What makes a man unmanly? The global concept of ‘unmanliness’

‘Unmanliness’ has been studied neither directly nor with the use of large multinational samples. Most research on masculinity focuses on what is considered manly rather than what is not considered manly. The up-to-date research sheds light on the traits, practices, and behaviors regarded as manly or masculine in Western cultures and primarily conceptualized following the perspective of hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 1987), hereafter also referred to as HM. Notably, male-typed traits and behaviors are considered ‘hegemonic’ when they are associated with men’s social dominance. In research focusing on practices the ‘real man’ should undertake, no questions have been directly and explicitly asked about what makes a man unmanly or what behaviors and attitudes are not masculine (Vandello & Bosson, 2013; Munsch & Gruys, 2018).

Given that prescriptive gender norms defining ‘real manhood’ differ across cultures (Kimmel & Aronson, 2003) our research addresses the following research problem: do prescriptive gender norms defining ‘unmanliness’ differ across cultures? We realize that, as with concepts of masculinity defined from a Western-centric perspective, the question of desirable or forbidden practices and behaviors results in the construction of masculinity along with the Western standards (Lee et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2023; Peng et al., 2023a; 2023b). Nevertheless, to address our research problem, we asked the same question to men from 62 countries representing different cultural contexts. The selected samples for the presented research comprised 15 countries representing the full scope of values of the Global Gender Gap Index (2021). The Index examines gender gaps as a function of both objective and subjective country-level egalitarianism and captures vertical segregation in access to resources and power (World Economic Forum, 2021). The Global Gender Gap Index (GGGI) served as a key analytical axis in our study. We examined responses from men in countries at the extremes of the index (e.g., Norway and Pakistan) as well as those in intermediate positions (e.g., Poland, Italy). This contextual differentiation—considering how gendered performances are normalized—raises important questions about whether a shared, global understanding of ‘unmanliness’ exists.

To our knowledge, this study is the first to systematically investigate the concept of ‘unmanliness.’ By exploring how it is culturally constructed and examining its implications, we provide new insights into the traits and behaviors perceived as unmanly across diverse cultural contexts. Through open-ended responses from participants in 15 countries, we seek to understand how ‘unmanliness’ is defined and enforced worldwide.

To achieve our goal, we assume that masculinity is performed (Butler, 1988) and that this “gendered performance” also includes the rules of behaviors and practices that should not be performed. Gendered performance is socially and culturally constructed, necessitating consideration of the specific cultural context in which men enact their masculinity. In this regard, the concept of ‘unmanliness’ is also culturally variable (as evidenced by the diverse expressions of masculinity among East Asian men; see Peng et al., 2023a; Chen et al., 2023), which challenges Western-centric perspectives.

By ‘unmanliness’, we understand a notion broader than ‘hegemonic masculinity’ (Connell, 1987), ‘precarious manhood’ (Vandello & Bosson, 2013) and ‘emasculation’ (Munsch & Gruys, 2018). Although the above three concepts indirectly refer to the notion of ’unmanliness’, the methodology used within the three conceptual paradigms is not directly lined to the universal depiction of it, if there is one. By adopting a cross-contextual perspective, we analyze direct responses from multinational samples to the question: What behavior(s) would be considered unmanly in your country? This approach provides culturally nuanced insights into the behaviors and practices men believe they should avoid. Based on these responses, we propose the Global Concept of ‘Unmanliness’ (GCU)—a new analytical framework that builds upon existing masculinity research by incorporating a broader, cross-cultural perspective.

Rather than aiming to validate a fixed model, our goal is to explore how ‘unmanliness’ is socially constructed and how it reflects the global influence of Western masculinity norms. By integrating empirical data from diverse cultures, our study sheds light on the ways masculinity is regulated and negotiated worldwide.

In this paper, we draw on three Western theoretical frameworks that provide insight into the conceptualization and measurement of masculinity: hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 1987; Messerschmidt (2018)), which explores the universality of dominant masculinity norms; precarious manhood and masculinity threat (Vandello & Bosson, 2013), which highlights the fragile and socially contingent nature of manhood; and emasculation (Munsch & Gruys, 2018), which examines the consequences of perceived threats to masculinity. These frameworks indirectly define ‘unmanliness’ by focusing on socially constructed masculinity, positioning what is considered unmanly as the inverse of what it means to be manly.

Given the constraints of this article, we do not explore other masculinity frameworks that challenge hegemonic norms yet also contribute to discussions on traditional notions of manliness and unmanliness. One such perspective is queer masculinity (Milani, 2014), which disrupts culturally established gender scripts at the performative level. While this perspective is highly relevant to the broader discourse on masculinity, our study specifically examines how ‘unmanliness’ is constructed across different cultural contexts within the dominant masculinity paradigms.

