Behind the Mask: How Gender Scripts Shape Emotional Pain

In therapy rooms, schools, corporate offices, and family homes, unseen forces shape how people relate to one another, handle stress, and express emotion. These forces aren’t ghosts or fate—they’re the inherited expectations around gender that tell us what we’re allowed to feel, want, and become. While “toxic masculinity” and “toxic femininity” have become buzzwords in modern discourse, they are often misunderstood or reduced to caricatures. But at their core, they represent internalized scripts—compulsive patterns of behaving and believing—that can silently distort relationships, identity, and mental health.

This article dives deep into the roots of these patterns, debunks outdated psychological models, and explores how modern neuroscience is shifting our understanding. Through lived case examples and current research insights, we’ll examine what happens when gender roles become cages—and how we might begin to unlock the doors.

I. A Brief History of Gender Roles and Their Toxic Offshoots

Historically, gender roles weren’t invented maliciously—they were pragmatic responses to survival. In early human tribes, physical differences often determined labor divisions: men hunted; women gathered and nurtured. These roles solidified over time into ideologies of masculinity and femininity. The Industrial Revolution and post-war eras (particularly the 1950s) hardened them even further. Masculinity became synonymous with stoicism, independence, and control. Femininity was cast as nurturing, compliant, and emotionally intuitive.

The term “toxic masculinity” gained scholarly attention in the 1980s through the mythopoetic men’s movement, a group of writers and therapists led by figures like Robert Bly. They argued that boys in Western cultures are emotionally orphaned, forced to sever from their softer emotions to meet an archetype of “manhood” (The Brink, 2024; The Mythic Masculine, 2024). Bly’s influential book Iron John explored how modern society had robbed men of emotional expressiveness, resulting in either emotional repression or destructive, hypermasculine behaviors-what the movement termed “toxic masculinity” (The Mythic Masculine, 2024; Laurence H. Johns, 2023). Feminist literature expanded the concept, framing toxic masculinity as a byproduct of patriarchy that harms everyone, including men themselves (Ford, 2020; Overland, 2019).

By contrast, “toxic femininity” lacks a well-defined scholarly origin. It often circulates in political rhetoric or pop psychology, but when applied meaningfully, it refers to social conditioning that rewards women for passivity, manipulation through victimhood, or prioritizing appearance and emotional labor over autonomy (Vermani, 2021).

What makes these roles toxic is not their origin but their rigidity—when they become internal mandates that deny people emotional truth, relational agency, or psychological flexibility.

II. Outdated Models That No Longer Serve Us

1. Biological Determinism

For decades, psychological theory leaned heavily on biological determinism, attributing male aggression to testosterone and female empathy to estrogen. But neuroscience now shows that behavior is not hardwired by hormones. Rather, gene-environment interactions, brain plasticity, and learned social behaviors play far more pivotal roles. Cultural cues, relational reinforcement, and traumatic imprinting shape emotional responses more than biology alone.

2. Freudian and Psychoanalytic Missteps

Freud’s now-infamous ideas—like penis envy and castration anxiety—offered early psychological frameworks that sadly cemented gender stereotypes. Freud viewed men as active agents and women as passive reactors, perpetuating a hierarchy of psychological development that sidelined female autonomy and nuance. These ideas also emphasized pathology in deviation: a man expressing tenderness was feminized; a woman asserting herself was neurotic.

While psychoanalysis has evolved (e.g., object relations theory), these foundational distortions left a legacy that still echoes in how gender is treated in therapeutic spaces.

3. Binary Gender Thinking

Many past psychological models assumed a binary worldview: masculine vs. feminine, assertive vs. nurturing. This false dichotomy overlooked gender diversity and non-binary identities and framed deviation as deviance. Even the influential Bem Sex-Role Inventory (1974), which tried to explore androgyny, still relied on binary constructs to measure adaptability.

Modern psychological science recognizes gender as a spectrum of identity and expression. When frameworks force people into boxes, the outcome isn’t structure—it’s shame.

III. Modern Understanding: Gender Scripts as Psychological Armor

Today, psychologists view toxic masculinity and femininity not as traits, but as scripts—learned and reinforced expectations that people perform under pressure. These scripts can offer a temporary sense of safety, belonging, or power, but they come at a cost: emotional disconnection, fractured intimacy, and distorted self-concept.

Toxic Masculinity: A Script of Suppression

Key elements include:

• Emotional stoicism and suppression

• Use of dominance to assert worth

• Rejection of vulnerability and softness

• Fear of emasculation or appearing “weak”

• Aggression as a default conflict strategy

  
  

This script leaves men emotionally isolated and vulnerable to explosive outbursts, substance dependence, and chronic stress-related illness.

