college provides ample opportunities to for young men to gather and learn from each other and create their own social groups. By examining the specific issues plaguing men (violent crime, drug/alcohol abuse, risk taking behavior, and poor mental health and suicide) in the context of young college men, we see specific parallels and how toxic masculinity plays a role in those trends. Toxic masculinity significantly contributes to the issues of hazing, binge drinking, drug abuse, poor mental health, and suicide in college men. In order to address these issues, we must address the way men socially learn, teach, enforce, and express manhood.

To address the ills caused by toxic masculinity, we must first understand what toxic masculinity is and how it develops. Masculinity is defined by the Oxford Dictionary of Media and Communication as “the social roles, behaviors, and values culturally prescribed for males in a particular society in a given period.” Masculinity, despites its homogenous representation in media, comes in many different variations. Every race, culture, region, and religion has their own sets of norms and expectations for men, and of course, not all of those masculinities are toxic. According to the Good Men Project, a media company dedicated to exploring the many facets of masculinity, toxic masculinity is a “narrow and repressive description of manhood, designating manhood as defined by violence, sex, status and aggression” (O’Malley). Toxic masculinity emphasizes manliness through physical strength, sex, and rejection of feminine characteristics or behaviors. Toxic masculinity, with its strong component of social enforcement, is strongly tied to hegemonic masculinity, because it is the prevailing, dominant expression of masculinity. 

While American conceptions of masculinity are not the only unhealthy or destructive ones, American masculinity is surprisingly homogenous and restrictive for such a diverse, developed country. The rules of manhood in America are taught early on in boyhood and are enforced through mocking, violence, and social ostracization (Kimmel 233). Michael Kimmel refers to these rules as “The Guy Code”; men learn these rules from the media they consume, their peers, their parents, their teachers, and their coaches (232).  From a young age, boys are taught that the only “manly” emotion is anger and that compromise is equivalent to weakness (Kimmel 229-230). They are taught to be aggressive and to reject things that are considered feminine. This process is not intentional, conscious indoctrination, rather it is a tacit passing down and reaffirming of outdated standards. 

However, many consider traditional masculinity a basic biological fact, rather than a historically shaped social construction, so they believe there is only one correct way to be a man. They think that certain traits of manhood, such as risking taking, low emotional expression, and aggressiveness are all natural traits of all men; that masculinity is only dangerous when unbridled and untrained; and that masculinity is, in fact, what makes men productive providers and protectors in society. Those with such traditional, biologically based views of gender eschew the idea that the prevalence of violent crime, suicide, and substance abuse in men is in any way tied to socialized masculinity. They attribute these issues to poor education, lack of resources, absence of positive male authority figures, poverty, and natural male tendencies. Because they consider these aspects of toxic masculinity to be “natural”, they don’t see the socialization of boys as forceful and harmful. Additionally because the traditional American conception of masculinity emphasizes positive traits such as loyalty, responsibility to provide for family, and bravery, they fail to see the darker, more insidious side of that same form of masculinity. This, however, is misguided as we can begin to see the effects of toxic masculinity on children as soon as elementary and middle school. 

