Systemic drivers of male violence: How schools can transform toxic masculinity into gender equity

Indigenous societies often reject the Western binary of toxic vs. 'healthy' masculinity, instead framing masculinity as relational and communal (e.g., the Māori concept of *whanaungatanga*). Many pre-colonial cultures practiced rites of passage that integrated young men into nurturing roles (e.g., the Aboriginal *Kurdaitcha* or the Native American *Vision Quest*), contrasting with incel culture's isolation. However, these models are rarely cited in mainstream discourse, which pathologizes male behavior rather than reimagining it.

Incel ideology echoes 19th-century 'bachelor' movements in Europe and America, where unmarried men blamed women and modernity for their plight. The term 'incel' itself emerged in the 1990s online forums, but its roots trace to misogynist tracts like Otto Weininger's *Sex and Character* (1903) and early 20th-century eugenics. The 2014 Isla Vista killings (Elliot Rodger) crystallized this lineage, yet mainstream coverage rarely connects it to broader histories of male entitlement and state-sanctioned violence.

In Japan, the *herbivore men* phenomenon reflects a rejection of traditional masculinity, while in India, the *Hindu nationalist* movement weaponizes masculinity against 'foreign' threats (e.g., love jihad). Latin American *machismo* cultures often channel male insecurity into hyper-competitiveness, but also into communal care (e.g., *compadrazgo* systems). These contrasts reveal that masculinity is not inherently violent but is shaped by economic and political contexts—something Western analyses often overlook.

Research links incel radicalization to a combination of social isolation, algorithmic exposure to extremist content, and economic precarity (e.g., studies by the *Center for Countering Digital Hate*). Neuroscientific studies show that chronic exposure to misogynistic content rewires reward pathways, reinforcing violent fantasies. However, most studies focus on individual pathology rather than the systemic drivers (e.g., neoliberal labor markets, platform algorithms) that create the conditions for radicalization.

Artistic movements like *toxic masculinity* in hip-hop or *feminist surrealism* (e.g., Frida Kahlo’s self-portraits) expose the absurdity of male entitlement by centering female agency. Spiritual traditions (e.g., Sufi poetry, Buddhist *metta* meditation) offer frameworks for transcending ego-driven violence, yet these are rarely integrated into mainstream discussions. The absence of artistic and spiritual critiques leaves the emotional and symbolic dimensions of incel culture unaddressed.

Scenario modeling suggests that without structural intervention, incel radicalization will intensify as economic precarity grows and AI-driven misinformation deepens. Alternative futures include 'masculinity detox' programs (e.g., Finland’s *Men’s Sheds*) or platform regulations that disrupt algorithmic amplification of misogyny. The most plausible near-term scenario is continued school-based 'awareness' programs failing to address root causes, leading to episodic violence.

Women and LGBTQ+ communities, particularly Black and Indigenous women, are disproportionately targeted by incel violence yet are excluded from policy discussions. Survivors of incel attacks (e.g., the 2018 Toronto van attack) have called for systemic change, but their voices are sidelined in favor of 'expert' analyses. Grassroots groups like *Hollaback!* and *The Consent Collective* highlight how incel culture intersects with racism, ableism, and classism, but their insights are rarely centered.