Navigating the Crisis in Masculinity: Alternative Perspectives and Movements

What does it mean to be a man today? That question, once considered settled, has become one of the most debated issues in contemporary sociology. As gender roles have shifted dramatically over the past several decades, many scholars argue that traditional masculinity is undergoing a profound crisis – not necessarily a collapse, but a reckoning. This reckoning has given rise to alternative forms of masculinity, triggered organized political responses from men’s rights groups, and opened up important conversations about how gender equality can work for everyone.

What is the “crisis in masculinity”? 🔗

The term crisis in masculinity refers to the widespread anxiety and confusion that many men experience when the social scripts they were raised with no longer match the world around them. According to sociologists, many men face a masculine identity crisis because they no longer understand their role in a rapidly shifting society – one where women hold professional status, financial independence, and no longer need to fulfill the traditional domestic roles assigned to them.

British sociologist John MacInnes argued that masculinity has always been “in one crisis or another,” suggesting the phenomenon is not new but rather constitutive of masculinity’s fluid nature itself. Sociologist Benyon similarly emphasized that these crises of masculinity have occurred throughout history, even before the feminist movement – rooted in the inherent instability of what it means to “be a man” across different social and economic conditions.

Social Science Works describes the current crisis as characterized by widespread fear, uncertainty, and concern about the decline of traditional Western manhood, perceived as threatened by women’s emancipation and new forms of masculinity. Sociologist Michael Kimmel adds another layer: the new dominant masculine ideal produced by globalization – a cosmopolitan, wealthy, liberal man – leaves many men, especially those from working-class or marginalized backgrounds, feeling excluded and unable to identify with any recognized model of success.

Economic and social roots of the crisis 🔗

The crisis is not simply psychological – it has material roots. A 2025 study in the Journal of Gender, Power, and Social Transformation notes that economic shifts, particularly the decline of traditionally male-dominated industries, have redefined what it means to be a man, challenging long-held ideals of masculinity associated with dominance, stoicism, and being the primary provider. Men who built their identities around industrial work, physical labour, and breadwinning have found those roles eroded – not by feminism per se, but by structural economic changes.

This economic displacement, combined with changing cultural expectations, has left many men – especially those without access to new professional or educational pathways – feeling abandoned. TIME Magazine reports that commentators have pointed to men’s loneliness, declining educational outcomes, under- and unemployment, and feelings of abandonment as driving factors in a broader cultural unease around masculinity.

The role of feminist movements in reshaping masculinity 🔗

Feminist movements have been central to dismantling the rigid gender norms that constrain men as much as women. Pro-feminist men’s movements, emerging from the men’s liberation movement of the mid-1970s, have questioned cultural ideals of traditional masculinity and argued that social expectations have forced men into gender roles that limit their emotional expression, health, and relationships. According to Wikipedia’s entry on the men’s movement, pro-feminist men have campaigned alongside feminists on issues including reproductive rights, employment discrimination, and ending sexual violence – seeing gender equity as a shared project.

However, not all men have experienced feminist advances as liberating. Stanford’s Clayman Institute for Gender Research notes that when feminists, trans people, and queer people push against gender inequality, those heavily invested in traditional masculinity may feel emotionally threatened. Masculinity scholar Tristan Bridges explains that the crisis is less about men losing concrete privileges, and more about the experience of those privileges becoming visible – and contested. As he put it, once male privilege stops being invisible to those who benefit from it, that shift in consciousness itself feels like a crisis.

Importantly, Stanford researchers frame the crisis as an opportunity: “Crises are also catalysts.” The disruption of old gender scripts could be precisely the moment to reinvent norms around men’s roles, mental health, and relationships – creating space for masculinities that are healthier and more equitable for everyone.

The men’s rights movement: grievances and responses 🔗

One of the most organized political responses to the perceived crisis has been the Men’s Rights Movement (MRM). Wikipedia’s overview of the men’s rights movement traces its origins to the 1960s in the United States, where early groups organized around divorce reform and custody issues, claiming that family and divorce law discriminated against men. The movement has since expanded significantly, covering issues including child custody, education, military service, health policy, and domestic violence.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) notes that in the 1970s, Men’s Rights groups branched out from the Men’s Liberation Movement over a key ideological split: while Men’s Liberation groups advocated for dismantling stigma around non-traditional expressions of masculinity, Men’s Rights groups placed the blame for men’s problems on feminism and women’s equality. This distinction is important – it marks the difference between movements that seek to expand what masculinity can look like, and those that seek to defend traditional male dominance.

Domestic violence and the legal system 🔗

A central focus of the MRM has been domestic violence and its treatment in the legal system. Men’s rights advocates argue that violence committed by women against men is ignored, under-reported, and under-researched, partly because men are socialized to resist identifying as victims. Research on domestic violence against men confirms that male victims do face real barriers: social stigma around perceived lack of toughness, fear of not being believed, and sometimes being misidentified by authorities as the perpetrator rather than the victim.

