toxic MAsculinity & australian culture

Bagshaw and Chung, 2000 critically analyses that within Australia there is a growing intolerance toward male violence against women, however toxic masculinities that provide men with a dominant position in society remain strong in Australia. Bagshaw and Chung also explore violent relationships as characterised by toxic masculine views and societal constructs. Similarly, Flood 2020 investigates masculinities as fundamentally social, arguing that men have different ways of expressing their masculinity depending on their peer groups and surrounding community. Toxic masculinity demands that males disconnect from their compassion and emotions to ensure they appear strong, stoic and tough. What it means to be a male has longstanding ideas, many of which are built from the foundation of dominance and superiority (Ford, 2018). Understanding the place of a males emotions is critical to understanding a his attachment to privilege (Pease, 2012).

Toxic masculinity, a set of behaviours, roles and values that are associated with boys and men, is a common catalyst in violent relationships (Ford, 2018; Bagshaw & Chung, 2000; Flood, 2020). Masculinity refers to the societal understanding of what it means to be a man, these longstanding ideas are built from the foundation of superiority and dominance (Veissière, 2018). Men who align themselves with a toxic view of masculine roles and behaviours are more likely to abuse women (Bozkurt et al., 2015). Similarly, Connell and Messerschmidt, (2005) recognise ‘masculinity’ as something that all men are subject to, whether they agree with the concept or not. What Connell and Messerschmidt are trying to highlight is the men who choose to conform with the toxicity associated with masculinity, particularly power and control, are the ones who are more likely to view violence as an acceptable or inevitable act. As Connell and M say, Gender inequality is a key reason behind toxic masculinity, it sets the social context for men’s violence against women to be seen as inevitable and tolerated.

Whilst critiqued, it is discussed that men who are in alignment with toxic views of masculinity are more prone to using violence as a method of power and control within their relationships (Bozkurt et al., 2015; Connell, 1992; Flood, 2020). A crucial insight into understanding intimate partner violence is to understand that it is not an isolated attack, instead it is a pattern of behaviours used as a tactic to gain power and control. Men’s violence towards women is generally physical but is also coupled with other forms of abuse including emotional and financial (Michael Flood, 2019).

Flood, 2020 provides a strong definition of toxic masculinity as the societal expectations that boys and men must be active, aggressive, rough, bold, and dominant. The first multimethod breakthrough study in Australia, guided by Flood, aimed to map out the structure of masculinity between young men through the use of online surveys and focus groups. This study involved a sample size of around one thousand as young as eighteen, and up to the age of thirty. Flood, alongside Heilman explored how young men in Australia encounter societies rules that fall into the ‘Man Box’ and furthermore whether or not they endorse these rules. This subject was determined by asking these boys questions on their views of seventeen messages that relate to how a man should behave. Among this were questions such as “men should figure out their personal problems on their own” and “a man should always have the final say about decisions in his relationship or marriage” and “if a guy has a girlfriend or wife, he deserves to know where she is all the time” (Flood, 2020; Heilman et al., 2017). Over forty percent of the sample agreed with all of these statements. Furthermore, men not having to do household chores, toughness and self-sufficiency were also among the masculine ideals participants said they see reinforced throughout society as a part of conventional manhood (Heilman et al., 2017).

Existing research agrees that the teachings of toxic masculinities is a well-documented risk factor in male violence against women. Women are oppressed and vulnerable and with a continuum of conformity to toxic masculinity there will always be a risk of harm and domination (REFERENCE). Community attitudes towards toxic masculinity strongly influence the prevalence of men’s violence as well as the reporting/disclosure rates. Moreover, there is a consistent body of literature that emphasises this correlation between men gaining power and control and conforming to toxic masculine ideas.  Flood (2020) provides a fundamental insight into  the importance of remembering that men’s violence against women is not an isolated attack, rather it is a pattern of regular behaviours (Flood, 2020). Moreover, it is commonly noted in existing literature that the social pressures and toxic beliefs around traditional gender roles is a leading factor in the shaping of the attitudes and socialisation of young boys (Morris & Ratajczak, 2019).

Choosing to be violent is often a sign of a psychological issue, a lack in coping mechanisms and low resilience. Through the primary research method of a structured diary entries of twenty-two males with a history of violent behaviours, against twenty-three men with no history of violence over a fourteen-day period, Umberson et al., 2003 was able to note that the difference between the two groups of men was the links between emotional state, stress and relationship dynamics. This qualitative approach involved participants responding to questionnaires on consecutive days to analyse psychological processes between relationship dynamics and emotional distress. Umberson’s dairy accounts complement the research of many other scholars examining the phenomenon of emotional absence. Similarly Felson, 1992 found that many men try to avoid and quash emotions, however in some situations such as difficult relationship dynamics emotional stress and anxiety will become apparent, regardless of how suppressed an emotional response is. Umberson et al., 2003 and Felson, 1992 both emphasise that men who are subject to choosing violent behaviours show a level of disconnect between themselves and their emotions. Moreover, Connell and Messerschmidt, 2005 suggest that males who are subjected to toxic masculinities and patriarchal views are more likely to use violence as an emotional release, and by the same token, tolerate violence from their peers. Although Connell and Messerschmidt’s observe slightly different reasonings for emotional disconnect from those of Umberson et al., and Felson, this different observation substantiates the claim that violent outbursts as a reaction to emotional disconnect is linked to validating masculine identity. In addition, Murrie, 1998 discusses that masculinity in Australia represents an unstable societal formation. Murrie further emphasises the claim that the relationship between masculinities and a lack of emotional intelligence encourages conformity to toxic masculinity and therefore creates interpersonal struggles that become indicators for emotional control, dominance and violence.