MANdatory - why men need (and are needed for) gender equality progress

While much progress has been made towards gender equality, diversity and inclusion in the workplace, education and society, recent years have also revealed continuing challenges that slow or halt this progress. To date, the majority of gender equality action has tended to approach gender equality from one side: being focused on the need to remove barriers for girls and women. We argue that this is only half the battle, and that a focus on men is MANdatory, highlighting three key areas: First, we review men’s privileged status as being potentially threatened by progress in gender equality, and the effects of these threats for how men engage in gender-equality progress. Second, we highlight how men themselves are victims of restrictive gender roles, and the consequences of this for men’s physical and mental health, and for their engagement at work and at home. Third, we review the role of men as allies in the fight for gender equality, and on the factors that impede and may aid in increasing men’s involvement. We end with recommendations for work organizations, educational institutions and society at large to reach and involve men as positive agents of social change.

Introduction

While much progress has been made towards gender equality, diversity and inclusion, recent years have also revealed continuing challenges that slow or halt this progress. For example, the covid-19 pandemic has revealed and increased gender inequality (Fisher et al., 2020; Yerkes et al., 2020); the MeToo movement has shone a light on still persistent sexual harassment at work (see Keplinger et al., 2019; Lisnek et al., 2022 for discussions); abortion has now been newly banned or restricted in several EU countries and US states, and austerity policies following the global financial crisis have hollowed out social services supporting gender equality, including access to affordable childcare, housing, and legal services. Indeed, the UN (2022) concluded that if the current rate continues it will take close to 300 years to achieve full gender equality.

We posit that we should not tackle such challenges without rethinking how gender equality is approached, for whom it is beneficial, and what mechanisms are responsible for its slow or stalled progress. To date, most gender equality practitioners, policy makers and researchers have approached gender equality from one side: focused on the removal of barriers for girls and women, and to create organizations, structures and societies allowing girls and women to thrive and succeed - especially in traditionally male-dominated spaces. We aim to show that this is only half the battle: Existing gender inequalities result from the multifaceted nature of gendered power dynamics in various areas of life where women and men are interdependent and play key roles in maintaining or changing the existing status quo.

Much of the research we review here is based on a western binary view of gender, where people are defined (both by others and by themselves) as either women or men. We fully acknowledge that the gender binary is a social construct and does not reflect how a growing number of people define themselves and others (e.g., non-binary, gender fluid, etc., see Hyde et al., 2019). While challenging the gender binary is an important part of change, here we focus on progress towards gender equality as it relates to challenging restrictive traditional gender roles for women and men (girls and boys). That is, we focus on understanding how to remove the pervasive power of gender stereotypes that prescribe and proscribe the gender norms women and men are held to and hold to. We argue that while men’s adherence to masculine norms is a large part of the problem, men are and should also be a large part of the solution, and that the improvement of the situation for women (and men, and nonbinary individuals) depends on men. Paradoxically then our goal is to show that barriers for women will not be removed without removing gender-restrictive barriers for men, and that gender equality will not be achieved without providing men - as well as women and those who identify as non-binary - true freedom from the pervasive power of gender stereotypes. In examining men’s roles we of course recognize the tremendous heterogeneity and intersectionality within men, and that many men are not necessarily privileged in terms of ethnicity, social class, physical ability or sexual orientation (Coston and Kimmel, 2012).

In this review we highlight men’s roles in gender equality in three ways: First, we focus on how men’s privileged higher status is threatened by gender equality progress, and consequences of this threat for gender-equality initiatives. Specifically, although women comprise half the world’s population, men continue to have more power than women. Existing hierarchies and inequities also mean that men may perceive women’s gains – in politics, education and work – as a threat to men’s status. We explain how withdrawing support for gender equality helps men maintain their advantageous position in the gender hierarchy and restores their threatened manhood status. We describe how gendered hierarchies and gender inequities are maintained by cultural ideologies that justify and rationalize men’s power over women, and discuss research on precarious manhood and zero-sum beliefs - plus their links to men’s reluctance to support gender equality. We note that understanding these threats and their consequences is an important step in addressing gender equality in a potentially more inclusive and effective way.

Second, we focus on men as themselves falling victim to restrictive gender roles. We argue that despite their dominance in the hierarchy, existing gender roles can also affect men’s ability to thrive and do well in education, work and social life. Men continue to be under pressure to uphold unrealistic and unhealthy expectations about ideal or ‘real’ manhood, and we show how such expectations affect men and others in various ways: They encourage men to engage in risky behaviors and aggression and prevent men from taking care of their mental and physical health. Also, they create masculinity contest cultures in organizations, and strong work devotion in men that may both harm men’s health and wellbeing, and lead men to shy away from positive caring roles known to benefit the self and others, such as caring roles in education and health care, and for children and others at home.

Third, we focus on the importance of men as allies in gender equality progress: on how men have been stepping up alongside women to make a difference, and how their investments are critical for gender equality progress. We discuss factors that can contribute to men recognizing the problem of sexism - including interventions that encourage emotional empathy for women as targets of sexism and reduce empathy towards men as perpetrators. We further discuss factors that may encourage men to become involved in change, such as how feminist men are portrayed, whether movement norms are inclusive of men’s involvement, and women’s reactions to men’s ally behaviors.

We conclude with men as pivotal agents for change: those who have power to make a difference in work organizations, educational institutions, and society.

The current status of gender equality and men as agents within this

Over the past few decades much research in social psychology, sociology, business studies and organizational psychology has addressed diversity and inclusion by focusing on the representation and involvement of women in work, education and society. This important research has documented women’s underrepresentation in key domains generally, and in traditionally male domains and at higher levels of organizations and society more specifically. Much attention has been focused on understanding the mechanisms that maintain and can reduce this underrepresentation. For example, the mechanisms that lead to lower selection of women job candidates, that lower the likelihood of women’s promotion, and that increase the likelihood women will exit organizations or occupational domains. This research shows that women face more lack-of-fit and prejudice; less welcoming social climates, plus hostility and sexual harassment, that lead them to feel a lower sense of belonging in work and education (Eagly and Karau, 2002; Berdahl, 2007; Heilman, 2012). Further, this research highlights the impact of women’s care roles on their work involvement and ways in which motherhood is associated with disadvantages at work (Barnett et al., 2004; Cuddy et al., 2004; Williams et al., 2016). Traditionally, social scientists have focused on ways to rectify these issues as ways of increasing gender equality.

Undoubtedly, these endeavors have at least partially succeeded (UN, 2022): We have made considerable progress in some areas, with women (at least in the global North) increasingly represented in work: working more hours, in more domains, and at more and also higher levels of organizations and society. Nevertheless, the progress has been partial and despite considerable efforts we are a long way from gender being irrelevant to work, educational and health outcomes. Gender continues to be highly predictive of the domains in which people work, how much they work, their status in organizations as well as their salary (Vuorinen-Lampila, 2016; Blau and Kahn, 2017; Dämmrich and Blossfeld, 2017). Indeed, organizations report difficulties reaching their gender equality goals, despite strong motivation and effort - including various programs, changes in formal policies, opportunities and training regarding diversity, equality, and inclusion (DEI) (Dover et al., 2016b, 2020a; Saba et al., 2021). Moreover, there are considerable differences in gender equality across countries. For example, in the EU Sweden scores 84 on the Gender Equality Index, whilst Greece scores at a 53 (European Institute for Gender Equality, 2022). In the wider world, even greater disparities exist, with Rwanda having closed 79% of its overall gender gap whilst Afghanistan still has the global worst scores of 41% gender parity (World Economic Forum, 2023).

Such persisting gender inequality is not only at odds with the goals most democratic societies strive for and with UN Developmental Goals (UN, 2015), but also has direct negative impacts on lives. For example, women remain much more economically dependent on others than are men, and this lack of independence has serious consequences for women and children when women are or become single or single parents (Malone et al., 2010; Gonçalves et al., 2021). Moreover, the continuing inequality means societies do not benefit from the full range of talent and qualities women can contribute. In the meantime, not only women and minority gender groups are disadvantaged: It is becoming increasingly clear that men are also negatively impacted by strong gender roles and inequities, for example in their health, well-being and social relationships, and in opportunities to connect with their children (Croft et al., 2015; Meeussen et al., 2020; Van Rossum et al., 2024). Children meanwhile are denied access to their fathers, with increasing research showing negative consequences of this low involvement (Amato and Rivera, 1999; Aldous and Mulligan, 2002; Fletcher, 2011; Croft et al., 2014; Opondo et al., 2016; Rollè et al., 2019; Cano and Hofmeister, 2023).

We argue that continuing to singularly focus on women no longer optimally serves progress towards gender equality. Rather, broadening our perspective to bring men’s role into focus is now needed: We below outline the different ways in which a focus on men can help us understand and advance gender equality progress.

Gender equality progress as a potential threat to men

To date, women have been the driving force of gender equality strategies and struggles (Holter, 2014). Data from 34 countries show that women place more importance on gender equality than men, and that they are less optimistic about the likelihood of attaining gender equality (Pew Research Center, 2020). Compared with men, women declare a stronger willingness to support gender-related collective actions (data from 42 countries, Kosakowska-Berezecka et al., 2020); devote more time to foster DEI within organizations (Women in the Workplace Report, 2022); and more often actively participate in promoting gender equality (Radke et al., 2016). Although men often report favorable attitudes toward gender equality, they are also reluctant to support policy initiatives, and to feel that gender equality has already been achieved (Levtov et al., 2014; DIT, 2023).

While there is a strong and successful history of men’s allyship in gender equality progress (we return to this in section three), below we shed light on three underlying mechanisms explaining why some men are either not allies, or actively resist DEI programs. First, we focus on men’s perception of gender equality progress as achieved at the expense of men. Then, we discuss the role of strong legitimizing beliefs leaving men less likely to recognize women’s unfair treatment. And finally we describe how, on an individual and deeper level, prescriptive and proscriptive masculine norms present in our societies, and the precarious nature of manhood fuel men’s resistance. While some of these mechanisms are specific to gender (e.g., the precarious nature of masculinity in response to gender change), other mechanisms are relevant more generally in understanding why men - as an advantaged group in most contexts - might resist general diversity change and pro-minority inclusion, including for example resistance to the inclusion of those with different ethnic backgrounds, or challenges to the status quo more generally.

Women’s gains = men’s losses

One of the underlying mechanisms explaining men’s ambivalence can be related to the fact that as the higher-status group in society, men might be seen as having more to lose than to gain from gender equality. Men universally tend to have more agency and power than women: making more money and holding higher power positions in most countries (Global Gender Gap Report, 2022). When analyzing gender equality progress, it is crucial to understand that collective action by less privileged groups (such as women) is likely to highlight the unfair privilege of high-status ones (here men). This, in turn can trigger the need in men to legitimize their higher status (Sidanius and Pratto, 1999; Leach et al., 2002; Iyer and Leach, 2009).

In general, people like to see the sociopolitical contexts that favor their ingroup as fair and just (Cichocka and Jost, 2014). Changes to the existing economic or political hierarchies may be stressful and perceived as threatening, especially to those with the most to lose (Scheepers and Ellemers, 2018). As such, men as the high-status group may be especially motivated to defend the status quo, and manifest their resistance to gender equality actions both openly and more subtly (Osborne et al., 2019). Some men may view women’s advances at work as threatening to men’s power, and may thus see women as usurpers of male power and as men’s competitors (Fiske and Taylor, 2013). Such a mindset, which is referred to as the “belief in a zero-sum game,” can lead men to believe that more power and money for women means less power and money for men (cf. Ruthig et al., 2017; Kosakowska-Berezecka et al., 2020). Evidence indeed shows that men show stronger belief in this “zero-sum game” than women, and generally view gender relations through a more threatening and competitive lens (Bosson et al., 2012; Wilkins et al., 2015; Kuchynka et al., 2018). As DEI policies target the gender hierarchy, men may think that they have more to lose, both materially (“women will take over our positions, jobs, money”) but also symbolically (“women will challenge traditional men’s beliefs and values”) (Stephan and Stephan, 2000). As a result, some men, especially those with higher gender identification (Maass et al., 2003), may feel they are themselves victims of discrimination, and manifest defensive responses to status threats (see also DIT, 2023). Such a response was voiced in 2023 by Chemistry Noble Laurate Kurt Wüthrich, who warned against “discrimination against men” in STEM fields resulting from (in his perception) too much focus on DEI measures (Heidt, 2023). Affirmative action encouraging the selection of women candidates, rewarding teams hiring ethnic minorities, or highlighting women’s success more than men’s may then be perceived as directly harming men. Indeed, there is evidence that men’s zero-sum thinking increases after reminders of women’s societal status gains (Kuchynka et al., 2018), and that men viewed decreases in discrimination against women as directly linked with increases in discrimination against men (Kehn and Ruthig, 2013). Not surprisingly, zero-sum beliefs can then fuel hostility towards women in positions of power: Indeed, recent research shows that men endorsing zero-sum beliefs about gender were more inclined to endorse hostile sexism against women, which in turn reduced men’s gender equality support (Ruthig et al., 2017; Kosakowska-Berezecka et al., 2020).

Counter-intuitively, such resistance may be especially present in contexts in which gender equality is perceived as (increasingly) valued and where DEI actions are perceived as (becoming) successful. A recent cross-cultural study indeed shows that men manifest lower support for gender equality actions in countries with higher gender equality levels (where DEI programs are more prevalent), and that this lower support may in turn stall gender equality progress (Kosakowska-Berezecka et al., 2020). This translates to organizations as well: if men perceive DEI messages as more robust and as favoring women over men, they might reduce their support for DEI actions. There is evidence showing that when exposed to diversity statements, advantaged groups (e.g., White men) were more likely to view their group as disadvantaged, and manifest cardiovascular reactions signalizing threat (Dover et al., 2016a,b, 2020b). Practitioners should thus be aware that programs promoting DEI can be challenged by some men who feel threatened and see themselves as victims rather than beneficiaries, and that effectively managing threat reactions is likely to strengthen program effectiveness.

Blindness of the privileged

Apart from perceiving gender equality progress as benefiting women at the expense of men, another potential mechanism underlying men’s resistance is linked to the fact that - on average - men are less likely than women to recognize unfair treatment of women (Drury and Kaiser, 2014). Men find it harder than women to detect discriminatory acts (Swim et al., 2001), to recognize derogatory statements about women as prejudiced (Rodin et al., 1990), and to notice unfavorable employment practices that disadvantage women (Blodorn et al., 2012; DIT, 2023). Men may have even more trouble detecting discrimination if it is manifested in a subtler form of paternalistic and benevolent acts, as they may see these as well-intentioned and harmless forms of support and protection favoring women (Glick et al., 2000; Gervais et al., 2010; Becker and Swim, 2011). Pratto and Stewart (2012) address this issue even more broadly by pointing out a wider cultural phenomenon also for other social inequalities (e.g., based on ethnicity): noting the acceptance of social inequality linked with the implicit assumption that the dominance of a group is normal. Thus, men might not recognize their status as advantageous, as it is culturally considered default, and this disguises their privileged position as “normal” while perpetuating stereotypes and maintaining the lower position of other groups. Additionally, men, as a dominant group, can be more inclined to promote their power, and as hierarchy-enhancing discrimination is often institutionalized, no individual effort is necessary to maintain men’s group dominance (Pratto and Stewart, 2012). Men’s lack of recognition of their privilege and their lower sensitivity towards subtle forms of discrimination poses a difficult barrier for gender equality progress as it lowers the likelihood that men will oppose such more subtle and derogating forms of discrimination, and can decrease men’s willingness to support change (Ellemers and Barreto, 2009; Becker and Wright, 2011; Van Laar et al., 2019).

The “blindness” men can face to recognize unequal treatment of women is linked to the fact that men are also more prone than women to endorse meritocratic-type beliefs that individuals are responsible for their life successes, and that life outcomes are purely the result of one’s efforts and achievements. At the same time, men are more likely to neglect structural barriers and pervasive gender stereotypes that contribute to status differences faced by women (Jost et al., 2004). Indeed, men show stronger legitimizing beliefs, such as the belief in individual mobility (i.e., the belief that regardless of one’s group membership one can achieve merit-based success; Major et al., 2002), stronger social dominance orientation (support for social hierarchy and acceptance of superiority of some groups over others, Sidanius and Pratto, 1999), and stronger beliefs that their high status is earned (Sidanius and Pratto, 1999). Such legitimizing beliefs help men rationalize their privileged status, and to perceive less privileged groups (such as women) as not having worked hard enough. Perceiving the existing social hierarchy as fair, legitimate and well-deserved allows men to maintain the status quo, and their own psychological and moral comfort (Jost et al., 2004). Recognizing the structural barriers and status hierarchy as unfair to women would force men into a potentially unpleasant realization that they do not deserve their personal or group status (Adams et al., 2006). Not being fully aware of their privileged status, and failing to recognize when and why discrimination happens, men may thus find it hard to be DEI allies.