Numerous studies devoted to the HM concept and its local and regional variations show that hegemonic masculinities are constructed differently (Messerschmidt (2018)) and should be continuously investigated in many cultural contexts to influence, as Jeff Hearn suggests, the development of international, transnational, and global perspectives (Hearn, 2015). Studies on HM address the roles (social, professional), features (identity, appearance), practices (gestures, emotional expressions), objects (items used, clothes), and experiences that are viewed as masculine. The notion of HM emerged within, and thus largely reflects, the values and norms of WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) societies. However, in recent years, researchers have begun examining if and to what extent men in other (e.g., non-WEIRD) cultural contexts embody hegemonic scripts (Messerschmidt (2018)). In many studies, the Hegemonic Masculinity concept is used to describe masculinities which do not necessarily fulfil the criteria of being hegemonic (Messerschmidt (2018)). Reconceptualizing this concept, R.W. Connel pointed out the need to consider historical changes and hegemonic forms of masculinity on local, regional, and global levels (Connell, Messerschmidt (2005)). Lately, we can observe that there was a shift from quantitative studies towards local and qualitative small-sampled studies (Wedgwood et al., 2023), but the data from the Global South are still missing and the attention given to postcolonial perspectives is suggested (Wedgwood et al., 2023).

The researchers undertaking analyses based on the precarious manhood theory attempted to test whether men are threatened and what compensatory attitudes they adopt or actions they undertake to restore their gender status. However, it has not yet been tested when men are unmanly and what unmanly means in other cultural settings (e.g., Vandello et al., 2008; Bosson et al. 2021). Munsch & Gruys, 2018 shift the focus from the effects of masculinity threat—offering new methodological, empirical, and theoretical insights—toward understanding when and how young white American men experience emasculation, as expressed in their own words. Their study, conducted with 42 male students from Northeastern University in the United States, reveals that emasculation narratives implicitly reinforce the idea that manhood is constructed through the subordination of both women and other men.

This dynamic is exemplified by one participant’s statement:

“Yarden: I lost to a man; masculinity is defeating masculinity, so it doesn’t feel as bad, I suppose. But if I lost to a woman, then femininity is defeating masculinity, and for whatever reason, that just, you know, doesn’t work.” (Munsch & Gruys, 2018)

This quote highlights how masculinity is perceived as a hierarchical and competitive construct—one that is particularly fragile when challenged by femininity.

Most contemporary meanings of unmanly behaviors have been extrapolated from their opposition to HM. So far, research has shown the following practices can be indirectly considered to be unmanly (the approach of many studies was based on heteronormative concepts therefore could be debatable): (1) showing weakness, avoiding confrontation, and not acting from the position of strength in relations with other men (Connell, 2002: 94; Goodey, 1997; Mesley, 2019); (2) reluctance or inability to have sex with women, lack of initiative-taking in sexual relations with women, being a virgin, ‘not having’ a woman, or being same-sex oriented in identity, or behavior (Potts, 2000; Pollack & Shuster, 2001; Ertan, 2008); (3) inability to provide for the family, not being a breadwinner, or being economically dependent on a woman (Cha & Thebaud, 2008); (4) not performing a professional role associated with power and high status (Bosson et al., 2009; Pyke, 1996; Kluczyńska, 2021); (5) lack of behavioral risk-taking (Tyler & Fairbrother, 2013); (6) inappropriate choice and style of clothing (Barry, 2018); and (7) supporting gender equality (Kosakowska-Berezecka et al., 2020).

Summarizing research in the fields of social psychology, the various subdisciplines of sociology, public health studies, and food studies, we can see that violations, as presented mostly with regard to the Western contexts, It is thus crucial to emphasize that the behaviors or attributes considered to ‘violate’ masculinity can vary significantly across different cultural contexts. For instance, the nuances of Asian masculinities, even though they are based on mostly one-country, samples, offer valuable insights into this potential diversity (see Peng et al., 2023b. The anti-femininity mandates for men in the Western contexts include: (1) dressing like a woman, dressing up, being flamboyant, or drawing attention to oneself with clothing (Casanova de (2015); Lu & Wong, 2013; Vänskä, 2017); (2) engaging in grooming or cosmetic practices, including wearing make-up, using lotion, or removing body hair (Gough et al., 2014; McNeill & Douglas, 2011; Souiden & Diagne, 2009; (3) carrying shopping bags, or spending time in shopping centers (Green & Van Oort, 2013); (4) being tearful, crying in public spaces, or showing emotions in public (de Boise & Hearn, 2017; McQueen, 2017; Warner & Shields, 2007); (5) indulging in self-pity (Stöber, 2003); (6) focusing on health problems (Francome, 2000; Gough & Robertson, 2010); (7) showing concern about healthy food and eating (Gough & Conner, 2006; Jensen & Holm, 1999; Roos et al., 2001b); (8) displaying concern about the taste, preparation, or variety of food (Gal & Wilkie, 2010; Newcombe et al., 2012); (9) avoiding consumption of alcohol or consuming sweet alcohols (Berkowitz, 2004; Roos et al., 2001a); (10) pro-ecological behavior (Brough et al., 2016); (11) practicing stereotypically feminine sports such as rhythmic gymnastics, aerobics, badminton or figure skating (Alvariñas-Villaverde et al., 2017; Gurlly, 2020; Messner, 1992); or (12) performing women’s household tasks or childcare duties (Kosakowska-Berezecka et al., 2016).

