#1 Victorian uni for graduate employment1
#1 in the world for sport science2
#1 Victorian uni for course satisfaction3
NEXT UP ON this.
Oh, man – masculinity is a controversial topic right now. Whether we’re talking in terms of toxic or positive masculinity, the idea of what it means to be a man in 2026 is a subject of much debate. There is no shortage of masculine stereotypes in popular culture, and stories of toxic masculinity are increasingly receiving media attention.
So, how does this all help to inform us about masculinity? Do we need to reframe our thinking around masculinity? And how can we create a system equipped to create better, more positive ideals for masculinity? To help us explore this crucial issue, we spoke to Deakin’s Associate Professor of Politics, Dr Josh Roose.
Firstly: what is masculinity, exactly? According to Roose, masculinity is ‘the social construction of what it is to be a man,’ and there are a few different models of masculinity under this umbrella.
‘One way it’s broken down is to look at hegemonic masculinity, which is this ideal for what it is to be a man,’ Roose says. ‘Typically speaking, the stereotypical frame might be the Bondi lifeguard, bronzed Aussie, or it might be a white male CEO of a business, the Prime Minister of the country or, a bit more provocatively, it might be someone like a Ben Roberts-Smith.’
Roose also points to the idea of ‘subordinated masculinity,’ which describes men who feel like they don’t meet – or are being held back from – the standard of masculinity.
‘They typically demonstrate a little disempowerment and resentment, and not being able to be held up and achieve that status and standing, so that’s typically associated more with a rejection of society or rebellion or often physical resistance as well.’
There are other ways to think about masculinity, too. The term ‘toxic masculinity’ has become part of the lexicon in recent years. This term describes a negative stereotype of masculinity that is ‘represented by qualities such as violence, dominance, emotional illiteracy, sexual entitlement, and hostility to femininity.’
On the other hand, we have what is sometimes termed ‘positive masculinity’ – which describes a type of masculinity ‘likely to confer benefits to […] wellbeing, defined by connection, motivation and authenticity’.
From Roose’s perspective, though, defining masculinity as positive or toxic is largely unhelpful.
‘I think the language of toxic masculinity can end up pathologising masculinity as a social construction,’ he says. ‘That is not a particularly helpful way to understand men’s behaviour. Men clearly do enact harmful behaviours, including misogyny, violence, intolerance and domination. But there is nothing inherently toxic about masculinity as a concept, just as there is nothing inherently positive about it. Masculinity is better understood as a set of social practices and expectations that can be expressed in very different ways depending on context.’
From Roose’s point of view, there is a legitimate reason why the binary between “toxic masculinity” and “positive masculinity” has become so prominent. It reflects, in part, what has become visible through popular culture, influencers and social media.
‘It’s really based on what we’ve seen online with extremes of misogyny, particularly in the manosphere,’ he says. ‘The online digital world has created spaces where influencers and women-haters can get online, narrate their own grievances, blame women for their pain, and share a wider hatred of feminism.’
This was recently explored in Louis Theroux’s 2026 documentary “Inside the Manosphere”. The documentary examined the online forums, channels and personalities Roose refers to, including figures such as HSTikkyTokky and Sneako, where aggressive, misogynistic and grievance-based performances of masculinity are often amplified.
For Roose, these online personalities have helped give the idea of “toxic masculinity” its popular force. They do not simply model harmful behaviour. They often promote a narrow and nostalgic ideal of manhood, while also criticising modern society for no longer organising itself around that ideal.
‘You’ve only got to look at influencers like Andrew Tate and Joe Rogan, among others,’ he says. ‘There’s this attempt to recapture a more traditional sense of manhood, this nostalgia for men as heads of households and fighters of battles, while women stay at home and tend to the house and children. But society doesn’t work like that anymore. You can’t buy a house without two incomes. You can’t move ahead without two incomes. And there is a cohort of men who are unlikely to marry or find partners, and it is particularly strong among those who feel the world is moving on and they are being left behind.’
Roose may not agree with the terms ‘toxic’ and ‘positive masculinity’ as binaries, but he does strongly believe that there needs to be a better way for men to move forward with regards to masculinity in general.
‘Broadly, we’ve got to start engaging with ideas of citizenship and, basically, meaningful recognition of others,’ Roose says. ‘Too often people claim their rights without necessarily being prepared to meet their obligations and responsibilities to wider society. I think all people hold embedded biases and some form of bigotry, but ultimately, it’s how you choose to act and how you choose to treat others, irrespective of those biases, that ultimately definesyour worth.’
Roose isn’t dismissive of the sorts of issues that can foster so-called toxic masculinity. Instead, he says that it’s important to identify and understand these issues, and to create better pathways forward through work and education, for example.
‘When we are talking about masculinity, it is an important concept for understanding why certain groups in society might feel left behind,’ Roose says. ‘That might be in young men’s education, employment, or in a broader sense that life is not working for them. That can be legitimate. People have a right to express the view that the world is not working for them. But it comes back to the basics. If you treat women with disrespect because you feel your own life is not going well, then we need to address the deeper-seated issues, including how we get men back into meaningful work, education, employment and social connection.’
If we, as a society, want to think about masculinity in a positive light, Roose believes we have to start by reframing how we think about men in the first place.
‘If we are talking about the social construction of what it is to be a man, then we also have to say that it is possible to be a man and contribute to wider society, to respect women and others, and to be a decent person,’ he says. ‘That is a key element that is often missed when we talk about positive masculinities, toxic masculinities and so on.’
For Roose, this is not simply a cultural conversation. It also requires political and institutional attention, including in education, employment, youth policy and portfolios concerned with men and boys. The issue is not whether masculinity should be celebrated in the abstract, but whether young men are being given the tools, expectations and social pathways to become responsible members of society.
‘I think it is possible to say that we need to better equip our young men for life,’ Roose says. ‘That includes education, employment and mentors. But it also comes back to the basics: what are we teaching young people about what it means to be a member of society as a whole?’