However, seeing only women and not men as the victims of these processes is a fallacy. Even though men tend to have more power than women, men’s decisions and behaviors are also restricted by social and cultural expectations related to masculinity (we return to these issues in the section on men themselves as victims of restrictive gender roles).

Male identity and precarious manhood

A third and potential deeper mechanism underlying men’s resistance to support gender equality is the nature of male identity and the potential perceived precariousness of that identity. On one hand, men have more power than women: greater control over the creation, distribution of, and access to resources (which predicts their safety, health, freedom and quality of life, e.g., Rivers and Josephs, 2010). Also, men’s greater size and thus strength makes them more apt to take power by force; and finally, there are numerous beliefs permeating social life that maintain and legitimize the higher status of men over women (Pratto and Walker, 2004; Alesina et al., 2013). Indeed, hierarchies and gender inequities are maintained and reinforced by gender differences in resource control and physical strength, and by cultural ideologies that justify and rationalize men’s power over women (Pratto and Walker, 2004). Such a high place in the hierarchy, however, also leaves men vulnerable to having to prove this status (Bosson et al., 2022).

Although men have greater structural power than women in most cultures, the nature of manhood (relative to womanhood) in most societies today is precarious, it is “hard won and can be easily lost” (Vandello et al., 2008; Bosson et al., 2022). In order to prove their higher status, men need to consistently demonstrate agency and dominance, and avoid femininity to garner respect. As the value of being seen as manly is high, and femininity is valued less, gender prescriptions and proscriptions are endorsed more strongly for men than women (Bosson et al., 2022), and when their masculinity is threatened men are inclined to take actions to restore their masculinity. There is growing evidence that manhood is threatened by for example making men appear feminine (Kosakowska-Berezecka et al., 2016a,b) and that this can lead to a wide array of compensatory behaviors, including aggression (Bosson et al., 2009); harassment of women (Maass et al., 2003); financial risk-taking (Weaver et al., 2013); avoidance of feminine behaviors (Rudman and Mescher, 2013); and manifesting greater liking for prototypical compared to non-prototypical men (Schmitt and Branscombe, 2001). Men may face masculinity threats as a result of engaging in DEI efforts: For example, as gender equality is often seen as a “women’s issue” (Kaufman, 2004) men can be hesitant to support it because they fear such opinions or actions might make them appear less masculine. The term “feminist man” is often associated with traits considered anti-masculine, non-attractive, and low in potency (Anderson, 2009), as well as linked with femininity, weakness and homosexuality (Rudman et al., 2012). Research has shown that such labels can have consequences for men’s willingness to support gender equality– when actions are described as “feminist” (vs. without that label) they are less likely to be supported by men (Conlin and Heesacker, 2018). Defensive reactions to threatened masculinity may also increase men’s prejudice towards women and minority groups (Glick et al., 2007; Weaver and Vescio, 2015; Alonso, 2018; Ching, 2021; Wellman et al., 2021; Vallerga and Zurbriggen, 2022), increase denial of discrimination against women (Weaver and Vescio, 2015), and decrease men’s support for and participation in DEI initiatives (Kosakowska-Berezecka et al., 2016a). Men who endorse masculine work ideals may feel that diversity and inclusion put their privileged masculine status at risk (Dover et al., 2016a) further reducing their interest in DEI policies (Hill, 2009; Marchlewska et al., 2021).

Presumably, withdrawing support for gender equality helps men restore their threatened manhood status and maintain their position in the gender hierarchy (Herek, 1986; Sidanius and Pratto, 1999; Vandello and Bosson, 2013; Kosakowska-Berezecka et al., 2016b). Similar threat reactions are observed in other high-status groups, for example when white Americans are informed that by 2050 minority Americans will outnumber non-Hispanic white Americans (Craig and Richeson, 2014). Research has shown that white individuals who are made aware of this experience more anger and fear toward minorities, express more explicit and implicit anti-outgroup attitudes, and show greater support for anti-minority policies (Craig and Richeson, 2014; for similar results in Canada, United Kingdom and United States see Stefaniak and Wohl, 2021). Masculine threats and need for compensatory actions to regain power posit an important barrier for gaining acceptance and support for DEI. The need to compensate for masculinity loss experienced by men who endorse precarious manhood beliefs can thus backfire on DEI programs. As such, perceiving DEI policies as targeting men’s privilege and as aiming to change the status quo at the expense of men is an important challenge that practitioners cannot afford to neglect.

Taken together, DEI programs may never be fully successful as long as they are perceived as focused on women (or minorities in general) only. As long as gender equality is seen as progressing at the expense of men, men may resist gender equality and measures by withdrawing support, or by actively protesting against DEI actions. One of the most crucial and promising questions therefore is to understand when and how men can perceive gender equality as beneficial for them. There is a robust evidence showing that men do gain from gender equality in terms of health, well-being, and their overall happiness, as we discuss in the next section.

Men themselves as victims of restrictive gender roles

Most attention in research and public debate has focused on the negative consequences of gender roles and stereotypes for women. In no way do we as the authors minimize the myriad of hardships women face because of gender inequality. However, we make the case that these hardships are also in part the result of our failure to consider the effects of restrictive gender norms for men, and that an examination of the complete set of processes is needed to adequately address gender inequality, and to include men in overcoming gender inequality.

Substantial research shows the pervasive restrictions that gender roles impose on men. First, traditional views on masculinity discourage men to care for their physical and mental health, and encourage dangerous and risky behavior, leading to worldwide gender discrepancies in health outcomes and longevity (Brannon, 1976; Courtenay, 2000; WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2018; Vandello et al., 2022). Second, men are still commonly expected to be ambitious, successful and devoted to their work, which creates unhealthy pressure and hinders men’s domestic engagement (Berdahl et al., 2018). Third, it is still often disapproved for men to show interest in traditionally feminine domains, such as childcare and HEED occupations (Healthcare, Early Education and Domestic domains – Croft et al., 2015), while such interest is known to benefit men’s wellbeing and women’s position in society (Meeussen et al., 2020). Below, we discuss gender role restrictions for men in each of these three domains: men’s health and well-being, workplace masculinity norms, and domestic engagement and HEED interests, and argue that bringing attention to these processes is necessary to engage men in the pursuit of gender equality.

Risks to men’s health and wellbeing

Physical health and risk behavior

Across the world, men have a lower life expectancy than women (OECD and European Union, 2020; WHO, 2020). Among the leading causes of men’s premature death are life-style related conditions such as cancer, cardiovascular disease and respiratory illnesses (WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2018). Health behaviors that may in part cause such conditions are displayed more by men than women: consuming alcohol (Erol and Karpyak, 2015), eating meat (Stoll-Kleemann and Schmidt, 2017), and smoking (WHO, 2022); and these health behaviors are predicted by men’s endorsement of and adherence to traditional views on masculinity (Mahalik et al., 2007; Iwamoto et al., 2011; Iwamoto and Smiler, 2013; Roberts et al., 2014; Houle et al., 2015; Wilkinson et al., 2018; Rosenfeld and Tomiyama, 2021). Indeed, research has suggested that certain unhealthy behaviors are seen as a ‘sign’ of masculinity (Nichter et al., 2006; Vartanian et al., 2007; de Visser and McDonnell, 2012; Vartanian, 2015), and that men may thus choose unhealthy behaviors to prove their masculine status, and to fit prevailing gender norms (Chiou et al., 2013; Fugitt and Ham, 2018; Nakagawa and Hart, 2019; Mesler et al., 2022). Importantly, men are also less likely to consult a doctor when they experience pain or are ill (European Commission, 2011). Traditional masculinity norms are at odds with help-seeking, as men are expected to be self-reliant and discouraged from showing weakness or being overly emotional (Prentice and Carranza, 2002). A systematic literature review of 41 papers has indeed identified masculinity norms that present barriers in men’s help-seeking, such as need for independence and control, restricted emotional expression, and embarrassment (Yousaf et al., 2015a). Also, especially men who more strongly attach their self-worth to how well they live up to masculine expectations report inhibitions against and delays in seeking healthcare (Himmelstein and Sanchez, 2016).

Another major cause of premature death for men is non-intentional injuries (WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2018). This again has been tied to gender roles: Men have been found to overall take more risks than women (Byrnes et al., 1999; Dohmen et al., 2011; Breivik et al., 2017), and risk taking is more appreciated for men as it conveys courage and toughness (Bosson et al., 2009; Fowler and Geers, 2017). This however can come at high cost for men’s own wellbeing and that of others’, as reflected in the higher incidences for men of traffic accidents (WHO, 2021a), drug-related deaths (European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, 2022), sports injuries (National Safety Council, 2022), and incarceration (Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2023). Risk-taking is a way to protect or prove one’s status as a ‘real man’ (Vandello et al., 2008; Giaccardi et al., 2017), for example through aggression (Bosson et al., 2009; Braly et al., 2018; Borgogna et al., 2022) and risky financial decisions (Weaver et al., 2013; Parent et al., 2018). Men who feel distressed about not meeting masculinity standards reported more assaults causing injuries and armed assaults (Reidy et al., 2016a), and reported engaging in more risky sexual behavior (Reidy et al., 2016b). Moreover, men whose masculinity was threatened showed higher pain tolerance (Berke et al., 2017), suggesting another pathway through which precarious manhood may lead to health risks: by overstepping one’s own physical boundaries. Also cross-nationally, recent findings showed that country-level variations in precarious manhood beliefs predict men’s risky health behaviors - such as transportation accidents and contact with venomous animals (Vandello et al., 2022). Indeed, in countries where precarious manhood beliefs are more prevalent, men’s life expectancy is shorter by 6 years (Vandello et al., 2022).

Mental health

Men’s mental health also shows detrimental effects of male gender roles. Research showed that adherence to traditional masculinity norms relates to poorer mental health (Wong et al., 2017), higher suicidal ideation (Coleman, 2015; King et al., 2020) and later suicide (Coleman et al., 2020). Worldwide, men commit suicide more than twice as often as women (WHO, 2021b) and in 2021 almost 80% of US suicides were committed by men (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2023). Keeping others at a distance may be an important factor in the negative relation between masculine gender norms and men’s mental health. Indeed, recent research shows that boys and men are generally more socially isolated than girls and women (Way, 2013; Umberson et al., 2022), which could form a major health and mortality risk for men (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010). Attempts to meet masculine expectations may stand in men’s way towards close connections, social support, and if needed, professional help. For example, after a gender threat, men reported lower closeness and commitment to their romantic partner to re-establish their masculine status (Lamarche et al., 2021). Also, as with medical care, men less often seek psychological help than women (Möller-Leimkühler, 2002; Milner et al., 2020), and especially when they endorse traditional masculine ideals (Berger et al., 2005; Vogel et al., 2011; Yousaf et al., 2015b), adhere to masculine norms such as self-reliance and emotional control (Mahalik and Di Bianca, 2021), and self-stigmatize seeking help (e.g., feel seeking help threatens self-esteem; Vogel et al., 2011; Mahalik and Di Bianca, 2021). Such issues may also be of particular consequence for trans-individuals and those who consider themselves nonbinary: mental wellbeing is significantly more vulnerable in these individuals (Timmins et al., 2017; Newcomb et al., 2020; Puckett et al., 2020), and male roles and prescriptions to avoid seeking help may not aid in addressing any mental health issues.

Men who have attempted suicide described inhibitions against expressing negative emotions to others and not being quite able to identify or to put into words their feelings and emotional pain (Cleary, 2012). Such trouble identifying and describing own emotions - or alexithymia - is associated with depression (Li et al., 2015) and is more prevalent among men (Levant et al., 2009). Researchers have argued that as a result of gender socialization, some men show a mild form of alexithymia normative for the male gender role (i.e., normative male alexithymia; Levant et al., 2006). Importantly, this mild form is related to lower psychological wellbeing, reduced social relationship quality, and fear of relational intimacy (Karakis and Levant, 2012; Guvensel et al., 2018). Men may indeed fear expressing intimacy as research shows this can put them at risk for social rejection and negative evaluations, especially from other men (Gaia, 2013).

These severe consequences for men’s physical and mental wellbeing tend to stay under the radar and are not sufficiently addressed in societal conversations and policy making. Better understanding and acknowledgment of these processes is crucial also to increase men’s awareness about the personal benefits of gender equality and what is in fact at stake for them (Holter, 2014), and likely will also motivate men more as allies in gender equality progress.

Pitfalls of masculinity contests in the workplace

Constraining masculinity norms are also at play at work, as shown by research on “masculinity contests” and “work devotion norms.” Masculinity contests refer to organizational environments that require employees (men, women and other) to prove their adherence to masculine work ideals (Berdahl et al., 2018). These ideals require employees to avoid showing weakness and seeking support, and to instead display strength and endurance, prioritize work, evidencing a strongly competitive mindset (Glick et al., 2018). Such organizational environments cultivate work devotion norms encouraging employees to dedicate high time and effort to work, for example through overtime and pushing to meet deadlines (Williams, 2000; Blair-Loy, 2001). Working part-time is looked down upon, which can create obstacles for employees to engage in domestic work or childcare, and to achieve work-family balance. Masculinity contests are (perceived as) more prevalent in male-dominated organizations (Glick et al., 2018; Munsch et al., 2018). For example, in stereotypically masculine fields such as academics and STEM (Cooper, 2000; Damaske et al., 2014) working overtime is often glorified, and seen as endurance and toughness (e.g., people showing off their exhaustion; Cooper, 2000) whereas seeking flexibility is stigmatized (Williams et al., 2013).

Such masculinity contest and work devotion norms may detrimentally affect employees’ wellbeing. For example, masculinity contest at work are related to lower general (Glick et al., 2018) and psychological health (e.g., increased stress levels and burnout; Glick et al., 2018; Matos et al., 2018; Rawski and Workman-Stark, 2018; Workman-Stark, 2021). In addition, organizational cultures characterized by masculinity contests are related to increased imposter feelings and lower belonging (Vial et al., 2022), increased turnover intentions (Glick et al., 2018; Matos et al., 2018; Rawski and Workman-Stark, 2018; Workman-Stark, 2021), and poorer work-life balance (Glick et al., 2018; Matos et al., 2018). Such a restrictive and competitive work culture mirroring the masculine gender role is not only detrimental to members of groups that are typically excluded and discriminated by such a discourse (e.g., women and ethnic-, cultural-, or gender minority groups), but also for (heterosexual) men who are expected to fit well with and thrive under these norms. For instance, research has shown how hyper-masculine occupational stereotypes (e.g., in the military) may discourage not only women but also men who feel they do not fit this stereotypical ‘macho’ image (Peters et al., 2015). In addition, these contests may be particularly difficult for trans-individuals, those who identify as nonbinary, or who do not fit easily in the gender binary categorization (Köllen, 2016).

Besides these negative health and wellbeing consequences of masculinity contest and work devotion norms that affect everyone, there are also specific repercussions harming men. For example, research has shown that working men who adhere more (vs. less) to traditional masculinity norms rated their own overall wellbeing and the wellbeing of other traditional working men as lower (Kim et al., 2020). Moreover, men who fail to meet or actively resist masculine work standards not only violate work norms, but also gender norms - thereby risking backlash through social rejection and work-related sanctions (Burke and Black, 1997). For example, Moss-Racusin et al. (2010b) showed that men applicants for a manager position who defied gender norms by being modest were perceived as weaker and less agentic, and were less liked than modest woman applicants. Similarly, men who applied for an internal promotion and were described as advocates for their team (instead of for themselves) were estimated as less agentic and competent, and more recommended to be released from the company, compared to similar women (Bosak et al., 2018). Moreover, men leaders who sought more help (vs. less) were rated as less competent, while there was no such difference for women leaders (Rosette et al., 2015). These findings show how men may face significant dilemmas: possible harm to their health and wellbeing if they adhere to masculine work norms, but risking social and work-related backlash if they do not.

Restrictive masculinity norms in the workplace not only harm individuals’ wellbeing but can also obstruct efforts to create a more diverse and inclusive workplace. For instance, in organizations where masculinity contest norms are more prevalent, employees report more sexism and sexual and ethnic harassment (Glick et al., 2018; Kuchynka et al., 2018). Furthermore, in such environments masculine status may be especially precarious and easily threatened (Berdahl et al., 2018). Importantly, as noted earlier, research shows that defensive reactions to threatened masculinity may increase men’s prejudice towards women and minority groups (Glick et al., 2007; Weaver and Vescio, 2015; Alonso, 2018; Ching, 2021; Wellman et al., 2021) and decrease men’s support for and participation in DEI (Kosakowska-Berezecka et al., 2016a). Yet again, this shows the importance of considering the restrictions posed by masculinity norms, for the sake of both men’s wellbeing and gender equality at large.