All the above-mentioned activities, however, have been determined as unmanly based on respondents’ answers to the question about what an ‘ordinary’ man should not do. This means that ‘unmanliness’ was operationalized by the researchers as linked to existing cultural concepts of manliness. The question “What is unmanly?” has not been directly explored in existing research. In our view, addressing this question offers a crucial opportunity to gain a global perspective on the constructed nature of masculinity and to better understand the worldwide normalization of hegemonic masculinity (HM). Moreover, the above-mentioned anti-femininity mandates have been defined mainly in one-country contexts and do not allow us to form cross-cultural insights into when a man is unmanly. Therefore, in our study, we sought to find answers to the following research questions: (1) how men define ‘unmanliness’ without referring to what is manly, and (2) how ‘unmanliness’ is understood across different cultures. The research questions are aimed at collecting unrestrained responses and enabling international comparisons on a global scale. It is important to underline that the goal of this paper is to understand how ‘unmanliness’ is constructed and to provide a comparative, cross-cultural analysis and not to give a nuanced in-depth analysis on the cultural level Table 1.

Data were collected between January 2019 and February 2020 as part of a large cross-cultural project Towards Gender Harmon (see: https://osf.io/fqd4p/ and https://towardsgenderharmony.ug.edu.plThe paper covers 15 countries chosen by the authors, using the 3525 coded answers provided by men to an online open question: What behavior(s) would be considered unmanly in your country?

Studying masculinity shares methodological challenges with research on other privileged groups (Pini & Pease, 2013). However, gender studies are particularly vulnerable to data contamination, as participants may consciously or unconsciously ‘perform’ masculinity rather than authentically describe it (Holmgren (2013)). Some researchers suggest that men disclose more in quantitative studies using ICT technologies than in face-to-face settings, as they feel less subject to external power and control (Leontowitsch, 2013). Others argue that qualitative methods encourage deeper reflection, yielding a more accurate representation of men’s experiences (Patulny & Pini, 2013). Given these considerations, we opted for an anonymous online survey that collected open-ended responses alongside demographic data (age, gender, nationality). Since participants provided qualitative narratives rather than selecting from predefined response options or scales, our analysis is also qualitative. As such, we do not focus on statistical correlations but rather on interpreting the cultural and contextual meanings embedded in the responses. Answers to the question underwent the coding process in a qualitative analysis of the ‘unmanliness’ category to determine whether differential definitions exist across countries. Each answer was coded. Data analysis was carried out using thematic analysis (Braun et al., 2017; Braun & Clarke, 2021).

The first step was to create the dataset with the responses to the Question: What behavior(s) would be considered unmanly in your country? We have analyzed 3525 answers that included 1 to 5 sentences. The gathered data were either 1) originally written in English and analyzed and coded in English or 2) written in national languages and translated into English by native speakers (students who were engaged in the translation and coding process), then analyzed and coded in English. Then, in the first phase of the coding process, responses from every country were independently coded by all authors (4) and students (15) who took part in the first step of the analysis. The next step was to analyze the generated codes to verify and establish a final list of themes (3). The MaxQDA cloud tool counted the codes to verify their intensity (how often they appear in chosen countries). The list of the most popular codes and themes was prepared for each country. The empirical data were then coded with the MaxQDA tool. The list of the most popular codes and themes was prepared for each country. The final stage of our analysis involved linking the most frequently occurring codes to the raw data—participant quotes—and generating thematic descriptions. This phase aimed to uncover abstract patterns, trends, and relationships that provide insight into our research questions (Naeem et al., 2023). To present our findings, we use (1) summary of most popular codes and (2) quotations of original answers. We applied collaborative data analysis, a “process in which there is joint focus and dialogue among two or more researchers regarding a shared body of data, to produce an agreed interpretation” (Cornish, Gillespie & Zittoun, 2014, p. 79). This allowed us to avoid subjective interpretation, which may occur in the case of analysis conducted by only one person. All authors of this paper were involved in this inductive process. We identified three main themes: “emotionality and femininity”, “acting and looking like a woman”, and “violence against women”. To illustrate each theme, we include representative participant quotations that exemplify the coded responses.

Participants/Sample characteristics

Our analysis focuses on responses from heterosexual male participants, specifically 3525 men with an average age of 25.07. Since the majority of respondents were students, our sample is not representative of all age groups. However, the open-ended question—“What behavior(s) would be considered unmanly in your country?”—encouraged participants to reflect on masculinity beyond their personal experiences, offering insights into broader cultural perceptions.

A key advantage of our sample is its homogeneous status, which allows for meaningful comparisons and the identification of broader patterns. To analyze cross-cultural differences based on gender equality levels, we selected 15 countries (out of 62) that represent different positions on the Global Gender Gap Index (GGGI) 2021. These countries were categorized into three groups based on their GGGI rankings: High-ranking countries (positions 3–35); Middle-ranking countries (positions 63–75); Low-ranking countries (positions 106–153). Our selection was guided by the recognition that the GGGI is one of the most comprehensive measures of gender equality, effectively capturing differences in the relative status of men and women across countries.

