UPDATE: Prompted by this article, Dan Griffin, the host of the Man Rules podcast invited me to speak on his program. Listen to our conversation and learn more about what toxic masculinity is and what it isn’t.
Recently, the term “toxic masculinity” as a description of unhealthy, injurious forms of masculinity has garnered much attention. Even though gender thought leaders—particularly in the field of men and masculinities—have been discussing for decades how toxic masculinity is harmful to men’s emotional and relational development, most of that dialogue was far removed from general conversation. Several years ago, when I co-authored a book about diagnosing toxic masculinity and mitigating its effects (Mascupathy: Understanding and Healing the Malaise of American Manhood, IPTM, 2014), it was still considered taboo to question how we raise boys.
In early 2019, the American Psychological Association’s Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men stated that raising boys into “traditional” masculinity is harmful to their health and wellness. Shortly after, Gillette ran a commercial for its razors, “We Believe: The Best Men Can Be,” calling out toxic masculinity and drawing commentary from news media and the public. The nearly two-minute spot elevated the male socialization conversation to a new level. Although the terminology was different, the diagnosis was the same: raising males to adhere to a rigidly polarized definition of masculinity—formulated partially on opposing anything resembling femininity—is dangerous to men’s mental, emotional, relational, and spiritual health and to the health and wellbeing of others.
Misinterpreting “Toxic Masculinity”
Polarized thinking and tribal divisions make it difficult to have reasonable conversations on how to strike balance, embrace complexity, and forge new pathways for human growth and development.
Much of the initial pushback to the idea of toxic masculinity comes from people who take offense to the phrase. Many interpret the words to mean something they don’t and immediately disengage from any useful dialogue. Here are some examples:
- I hear you describe masculinity as “bad” and “toxic” and I can only conclude you are anti-male and that you see all men as bad and toxic.
- I hear you say that men need to be more feminine and I think you’re trying to emasculate men.
- I hear you say only toxic masculinity is a problem, and I say “what about toxic femininity?”
- I hear you wanting to eliminate masculinity and I say that will make boys weak, lazy, and fearful.
Those of us comfortable using the term “toxic masculinity”—social scientists, for instance—need to address critics’ misinterpretation and provide a helpful, accurate counter-narrative.
Masculinity isn’t Toxic
When we talk about toxic water, toxic air, and toxic food, we are not saying that all water, air, or food is toxic. We don’t assume that someone who is a zealous advocate of eradicating toxic forms of water, air, and food from society is anti-water or anti-air or against good food. In fact, it’s considered responsible, communal, and socially conscious to question our historical and contemporaneous practices of processing, storing, and delivering water; of monitoring what and how many agents we emit into the air; and of safely processing, delivering, and preparing food.
Although we may have different ideas about the particulars, most of us agree it would be inane and inappropriate to accuse zealous advocates of sinister intentions to eliminate water, air, and food supplies. The same is true about toxic masculinity. It is being conflated by some to mean masculinity is toxic rather than understanding that “toxic” is being used as an adjective to describe noxious or injurious forms or manifestations of masculinity.
Positive Masculinity versus Toxic Masculinity
Masculinity, in and of itself, is natural, good, and necessary for the survival and evolution of our species. Positive masculinity is how masculine energy—when consciously-calibrated, wisely-timed, and smartly-appropriated—is courageously life-giving, boldly empowering, and fiercely impactful to individual men and everyone else in their lives. Conversely, toxic masculinity is extreme, injurious, ill-timed, and poorly-appropriated. For example, the healthy competition inherent in free enterprise or a sporting event is positive masculinity while competing to win at all costs in intimate relationships or recklessly jostling for space and speed on the highway is toxic.
Although it’s easier for some to name and focus on obvious manifestations of toxic masculinity such as sexual harassment, domestic violence, and bullying, it’s more difficult to take it a step further and discuss ill-timed and poorly-appropriated masculine behaviors. Consider this: We want smart, knowledgeable men instructing and leading others, but we don’t want insecure, sexist men mansplaining to knowledgeable women things they already know.
No one is promoting men’s emasculation; rather, it’s about developing men’s full potential as human beings. Just as men might cross-train on different pieces of exercise equipment or different business platforms, they can cross-train on emotional skills. Tennis greats, Roger Federer and Serena Williams are both fierce competitors on-court but nurturing parents off. There is no rule that because he’s a male and she’s a female, they can’t both have masculine and feminine traits. Gender is more about spectrum than categories. Federer and Williams have just been cross-trained to use the best skills when and where needed. If we want men to be successful, happy, and fulfilled, we have to help them recognize all the health and wellness benefits of affirmative, life-enhancing behaviors.
Breaking out of our Gender Boxes
Gender essentialists believe that most gender differences are biologically driven. They resist the challenge to evolve and cross-train saying they can’t or shouldn’t learn and develop their feminine human energy and neither can or should women be developing their masculine human energy.
But nature is less rigid and more nuanced. As women learn to assert, compete, excel, and confront, they are structurally challenging gender essentialism. And they are validating the gender constructionist argument that—despite inherent biological differences in the sexes—when it comes to gender performance, cultural and societal expectations play a major role in our strengths and weaknesses. This shift will also contribute to the dismantling of patriarchy and challenge the ideas of what it takes to thrive in today’s world. In the same way, the women’s movement helped women break free from the limitations of their socialization, men need support and guidance to break out of their gender box.
Today’s tools for success are different than in the past. The healthiest and strongest humans aren’t those who suppress their humanity to fit into one side of a gender binary. Instead, they are the individuals who burst out of idealized gender boxes and work to cross-train to achieve their full humanity. In doing this, they deconstruct the old gender binary and patriarchal belief that feminine energy is weak (therefore women are inferior to men), and men exhibiting feminine energy—sensitivity, gentleness, and empathy—are weak as well. They embrace flexibility and fluidity, appropriately adapting to context in an interdependent world. To succeed and thrive, they strive to fully develop their physical, emotional, intellectual, relational, and spiritual fitness.
Flexibility and Fluidity
It’s not a new concept. Witness how often we embrace flexibility and fluidity in a contextual world while delivering twenty-first-century products and services. Modern hybrid vehicles are engineered to respond to their environment and individual driver preferences. And, our phones come equipped with various functions, apps, and settings that allow us to “smartly” customize and navigate our electronic worlds. It’s fair to state that, as connection and service economies overtake and infiltrate older manufacturing economies, the human skills of emotional and social intelligences will become as integral to selling products and services as smart and efficient assembly processes are in a manufacturing economy.
The Future is Female
The phrase “the future is female” is not anti-male. It means the twenty-first century requires—no, demands—that humans embrace the feminine to thrive. It’s not a zero-sum game or a battle of the sexes where women will rule and men will become subordinate; where masculine energy won’t be adaptive or needed. It’s a future where the emotional intelligence found in the practice of mindfulness and compassion—along with the social intelligences of collaborative communication and empathic community-building—will be essential in order to remain relevant and fit for work, family, and community life. Those men who are open to change and to expanding their humanity will thrive while those who stubbornly cling to their twentieth-century ideas about what it means to be a man will be left behind.
The Next Frontier for Men
If men want to evolve, rather than remain stuck in anachronistic practices of conventional masculinity, we need to fully develop the nuances and possibilities of being male. The fit individual of the twenty-first century will have a full and varied toolbox of human traits to choose from, including knowing which tools to use and when.
It’s perplexing how guys who love a garage full of specific tools for each unique repair often only have a two-pound hammer of anger in their emotional toolbox. To lead fulfilling lives, men require more tools. For example, men can be courageous when they face their fears and explore their inner lives, not just when they face their fears and rush into a burning building to save a trapped baby. They can show strength by being vulnerable in an intimate relationship, not just when they crawl through a caved-in mineshaft to lead victims to safety. We need not be limited to one use per human trait.
Imagine our civilization if our response to the inevitable pull of evolution was restricted to only the loudest, most oppositional and resistant voices? The seeds of change cultivated by thought leaders, innovators, and other purveyors of shifts in human development would die on the vine of tradition. As men, we don’t need to choose between the familiar traditions of exploring the external world of fields and streams and challenging ourselves to explore our inner world of feelings and dreams. Both worlds are full of discovery.
Fear of Losing Gender Scripts
Our rigid gender scripts were helpful, even compulsory when we had rigid gender roles—men’s work and women’s work. Now, the distinctions have become blurred, with men and women’s roles overlapping at work and in home and family life. And when our gender roles change, our scripts must too.
It’s a fact that most of our innovations and movements are at risk of radicalization and misappropriation—it’s the human condition: The invention of the automobile created urban sprawl; mental health diagnoses gave individuals an excuse for murderous behaviors; sick pay gave lazy people a way to get a paid day off work. So yes, this movement to revision masculinity and reinvent manhood will also suffer from the human condition. And yes, gender fluidity with the lack of role definition for males will unfortunately enable some boys—and some parents/teachers/coaches who raise them—to be weak and soft when the context requires learning mental and emotional toughness; be yielding and deferring, when the context requires learning leadership and decisiveness; be malleable and uncertain when the context begs for firmness and boldness.
Still, we must move forward for the sake of pushing males to greater wellness and opportunity even while we may lament losing our old gender script of the past.
More than a Few Good Men
One thing we know for sure is that it will require more than a few strong, compassionate, and courageous men to change the culture of toxic masculinity, particularly if, when speaking and standing up, they’re judged and misunderstood. Floyd Dell said in 1914, “Feminism is going to make it possible for the first time for men to be free.” More than 100 years later, a lot of men are still clinging to an outdated masculine ideology that not only hurts others but imprisons them. No matter what words we use—toxic masculinity, hegemonic masculinity, traditional masculinity, Mascupathy—we must move forward. It’s time to detox our masculinity, break free of outdated societal norms, and become fully human.
For more information about toxic masculinity and for help with the struggles of being a man in today’s world, contact the Men’s Resource Center through our website, or by phone at (616) 456-1178. If you won’t ask for help for fear of being weak and unmanly, this is the time to do what this article is encouraging—think of context and redefining courage. Remember that you ask for help all the time: help with your golf swing, help with your taxes, help fixing your car, help in installing a new sink, etc… It isn’t weakness or unmanly, it’s twenty-first century smart.