Underrepresentation of men in domestic and HEED roles

A third domain in which men face gender role restrictions is in domestic engagement, and more generally, representation in HEED domains (Health care, Elementary Education and the Domestic sphere - Croft et al., 2015; Meeussen et al., 2020). While women have increasingly moved toward traditionally masculine domains (e.g., STEM fields, management positions) men are still underrepresented in traditionally feminine (HEED) domains. Across the world there are substantially fewer men in traditionally feminine occupations, for example with men being only 33% of the primary education teachers worldwide (World Bank, 2023) and 24% of the human health workers in the EU (European Institute for Gender Equality, 2023). Men also continue to engage less in housework and childcare than women (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2023). For instance, European men spent on average about 21 h a week on childcare (vs. 39 h by women -European Institute for Gender Equality, 2020). Such traditionally feminine roles typically build on a communal orientation, which refers to being warm, empathic and caring towards others (Bakan, 1966). Even though these roles are often still devalued relative to traditionally masculine roles (Block et al., 2018), adopting a communal orientation has been shown to be good for people’s relationships and wellbeing (Carlson et al., 2016; Kosakowska-Berezecka et al., 2016b; Le et al., 2018; Petts and Knoester, 2020). For example, people with more communal values report higher life satisfaction and more positive emotions (Hofer et al., 2006; Sheldon and Cooper, 2008; Le et al., 2013), and US men (and women) expect higher wellbeing should paternity leave become paid (Moss-Racusin et al., 2021).

One reason for the persisting underrepresentation of men in HEED is that gender associations linking men to agency and women to communion are generally internalized (see Croft et al., 2015). According to gender norms it is both typical and desirable for men to be agentic and for women to be communal (Heilman, 2001; Prentice and Carranza, 2002; Bosson et al., 2022). Recent research shows that especially this association between women and communion has increased over the years, and that it is stronger than the association between men and agency (Eagly et al., 2020). These gender norms become part of people’s self-concept early in life, e.g., through parents’ and others’ socializing behavior (Edwards et al., 2003; Martin and Ruble, 2010) and may steer boys’ and men’s interests away from HEED (Chaffee and Plante, 2022).

Secondly, men’s communal engagement may be hindered by external barriers (see Croft et al., 2015 and Meeussen et al., 2020 for reviews). Men who do have a traditionally feminine occupation may experience a conflict between their work identity (requiring communality) and their identity as a man (requiring agency; Cross and Bagilhole, 2002; Simpson, 2005), which could reduce their wellbeing (Wolfram et al., 2009). In order to protect their masculine identity against threats, men may indeed turn away from HEED roles (Chaffee et al., 2020; Kaplan and Offer, 2022). Not only may men themselves choose HEED roles less in order to avoid gender role conflict and masculinity threat, but men are also sometimes directly discouraged from making such choices. For example, mothers may discourage fathers from getting more involved in childcare and housework, as they believe that men are less skilled in that regard, and as they seek to affirm their own identity as a mother (i.e., maternal gatekeeping; Allen and Hawkins, 1999; McBride et al., 2005; Gaunt, 2008; Gaunt and Pinho, 2018; Meeussen and Van Laar, 2018; Bareket et al., 2020). In addition, men who do show communal involvement may receive backlash from others. For instance – and as noted earlier - men who seek flexibility arrangements at work have been found to be evaluated more negatively (Vandello et al., 2013), and at risk for work-related sanctions (Rudman and Mescher, 2013). Similarly, negative evaluations may occur for men in stereotypically feminine professions such as early education, or positions aimed at fostering interpersonal relationships at work (Heilman and Wallen, 2010; Moss-Racusin and Johnson, 2016; Halper et al., 2019).

Importantly, besides benefits for their own personal wellbeing, men taking up more communal roles would also promote more gender equality at work (Croft et al., 2015; Meeussen et al., 2020; Reverberi et al., 2021). Since women still take up most of the housework and childcare (e.g., the percentage of stay-at-home mothers in the US was almost four times that of stay-at-home dads, Livingston, 2018; and in parts of Europe 70% of women work part-time, compared to only 28% of men, CBS, 2022) there would be more opportunities for women in heterosexual couples to pursue a work career if men were to take up more housework and childcare (Meeussen et al., 2019; Moss-Racusin et al., 2021). Importantly, research suggests there is pluralistic ignorance among men about having communal values, with men overestimating how much their peers endorse a traditional view of men as agentic rather than communal – which in turn has negative consequences for their own involvement (Van Grootel et al., 2018). It is therefore of great importance to break this misconception and to bring people’s attention - and especially men’s attention- to the value of cultivating a stronger sense of communality. Indeed, there are signs that men may be moving in this direction, as for example a majority of interviewed men in academia expressed wanting to be more involved at home and reported making efforts to do so (Damaske et al., 2014). Research has moreover shown that highly educated and career-driven women find communally oriented men more attractive than men who are not (Meeussen et al., 2019), suggesting norms may indeed be changing at least in some (often leading) subsections of society.

In conclusion, men’s contributions to gender equality can then also be increased through involvement in domestic and more general HEED domains. Paired with attention to other ways in which men are negatively restricted through gender roles (e.g., in their health and wellbeing, in their strong devotion to unhealthy work environments) such a focus on gender restrictions for men, and their effects on men, women, other gender groups, and their children can help pave the way for men’s involvement in gender equality. Indeed in the next section we consider men’s role as allies in gender equality progress.

Men as allies in gender equality progress

The importance of mobilizing men to advance gender equality has become a topic of increasing focus (Kimmel et al., 2004; Flood, 2011). As highlighted in earlier sections of this paper, women - the disadvantaged/low power group with the most to gain from challenging gender inequality - have historically been at the center of gender movement theorizing and research (see Maddison and Sawer, 2013; Radke et al., 2016). Yet there is increasing recognition that achieving positive and sustainable change requires a change to men’s attitudes and behavior at the interpersonal and intergroup level (Mahalik et al., 2003; Locke and Mahalik, 2005; Parrott, 2009; Fox and Tang, 2014; Croft et al., 2015; Meeussen et al., 2020); along with changes to the broader systems and processes over which men still preside that maintain their power and privilege. First, we discuss men’s orientation to gender equality and gender equality movements. Second and third, we discuss factors that aid and may interfere with men’s advocacy for gender equality.

Changing men’s attitudes towards gender equality and gender equality movements

The involvement of men as allies for gender equality is not new - there is a long history of men being willing to confront sexism. For example, in the early twentieth century, the US Men’s League for Women’s Suffrage provided critical support to the women’s suffrage movement, including speeches, fundraising and lobbying government officials (Kroeger, 2017). During the second wave of feminism in the 1970s, anti-sexist men’s groups - such as Men Against Patriarchy (MOP) - emerged in Australia to support the women’s cause (Flood, 2014). Today through international organizations such as The White Ribbon Campaign, He For She (UN), and the MenEngage Alliance, a small but growing number of men around the world are becoming involved in gender equality activism, including the prevention of violence against women (Flood, 2014). Particularly active in gender change are trans-men and those who identify as non-binary, who themselves fight daily against restrictive gender norms.

Changes in men’s attitudes over time have also been encouraged and inspired by worldwide feminist movements, and their accompanying changes in gender relations at home and work. Research shows that men’s attitudes towards feminism and gender equality have become more progressive over time as the feminist movement has provided women greater rights and freedoms (Bolzendahl and Myers, 2004; Donnelly et al., 2016; Scarborough et al., 2019). Moreover, research has found men’s exposure to feminism through awareness raising/education, and through feminist exemplars in their lives, an important determinant of men’s feminist attitudes. For instance, using nationlly representative US data (1974–1998), Bolzendahl and Myers (2004) showed that having a female spouse in the labor force was the most important determinant of men’s feminist attitudes in the four areas examined (abortion, pre-marital sex, gender-roles, and family responsibilities,). In addition, more highly educated men, and with more highly educated mothers, were also more likely to have feminist attitudes (also see Stoltenberg, 1990; Casey and Smith, 2010).

Yet, support for gender equality has not fully taken root among men. While surveys tend to show a steady increase in men’s support (but see important nuances, e.g., Levtov et al., 2014; DIT, 2023), only a minority of men self-identify as feminist (Silver et al., 2019). This too is tied to social norms: men’s feminist identification and activism is influenced by norms surrounding men’s participation (see Kutlaca et al., 2022) as well as by portrayals of feminist men. For instance, Wiley et al. (2013) found that men’s feminist identification and willingness to engage in gender-related collective action was greatest when feminist men were portrayed positively, and when men’s involvement was considered necessary for progress. This was in comparison to conditions where men’s involvement was depicted as a barrier to progress, and to a neutral control condition where a history of feminism was described without mentioning men. Below we discuss the factors that may aid and that may prevent men from involvement in gender equality progress.

Factors that may aid men’s involvement in gender equality progress

The above findings provide inroads to compel men’s support for gender equality. We below discuss several leverages for change that can aid men’s support: explicit encouragement of men’s involvement; positive contact with feminists; raising awareness about the costs of masculinity for men; and more generally appealing to men’s group-based and personal interests; encouraging empathy for women as targets of sexism and reducing empathy for men as perpetrators.

Encouragement of men’s involvement

Explicit encouragement of men’s involvement may be an important factor in engaging men in gender-related change. For example, Sherf et al. (2017) found that more explicit encouragement of men to partake in workplace gender-equality initiatives can have positive effects. This is because men’s low involvement can be due to a perceived lack of psychological standing, or perceived low legitimacy to act on behalf of this cause. In this research, participants were asked to volunteer to be part of a companywide taskforce on gender parity (the control condition) and some participants also received information that the CEO had made a request for both men and women volunteers. As expected, this additional information provided a boost to men’s volunteerism, increasing to 55% (vs. 33% in the control condition without a specific invitation for men’s participation).

Positive contact with feminists

Inspired by intergroup contact theory (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew and Tropp, 2006; Wiley et al., 2021) showed that men’s positive contact with feminists can also facilitate support. In two studies (one cross-sectional, one half longitudinal), straight men living in the US were asked to indicate the extent to which they had had positive contact with feminist women (interactions that made them feel “accepted,” “supported” and “welcomed”). Participants were also asked to indicate how much solidarity they felt with the feminist cause, their public and domestic support for gender equality, and their awareness of gender privilege (i.e., that men are afforded greater opportunities because they are men). Across studies, those who reported more positive contact with feminists also reported more solidarity with feminists. Solidarity with feminists was in turn positively associated with greater awareness of gender privilege. However, only in the cross-sectional study was men’s solidarity with feminism also positively associated with public and domestic support for gender equality. Nonetheless, the benefits of positive contact with feminist women to men’s solidarity, and in turn their gender privilege awareness, points to a potential important avenue to aid men’s involvement (for related findings, see Case et al., 2014; Vázquez et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2024).

Programs that raise awareness about the costs of masculinity for men

Programs promoting awareness about the costs of masculinity for men may also increase men’s involvement, with as prime example programs on health and well-being. It is notable, for example, that none of the wellbeing programs targeting boys and young men reviewed in a recent meta-analysis by Gwyther et al. (2019) incorporated masculinity as a framework with which to understand and address mental-health issues. Men’s adherence to (some) masculine norms can be damaging, not only to women and the gender-equality cause, but also to the physical and mental health of men. This was one important conclusion of Wong et al. (2017) meta-analysis on masculinity and mental-health outcomes incorporating 78 studies with almost 20,000 mostly White, heterosexual US men. In included studies, participants were asked about their conformity to up to eleven different masculine norms, along with assessment of positive mental health (e.g., life satisfaction) and negative mental health (e.g., depression). Men’s adherence to three norms in particular: power over women (desire to dominate women); playboy (desiring multiple, non-committed sexual relationships); and self-reliance (unwillingness to seek help), the first two of which were strongly associated with sexism, and were significantly, robustly, and unfavorably associated with all mental-health outcomes. In part these factors may make it more difficult for men to have positive relationships with women, with this in turn leading to lower mental health (Wong et al., 2016). Educating men and boys on the benefits of rejecting unhealthy masculine norms may therefore be a promising avenue to boost men’s support for gender equality (see, e.g., Case et al., 2014; Lux et al., 2024; Equimundo).¹

Appealing to men’s group-based interests

More generally, research has found men to be more likely to participate in gender equality initiatives when they are framed to appeal to men’s group-based interests, such as greater access to paid parental leave or greater workplace flexibility for men. For instance, Farrell et al. (2021) examined support for gender equality initiatives amongst STEM faculty members. Initiatives framed as benefiting men and women, (vs. just women), received more support from men by reducing their program fairness concerns, and increasing their internal motivation to engage. There is also some evidence that leaders who frame gender equality as a common cause for men and women (vs. a women’s issue) can facilitate men’s engagement (Hardacre and Subašić, 2018; Subašić et al., 2018).

It follows that men would be motivated to support action framed as consistent with their group-based interests and/or of benefit to men and women. However, this focus may also be counter-productive to the extent that it normalizes men’s engagement only in circumstances where men stand to visibly benefit. For many gender-inequality issues, men’s engagement is needed, even and perhaps especially, when change requires removing their group-based privileges, and/or challenging problematic behaviors and systemic factors that help maintain men’s privilege. For instance, in the case of challenging men’s violence against women, change requires confronting victim-blaming narratives and organizational responses that protect men accused of wrongdoing from accountability (Bergman et al., 2002; McDonald, 2012).

Encouraging empathy for women as targets and reducing empathy for men as perpetrators

Increasing men’s empathy for women as targets of sexism and gender-based violence may also be effective in increasing men’s support for gender-related social change. This focus may make men more empathetic to women facing sexism and gender-based violence, but also to men and non-binary people as victims. As highlighted above, there are numerous examples of men supporting feminism and participating in gender equality initiatives out of a concern for justice for women (e.g., to prevent men’s violence against women) rather than self-interest. Experiences that prompt men to feel empathy for women targets of sexism are likely to be important to this. For example, Becker and Swim (2011) conducted a diary study whereby men were asked to consider the frequency of sexist incidents experienced by women. Men in an “empathy inducement” condition were also asked to consider how the women targets of sexism felt. The empathy inducement was critical to producing a significant reduction in men’s endorsement of sexist beliefs. Other research looking at sexual violence and rape myth acceptance (i.e., men’s greater tendency to blame victims/survivors and downplay negative effects) has also found that empathy interventions with men that described men as the victim/survivors of sexual assault increased men’s empathy for, and reduced rape myth acceptance, when it came to women victim/survivors (Foubert and Newberry, 2006; Stewart, 2014). Also, Mazzuca and colleagues showed that as men experienced more relative deprivation on behalf of women they were more motivated to engage in gender equality collective action at work, with this mediated by increased guilt about gender inequalities and decreased fear of backlash, plus the moral conviction of acting for gender equality (Mazzuca et al., 2022).

In addition to increasing men’s empathy for women who suffer sexism, research by Bongiorno et al. (2020) has shown that reducing men’s empathy for men accused of sexism may also be important. In this research, participants read about a young woman student sexually harassed by a man student. Men reported higher victim blaming than women (consistent with previous research), and men’s greater empathy than women for the man accused fully explained this gender difference in victim blaming. Men’s and women’s empathy for the complainant was high overall and did not differ significantly. In a second study, Bongiorno et al. (2020) found that both men’s greater empathy for the accused and victim blaming could be reduced by having men consider how the sexual harassment affected the complainant’s (vs. the accused’s) life. Moreover, both lesser empathy for the accused and greater empathy for the complainant were important in explaining lower victim-blaming in the complainant (vs. accused) -perspective-taking condition.

Bongiorno and colleagues’ research indeed shows that men may be more prone to excusing men’s wrongdoing than women because they are more likely to focus on the perspectives and feelings of men accused of sexism. Yet when prompted to consider the perspectives and feelings of the women men on average respond in more prosocial and less sexist ways. Other research has highlighted how men’s involvement with gender-equality advocacy out of a concern for justice for women is linked to a focus on women’s perspectives. For instance, Casey and Smith (2010) interviewed 27 men involved in programs to end men’s domestic or sexual violence against women. Amongst the three factors critical to men’s involvement was having “sensitizing” experiences, such as hearing first-hand accounts from women on the reality of violent victimization. More generally, experiences of feeling devalued may aid men in taking others’ perspective with devalued identities (see Moss-Racusin et al., 2010a).

