The numbers of masculinity. When data reveal the cultural roots of violence

The decisive weight of culture in shaping masculinity
61% of the young people interviewed recognize that male behaviors are primarily a cultural product, not a biological one. Girls show an even stronger awareness (64%). This data dismantles the “that’s just how I am” alibi that too often normalizes aggressive behaviors. If masculinity is cultural, then it can be changed.

Yet this theoretical awareness struggles to translate into concrete change. While 79% perceive a distance from their grandparents’ generation, this does not automatically lead to overcoming past masculine models. In fact, the research highlights a paradox that deserves close examination. Although the majority of respondents—specifically 54%—consider the expression “real men” outdated and inadequate (a view held by 63% of girls and 46% of boys), behavioral patterns rooted in traditional and potentially problematic ideas of masculinity persist. This gap between stated awareness and lived practice lies at the heart of the problem. And it is significant to observe how this paradox emerges differently across the three fundamental spheres of male experience analyzed in the study.

In the work sphere, an apparent consensus emerges: the ideal man is someone who takes care of the family (45% of the sample) and of his children (42%), while still aiming for a high salary (41%). However, a deeper look reveals that this apparent uniformity hides substantial gender divergences. For girls, “taking care of the family” means active, equal participation in domestic life, valuing the full use of parental leave rights and seeing work–life balance as a defining feature of contemporary masculinity.

Boys, on the other hand, continue to prioritize competitiveness and economic ambition, interpreting “caring for the family” primarily in terms of financial support rather than emotional presence or active involvement.

Power dynamics and the roots of violence
When we examine the sphere of power, the picture becomes even more complex—and, in some respects, concerning. There is a general preference for mediation and peaceful conflict resolution, but once again this preference masks significant gender differences. Girls not only value these relational skills; they consider them essential traits of a positive masculine model. For them, the ability to mediate, to step back when necessary, and to seek collaborative solutions is not optional but the very core of an evolved masculinity.

Boys, instead, display an ambivalent attitude. While they theoretically acknowledge the value of mediation, they remain attached to traits of authority and strength that recall more traditional and authoritarian models of leadership.

Indeed, while collective imagination values mediation (46%) and the ability to step back (45%), boys perceive their male peers very differently: 47% view them as obsessed with not appearing weak, 44% say they raise their voice when they think it’s needed, and 43% would use violence if necessary. It is precisely in this gap between the declared ideal and lived practice that we can locate the cultural roots of gender-based violence. When a young man grows up in a context that, despite preaching equality, implicitly rewards models of masculinity based on control, extreme competition, and emotional inhibition, a fertile ground may be created for behaviors that can escalate into violence. From this perspective, violence is not a sudden or inexplicable outburst, but the extreme outcome of a cultural continuum that legitimizes subtler forms of domination and control.

Love and control: the gordian knot of the issue
In the sphere of romantic relationships, Ipsos data reveals dynamics that are particularly significant for understanding the roots of gender-based violence.

At first glance, both boys and girls agree on the importance of a masculine model that participates actively in relationships, showing empathy and emotional responsibility. Both recognize the value of greater male involvement in domestic life and task-sharing, stressing the need for equal participation in managing home and family.

However, when we look at concrete expectations, substantial and unavoidable differences emerge. Girls imagine a partner who is genuinely open to dialogue, collaborative in decision-making, capable of emotional vulnerability, and a convinced supporter of equality within the relationship. Boys, while theoretically accepting these principles, still show significant attachment to more traditional views—especially regarding the man’s economic role in the couple and expectations tied to normative heterosexuality. Even more concerning is the persistence, in a non-negligible portion of the male sample, of expectations of economic superiority and decision-making primacy within the couple. These are not mere remnants of the past but real risk factors for dysfunctional relational dynamics. When a man enters a relationship with the implicit expectation of maintaining economic or decisional dominance, any challenge to that presumed primacy can be experienced as a threat to his very identity.

The Ipsos research thus provides a fundamental interpretative key: violence against women does not appear out of nowhere but is rooted in cultural models of masculinity that, despite the ongoing changes, still resist within new generations. Understanding how boys construct their masculine identity today means understanding where and how the culture of possession and control—which can turn into violence tomorrow—takes shape.