Who Is Toxic? Part 3: When Feminism Took Over ‘Toxic Masculinity’
Revising the history and building a new perspective on one of the most contested terms in the gender war
The way ‘toxic masculinity’ is used these days is itself toxic. It’s not that there is no such thing — we all know guys who fit the picture. But the way it’s used in practice is often wrong. History, psychology and philosophy can teach us how to reclaim it and you can start applying this lesson today.
The story so far:
Who Is 'Toxic'?
A Call To All CriticsThe birth and early use of the term
If until 2015 ‘toxic masculinity’ was an obscure term with twenty mostly academic Google hits per year, in 2016 it simply exploded. It has become the go-to phrase in conversations about Trumpism, Brexit, and the #MeToo movement (Pettyjohn et al. 2019). Suddenly, everybody was talking about it, all the time.
By 2017, Google hits numbered in the thousands, mostly non-academic — though academic research soon followed suit. The term rapidly became extremely popular, especially amongst feminist scholars and commentators.
This is crucial. Before 2016, it was mainly used by men to criticise other men. It was a tool for self-improvement and correction within a group. Now, it became primarily a tool used by one group (women) to criticise another (men).
As you will see, who uses a term has a profound impact on what it means.
Unclear
And what does ‘toxic masculinity’ mean now? You would be wrong to think that all this new scholarship and public debate came with increased clarity. Instead, it was and continues to be used as a term of convenience. ‘We all know what it is, amarite?’
Feminists have adopted toxic masculinity as shorthand for characterizing homophobic and misogynist speech and violence by men. […] Academic databases show that, since 2016, scholars across disciplines have used the term. Surprisingly, more than half of the top 60 returns provide no definition: the term is used descriptively, without theorization or operationalization. Many linked toxic masculinity with other disparaging labels. (Harrington 2020)
Harrington is not alone in her realisation — many scholars noted that the term is remarkably nebulous and used in different ways by different people. The lack of definition and a liberal use of the term led to it being effectively massively overused.
If you thought that the GRSP effectively pathologised masculinity and men, just wait to hear how the way men sit, walk, hike, play, or ask ‘excuse me’, can be toxic. In fact, some have gone as far as to say that all masculinity is toxic. That’s from John Stoltenberg, by the way. If you’re surprised that a man could say that, just know that he was married to Andrea Dworkin, the god-mother of all radical feminists, known for saying that ‘all sex is rape.’
As Harrington writes, most of the sources discussing toxic masculinity
did not define it, relying on it to signal disapproval [and linking it] with other disparaging labels. (Harrington 2020)
In other words, most of the time when the term is used, it doesn’t have a clear meaning. It is simply used to indicate ‘the stuff we don’t like about men’ — which, incidentally, seems to be pretty much everything.
It is also unclear which men are toxic. While not officially intended to encompass all men, this is how the term is often used in practice, which ‘may be as toxic to men as the negative ideas it was initially meant to tease out’ (Barth 2019). Stoltenberg’s approach didn’t help either.
What this new approach is clear about, however, is that we need to do something. The feminist interest in the term might not have brought much clarity, but it certainly brought a lot of urgency and refocused us on action.
Because let’s be honest: for all its great ideas and narratives, the Mythopoetic Men’s Movement didn’t achieve much. Forty years after its heyday, men are struggling with the same problems.
Most men who behave in ways they recognised as ‘toxic’ feel significantly less pressure to do something about it than those on the receiving end of their toxicity. Those on the receiving end care less about what the pain exactly is and more about making it stop.
Women-focused
As the term was now used by women and focused on action, a further shift happened. Just look at what Sculos (2017) includes in his attempt to bring together its themes:
Norms, beliefs, and behaviors often associated with toxic masculinity include: hyper-competitiveness, individualistic self-sufficiency (often to the point of isolation nowadays, but still, and more commonly in the pre-Internet days, in a parochial patriarchal sense of the male role as breadwinner and autocrat of the family), tendency towards or glorification of violence (real or digital, directed at people or any living or non-living things), chauvinism (paternalism towards women), sexism (male superiority), misogyny (hatred of women), rigid conceptions of sexual/gender identity and roles, heteronormativity (belief in the naturalness and superiority of heterosexuality and cisgenderness), entitlement to (sexual) attention from women, (sexual) objectification of women, and the infantilization of women (treating women as immature and lacking awareness or agency and desiring meekness and “youthful” appearance).
