Most Men Are Not “Toxic”—And Treating Them As If They Are Has Been a Category Error

Wednesday, January 14, 2026.

For the last decade, toxic masculinity has operated less as a clinical descriptor and more as a moral shortcut—a way of gesturing at real harms without specifying their structure, prevalence, or distribution.

The problem is not that harmful forms of masculinity do not exist.
They do.

The problem is that the term has been allowed to stand in for men themselves.

A large new study of more than 15,000 men in New Zealand suggests what many clinicians and researchers have quietly known for years: most men do not resemble the profile implied by the phrase at all.

And the men who do cannot be understood as a single type, either.

Why the Term “Toxic Masculinity” Has Always Been Doing Too Much Heavy Lifting

Originally, toxic masculinity was meant to name specific patterns—misogyny, emotional suppression, dominance, aggression—that produce measurable harm. Over time, however, the term has expanded beyond its original usefulness.

Three problems emerged:

• Conceptual sprawl: wildly different traits were folded into a single moral category.

• Absent prevalence data: little evidence existed showing how common these traits actually are.

• Stigmatizing implication: men who do not exhibit these behaviors increasingly felt addressed anyway.

When a category is too broad, it stops clarifying risk and starts generating resistance.

This study did something rare. It tested the category instead of assuming it.

What the Researchers Did Differently

Using data from the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study (2018–2019), researchers analyzed responses from 15,808 heterosexual men, ages 18 to 99.

Rather than measuring masculinity along a single spectrum, they examined eight indicators commonly associated with problematic masculine traits:

• Hostile sexism.

• Benevolent sexism.

• Sexual prejudice.

• Narcissism.

• Disagreeableness.

• Gender identity centrality.

• Opposition to domestic violence prevention.

• Social dominance orientation.

They then applied latent profile analysis, a statistical method that identifies naturally occurring subgroups based on response patterns.

This approach matters because it allows masculinity to appear as it actually clusters—not as theory or rhetoric predicts it should.

The Five Masculinity Profiles the Data Revealed

1. Atoxic Men (35.4%)

Low across all eight indicators.
No meaningful alignment with sexist, dominance-oriented, or hostile traits.

This was the largest group in the sample.

2. LGBT-Tolerant Moderates (27.2%)

Low sexual prejudice, moderate narcissism and disagreeableness.
More likely to be younger, nonreligious, and less politically conservative.

3. Anti-LGBT Moderates (26.6%)

Similar to the group above but with elevated sexual prejudice.
More common among older men, suggesting generational effects rather than global toxicity.

4. Benevolent Toxic Masculinity (7.6%)

This profile is the most easily missed—and arguably the most culturally protected.

High benevolent sexism.
Moderate hostility.
Elevated opposition to domestic violence prevention.

This is not rage masculinity.
It is paternalistic masculinity—protective in tone, restrictive in practice.

5. Hostile Toxic Masculinity (3.2%)

The profile most people picture when they hear the term.

High hostility, dominance orientation, narcissism, and emotional dysregulation.
Open resistance to accountability.

This group exists.
It is real.
It is also small.

Two Forms of Risk, Not One

The data do not support a single toxic masculinity.

They reveal two distinct forms of risk:

• Hostile toxicity, which is loud, dysregulated, and overtly coercive.

• Benevolent toxicity, which is quieter, relationally embedded, and often socially rewarded—especially in traditional partnerships.

Collapsing these under one moral label does not clarify harm.

It obscures it.

Why This Matters in Therapy (and Everywhere Else)

In clinical settings, this distinction is not academic.

Men who do not recognize themselves in the cultural caricature of toxicity often disengage before meaningful work can begin.

Meanwhile, men whose behavior is genuinely hostile are rarely persuaded by broad moral indictment.

Precision does something moral language cannot:

It isolates responsibility without universal accusation.

That is not leniency.
It is leverage.

Correlation Is Not Destiny

Men in the most hostile profile were more likely to be unemployed, single, older, religious, and politically conservative, and to report higher emotional dysregulation.

Men in the least problematic profiles were more likely to be employed, partnered, educated, and less conservative.

These are correlations, not verdicts.

The authors are careful here—and so should we be.

Limits Worth Naming

The study focused on heterosexual men and used a binary gender framework.
It reflects one Western nation.
It captures a single moment in time.

Future research should examine how masculinity profiles shift across cultures, genders, and life stages.

Still, as a corrective to sweeping claims about men as a class, this study does something the discourse has needed for a long time.

It slows it down.

FAQ: Toxic Masculinity, Men, and What the Research Actually Shows

Are most men toxic, according to research?

No. Large-scale research shows that most men do not fit profiles associated with toxic masculinity. In a study of over 15,000 men, fewer than 11% clustered into profiles characterized by high hostility or coercive dominance.

What does “toxic masculinity” mean in psychological research?

In research contexts, toxic masculinity refers to specific patterns of attitudes and behaviors, such as hostile sexism, dominance orientation, emotional dysregulation, and opposition to violence prevention—not masculinity itself.

Does toxic masculinity exist?

Yes. The research identifies a small but distinct group of men who exhibit high levels of hostile, dominance-based traits that align with common definitions of toxic masculinity.

How common is hostile toxic masculinity?

Hostile toxic masculinity appears to characterize approximately 3% of men in the studied population, making it real but not representative.

What is benevolent toxic masculinity?

Benevolent toxic masculinity refers to paternalistic attitudes that appear protective or positive but ultimately restrict autonomy, reinforce inequality, and normalize control—often without overt hostility.

Is benevolent sexism harmful even if intentions are good?

Yes. Benevolent sexism can cause harm regardless of intent by limiting agency, reinforcing gender hierarchies, and obscuring power imbalances under the guise of care or protection.

Why is the term “toxic masculinity” controversial?

The term is controversial because it is often used imprecisely, collapsing diverse behaviors into a single moral category and implying that masculinity itself is inherently harmful.

What does the research suggest instead of a single toxic masculinity?

The research supports a profile-based understanding of masculinity, showing multiple distinct patterns—most of which do not involve high levels of hostility, dominance, or sexism.

Does criticizing toxic masculinity stigmatize men?

Broad, undifferentiated criticism can stigmatize men who do not exhibit harmful traits, while reducing accountabilityamong those who do. Precision improves both engagement and responsibility.

What are the implications for therapy and mental health work?

In therapy, overgeneralized language about masculinity can lead to disengagement, whereas precise identification of harmful behaviors increases accountability and treatment effectiveness.

Does this research apply to all cultures and genders?

No. The study focused on heterosexual men in New Zealand and used a binary gender framework. Its findings do not automatically generalize to other cultures, genders, or sexual orientations.

What is the key takeaway from this study?

Harmful forms of masculinity exist, but they are not typical, uniform, or inherent to men. Effective social and clinical responses require precision, not moral generalization.

Final Thoughts

If masculinity is going to be examined seriously—by researchers, clinicians, or the culture at large—it must be examined accurately.

Overgeneralization feels righteous, but it weakens accountability.
Precision feels slower, but it is how responsibility becomes possible.

This study does not excuse harm.

It finally tells us where to look.

Be Well, Stay Kind, and Godspeed.

REFERENCES:

Cone, D. H., Lilly, K. J., Sibley, C. G., & Osborne, D. (2025). Are men toxic? A person-centered investigation into the prevalence of different types of masculinity in a large sample of New Zealand men. Psychology of Men & Masculinities. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000xxx