麻豆淫院

There are few phrases which have been so uncritically mobilised within recent educational discourse as that of ‘toxic masculinity’, a term now so widely employed in discussing boys’ behaviour in schools as to prompt articles by, among others, the BBC (James, 2026) and the Guardian (Hogan, 2025). The term, used to describe ‘the constellation of socially regressive male traits that serve to foster domination, the devaluation of women, homophobia and wanton violence’ (Kupers, 2005, p. 714), is certainly of the moment, used to explain boys’ (in particular, working-class boys’) relative underachievement, disengagement and disproportionate rates of punishment in Britain’s schools. If only it were quite so simple.

Of course, certain hegemonic forms of masculine behaviours can and do cause harm; violence, misogyny and disengagement are real issues for schools. However, when ‘toxic masculinity’ is offered as the causal diagnosis, boys themselves are framed as the problem and masculinity is detached from social-class, institutional harm and the cultural and political economy. Rather, the behaviours, values and aspirations of adolescent boys which might otherwise be interpreted as toxic (banter, dominance, disdain for authority and institutional authority) should be considered as coherent responses to a broader cultural-script: that of neoliberalism (Morace-Court, 2026).

‘The behaviours, values and aspirations of adolescent boys which might otherwise be interpreted as toxic should be considered as coherent responses to a broader cultural-script: that of neoliberalism.’

As Harvey (2005) argues, unmoored from its origins as an economic framework, neoliberalism has become an ideological and political project which restructures social life around free market principles, emphasising individualism, domination and rational selfishness as desirable characteristics. In such a context, notes Brown (2015), individuals are encouraged to curate themselves as human capital, always in a process of self-optimisation. Within such a culture, the values and behaviours typically associated with ‘toxic masculinity’ are not deviant, they are encouraged. For so many adolescent boys, then, the body becomes capital, status is accumulated through displays of wealth, possession and social media visibility (no matter how authentic) and sexual competence is performed and displayed. This, in turn, manifests in a hegemonic form of masculine ideal that Simpson (2014) terms spornosexual masculinity, where masculine value is derived through the body (muscular physiques, branded clothing, entrepreneurial aspirations) and a constant emphasis on dominance: physical dominance of other males, sexual dominance of women and material dominance in the capitalist economy.

The irony, of course, is that this same neoliberal logic which emphasises individual responsibility over collective advancement is precisely the logic which structures the economic conditions that are making success increasingly unlikely for so many working-class boys. As secure employment declines, institutional pathways narrow and schooling is offered less value, so the routes to these imagined futures of wealth, power and status diminish (Morace-Court, 2026). This has resulted in a tension at the heart of educational discourse around ‘toxic masculinity’. Schools demand compliance; they insist on delayed gratification and the accumulation of credentials. In contrast, the values being embedded through neoliberal culture, in particular for young, working-class boys – the glorification of immediate success, dominance of others and entrepreneurial independence – are distilled in their most amplified forms through online influencers such as Andrew Tate and the broader digital ecosystem of self-styled ‘success’ gurus.

‘Until we confront the neoliberal conditions that are rewarding competitiveness, rational selfishness, commodification and dominance, we will continue to mistake the symptom for the disease.’

When considered from such a perspective, these performances of masculine identities that we might otherwise label as ‘toxic’ shift, reframed not as the cause of a problem in schools but as an almost inevitable consequence of much deeper structural contradictions manifest in behavioural expressions. As such, we must push past the pathologising narrative of ‘toxic masculinity’ and ask: What kind of social and educational system is producing these toxic masculinities in the first place? This is an uncomfortable question. But, until we address it, until we confront the neoliberal conditions that are rewarding competitiveness, rational selfishness, commodification and dominance, we will continue to mistake the symptom for the disease.

References

Brown, W. (2015). Undoing the demos: Neoliberalism’s stealth revolution. Zone Books.

Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford University Press.

Hogan, M. (2025, March 22). From the police to the prime minister: How Adolescence is making Britain face up to toxic masculinity. Guardian.

James, E. (2026, March 20). Positive role models needed to combat manosphere. BBC News.

Kupers, T. (2005). Toxic masculinity as a barrier to mental health treatment in prison. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(6), 713–724.

Morace-Court, D. (2026). Neoliberal boys: Class, masculinity and the crisis in education. Routledge.

Simpson, M. (2014, June 10). The metrosexual is dead. Long live the ‘spornosexual’. Telegraph.