The harrowing murder of 17-year-old social media influencer Sana Yousaf on June 2, 2025, allegedly at the hands of an obsessed stalker for rejecting his romantic overtures, has once again exposed the sinister undercurrents of toxic masculinity and the lethal entanglement of honour with female autonomy. Tragically, her story is neither unique nor exceptional. It is emblematic of a deeper, festering malaise: the pervasive and unexamined constructions of masculinity that valorise control, suppress empathy, and normalise violence as a response to emotional vulnerability or perceived humiliation.
Despite concerted efforts by the state and civil society, gender-based violence remains endemic in Pakistan, with the country ranked at a dismal 145th out of 146 countries in the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report 2024. These figures do not merely reflect legal failures; they reveal the cultural legitimisation of patriarchal power structures, which continue to operate and oppress with impunity. At the core of Pakistan’s currently escalating gender crisis is not merely a fiasco of law enforcement or legal reform, but a deeper epistemological failure and a collective inability and fragility as a state, nation and society to safeguard women and to critically reimagine the very framework through which we define, nurture and valorise manhood.
In Pakistan, masculinity is too often constructed not by its intrinsic virtues, but in opposition to femininity: non-emotional, non-nurturing, and above all, in control.
It is not manhood or masculinity that is inherently bad, problematic, or toxic, if taken on its own terms. However, when we examine the historical and cultural constructs of masculinity in Pakistan, we uncover a troubling entanglement where manhood has long been defined in ways that foster dominance, control, and emotional insensitivity, particularly towards women. If we dig deeper into this connection between masculinity and gender-based violence, it becomes evident that the issue is not with masculinity per se, but with the toxic ideals that have been grafted onto it over generations. These ideals are reinforced through rigid societal expectations that elevate a specific masculine archetype – one rooted in the possession and defence of zan (woman), zar (wealth), and zamin (land). These three pillars have come to symbolise a man’s worth, casting him as protector and proprietor, and in turn reducing women to assets to be guarded, controlled, or avenged.
These prescriptive, descriptive, and aspirational traits and gender roles that gender researchers have dubbed hegemonic masculinity are perceived, conceived, and constructed as a rigid ideal – one that prizes control, emotional suppression, and dominance over relationality, reflection, and care. This configuration is not biologically inherent, but socially manufactured, culturally celebrated, and institutionally perpetuated, from households to classrooms to courtrooms. In fact, the so-called toxic elements of gender roles lie in the unnecessary policing and lack of flexibility for those expected to conform to them. In Pakistan, masculinity is too often constructed not by its intrinsic virtues, but in opposition to femininity: non-emotional, non-nurturing, and above all, in control. Any deviation from this rigid archetype is pathologised and derided, reducing the term “feminine” to a weaponised insult. This performative ideal of masculinity marginalises alternative expressions of male identity. Young men are socialised to equate self-worth with dominance, and emotional vulnerability is often met with ridicule. To confront gender-based violence meaningfully, we must first deconstruct the moral architecture of masculinity itself and reimagine its foundations through education.
Adolescence represents a formative crucible in which identities are shaped and solidified. During these impressionable years, societal norms around gender, power, and relationships are internalised. Yet, despite the critical importance of this developmental stage, the Pakistani education system largely remains silent on the subject of gender inclusivity. In many cases, it is complicit in reinforcing gendered hierarchies through biased curricula, gendered language, and the absence of female narratives and leadership in history and civics. In textbooks approved for national curricula, men are consistently portrayed as soldiers, leaders, and breadwinners, while women are relegated to passive domestic roles. Such pedagogical omissions are not benign; they actively condition students to accept male dominance as natural and virtuous.
If hegemonic masculinity is a learned behaviour, then it can and must be unlearned – and education must be the frontline in this ideological struggle. Our schools and universities must rise beyond the outdated role of producing passive learners trained only in memorisation. Instead, they must be redefined as transformative spaces where ethical consciousness, emotional resilience, and social responsibility are cultivated. Several transformative educational frameworks offer meaningful pathways for addressing the roots of gender-based violence and rethinking dominant models of masculinity through the classroom. Paulo Freire’s Critical Pedagogy (1970) emphasises the development of critical consciousness, enabling students to recognise and question the oppressive structures that sustain inequality. Gender-Sensitive Pedagogy, as outlined by Sadker and others, challenges gender biases within classroom dynamics and promotes equity in participation, expectations, and representation. Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (Ladson-Billings) calls for teaching rooted in students’ lived realities, while fostering academic success, critical awareness, and social justice.
The writer is a community educator and an independent researcher, particularly interested in curriculum reform, critical pedagogy, and exploring the intersection of education with gender justice.