In a male-dominant world, the term “hegemonic masculinity” is scarcely used in modern gender analysis. However, it is still highly prevalent in our culture as it relates to the set of factors that we use to dictate the “perfect” male. Australian sociologist Raewyn Connell’s 1987 work “Gender and Power” explains that this thinking perpetuates the dogma of male dominance. It considers social constructs as the essential principles society uses to define what it is to be a man. In addition, Connell asserts that there is a spectrum of masculinity within a society and that certain types of men are superior based on a detailed ranking system.

The harmful points of this doctrine shape others’ perceptions and create one shallow truth that defines males, especially when it comes to college campuses.

Despite the vast complexities of humanity, culture has confined this spectrum to only one primary view — outlining a set of characteristics to prove a man’s social standing. Such narrow-minded categorizations magnify the harsh reality of this form of cultural hegemony. In this analogy, the upper-class political power is replaced with a heightened notion of masculinity. College is a flourishing example of how this cultural phenomenon creates a pyramidal hierarchy that treats extroverted males as the highest ranking. These men receive their status because they fit the heteronormative narrative.

A factor in determining men’s status is how many times they attract a woman. Sex is a major epithet of this category, and has been integral for determining the reputation of male college students. Another large aspect is physical frame, as manliness is correlated with physique and fitness — especially abs, biceps and genitalia. However, more than just these concepts, personality is the stand-out factor. Part of society’s image of manhood is that a man is inherently confident and outgoing. Whether it be action heroes or singers, the media usually depicts men as charismatic figures of great resolve.

Through these unrealistic standards, men emulate many of the characteristics of “toxic masculinity.” These two words signify an umbrella term to describe things that fall under machismo. As the Good Men Project states, external sources continue to associate this toxicity with legitimate principles of what defines a man.

Beyond surface-level whining of deprived males, the factors behind this modern hegemonic system can be harmful to the self esteem of the average man. I have experienced judgmental statements from men among the top ranks of this hierarchy. Due to various aspects, I am lower in the ranks and have learned to understand that differences exist between societal ideals and my reality.

But I don’t think this system should ever determine the worth of a man. However, should we choose to ignore the implications of what has been stated, the effect of this arbitrary system on men will never cease. Also, concerns that stem from such concepts will not end either.

Jordan Pytosh is a Weinberg freshman. He can be contacted at [email protected]. If you would like to respond publicly to this op-ed, send a Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. The views expressed in this piece do not necessarily reflect the views of all staff members of The Daily Northwestern.