The 15 selected countries vary in the degree of gender parity versus gender inequality experienced by their male and female residents. The Global Gender Gap Index (GGGI) measures women’s national disadvantages relative to men’s across four key dimensions: educational attainment, economic opportunity, political empowerment, and health, using a scale from 0.00 to 1.00 (World Economic Forum, 2021).

Countries with lower GGGI scores tend to have more patriarchal social structures and traditional gendered labor divisions, where men predominantly occupy roles as economic providers and political decision-makers, while women are more often homemakers, caregivers, or low-status workers (Glick et al., 2000; Wood & Eagly, 2012). As a result, in societies with lower gender equality, men as a group hold greater dominance, while women experience greater structural subordination.

‘Unmanliness’ is, first of all, femininity and emotionality

Our research indicates a global consensus among men that traits and practices culturally associated with femininity are seen as unmanly. Generally, respondents perceive masculinity in contrast to femininity, rather than as an independent concept. In most countries, highlighting what is deemed unmanly emphasizes the traditional boundary between being ‘like a woman’ and being ‘like a man.’ This perspective allows little room for non-heteronormative identities, such as queer or transgender constructs (Duggan, 2022). This distinction is particularly noticeable in discussions about emotionality, where feelings such as tearfulness, fearfulness, and insecurity are often perceived as feminine traits associated with weakness and fragility. These perceptions manifest in various aspects, including movements, gestures, expressions, nonverbal communication, vocalizations, and interactions that take on a ‘female’ role. Both themes of femininity and emotionality were evident in the narratives gathered from all participating countries, regardless of their standings in the Global Gender Gap Index (GGGI).

As it turns out, what is viewed as unmanly in all the surveyed countries is largely related to emotional expression: first, displaying emotions in public places and second, crying in public. Expressing emotions, then, is unmanly in the USA (position 30): showing affection to a specific subject or crying in public; crying and being compassionate and sympathetic towards others unmanly; showing vulnerable emotions such as crying^{Footnote 1}. It is also unmanly to be an overly sensitive person, someone who is too worried about small things that have no impact on your life in 10 minutes. Also, in Germany (position 11), crying in public places, showing emotions in public are commonly indicated as unmanly traits. One of the German respondents puts it like this: I think one behavior that is considered unmanly in our society is showing feelings openly. Similarly, in England (position 23), showing emotions or compassion, especially in a workplace is regarded as unmanly. In Argentina (position 35), crying as an unmanly behavior is a very frequent motif.

We can find similar motivations in the responses of Spanish students, who typically associate unmanly behaviors related to the public expression of emotions., such as crying in public, complaining, showing emotions and feelings in public. Similarly, among the opinions of young Italians, we can find those with which crying in public is associated: crying and being moved; showing too much sadness in adverse conditions such as marital problems, being sensitive to others; showing one’s inner self and fragility. Argentineans often mention being sensitive, compassionate, empathetic, affectionate, hesitant, indecisive.

A man in Poland (position 75) needs to be careful about his voice and gestures: making gestures considered typically feminine and talking in a ‘female’ voice. Also, in Italy, ‘feminine’ gesticulation is regarded as an unmanly behavior. The following juxtaposition was found in the opinion of many young Italians: gesticulating by moving the wrists in an effeminate way and crying are unmanly. Feminine gesticulation is also an unmanly trait indicated by young men from Spain (position 14). Italy (position 63) and Spain are generally countries where ‘speaking is done by means gestures’ (see, e.g., Kendon, 1995), so respecting the gender difference in this sphere of interaction within the scope of gesticulation is not surprising. However, it is interesting to note that ‘feminine’ gesticulation, particularly connected with the expression of emotions, is also regarded as unmanly behavior in Nepal (position 106). As in Spain, feminine ‘sweetness’, girlish ‘sweet-talking’ during a conversation, or an emotional tone regarded as a girlish reaction (sweet reaction to situations) are considered unmanly.

In Nepal, in any event, if a man cries, it is strange; crying, or expressing other emotions, such as excitement and/or pain, may lead to a male being seen as ‘weak’.

Respondents from Morocco (position 144) point out what respondents from all other countries covered by the study indicate: talking and walking like a woman is unmanly. Similarly, the unmanly equals the feminine in Turkey (position 133): Unfortunately, despite all the unfinishedness of our people, no situation in our society says, ‘men should not do this animalhood’ except for saying ‘do not do this like a wife’. Like everywhere, apart from crying and showing one’s emotions in public, dressing like a woman, carrying a purse, putting on make-up, and growing or coloring hair is unmanly.

‘Unmanliness’ in countries higher in GGGI is acting like and looking like a woman

The differentiation of what is considered unmanly is evident in respondents’ views on external appearance and the care associated with it. Practices such as wearing make-up, painting nails, and undergoing cosmetic treatments or plastic surgery are strongly linked to femininity. Our findings indicate that in countries ranked higher on the Global Gender Gap Index (GGGI), responses identifying these “feminine” practices as unmanly are more prevalent. Conversely, in countries that rank lower on the GGGI, there is a noticeable decrease in references to these practices, with a shift towards mentions of physical and sexual violence. The higher country’s the position in the GGGI, the more frequently feminine bodily practices are referred to. This means that in countries such as Norway—with the strongest degree of emancipation and with the highest gender equality—references to bodily care are more frequent than in countries such as Poland, which is in the middle of the ranking and is characterized by several features indicating gender equality problems.