Excellent article! Thanks, Randy
I am 68. Graduate degree. Successful. I am a straight man.
BIT. Men start all the wars and brutalize the planet I see how male animals of all species act. I have concluded: masculinity is wrong and toxic. Period.
Since I have no choice in my biological gender, I have isolated myself just to live in peace. I hate to say: in a shrinking world with too many people, men are unnecessary and destructive. Masculinity is bad. Unredeemable.
Ernie:Thanks for reading the article. I am saddened by you concluding that your masculinity and that of others is fundamentally destructive. The article concludes that masculinity is good and needed as long as it is timely and calibrated to the social context. The hope is that as males we can incorporate our humanity back into pursuing a more balanced masculinity, and then it won’t be toxic or destructive, but exactly what is needed for that humane moment.
I feel like Ernie might be a troll, but I feel like I fell somewhat one that side of the masculinity-good!/bad! mindset anyway. I grew up repressing my masculinity because of how I saw it’s toxic manifestation in the south. Now that I’m working on healing parts of myself that I’ve exiled, it came to my attention that masculinity has been exiled in my personality, but it isn’t the problem. As men and people who know men, if we are supporting the repression of emotion, it’s just holding men (and everyone else) from reaching higher for the sake of humanity.
I think everyone is at a different level of vulnerability, but talk with your bro’s and validate that pain, go that extra mile and step a little out of the comfort zone. It’s a new dimension of human experience we’ve held ourselves back from.
Very important messages conveyed here, Randy. Thank you for the important work you are doing to change the cultural conversation.
Your examples of manifestations of toxic masculinity should not start with female victimization. You are appropriating something that was about protecting and nurturing men, and immediate shaming men with it. We care more about women, and that is part and parcel of the problem. Denying that will never help men. This is why the pushback comes. You are stealing something from the older men’s movement and ripping its heart out.
Thank you Jon for reading and commenting on this post about toxic masculinity. You’re correct, there are many ways in which toxic masculinity manifests itself in hurting males including hazing at fraternities, being the last chosen for school teams, getting beat up on the playground for exhibiting “weakness”, being sexually abused by males, experiencing domestic violence in intimate relationships, etc. The totality of the article explains how toxic masculinity both hurts men, and women and children. In fact, hurt men, hurt people and we focus on this in our treatment programs for men. The first step in treatment, is personal accountability for ways we may be hurting others, such as the presence of domestic violence, sexual acting out, etc., then we can more effectively get at men’s untreated trauma. Some men come to us without externalization disorders, but with depression from past trauma, and we focus on symptomatic relief of depression while working to address the trauma. All of our treatment encourages males to examine how toxic male socialization may have impacted their ability to develop more healthy and balanced masculinities. We often hear from men, “Why didn’t they teach us this in school?” We find that compassion for self often leads to compassion for others. In other words, the enemy of violence is empathy. Finally, we don’t see addressing men’s toxic masculinity that hurts others versus how men are hurt by toxic masculinity as a zero sum game. We believe they can and must both be addressed. We are committed to that at the Men’s Resource Center of West Michigan as to do anything less, is neglectful and not a holistic approach. We hope you stay engaged with us–as you seem to care about the health and wellness of men as we are– and continue to explore our many blogs, programs, and community initiatives.
Competition and aggression are natural male traits. To minimize their importance in human development is facile and intellectually shallow. You need to get in touch with your natural masculinity and quit projecting your insecurities on other men. Come on in….the water is fine.
We agree that competition and aggression in males show up on a spectrum—some are more aggressive and more competitive than others. It’s also a fact that some females are more aggressive and competitive than males. For example, I’m sure the women’s world championship soccer team would likely be more aggressive and competitive than a men’s glee club. What makes a man emotionally and socially intelligent is knowing when the context requires the use of his inherent competitiveness and aggressiveness or his capacity for collaboration and integration. We engineer vehicles to respond to varying driving conditions; in the same way, we need to socialize males to be more nimble and responsive to their context in order to be fit for today’s demands.
Read the bios of some of our staff – including mine – and you’ll notice we find the waters of masculinity to be just fine: we enjoy competing in softball, triathlons, century bike rides, cross-training competitions, hunting, fishing, etc. In fact, our performance coach, Dr. Steve Hamming, recently took first place in his age group in a national cross fit competition. We feel quite secure in our masculinity and at the same time also appreciate other aspects of our humanity such as empathy and caretaking which enables us to be better friends, intimate partners, and fathers.
Toxic femininity should also be a part of this discussion. Read Jung & Freud on the subject of the “devouring mother” or the Buddhist writings on “idiot compassion”. Throwing out incendiary terms like “mascupathy” and “toxic masculinity” are not helpful. Using such terms creates a hostile atmosphere the is hardly representative of the sensitivity you seem to espouse…
Louis: Thanks for reading the article and taking the time to comment. As the title reflects, yes, toxic masculinity is a controversial name for a problem that once had no name. Whatever we decide to call it, it needs to be discussed and addressed. And if you believe naming and talking about toxic masculinity is incendiary, then it seems like the same would be true of toxic femininity. As I mentioned in the article, we name and discuss toxic water without assuming someone is anti-water; we name and discuss cardiomyopathy without assuming incendiary intent. Nonetheless, I do agree with you the term “toxic masculinity” or “mascupathy” is alarming, as it should be. However, the notion of it being incendiary doesn’t take into account how defensive and protective many are about how social scientists in gender studies are examining and deconstructing hegemonic masculinity. While dominant groups have long studied less powerful groups–Freud studying motherhood and naming the devouring mother–the spotlight on men and masculinities is unsettling for some. I agree we need to also look at toxic femininity and its ill effects on society and relationships, but it doesn’t need to be a zero-sum game or we don’t need to shut down the discussion of one of them with “whataboutisms”. Incidentally, we are the Men’s Resource Center of West Michigan and our mission is explicitly to help men be better and more evolved versions of themselves, so we will continue to talk about toxic masculinity while inviting men to more wholehearted, conscious, healthy and balanced masculinities fit for the new millennium. Below I am pointing toward an article I wrote on parental alienation that, in my opinion, is a form of toxic femininity when mothers devour and possess their children to the exclusion of fathers.
https://menscenter.org/respond-to-parental-alienation/
Again, thanks for reading and commenting. Your interest in gender studies is needed and welcomed.
“Parental alienation” NOT “father alienation.” It’s not in any possible way something women do to men, but something people do to people. I was raised by a family law attorney, who was raised by a family law attorney, who raised other family law attorneys, and the vast majority of people I know are not only lawyers, but family law lawyers. I also work freelance at a family law firm, and I’ve personally helped many parents in custody cases with this issue. Honestly, while it’s pretty close to equal, it’s more common for it to happen against a mother. And of that, most of the time it’s the father’s family going after the mother, punishing her for daring to divorce her husband. One just recently involved a woman who has been extremely emotionally abused by her husband for years, and was actually hit after she didn’t clean the floor well enough. Why was she lagging? Her recently diagnosed terminal and degenerative illness. The father feels he should have full custody and the mother should get nothing. The mother raised the kid almost single-handedly. She did EVERYTHING for her kid, the father couldn’t be bothered to show up to his birthday. Not because he had to work or anything, he just didn’t feel like being there. The mother has been painted by the father and his family to the child as a lying, greedy, whore trying to tear apart their family. There are many examples you could have picked, and you chose to say something so unbelievably not gendered and offensive to suggest it’s a thing that only women do and only men are victims of. It’s not even close. It’s not like, “yeah, it happens to women too, but it’s mainly a man’s problem” it’s not skewed against men the way you imply.
Danielle: Please note the articles How to Respond to Parental Alienation and The Top 5 Mistakes Rejected/Targeted Parents Make in Parental Alienation. Both of these articles, devoted specifically to parental alienation, acknowledge how both moms and dads can be victims of parental alienation. We also agree that some abusive and controlling men in a marriage will use parental alienation behaviors post-divorce as a tactic to continue their control and abuse of the mother. As with most issues, it is not a one-size-fits-all, and it requires astute and competent evaluation to determine the scope, typology, and severity of parental alienation in families. We are the Men’s Resource Center so will often discuss issues germane to men including getting help for parental alienation as a victim father, and getting help for abusive and controlling behaviors as a man in an intimate relationship or as a father engaging in parental alienating behaviors.
This article is incredible…not so much for the article itself, but for the wise, insightful, brilliant, articulate, thoughtful, passionate comments that follow (all Masculine traits by the way, as much so if not More than feminine traits). Other equally masculine, natural and essential traits that many Men inherantly posess, such as critical, harsh, powerful, inspirational even violent, aggressive, competitive and brutal are all present.
