What makes a man, a man: age, the Y chromosome, or other objective (and often physical) measures?
Vandello and Bosson (2013) (PDF, 101KB)opens in new window argued that being a man is more than a function of time and biology. They posited that manhood is a precarious social status that is difficult to earn; easily lost; and defined by an aversion to femininity in behavior, linguistics, and emotions.
Coming-of-age rituals that involve feats of strength, bravery, and endurance have traditionally existed for boys, not girls, but these are not as common in modern times. Now, most boys do not have the opportunity to earn and thereby prove their manhood. This leads to anxiety over gender status and the potential for engaging in risky and maladaptive behaviors to prove that one has, indeed, achieved manhood.
In the April 2014 issue of Psychology of Men and Masculinity, Vandello and Bosson reviewed research supporting the precarious manhood thesis across the domains of risk taking, aggression, stress and mental health, and work–life balance. They discussed studies that showed manhood was elusive and tenuous and needed to be publicly proven through action.
From this evidence, they proposed three implications of beliefs in precarious manhood:
- Men experience more anxiety and stress than women do over their gender status, especially under conditions of gender threat.
- Men take steps to show or reestablish their manhood status when it is threatened, even if those actions are risky, aggressive, or otherwise ill-advised.
- Men avoid situations that threaten their manhood status, especially when their actions might be associated with femininity.
These implications may seem innocuous, if not potentially comical: Certainly, they serve as the port from which a thousand sitcoms have been launched. Consider, too, the complicating factor that men appear to overestimate the level of masculinity expected and desired from them by their companions and potential romantic partners.
However, when all of these internalized concerns lead to long-term patterns of harmful behavior (e.g., not seeing the doctor because doing so is not "manly"; drinking, smoking, and not backing down from fights when "out with the boys"), the negative physical and psychological outcomes resulting from this mind-set are hardly funny.
Vandello and Bosson's exploration of the precarious manhood thesis comes at a time when cultural definitions of manhood may be in flux. But the fact that those definitions may be changing does not mean that men and boys are acting as if the new rules are in place. Cross-gender and cross-cultural research will help psychologists understand the precarious manhood construct by providing a snapshot of similarities and differences across dimensions of identity.
Vandello and Bosson invited additional research, observation, and commentary on precarious manhood as a theory and an explanation for a wide range of male behaviors and phenomena. A number of comments on their article were published in the same issue, as well as Vandello and Bosson's response. The result is a rich, multifaceted conversation about gender roles.
Citation:
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, 101–113. doi: 10.1037/a0029826
Note: This article is in the Social Psychology & Social Processes topic area. View more articles in the Social Psychology & Social Processes topic area.