Factors that stand in the way of men’s advocacy for gender related social change

The above research highlights key factors known to be related to men’s positive engagement with the promotion of gender equality. Yet, it is important to acknowledge that there is still much in men’s social environments that works against their positive engagement. This includes, for example, media focuses on men’s perspectives, including the foregrounding of the plight of men accused of wrongdoing rather than those victimized by men (Meyers, 1996; Kahlor and Eastin, 2011); and gender-segregated networks that provide men more ready access to the perspectives of men accused of sexism (McDonald, 2012). We discuss these below. Also, we consider lip-service to gender-related change, and the benefits and downsides of including men as allies.

Biased media

Much of media that individuals, including men, consume (e.g., news, movies, TV shows, video games) is owned, produced, directed, and/or reported by men (or those who work for men; Women’s Media Centre, 2021). This has led to narratives that create and help to reproduce gender inequality, as men’s experiences and perspectives tend to be prioritized, often in ways that serve men’s interests. For example, myths about rape are common in mainstream media reporting, including the myth that women are most likely to be raped by a man stranger in a dark alley (rather than by a man they know), or that women who are raped while under the influence of alcohol are partly responsible (see Tranchese, 2019). There are concerted efforts by feminists to tackle this media bias, including through social media (see Rentschler, 2014) and broader efforts to diversify media to better represent the perspectives, experiences and realities of women e.g., (see BBC’s 50:50 equality project).² However, until this media landscape is changed, men’s exposure to narratives that challenge dominant interpretations serving their interests will remain elusive. This may in turn prevent the widespread development of understandings that could build men’s solidarity with the gender equality cause.

Gendered-segregated networks

Another factor that can stand in the way of men’s understanding of and advocacy for gender equality is gender segregation as an ongoing feature of social life, including at work and in friendships (Mehta and Strough, 2009). Indeed, outside family relationships and heterosexual intimate partners (discussed above as an avenue for men’s positive gender equality engagement), much of social life is gender segregated, keeping men from developing friendships and comparisons with women that could promote a better understanding of women’s perspectives and experiences (see also Major, 1994). Feminist theorists have argued that in patriarchal cultures, the domination of women by men is sanctioned and promoted through bonds between men (see Sedgwick, 1985). Flood’s (2008) research highlights how such bonds can shape deeply problematic attitudes and behaviors towards women. Ultimately then, challenging the development and normalization of gender-segregated social networks is an integral part of the change to facilitate men’s support for gender equality. Promising research by Hilliard and Liben (2010) has shown that de-emphasising gender in US preschools (e.g., avoiding gendered language to describe children) does lead to a reduction in children’s gender stereotyped attitudes, and importantly, their preference to only play with same-gender classmates.

Lip service to gender-related change

In addition, men’s advocacy for gender equality, when it does happen, is not always based on good intentions or the right approach. Men’s advocacy may be motivated by a desire to boost personal reputation, public or company profile, rather than out of a genuine commitment for change. Referred to as “performative allyship” this is where easy and costless actions are taken by men that look good on the surface, and benefit reputation, but can cost the movement because an appearance of change replaces actual change (Kutlaca et al., 2022). There is also increasing evidence showing further negative consequences of such lip-service to gender-related change (Bromley and Powell, 2012; Bourke et al., 2017; Mor Barak et al., 2021; Baker et al., 2023).

Considering effects of the involvement of men in gender advocacy

In considering the engagement of men allies though, it is also important consider potential inadvertent effects. On the one hand men advocates for gender equality are likely to receive more recognition for their work and may have bigger, quicker wins by virtue of their greater access to power and influence (Connell, 2003). Men may be more effective gender advocates because they are perceived as more credible and considered less motivated by self-interest than women (Czopp and Monteith, 2003; Roden et al., 2021). Men’s greater traction as advocates – especially men in significant positions of power and influence – underscores the importance of their engagement. On the other hand, gender inequality of influence within the movement is also an aspect of gender injustice that, if not challenged, can generate resentment from women that forms barriers to effective collaboration (Flood, 2011). Related to this, some men’s engagement may also intentionally or unintentionally reproduce gendered dominance/subordinate relationships (see also Good et al., 2018; Estevan-Reina et al., 2020 for examples when men confront sexism through a paternalistic duty to protect). For instance, Macomber’s (2012) research on “engaging men” groups found that some men would dominate interactions and make claims to expert knowledge in areas they knew little about. Research by Piccigallo et al. (2012) examining men’s participation in anti-rape groups on campus also found some men to be more focused on and affected by men’s than women’s evaluations. In related areas, Bridges (2010) presented a case study of men protesting violence against women through performances of drag at “Walk a Mile in Her Shoes” marches. They observed that because the use of drag by men was derisive, it was ultimately reinforcing, rather than challenging, of gender inequalities.

How men’s participation in gender-equality efforts affects women and their engagement is also an important consideration. In Sherf et al. (2017) research, the impact of a CEO inviting men and women to partake in a taskforce on gender parity (vs. an invitation with no explicit mention of men or women) led to 10% fewer women volunteering. Iyer and Achia (2021) also found that a gender-equality organization described as having a leadership team with a majority (vs. minority) of men reduced women’s collective action intentions via reduced hope and reduced perceptions that the leaders had sufficient awareness of gender inequality. Research by Kutlaca et al. (2022) showed that men’s equal participation with women in gender inequality protests– in comparison to women-only protests –increased women’s identification with the movement only if men played a supportive (vs. leadership) role. Other research by Droogendyk et al. (2016) indeed highlighted that to be good allies, men must consider the challenges of their participation, including the harm if men’s perspectives and feelings are privileged. It is important then in considering men’s ally behavior to understand both the goals this allyship has, and the effects of men’s allyship on other men, as well as on women and others.

Conclusion: men as agents for change

In the current paper we have provided an overview of why men are needed – and themselves need – gender-related change. While much gender-equality effort focuses on women, we argue that not only are men needed for gender-equality progress to be successful, but that gender restrictions also have significant underexamined effects on men. This new attention towards men will also increase the likelihood that gender-equality efforts will engage men, as it makes clearer what all have to gain. In such endeavors, it is important not to lose sight of the goal: to benefit all, not just those groups or individuals directly affected by specific measures.

We focused on men’s role in gender equality progress in three key ways (see Table 1 for an overview): First, on men’s privileged status as potentially threatened by gender equality progress: how women’s gains may seem men’s losses, how being privileged may lead one to be blind to the disadvantage of others, and how the precarious nature of male identity may make it entertaining gender-related change difficult for men. Second, we focused on men as themselves victims of restrictive roles, and the consequences for men’s physical and mental health, for their engagement at work and at home, and in communal HEED domains in broader society. Third, we considered the men’s role as allies: what is currently known about men’s attitudes to and involvement in gender-related social change, about the factors that impede and may aid in increasing involvement, and about the benefits as well as potential drawbacks of how male engagement is secured.

Table 1

Table 1. Overview of the key factors playing a role in involving men in gender equality progress.

The knowledge reviewed here identifies effective tools to leverage change for men’s involvement, and in avoiding tools that may backfire or have negative side-effects. First, it is important that gender equality efforts are cognizant and communicate the fact that gender change is not only for women and gender-minority groups, but that gender stereotypes are a many-edged sword, negatively impacting women’s, and others’ well-being, including men and boys (Eagly et al., 2000; Croft et al., 2015; Meeussen et al., 2020; Morgenroth and Ryan, 2021). Communicating the benefits for all, and considering effects also specifically in areas where men face significant impact (e.g., health, well-being, work organizations, access to children and care for others) is more likely to generate broader support, and to reduce effects of restrictive gender roles in key areas where men face consequences. Such efforts can involve attention to gender equality in parenting, schools, the workplace, and in the media and society at large (see Croft et al., 2015; Van Laar et al., 2019; Meeussen et al., 2020 for reviews and specific recommendations). More broadly, such efforts are also likely to reduce polarization and zero-sum conflicts at the base of many political battles in societies on gender, socioeconomic status and immigration - where privileged high-status groups may focus on their own victimhood (see also Norton and Sommers, 2011; Knowles et al., 2014; Esteve et al., 2016; West, 2016; Williams, 2017; Does et al., 2018; West et al., 2021). Working as researchers, educators and practitioners we should communicate the value of gender equality efforts for all – to increase empathy and prevent zero-sum perceptions. In doing so, it is important to avoid becoming gender or color-blind with all its known downsides (i.e., focused on minimizing or ignoring differences; Richeson and Nussbaum, 2004; Dovidio et al., 2017; Gündemir et al., 2019; Leslie et al., 2020). Indeed “All-Inclusive” efforts are most likely to be successful (Stevens et al., 2008; Shih et al., 2013; Hall et al., 2018; Subašić et al., 2018). Also, we need to make clear not only how processes of disadvantage work, but also processes related to privilege and (the threat of) loss of privilege – not to assert blame, but to make explicit what often remains hidden (Schmitt and Branscombe, 2002; Pratto and Stewart, 2012; Case et al., 2014; Knowles et al., 2014; Scheepers and Ellemers, 2018; Phillips and Lowery, 2020; Hodson et al., 2022; Mikołajczak and Becker, 2022).

Many of the insights discussed are relevant not only for gender equality progress but also for other group-based inequalities, such as those based on ethnicity, social class, physical ability or sexual orientation. Indeed, allyship with other movements for equality and inclusion (such as ethnicity, SES and LGBTQ+) is key to transform norms and cultural practices. For instance, zero-sum beliefs, perceived symbolic and realistic threat, and blindness of the privileged are mechanisms that apply more generally to social systems where the historically advantaged group does not recognize the bias and discrimination against disadvantaged groups, and feels threatened by actions made towards social change (Stephan and Stephan, 2000; DiAngelo, 2011; Norton and Sommers, 2011; Pratto and Stewart, 2012). Also, many of the factors that may obstruct or aid men’s involvement in gender progress reviewed here can be applied to other social inequalities. For example, research has shown the effectiveness of empathy-inducing strategies to reduce ethnic bias (Finlay and Stephan, 2000). What does seem more specific to gender inequality is that the traditional gender framework not only disadvantages women and non-binary people, but also directly harms the wellbeing of men as the advantaged group. While lower social inequality benefits society in general and thus also the advantaged groups (Wilkinson and Pickett, 2009; Stiglitz, 2012; OECD, 2015), we have argued in this paper that men personally and directly have much to gain from gender equality.

The current paper discussed men largely as one group. In reality of course men have different ethnic, socioeconomic, religious and national identities, and different sexual and gender identities. These can affect the outlook, experiences and concerns men may have, and how the processes discussed affect them. Also, many men are not necessarily privileged themselves (e.g., in terms of ethnicity, social class, physical ability or sexual orientation - see, e.g., Coston and Kimmel, 2012; Levant and Wong, 2013; Clements et al., 2022; Goodwill et al., 2022). Moreover, much of the research has been conducted on men from WEIRD countries (Western, Educated, Independent, Rich and Democratic, Henrich et al., 2010). Nevertheless there is movement here too, with two large scale cross-national studies on gender and men’s roles with data from 62 and 49 countries, respectively, [Towards Gender Harmony project (TGH) and Understanding Communal Roles in Men project (UCOM), see Bosson et al., 2021, 2022; Kosakowska-Berezecka et al., 2022, 2024; Olsson et al., 2023; Saxler et al., 2024]. Efforts to address gender equality for men thus also need to examine the role of such differences in culture, ethnicity, religion, gender and sexual identities. Moreover, gender expectations affect men and boys at all ages – starting before birth and affecting individuals in different ways throughout their lifetimes. Taking a developmental perspective is thus also of importance (see Eckes and Trautner, 2000; Ryan and Branscombe, 2013; Way et al., 2014). Importantly, the goal of gender-related change is not to force individuals into specific nongendered roles, domains and qualities. Instead the goal is to broaden options so that choices are less driven by social constraints based on gender. Paradoxically then, in addressing DEI, we first need to focus on gender – and on men specifically – in order to in the end move away from this focus, and allow individuals to reach their potential free of gender-based restrictions. We hope that by outlining the key roles played by men in gender equality progress that we have provided some insights that aid in moving us towards this goal.

Author contributions

CL: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AR: Funding acquisition, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. NK-B: Funding acquisition, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. RB: Funding acquisition, Writing – original draft. KB: Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This work was supported by an Odysseus grant from the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) to CL (grant number: G.O.E66.14 N), a fellowship grant from the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) to AR (grant number: 1114222 N), a grant from the Poland National Science Centre (grant number: 2017/26/M/HS6/00360) awarded to NK-B, and a BA/Leverhulme Small Research Grant awarded to Renata Bongiorno as PI (grant number: SRG1920\100698).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

1. ^www.equimundo.org

2. ^seejane.org

References

Adams, G., Tormala, T. T., and O’Brien, L. T. (2006). The effect of self-affirmation on perceptions of racism. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 42, 616–626. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2005.11.001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Aldous, J., and Mulligan, G. M. (2002). Fathers’ child care and childrens’ behavior problems. J. Fam. Issues 23, 624–647. doi: 10.1177/0192513X02023005003

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Alesina, A., Giuliano, P., and Nunn, N. (2013). On the origins of gender roles: women and the plough. Q. J. Econ. 128, 469–530. doi: 10.1093/qje/qjt005

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Allen, S. M., and Hawkins, A. J. (1999). Maternal gatekeeping: mothers’ beliefs and behaviors that inhibit greater father involvement in family work. J. Marriage Fam. 61, 199–212. doi: 10.2307/353894

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Allport, G. W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.

Google Scholar

Alonso, N. (2018). Playing to win: male–male sex-based harassment and the masculinity contest. J. Soc. Issues 74, 477–499. doi: 10.1111/josi.12283

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Amato, P. R., and Rivera, F. I. (1999). Paternal involvement and children’s behavior problems. J. Marriage Fam. 61, 375–384. doi: 10.2307/353755

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Anderson, V. N. (2009). What’s in a label? Judgments of feminist men and feminist women. Psychol. Women Q. 33, 206–215. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2009.01490.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bakan, D. (1966). The Duality of Human Existence: An Essay on Psychology and Religion. Oxford, UK: Rand McNally.

Google Scholar

Baker, A., Larcker, D. F., McClure, C., Saraph, D., and Watts, E. (2023). Diversity Washing. Chicago Booth Research Paper No. 22–18, Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University Working Paper No. 151, Stanford University Graduate School of Business Research Paper No. 4298626, European Corporate Governance Institute – Finance Working Paper No. 868/2023.