Norwegians (ranked 3^rd in GGGI 2021) perceive what is unmanly in practices stereotypically attributed to women, in women’s tendency to beautify the body: wear a dress, put on makeup; dye your hair; dress in women’s clothing. sitting with legs crossed, having many female friends; own body aesthetics outside of exercise (e.g., cosmetics, skincare, nail care, etc.), wearing make-up, changing the look in the form of surgeries; putting on make-up is considered less masculine; use make-up products; dress up ‘female’; excessive focus on appearance; to paint their nails or put on make-up. The same concerns male responses in Germany (GGGI position 11), where the following behaviours are regarded as unmanly: wearing women’s clothes.; dressing or styling in a more traditionally feminine way; wearing e.g., pink/purple clothes—hair coloring, nail polish, make-up—placing a high value on appearance; wearing makeup; having leg hair, wearing makeup, having breasts. Also in Spain (position 14), respondents consider beautification and appearance improvement practices to be unmanly, sparing no details indicating precisely what makes a man unmanly: wearing a skirt and putting on makeup; putting on feminine clothes; drawing eyebrows; make-up or dress with accessories such as bags or heels; paint your nails … anything that has to do with aesthetics; dress in ‘women’s clothing’ (skirts, dresses …); makeup, wear clothes traditionally related to women (skirts, dresses).

In English statements (GGGI position 23) references to feminine appearance are not that intense. Young Englishmen write about: applying makeup; wearing make-up, shaving their legs, wearing make-up and high heels used to be status symbols for men, wearing makeup and cross-dressing, these are looked down upon as they are not being ‘manly’ enough. However, they enrich these descriptions with comments about their distance towards referring to such practices in the context of masculinity/non-masculinity: Probably, it all depends on the culture at the time; It’s relative. It is important to note that statements about dressing like a woman are sometimes mixed with traditional feminine roles that are automatically viewed as unmanly occupations.: wearing certain types of clothes – very colorful clothes, tight jeans or pants; wearing make-up, baking, knitting, household chores, in general, I would say. Respondents from the USA (GGGI position 30) often detail unmanly appearance traits, including makeup, dresses, painted nails, and feminine accessories like bags. According to young Americans, it is unmanly to dress like a woman: Most people in my society would consider a man carrying a purse unmanly just because purses are meant for women, this leads to people degrading a man’s manhood; and attracting attention by wearing such clothes: wearing feminine clothing; when men/boys wear clothes that don’t fit a traditionally masculine form – for example, dresses, ‘girly’ clothes (pink, sparkly), colored jeans, and when men wear makeup; dressing in bright colors or going into a ‘girly’ store; shopping, getting pedicures, getting hair colored, shaving legs, etc.; wearing a dress, carrying a purse, wearing makeup. Young American males often view certain practices, including using skin cream and body hair removal, as unmanly, not just cosmetic but also hygienic (it is seen as unmanly for a man to do things for his hygiene such as groom and getting manicures/pedicures; self-care; getting their eyebrows plucked or having pedicures/manicures), or even taking care of one’s health. In statements of respondents from Argentina (GGGI position 35), aspects of feminine dress and appearance are often mentioned, but they are not the leading motif in the definition of ’unmanliness’. We can see here opinions about appearance, makeup, and wearing feminine clothes, along with the feminine style of communication.: wearing women’s clothing or putting on makeup; wearing some type of makeup, wearing delicate clothing, having mannered behaviors; makeup, female clothes; wearing pink; the effeminate way of dressing, painting, talking, and walking, makeup.

‘Unmanliness’ in countries lower in GGGI is using violence against women

The second notable difference regarding what is deemed unmanly globally is seen in respondents’ views on violence.

Violence against women is quite often mentioned by respondents from Nepal, where Harassing the female members of society is unmanly and an unmanly behavior in my society could for instance be being violent toward women. This phenomenon is also listed very frequently by respondents from Nigeria (position 139), who refer to the beating of women: beating up a woman; man hitting and threatening physical violence against women; fighting a woman; beating one’s wife; beating of a woman is considered unmanly in my society. Sexual violence against women is also mentioned in this country: rape; raping; men, who rape, harass, or force anyone. Aggression and physical (or sexual) violence seem to be almost symptomatic for the definition of unmanly behaviors in Nigeria. Respondents situate this problem in a broader context when speaking generally about the bad treatment of women in their country: treating women badly; and stigmatizing the female gender over some social status – as something unmanly. Their statements refer to the need for protection and adequate treatment of women, which is accompanied by relevant imagery: men are meant to care for and protect women in our society not to turn them into a beating drum. Other research suggests that masculinity in Nigeria is largely defined by dominance, particularly within the family structure. Manhood is often closely tied to a man’s social position within the household, as well as his physical ability to satisfy his female partner(s) sexually and to produce children. Furthermore, decision-making authority—including reproductive choices—is primarily vested in men, reinforcing traditional gender hierarchies. As one study describes: “(…) Manhood is usually strongly associated with the social position in the family and the physical capability to satisfy the sexual needs of the female partner(s) and to produce children. Decision-making authority, including the decision on reproduction, is largely vested in the man.” (Olawoye (2004): 1).