Out of the 11 characteristics Sculos mentions, six have to do with how men relate to women, a further two have to do with the gender roles and sexuality of other people, and even self-sufficiency is tied to being autocratic over family (women). Violence, although not directly listed as violence towards women, is often seen as such, which leaves one feature — hyper-competitiveness — which is not actually about everyone except (straight cis) men. Well, OK, let’s count violence and self-sufficiency as well, that’s three. Count half of the gender roles, too. That’s 3.5. Out of 11.
This is no isolated case and it is hardly limited to academic discourse. Just check out this 2022 Salon article by Michael Flood:
This version of masculinity is seen as “toxic” for two reasons.
First, it is bad for women. It shapes sexist and patriarchal behaviors, including abusive or violent treatment of women. Toxic masculinity thus contributes to gender inequalities that disadvantage women and privilege men.
Second, toxic masculinity is bad for men and boys themselves. Narrow stereotypical norms constrain men’s physical and emotional health and their relations with women, other men, and children.
In this new narrative, toxic masculinity is still bad for men and boys. But that’s secondary. The main focus is increasingly on how it impacts everyone except (straight cis) men.
This reaches far beyond being bad for women, too, as toxic masculinity was blamed for the raise of alt-right extremism, Trumpism, and climate change. Karen Lee Ashcraft (2022) went as far as to see it as the main cause of all modern populisms.
If toxic masculinity were a disease, the Mythopoetic Movement wanted to create healthy environments in which men won’t get infected and can cure. Modern critics’ primary focus is on forcing men to wear masks so we don’t cough at women.
Divisive
Post-2016, after being adopted by feminist scholars and commentators, the meaning and impact of ‘toxic masculinity’ have changed because who uses it has changed. The term has come to express the perspective and the interests of those who use it.
The interest of the Mythopoetic Men’s Movement was within-group regulation, recognising our own failings and inspiring self-improvement. Thus, the term was largely focused on understanding the causes of ‘toxicity’ and the impact it has on men and people around them.
But neither of those are women’s primary interests — they mainly just don’t want to be affected by it. And thus now the focus is on the effects of ‘toxicity’, primarily on everyone except men. And since so many men and women see themselves as belonging to separate groups, the term becomes more about between-group criticism and blame.
Used within a group, it inspired men to see toxicity as something that could happen to all of us, since we’re all subject to the same forces in the urban industrial society. We know what it is like to behave in a toxic way and what pushes us towards it. If toxicity is a coping mechanism, we have personal experience of the thing we’re coping with. Thus, we can approach it with constructive criticism, but also kindness and understanding. At the same time, we are not the primary victims of the negative effects of toxic masculinity (or at least are less likely to acknowledge that we are), so we feel less urgency to actually deal with it.
Used between groups, the term inspires women to see toxicity as a problem with men, caring little about its sources and focusing on its effects on women, effectively promoting ‘us vs them’ narratives. Women rarely have personal experience of the pressures and struggles men cope with through toxicity — what they experience is being its primary victims. Unsurprisingly, they have more anger in them than kindness and understanding, and want the problem solved with great urgency.
But despite all this shift of perspective, this approach effectively doubles down on one of the most dubious points made in the Mythopoetic Movement: that men and women as essentially different. This gender essentialism further deepens the divisive narratives, particularly as ‘toxicity’ is essentially tied with ‘masculinity.’ Women are perfectly capable of being violent, overly self-reliant, emotionally repressed, or misogynist (or misandrist), yet seem exempt from parallel criticism if not praised as ‘strong independent women.’
Thus, between its nebulous definition, tendency to simply indicate ‘the stuff we don’t like’, and use in inter-group policing, the term often signals a simplistic, divisive narrative: women = good, men = bad.
In practice, it serves as a ideological signal and group identifier: using it immediately puts one in the ‘woke feminist’ camp and causes anyone who does not identify with this camp — and even some men who do — to get defensive or shut down (Barth 2019).
Action-focused (?)
How many situations can you think of where within-group self-regulation was enough to actually change things in any reasonable timeframe? There is nothing like some external pressure to make things actually happen.
Women and other critics are absolutely right to not want to wait a minute longer before men’s violence, dominance, emotional repression, and so on, stop impacting them.
The term’s huge popularity came with a strong focus on action and lead to a massive proliferation of solutions. As you would expect, they are a mixed bag.
Many of them are good, for example: Break the oppressive social norms narrowly defining how men are allowed to express their gender.
Many focus on curing the symptoms: Call out and stop sexist talk and behaviour.
Many are conflicting: Teach men to be vulnerable, yet when they express emotional struggles such as loneliness, scorn them, focusing the narrative on their entitlement to women’s bodies.