I am currently a graduate student enrolled, unfortunately, in a famously liberal-arts-based University in the MSW program. As a undergraduate I double majored in Psychology and Philosophy, which were great programs. The classes I took for both fields of study allowed for, and encouraged rich, challenging , rational and critical discourse, which I enjoyed. I was mislead and ill-informed about what the Social Work graduate program would provide. Enticed by the LCSW certification, which requires an MSW degree, and given the fact my school offers only a PhD level program in Psychology, I made one of the worst mistakes of my life by applying to and accepting my offer to the MSW program. As a white, straight, Christian, Man (sorry!! Caucasian, white privileged, cis gendered, heterosexual, gender-normative, patriarchal, colonializing, geneocidial, sexist/rapist toxic pig) I am 1 of 3 men out of 86 women in my cohort, and I Literally could never imagine being hated as much as I clearly am, which has been palpable from day 1 of orientation, when all new 1st year students were instructed to go around the room and state our names and gender pronoun (not asked, or encouraged, but told due to the importance of “inclusion”). Although, as I discovered later, I wasn’t the only one who felt this was inappropriate, I was however, the only person who did NOT disclose my “prefered gender.” Nor would I over the course of the semester during every class, and was the only one who refused to make a big sign with my name AND pronoun (so the professors could “get to know us”). How about pressuring everyone to go around the room and give their name, and sexual orientations? I knew I was in hell very early on, and now in my 2nd full time semester of my first year, I barely make it through a day without contemplating suicide. There are only so many times one can be lectured at about how inherantly horrible white people, especially white men, most especially white straight men, and even more especially white straight Christian men are…absolutely the worst people on the planet. Nevermind my own, actual trauma, mental health issues, history struggling with addiction, incarceration, police brutality (Would count as a victim on that note….if I was black), Every class is an echochamber of FAR left female professors (exclusively) feminists, and thems/theys loudly, freely, openly denouncing, critizing only the TOP echelon of their critical race theory perpetuated hierachy of oppression, filling the room with high-pitched, angry, abnoxious self-righteous, hypocritical, bitter cries encouraging white guilt/shame (but really, just white men cause they are THE oppressors, and really, Everyone else is a victim). I am to feel self-loathing as a wife beating, rapist, colonializing P.O.S. I apparently am (definately don’t remember doing any of those things but apparently I did…or rather some other long dead white men (close enough I guess) right? Last thing I’ll say is, sorry, but the future is not, has never been, nor ever will be female. This is true now and in the future for the same reason it has always been…essentially,…”what are you going to do about?” Lets start with forcing, under penalty of the law, every teenage girl to sign a draft card as soon as they turn 18 like every American boy has done since the formation of the U.S. Then, if/when we have our next draft during WWIII, actually pony up and go fight and die brutally, while all the men hang out safe and warm, sleeping in our own beds. Except, because I’m a fricking man, I’ll go ahead and keep going off to fight and die for you, because if we didn’t we would be massacred and flying a Chinese or Russian flag on the White House before we could say “I told you so.”
Essentially, what you are pushing is to say that men need to act like women to fit the environment created by feminists and people like you.
John, as the article states, “No one is promoting men’s emasculation; rather, it’s about developing men’s full potential as human beings. Just as men might cross-train on different pieces of exercise equipment or different business platforms, they can cross-train on emotional skills.” What we’re proposing and promoting is an evolution for men that has been determined to have positive mental health benefits; to do anything less than that is anti-male. When we visit our personal medical doctors, we trust they are updated on best practices to promote our physical wellbeing; it’s the same with mental health counselors. We believe it’s important and ethical to share what the American Psychological Association—among others in the profession—are learning about toxic masculinity and its impact on emotional and mental health.
As you can read further in, we support men’s physical and mental health: “Masculinity, in and of itself, is natural, good, and necessary for the survival and evolution of our species Positive masculinity is how masculine energy—when consciously-calibrated, wisely-timed, and smartly-appropriated—is courageously life-giving, boldly empowering, and fiercely impactful to individual men and everyone else in their lives. Conversely, toxic masculinity is extreme, injurious, ill-timed, and poorly-appropriated. For example, the healthy competition inherent in free enterprise or a sporting event is positive masculinity while competing to win at all costs in intimate relationships or recklessly jostling for space and speed on the highway is toxic.” We don’t wish to feminize men, we advocate humanizing men by helping them develop their full humanity while not sacrificing their masculinity. We don’t believe it’s necessary to sacrifice one’s humanity for the purpose of achieving unrealistic and toxic levels of masculine performance but that instead masculinity can co-exist and flex with other human energies depending on the social context. While some call this “feminization,” others call it the balancing and evolution of human culture.
While this article is helpful, some of the language you use seems to indicate your bias toward ineffectual and incorrect hypotheses about the way things are constructed. Using terms like “mansplaining” or “patriarchy” only indicates to me that you have read too far into critical theory, Marxist ideologies, and perhaps gender theory. Those ideologies are the type that lead the ACLU to say things such as:
*There’s no one way to be a man.
*Men who get their periods are men.
*Men who get pregnant and give birth are men.
*Trans and non-binary men belong.
*#InternationalMensDay”
Without a degree or publication in evolutionary biology, I’m skeptical of your ability to predict much about what male and female evolution “needs.”
Nathan, thank you for your interest in this important issue. As you might be aware, earlier this year the American Psychological Association (APA) provided guidelines for psychological practices working with men and boys. In that 36 page document, the APA states that toxic forms of masculinity (they refer to it as “traditional forms”) create negative mental health consequences for boys and men.
In her book, Deep Secrets, developmental psychologist Niobe Way provides evidence from longitudinal studies regarding how boys transitioning to manhood who buy into unhealthy and toxic beliefs about masculine identity suffer from more loneliness and other mental health consequences.
Boys can be boys but they don’t have to suppress their humanity to achieve healthy masculinity. The evidence is accumulating and, as psychologists who specialize in men and masculinities, we strive to be current and relevant for 21st-century manhood. The on-going mission of the Men’s Resource Center of West Michigan is to support and help men become strong, healthy, and balanced men who possess emotional and relational intelligence.
Randy,
You failed to address or contend with the multiple points that the user Nathan commented on; specifically the ones that identify ideological bias as grounds for why your arguments and others are flawed. Not least is the fact that again, you do not have publication or detailed knowledge of evolutionary biology, genetics, or sexual selective practices among mammals and other species. I would add that your arbitrary addition of Ms. Niobe Way only proves that the associations you have are also ideologically biased. For instance, if one looks at Ms. Way’s CV, one would find that she herself does not have a degree in evolutionary biology or genetics. Rather, much of the research has all to do with race, ethnicity, and even more formulations based on “feminist” and “intersectional” qualitative methods. So, no, you don’t get to ignore what was brought up. I would also encourage you to read alternative literature, such as the argument against the APA guidelines. The APA guidelines nest themselves within the narrative of identity politics, gender theory, and feminist/intersectional thought; which only proves to me that they, too, are ideologically biased.
Nick: Although I think the APA didn’t present perfect guidelines, the first draft provided some important insights for psychologists working with boys and men and there is room for improvement. I disagree with their use of the term “traditional” masculinity as it confuses readers into thinking that traditional masculine traits such as competition, courage, and taking action are deemed bad or toxic. It isn’t what they are saying nor what I am saying in my article. They also fall short on recommendations with respect to treatment modalities. Still, while the article you post notes the critics, many psychologists find the APA guidelines–albeit not perfect–helpful.
Because you seem to assign credibility to evolutionary psychologists rather than to developmental psychologists, I want to share this observation from evolutionary psychologist Nigel Barber, Ph.D.:
“So much of the earlier gender differences in behavior may be interpreted as the consequence of practical differences in how men and women live in a society where there is division of labor. Women were more nurturant because they did most of the child care. Nowadays, some men function as primary caregivers, making them as nurturant as women. Conversely, men were more aggressive, more risk-taking, and more competitive because they took responsibility for hunting and group defense, activities that elicited such qualities. Nowadays, women are more competitive in careers and businesses. This propensity is associated with more participation in contact sports, greater use of alcohol and other drugs, and more dangerous driving as reflected in accident statistics.
We are seeing profound gender changes without any associated change in the human gene pool. This phenomenon is deeply embarrassing to theories of gene-based gender differences. Must we admit that evolutionary psychology is a failed paradigm? Hardly! After all, the unisex modern world is a compelling example of human behavior shifting rapidly to match current conditions. This is adaptation. It is a case of evolution without genes.”
I think the “is-ought” fallacy is at work when assuming a false conclusion in that what is obligatory or right is what is natural. It is natural for us to gravitate toward sugary foods, but self-control is necessary to live well and healthy. It is natural for toddlers to feed themselves with their hands, but socialization teaches them to use utensils and to learn which ones work for certain foods. It is natural for boys to engage in more rough and tumble play, but they have to learn how to manage their bodies and impulses to avoid unnecessary or unlawful uses of aggression to avoid criminal prosecution. And athletes must learn to stop their aggression when the whistle blows or risk penalties. So what is natural and instinctive ought to be balanced with what is adaptive, what is lawful, what is healthy, and what is just and moral.
The evolutionary psychologist Robert Wright said “Understanding the often unconscious nature of genetic control is the first step towards understanding that – in many realms, not just sex – we’re all puppets, and our best hope for even partial liberation is to try to decipher the logic of the puppeteer….I don’t think I’m spoiling the end of the movie by noting here that the puppeteer seems to have exactly zero regard for the happiness of the puppets.”
The Men’s Resource Center of West Michigan is in the business of helping men be strong, courageous, balanced, mindful and healthy men fit for the 21st century.
Randy,
Thank you for your well thought out and detailed response; I liked the is-ought fallacy quite a bit as I have not heard of that before. As a clinician, I suppose one of the biggest reasons that I push so hard against guidelines and other suggested ways of interpretation is that I feel as though it has become completely one sided without any sort of forethought into long term consequence or, at the very least, nuance with respect to arguments that invalidate intersectional/feminist/critical theory approaches. Where we speak of biological, inherent and statistically measurable differences in variability within sex and behavior, all I hear from the APA and other approaches in the social sciences is strictly social with no basis in empirical and observed methodological science. Ad-hominem arguments naturally follow, with race and gender being of the upmost importance to someone being able to even argue against or call to question many of the ideologies that academics are pushing with regard to masculinity and gender functioning in society. Almost every theory or idea that sprouts itself out of critical theory, gender studies, or culturally misguided terms like “toxic” seems to be grounded in hefty amounts of opinion with qualitative observation sprinkled into the literature where more solid references should be. I appreciate your ability to be patient and work through these ideas in your writings, though I wish there were more of critique when it comes to thinking deeply about some of these ideas that are making their way through academic circles and society, and perhaps more consideration of the consequences of adopting these practices as they may themselves actually increase “toxic” masculinity; specifically when our American society is rife with outright hatred for males, not least White ones.
While Toxic Masculinity may describe a subset of harmful traits or behaviors the phrase itself is immediately alienating and harmful to further discussion and should be abandoned in favor of a more clinically appropriate term that doesn’t make an entire group of people feel like they are being punished where are bad from the outset. Honestly, anyone who didn’t see immediate issues when this phrase began to gain momentum and popularity had to have been willfully ignoring human nature or were simply antagonistic themselves.
