The Barbie movie and toxic masculinity in secondary schools

Last summer the Barbie movie took the world by storm. It broke Box Office records while also raising important points about the experiences of women and girls in a patriarchal society.

However, the movie’s criticism of the patriarchy was interpreted by some as a message of ‘anti-men’, rather than anti-patriarchy. Indeed, reactions of boys and men to the film ranged from positive to furtive rage. But why was this such a polarising movie for men and boys? 

In the summer of 2023, around the time of the Barbie movie’s release, I completed my thesis, which looked at adolescent masculinity and homophobic aggression. Through this research, I learnt a great deal about the psychology of masculinity, and why some men may have found the Barbie movie to be a difficult watch. It has also led me to think about toxic masculinity in secondary schools, and what EPs can do to support schools facing such issues. 

The Precarious Manhood Theory 

The extreme and angry reactions to the Barbie movie might be explained using the Precarious Manhood Theory (Vandello & Bosson, 2013), or what is more commonly referred to as ‘fragile masculinity’ (DiMuccio & Knowles, 2020).

The Precarious Manhood Theory has three principles:

1. Masculinity is a status that must be earned;
2. Once earned, this status is easily lost;
3. Masculinity must be socially proven as it is confirmed by others rather than the self, which suggests that a level of performance is required.

The theory suggests that masculinity is fragile, in society, as it is highly valued and narrowly defined, therefore it may be impossible to truly conform to masculine standards (Willer et al., 2013). Men and boys are thus motivated to continuously strive towards these unattainable standards and feel under pressure to prove their masculine status (Vandello & Bosson, 2013).

But… how does one prove masculinity when it is so fragile? By avoiding everything and anything coded as feminine (APA, 2018)… especially the Barbie movie. The Barbie movie is perhaps particularly threatening as it directly challenges the patriarchy and men’s institutional power in the world. 

A threatened masculinity does not come without a cost. We know from social psychology that when a valued component of a person’s identity is threatened, they can react with exaggerated or extreme attitudes and behaviours associated with that identity, in an attempt to recover it and reduce the Cognitive Dissonance (Burke & Sets, 2009). This is also the case with masculinity and this phenomenon has been termed the ‘masculine overcompensation thesis’, in that, men and boys will react with extreme ‘masculine’ attitudes and behaviours when their masculinity is threatened (Willer et al., 2013, p.980).

Studies have shown that threatening a man’s masculinity can lead to ‘toxic’ traits, for example through an increase in aggression, sexism, homophobia, sexualisation of women, and belief in male superiority (Bosson et al., 2009; Dahl et al., 2015; Konopka, et al, 2021; Willer et al., 2013). Indeed, ‘toxic masculinity’ is a term that is used in everyday language and feminist literature as shorthand for these misogynistic and homophobic views and behaviours (Harrington, 2021). 

Toxic Masculinity 

Despite the dangers associated with toxic masculinity there are corners of society which promote it. This is particularly prevalent on social media and online forums through subcultures such as ‘incels’, a community of men who identify as ‘involuntarily celibate’ (Hoffman et al., 2020).

Incels promote extreme misogynistic views, hatred for women, and violence, often blaming women for their failings (Ging, 2019), and have been vocal in the condemnation of the Barbie movie. Adolescent boys may be particularly susceptible to this community’s propaganda, due to the draw of finding a sense of belonging and identity, and the culture’s presence on social media, with some forums reaching up to 40,000 members (Fowler, 2021; Ging, 2019).

Toxic masculinity has also been promoted in more mainstream media, particularly via the social media channels of, for example, Andrew Tate. Before his arrest, Tate gained millions of followers while promoting extremely misogynistic and homophobic views with archaic notions of gender roles. His influence has reached adolescent boys in the UK which has raised concerns amongst teachers, parents, and parliament (Weale, 2023). 

Adolescence

Adolescence is a key time for identity formation and attitudes are highly susceptible to influence from one’s peer group during this period (Beal, 1994; Kågesten et al., 2016). Therefore, the concern is that toxic masculinity and the misogynistic and homophobic attitudes that can come with it might become normalised in peer groups and schools.

This was the topic of my thesis, in which I looked at the relationship between adolescent masculinity and homophobic aggression and name-calling. Findings from my meta-analysis and systematic review indicated that homophobic-name-calling in adolescent friendship groups is used to police masculinity, rather than sexuality, and is used to enforce conformity to traditional gender norms.

In my empirical study, I explored the novel hypothesis that fragile masculinity functions in a similar way to narcissism. My findings added weight to this hypothesis and suggested that boys experience masculinity threat on a societal level, similar to men. I also found that high levels of masculinity in adolescent boys could predict homophobic attitudes and aggression, however, empathy was a potential protective factor against this. 

Toxic masculinity, and the patriarchy in general, are not only harmful to women and the LGBTQIA+ community, but also to men and boys. The patriarchy puts pressure on boys and men to act in a certain ‘masculine’ way, for example, to always show strength, and to hide vulnerable emotions (Stanaland & Gaither, 2021). This is harmful for mental health and wellbeing and contributes to the high rates of suicide among men and adolescent boys (Cleary, 2012). 

Clearly, something needs to change. The Barbie movie highlighted a much-needed conversation about the patriarchy, and to some extent, masculinity. Changing the rhetoric around toxic masculinity is needed, for the sake of women, girls, and the LGBTQIA+ community, but also for the wellbeing of adolescent boys. 

How can Educational Psychologists help? 

Secondary schools across the UK are facing the difficulties of toxic masculinity among adolescent boys, and the associated challenges such as misogynistic and homophobic attitudes. But how can we as EPs support these boys and the peers around them?

The idea of toxic masculinity may be a daunting one for EPs to face, as it is a societal level issue, however, there are things EPs can do for schools and peer groups.