The negative treatment of women in Nigeria may stem from deeply ingrained socialization patterns. As Egodi Uchendu (2007) notes, young men in Nigeria often associate manhood with superiority over women, and in some cases, physical aggression and sexual violence may serve as a means of maintaining control within socially constructed masculine roles. However, our study reveals a generational shift among young, highly educated men, who explicitly criticize the oppression of women and label it as unmanly behavior. This apparent contradiction may arise from several factors. First, higher education may expose male students to alternative gender norms, shaping a different habitus that enables them to achieve higher social and economic status without relying on dominance or violence to affirm their masculinity. Second, these students may be conscious of prevailing moral and ethical standards, recognizing that condemning violence against women aligns with social expectations for educated men. While these interpretations offer potential explanations, further research is needed to explore how education influences perceptions of masculinity and gender-based violence within this specific cultural context.

Another country placed at the bottom of the GGGI ranking is Morocco (position 144). Respondents from this country also indicate aggression and violence in the context of unmanly behaviors and attitudes: sexual harassment, being aggressive to women, lack of respect for the other sex, violence against parents, sisters, and wives, and hitting women. The same goes for Turkey, where behaviors regarded as unmanly include, e.g.: violence against women; raising a hand to women; harassment, rape incidents. Moroccan men wrote that it is unmanly to be financially supported by a wife, which emphasizes the traditional approach to gender roles. Thus, it is difficult for men to recognize the women’s right to economic emancipation in these countries, although it is worth stressing that the question of being the breadwinner in the case of men is also emphasized in some higher-ranked countries in the GGGI, e.g., in the USA.

One of the lowest-ranked countries in the GGGI is Pakistan (position 153). References to violence appear also very frequently in respondents’ opinions, starting from the general statement that physical violence is considered unmanly. Other opinions refer directly to acts of violence against women: men who beat women; hitting a woman is considered unmanly in my society; physical violence against women; hitting a woman, no matter your relation with her. As in the case of other ‘non-emancipated countries’, where respondents’ opinions contain references to violence, Pakistani men address forms of coercion, excessive control, and harassment: a man should not sexually harass women, and don’t try to take charge over them; a man putting unjust control over a woman, or even to an extent of having authority over her; sexual harassment or harassment of any type. thinking of yourself as superior; he shouldn’t treat her as a slave; they shouldn’t show dictatorship towards their housewives.

The countries situated in the lowest positions of the GGGI ranking are characterized by the dominant traditional division of gender roles and obligations and requirements set both for men and women. According to this division, the obligation to maintain the family rests mainly with men, whereas women are more supposed (and often forced) to fulfill caring and subordinated roles. Apart from gender inequality, countries placed in the bottom part of the GGGI are characterized by a considerable degree of poverty and social marginalization – these are the factors that generally contribute to a high level of violence against women and girls (Montesanti, 2015). This might be one of the reasons why physical violence against women appears very often as a behavior regarded as unmanly by respondents coming from Morocco, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Turkey. In the context of our analysis, features such as make-up or the wearing of female clothes are less important here. These aspects have no significance in the context of being unmanly in low-ranked countries. They are not a problem here, unlike in such countries as Germany or Norway.

Our research shows, however, that violence against women is indicated (in the context of unmanly behaviors) also in some higher-ranked states in sporadic cases. This does not refer to countries from the top of the ranking, but such statements do occur in Argentina (pos. 35) or Italy (pos. 63) considering violence against women as unmanly, which is reflected by opinions such as: Harassing or putting women down; […] harassing a woman or other people’s children; Using physical and psychological violence against women.

Our study reveals that across all countries, regardless of their level of gender equality, traits and behaviors perceived as ‘unmanly’ are consistently associated with femininity. This includes stereotypically female characteristics such as emotionality, weakness, and fragility, as well as gestures and speech patterns traditionally linked to women. In most cultures, ‘unmanliness’ is commonly defined by three core attributes: displaying emotions in public, crying openly, and engaging in behaviors considered feminine. These findings align with previous research conducted primarily in Western Europe and the United States.

While there are global commonalities in how ‘unmanliness’ is perceived—many traits and behaviors are recognized as unmanly across different cultures—this does not mean that men from diverse backgrounds completely agree on its definition. Cultural, political, and religious contexts shape these perceptions, as reflected in countries’ rankings on the Global Gender Gap Index (GGGI).

In high-GGGI countries (e.g., Norway, Ireland), unmanliness is often associated with feminine physical traits such as clothing and grooming practices (e.g., wearing makeup). We argue that in societies with greater gender equality—where economic disparities between men and women have diminished and legal and cultural norms no longer significantly favor men—masculinity is increasingly defined by physical distinction from women. As traditional gender roles blur, men in these societies may emphasize bodily differences and outward appearance to assert their masculinity. This aligns with studies suggesting that men in highly gender-equal countries perceive masculinity as becoming more feminine in recent decades (Lopez-Zafra & Garcia-Retamero, 2012) and that men are increasingly participating in traditionally feminine domains (Dotti Sani, 2014; Scambor et al., 2014).

