“Toxic” or Targeted? Why the UK’s New Masculinity Curriculum Risks Doing More Harm Than Good
The UK Government has announced a new curriculum aimed at tackling "misogyny" and "toxic masculinity" among schoolboys. While the stated goal of fostering respect and safety is noble, the proposed method—a state-mandated curriculum focusing on the "flaws" of masculinity—is deeply concerning.
As a psychotherapist working daily with males, I see the real-world impact of these narratives. Rather than supporting the vulnerable, this policy risks further demonising a generation of boys already struggling to find their place in a world that increasingly views their nature as a "problem" to be solved.
The Problem with the "Deficit Model"
The primary issue with this curriculum is that it adopts what psychologists call the "Deficit Model of Masculinity." This model views traditional male traits—competence, strength, stoicism, and risk-taking—not as virtues to be channeled, but as inherent defects.
As Dr. John Barry, co-founder of the Male Psychology Section of the British Psychological Society, has frequently argued, our culture is currently gripped by "Gamma Bias." This is a cognitive distortion where male pro-sociality is minimised, while male anti-sociality is magnified.1 By building a curriculum around the extreme actions of online influencers like Andrew Tate, the government is effectively using the "worst-case scenario" of manhood to define the "average-case" schoolboy.
When we tell boys from the age of five that their gender is inherently "toxic," we are not teaching them respect; we are teaching them internalised shame. In therapy, we know that shame is a driver of aggression, not a cure for it.
Ignoring the Crisis: Boys are Already Falling Behind
It is a profound irony that the government is launching a curriculum to "fix" boys at a time when boys are the ones most consistently failing within the state system.
In his seminal work Of Boys and Men, Richard Reeves highlights a staggering educational gap.2 Boys are behind girls in almost every academic metric, from early literacy to university enrolment. In the UK, the gender gap in university entry is now wider than the gap between rich and poor.
The education system is already arguably "female-typical" in its pedagogy—prioritising sedentary learning, verbal fluency, and early maturation. To introduce a curriculum that further scrutinises male behaviour without addressing the structural failure to engage male learners is a betrayal of these students. Boys don’t need more lessons on why they are problematic; they need an environment that understands their developmental needs.
The Risk of Ideological Overreach
One of the most sensitive aspects of this policy is its delivery. The teaching profession in the UK is overwhelmingly female, particularly in primary and secondary sectors.3 While the vast majority of teachers are dedicated professionals, we must be honest about the potential for ideological bias.
If the "anti-misogyny" training is informed by radical feminist theory or a "misandrist" worldview, there is a significant risk that normal, healthy male developmental behaviours—rough-and-tumble play, competitive drive, or boisterousness—will be re-labelled as "pre-toxic" traits. When boys feel that their teachers view them with suspicion or as "potential offenders," the therapeutic alliance of the classroom is broken. The result is disengagement, resentment, and a further retreat into the very online subcultures the government is trying to prevent.
State Overreach: Who Raises Our Children?
Perhaps the most concerning element of this announcement is the implicit assumption that the State is a better moral guide for boys than their own parents.
This is a classic example of Government Overreach. Parents have the primary right and responsibility to shape the moral and social character of their children. By mandating a curriculum that explores "masculinity" through a political lens, the State is encroaching on the private sphere of the family.
It suggests that the State views children as "subjects" to be socially engineered rather than individuals to be nurtured within the context of their own family values. This undermines the parental bond and assumes a level of expertise in "character building" that the State has rarely demonstrated successfully.
A Non-Zero-Sum Game: Supporting Boys Helps Everyone
It is vital to state clearly: Advocating for the wellbeing of boys in no way detracts from the challenges faced by women and girls.
This is not a zero-sum game. A society with secure, grounded, and purposeful men is a safer and healthier society for everyone. When boys are academically successful, emotionally regulated, and have a positive sense of their own masculinity, they are less likely to be drawn to extremist ideologies or coercive behaviours.
True progress does not come from tearing one group down to elevate another. It comes from a Relational Model—one that recognises that the health of our boys and the safety of our girls are inextricably linked.
A Better Way Forward
Instead of a "deficit-based" curriculum, we need a "strengths-based" approach. We need:
Male-Informed Pedagogy: Acknowledging the "slow maturation" of the male brain (as Reeves suggests) and providing more active, hands-on learning.
Positive Role Models: Addressing the chronic lack of male teachers in early years education.
Positive Masculinity: Teaching boys that their strength, protection, and drive are valuable assets to be used for the good of their community, rather than "toxic" urges to be suppressed.
The government’s plan risks alienating the very people it seeks to help. We must stop treating masculinity as a disease and start treating boys as the capable, valuable, and vulnerable humans they are.
Crucible Personal Development is a private psychotherapy and counselling practice in Preston, Lancashire.
References:
Barry, J. A. (2019). The Handbook of Male Psychology and Mental Health. Palgrave Macmillan. (Foundational text on Gamma Bias and the deficit model).
Reeves, R. V. (2022). Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male Is Struggling, Why It Matters, and What to Do about It. Brookings Institution Press. (Key data on the educational and social displacement of males).
Seager, M., & Barry, J. A. (2019). Cognitive distortion in the way we view males. New Male Studies.
Department for Education (UK). (2024). Gender Parity in Higher Education Statistics. (For data on the widening university gap).
Keywords: male mental health, toxic masculinity, UK education policy, Richard Reeves, Dr. John Barry, deficit model of masculinity, boys in education, gamma bias, parental rights.
