Jeff Hearn, a leading researcher in CSMM since the 1980s, argues that men and masculinity is “the elephant in the room” in gender equality policy (Hearn, 2024). By this he means, to achieve change, gender equality issues cannot only concern the subordinate group of women; they must also address the dominant category of men:
You might imagine it might be difficult to talk about gender equality and gender power relations, without discussing men and masculinities, but that is not so. There are, for example, many excellent documents on gender equality, but that are silent or virtually so, on men and masculinities. […] Indeed, it is worth asking how can it be possible to [change] gender inequalities or transform gender power relations without changing men and masculinities? (Hearn, 2024: 19)
An important task is therefore naming men as men without essentialising what it means to be a man or obscuring differences between men. CSMM offers several different ways of attempting to capture and put words to these issues. There are a number of concepts circulating both in academic literature (e.g., hegemonic, caring or hybrid masculinity) and public debate more generally (e.g., toxic masculinity, macho culture or destructive masculinity norms), and these concepts usually originate from different traditions and express distinct theoretical perspectives with different emphases (Berggren, 2020). This section discusses three different examples of naming men and masculinity that appear in the report material.
Masculinities
One of the most influential ideas in CSMM is that we need to talk about masculinities in the plural. This idea is largely associated with the Australian sociologist Raewyn Connell (1996). Some of Connell’s fundamental ideas are that men are not a uniform transhistorical group but that there are different ways of being or ‘doing’ man in different contexts, that men are not all equally oppressive towards women and that men can also be subordinate in a society based on categories such as sexuality, race/ethnicity and class. Connell’s model (which contained four categories of masculinity) has been used, discussed, revised and criticised since the 1990s and has often served as a reference point for social science research on men and masculinity (although its influence is no longer as dominant, see for example Gottzén et al., 2020). One legacy of this way of thinking is precisely putting words to different, and often new, forms of masculinity/masculinities.
This perspective is clearly represented in the reports by the Nordic Council of Ministers, a few of which reference Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity: “traditional fishing families construct a hegemonic masculinity as that of the hunting hero” (R11: 16).
Masculinities are also referenced more broadly in the plural: “Femininities and masculinities are relevant to sustainable lifestyles” (R2: 16); “Furthermore, there are different types of masculinities, which also explains why some men receive privileges and others do not” (R10: 73); “rural masculinities are ‘hierarchical, variable, multiple and situational’” (R11: 16).
Different concepts of masculinity are used in the reports to denote specific styles and problems, such as “Schwarzenegger’s hyper-modern masculinity at the beginning of his acting career” (R2: 45) or some male cyclists being described as “characterised by a ruthless competitive masculinity” (R2: 44). Concepts of masculinity are also used to describe more desirable behaviours: “the company expresses a kind of eco-modern masculinity” (R2: 45); “It is important to show young men alternative masculinities to promote mental health and wellbeing” (R3: 15).
Gender coding
The idea that we can identify different types of masculinity has also been criticised from other perspectives. In practice, this risks leading researchers to focus on cataloguing different types of masculinity, which does not always help us to understand the processes through which gender is created, maintained and challenged (Messner, 2004; Pascoe, 2007). A key aspect of the criticism is that the masculinities approach is often based on the assumption that men always exhibit masculinity – just in a wide variety of forms. Although this approach emphasises differences and diversity on one level, it also reinforces an essentialist link between men and masculinity, according to the critics. Queer theorist Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick (1995) formulated this in the mid-1990s in terms of the importance of driving a wedge, as quickly and decisively as possible, between the two categories of men and masculinity, which are often assumed to be linked.
Essentially, the same critical discussion is still ongoing today. One example is the now popular concept of caring masculinities, first introduced by Karla Elliott (2016), used to try and capture positive changes such as men taking greater parental responsibility (for discussion, see Wojnicka & de Boise, 2025). However, critics within queer studies such as Jonathan A. Allan (2023; 2025) point out that it is unreasonable to assume that masculinity is involved when men engage in caregiving, a traditionally feminine-coded practice: “One question to ask is why something like ‘caring’ must become ‘masculine’ and not simply be ‘caring’? Why must his ability to ‘care’ become a type of masculinity?” (Allan, 2023: 45). Allan then broadens his criticism to a more general critical observation about parts of masculinity research, writing: “a lot of things are being made to be masculine as if to help alleviate men’s anxieties about the possibility of being perceived as feminine” (Allan, 2025: 2). From this perspective, the point is that while there may be cultural ideas surrounding masculinity and femininity, these do not necessarily need to be enacted by men and women respectively (Halberstam, 1998).