Google Scholar

Bareket, O., Shnabel, N., Kende, A., Knab, N., and Bar-Anan, Y. (2020). Need some help, honey? Dependency-oriented helping relations between women and men in the domestic sphere. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 120, 1175–1203. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000292

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Barnett, R. C., Crosby, F. J., Williams, J. C., Biernat, M., Ridgeway, C. L., Correll, S. J., et al. (2004). The maternal wall: research and policy perspectives on discrimination against mothers. J. Soc. Issues 60, 667–674. doi: 10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00378.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Becker, J. C., and Swim, J. K. (2011). Seeing the unseen: attention to daily encounters with sexism as way to reduce sexist beliefs. Psychol. Women Q. 35, 227–242. doi: 10.1177/0361684310397509

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Becker, J. C., and Wright, S. C. (2011). Yet another dark side of chivalry: benevolent sexism undermines and hostile sexism motivates collective action for social change. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 101, 62–77. doi: 10.1037/a0022615

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Berdahl, J. L. (2007). The sexual harassment of uppity women. J. Appl. Psychol. 92, 425–437. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.425

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Berdahl, J. L., Cooper, M., Glick, P., Livingston, R. W., and Williams, J. C. (2018). Work as a masculinity contest. J. Soc. Issues 74, 422–448. doi: 10.1111/josi.12289

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Berger, J. M., Levant, R., McMillan, K. K., Kelleher, W., and Sellers, A. (2005). Impact of gender role conflict, traditional masculinity ideology, alexithymia, and age on men’s attitudes toward psychological help seeking. Psychol. Men Masc. 6, 73–78. doi: 10.1037/1524-9220.6.1.73

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bergman, M. E., Langhout, R. D., Palmieri, P. A., Cortina, L. M., and Fitzgerald, L. F. (2002). The (un) reasonableness of reporting: antecedents and consequences of reporting sexual harassment. J. Appl. Psychol. 87, 230–242. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.230

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Berke, D. S., Reidy, D. E., Miller, J. D., and Zeichner, A. (2017). Take it like a man: gender-threatened men’s experience of gender role discrepancy, emotion activation, and pain tolerance. Psychol. Men Masc. 18, 62–69. doi: 10.1037/men0000036

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Blair-Loy, M. (2001). Cultural constructions of family schemas: the case of women finance executives. Gend. Soc. 15, 687–709. doi: 10.1177/089124301015005004

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Blau, F. D., and Kahn, L. M. (2017). The gender wage gap: extent, trends, and explanations. J. Econ. Lit. 55, 789–865. doi: 10.1257/jel.20160995

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Block, K., Croft, A., and Schmader, T. (2018). Worth less? Why men (and women) devalue care-oriented careers. Front. Psychol. 9:1353. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01353

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Blodorn, A., O’Brien, L. T., and Kordys, J. (2012). Responding to sex-based discrimination: gender differences in perceived discrimination and implications for legal decision making. Group Processes Intergroup Relat. 15, 409–424. doi: 10.1177/1368430211427172

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bolzendahl, C. I., and Myers, D. J. (2004). Feminist attitudes and support for gender equality: opinion change in women and men, 1974–1998. Soc. Forces 83, 759–789. doi: 10.1353/sof.2005.0005

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bongiorno, R., Langbroek, C., Bain, P. G., Ting, M., and Ryan, M. K. (2020). Why women are blamed for being sexually harassed: the effects of empathy for female victims and male perpetrators. Psychol. Women Q. 44, 11–27. doi: 10.1177/0361684319868730

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Borgogna, N. C., McDermott, R. C., and Brasil, K. M. (2022). The precarious masculinity of firearm ownership. Psychol. Men Masc. 23, 173–182. doi: 10.1037/men0000386

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bosak, J., Kulich, C., Rudman, L., and Kinahan, M. (2018). Be an advocate for others, unless you are a man: backlash against gender-atypical male job candidates. Psychol Men Masc 19, 156–165. doi: 10.1037/men0000085

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bosson, J. K., Jurek, P., Vandello, J. A., Kosakowska-Berezecka, N., Olech, M., Besta, T., et al. (2021). Psychometric properties and correlates of precarious manhood beliefs in 62 nations. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 52, 231–258. doi: 10.1177/0022022121997997

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bosson, J. K., Vandello, J. A., Burnaford, R. M., Weaver, J. R., and Arzu Wasti, S. (2009). Precarious manhood and displays of physical aggression. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 35, 623–634. doi: 10.1177/0146167208331161

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bosson, J. K., Vandello, J., Michniewicz, K., and Lenes, J. (2012). American men’s and women’s beliefs about gender discrimination: for men, it’s not quite a zero-sum game. Mascu. Soc. Change 1, 210–239. doi: 10.4471/mcs.2012.14

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bosson, J. K., Wilkerson, M., Kosakowska-Berezecka, N., Jurek, P., and Olech, M. (2022). Harder won and easier lost? Testing the double standard in gender rules in 62 countries. Sex Roles 87, 1–19. doi: 10.1007/s11199-022-01297-y

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bourke, J., Garr, S., Berkel, A., and Wong, J. (2017). Diversity and Inclusion: The Reality Gap. Global Human Capital Trends. Available at: https://www2.deloitte.com/insights/us/en/focus/human-capital-trends/2017/diversity-and-inclusion-at-the-workplace.html#endnote-12 (Accessed February 23, 2024).

Google Scholar

Braly, A. M., Parent, M. C., and DeLucia, P. R. (2018). Do threats to masculinity result in more aggressive driving behavior? Psychol. Men Masc. 19, 540–546. doi: 10.1037/men0000135

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Brannon, R. (1976). “The male sex role – and what it’s done for us lately” in The Forty-Nine Percent Majority. eds. R. Brannon and D. Davids (Brannon, Boston: Addison-Wesley), 1–40.

Google Scholar

Breivik, G., Sand, T. S., and McDonald Sookermany, A. (2017). Sensation seeking and risk-taking in the norwegian population. Personal. Individ. Differ. 119, 266–272. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2017.07.039

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bridges, T. S. (2010). Men just weren’t made to do this: performances of drag at “walk a mile in her shoes” marches. Gend. Soc. 24, 5–30. doi: 10.1177/0891243209356924

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bromley, P., and Powell, W. (2012). From smoke and mirrors to walking the talk: decoupling in the contemporary world. Acad. Manag. Ann. 6, 483–530. doi: 10.5465/19416520.2012.684462

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Burke, R. J., and Black, S. (1997). Save the males: backlash in organizations. J. Bus. Ethics 16, 933–942. doi: 10.1023/A:1017991421416

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., and Schafer, W. D. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 125, 367–383. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.125.3.367

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cano, T., and Hofmeister, H. (2023). The intergenerational transmission of gender: paternal influences on children’s gender attitudes. J. Marriage Fam. 85, 193–214. doi: 10.1111/jomf.12863

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Carlson, D. L., Hanson, S., and Fitzroy, A. (2016). The division of child care, sexual intimacy, and relationship quality in couples. Gend. Soc. 30, 442–466. doi: 10.1177/0891243215626709

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Case, K. A., Hensley, R., and Anderson, A. (2014). Reflecting on heterosexual and male privilege: interventions to raise awareness. J. Soc. Issues 70, 722–740. doi: 10.1111/josi.12088

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Casey, E., and Smith, T. (2010). ‘How can I not?’: Men’s pathways to involvement in antiviolence against women work. Violence Against Women 16, 953–973. doi: 10.1177/1077801210376749

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

CBS (2022). Wie Werken Het Vaakst in Deeltijd? [Who Works Most Part-Time?]. Available at: https://longreads.cbs.nl/nederland-in-cijfers-2022/wie-werken-het-vaakst-in-deeltijd/. (Accessed July 15, 2023).

Google Scholar

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2023). Suicide Data and Statistics [Fact Sheet]. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/suicide/suicide-data-statistics.html. (Accessed May 09, 2023).

Google Scholar

Chaffee, K. E., Lou, N. M., Noels, K. A., and Katz, J. W. (2020). Why don’t “real men” learn languages? Masculinity threat and gender ideology suppress men’s language learning motivation. Group Processes Intergroup Relat. 23, 301–318. doi: 10.1177/1368430219835025

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chaffee, K. E., and Plante, I. (2022). How parents’ stereotypical beliefs relate to students’ motivation and career aspirations in mathematics and language arts. Front. Psychol. 12:796073. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.796073

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ching, B. H.-H. (2021). The effect of masculinity threat on transprejudice: influence of different aspects of masculinity contingent self-worth. Psychol. Sex. 13, 550–564. doi: 10.1080/19419899.2021.1883724

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chiou, W. B., Wu, W. H., and Lee, K. T. (2013). The achievement of masculinity through energy-drink consumption: experimental evidence supporting a closer look at the popularity of energy drinks among men. Psychol. Men Masc. 14, 444–451. doi: 10.1037/a0029895

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cichocka, A., and Jost, J. T. (2014). Stripped of illusions? Exploring system justification processes in capitalist and post-communist societies. Int. J. Psychol. 49, 6–29. doi: 10.1002/ijop.12011

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cleary, A. (2012). Suicidal action, emotional expression, and the performance of masculinities. Soc. Sci. Med. 74, 498–505. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.08.002

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Clements, Z. A., Derr, B. N., and Rostosky, S. S. (2022). “Male privilege doesn’t lift the social status of all men in the same way”: trans masculine individuals’ lived experiences of male privilege in the United States. Psychol. Men Masc. 23, 123–132. doi: 10.1037/men0000371

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Coleman, D. (2015). Traditional masculinity as a risk factor for suicidal ideation: Cross-sectional and prospective evidence from a study of young adults. Arch. Suicide Res. 19, 366–384. doi: 10.1080/13811118.2014.957453

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Coleman, D., Feigelman, W., and Rosen, Z. (2020). Association of high traditional masculinity and risk of suicide death: secondary analysis of the add health study. JAMA Psychiatry 77, 435–437. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.4702

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Conlin, S. E., and Heesacker, M. (2018). Feminist men?: examining men’s feminist self-identification, activism and the impact of language. J. Gend. Stud. 27, 928–942. doi: 10.1080/09589236.2017.1371007

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Connell, R. W. (2003). Role of Men in Achieving Gender Equality. Final Report United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women. Available at: https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/egm/men-boys2003/Connell-bp.pdf (Accessed February 23, 2024).

Google Scholar

Cooper, M. (2000). Being the “go-to guy”: fatherhood, masculinity, and the organization of work in silicon valley. Qual. Sociol. 23, 379–405. doi: 10.1023/A:1005522707921

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Coston, B. M., and Kimmel, M. (2012). Seeing privilege where it isn’t: marginalized masculinities and the intersectionality of privilege. J. Soc. Issues 68, 97–111. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01738.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Courtenay, W. H. (2000). Constructions of masculinity and their influence on men’s well-being: a theory of gender and health. Soc. Sci. Med. 50, 1385–1401. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00390-1

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Craig, M. A., and Richeson, A. (2014). On the precipice of a “majority-minority” America: perceived status threat from the racial demographic shift affects white americans’ political ideology. Psychol. Sci. 25, 1189–1197. doi: 10.1177/0956797614527113

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Croft, A., Schmader, T., and Block, K. (2015). An underexamined inequality. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 19, 343–370. doi: 10.1177/1088868314564789

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Croft, A., Schmader, T., Block, K., and Baron, A. S. (2014). The second shift reflected in the second generation: do parent’ gender roles at home predict children’s aspirations? Psychol. Sci. 25, 1418–1428. doi: 10.1177/0956797614533968

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cross, S., and Bagilhole, B. (2002). Girls’ jobs for the boys? Men, masculinity and non-traditional occupations. Gend. Work. Organ. 9, 204–226. doi: 10.1111/1468-0432.00156

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., and Glick, P. (2004). When professionals become mothers, warmth doesn’t cut the ice. J. Soc. Issues 60, 701–718. doi: 10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00381.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Czopp, A. M., and Monteith, M. J. (2003). Confronting prejudice (literally): reactions to confrontations of racial and gender bias. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 29, 532–544. doi: 10.1177/0146167202250923

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Damaske, S., Ecklund, E. H., Lincoln, A. E., and White, V. J. (2014). Male scientists’ competing devotions to work and family: changing norms in a male-dominated profession. Work. Occup. 41, 477–507. doi: 10.1177/0730888414539171

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Dämmrich, J., and Blossfeld, H.-P. (2017). Women’s disadvantage in holding supervisory positions. Variations among European countries and the role of horizontal gender segregation. Acta Sociol. 60, 262–282. doi: 10.1177/0001699316675022

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

de Visser, R. O., and McDonnell, E. J. (2012). “That’s OK. He’s a guy”: a mixed-methods study of gender double-standards for alcohol use. Psychol. Health 27, 618–639. doi: 10.1080/08870446.2011.617444

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

DiAngelo, R. (2011). White fragility. Int. J. Crit. Pedagogy 3, 54–70. Available at: https://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/view/249

Google Scholar

DIT (2023). Hoe Nederlandse Mannen in de Leeftijd van 18 tot en Met 35 Jaar Denken Over Mannelijkheid [How Dutch Men Aged 18 to 35 Think About Masculinity]. Available at: https://dit.eo.nl/artikel/traditionele-krachtige-alfaman-tradmen (Accessed February 23, 2024).

Google Scholar

Does, S., Gündemir, S., and Shih, M. (2018). The divided states of America: how the 2016 US presidential election shaped perceived levels of gender equality. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 10, 374–381. doi: 10.1177/1948550618757033

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., Sunde, U., Schupp, J., and Wagner, G. G. (2011). Individual risk attitudes: measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 9, 522–550. doi: 10.1111/j.1542-4774.2011.01015.x

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Donnelly, K., Twenge, J. M., Clark, M. A., Shaikh, S. K., Beiler-May, A., and Carter, N. T. (2016). Attitudes toward women’s work and family roles in the United States, 1976–2013. Psychol. Women Q. 40, 41–54. doi: 10.1177/0361684315590774

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Dover, T. L., Kaiser, C. R., and Major, B. (2020a). Mixed signals: the unintended effects of diversity initiatives. Soc. Issues Policy Rev. 14, 152–181. doi: 10.1111/sipr.12059

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Dover, T. L., Major, B., and Kaiser, C. R. (2016a). Members of high-status groups are threatened by pro-diversity organizational messages. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 62, 58–67. doi: 10.1016/J.JESP.2015.10.006

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Dover, T. L., Major, B., and Kaiser, C. R. (2016b). Diversity policies rarely make companies fairer, and they feel threatening to white men. Harv. Bus. Rev.

Google Scholar

Dover, T. L., Major, B., and Kaiser, C. R. (2020b). Cardiovascular, behavioral, and psychological responses to organizational prodiversity messages among racial/ethnic minorities. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 24, 1241–1261. doi: 10.1177/1368430220944222

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Dovidio, J., Abad-Merino, S., and Tabernero, C. (2017). General concepts about inclusion in organizations: a psychological approach to understanding diversity and inclusion in organizations. In A. Arenas, D. Marco Di, L. Munduate, and M. C. Euwema (Eds.), Shaping Inclusive Workplaces through Social Dialogue. (New York, NY: Springer International) (pp. 23–31).

Google Scholar

Droogendyk, L., Wright, S. C., Lubensky, M., and Louis, W. R. (2016). Acting in solidarity: cross-group contact between disadvantaged group members and advantaged group allies. J. Soc. Issues 72, 315–334. doi: 10.1111/josi.12168

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Drury, B. J., and Kaiser, C. R. (2014). Allies against sexism: the role of men in confronting sexism. J. Soc. Issues 70, 637–652. doi: 10.1111/josi.12083

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Eagly, A. H., and Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychol. Rev. 109, 573–598. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Eagly, A. H., Nater, C., Miller, D. I., Kaufmann, M., and Sczesny, S. (2020). Gender stereotypes have changed: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of U.S. public opinion polls from 1946 to 2018. Am Psychol. 75, 301–315. doi: 10.1037/amp0000494

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., and Diekman, A. B. (2000). “Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: a current appraisal” in The Developmental Social Psychology of Gender. eds. T. Eckes and H. M. Trautner (Mahwah: Erlbaum), 123–174.

Google Scholar

Eckes, T., and Trautner, H. M. (2000). “Developmental social psychology of gender: an integrative framework” in The Developmental Social Psychology of Gender. eds. T. Eckes and H. M. Trautner (Mahwah: Erlbaum), 3–32.

Google Scholar

Edwards, C. P., Knoche, L., and Kumru, A. (2003). “Socialization of boys and girls in natural contexts” in Encyclopedia of Sex and Gender. eds. C. R. Ember and M. Ember, vol. 34–41 (Boston, MA: Springer).

Google Scholar

Ellemers, N., and Barreto, M. (2009). Collective action in modern times: how modern expressions of prejudice prevent collective action. J. Soc. Issues 65, 749–768. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01621.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Erol, A., and Karpyak, V. M. (2015). Sex and gender-related differences in alcohol use and its consequences: contemporary knowledge and future research considerations. Drug Alcohol Depend. 156, 1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.08.023

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Estevan-Reina, L., de Lemus, S., and Megías, J. L. (2020). Feminist or paternalistic: understanding men’s motivations to confront sexism. Front. Psychol. 10:2988. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02988

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Esteve, A., Schwartz, C. R., Van Bavel, J., Permanyer, I., Klesment, M., and Garcia-Roman, J. (2016). The end of hypergamy: global trends and implications. Popul. Dev. Rev. 42, 615–625. doi: 10.1111/padr.12012

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

European Commission. (2011). The State of Me’s Health in Europe. Available at: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2772/60721 (Accessed February 23, 2024).

Google Scholar

European Institute for Gender Equality. (2020). On Average, How Many Hours per Week are You Involved in Caring for and/or Educating Your Children Outside of Paid Work? (Mean Hours, 18+ Population) [Data Visualization]. Available at: https://eige.europa.eu/gender-statistics/dgs/indicator/ta_timeuse_careact_chldrn__eqls_famcarehours__yrchildm. (Accessed July 12, 2023).

Google Scholar

European Institute for Gender Equality. (2022). Gender Equality Index 2022. Available at: https://eige.europa.eu/modules/custom/eige_gei/app/content/downloads/factsheets/EU_2022_factsheet.pdf. (Accessed February 23, 2024).

Google Scholar

European Institute for Gender Equality. (2023). Employment in Human Health Activities by Sex and Age (From 2008 Onwards) – 1000 [Data Visualization]. Available at: https://eige.europa.eu/gender-statistics/dgs/indicator/ta_wrklab_lab_employ_selected_healthcare__lfsa_egan22d_hlth/bar. (Accessed July 12, 2023).

Google Scholar

European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. (2022). Data Table of Overdose Deaths in Europe by Gender. Available at: https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/data/stats2022/drd_en (Accessed February 23, 2024).