Brian: I agree there is a struggle to “name” the problem in a way that invites as many people into the conversation as possible who truly are interested in honestly addressing the problem and looking into solutions. I find some individuals defensive and unwilling to even consider a critical analysis on the topic of men and masculinities unless it is seeing males as only victims of evolving gender studies, particularly from pro-feminist scholars. You mentioned using a “clinically appropriate term” as an option. That is why we came up with the nomenclature “Mascupathy” and wrote a book to describe a specific clinical pathogenic representation of masculinity. We describe a spectrum and various typologies of Mascupathy, and how it reaches clinically significant levels warranting intervention. It is my hope we will continue this important conversation as a nation, and make sure we don’t abandon or neglect it because we can’t agree upon what to call it.
Nick: I also appreciate your feedback and willingness to engage in good, challenging, and thoughtful conversation on such an important issue. It is refreshing to do so when those in the dialogue or debate listen and assert respectfully while avoiding some of the trolling types of responses so prolific on social media and blog posts.
As a white male social scientist, I get your concern about how intersectional/feminist analysis can seem to dominate constructionist views of gender development. It helps me to remember that when the DSM was first published in 1952, it was largely or solely white heterosexual men determining what was mental illness, abnormality, and in need of a psychiatric disorder classification. And now we sit here at this juncture as white males feeling “marginalized” by intersectional/feminists analyses. I think we need to be examined as well. In fact, my analysis of toxic masculinity not only identifies how manifestations of it can harm others, I adamantly articulate how it is fundamentally deleterious to men’s wellness. And I think the APA–albeit not perfectly–is trying to do the same in its first attempt at guidelines.
I don’t claim that all intersectional/feminist analyses have merit, but I do find a lot of defensiveness amongst certain white heterosexual men now that they are also being studied and examined. I agree that empirical studies need to follow conjecture, new theories, and new treatment modalities, but those studies often follow the pathways of innovators and thought leaders to refine or challenge theories and models. I don’t wish to silence the thought leaders and innovators nor do I think all truth and wisdom can be quantified empirically.
At the Men’s Resource Center of West Michigan, our Experiential Reclamation Therapy (ERT) groups are innovative and experiential, but after running them for two decades, I find they work. When men can shed the toxic social messages about manhood, change limiting behavioral patterns, and learn new emotional and relational skills, they thrive professionally and personally. They don’t lose their masculinity, they find their humanity.
If you haven’t read information on the evolution of consciousness–such as spiral dynamics–this theory supports the notion that our ideas about manhood have changed as society has evolved and changed. We don’t lose our basic biology, but we transcend and move into more integrated and holistic ways of thinking, emoting, relating, and living. It is my hope that in all intersectional analyses we take into consideration all factions of humanity while recognizing the uniqueness and importance of everyone.
I appreciate you taking time to respond back and forth. Best wishes Randy.
The moment I see the term “toxic masculinity”, I immediately associate the toxicity with the term’s user. This kind of language is disgusting, a highly perjorative word being used against an entire group of people which comprises half of all humanity. If there is “toxic” behaviour to be rectified, why not identify the behaviour itself rather than associating it wholesale with the male gender?
I wonder: what would happen if you juxtaposed the word “toxic” alongside groups of people other than men? Against women, for example, or against certain religious groups or ethnicities? I wonder if you’d still be in your job long enough to give your patronising explanation that you’re only referring to certain kinds of people within that group.
“Traditional” masculine identity is not necessarily bereft of compassion, empathy, gentleness, sensitivity or any of the other platitudinous exemptions you ascribe to it, just as it’s not necessarily possessed of those qualities either. Evidently you’re no more of an expert than those “experts” we’re all familiar with who get things wrong as often as they get things right. I suggest you travel more, learn more and observe more before drawing your conclusions.
The didactic tone of your article is spurious. You’re no authority, so please keep that in mind the next time you seek to literally dehumanise all men who don’t accede to your ideology.
Ibrahim: Thank you for reading this post and for your comment. Let me begin by saying how difficult it is to have helpful discussions on gender roles if we use zero-sum dualistic thinking. This rigid adherence to the gender binary only fuels unnecessary and outdated gender wars. I hope you feel the same way.
In this post, the term “toxic” does not refer to all masculine behavior. It’s being used as an adjective to describe noxious or injurious forms or manifestations of masculinity. If we talk about toxic water, toxic air, and toxic food, we’re not saying that all water, air, or food is toxic. Nor do we assume that someone who is a zealous advocate of eradicating toxic forms of water, air, and food from society is anti-water, or anti-air, or against good food. In fact, it’s considered responsible, communal, and socially conscious to question our historical and contemporaneous practices of processing, storing, and delivering water; of monitoring what and how many agents we emit into the air; and of safely processing, delivering, and preparing food. Although we may have different ideas about the particulars, most of us agree it would be inane and inappropriate to accuse zealous advocates for clean water, air, and food of sinister intentions to eliminate water, air, and food supplies.
In the same way, I’m not out to eliminate non-toxic forms of masculinity. My focus is on helping men develop into their full identity; one that includes compassion, empathy, gentleness, and sensitivity. Our men’s support groups help clients on this journey and I talk more about finding this balance in my Revealing Men podcasts, and in the book “Mascupathy.”
Randy, thank you for your reply. However, it’s clear you haven’t actually read my comment properly since you’ve responded to points I never made while not addressing points I have made.
Let me put it to you more clearly: would you ever use the term “toxic Judaism” or “toxic Jews”? Would you talk about “toxic Blacks” or “toxic Mexicans”? My guess is that your answer to all the above would be a loud, clear “NO”. Your “toxic water” analogy would not be deemed acceptable as a justification in these examples, because the very act of juxtaposing a dehumanizing word like “toxic” alongside the above groups of people would be considered so offensive it would get you fired from your job and ostracised from polite society in the blink of an eye.
Why then do you consider it acceptable to juxtapose “toxic” alongside the male gender? Is this not hypocrisy and double standards of the highest order? The word SHOULD NOT BE USED AT ALL for any human category – it’s virtually hate speech. The only reason people like yourself can get away with it is because, according to the bizarre rules of political correctness, certain groups in society are allowed to be criticized while others aren’t. Men should be pilloried while women should be praised; male traits are negative while female traits are positive. It’s very clear from the article that you’re promoting this and it’s completely unacceptable. What’s more, it’s fallacious.
As for “the gender binary fuelling gender wars”, I fail to see how this is even a coherent concept. The gender binary is a biological reality and a simple fact of human nature. What “gender wars” are you referring to? Where and when did these “wars” take place? Who were the generals and the commanders? You seem to be so wrapped up in your ideological viewpoint that you’ve taken your sociological constructs to be axiomatic truths. They are not.
The last sentence of your article literally dehumanizes all men who don’t accede to your ideas of how they should define themselves. How can someone in your position possibly justify this?
Ibrahim: You asked me, “Why then do you consider it acceptable to juxtapose “toxic” alongside the male gender?” I refer to “toxic masculinity.” The male gender is not the same as masculinity. In no way do I imply that men are toxic. Nor do I say that male traits are negative. I value and prize male traits when appropriated in proper context. For example, competition and aggression are functional traits if one is a trial lawyer or basketball player. And caring and sensitivity are valued traits for parents and intimate partners. There are men and women who are lawyers, basketball players, parents, and intimate partners. The traits of competition, aggression, caring, and sensitivity can be equally applied. It’s about context, not good vs. bad; male vs. female.
With regard to the gender binary: Gender is both biological and sociological. The construction of gender roles has evolved and changed over decades and millennia and will continue to do so as we evolve as a species. For example, in the 1950s, it would have been unheard of to have a woman CEO of a major company and equally as difficult to find a stay-at-home father. But in the 21st century, women ARE CEOs of large corporations (i.e., GM) and moms while some men ARE staying at home to help raise their children and others continue to function as CEO’s. The fittest male or female today doesn’t have to fall into the rigid gender roles of yesteryear. Individuals can pursue their authentic dreams and aspirations without the constraints of outdated gender straightjackets including pursuing what is inherently more masculine or feminine whether they are male or female.
I think we’re both wanting a society that respects and prizes both male and female energies without seeing either as inherently toxic or bad, or men or women as toxic. We may just pursue such goals with different constructs, semantics, and frameworks and I’m good with agreeing to disagree at this juncture. I wish you the best.
Randy thanks again for taking the time to respond.
This is not about “agreeing to disagree”, it’s about you making derogatory and dehumanizing categorizations, which I’m pulling you up on and saying “you WILL be opposed”.
You say: “In no way do I imply that men are toxic”, but this only refers to the minuscule percentage of men who fit into your avant-garde concepts of male “evolution”. For the overwhelming majority of men, past and present, who do not fit into this model, you brand them not only as toxic but as subhuman. In doing so you’ve lost any moral high ground you thought you occupied.
Again, the male-female binary is a simple fact of biology, and the more biology advances, the more it proves this to be true at the cellular and genetic level. A clear distinction between men and women is firmly established by science and it has been an integral part of every known society that has ever existed, including every major culture in the world today. Go from France to Egypt to China to Brazil to corporate America and you’ll find men and women falling into the same distinct patterns, despite the vastly different cultures in question.
Yes, there are a tiny number of female CEOs, like Mary Barra of GM. There have been powerful women throughout history: in England, we’ve had female monarchs for hundreds of years, like the one your US state of Virginia was named after. Going back to Roman times we had Cleopatra, Zenobia, and Boudicca. This is nothing new. But the simple fact is that such women are the exception that proves the rule and the vast majority of women are simply not cut out to thrive in competitive male environments.
Yes, there are stay-at-home dads, but is that a good thing? Is it better for young children to spend more time with their father than their mother? Their mother developed an inimitable bond with them through pregnancy, birth, breastfeeding and nurturing. It’s a matter of biological compatibility that their mother is best suited to stay home with them, not to mention common sense.
Gender is indeed both biological and sociological, but the former informs the latter, not the other way round. Your theories are artificial and unnatural and they will not prevail, except in a very small part of the world for a very short time.