This perspective is also represented in the report material. For example, one report discusses “which genders enable sustainable lifestyles regardless of sex, and how these can be promoted” (R2: 30). Here, the idea is that while there are different recognisable types of gender expressions – masculinity and femininity – these can be practised regardless of a person’s sex. This approach is based on the distinction between sex and gender – which was originally developed in early transgender research – and which has long played a prominent role in gender research (Eriksson & Gottzén, 2020). The aim is to distinguish between the biological and the given on the one hand and the social or constructed on the other, a useful but also long problematised approach, and to argue that “social norms attribute femininity to women and masculinity to men” (R2: 15). Words such as ‘attributed’, ‘gendered’ and ‘associated with’ are commonly used in the reports to describe gender coding by which specific characteristics have come to be associated with men:
Professions, interests and areas of knowledge are also gendered to varying degrees as feminine or masculine […] technology and machines are associated with masculinity. (R2: 15–16)
Orienting oneself towards practices other than those traditionally associated with masculinity can break patterns that contribute to mental ill health. (R3: 35)
... meat is associated with strength, potency and power, values that in turn are associated with masculinity. (R2: 23)
The concept of ‘masculinity norms’ is also used in a similar way in the reports: “Professions in forestry and the military are associated with the ideals of masculinity norms and strength, which regulate perceptions of who is suitable – and unsuitable – to perform them.” (R12: 10)
Traditional masculinity norms
Another term that is used repeatedly in the report material is ‘traditional’, for example ‘traditional masculinity’ and ‘traditional masculinity norms’:
Traditional masculinity norms often emphasise traits such as control, self-confidence and toughness, which can cause young men to hide their feelings and avoid seeking help for mental health issues. (R3: 15)
…traditional forms of masculinity can be considered an obstacle to sustainable lifestyles and a green transition, with the preference in food (meat) and means of transport (fossil-powered motoring). (R1: 4)
Fathers who took longer paternity leave are less likely to adhere to traditional norms of masculinity (R4: 10)
…to create room for diversity and standing up against traditional and stereotypical gender roles. (R6: 8)
The concepts of traditional masculinity and traditional masculinity norms are largely absent from interdisciplinary, critical gender research on men and masculinity and are not addressed, for example, in current reviews of perspectives and concepts (Berggren, 2020; Pease, 2025). They are used in psychological research on men and masculinity (Mokhwelepa & Sumbane, 2025); however, this is a type of research that is not particularly well integrated with interdisciplinary discussions on masculinity within the humanities and social sciences.
It may be worth pausing to consider the use of the term ‘traditional’ to describe undesirable practices and ideals associated with masculinity. In critical discussions of Nordic gender equality policy developed by gender, queer and postcolonial researchers, it has been noted that gender equality has become a value associated with a national self-image, not least in Sweden (Magnusson et al., 2008; Martinsson et al., 2017). Narratives in which gender equality is constructed, for example, as part of or an expression of Swedish values risk reproducing a division between modernity and tradition. ‘We Swedes’ are imagined to be modern, gender-equal subjects, while ‘others’ are seen as outdated and stuck in traditional, obsolete and unequal thinking.
One problem with this approach is that it runs a high risk of reproducing a hierarchical division based on race/ethnicity, something sociologist Minoo Alinia (2011) has termed “gender equal racism and barbaric immigrants”. In a similar vein but with a focus on men, masculinity and youth researchers, Lucas Gottzén and Rickard Jonsson write: “The idea of gender equal masculinity is maintained, we believe, by portraying non-Swedish men as more traditional and unequal.” (Gottzén & Jonsson, 2012: 11; italics added)
Another aspect of this is that inequality is attributed a historical position and rendered a remnant of the past, rather than being understood as a social problem in the here and now. To the extent that the problem of inequality still exists, it is something we should have left behind; it constitutes a kind of cultural lag that is no longer relevant in our time. The implication is that the reason for men being sexist or unequal today is that they have not liberated themselves from tradition rather than because they gain certain advantages or a more comfortable life through various forms of inequality. In other words, we are dealing with an understandable remnant of history rather than a conflict of interest today. Talking about traditional masculinity thus runs the risk of downplaying men’s agency in this context (cf. Waling, 2019b).