However, this issue is contested. Many domestic violence scholars have rejected the claim – frequently advanced by MRAs – that intimate partner violence is fully gender-symmetrical. Sociologist Michael Messner argues that the MRM “appropriates the symmetrical language of sex roles,” implying a false balance of institutional power between men and women. Family violence scholar Richard Gelles clarified that while men can and do experience abuse, the broader pattern of intimate partner violence – including fear, injury, and coercive control – falls disproportionately on women. A 2012 review in the Psychology of Violence found that 70% of female IPV victims reported being “very frightened,” while 85% of male victims cited “no fear.”

This does not mean men’s experiences of abuse should be dismissed – they should not be. XY Online, a resource on men, masculinities, and gender, distinguishes between pro-feminist men’s groups (which advocate addressing intimate partner violence affecting all genders) and men’s rights groups (which often frame the issue as a tool against feminist frameworks, rather than as a genuine welfare concern).

Family law and custody 🔗

Another major grievance in the MRM is family law, particularly around child custody and alimony. A large-scale study of Men’s Rights online communities found that family court and domestic violence were among the most frequently discussed topics, with members regularly emphasizing the role of feminism in creating what they see as legal discrimination against men. While there are documented cases of genuine inequity in custody proceedings, critics point out that such grievances are often filtered through an anti-feminist lens that denies the structural advantages men continue to hold in many other areas of social and economic life.

Alternative masculinities: what does a different kind of manhood look like? 🔗

Beyond political movements, sociologists have theorized what genuinely alternative masculinities might look like – masculinities that reject both traditional rigidity and reactionary backlash. The most influential framework is hegemonic masculinity, developed by sociologist Raewyn Connell in the 1980s and 1990s. Connell’s concept describes dominant forms of masculinity that normalize stoicism, physical strength, and heterosexuality while marginalizing others – and it has been foundational to understanding how masculine norms are socially constructed and maintained, not biologically determined.

Building on and departing from Connell, sociologist Eric Anderson proposed Inclusive Masculinity Theory (IMT) in 2009. As Wikipedia explains, inclusive masculinity holds that as cultural homophobia declines, there are increasingly social spaces in which men no longer need to behave in hypermasculine ways to be accepted. In these spaces, men can engage in previously feminized practices – emotional openness, physical affection with friends, caregiving – without fear of being labelled weak or gay. Anderson’s research in sports teams and university settings found that, as homophobia decreased, men’s gender expression became founded on emotional openness, peer tactility, and close friendships based on genuine disclosure.

In practice, alternative masculinities show up in recognizable ways: stay-at-home fathers who embrace caregiving without feeling diminished, men who openly discuss mental health struggles, and peer groups where fraternity men bond through emotional intimacy rather than dominance and competition. Researchers at Stanford have also pointed to queer and trans masculine people as important examples of masculinities already defined in opposition to traditions of patriarchal dominance – often modelling the kind of flexibility and authenticity that alternative masculinity advocates are calling for.

Limitations of “inclusive” masculinity 🔗

It is worth noting that inclusive masculinity is not without critique. Scholars writing in the journal Men and Masculinities argue that even “softer” or more inclusive masculinities can still reproduce patriarchal structures if they do not directly challenge the unequal gender order. Performing emotional openness or accepting gay peers does not automatically translate into dismantling male privilege at the institutional level. The challenge, then, is not just to soften masculinity at the interpersonal level, but to connect that personal transformation to broader structural change.

Is there a path forward? 🔗

The debate around the crisis in masculinity reveals a genuine tension. Some scholars argue the crisis is overstated – that it reflects discomfort with equality rather than a real threat to men’s identities. Others maintain it is real, pointing to men’s significantly higher suicide rates, mental health challenges, and the stigma men face around emotional vulnerability. Stanford researchers propose that compassion is essential: the pull toward familiar, traditional scripts of manhood is powerful, especially for men whose sense of purpose has been built around them. Changing that requires not just critique but alternative models that feel meaningful and livable.

The most promising path may lie in moving beyond the binary of “traditional” versus “alternative” masculinity altogether – toward a more plural understanding of manhood that can hold strength and vulnerability, independence and care, without treating these as opposites. As the sociological literature makes clear, masculinity has never been a fixed thing. It has always been negotiated, contested, and remade in response to the conditions of its time. What is different now is that the negotiation is happening more openly, more inclusively, and with more voices at the table.

What do you think? Can traditional and alternative masculinities genuinely coexist, or does meaningful change require a more fundamental rethinking of what manhood means? And how should society address men’s real struggles – with mental health, belonging, and purpose – without rolling back the gains of gender equality?

References

1. https://www.regain.us/advice/general/what-is-the-crisis-of-masculinity/
2. https://socialscienceworks.org/2018/05/26268/the-crisis-of-masculinities-a-brief-overview/
3. https://researchcorridor.org/index.php/jgpst/article/view/342
4. https://time.com/7199692/mens-rights-feminism-history/
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_movement
6. https://gender.stanford.edu/news/crises-are-also-catalysts-when-gender-progress-challenges-traditional-masculinities-what-are
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_rights_movement
8. https://www.adl.org/resources/article/mens-rights-activists-what-you-need-know
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_against_men
10. https://xyonline.net/content/contemporary-issues-men
11. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2056305119841387
12. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281771243_Inclusive_Masculinity_The_Changing_Nature_of_Masculinities
13. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_masculinity
14. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309441585_Inclusive_Masculinity_Theory_overview_reflection_and_refinement
15. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10608265251329561