Google Scholar

Farrell, L., Petzel, Z. W., McCormack, T., Turner, R. N., Rafferty, K., and Latu, I. M. (2021). When you put it that way: framing gender equality initiatives to improve engagement among STEM academics. Bioscience 71, 292–304. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biaa136

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Federal Bureau of Prisons. (2023). Inmate Gender. Availabl at: https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_gender.jsp. (Accessed July 17, 2023).

Google Scholar

Finlay, K. A., and Stephan, W. G. (2000). Improving intergroup relations: the effects of empathy on racial attitudes. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 30, 1720–1737. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02464.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fisher, J., Languilaire, L., Lawthom, R., Nieuwenhuis, R., Petts, R. J., Runswick-Cole, K., et al. (2020). Community, work, and family in times of COVID-19. Community Work Fam. 23, 247–252. doi: 10.1080/13668803.2020.1756568

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fiske, S. T., and Taylor, S. E. (2013). Social Cognition: From Brains to Culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Google Scholar

Fletcher, R. (2011). The Dad Factor: How Father-Baby Bonding Helps a Child for Life. Sydney, AU: Finch.

Google Scholar

Flood, M. (2008). Men, sex, and homosociality: how bonds between men shape their sexual relations with women. Men Masculinities 10, 339–359. doi: 10.1177/1097184X06287761

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Flood, M. (2011). Involving men in efforts to end violence against women. Men Masculinities 14, 358–377. doi: 10.1177/1097184X10363995

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Flood, M. (2014). “Men’s antiviolence activism and the construction of gender-equitable masculinities” in Alternative Masculinities for a Changing World [Global Masculinities]. eds. À. Carabí and J. M. Armengol (New York: Palgrave Macmillan), 35–50.

Google Scholar

Foubert, J., and Newberry, J. T. (2006). Effects of two versions of an empathy-based rape prevention program on fraternity men’s survivor empathy, attitudes, and behavioral intent to commit rape or sexual assault. J. Coll. Stud. Dev. 47, 133–148. doi: 10.1353/csd.2006.0016

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fowler, S. L., and Geers, A. L. (2017). Does trait masculinity relate to expressing toughness? The effects of masculinity threat and self-affirmation in college men. Psychol Men Masc. 18, 176–186. doi: 10.1037/men0000053

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fox, J., and Tang, W. Y. (2014). Sexism in online video games: the role of conformity to masculine norms and social dominance orientation. Comput. Hum. Behav. 33, 314–320. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.014

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fugitt, J. L., and Ham, L. S. (2018). Beer for “brohood”: a laboratory simulation of masculinity confirmation through alcohol use behaviors in men. Psychol. Addict. Behav. 32, 358–364. doi: 10.1037/adb0000351

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gaia, A. C. (2013). The role of gender stereotypes in the social acceptability of the expression of intimacy. Soc. Sci. J. 50, 591–602. doi: 10.1016/j.soscij.2013.08.006

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gaunt, R. (2008). Maternal gatekeeping: antecedents and consequences. J. Fam. Issues 29, 373–395. doi: 10.1177/0192513X07307851

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gaunt, R., and Pinho, M. (2018). Do sexist mothers change more diapers? Ambivalent sexism, maternal gatekeeping, and the division of childcare. Sex Roles 79, 176–189. doi: 10.1007/S11199-017-0864-6/TABLES/4

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gervais, S. J., Hillard, A. L., and Vescio, T. K. (2010). Confronting sexism: the role of relationship orientation and gender. Sex Roles 63, 463–474. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9838-7

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Giaccardi, S., Monique Ward, L., Seabrook, R. C., Manago, A., and Lippman, J. R. (2017). Media use and men’s risk behaviors: examining the role of masculinity ideology. Sex Roles 77, 581–592. doi: 10.1007/S11199-017-0754-Y/FIGURES/2

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Glick, P., Berdahl, J. L., and Alonso, N. M. (2018). Development and validation of the masculinity contest culture scale. J. Soc. Issues 74, 449–476. doi: 10.1111/josi.12280

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D., Masser, B., et al. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 79, 763–775. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.763

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Glick, P., Gangl, C., Gibb, S., Klumpner, S., and Weinberg, E. (2007). Defensive reactions to masculinity threat: more negative affect toward effeminate (but not masculine) gay men. Sex Roles 57, 55–59. doi: 10.1007/s11199-007-9195-3

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Global Gender Gap Report (2022). World Economic Forum. Available at: https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2022.pdf (Accessed February 23, 2024).

Google Scholar

Gonçalves, V. N., Ponchio, M. C., and Basílio, R. G. (2021). Women’s financial well-being: a systematic literature review and directions for future research. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 45, 824–843. doi: 10.1111/ijcs.12673

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Good, J. J., Sanchez, D. T., and Moss-Racusin, C. A. (2018). A paternalistic duty to protect? Predicting men’s decisions to confront sexism. Psychol. Men Masc. 19, 14–24. doi: 10.1037/men0000077

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Goodwill, J. R., Mattis, J. S., and Watkins, D. C. (2022). “I didn’t know who to talk to”: Black college men’s sources and descriptions of social support. Psychol. Men Masc. 23, 197–208. doi: 10.1037/men0000372

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gündemir, S., Martin, A. E., and Homan, A. C. (2019). Understanding diversity ideologies from the target’s perspective: a review and future directions. Front. Psychol. 10:282. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00282

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Guvensel, K., Dixon, A., Chang, C., and Dew, B. (2018). The relationship among gender role conflict, normative male alexithymia, men’s friendship discords with other men, and psychological well-being. J. Men’s Stud. 26, 56–76. doi: 10.1177/1060826517719543

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gwyther, K., Swann, R., Casey, K., Purcell, R., and Rice, S. M. (2019). Developing young men’s wellbeing through community and school-based programs: a systematic review. PLoS One 14:e0216955. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216955

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hall, W., Schmader, T., Aday, A., Inness, M., and Croft, E. (2018). Climate control: the relationship between social identity threat and cues to an identity-safe culture. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 115, 446–467. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000137

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Halper, L. R., Cowgill, C. M., and Rios, K. (2019). Gender bias in caregiving professions: the role of perceived warmth. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 49, 549–562. doi: 10.1111/jasp.12615

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hardacre, S. L., and Subašić, E. (2018). Whose issue is it anyway? The effects of leader gender and equality message framing on men’s and women’s mobilization toward workplace gender equality. Front. Psychol. 9:2497. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02497

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Heidt, A. (2023). A Nobel Laureate Claimed Antimale Discrimination. An Early-Career Researcher Called It Out. Available at: https://www.science.org/content/article/nobel-laureate-claimed-antimale-discrimination-early-career-researcher-called-it-out (Accessed February 23, 2024).

Google Scholar

Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: how gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. J. Soc. Issues 57, 657–674. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00234

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Heilman, M. E. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Res. Organ. Behav. 32, 113–135. doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2012.11.003

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Heilman, M. E., and Wallen, A. S. (2010). Wimpy and undeserving of respect: penalties for men’s gender-inconsistent success. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 46, 664–667. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.01.008

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., and Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behav. Brain Sci. 33, 61–83. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X0999152X

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Herek, G. M. (1986). On heterosexual masculinity: some psychical consequences of the social construction of gender and sexuality. Am. Behav. Sci. 29, 563–577. doi: 10.1177/000276486029005005

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hill, R. J. (2009). Incorporating queers: blowback, backlash, and other forms of resistance to workplace diversity initiatives that support sexual minorities. Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour. 11, 37–53. doi: 10.1177/1523422308328128

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hilliard, L. J., and Liben, L. S. (2010). Differing levels of gender salience in preschool classrooms: effects on children’s gender attitudes and intergroup bias. Child Dev. 81, 1787–1798. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01510.x

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Himmelstein, M. S., and Sanchez, D. T. (2016). Masculinity impediments: internalized masculinity contributes to healthcare avoidance in men and women. J. Health Psychol. 21, 1283–1292. doi: 10.1177/1359105314551623

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hodson, G., Earle, M., and Craig, M. A. (2022). Privilege lost: how dominant groups react to shifts in cultural primacy and power. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 25, 625–641. doi: 10.1177/13684302211070524

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hofer, J., Chasiotis, A., and Campos, D. (2006). Congruence between social values and implicit motives: effects on life satisfaction across three cultures. Eur. J. Personal. 20, 305–324. doi: 10.1002/per.590

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Holter, Ø. G. (2014). What’s in it for men? Old question, new data. Men Masculinities 17, 515–548. doi: 10.1177/1097184X14558237

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., and Layton, J. B. (2010). Social relationships and mortality risk: a meta-analytic review. PLoS Med. 7:e1000316. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Houle, J., Meunier, S., Coulombe, S., Tremblay, G., Gaboury, I., de Montigny, F., et al. (2015). Masculinity ideology among male workers and its relationship to self-reported health behaviors. Int. J. Mens Health 14:163. doi: 10.3149/jmh.1402.163

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hyde, J. S., Bigler, R. S., Joel, D., Tate, C. C., and van Anders, S. M. (2019). The future of sex and gender in psychology: five challenges to the gender binary. Am. Psychol. 74, 171–193. doi: 10.1037/amp0000307

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Iwamoto, D. K., Cheng, A., Lee, C. S., Takamatsu, S., and Gordon, D. (2011). “Man-ing” up and getting drunk: the role of masculine norms, alcohol intoxication and alcohol-related problems among college men. Addict. Behav. 36, 906–911. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2011.04.005

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Iwamoto, D. K., and Smiler, A. P. (2013). Alcohol makes you macho and helps you make friends: the role of masculine norms and peer pressure in adolescent boys’ and girls’ alcohol use. Subst. Use Misuse 48, 371–378. doi: 10.3109/10826084.2013.765479

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Iyer, A., and Achia, T. (2021). Mobilized or marginalized? Understanding low-status groups’ responses to social justice efforts led by high-status groups. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 120, 1287–1316. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000325

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Iyer, A., and Leach, C. W. (2009). “Helping disadvantaged out-groups challenge unjust inequality: the role of group-based emotions” in The Psychology of Prosocial Behavior: Group Processes, Intergroup Relations, and Helping. eds. S. Stürmer and M. Snyder (New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell), 337–353.

Google Scholar

Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., and Nosek, B. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Polit. Psychol. 25, 881–919. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kahlor, L., and Eastin, M. S. (2011). Televisio’s role in the culture of violence toward women: a study of television viewing and the cultivation of rape myth acceptance in the United States. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 55, 215–231. doi: 10.1080/08838151.2011.566085

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kaplan, D., and Offer, S. (2022). Masculinity ideologies, sensitivity to masculinity threats, and fathers’ involvement in housework and childcare among U.S. employed fathers. Psychol. Men Masc. 23, 399–411. doi: 10.1037/men0000400

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Karakis, E. N., and Levant, R. F. (2012). Is normative male alexithymia associated with relationship satisfaction, fear of intimacy and communication quality among men in relationships? J. Men’s Stud. 20, 179–186. doi: 10.3149/jms.2003.179

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kaufman, M. (2004). “Transforming our initiatives for gender equality by addressing and involving men and boys: a framework for analysis and action” in Gender Equality and Men: Learning from Practice. ed. S. Ruxton (Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxfam GB)

Google Scholar

Kehn, A., and Ruthig, J. C. (2013). Perceptions of gender discrimination across six decades: the moderating roles of gender and age. Sex Roles 69, 289–296. doi: 10.1007/s11199-013-0303-2

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Keplinger, K., Johnson, S. K., Kirk, J. F., and Barnes, L. Y. (2019). Women at work: changes in sexual harassment between September 2016 and September 2018. PLoS One 14:e0218313. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218313

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kim, S. Y., Lee, J., Wester, S. R., and Fouad, N. (2020). Do “manly” men believe other men are happier? Social comparison, masculine norms, and positive work-family spillover. Psychol. Men Masc. 21, 251–265. doi: 10.1037/men0000226

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kimmel, M. S., Hearn, J., and Connell, R. W. (Eds.). (2004). Handbook of Studies on Men and Masculinities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Google Scholar

King, T. L., Shields, M., Sojo, V., Daraganova, G., Currier, D., O’Neil, A., et al. (2020). Expressions of masculinity and associations with suicidal ideation among young males. BMC Psychiatry 20, 228–210. doi: 10.1186/s12888-020-2475-y

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Knowles, E. D., Lowery, B. S., Chow, R. M., and Unzueta, M. M. (2014). Deny, distance, or dismantle? How White Americans manage a privileged identity. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 9, 594–609. doi: 10.1177/1745691614554658

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Köllen, T (Ed.). (2016). Sexual Orientation and Transgender Issues in Organizations: Global Perspectives on LGBT Workforce Diversity. New York: Springer.

Google Scholar

Kosakowska-Berezecka, N., Besta, T., Adamska, K., Jaśkiewicz, M., Jurek, P., and Vandello, J. A. (2016a). If my masculinity is threatened I won’t support gender equality? The role of agentic self-stereotyping in restoration of manhood and perception of gender relations. Psychol. Men Masc. 17, 274–284. doi: 10.1037/men0000016

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kosakowska-Berezecka, N., Besta, T., Bosson, J. K., Jurek, P., Vandello, J. A., Best, D. L., et al. (2020). Country-level and individual-level predictors of me’s support for gender equality in 42 countries. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 50, 1276–1291. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2696

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kosakowska-Berezecka, N., Bosson, J. K., Jurek, P., Besta, T., Olech, M., Vandello, J. A., et al. (2022). Gendered self-views across 62 countries: a test of competing models. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 14, 808–824. doi: 10.1177/19485506221129687

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kosakowska-Berezecka, N., Korzeniewska, L., and Kaczorowska, M. (2016b). Sharing housework can be healthy: cultural and psychological factors influencing men’s involvement in household maintenance. Health Psychol. Rep. 4, 189–201. doi: 10.5114/hpr.2016.62232

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kosakowska-Berezecka, N., Sawicki, A., Celikkol, G., Bosson, J. K., van Laar, C., van Rossum, A., et al. (2024). Does culture moderate gender stereotypes? Individualism predicts communal (but not agentic) prescriptions for men across 62 nations. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. doi: 10.1177/19485506231221913

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kroeger, B. (2017). The Suffragents: How Women Used Men to Get the Vote. New York: SUNY Press.

Google Scholar

Kuchynka, S. L., Bosson, J. K., Vandello, J. A., and Puryear, C. (2018). Zero-sum thinking and the masculinity contest: perceived intergroup competition and workplace gender bias. J. Soc. Issues 74, 529–550. doi: 10.1111/josi.12281

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kutlaca, M., Radke, H. R., and Becker, J. C. (2022). The impact of including advantaged groups in collective action against social inequality on politicized identification of observers from disadvantaged and advantaged groups. Polit. Psychol. 43, 297–315. doi: 10.1111/pops.12755

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lamarche, V. M., Atkinson, C., and Croft, A. (2021). A cognitive uncoupling: masculinity threats and the rejection of relationship interdependence. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 12, 920–929. doi: 10.1177/1948550620961263

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Le, B. M., Impett, E. A., Kogan, A., Webster, G. D., and Cheng, C. (2013). The personal and interpersonal rewards of communal orientation. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 30, 694–710. doi: 10.1177/0265407512466227

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Le, B. M., Impett, E. A., Lemay, E. P., Muise, A., and Tskhay, K. O. (2018). Communal motivation and well-being in interpersonal relationships: an integrative review and meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 144, 1–25. doi: 10.1037/bul0000133

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Leach, C. W., Snider, N., and Iyer, A. (2002). ““Poisoning the consciences o the fortunate”: the experience of relative advantage and support for social equality” in Relative Deprivation: Specification, Development, and Integration. eds. I. Walker and H. J. Smith (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press), 136–163.