After reading your article I’m all the more determined to raise all my 4 children according to traditional concepts of gender and to make sure they teach their own children to do likewise.
Take care.
Ibrahim: It is known in the social science that some approach gender from an essentialist perspective and others a constructionist. You seem more aligned with the former and me the latter–that’s fine. There are a lot of good, well-educated, and researched scholars bigger than you and I who’ve been having a spirited debate on this subject for a long time and it will continue. History, evolution, natural selection, and the survival of the fittest will have the final say, not them, you, me, or ideology. I wish you the best in life and in raising your four children to be strong, well, adaptable, and healthy. Take Care.
It’s time to forget the notion that everything pertaining to the sexes are belonging to it. When they are in reality owned by humanity. Does the Emperor penguin argue over the rights to the egg when the going gets tough. Or the bird of paradise disagree which sex is the owner of beautiful. Get back to the simple. Males are males females are females. Whoever wants to be humans is just a natural cycle and female and male only own one role each. Nothing else. This just makes sense as much as it makes sense to drop the idea of toxic association with masculinity. Males hate it and this is understood by most of them to be a roadblock because of to one way dead end street of the term. Is there any widespread use of a negative term association with feminine. If not create one and push it as much in the media as this term with masculinity. It will not go far. Stop both sexist rants and wake up to humanism where nothing is toxic or sexist if one truely wants males to change.
Karl: Thx for your response, and I think we mostly agree that the natural state and expression of masculine or feminine energy by either sex is essentially good particularly when appropriated in a social context. And how this manifests in the animal kingdom in natural and edifying ways. However, as Sapiens, we have developed the capacity in the cognitive revolution to move from hunter/gatherers to creating enormous shifts from what was “natural” in the human creation in the agricultural and industrial revolutions. These revolutions had constructive and destructive impacts on our “natural” state. We also create narratives, constructs and paradigms in modernity to “fit” what we think is advancing humanity, and often later learn of it’s the toxic aspect to our humanity and natural resources. What we decide to call the state of men and masculinities in modernity and how we encourage men to deconstruct the social construction that at times adulterated what is natural and good is worthy of comment. But, to suggest, we don’t have work to do in transcending the construction of gender out of the restrictive and limiting binary is short-sighted and perhaps reductionistic thinking believing sapiens can naturally manifest their inherent natural destinies. We are far away from what is “natural”, good, and edifying in our compulsion to create, construct, and modify and unfortunately adulterate. I agree the nomenclature of toxic masculinity alone isn’t inviting a revolution, but it needs a name–as does identifying toxic forms of feminimity–in order to address it, particularly from a mental health perspective. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) is full of “pejorative” names of mental health issues to address so individuals can be more healthy mentally and emotionally. We do invite men into what we call a revisioning of masculinity into a more balanced, healthy, strong and wholehearted masculinity. In conclusion, I think we mostly agree.
“The Future is Female” is a damning statement for young men and boys. If a slogan requires explaining about how it’s not meant to be offensive, it is a bad slogan. An eight year old kid takes it at face value…and if that kid is male, they will feel de-valued. A young girl hears that and learns to de-value masculinity. I’ve seen it happen with kids in person. They hear it, they ask about it…the explanation doesn’t make sense. That saying is inherently sexist and it needs to go…for everyone’s sake.
I’m not fond of it either, any more so than the messaging of “defund police.” It is misleading. Too binary and dismissing. I get what is being said in terms of realizing how thriving in a connection and service economy requires increased levels of emotional and social intelligence, which historically have been deemed more feminine qualities. Yet, males are very capable of developing these human qualities inasmuch as females, but we need to do a better job at socializing boys into them, rather than seeing them as girly or signs of weakness.
I think we’re doing better at it, but we still have many males growing up in society and families who are not being taught this intelligence and, as a result, they will not be fit for this world nor for the future world. And in doing so, we don’t have to negate masculine energy and qualities. Those are important. We just need to help boys appreciate the social context and equip them with the emotional, relational, and behavioral tools to respond adaptively. You make a good point in naming how a little boy won’t get the abstract messaging of “the future is female” any more than most aren’t getting “defund the police” at first. Thanks for your comments and interest in forwarding important conversations on men and masculinities.
When I read the APA Guidelines on men and boys, I could only shake my head and think what a lost opportunity it was. The document does indeed state that “traditional masculinity” is harmful to those who express it and those they love. The fact that the APA seemed very surprised by the controversy proves that the people who wrote it are ivory tower types of folks with very little experience in the trenches.
I wasn’t a bit surprised, as the guidelines are the natural result of the way that intersectionality views masculinity — excuse me, I should say “masculinities.” Built on an intersectional framework, the guidelines are, of course, going to view masculinity as harmful and negative. According to this framework, men possess privilege over all other genders within society, which they use to oppress those of other genders (often unintentionally, but they oppress others all the same).
Intersectionality has been pronounced as THE way the world works among a majority of people in the social sciences. This, of course, means men are always going to be at the top of the privilege totem pole (with white men at the very, very top). The thing is, though, that intersectionality is completely wrong when applied to individuals instead of groups. Take myself – I’m a white man who is a [survivor of] domestic and sexual violence; my perpetrator is my ex-wife. I’ve been told to my face by intersectional feminists that I do not deserve to be helped because, as a white man, I would be taking resources away from women, especially women of color, who are the “real victims.” They didn’t seem to sense the irony that they were making me — and other abused men — into a less-privileged class, since we are not allowed to receive help.
This is the problem with making one gender into the problematic gender. As a man, whatever I do as a man has become toxic. I argue that the problem is systemic. Men are products of their contexts – and little boys are told what to be and how to act no less by women than by men. To view us as the enemy gender, as the APA does, is shortsighted and just brings all people down.
Michael: You make an important observation — intersectional analyses can help explain historical macro-aggressive and oppressive societal patterns, but they don’t always explicate each and every micro-aggression. There are always outlier experiences in most any phenomenon, so while we benefit from intersectionality, as psychologists we must always be vigilant and thorough to appropriately apply intersectionality on a case-by-case basis, rather than place a template on a person that might not fit.
If a white, heterosexual, cis-gendered male is experiencing suffering from domestic violence, he is deserving of counseling and support. It is not helpful to approach human suffering as a zero-sum game and believe that addressing his counseling needs negates the need for resources and counseling for a lesbian transgendered victim of color. Inasmuch as you want others to validate your individual experience while also recognizing the importance of intersectionalities, it is my hope you can recognize the importance of intersectional analyses while at the same time validating your individual experience.
In future episodes of the Revealing Men podcast, we will feature stories from both a male perpetrator of domestic abuse and a male victim of domestic abuse…stay tuned. We wish you safety and healing.
If you need several books and articles explaining why the word doesn’t mean what you think it’s means, change the word to accurately reflect what it means. You know, like feminism clearly means “equality”. Oh wait…
Sebas: If you agree that we have “a problem with no name”, but don’t like any of the names we are using and explaining, then what are your suggestions? Again, if you don’t think we have a problem, then I suggest we move on and hopefully those of us who do, can continue to wrestle with the nomenclature of the issue discussed in this article. I saw a name called Precarious Manhood (PM) discussed in a recent research article published in a peer review social science journal. This construct focused on how some men who have insecurities about their success in achieving hegemonic manhood, gravitate toward and support more aggressive and militant political policies theoretically to vicariously compensate for their own struggle with feeling “man enough”. As humans, we have a love affair with linguistics and try to use language to name and categorize, but the reality is that the human struggle can’t cleanly be encapsulated in our language–it is too mercurial, mysterious, and fluid, yet we try because it is our way to collectively attempt to make sense of what we intuit, sense, and observe.
I really enjoyed this article, found it inspiring – a way forward towards a more positive masculinity in our culture. Thank you Randy, I also enjoyed the thoughtful replies in the comments. Will definitely be re-reading this in the future.
Conner: Thx for the feedback, and we’re heartened you found the article helpful and will keep it as a resource for a re-read. Meanwhile, I hope you find other articles and podcasts on our website helpful when exploring men and masculinities. Here is a link to our Revealing Men podcast, where we explore positive masculinity and the negative impact of unhealthy or rigid expressions of masculinity. Thanks.
https://menscenter.org/podcast/
Hey Randy, I found this article whilst searching for some reading I could send to the men in my family. Thanks very much for not only engaging in this in such a meaningful and serious way but also taking the time to have responded to all the comments. I found your reply’s to be just as insightful and helpful as the article itself, and sadly this is rare. So thanks for all the work you do. From a female me, it is very appreciated.
Lucinda: I’m glad you found it meaningful and insightful and thanks for taking the time to share your positive response to the article. While I am confident your positive response to the article is also shared by others, as you can tell by the comments, it seems like people are more motivated to respond in disagreement and frustration rather than agreement and hopefulness.
Thank you for this article! I am writing about toxic masculinity and how I believe boys should be raised for a college Composition research project. I am so impressed with your article and the thoughtful replies to everyone. I could literally only use your article and the comments and write a paper that addresses all sides of the issue in an engaging way. Thanks so much.
Thanks Leah. I’m heartened you found the article and subsequent conversation helpful to your research. Please feel free to send us a copy of your final paper on this subject (email contact information is on our website) as we’d love to read it. Good Work and Good Luck!
Hi Randy– I really enjoyed reading this. Your thoughtful consideration and welcoming of nuance are very clear. I appreciate you putting in the time and effort to patiently engage with the comments, particularly the more aggressive ones. I work in the construction industry, and we’re only just starting to talk about diversity, equity, inclusion within our company. I think a crucial part of shifting the problematic culture of construction will be addressing the toxic aspects of masculinity, but we aren’t there yet and it’s a difficult conversation to start. Also, your descriptions of positive masculinity are helping me see, connect with, and feel affection for those traits within myself. That resonates with and nurtures my own path of healing as a queer, nonbinary person who loves men but has been hurt by them. Thanks again, your voice is so needed!
Skye: Thanks for your comment, and also thanks for your voice and influence in the construction industry–this is sorely needed.