Toxic Femininity: A Script of Surrender

Key elements include:

• Passive-aggressive communication

• Prioritizing appearance or likability over authenticity

• Emotional martyrdom (“I’ll just do it all myself”)

• Suppressing anger to preserve harmony

• Using helplessness or guilt to control outcomes

  
  

Rather than authentic care, this script often fosters resentment, manipulation, and burnout—especially in relationships where invisible labor becomes the norm.

IV. What Neuroscience Reveals About Gender and Emotional Conditioning

1. Emotional Regulation and Brain Activity

The prefrontal cortex (responsible for rational thinking and decision-making) and the amygdala (involved in fear and threat detection) show differing activation patterns in individuals who have internalized rigid gender norms.

Studies indicate that men conditioned to suppress emotion often show altered neural responses to emotional stimuli. Expressive suppression is associated with increased activation in the amygdala and frontoparietal regions, such as the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, while effects on the insula and anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) can vary depending on the type of emotion being regulated (Goldin et al., 2008; Dörfel et al., 2014). These neural patterns are linked to reduced emotional awareness and impulse control (Goldin et al., 2008), which may have downstream effects on psychological wellbeing. For example:

• Suppression can increase insula activation when regulating disgust.

• Reduced ACC engagement is linked to impaired emotion regulation in psychiatric disorders.

These neural patterns may influence emotional awareness and impulse control.

2. Social Pain Mirrors Physical Pain

Rejection-particularly for violating gender norms-activates the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC), a brain region also involved in processing physical pain (Eisenberger et al., 2003; Vijayakumar et al., 2017; Rotge et al., 2015). This overlap helps explain why shaming boys for crying or girls for being assertive can leave deep neurological marks: the brain registers these experiences as genuine harm, engaging neural circuits associated with both social and physical pain (Vijayakumar et al., 2017; Rotge et al., 2015; Lieberman & Eisenberger, 2015).

3. Oxytocin and Emotional Bonding

Oxytocin, often dubbed the “bonding hormone,” is not inherently gendered. While higher baseline levels are found in women (Dörner et al., 2019; Cahill, 2014), oxytocin is socially responsive: it increases through eye contact, physical touch, and emotional openness-all behaviors that may be discouraged in environments shaped by toxic masculinity scripts (Dörner et al., 2019).

When men are encouraged to express vulnerability or affection, oxytocin levels can rise, which is associated with reduced stress and improved emotional regulation (Cahill, 2014). This underlines the potential for change through relational safety and therapeutic support.

V. Case Studies: Gender Scripts in Everyday Life

Case Study 1: Michael – The Weight of the Corporate Mask

Background: Michael, a 42-year-old senior manager, sought therapy after being placed on performance review. His feedback cited abrasive leadership, poor team morale, and a lack of empathy. Privately, he admitted to chronic insomnia, back pain, and a growing disconnection from his wife and teenage son.

Michael had been raised in a household where vulnerability was ridiculed. His father often repeated, “No one’s going to feel sorry for you—get on with it.” He had never cried as an adult and admitted he felt disgusted when others, especially men, expressed sadness.

Presentation: In early sessions, Michael presented as guarded and solution-focused: “Just tell me what to do so this doesn’t affect my job.” He scoffed at terms like “emotional intelligence.” When asked about joy, grief, or fear, he paused uncomfortably and redirected to work metrics.

Therapeutic Work: Using schema therapy, the core belief identified was “I must always be in control, or I’ll be humiliated.” This belief was rooted in early memories of being shamed for needing comfort. Cognitive-behavioral interventions helped Michael reframe his assumptions about strength and explore alternative scripts. Exercises included emotion labeling, somatic grounding, and roleplay around expressing disappointment without aggression.

Breakthrough: A turning point came when Michael reflected on his son’s recent panic attack and realized he had responded with frustration, not care. "I’m doing to him what my dad did to me,” he admitted tearfully—his first emotional release in years.

Outcome: Over six months, Michael’s relationships improved. He began using reflective listening at work and rebuilt emotional trust with his son. His job performance recovered, but more importantly, he dismantled the internalized message that “feeling is failure.”

Case Study 2: Sophie – The Silent Burnout of Emotional Martyrdom

Background: Sophie, 35, came to therapy for fatigue and frequent anxiety attacks. She was a full-time employee, part-time university student, and caregiver to her aging mother. In her romantic relationship, she described herself as the “emotional glue” holding everything together.

She often felt resentful, but when asked if she voiced her needs, she responded, “I don’t want to burden anyone. If I say anything, it’ll just cause conflict.”