Google Scholar

Leslie, L. M., Bono, J. E., Kim, Y., and Beaver, G. R. (2020). On melting pots and salad bowls: a meta-analysis of the effects of identity-blind and identity-conscious diversity ideologies. J. Appl. Psychol. 105, 453–471. doi: 10.1037/apl0000446

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Levant, R. F., Good, G. E., Cook, S. W., O’Neil, J. M., Smalley, K. B., Owen, K., et al. (2006). The normative male alexithymia scale: measurement of a gender-linked syndrome. Psychol. Men Masc. 7, 212–224. doi: 10.1037/1524-9220.7.4.212

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Levant, R. F., Hall, R. J., Williams, C. M., and Hasan, N. T. (2009). Gender differences in alexithymia. Psychol. Men Masculinity 10, 190–203. doi: 10.1037/a0015652

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Levant, R. F., and Wong, Y. J. (2013). Race and gender as moderators of the relationship between the endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology and alexithymia: an intersectional perspective. Psychol. Men Masculinity 14, 329–333. doi: 10.1037/a0029551

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Levtov, R. G., Barker, G., Contreras-Urbina, M., Heilman, B., and Verma, R. (2014). Pathways to gender-equitable men: findings from the international men and gender equality survey in eight countries. Men Masculinities 17, 467–501. doi: 10.1177/1097184X14558234

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Li, S., Zhang, B., Guo, Y., and Zhang, J. (2015). The association between alexithymia as assessed by the 20-item Toronto alexithymia scale and depression: a meta-analysis. Psychiatry Res. 227, 1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2015.02.006

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lisnek, J. A., Wilkins, C. L., Wilson, M. E., and Ekstrom, P. D. (2022). Backlash against the #MeToo movement: how women’s voice causes men to feel victimized. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 25, 682–702. doi: 10.1177/13684302211035437

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Livingston, G. (2018). Stay-at-Home Moms and Dads Account for About One-in-Five U.S. Parents. Pew Research Center. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/09/24/stay-at-home-moms-and-dads-account-for-about-one-in-five-u-s-parents/ (Accessed February 23, 2024).

Google Scholar

Locke, B. D., and Mahalik, J. R. (2005). Examining masculinity norms, problem drinking, and athletic involvement as predictors of sexual aggression in college men. J. Couns. Psychol. 52, 279–283. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.52.3.279

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lux, A., Van Laar, C., Kuipers, G., Veldman, J., van Veelen, R., Grootjans, S., et al. (2024). Interventions to Reduce Gendered Norms and Choices in Education. European Union, Brussel: Horizon Europe Research and Innovation Program under Grant Agreement n° 101094497: Realising Girls’ and Women’s Inclusion, Representation and Empowerment.

Google Scholar

Maass, A., Cadinu, M., Guarnieri, G., and Grasselli, A. (2003). Sexual harassment under social identity threat: the computer harassment paradigm. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 85, 853–870. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.853

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Macomber, K. C. (2012). Men as Allies: Mobilizing Men to End Violence Against Women. North Carolina State University. (Publication No. 3538291) [Doctoral Dissertation, North Carolina State University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

Google Scholar

Maddison, S., and Sawer, M. (2013). The Wome’s Movement in Protest, Institutions and the Internet: Australia in Transnational Perspective. Maddison & Sawer, Abingdon: Routledge.

Google Scholar

Mahalik, J. R., Burns, S. M., and Syzdek, M. (2007). Masculinity and perceived normative health behaviors as predictors of men’s health behaviors. Soc. Sci. Med. 64, 2201–2209. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.02.035

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mahalik, J. R., and Di Bianca, M. (2021). Help-seeking for depression as a stigmatized threat to masculinity. Prof. Psychol. Res. Pract. 52, 146–155. doi: 10.1037/pro0000365

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mahalik, J. R., Locke, B. D., Ludlow, L. H., Diemer, M. A., Scott, R. P., Gottfried, M., et al. (2003). Development of the conformity to masculine norms inventory. Psychol. Men Masculinity 4, 3–25. doi: 10.1037/1524-9220.4.1.3

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Major, B. (1994). From social inequality to personal entitlement: the role of social comparisons, legitimacy appraisals, and group membership. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 26, 293–355. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60156-2

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Major, B., Gramzow, R., McCoy, S. K., Levin, S., Schmader, T., and Sidanius, J. (2002). Perceiving personal discrimination: the role of group status and status legitimizing ideology. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 82, 269–282. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.82.3.269

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Malone, K., Stewart, S. D., Wilson, J., and Korsching, P. F. (2010). Perceptions of financial well-being among American women in diverse families. J. Fam. Econ. Iss. 31, 63–81. doi: 10.1007/s10834-009-9176-5

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Marchlewska, M., Górska, P., Malinowska, K., and Jarosław, K. (2021). Threatened masculinity: gender-related collective narcissism predicts prejudice toward gay and lesbian people among heterosexual men in Poland. J. Homosex. 69, 1222–1237. doi: 10.1080/00918369.2021.1907067

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Martin, C. L., and Ruble, D. N. (2010). Patterns of gender development. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 61, 353–381. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100511

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Matos, K., O'Neill, O. (. M.)., and Lei, X. (2018). Toxic leadership and the masculinity contest culture: how “win or die” cultures breed abusive leadership. J. Soc. Issues 74, 500–528. doi: 10.1111/josi.12284

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mazzuca, S., Moscatelli, S., Menegatti, M., and Rubini, M. (2022). Men’s reactions to gender inequality in the workplace: from relative deprivation on behalf of women to collective action. Front. Psychol. 13:999750. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.999750

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

McBride, B. A., Brown, G. L., Bost, K. K., Shin, N., Vaughn, B., and Korth, B. (2005). Paternal identity, maternal gatekeeping, and father involvement. Fam. Relat. 54, 360–372. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2005.00323.x

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

McDonald, P. (2012). Workplace sexual harassment 30 years on: a review of the literature. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 14, 1–17. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00300.x

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Meeussen, L., and Van Laar, C. (2018). Feeling pressure to be a perfect mother relates to parental burnout and career ambitions. Front. Psychol. 9:2113. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02113

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Meeussen, L., Van Laar, C., and Van Grootel, S. (2020). How to foster male engagement in traditionally female communal roles and occupations: insights from research on gender norms and precarious manhood. Soc. Issues Policy Rev. 14, 297–328. doi: 10.1111/sipr.12060

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Meeussen, L., Van Laar, C., and Verbruggen, M. (2019). Looking for a family man? Norms for men are toppling in heterosexual relationships. Sex Roles 80, 429–442. doi: 10.1007/s11199-018-0946-0

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mehta, C. M., and Strough, J. (2009). Sex segregation in friendships and normative contexts across the life span. Dev. Rev. 29, 201–220. Chicago. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2009.06.001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mesler, R. M., Leary, R. B., and Montford, W. J. (2022). The impact of masculinity stress on preferences and willingness-to-pay for red meat. Appetite 171:105729. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2021.105729

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Meyers, M. (1996). News Coverage of Violence Against Women: Engendering Blame. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Google Scholar

Mikołajczak, G., and Becker, J. C. (2022). Supporting men or male privilege? Women’s progressive and reactionary collective action for men. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 52, 1064–1081. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2887

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Milner, A., Disney, G., Byars, S., King, T. L., Kavanagh, A. M., and Aitken, Z. (2020). The effect of gender on mental health service use: An examination of mediation through material, social and health-related pathways. Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 55, 1311–1321. doi: 10.1007/s00127-020-01844-6

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Möller-Leimkühler, A. M. (2002). Barriers to help-seeking by men: a review of sociocultural and clinical literature with particular reference to depression. J. Affect. Disord. 71, 1–9. doi: 10.1016/S0165-0327(01)00379-2

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mor Barak, M., Luria, G., and Brimhall, K. (2021). What leaders say versus what they do: inclusive leadership, policy-practice decoupling, and the anomaly of climate for inclusion. Group Org. Manag. 47, 840–871. doi: 10.1177/10596011211005916

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Morgenroth, T., and Ryan, M. K. (2021). The effects of gender trouble: An integrative theoretical framework of the perpetuation and disruption of the gender/sex binary. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 16, 1113–1142. doi: 10.1177/1745691620902442

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Moss-Racusin, C. A., Good, J. J., and Sanchez, D. T. (2010a). Impact of collective gender identity on relationship quality: when men feel devalued. Psychol. Men Masc. 11, 65–75. doi: 10.1037/a0017635

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Moss-Racusin, C. A., and Johnson, E. R. (2016). Backlash against male elementary educators. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 46, 379–393. doi: 10.1111/jasp.12366

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., and Rudman, L. A. (2010b). When men break the gender rules: status incongruity and backlash against modest men. Psychol. Men Masculinity 11, 140–151. doi: 10.1037/a0018093

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Moss-Racusin, C. A., Sanzari, C. M., Bogdan, E., Nahabedian, D., and Brown, S. S. (2021). Expecting better: experimental investigations of the benefits of men’s access to parental leave for anticipated well-being. Anal. Soc. Issues Public Policy 21, 806–832. doi: 10.1111/asap.12240

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Munsch, C. L., Weaver, J. R., Bosson, J. K., and O’Connor, L. T. (2018). Everybody but me: pluralistic ignorance and the masculinity contest. J. Soc. Issues 74, 551–578. doi: 10.1111/josi.12282

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Nakagawa, S., and Hart, C. (2019). Where’s the beef? How masculinity exacerbates gender disparities in health behaviors. Socius 5:237802311983180. doi: 10.1177/2378023119831801

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

National Safety Council. (2022). Sports and Recreational Injuries. Available at: https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/sports-and-recreational-injuries/. (Accessed November 07, 2023).

Google Scholar

Newcomb, M. E., Hill, R., Buehler, K., Ryan, D. T., Whitton, S. W., and Mustanski, B. (2020). High burden of mental health problems, substance use, violence, and related psychosocial factors in transgender, non-binary, and gender diverse youth and young adults. Arch. Sex. Behav. 49, 645–659. doi: 10.1007/s10508-019-01533-9

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Nichter, M., Nichter, M., Lloyd-Richardson, E. E., Flaherty, B., Carkoglu, A., and Taylor, N. (2006). Gendered dimensions of smoking among college students. J. Adolesc. Res. 21, 215–243. doi: 10.1177/0743558406287400

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Norton, M. I., and Sommers, S. R. (2011). Whites see racism as a zero-sum game that they are now losing. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 6, 215–218. doi: 10.1177/1745691611406922

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

OECD (2015), In it Together: Why Less Inequality Benefits All, Paris: OECD Publishing.

Google Scholar

OECD and European Union (2020), Health at a Glance: Europe 2020: State of Health in the EU Cycle. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Google Scholar

Olsson, M., Van Grootel, S., Block, K., Schuster, C., Meeussen, L., Van Laar, C., et al. (2023). Gender gap in parental leave intentions: evidence from 37 countries. Polit. Psychol. 44, 1163–1192. doi: 10.1111/pops.12880

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Opondo, C., Redshaw, M., Savage-McGlynn, E., and Quigley, M. A. (2016). Father involvement in early child-rearing and behavioural outcomes in their pre-adolescent children: evidence from the ALSPAC UK birth cohort. BMJ Open 6:e012034. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012034

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Osborne, D., Jost, J. T., Becker, J. C., Badaan, V., and Sibley, C. G. (2019). Protesting to challenge or defend the system? A system justification perspective on collective action. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 49, 244–269. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2522

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Parent, M. C., Kalenkoski, C. M., and Cardella, E. (2018). Risky business: precarious manhood and investment portfolio decisions. Psychol. Men Masc. 19, 195–202. doi: 10.1037/men0000089

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Parrott, D. J. (2009). Aggression toward gay men as gender role enforcement: effects of male role norms, sexual prejudice, and masculine gender role stress. J. Pers. 77, 1137–1166. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00577.x

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Peters, K., Ryan, M. K., and Haslam, S. A. (2015). Marines, medics, and machismo: lack of fit with masculine occupational stereotypes discourages men’s participation. Br. J. Psychol. 106, 635–655. doi: 10.1111/bjop.12106

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Pettigrew, T. F., and Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 90, 751–783. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Petts, R. J., and Knoester, C. (2020). Are parental relationships improved if fathers take time off of work after the birth of a child? Soc. Forces 98, 1223–1256. doi: 10.1093/sf/soz014

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Pew Research Center (2020). Availale at https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/09/24/stay-at-home-moms-and-dads-account-for-about-one-in-five-u-s-parents/ (Accessed June 09, 2023).

Google Scholar

Phillips, L. T., and Lowery, B. S. (2020). I ain’t no fortunate one: on the motivated denial of class privilege. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 119, 1403–1422. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000240

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Piccigallo, J. R., Lilley, T. G., and Miller, S. L. (2012). “It’s cool to care about sexual violence” men’s experiences with sexual assault prevention. Men Masculinities 15, 507–525. doi: 10.1177/1097184X12458590

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Pratto, F., and Stewart, A. L. (2012). Group dominance and the half-blindness of privilege. J. Soc. Issues 68, 28–45. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01734.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Pratto, F., and Walker, A. (2004). The bases of gendered power. In A. H. Eagly, Beall, A. E., and Sternberg, Y R. J. (Eds.), The Psychology of Gender (2nd) (pp. 242–268). New York: Guilford.

Google Scholar

Prentice, D. A., and Carranza, E. (2002). What women and men should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to be, and don’t have to be: the contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychol. Women Q. 26, 269–281. doi: 10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00066

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Puckett, J. A., Maroney, M. R., Wadsworth, L. P., Mustanski, B., and Newcomb, M. E. (2020). Coping with discrimination: the insidious effects of gender minority stigma on depression and anxiety in transgender individuals. J. Clin. Psychol. 76, 176–194. doi: 10.1002/jclp.22865

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Radke, H. R., Hornsey, M. J., and Barlow, F. K. (2016). Barriers to women engaging in collective action to overcome sexism. Am. Psychol. 71, 863–874. doi: 10.1037/a0040345

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rawski, S. L., and Workman-Stark, A. L. (2018). Masculinity contest cultures in policing organizations and recommendations for training interventions. J. Soc. Issues 74, 607–627. doi: 10.1111/josi.12286

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Reidy, D. E., Berke, D. S., Gentile, B., and Zeichner, A. (2016a). Masculine discrepancy stress, substance use, assault and injury in a survey of US men. Inj. Prev. 22, 370–374. doi: 10.1136/injuryprev-2015-041599

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Reidy, D. E., Brookmeyer, K. A., Gentile, B., Berke, D. S., and Zeichner, A. (2016b). Gender role discrepancy stress, high-risk sexual behavior, and sexually transmitted disease. Arch. Sex. Behav. 45, 459–465. doi: 10.1007/s10508-014-0413-0

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rentschler, C. A. (2014). Rape culture and the feminist politics of social media. Girlhood studies 7, 65–82. doi: 10.3167/ghs.2014.070106

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Reverberi, E., Manzi, C., Van Laar, C., and Meeussen, L. (2021). The impact of poor work-life balance and unshared home responsibilities on work-gender identity integration. Self Identity 1–20, 1–20. doi: 10.1080/15298868.2021.1914715

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Richeson, J. A., and Nussbaum, R. J. (2004). The impact of multiculturalism versus color-blindness on racial bias. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 40, 417–423. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2003.09.002

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rivers, J. J., and Josephs, R. A. (2010). “Dominance and health: the role of social rank in physiology and illness” in The Social Psychology of Power. eds. A. Guinote and T. K. Vescio (New York, NY: Guilford), 87–112.

Google Scholar

Roberts, A. L., Rosario, M., Calzo, J. P., Corliss, H. L., Frazier, L., and Austin, S. B. (2014). Masculine boys, feminine girls, and cancer risk behaviors: An 11-year longitudinal study. J. Adolesc. Health 55, 373–379. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.02.020

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Roden, J., Mustafaj, M., and Saleem, M. (2021). Who else likes it? Perceived gender of social endorsers predicts gender equality support. Comput. Hum. Behav. 118:106696. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2021.106696

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rodin, M. J., Price, J. M., Bryson, J. B., and Sanchez, F. J. (1990). Asymmetry in prejudice attribution. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 26, 481–504. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(90)90052-N

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rollè, L., Gullotta, G., Trombetta, T., Curti, L., Gerino, E., Brustia, P., et al. (2019). Father involvement and cognitive development in early and middle childhood: a systematic review. Front. Psychol. 10:2405. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02405

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rosenfeld, D. L., and Tomiyama, A. J. (2021). Gender differences in meat consumption and openness to vegetarianism. Appetite 166:105475. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2021.105475

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rosette, A. S., Mueller, J. S., and Lebel, R. D. (2015). Are male leaders penalized for seeking help? The influence of gender and asking behaviors on competence perceptions. Leadersh. Q. 26, 749–762. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.02.001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rudman, L. A., and Mescher, K. (2013). Penalizing men who request a family leave: is flexibility stigma a femininity stigma? J. Soc. Issues 69, 322–340. doi: 10.1111/josi.12017

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rudman, L. A., Mescher, K., and Moss-Racusin, C. (2012). Reactions to gender egalitarian men: perceived feminization due to stigma-by-association. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 16, 572–599. doi: 10.1177/1368430212461160

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ruthig, J. C., Kehn, A., Gamblin, B. W., Vanderzanden, K., and Jones, K. (2017). When women’s gains equal men’s losses: predicting a zero-sum perspective of gender status. Sex Roles 76, 17–26. doi: 10.1007/s11199-016-0651-9

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ryan, M. K., and Branscombe, N. R. (2013). The SAGE Handbook of Gender and Psychology. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Google Scholar

Saba, T., Ozbilgin, M., Ng, E., and Cachat-Rosset, G. (2021). Guest editorial: ineffectiveness of diversity management: lack of knowledge, lack of interest or resistance? Equal. Divers. Incl. 40, 765–769. doi: 10.1108/EDI-09-2021-374

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Saxler, F. M., Dorrough, A., Froehlich, L., Block, K., Croft, A., Meeussen, L., et al. (2024). Did descriptive and prescriptive norms about gender equality at home change change during the covid-19 pandemic? A cross-national investigation. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull.