Our gendered expectations even affect how we treat infants. Psychologist Terry Real finds that parents perceive innate manliness in male infants and subconsciously think that they need less attention and comforting (Holloway). Additionally, they perceived male infants to be bigger and stronger than female infants. This bias is referred to  as “masculinization,” and is further demonstrated in another study in which parents in rated female infants as more “delicate” and “softer” than baby boys, even though researchers controlled for weight, length, alertness, and strength. In a 2004 study, adults were shown a video of a baby crying; adults who were told the baby was a girl said it was scared, while those who were told it was male said it was angry (Holloway). Chu asserts that infant studies demonstrate that boys and girl equally seek and form relationships, and that male infants may even need more attention from caregivers (Berlatsky). However, later in adolescence, boys report fewer close relationships, less intimacy, further suggesting that their socialization is what drives them out of seeking and forming those relationships. Despite the clear implications of parents’ interactions with infants, most of boys’ socialization and learning occurs in their interactions with other boys their age. Although only some boys have been exposed to more mature media or family with strict expectations of masculinity, they pass it on to their peers who haven’t (Berlatsky). According to Judy Chu, as interviewed by Noah Berlatsky for The Atlantic, most stereotypical “boy behavior” isn’t innate or authentic to boys, rather it is behavior learned through socialization. Chu performed a multi-year study of boys beginning in Pre-K and found that, contrary to conventional view of gendered personality difference, boys are not “stoic, aggressive, hierarchical, bad at forming relationships, or unable to express themselves.” While parts of personality are innate, these typically male traits do not appear naturally in all young boys; rather they acquire them as they are socialized. Socialization, itself, isn’t inherently negative. Most human behavior is learned through socialization. However, socialization of gender expectations begins early and teaches boys that they must temper and moderate their personality in order to be accepted. Further, according to Chu, people reinforce normative yet toxic perceptions of typical “boy behavior” when they attribute rowdiness, but not sensitivity, to “boys being boys.” Through this labeling, people feed into their own misconceptions and confirmation bias. Terry Real concludes that, with boys beginning to hide their emotions as young as three years old, masculinity is defined and marked by absence and not acknowledging a key part of the human experience. This leads to men suffer alone and disconnect from the full spectrum of human emotion, a result that Real labels as “traumatic” by saying “It's traumatic to be forced to abdicate half of your own humanity” (Holloway). Men entering college have already been indoctrinated by toxic masculinity, but college provides them an opportunity question and reform their views of manhood. However, without guidance in that endeavor, college may only reaffirm and amplify their destructive perceptions of masculinity.

The first area in which men in college are facing adverse effects due to toxic masculinity is mental health. Salon’s Kali Holloway argues that while social expectations of both men and women are toxic and cause harm, “masculinity is the more effective killer, getting the job done faster and in greater numbers. (Holloway).” She points out that alcoholism, workaholism, suicide, and violence are all higher in men than in women, and even when men survive, they may suffer “spiritual death” in the form of emotional trauma, suppression, dissociation, and depression. While The National Alliance on Mental Illness states that, across race and ethnicity, women are twice as likely to experience depression as men, experts such as psychologist Terry Real, believe that violent, aggressive behaviors in men often serve to mask their depression, which goes largely unrecognized and undiagnosed. Furthermore, undiagnosed depression can often lead to suicide, which men are four times as likely to commit (Holloway). Additionally, men are twice as likely to suffer from rage disorders (Holloway). Because college is a high stress period for many people, it is concerning that research shows men are often suffering from mental health issues, but refrain from seeking treatment. Toxic masculinity may be responsible for not only exacerbating mental health issues, but also preventing men from getting help.

Research supports the hypothesis that the restrictions placed on men’s emotions by toxic masculinity cause measurable harms. In one study, Blazina and Edwards examine how gender role conflict (GRC) affects college men’s psychological well-being, substance use and attitude toward health seeking. Gender role conflict is defined as “a psychological state where gender roles have negative consequences or impact on a person or others (Blazina and Edward 461).” The results show that men who adhere to traditional standards of masculinity show higher levels of depression, anxiety, and anger. This is reinforced by the work of Moon-Ho Ringo Ho et al, who performed a meta-analysis of 78 studies done on the relationship between conformity to masculine norms and mental health. The meta-analysis showed that conformity to masculine norms is connected to poor mental health outcomes and a lower tendency to seek psychological help. Additionally, the analysis uncovered some moderation effects. For instance, conformity to certain masculine norms (self-reliance, power over women, etc.) is more strongly and consistently correlated with poor mental health outcomes.

The National Survey on Drug Use and Health illustrated additional health risks unique to men. According to their research, men are more likely than women to use illicit drugs. In 2013, 26% of male college students were currently illicit drug users, as compared to 19.2% of female college students (SAMHSA 27). The same survey shows that male college students were more likely than their female counterparts to be binge drinkers (44.8% vs. 33.9%) and to be heavy drinkers (16.5% vs. 9.3%) (SAMHSA 41). According to the CDC, men also experiences higher rates of alcohol related deaths and hospitalizations than women. Additionally, men are more likely than women to engage in other risky behaviors while drinking, which puts them in further danger (CDC). These trend hold true for drug abuse as well, with boys being more likely than girls to have used drugs by age 12; earlier use of drugs puts them at higher risk of drug use and addiction later in life (Holloway).