In my research and practice, I have come to believe that toxic masculinity, when truly broken down, relates to two fundamental psychological theories: belonging, and cognitive dissonance. These concepts are something EPs understand and work with every day, therefore these are good places to start when facing the challenges of toxic masculinity. Below are some of my initial thoughts on how to address this in relation to these two concepts. I would invite others to contribute their thoughts about how else we can help to tackle toxic masculinity in schools.      

Cognitive Dissonance

Masculinity threat and fragile masculinity may be related to cognitive dissonance and a need to protect a valued component of one’s identity by enacting extreme attitudes or behaviours such as aggression, misogyny, and homophobia. As EPs we can help adolescent boys ease this cognitive dissonance, without the need to overcompensate in an attempt to recover their threatened identity. For example, we may help adolescent boys to:

• Broaden their perception of what ‘masculinity’ is or can be 
• Understand and feel secure in their identity and their values
• Gain validation from themselves rather than others
• Provide emotionally literate role models who advocate against a toxic form of masculinity 

Belonging

Toxically masculine peer groups, incels, and Andrew Tate, may perhaps at their core, be about belonging and being in the ‘in-group’. Social psychological research findings illustrate that very little needs to happen to create an ‘in-group’ vs ‘out-group’ mentality, and this may explain the occurrence of toxically masculine peer groups in secondary schools.

We know that belonging is a fundamental need and plays a huge role in our behaviour. Adolescent boys may be motivated to continually prove their own masculinity to adhere to in-group norms and be accepted (Kågesten et al., 2016). Research has shown that an individual’s use of homophobic name calling can be influenced by the use of such language within their peer group (Birkett and Espelage, 2015). However, social psychology also tells us how to reduce the in-group bias and these may be principles we could also apply to the toxically masculine peer groups. For example: 

• Increasing empathy for outgroup members
• Increasing contact with and perspective taking of outgroup members
• Identifying and naming positive things about the outgroup
• Creating shared identities between in/out-group members

Although we may not be able to change the patriarchal society in which we live, as EPs, we can use our understanding of psychology to support school staff in addressing the increasing problem of toxic masculinity, and the associated attitudes and behaviours… perhaps with the help of Barbie. 

If you would like to know more about the research I conducted as part of my thesis, you can watch some short video presentations via these links:

• Exploring the Similarities Between Fragile Masculinity and Narcissism in Homophobic Aggression (youtube.com)
• Adolescent Masculinity and Homophobic-Name-Calling: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (youtube.com)

---

References

APA. (2018). APA Guidelines for psychological practice with boys and men [Data set]. American
Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/e505472019-001 

Beal, C. R. (1994). Boys and girls: The development of gender roles. McGraw-Hill.
http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/toc/mh021/93006422.html

Birkett, M., & Espelage, D. L. (2015). Homophobic name-calling, peer-groups, and masculinity: The socialization of homophobic behavior in adolescents. Social Development, 24(1), 184–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/SODE.12085

Bosson, J., Vandello, J., Burnaford, R., Weaver, J., & Wasti, S. (2009). Precarious Manhood and
displays of physical aggression. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 623–634.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208331161

Burke, P. J., & Stets, J. E. (2009). Identity Theory. Oxford University Press. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/identity-theory-9780195388282?cc=gb&lang=en&

Cleary, A. (2012). Suicidal action, emotional expression, and the performance of masculinities.
Social Science & Medicine, 74(4), 498–505.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.08.002

Dahl, J., Vescio, T., & Weaver, K. (2015). How threats to masculinity sequentially cause public
discomfort, anger, and ideological dominance over women. Social Psychology, 46(4), 242–
254. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/A000248

DiMuccio, S. H., & Knowles, E. D. (2020). The political significance of fragile masculinity. Current
Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 25–28.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COBEHA.2019.11.010

Fowler, K. (2021). From Chads to Blackpills, a discursive analysis of the incel’s gendered spectrum
of political agency. Deviant Behavior, 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2021.1985387 

Ging, D. (2019). Alphas, betas, and incels: Theorizing the masculinities of the manosphere. Men
and Masculinities, 22(4), 638–657. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X17706401

Harrington, C. (2021). What is “toxic masculinity” and why does it matter? Men and Masculinities,
24(2), 345–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X20943254

Hoffman, B., Ware, J., & Shapiro, E. (2020). Assessing the threat of incel violence. Studies in
Conflict & Terrorism, 43(7), 565–587. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610X.2020.1751459

Kågesten, A., Gibbs, S., Blum, R. W., Moreau, C., Chandra-Mouli, V., Herbert, A., & Amin, A. (2016).
Understanding factors that shape gender attitudes in early adolescence globally: A mixed methods systematic review. PLOS ONE, 11(6).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157805

Konopka, K., Rajchert, J., Dominiak-Kochanek, M., & Roszak, J. (2021). The role of masculinity
threat in homonegativity and transphobia. Journal of Homosexuality, 68(5), 802–829.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2019.1661728

Stanaland, A., & Gaither, S. (2021). “Be a man”: The role of social pressure in eliciting men’s
aggressive cognition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(11), 1596–1611.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220984298

Vandello, J., & Bosson, J. (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

Weale, S. (2023, February 2). ‘We see misogyny every day’: How Andrew Tate’s twisted ideology
infiltrated British schools. The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/feb/02/andrew-tate-twisted-ideologyinfiltrated-british-schools

Willer, R., Rogalin, C. L., Conlon, B., & Wojnowicz, M. T. (2013). Overdoing gender: A test of the masculine overcompensation thesis. Https://Doi.Org/10.1086/668417, 118(4), 980–1022. https://doi.org/10.1086/668417

---