Many are counterproductive: Shame and attack men, invalidate their problems, and effectively push them towards those who acknowledge their struggles and give them sympathy — typically the alt-right.
Many are just talk: Especially political talk of toxic masculinity is characterised by ‘bland virtue-signalling and lack of any real substance’ (Gilbert 2023).
We are not low on calls for action, big talk and feeling of urgency. What we are low on, is people interested in turning calls for action into actual action. And this includes people on both sides of the barricade.
Wait, am I including the actual feminists in this? Yes I am.
Why?
You would expect that if somebody is serious about solving something, they would put their money where their mouth is. For example, we are serious about supporting women in pursuing STEM subjects and getting high-paying jobs. Thus, we invest in countless government programmes, NGOs, private support schemes, university scholarships. Thousands of philanthropists donate to them, charity auctions support them, people volunteer a great deal of time to them. Just Google ‘funding for women in STEM’ and you’ll get thousands of reports proudly announcing how millions upon millions are spent on this cause.
But where are the millions upon millions to fund all of the solutions to toxic masculinity? The hundreds of NGOs offering support to boys and men at risk? The university scholarships encouraging men to pursue HEAL subjects? The government programmes combating men’s poverty and addiction, highly correlated with toxic behaviours? The philanthropists throwing money at projects, artists and influencers who create content which shows men a better way? The volunteers coaching boys to question gender norms?
Sure, there are some. But go on, Google for funding for such things. Good luck if you find one hundredth of what we commit to women in STEM.
You could argue that patriarchal structures effectively prevent institutions from seeing the problem and funding solutions. But this is increasingly just not true — most universities in the world are guided by liberal values and are increasingly female-dominated, and governments already showcased their commitment by funding women-centered initiatives.
But most importantly, we don’t need to rely no patriarchal structures to do things. Nothing stops anyone from starting an NGO which would help men develop their communication skills and emotional intelligence.
Nothing stops, say, Françoise Bettencourt Meyers, the richest woman on earth who spends millions to support Women in Science through her L’Oréal-UNESCO Program, from opening a parallel Men in Nursing or Education support program.
And nothing stops you, reading this, from donating a few bucks to MenLiving or the American Institute for Boys and Men, non-profits committed to promoting healthy masculinity. From becoming a member of the MenEngage Alliance which actually works with men and boys on gender justice through intersectional feminist approaches. From volunteering for groups focused on reaching boys such as NextGenMen. From commissioning organisations such as FutureMen to go deliver workshops in your child’s school. From subscribing to excellent channels supporting boys and men most at risk of radicalising by the alt-right, such as HealthyGamer.
Nothing is stopping you from taking effective action that is perfectly within your means.
And if I hear one more ‘feminist’ saying it is not her duty to do anything…
Sure, it’s not your duty.
It is your chance to make the world a better place.
You should only do it if you are actually more interested in solving the problem than in ‘bland virtue-signalling and lack of any real substance’.
‘Toxic masculinity’ in the modern discourse
Over the last 10 years, ‘toxic masculinity’ has come to mean something quite different to what it originally did, largely because it is no longer a within-group tool of self-regulation and understanding, but a between-group tool of criticism and action.
Pardon my cheekiness as I sum it up as follows:
Cause: Male gender norms, the patriarchy, the dysfunctionality of men, but mostly — who really cares?
Symptoms: Abuse, exploitation and disadvantaging of women, violence (mostly against women), upholding of patriarchy and oppressive gender and sexuality norms, extreme self-reliance showcasing men’s deficits in emotional intelligence, hyper-competitiveness.
Impact: It leads to harm to women and LGBTQ+ people, inspires political extremism and populism. Incidentally, it’s also bad for men.
Cure: Fix it! Change now! Action! How? I don’t know, work it out. What support? Why haven’t you fixed it already?! Let me explain how horrible you are again while you … wait, why are you radicalising more?
Term use: Shame and force men into abandoning behaviours which negatively impact women and LGBTQ+ people. Due to bad and insensitive use, the effect is often opposite to the intended.
All in all, between its unclear definition and liberal application, divisive use and tendency to express anger or virtue signal rather than seek solutions, the way ‘toxic masculinity’ is used seems pretty toxic itself.
The above analysis aimed to show how the term has been used. But I am not a historian. I’m a philosopher and want to use the historical knowledge to determine how the term should be used. Read the next parts to see if you find the general framework and specific definition of the term better.
Reclaiming And Reframing ‘Toxicity’ — #NotOnlyMen
Revising the history and building a new perspective on one of the most contested terms in the gender war
simonfokt | Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, TikTok | Linktree
Linktree. Make your link do more.