Blazina and Edward’s study of gender role conflict in college men provided insight into college men’s alcohol and substance use. They cite previous literature which hypothesized that men may view drinking as a masculine activity, and that that perception may drive them to consume larger quantities of alcohol more often than women (Blazina and Edward 461). In addition, they reference that male communication with other men increases while drinking. This may indicate that men use drinking as an excuse to break the masculine social norms that disallow platonic male affection and emotional sharing. Men may also engage in excessive drinking as a form of self-medication for undiagnosed depression or other mental health issues. In the study, men who scored higher on the “Success, Power, and Competition variable” admitted to greater usage of alcohol, further supporting the theoretical connections between alcohol consumption and social perception of manhood (Blazina and Edward 463-464). 

Hazing is another aspect of college life that can be associated with toxic masculinity. A 2008 study defined hazing “Hazing in View: College Students at Risk” as “any activity expected of someone joining or participating in a group that humiliates, degrades, abuses, or endangers them regardless of a person’s willingness to participate” (Allan and Madden 2). This study, conducted by Elizabeth J. Allan and Mary Madden, surveyed 11,482 students at 53 colleges and found that found that 55% of the college students who participated in a university club, sport, or organization experienced hazing (2). That ratio increases to 61% when looking at just men (Allan and Madden 14). Additionally, 51% of male participants reported experiencing at least one incident of hazing while in high school (Allan and Madden 32). While hazing is associated mostly with Greek-letter organizations, more than half of students on a varsity athletic team, a club sport team, or intramural team experienced hazing (Allan and Madden 15). 

When examining the types of hazing students experienced, Allan and Madden stated that "students are participating in unacceptable, high-risk, and potentially illegal behaviors to belong to a student group or team” (16). Forced or coerced participation in drinking games is the most common hazing behavior and was experienced by 31% of male respondents, compared to 23% female respondents (Allan and Madden 18). When analyzing the types of hazing men experience, men are significantly more likely than women to experience coerced binge drinking (to the point of being sick or passing out), sleep deprivation, forced isolation from specific people, verbal harassment by other members, having to perform sex acts, or being forced to endure harsh weather conditions without appropriate clothing (Allan and Madden 18). 

The study also reveals why so many students tolerate hazing and don’t report it. 31% said it made them “feel more like a part of the group” (Allan and Madden 27). 95% did not report, and while 37% cited not wanting to get their group or team in trouble, 54% cited other reasons (Allan and Madden 28). Those other reasons fell into the categories of minimization, normalization, rationalization, belief that being hazed is a choice, or disagreement with the definition of hazing (Allan and Madden 29). Cliff Leek, the editor of the journal Men and Masculinities, asserts that hazing does not make members “more loyal to the group,” as is often stated, but rather makes them “more compliant to norms and group culture” (Zeilinger). Eric Barthold, who facilitates workshops on masculinity, states that the hierarchy that allows “older students to assert control over younger students” and creates in new members insecurity and a need to prove themselves cannot be escaped until they are able to assert control over newer members (Zeilinger). Barthold also claims that fraternities often hold power over members, because new and old members are consistently made to feel inadequate or not manly enough. Hazing others allows them to feel control and superiority, which props up their identity as a man and as a member of the group (Zeilinger). Leek echoes this idea saying, “the more insecure men are about their masculinity, the more likely they are to engage in these sort of extreme forms of hazing as a way to prove their masculinity, as a way to prove that they're worthy” (Zeilinger). Additionally, Leek states that older members who want to avoid hazing new members are framed as weak and face potential ostracization. Michael Kimmel and Amy Aronson, authors of Men and Masculinities: A Social, Cultural and Historical Encyclopedia, add that hazing practices are sustained by social anxieties around masculinity, stating that, “the more males are fearful of being labeled as weak, the more likely they are to participate in hazing activities that are dangerous and even life-threatening” (Zeilinger). Limited definitions of masculinity thus perpetuate dangerous situations for college students, particularly college-aged men, because they place social pressures on men to assert their masculinity through aggressive means.