Thank you so much Mr. Flood for writing this article, I can’t wait to use it in my paper about toxic masculinity and how it affects men, women, and gay men. So sorry some people in the comments do not understand what you are trying to get across. But I suppose everyone figures things out in their own time.
Nah I still like being manly
Dwayne: Being manly isn’t toxic masculinity, nor is aspiring to be manly The article and the Men’s Resource Center of West Michigan embraces masculinity that, as we say, is timely and appropriated to the social context. Enjoy and celebrate your masculinity–we do!!
The problem with male/masculine “fluidity” is that men these days want to be women. No matter how much men may need to feel more comfortable with emotions and less rigid with expressing them, no heterosexual woman in the world wants to be with a man who doesn’t have that male energy that women find sexually stimulating; the opposite energy we have. It just isn’t going to work. There is a marked lack of respect from our side for men we perceive as too “girly”. If a woman wanted to be with another woman, she would be a lesbian, not with a man. The conversation must be around teaching men that there is a time and a place, an environment around certain people they can be emotional with. No one else cares to see all that EMOTING from men. It comes across as lacking courage, lacking strength, lacking leadership abilities, lacking the fortitude to save loved ones. Sitting there crying in a puddle of tears is not going to inspire your woman to have confidence in you as the family leader.
Cimone: I appreciate how you discuss and identify how important social context is for the appropriation of emotional expression. We agree that it is part of emotional intelligence to hold back emotional expression during certain times when emergent and immediate action is necessary for survival and appropriate behavioral adaptation. It is also true that it requires emotional intelligence to be able to emote when the social context is appropriate for such emotional expression. In the old gender binary with rigid gender roles attraction was also more binary and casted in rigid social script not allowing for any fluidity. Fortunately, we find that couples still enjoy the vexing masculine and feminine polarities attractive in their relationships, but don’t approach it so rigidly in limiting gender scripts that ultimately constrict individual expression and can become compulsory and more of a performance, rather than authentic individual expression. Men and women can both develop leadership skills and intimacy skills, cross training into greater access to their humanity and their individual essence, rather than follow the old limitations of a rigid gender binary.
Dear Randy, thanks for the article. Some very interesting comments you are making. Nonetheless, some of the ways you are framing masculinity and the need for better men is problematic and counterproductive.
Firstly, the term “toxic masculinity” has become a common term in discourse, especially at universities, to characterize masculinity as a whole as something inherently bad. Whilst you argue that “No one is promoting men’s emasculation” this is just not the case. Whilst masculinity is most often talked about in the context of toxicity and harm, femininity is directly associated with care and warmth (there is interesting research on this). Using this term, rather than, e.g., “immaturity” can subject men to the understanding that their masculinity is inherently flawed, which contributes to feelings of inadequacy, loneliness, and suicidal thoughts. Secondly, you are arguing that the term “the future is female” is not anti-male, which is in and of itself contradictory to the statement and therefore your explanation of this argument has no utility. Calling the future exclusively female directly imposes the idea that masculinity and male values are unwanted in the future and that femininity is undoubtedly morally superior.
I have been involved in men’s health and suicide research for several years now. One of the key things I have learned during my studies is that ideas such as universal male privilege are extremely dangerous, considering certain trends pointing towards a male crisis, e.g., the four times higher suicide rate among men, higher violent victimization, that 70% of homeless people are men, that the majority of highschool and university dropouts are men, etc., etc.
Certain toxic behaviours are primarily exhibited by men and certain toxic behaviours are primarily exhibited by women. There is a large body of literature to support this notion (also indicating fundamental differences between the sexes). However, we have come to only characterize one of the two sexes with positive vs. toxic behaviour. In essence, femininity is seen as something that is inherently good and valuable. Thereby, more feminine masculinity is seen as the positive masculinity, contrasting the masculine masculinity (or toxic masculinity). I hope you can understand why this term is a threat to men’s well-being and positive change, rather than something helpful.
It must be noted, that these toxic traits you are taking are only exhibited by a tiny minority of hyperaggressive men. The whole of the male sex can not be generalized to. Instead of telling men and boys, whether that is unintentional or intentional, that their masculine biology (e.g., elevated levels of testosterone) is flawed, we should encourage men to embrace their masculinity. This includes motivating young men to be strong (including having the strength to show emotions and asking for help), to be dangerous (to have the ability to be dangerous, but able to control this aggression), to be smart and confident. Instead of telling men that they matter and that they’re needed, they are being told that they are replaceable, unwanted, and toxic.
Policies, such as equality of outcome, and a characterization of men as violent and harmful (e.g., evidenced by the common rhetoric of “Kill All Men”, “F*ck All Men”, “All Men are bad” etc.) is hindering men from taking responsibility and creating a life of purpose and meaning.
Ben: Thanks for taking the time to respond to this article so thoughtfully and thoroughly. I would also like to respond to some of your concerns raised in your response:
1. While some may use “toxic” masculinity as a term to attack the totality of masculinity, I do not. I find it unhelpful to participate in a zero sum analysis of gender, but strive to revision 21st century masculinity into a more balanced and healthy version. Masculinity is NOT inherently bad, and I state this clearly in the article, by explaining, “Masculinity, in and of itself, is natural, good, and necessary for the survival and evolution of our species. Positive masculinity is how masculine energy—when consciously-calibrated, wisely-timed, and smartly-appropriated—is courageously life-giving, boldly empowering, and fiercely impactful to individual men and everyone else in their lives. Conversely, toxic masculinity is extreme, injurious, ill-timed, and poorly-appropriated.”
2. The phrase “The future is female” is not my phrase, but I get what it is trying to say. It is merely connoting how masculine energy, for example, was the most integral energy that propelled the industrial evolution, while female energy will be integral in the new service economy. It also does not mean that males can’t bring their feminine energy into this evolutionary time, and it does not mean that masculine energy is no longer needed. Males and females will need to transcend and incorporate as that is how human development works, rather than just forgetting the importance of earlier versions. For example, the product of steel was strong and heavy, while today titanium is also strong, but lighter. We tend to build things that can be both strong, durable, but also lighter, less impactful on the environment. The masculine energy of strength and durability was incorporated into the product of titanium, rather than just building something that was light and weak. It isn’t that female energy is superior, it just historically–in a man’s world, a patriarchal society–has been deemed weak or inferior compared to masculinity. Today, we are learning of its power and utility and the future is rip with opportunities to embrace feminine energy and integrate it into our products, public spaces, relationships, and theories.
3. I agree that the current statistics on males are concerning particularly the suicide rate. I disagree with your analysis as to the origin or cause of those stats. I content that these men are sadly not evolving or transforming into what is required to be fit and well as humans today. They aren’t asking for help when they are depressed, since they may hang on to the old toxic belief that real men make it on their own, and don’t have to ask for help. These men suffer loneliness more because of a lack of intimacy and vulnerability in their relationships (Please look at Naomi Way’s research on the topic of male loneliness).
4. When we discuss toxic aspects of masculinity, we are not just talking about male violence and aggression, it can be male isolation and lack of emotional intelligence. It is a large scope than just violence.
5. I like how you revision strength to include the strength and courage to be vulnerable, to show you fears, anxieties, and insecurities. That is like titanium, using the masculine energy of strength and courage, to reveal emotions (typically associated as a female trait).
6. Most movements get radicalized so I encourage you to shut out the noise from any radical voices that denounce masculinity, or see it as unnecessary, or simply dangerous. Masculinity is beautiful and necessary, and we will continue to nurture and celebrate it here at the Men’s Resource Center. Please feel free to listen episodes in our Revealing Men podcast as we discuss this issue in detail with special guests.
Hey Randy,
thanks a lot for the quick reply and interesting response. I agree entirely with your thoughts that “Masculinity, in and of itself, is natural, good, and necessary for the survival and evolution of our species.” However, the idea of toxic masculinity remains problematic for me, particularly because only certain aspects, more commonly found with “traditional” masculinity, are significantly (however, with a small effect size) correlated with negative mental health and reduced psychological help seeking behaviour (e.g., strict self-reliance, promiscuity, and control of women- see meta analysis by Wong et al., 2017). Other factors (from the CMNI (being an imperfect measurement)), such as violence, risk taking, disdain for homosexuals, dominance and primacy of work are not significantly associated with negative mental health outcomes. My point being, that it is unhelpful to look at “traditional” masculinity, overall, as something negatively impacting men. Instead we should look at specific dimensions associated with hypermasculine traits (mentioned above) that have such an association (again, even these do not have large effect sizes and, therefore, have limited practical utility). Other aspects of “traditional” masculinity, such as risk taking and dominance, can even have positive impacts on men’s mental health. In my opinion, this distinction is key.
Lastly, I am not satisfied with your explanation and analogy of the phrase, “the future is female” and I believe that it is part of “radical voices that denounce masculinity” which you encourage others to shut out. Femininty, as its always been the case, has clear value and aspects of it are crucial to a healthy society. Masculinity has the same. We need to move away from this exclusive, segregated thinking and instead focus on a future that utilizes the positive aspects of masculinity and femininity.
In your words: “Masculinity is necessary”.
Cheers,
Ben
Ben: I appreciate the dialogue, particularly the tone. I think we probably agree on more things than disagree, so that is heartening. While I remember reading Wong and others’ research, I commit to looking at it again. I do think we agree on the notion that positive masculinity can actually help with men’s mental health, and even help men in their willingness to take risks to open up and be real with others, speak the unspeakable, and risk vulnerability and rejection.
I find in my practice that while men may project confidence and power, they often secretively suffer from shame and insecurity. They actually become stronger, more powerful, and healthy, by putting down this tough guise and being more human and relational.
Finally, I think we agree on the importance and value of both feminine and masculine energy in a healthy society. I personally don’t find the “future is female” as a denouncement of masculinity, but more of a reclamation of the importance of female energy since it historically has been marginalized. What if our evolution of consciousness needs an emphasis on female energy to “catch up” or correct our imbalance? If so, I want my masculinity to be strong and stable enough to not feel slighted or dismissed by that, but see it as the cosmos merely trying to balance itself for a bit.