This evolving concept of masculinity can challenge traditional male identity (cf. Donnelly & Twenge, 2017), leading men to reinforce physical markers of masculinity in response. In contrast, low-GGGI countries do not exhibit the same emphasis on physical differentiation from women. Instead, masculinity in these contexts is more closely tied to social dominance and control over women.

On a broader scale, the globalization of gender norms and the increasing capitalist commodification of femininity (Chen et al., 2023) may contribute to a worldwide shift in how ‘unmanliness’ is evaluated. Over time, this could further reinforce feminine physicality (clothing, grooming, and bodily practices) as primary markers of ‘unmanliness’ in diverse cultural contexts.

In low vs high-ranked countries (such as Pakistan, Morocco, or Nigeria) as our study shows, the use of violence against women is more often regarded more as unmanly. We may assume respondents from countries ranking low in the GGGI who form a specific category (wealthy, young students), may fall victim to self-presentation bias. These respondents can be sensitive about outsiders critiquing their country. On the one hand, therefore, indicating violence against women as an unmanly trait is a sign of sensitivity to gender inequality that appears in these countries (respondents know that this inequality is a problem in their countries). On the other hand, when indicating the behavior (violence against women) as unmanly, respondents may be trying to neutralize in advance stereotypical views about the treatment of women in their countries, which they consider to be embedded in researchers’ minds. Seeing physical dominance and aggression against women as unmanly can resemble protective and benevolently sexist behavior from men – women deserve to be protected from violence and dominance from other men; hence, the true man secures women’s safety and comfort, which may, in turn, give men more access to women – and there is evidence showing that lower gender equality levels are correlated with benevolent sexism against women, which can take a form of taking up a special treatment duty by men to protect women from other men (Glick et al., 2000; Zawisza et al., 2025). In other words, here we identify a phenomenon in these countries that can be described as ‘camouflaged paternalism’, which is closely linked to benevolent sexism—the notion that women must be protected from violence (Glick et al., 2000; Wojnicka, 2021; Zawisza et al., 2025). This paternalistic approach defines male dominance as care and protection, reinforcing traditional gender roles under the guise of protection offered to women.

In low-GGGI countries, such as Nepal, Turkey, Nigeria, Morocco, and Pakistan, respondents place little emphasis on physical appearance as a marker of ‘unmanliness.’ The use of makeup, for example, is rarely mentioned as a sign of unmanliness, appearing only in a handful of responses per country. This suggests that cosmetic practices are perceived as distant from the male domain that they are not even considered relevant examples of inappropriate male behavior—they are seen as entirely outside the realm of possibility for men rather than active transgressions of masculinity. Instead, men from these countries tend to define ‘unmanliness’ using broader, globally recognized traits, such as emotionality, crying, and acting in a feminine manner, rather than citing specific visual or physical transgressions like wearing makeup, dyeing hair, painting nails, dressing in traditionally female clothing, or using skincare products. This contrast highlights a fundamental difference in how gender norms are enforced: in high-GGGI countries, masculinity is often reaffirmed through physical and aesthetic differentiation from femininity, whereas in low-GGGI countries, masculinity remains tied to emotional restraint and social dominance over women.

Cultural norms regarding clothing could help shed light on our results. Stricter clothing norms in less gender-equal countries (Tajudin, 2018) allow less freedom of expression for both sexes. Appearance may thus not be an arena for masculine threats – if it is already deeply guided and regulated by cultural norms. Further support for that explanation can be linked with the impact of the cultural context differences derived from the value assigned to one’s honour and one’s dignity (Lee et al., 2014; Uskul & Cross, 2019). The concept of honour and dignity is linked to the sense of internal vs socially conferred personal value. In the ‘dignity cultures’ occurring mostly in Northern states of the USA, Canada and North-Western Europe (Lee et al., 2014), self-worth is inalienable and valued internally. This means that self-worth is based on the individual’s sense of accomplishment, decisions, and values (Aslani et al., 2016) and is independent of external validation. In dignity cultures, depriving individuals of their value is harder since its locus is deep inside the person. On the contrary, in ‘honor cultures’, one’s worth is based mostly on external validation and external acclamation. Honor can be taken away if a person breaks the rules of social conduct concerning manhood. In cultures of honor, such as the UAE, Turkey, Nigeria, Morocco or Pakistan, masculinity is validated externally by others. Looks and the choice of clothes are regulated by strict norms, which are therefore less challenged and potentially less considered as threatening to masculinity – because there is no space here for ambivalence and reflexivity about what clothes to wear. There is, therefore, also no ambivalence about whether a particular outfit is unmanly. The appearance and the choice of clothes do not decide if one is truly a man – they are not a matter of personal choice, like in more gender-equal, individualistic countries.

In countries at the top of the GGGI, we can see the individualization of appearance-related behaviors, along with generational changes. According to the characteristics of respective cultures, self-evaluation, and the evaluation of one’s masculinity occurs internally. What others say about me, is less important. Consequently, this is reduced to “I do indeed know that men do not paint their nails or wear things in pink, but I decide about my appearance myself”. Changes resulting from the increase of gender equality in countries located at the top of the GGGI affect the blurring of differences between women’s and men’s appearances. Thus, men perceive the possibility of retaining their masculinity in appearance.