Given the harms and damage faced by college men due to toxic masculinity, it is imperative that universities, student organizations, and athletic teams establish programming to address the issue. If we fail to acknowledge toxic masculinity and commit resources to its dismantling, we consign college men to sadder, shorter, less fulfilling, and more traumatic lives. Universities have a responsibility to their students and their society to challenge foregone presumptions, elevate discourse critical to citizens’ welfare, and enrich the lives of their pupils. Toxic masculinity presents a great threat to society, and college is not only an ideal time, but in some ways, the last time it can be contested and deconstructed on a large scale. Universities can substantially address toxic masculinity and its ills through training of authority figures and mentors, teaching students bystander intervention, and creating opportunities for men to discuss the expectations and experiences of manhood.

As described by Homayoun in her New York Times article, male authority figures are crucial in counteracting bad influences from peers and media and modeling good behavior. Because of the importance of male authority figures to providing positive representations of masculinity, higher education should train professors, advisors, alumni, student life staff, and coaches who interact with students often and in a personal manner. By letting them know the role that they play in the lives of college men and how they can address toxic masculinity with them, they can incorporate that knowledge into their interactions and interventions with students. 

Higher education should also be training male students in bystander intervention. According to Dr. Kerry Cronin, a Boston College philosophy professor, “students are often searching for permission and guidance on how to interrupt the social script they take as given” (Homayoun). Programs such as Green Dot and ThinkB4YouSpeak have shown success in teaching students to act as active bystanders when they witness dangerous, harmful, or toxic behavior or speech (Homayoun). By teaching them that they are responsible and complicit in the behavior of their peers and that toxic behavior hurts the community as a whole, they become more likely to act and police members of their own community. The participation of other college-aged men in reducing toxic masculinity is especially important to reducing hazing. While hazing happens mostly behind closed doors, Allan and Madden found that there are public aspects to hazing such as location, photos on social media, knowledge of hazing among coaches, advisors, alumni, family, and friends (Allan and Madden 24). 25% of students who experienced hazing said it happened on campus in a public space, 25% said alumni were present when they were hazed, and 48% of students who talked about their hazing experience, talked to a friend (Allan and Madden 25). With that level of public exposure, a community expectation for bystanders to intervene or report would uncover and prevent many incidents of hazing. 

Another method endorsed by Homayoun, as well as Atlantic writer, Natascha Yogachandra, is providing spaces, groups, and organization dedicated specifically to the discussion of young men’s person, emotional, and social experiences with and perceptions of masculinity. According to the advocates interviewed by Yogachandra, these programs provide young men a “chance to rethink maleness” by providing a safe space for men to be honest and vulnerable. They also provide an opportunity to make college men aware of resources they may be unaware of or reticent to use, such as mental health or counseling services. Because these conversations necessitate trust in the group and members of the group, they work best with small numbers and participants who already know each other (Yogachandra). This makes fraternities, athletic teams, and existing organizations ideal environments for starting these initiatives. University 101 or Freshmen Seminar courses might also provide an ideal environment for these conversations. When a small group atmosphere cannot be achieved, university faculty, staff, and departments can offer programming that features reading, film, or speakers that challenge traditional norms of masculinity. By rethinking the definition of masculinity and expanding it beyond the realms of toxic masculinity, universities can assist male students in finding healthier, more fulfilling identities for themselves.

 By addressing toxic masculinity, universities will be not only be doing a great societal good by reducing the harms that result from toxic masculinity, but they will also be creating measurable improvements in the lives of their students. With implementation of these initiatives, higher education can expect improvement in student’s physical health, mental health, extracurricular experience, and academic performance. Additionally, implementation would decrease alcohol poisoning, alcohol related accidents, illegal drug use, suicide rates, and incidence of hazing.