I wish you the best, and again, thanks for your interest and engagement in this important work.Cheers right back.
Hey Randy,
thanks a lot for the quick reply and interesting response. I agree entirely with your thoughts that “Masculinity, in and of itself, is natural, good, and necessary for the survival and evolution of our species.” However, the idea of toxic masculinity remains problematic for me, particularly because only certain aspects, more commonly found with “traditional” masculinity, are significantly (however, with a small effect size) correlated with negative mental health and reduced psychological help seeking behaviour (e.g., strict self-reliance, promiscuity, and control of women- see meta analysis by Wong et al., 2017). Other factors (from the CMNI (being an imperfect measurement)), such as violence, risk taking, disdain for homosexuals, dominance and primacy of work are not significantly associated with negative mental health outcomes. My point being, that it is unhelpful to look at “traditional” masculinity, overall, as something negatively impacting men. Instead we should look at specific dimensions associated with hypermasculine traits (mentioned above) that have such an association (again, even these do not have large effect sizes and, therefore, have limited practical utility). Other aspects of “traditional” masculinity, such as risk taking and dominance, can even have positive impacts on men’s mental health. In my opinion, this distinction is key.
Lastly, I am not satisfied with your explanation and analogy of the phrase, “the future is female” and I believe that it is part of “radical voices that denounce masculinity” which you encourage others to shut out. Femininty, as its always been the case, has clear value and aspects of it are crucial to a healthy society. Masculinity has the same. We need to move away from this exclusive, segregated thinking and instead focus on a future that utilizes the positive aspects of masculinity and femininity.
In your words: “Masculinity is necessary”.
Cheers,
Ben
There is no toxic masculinity. There is no toxic femininity. There is, however, toxic behavior. And people need to be held accountable for their actions regardless of what their gender may be.
I agree that we should focus on behaviors and holding individuals accountable. I also happen to believe we experience gender socialization that for some can lead to exaggerated and limiting behaviors. Those behaviors in certain contexts can be toxic and gendered particularly when an individual is performing masculinity or femininity while trapped in a gender binary
Read this article, people: We Need More ‘Toxic Masculinity’ in https://issuesinsights.com/2022/01/07/we-need-more-toxic-masculinity/
Armando: I read your whole article, and I’m curious did you really read the entirety of my article? This paragraph:
“Masculinity, in and of itself, is natural, good, and necessary for the survival and evolution of our species. Positive masculinity is how masculine energy—when consciously-calibrated, wisely-timed, and smartly-appropriated—is courageously life-giving, boldly empowering, and fiercely impactful to individual men and everyone else in their lives. Conversely, toxic masculinity is extreme, injurious, ill-timed, and poorly-appropriated. For example, the healthy competition inherent in free enterprise or a sporting event is positive masculinity while competing to win at all costs in intimate relationships or recklessly jostling for space and speed on the highway is toxic.”
The long list you aptly created in your article of heroic life-saving actions men have taken historically and do daily are nothing close to “toxic” masculinity, it is positive masculinity–as I say above–“consciously calibrated, wisely-timed, and smartly appropriated…courageously life-giving, boldly empowering, and fiercely impactful to individual men and everyone else in their lives”.
I also agree with your paragraph that men and women stuck in gender boxes and are wholly confused in the dating game. I do think men are often in no-win situations–seen as too aggressive if they pursue women, and too passive and unattractive if they are waiting for her to move first. I believe this will eventually work its way out as we’re evolving and in transition leaving behind rigid gender scripts and now requiring higher levels of emotional and social intelligences to be present in the moment, to figure out consensual moves rather than following outdated gender calls as if couples are following gendered square dancing calls rather than really dropping into deeper human contact, negotiations, and connection.
Frankly, I think you’re writing is very retrograde and stuck in zero-sum analyses and an outdated gender binary. While you make some good points, you conflate that I’m saying all masculinity is toxic by critiquing when masculine energy is not calibrated, well-timed, overly aggressive, or hurtful to others. It is also a form of absolutism to suggest that we need more toxic masculinity. This suggestion seems rather binary, bane, and not helpful to men who are trying to evolve into a healthy 21st century masculinity. It’s as though you want them to believe that we stopped making strong, fast, and bold cars after the 1957 Chevy while encouraging them to rev their V-8 big block gas-powered engines at the stop light while scoffing at the Tesla in the lane next to them sitting their silent. Then wondering how it speeds away so quickly and boldly, yet so quietly. The zeitgeist of today is about versatility, flexibility, and context. The 1957 Ford Truck was built with strong, but heavy steel. The new Ford F-150 is built with strong, but light titanium. And it has flex-fuel, or it can be electric. It is fast and powerful when it needs to and can sit quietly at the stop light when it needs to.
Yes, like every movement in society, gender movements can get radicalized, misunderstood, or divisive. We don’t throw out our couches, because some people misuse them and become couch potatoes. We don’t tell our daughters to climb back in their gender box and not play sports, or not think they can be a CEO of a company, because some females have also discovered the shadow side of humanity and have become more violent or overly controlling. This is the ol’ throwing out the baby with the bathwater. This is too easy, we need to do the hard work of evolving and transcending and not expect a bailout like some American car companies did when they were stubborn and retrograde in their vision of automobiles and would not build vehicles fit to sell in the 21st century.
I think we can build and socialize males to fit this 21st century Zeitgeist. Come join the movement, you won’t lose your masculinity, you’ll find your humanity.
Be well and Happy New Year
So basically you want men to be like women and emasculate them. You want men to show their emotions but at the same time use it against them later on during an argument and told that “We aren’t your therapist” or when women say they don’t feel “safe” around men who express their emotions. Don’t fall for it boys it’s a “TRAP.”
Domestic Violence? Men are the majority of domestic violence victims and women are the majority of the abusers since lesbians have the highest rate of domestic violence at 44% but why don’t we talk about that? Oh I know because it doesn’t fit your narrative that men will always be the monsters and women can never do anything wrong. Men have been held accountable since the dawn of time but who holds women accountable for the things they do.
The Future is Female is anti-male. Majority of victims of violent crime are men but the world is so dangerous for women and the fact we don’t have any shelters for men who are victims? And I’m not saying women don’t suffer violence but I’m saying that we need to be fair to everybody and protect them from bad people. One last thing, they said that we need to be more empathetic towards women but immediately gaslight the male victims by saying men can’t be abused, men can’t be raped, or women have it harder in society which is why we suffer in silence.
Jermaine: This article wasn’t designed to cover all aspects of the issues you raised. Ironically, I agree with some of what you are raising such as males being the primary victims of generalized violence in our society. We also provide counseling for male victims of domestic abuse and sexual abuse and yes they need to be heard and given opportunities for justice and healing. None of this is a zero-sum game. Both men and women need to be supported as victims and be held accountable as perpetrators. If you continue to read more of my articles and books as well as listen to my podcasts you will discover this. Have a good day Jermaine
The problem I have with the gender studies/ third wave intersectional ideological view of gender issues is that gender studies is really just ideological activism in academic drag.
Not to say that there is no place for this force in society, but it’s hard to take seriously an ideology that seeks to blame one sector of the population for all the world’s ills based on gender/ sexual preference and ethnicity (white cis-gender males), while on the other hand decrying all social stereotypes and bigotry based on external cultural markers, and conveniently lets everybody else, particularly women, off the hook entirely.
ID political ideologues make zero effort to understand males, and seem to have near zero empathy for them, nor do they acknowledge in anyway the particular challenges males face, or women’s part in perpetuating toxic gender stereotypes.
The ideology is openly hostile to evolutionary psychology, sociology, and even science itself when it doesn’t support the tenets of its adherents.
Anything and everything that challenges the world view is written off as patriarchal corruption.
I don’t disagree that there are issues with western traditional views of masculinity, and the social customs that entrench them.
But what I don’t see is any attempt to understand them, to acknowledge the differences between men and women at the evolutionary biological level and how these differences affect the world view and propensities of individuals.
Nor do I see any acknowledgement that men do a lot of what they do specifically to compete for the attention of females, and how women perpetuate these toxic stereotypes.
The fact is, I don’t believe a female dominated ideology can hope to understand or help men.
That is not in fact what feminism stands for, though it claims to.
It stands for the emancipation of women, in order to do that it needs to critique the traditional male dominated world view, fair enough, but it can not hope to change that which it can not understand, of which it has no experience, let alone real interest in or empathy for.
Feminism may critique traditional masculinity, but it will not provide the solutions, not least because it is not grounded in empirical reality, nor does it acknowledge what men have been through in recent generations, nor the demands and expectations society places on men, and by society, I also mean women.
As long as women are compelled to seek out dominant males with the greatest resources in order to secure the future of their children, they will perpetuate the very stereotypes feminism seeks to destroy.
As long as we are expected to believe fallacies like trans women are identical in every way to born women, that biological sex is “on a spectrum”, or that there is no biological component to our experiences of the world, that men and women are the same in every respect and the differences are all conditioning, attempts to improve the ideal male archetype will fail.
There is an old saying, that my father attributes to the navaho – it takes three generations to recover from a war.
There is no acknowledgement of the generations of trauma that have created the “toxic male” stereotypes.
There is no acknowledgement that men are often expected to do the hardest dirtiest, riskiest work that is necessary to keep our modern world functioning.
There is no acknowledgement, by effete university educated intellectuals, of the mindset, skill, fearlessness, grit and determination necessary in many male roles.
There is no acknowledgement of toxic femininity that sees men as little but a resource to be milked, manipulated and swiftly discarded if they fail to provide or show weakness.
What we are talking about is toxic culture, regardless of gender.
In order to change the world, we must first face it as it is, unfortunately, the ideology most intent on change, is the least equipped to acknowledge the world as it actually is, given that it discards any and all data that challenges it’s current convictions.
It does not seek to understand or empathise.
It seeks only to demonise.
It also I might add, does not acknowledge the very good work that men have been doing in recent generations to undo the damage of the toxic male stereotype.
Working in trades and various industries as I have, I can say without doubt it has improved a lot.