Our study, though novel and involving multi-nation samples, is not free from the limitations. The first is the specificity of the respondents, who were students. Apart from their age, they represent a specific social group with high social and cultural capital. They may represent different social classes, but the fact that they are students visibly limits the generalizability of our results. Nevertheless, our findings have theoretical and practical significance for understanding how a sample of young adults and students – as cultural agents of gender socialization – hold men to gender rules depending on gender equality levels at the country level.

Another limitation was the inability to ask the respondents about the details of their statements—their testimonies did not come from in-depth interviews. They were derived only from their responses to open-ended questions. They were not exposed to emotions such as the fear and shame associated with talking face-to-face with the researcher or the group effect in group interviews. We therefore assume that they could express their opinion in a calm and unperturbed manner.

Furthermore, incorporating alternative masculinities, such as queer masculinity, could enrich our interpretive framework and provide a more nuanced understanding of what constitutes unmanliness. Integrating these types of masculinities should be a priority for future research.

Finally, our research has focused on only one country-level variable – GGGI. Still, it would also be worthwhile in future research to include other country-level indicators to verify whether our model’s dimensions of ’unmanliness’ are related to other cultural variables, such as values.

In our work, we relate to three dominant theories shedding light on the content of manhood – hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 1987), precarious manhood theory and masculinity threat (Vandello & Bosson, 2013), and the concept of ‘emasculation’ (Munsch & Gruys, 2018). Our results show that both etic elements in the universal and global understanding of manhood resemble the narratives presented by the theories as mentioned above. Still, we also point to potentially unique and emic cultural variations driven by country-level variables such as gender equality progress. Our in-depth analysis of the open-ended responses obtained from 3525 men in 15 countries shows that the concepts of manhood originated in non-Western samples do not necessarily relate to and are built upon notions of hegemonic masculinity. Still, they rather bring on new notions and potential dimensions of ‘unmanliness’ that differ from country to country depending on their gender equality levels. Thus, we spotlight cultural explanations of the understanding of what it means to be unmanly. Therefore, we prepare the ground for a Global Concept of ‘unmanliness’ that could provide a nuanced understanding of manhood and its opposites across numerous cultural settings using more culturally sensitive methods. The GCU contributes to masculinities studies by showing selected themes that threaten masculinity 1) on a global scale – “emotionality and femininity,” and 2) depending on the GGGI index position – “acting and looking like a woman” or “violence against women.”

Our findings also allow to go beyond narrow case studies, which do not offer the possibility of drawing broader generalizations. Our conclusions are based on research conducted in 15 countries with different cultural and social profiles and diverse gender relations. Using a uniform methodological tool, all respondents answered the same question.

Our analyses show that traits that have been identified in former studies conducted as unmanly, such as: “engaging in grooming or cosmetic practices (including wearing make-up), spending time in shopping centers, focusing on health problems, showing concern about healthy food, pro-ecological behavior, practicing stereotypically feminine sports or performing women’s household tasks or childcare duties” and other (c.f. p.3–4) of this article) are not traits identified universally – they seem to be examples important for more gender equal cultural contexts. As we have already shown only persistent gendered view of unmanliness is still constructed via: “being tearful, crying in public spaces and showing emotions in public” (e.g., de Boise, Hearn, 2017; McQueen, 2017; Warner, Shields, 2007), which is globally presented in our data grasp the global sense of ‘unmanliness’.

The Global Concept of ‘Unmanliness’ (GCU) is a model that reflects how men worldwide imagine ‘unmanliness’, containing a set of characteristics that men consider unmanly regardless of their country. Above all, when asked to reflect on ‘unmanliness’ and make statements about what constitutes it, the men we surveyed do not construct it in opposition to their culture’s prevailing pattern of masculinity, often characterized by ‘camouflaged paternalism’. In all the countries studied the construction of ’unmanliness’ is defined as a feminine attitude regardless of the country-level gender equality of a country, independent of whether the social position of women is high or whether it is a country of Global South with strong patriarchal gender relations in everyday life. Our results indicate that the higher the country placement on GGGI, The higher a country ranks on the Global Gender Gap Index (GGGI), the more frequently men are considered unmanly if they adopt feminine physical appearances or engage in bodily practices associated with women, such as wearing makeup. Conversely, in lower-ranking GGGI countries, respondents more often indicate that violence against women is seen as unmanly.

We believe that the Global Concept of ‘Unmanliness’ (GCU)—developed through a uniform methodology across 15 countries and based on responses from over 3,500 participants—provides valuable insights into the lived perceptions of ‘unmanliness.’ By offering concrete examples of what is considered unmanly in different cultural contexts, the GCU framework can serve as a useful tool for further research on hegemonic masculinity (HM), precarious manhood, and emasculation. Additionally, it can contribute to broader studies examining both masculinity and unmanliness, helping to deepen our understanding of gender norms within and across cultural contexts.