Presentation: Sophie was highly self-aware and articulate but habitually downplayed her struggles. She reported that her partner rarely initiated intimacy or offered help around the house, but she felt guilty bringing it up: “He already works hard—I shouldn’t complain.”

Therapeutic Work: A schema-driven lens revealed Sophie's internalized belief: “My worth is tied to being needed.” This intersected with cultural norms that praised her as “the strong woman who never breaks.”

Therapy included boundary setting, identifying passive-aggressive communication patterns, and differentiating between sacrifice and self-abandonment. An ACT (Acceptance and Commitment Therapy) approach helped Sophie realign her actions with deeper values—not just “keeping peace,” but building authentic intimacy.

Breakthrough: During a session exploring unspoken resentment, Sophie said, “I think I unconsciously create situations where I’m indispensable—then I can’t be left.” This insight reframed her “helpfulness” as a protective strategy against abandonment.

Outcome: With practice, Sophie began initiating uncomfortable conversations and declined additional caregiving responsibilities. Her panic symptoms decreased, and she reported a growing sense of self-trust. “I’m not less loving,” she said in a later session, “I’m just not disappearing anymore.”

VI. Conclusion: From Scripts to Freedom

The real danger of toxic gender scripts isn't just how they limit behavior—but how they hide themselves in what society considers “normal.” Michael’s emotional avoidance didn’t seem problematic until it cost him his family connection. Sophie’s selflessness was praised until it eroded her sense of self. These scripts are powerful precisely because they are invisible, rewarded, and inherited.

But they are not unchangeable. Neuroscience affirms that with safety and practice, the brain can rewire itself—emotional regulation, empathy, and authenticity are all trainable capacities (Siegel, 2012). Psychotherapy can serve as a space to challenge these inherited performances and reclaim the full range of emotional experience, regardless of gender.

We cannot erase gender roles overnight, nor should we pretend they haven’t shaped us. But we can question their cost. We can create room for men to grieve and nurture, for women to rage and lead—without shame. Healing begins when we stop performing and start connecting.

REFERENCES

Cahill, L. (2014). Sex differences through a neuroscience lens: Implications for research and practice. Learning & Memory, 21(9), 543–546

Dörfel, D., Lamke, J.-P., Hummel, F., Wagner, U., Erk, S., & Walter, H. (2014). Common and differential neural networks of emotion regulation by detachment, reinterpretation, distraction, and expressive suppression: A comparative fMRI investigation. NeuroImage, 101, 298–309

Dörner, G., Plöchl, E., & Schmid, J. (2019). Sex-related differences in plasma oxytocin levels in humans. Current Neuropharmacology, 17(11), 1785–1792

Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302(5643), 290–292

Ford, C. (2020). Boys will be boys: Power, patriarchy and toxic masculinity. Allen & Unwin.

Goldin, P. R., McRae, K., Ramel, W., & Gross, J. J. (2008). The neural bases of emotion regulation: Reappraisal and suppression of negative emotion. Biological Psychiatry, 63(6), 577–586

Hayes, J. P., VanElzakker, M. B., & Shin, L. M. (2010). Staying cool when things get hot: Emotion regulation modulates neural mechanisms of memory encoding. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 4, 230

Johns, L. H. (2023, March 27). Ten important books of the mythopoetic men's movement. The Mythic Masculine

Lieberman, M. D., & Eisenberger, N. I. (2015). The dorsal anterior cingulate cortex is selective for pain: Results from large-scale reverse inference. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(49), 15250–15255

Overland. (2019, November 22). Why the phrase 'toxic masculinity' is an obstacle to change. Overland Literary Journal

Rotge, J. Y., Lemogne, C., Hinfray, S., Huguet, P., Grynszpan, O., Tartour, E., ... & Fossati, P. (2015). A meta-analysis of the anterior cingulate contribution to social pain. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 10(1), 19–27

The Brink. (2024, September 30). A brief history of toxic masculinity.

The Mythic Masculine. (2024, August 19). Are we in a renaissance of the mythopoetic men's movement?

Vanderhasselt, M. A., Baeken, C., Van Schuerbeek, P., Luypaert, R., & De Raedt, R. (2013). ‘Put on your poker face’: Neural systems supporting the anticipation for expressive suppression and cognitive reappraisal. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8(8), 903–910

Vermani, M. (2021). Toxic femininity: What it is and how to recognize it. Psychology Today

Vijayakumar, N., Cheng, T. W., Pfeifer, J. H., & Flournoy, J. C. (2017). Social pain and social gain in the adolescent brain. Scientific Reports, 7, 42010