In my view, while intersectionality is a necessary improvement to an ideology which was very much an academic, middle class white phenomenon, it needs to take the next step, and acknowledge that men, especially working class men, including white cis males, have arguably suffered as much as anyone, if not more than most, over recent generations.
My grandfather was haunted to the end of his days by his experiences in war, my father grew up with that trauma and also struggles, I too have been brutalised by the expectations, oppressions and cruelties of mainstream society.
The fact is, humans, if they don’t work on themselves, are not always very nice to each other.
In my experience, this is true of people of all genders, sexualities, and ethnicities.
It takes work and constant vigilance, and it’s not easy, and we all make mistakes.
But we try, and hopefully we slowly improve.
Finally I will emphasise that this “ideology” we speak of, is not Marxist in anyway, that is right-wing BS and propaganda.
Marx was fundamentally concerned with the inherent nihilism of capitalism and it’s the destruction of cultural values and ways of life, it’s exploitation of everything and everyone to the all consuming gods of righteous greed and profit at any cost.
Identitarian ideology does nothing to challenge the neo liberal laissez faire economic orthodoxy, it seeks only to have a more diverse elite exploiting the rest of us.
When they say “patriarchy”, what they are actually talking about, is the exploitation of the majority by the greedy and powerful few. Female members of these elite have been perfectly happy to condone and participate in this exploitation and still do. This exploitation in the service of entrenched, entitled factions is evident in almost every ethnicity and culture on earth.
To those who parrot idiotic, muddle headed “conservative” grand narratives ascribing all of this toxic ideology to Marx, I say you have entirely missed the point, and you know nothing about marx, whose primary view was that the workplace should be democratised.
Quinn: You say some important things in your response, thank you. I do think some authors have done a good job explaining the trauma inherent in traditional male socialization and enculturation while at the same time not using that as an excuse to put their pain onto others in externalization disorders. I think of bell hooks in her book “The Will to Change.” I think of many of John Lee’s books and Terry Real.
I wholeheartedly disagree with the presumption and arrogance of this article. There is no such thing as toxic masculinity. There is bad behavior yes, but no such thing as toxic masculinity. There are very clear and obvious reasons why men and women are different and need to be treated differently. One clear cut example is the simple fact that women can have children. How can a man “mansplain” something as you say (explain something that a woman already knows), if he doesn’t know what she does know or doesn’t know? That doesn’t make any logical sense. I disagree with the idea that women are better off by rejecting their socialization. Women in this modern day struggle to find long term meaningful relationships because they are no longer attractive. They reject their traditional feminine role. As a direct result, marriage and birth rates are at an all time low and the amount of single mothers has sky rocketed. Studies show that children raised with both parents in the home are less likely to exhibit stress, mental illness, violence, health issues, have higher levels of education etc. the benefits go on and on. Yet men are not even discussed nor is their opinion even warranted in the raising and caretaking of their children. It’s entirely a woman’s decision. There’s an irony in the idea that women can leave traditional gender roles behind, it’s that it is in direct defiance and an aberration to nature.
You can’t change these most fundamental aspects of society or it will collapse. In ancient Judea, when a woman committed adultery, she was stoned to death. I’m not saying that our society should go to the extreme, but I am saying that we can’t erode gender roles and socialization entirely. It’s bad for everyone. A future that is female, is no future at all. All civilizations of the past where women have risen to power collapsed promptly afterward. Sparta became a second rate nation in a matter of decades and it’s population declined, Rome lost influence in all of its territories and it’s population declined, western alliances are falling apart….. and their populations are declining. The irony, is that though women want to leave traditional roles behind, they themselves are still attracted to traditional roles for men. It’s mismatched. Women are less happy because they are no longer in their traditional role because they reject it. They ate the propaganda on how a modern woman should be, and found themselves wanting. Women have “toxic femininity” (it doesn’t really exist because it’s just women being women but let’s explore this shall we?….). Have you ever noticed how women love to play the victim? It happens all the time. I have five sisters so I’m very familiar with the way women think. Being a victim is a position of power for a woman, the biggest victim wins. Why? Because a woman’s greatest strength is the facade of her weakness, and a mans greatest weakness is the facade of his strength. Women learn from an early age to postulate themselves as victims to escape punishment and taking accountability and responsibility for their actions. This dynamic in our society is so deeply abused that women have even manipulated legislation in their favor. They will focus on statistics that back their view on the rare exceptions rather than the general truth…. just to postulate themselves as victims. Are some women actual victims? Yes a very small minority. But people refuse to argue with women about the general truth…. for fear of being accused of…. overgeneralizing. Because once again to overgeneralize them would be Yet another way for them…. to be….. a victim…. get it? You might ask yourself why the populations decline in those failing civilizations and it’s very simple. Women are naturally hypergamous. It’s the scientific term for the concept of wanting to “marry up”. It’s almost exclusively a trait among the females of our society. This means that women are less likely to mate with males who have less than they do…. thus if women are in power… populations decline…. and societies collapse because there is no longer a labor force to supplant the needs of the previous generation. Western civilizations have a band-aid solution by using immigration to supplant their numbers but are only slowing the inevitable. The only way to fix this, is to bring back a little more tradition. Men need to have more than women so that those women can “Mary up”. It’s literally in their nature soooooo….. I guess they haven’t completely released themselves from the “shackles of their socialization” 🙄
For those who haven’t yet confronted wholesale woke feminist falsehood, fraud, misrepresentation in academe and in psychology and who desire to open their minds so that the can free themselves from monstrously misandrist but PC gynocentrism, I’d suggest:
1) The Madness of Crowds (Murray) or Cynical Theories (Pluckrose)
2) Professing Feminism (Patia)
3) Lying in a Room of One’s Own (Stolba)
4) Anything by Camille Paglia
5) Spreading/Legalizing/Sanctifying Misandry (Nathanson and Young)
6) 12 Scholars Respond the APA’s Guidelines for Treating Men: https://quillette.com/2019/02/04/psychologists-respond-to-the-apas-guidance-for-treating-men-and-boys/
7) The Red Pill (documentary). (Note how viciously the former feminist and FEMALE filmmaker was beat up by the gynocentric feminist press for daring to document reality in an honest and balanced manner.)
8) The Woman Racket (Moxon)
While women certainly do need to be treated equally or at least equitably (because the sexes are obviously not equal) to ignore feminist socio-political-professional misandry/sexism, the gross gynocentrism of society, and the near complete indifference to equality when equality means respecting men’s/boys human rights or sharing society’s most dangerous, difficult, uncomfortable work EQUALLY is to pull professional wool over the eyes of the demographic that most needs help today…based on the gross ‘gender’ (sex) death/empathy gap that ‘favors’ men and boys. It is a gross moral, intellectual, and professional iatrogenic outrage to ignore socio-political-professional evil aimed at men whilst pathologizing men alone and whilst completely ignoring the evil the women to do to men/boys and to women/girls. Sadly,that is the norm in ‘therapy’ today.
Women commit domestic violence and rape at near parity with men and they target men, women, and children. Women also commit the majority of non-sexual child abuse. To imply that men or that society or men will better off as soon as men become wanna be women is as insane as suggesting that women (who are becoming increasingly miserable despite their entitled and bigoted gender-feminist empowerment) will be happier as wanna-be-men.
Thank you for your comment and encouragement.
The “two pound hammer” in the emotional toolkit is how you deal with being the fireman, oil-rig worker, career soldier, etc. and maintain being about to function outside of work. When you alter that tool to perform many different tasks, it isn’t very good at being a hammer anymore, and often fails at everything your trying to use it for.
Jim: We work to help guys keep their two pound hammer for the proper contexts, while adding to their emotional and relational tool box, rather than subtracting.
I wholeheartedly agree with your insightful perspective on the evolution of masculinity. You make the case eloquently that we must redefine what it means to be a man in today’s world.
Our society is in dire need of reshaping masculinity’s definition. The toxic masculinity that once governed our culture, dictating that men should suppress their feelings and adhere to rigid standards, is indeed injurious to growth and development. This is an outdated framework that can no longer stand in the progressive society we are striving for.
Just as you have pointed out, misinterpretations of “toxic masculinity” have stymied essential conversations. An understanding that the term refers to harmful forms and manifestations of masculinity, not masculinity in its entirety, is fundamental to moving forward.
The contrast you draw between positive masculinity and toxic masculinity sheds light on the potential for a healthier, more empowering form of manhood. It’s about driving home the point that masculinity, like femininity, exists on a spectrum, and it’s high time we moved beyond the binary thinking that constrains us.
The call to break free from gender boxes is indeed a powerful one. Traditionally perceived feminine traits like empathy, sensitivity, and gentleness should not be seen as weaknesses in men. On the contrary, these characteristics foster emotional intelligence and nurture healthier relationships.
The future is indeed female, not in a gender-biased way, but in the sense that both men and women need to embrace traits that have been traditionally considered feminine to thrive in the contemporary world. The dismantling of old patriarchal constructs is a challenge we all, particularly men, should be willing to take on.
Like you, I also believe that the next frontier for men involves an open-minded exploration of their masculinity. Finding the courage to tap into their emotional selves can only enhance their fulfilling lives.
As we move towards a more inclusive vision of masculinity, it is inevitable that there will be challenges. Tradition has a strong hold, and there will be resistance. As you’ve said, the journey to breaking free from the old gender script won’t be easy, but it is necessary. And it will take more than a few good men to effect this cultural shift.
Your article serves as a clarion call for the necessary detoxification of masculinity. Let this be the rallying cry for all men to break free from the shackles of outdated norms and fully embrace their humanity. It is indeed time to usher in a new era of 21st-century masculinity. An era where men are free to be emotionally expressive, nurturing, empathetic, and fully human.
Juice: I thank you for taking the time to write your positive response to my article. As you’ve seen in other comments, mostly individuals who disagree take the time to provide their countering opinion. I realize this is a controversial topic, but I am trying to frame it in a way that is more inviting for others to read and consider. Again, thanks for your positive feedback and it is heartening to know there are men out there who are eager and willing to be a part of fashioning a more balanced masculinity fit for the 21st century.