Toxic masculinity is a phrase that has gained considerable prominence in recent years. Its origins can be traced back to the mythopoetic men’s movement during the 1980s, which proposed that men were experiencing difficulties in the modern world stemming from an erroneous perception of the ideal macho masculinity, a perception which became classified as toxic, and a subsequent feminisation and softening of men. The movement advocated for the revival of ‘deep masculinity’ from within oneself.
The term subsequently fell out of use until around 2015, when it began to attract significant attention within contemporary discussions, particularly within the realm of fourth-wave feminist theory. Today, it is used as an equivocal term referring to male antisocial behaviour and traditional masculine values. However, is using the term ‘toxic masculinity’ helpful?
Toxic masculinity is premised on the notion that the qualities of traditional or stereotypical masculinity are undesirable and harmful. Yet, the traits encompassed by this definition – including expectations that men should be stoic, tough and daring – have been integral to societal progress, security and safeguarding our liberties for millennia.
This is evidenced by the civilian soldiers in Ukraine, or devoted fathers providing for their families for generations, abandoning their true passions in the process. Labelling the underpinning qualities and values as ‘toxic’ undermines their positive contributions.
Steven Pinker, a Harvard professor of psychology, has expressed concerns about the oversimplification of the term ‘toxic masculinity’. He argues that repressing emotions is not inherently detrimental, and expressing emotions isn’t inherently beneficial.
He points to a vast body of research demonstrating that individuals with greater self-control, including those who suppress anger, tend to lead healthier lives in various aspects, such as academic performance and interpersonal relationships.
Similarly, British psychologist Christian Jarrett supports Pinker’s assertion that emotional self-control is linked to positive health outcomes. Jarrett critiques the APA’s stance that traditional masculinity is harmful, citing a recent APA journal article which found that young men who endorsed the masculine ideal of competitiveness, for instance, exhibited higher psychological well-being scores.
American author and philosopher Christina Hoff Sommers has also been critical of the concept of toxic masculinity. She expresses concern that the narrative around toxic masculinity negatively impacts boys’ development, causing them to feel guilty or ashamed of their inherent traits.
It is relevant to note that stoicism, self-reliance, dominance, success, and physical prowess are qualities that have always been valued by heterosexual women as attractive attributes in a potential partner. Men have evolved a natural inclination towards developing these qualities for this very reason. That’s why all romance novels worldwide, marketed specifically at women, feature a male protagonist that embodies these exact attributes. Understanding this evolutionary perspective sheds light on the fact that masculinity is a source of strength, protection and attraction.
But what about violence among men, antisocial behaviour, and violence against women? They certainly are grave issues, but they stem from complex factors.
In their book The Boy Crisis, Farrell and Gray investigate the unique challenges faced by boys in contemporary society. The authors argue that boys are grappling with issues of identity and purpose, stemming not from an inherent toxicity of masculinity, but from the breakdown of traditional male roles and the lack of male role models.
Is it logically sound to exhibit contempt toward the daily sacrifices made by men or, more disconcertingly, to deride them?- Edward Caruana Galizia
They also point to the increase in fatherlessness, or dad-deprivation, as a principle contributing factor towards the increase in antisocial behaviour and delinquency among boys. They note that dad-deprived boys are more likely to exhibit belligerence, commit crimes and join gangs.
Furthermore, they argue that dad-deprived boys often encounter distorted notions of masculinity, leading to a search for validation and recognition in unhealthy ways. They argue that the cause of the problems facing these boys is the absence of masculinity in their lives, echoing the conclusions of the mythopoetic movement.
Attributing antisocial behaviour solely to the socialisation of boys overlooks the multifaceted nature of human behaviour and the role trauma and neglect play. Classifications of ‘toxicity’ obscure the causes of these problems, and thus result in no one implementing helpful solutions.
It is worth mentioning that women can also exhibit antisocial behaviour, like character assassination, without femininity being stigmatised in any manner. One may wonder why academics are so focused on masculinity and branding parts as toxic, all the while ignoring the issue of antisocial behaviour among women.
In light of all this, is it not judicious to be cautious when embracing a conception of masculinity that pathologises its very essence? By vilifying these inherent instincts that men have and values they have lived by, might we be inadvertently undermining a profoundly constructive force to our own detriment? Moreover, is it logically sound to exhibit contempt toward the daily sacrifices made by men or, more disconcertingly, to deride them?
Understanding the profound effects of fatherlessness and the erosion of traditional male roles is crucial in comprehending the difficulties faced by boys, and in finding solutions for the male victims of dad-deprivation.
This requires addressing the issue at societal and individual levels, promoting awareness, and implementing programmes that foster healthy family structures and mentorship opportunities for fatherless boys.
Since June is ‘Men’s mental-health awareness’ month, perhaps we should reflect on such issues. A nuanced understanding of masculinity is essential, avoiding unfair marginalisation or stigmatisation. We should remember that the ultimate goal is to promote empathy, understanding and unity, not to foster division and resentment.
Edward Caruana Galizia is an actor and has a master’s degree in culture, diaspora and ethnicity from Birkbeck University of London.