Google Scholar

Scarborough, W. J., Sin, R., and Risman, B. (2019). Attitudes and the stalled gender revolution: egalitarianism, traditionalism, and ambivalence from 1977 through 2016. Gend. Soc. 33, 173–200. doi: 10.1177/0891243218809604

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Scheepers, D., and Ellemers, N. (2018). Stress and the stability of social systems: a review of neurophysiological research. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 29, 340–376. doi: 10.1080/10463283.2018.1543149

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Schmitt, M. T., and Branscombe, N. R. (2001). The good, the bad, and the manly: threats to on’s prototypicality and evaluations of fellow in-group members. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 37, 510–517. doi: 10.1006/jesp.2001.1476

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Schmitt, M. T., and Branscombe, N. R. (2002). The meaning and consequences of perceived discrimination in disadvantaged and privileged social groups. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 12, 167–199. doi: 10.1080/14792772143000058

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sedgwick, E. K. (1985). Between Men: English Literature and Male Homosocial Desire. New York: Columbia University Press.

Google Scholar

Sheldon, K. M., and Cooper, M. L. (2008). Goal striving within agentic and communal roles: separate but functionally similar pathways to enhanced well-being. J. Pers. 76, 415–448. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00491.x

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sherf, E. N., Tangirala, S., and Weber, K. C. (2017). It is not my place! Psychological standing and men’s voice and participation in gender-parity initiatives. Organ. Sci. 28, 193–210. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2017.1118

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Shih, M., Young, M. J., and Bucher, A. (2013). Working to reduce the effects of discrimination: identity management strategies in organizations. Am. Psychol. 68, 145–157. doi: 10.1037/a0032250

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sidanius, J., and Pratto, F. (1999). Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Google Scholar

Silver, E. R., Chadwick, S. B., and van Anders, S. M. (2019). Feminist identity in men: masculinity, gender roles, and sexual approaches in feminist, non-feminist, and unsure men. Sex Roles 80, 277–290. doi: 10.1007/s11199-018-0932-6

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Simpson, R. (2005). Men in non-traditional occupations: career entry, carrer orientation and experience of role strain. Gend. Work. Organ. 12, 363–380. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0432.2005.00278.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Stefaniak, A., and Wohl, M. J. A. (2021). In time, we will simply disappear: racial demographic shift undermines privileged group members’ support for marginalized social groups via collective angst. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 25:NP1–NP23. doi: 10.1177/13684302211023551

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Stephan, W. G., and Stephan, C. W. (2000). “An integrated threat theory of prejudice” in Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination. ed. S. Oskamp (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum), 23–45.

Google Scholar

Stevens, F. G., Plaut, V. C., and Sanchez-Burks, J. (2008). Unlocking the benefits of diversity: all-inclusive multiculturalism and positive organizational change. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 44, 116–133. doi: 10.1177/0021886308314460

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Stewart, A. L. (2014). The Men’s project: a sexual assault prevention program targeting college men. Psychol. Men Masculinity 15, 481–485. doi: 10.1037/a0033947

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Stiglitz, J. (2012). The Price of Inequality. New York, NY: Norton.

Google Scholar

Stoll-Kleemann, S., and Schmidt, U. J. (2017). Reducing meat consumption in developed and transition countries to counter climate change and biodiversity loss: a review of influence factors. Reg. Environ. Chang. 17, 1261–1277. doi: 10.1007/s10113-016-1057-5

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Stoltenberg, J. (1990). Refusing to Be a Man: Essays on Sex and Gender. New York: Routledge.

Google Scholar

Subašić, E., Hardacre, S., Elton, B., Branscombe, N. R., Ryan, M. K., and Reynolds, K. J. (2018). “We for she”: Mobilising men and women to act in solidarity for gender equality. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 21, 707–724. doi: 10.1177/1368430218763272

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Swim, J. K., Hyers, L. L., Cohen, L. L., and Ferguson, M. J. (2001). Everyday sexism: evidence for its incidence, nature, and psychological impact from three daily diary studies. J. Soc. Issues 57, 31–53. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00200

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Timmins, L., Rimes, K. A., and Rahman, Q. (2017). Minority stressors and psychological distress in transgender individuals. Psychol. Sex. Orientat. Gend. Divers. 4, 328–340. doi: 10.1037/sgd0000237

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tranchese, A. (2019). Covering rape: how the media determine how we understand sexualised violence. Gend. Lang. 13, 174–201. doi: 10.1558/genl.34445

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Umberson, D., Lin, Z., and Cha, H. (2022). Gender and social isolation across the life course. J. Health Soc. Behav. 63, 319–335. doi: 10.1177/00221465221109634

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

UN (2015). Sustainable Development Goals. Available at: https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal5 (Accessed February 23, 2024).

Google Scholar

UN (2022). Progress on the Sustainable Development Goals: The Gender Snapshot 2022. United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women) Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA). Available at: https://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2022/09/progress-on-the-sustainable-development-goals-the-gender-snapshot-2022 (Accessed February 23, 2024).

Google Scholar

US Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2023). American Time Use Survey–-2022 Results. Available at: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/atus.pdf (Accessed February 23, 2024).

Google Scholar

Vallerga, M., and Zurbriggen, E. L. (2022). Hegemonic masculinities in the ‘Manosphere’: a thematic analysis of beliefs about men and women on the red pill and Incel. Anal. Soc. Issues Public Policy 22, 602–625. doi: 10.1111/asap.12308

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Van Grootel, S., Van Laar, C., Meeussen, L., Schmader, T., and Sczesny, S. (2018). Uncovering pluralistic ignorance to change men’s communal self-descriptions, attitudes, and behavioral intentions. Front. Psychol. 9:1344. doi: 10.3389/FPSYG.2018.01344

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Van Laar, C., Meeussen, L., Veldman, J., Van Grootel, S., Sterk, N., and Jacobs, C. (2019). Coping with stigma in the workplace: understanding the role of threat regulation, supportive factors, and potential hidden costs. Front. Psychol. 10:1879. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01879

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Vandello, J. A., and Bosson, J. K. (2013). Hard won and easily lost: a review and synthesis of theory and research on precarious manhood. Psychol. Men Masculinity 14, 101–113. doi: 10.1037/a0029826

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Vandello, J. A., Bosson, J. K., Cohen, D., Burnaford, R. M., and Weaver, J. R. (2008). Precarious manhood. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 95, 1325–1339. doi: 10.1037/a0012453

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Vandello, J. A., Hettinger, V. E., Bosson, J. K., and Siddiqi, J. (2013). When equal isn’t really equal: the masculine dilemma of seeking work flexibility. J. Soc. Issues 69, 303–321. doi: 10.1111/josi.12016

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Vandello, J. A., Wilkerson, M., Bosson, J. K., Wiernik, B. M., and Kosakowska-Berezecka, N. (2022). Precarious manhood and men’s physical health around the world. Psychol. Men Masc. 24, 1–15. doi: 10.1037/men0000407

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Van Rossum, A., Van Laar, C., and Scheepers, D. (2024). Insights from the social cure and curse framework to improve the wellbeing of boys and men. To appear in: Social Issues and Policy Review.

Google Scholar

Vartanian, L. R. (2015). Impression management and food intake. Current directions in research. Appetite 86, 74–80. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2014.08.021

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Vartanian, L. R., Herman, C. P., and Polivy, J. (2007). Consumption stereotypes and impression management: how you are what you eat. Appetite 48, 265–277. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2006.10.008

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Vázquez, A., López-Rodríguez, L., Gómez, Á., and Dovidio, J. F. (2021). Ambivalent effects of positive contact between women and men on collective actions for women’s rights. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 47, 1358–1373. doi: 10.1177/0146167220974162

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Vial, A. C., Muradoglu, M., Newman, G. E., and Cimpian, A. (2022). An emphasis on brilliance fosters masculinity-contest cultures. Psychol. Sci. 33, 595–612. doi: 10.1177/09567976211044133

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Vogel, D. L., Heimerdinger-Edwards, S. R., Hammer, J. H., and Hubbard, A. (2011). “Boys don’t cry”: examination of the links between endorsement of masculine norms, self-stigma, and help-seeking attitudes for men from diverse backgrounds. J. Couns. Psychol. 58, 368–382. doi: 10.1037/a0023688

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Vuorinen-Lampila, P. (2016). Gender segregation in the employment of higher education graduates. J. Educ. Work. 29, 284–308. doi: 10.1080/13639080.2014.934788

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Way, N. (2013). Boys’ friendships during adolescence: intimacy, desire, and loss. J. Res. Adolesc. 23, 201–213. doi: 10.1111/jora.12047

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Way, N., Cressen, J., Bodian, S., Preston, J., Nelson, J., and Hughes, D. (2014). “It might be nice to be a girl. Then you wouldn’t have to be emotionless”: boys’ resistance to norms of masculinity during adolescence. Psychol. Men. Masc. 15, 241–252. doi: 10.1037/a0037262

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Weaver, J. R., Vandello, J. A., and Bosson, J. K. (2013). Intrepid, imprudent, or impetuous? The effects of gender threats on men’s financial decisions. Psychol. Men Masculinity 14, 184–191. doi: 10.1037/a0027087

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Weaver, K. S., and Vescio, T. K. (2015). The justification of social inequality in response to masculinity threats. Sex Roles 72, 521–535. doi: 10.1007/s11199-015-0484-y

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wellman, J. D., Beam, A. J., Wilkins, C. L., Newell, E. E., and Mendez, C. A. (2021). Masculinity threat increases bias and negative emotions toward feminine gay men. Psychol. Men Masc. 22, 787–799. doi: 10.1037/men0000349

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

West, K. (2016). Jamaica, three years later: effects of intensified pro-gay activism on severe prejudice against lesbians and gay men. J. Sex Res. 53, 1107–1117. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2016.1221028

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

West, K., Greenland, K., and Van Laar, C. (2021). Implicit racism, colour blindness, and narrow definitions of discrimination: why some White people prefer ‘all lives matter’ to ‘Black lives matter’. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 60, 1136–1153. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12458

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

WHO. (2020). Life Expectancy at Birth (Years) [Data set]. Available at: https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/indicators/indicator-details/GHO/life-expectancy-at-birth-(years). (Accessed May 05, 2023)

Google Scholar

WHO. (2021a). Road Traffic Accidents: Deaths by Sex and Age Group for a Selected Country or Area and Year [Data set]. Available at: https://platform.who.int/mortality/themes/theme-details/topics/indicator-groups/indicator-group-details/MDB/road-traffic-accidents. (Accessed May 26, 2023)

Google Scholar

WHO. (2021b). One in 100 Deaths Is By Suicide, WHO Guidance to Help the World Reach the Target of Reducing Suicide Rate by 1/3 by 2030. Available at: https://www.who.int/news/item/17-06-2021-one-in-100-deaths-is-by-suicide (Accessed February 23, 2024).

Google Scholar

WHO. (2022). Age-Standardized Estimates of Current Tobacco Use, Tobacco Smoking and Cigarette Smoking [Data Set]. Available at: https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/indicators/indicator-details/GHO/gho-tobacco-control-monitor-current-tobaccouse-tobaccosmoking-cigarrettesmoking-agestd-tobagestdcurr. (Accessed May 26, 2023)

Google Scholar

WHO Regional Office for Europe. (2018). The Health and Well-Being of Men in the WHO European Region: Better Health through a Gender Approach. Available at: https://www.who.int/europe/publications/i/item/9789289053532 (Accessed February 23, 2024).

Google Scholar

Wiley, S., Kirby, C. A., Richards, J., and Stockfisch, A. E. (2021). Positive contact with feminist women as a predictor of feminist solidarity, gender privilege awareness, and public and domestic support for gender equality in straight men. Sex Roles 85, 688–706. doi: 10.1007/s11199-021-01245-2

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wiley, S., Srinivasan, R., Finke, E., Firnhaber, J., and Shilinsky, A. (2013). Positive portrayals of feminist men increase men’s solidarity with feminists and collective action intentions. Psychol. Women Q. 37, 61–71. doi: 10.1177/0361684312464575

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wilkins, C. L., Wellman, J. D., Babbitt, L. G., Toosi, N. R., and Schad, K. D. (2015). You can win but I can’t lose: Bias against high-status groups increases their zero-sum beliefs about discrimination. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 57, 1–14. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2014.10.008

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wilkinson, A. L., Fleming, P. J., Halpern, C. T., Herring, A. H., and Harris, K. M. (2018). Adherence to gender-typical behavior and high-frequency substance use from adolescence into young adulthood. Psychol. Men Masc. 19, 145–155. doi: 10.1037/men0000088

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wilkinson, R. G., and Pickett, K. (2009). The Spirit Level: Why more Equal Societies Almost Always do Better. New York: Bloomsbury Press.

Google Scholar

Williams, J. C. (2000). Unbending Gender: Why Family and Work Conflict and What To Do About It. Williams 2000, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar

Williams, J. C. (2017). White Working Class: Overcoming Class Cluelessness in America. Williams 2017, Brighton, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

Google Scholar

Williams, J., Berdahl, J. L., and Vandello, J. A. (2016). Beyond work-life “integration.”. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 67, 515–539. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033710

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Williams, J. C., Blair-Loy, M., and Berdahl, J. L. (2013). Cultural schemas, social class, and the flexibility stigma. J. Soc. Issues 69, 209–234. doi: 10.1111/josi.12012

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wolfram, H. J., Mohr, G., and Borchert, J. (2009). Gender role self-concept, gender-role conflict, and well-being in male primary school teachers. Sex Roles 60, 114–127. doi: 10.1007/s11199-008-9493-4

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Women in the Workplace Report (2022). McKinsey. Available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/women-in-the-workplace#/. (Accessed June 21, 2023).

Google Scholar

Women’s Media Centre (2021). The Status of Women in the U.S. Media, 2021. Available at: https://womensmediacenter.com/reports/the-status-of-women-in-the-u-s-media-2021-1 (Accessed February 23, 2024).

Google Scholar

Wong, Y. J., Ho, M. H. R., Wang, S. Y., and Miller, I. S. K. (2017). Meta-analyses of the relationship between conformity to masculine norms and mental health-related outcomes. J. Couns. Psychol. 64, 80–93. doi: 10.1037/cou0000176

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wong, Y. J., Klann, E. M., Bijelić, N., and Aguayo, F. (2016). The link between men’s zero-sum gender beliefs and mental health: findings from Chile and Croatia. Psychol. Men Masculinity 18, 12–19. doi: 10.1037/men0000035

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Workman-Stark, A. (2021). Countering a masculinity contest culture at work: the moderating role of organizational justice. Int. J. Organ. Theory Behav. 24, 6–23. doi: 10.1108/IJOTB-11-2019-0132

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

World Bank. (2023). Primary Education, Teachers (% Female) [Data Visualization]. Available at: https://genderdata.worldbank.org/indicators/se-prm-tchr-fe-zs/?view=trend. (Accessed July 12, 2023)

Google Scholar

World Economic Forum. (2023). Global Gender Gap Report. (2023). Available at: https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2023.pdf (Accessed February 23, 2024).

Google Scholar

Wu, Z., Naldi, L., Wennberg, K., and Uman, T. (2024). Learning from their daughters: family exposure to gender disparity and female representation in male-led ventures. Manag. Sci. 70. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2023.4727

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Yerkes, M., André, S. C. H., Besamusca, J. W., Kruyen, P. M., Remery, C. L. H. S., van der Zwan, R., et al. (2020). Intelligent lockdown, intelligent effects? The impact of the Dutch COVID-19 ‘intelligent lockdown’ on gendered work and family dynamics among parents. PLoS One 15:e0242249. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242249

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Yousaf, O., Grunfeld, E. A., and Hunter, M. S. (2015a). A systematic review of the factors associated with delays in medical and psychological help-seeking among men. Health Psychol. Rev. 9, 264–276. doi: 10.1080/17437199.2013.840954

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Yousaf, O., Popat, A., and Hunter, M. S. (2015b). An investigation of masculinity attitudes, gender, and attitudes toward psychological help-seeking. Psychol. Men Masc. 16, 234–237. doi: 10.1037/a0036241

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar