The Problem With a Fight Against Toxic Masculinity

Toxic masculinity has evolved over the past few years into a blanket defense of masculine aggression and misogyny. The word, which contrasts "toxic" characteristics like violence and entitlement from "healthy" masculinity, has gained popularity to the extent that Gillette last month included it in a widely shared commercial denouncing bullying and sexual harassment. The American Psychological Association released new recommendations for therapists dealing with boys and men around the same time, cautioning that severe manifestations of some "typical" masculine traits are connected to aggressiveness, misogyny, and detrimental health effects.

The rise of the phrase has been accompanied by an expected controversy. At a time when men already suffer difficulties including greater rates of drug overdose and suicide, many conservatives claim that accusations of toxic masculinity are an attack on manhood itself. Meanwhile, a lot of progressives believe that the de-masculinization of masculinity is a crucial step towards achieving gender equality. Newspaper and magazine articles in the midst of this raging debate have toxic masculinity to blame for rape, murder, mass shootings, gang violence, online bullying, climate change, Brexit, and Donald Trump's election.

Masculinity can be detrimental, in fact. However, both liberal and conservative perspectives on this matter frequently get the meaning of the term "toxic masculinity" wrong. When term is used, people frequently diagnose the issue of masculine violence and entitlement as a cultural or spiritual illness that has infected modern men and causes them to commit reproachable acts. However, toxic masculinity in and of itself is not a cause. As the idea has evolved and developed over the past 30 years, it has acted more as a barometer for the gender politics of the time and as an arrow towards the more subtly evolving root causes of violence and sexism.

Despite the term's recent rise in popularity among feminists, the women's movement did not invent it. It was first used in the 1980s and 1990s mythopoetic men's movement, which was partly inspired by a backlash against second-wave feminism. This organisation preached a manly spirituality through male-only workshops, outdoor retreats, and drumming circles to defend what it called the "deep masculine"—a protective, "warrior" masculinity—from toxic masculinity. According to the movement, society feminised boys by denying them the rites and rituals they needed to realise their true identities as males, which led to men's aggressiveness and frustration.

Since the late 1980s, a new sociology of masculinity has flatly rejected this assertion of a unique, authentic masculinity. This school of thinking, which is led by the sociologist Raewyn Connell, views gender as the outcome of relationships and behaviours rather than a predetermined set of identities and characteristics. Connell's writings discuss a variety of masculinities that are influenced by class, race, culture, sexuality, and other aspects, frequently competing with one another for the title of most real. The norms by which a "genuine man" is defined can differ significantly across time and place, according to this perspective, which is currently the dominant social-scientific interpretation of masculinity.

Common masculine values like social respect, physical prowess, and sexual potency, according to Connell and others, become problematic when they set impossible standards. Boys and men who have fallen short may feel insecure and nervous, which may lead them to use force in an effort to feel and appear authoritative and in charge. In this case, male aggression is not a result of a negative or toxic aspect of masculinity that has snuck in. Instead, it results from the peculiarities of these men's social and political environments, which predispose them to internal conflicts over social expectations and masculine entitlement.

Men's character types have frequently been assumed to be fixed in the common concept of masculinity, Connell informed me. "I have my doubts about the concept of character types. Understanding the circumstances in which groups of men act, the trends in those actions, and the effects of what they do, in my opinion, is more crucial.

But when this research gained popularity, it was widely misrepresented. Despite Connell's reservations, her sophisticated theories were being depicted by the middle of the 2000s in ways that mimicked mythological tropes of constructive and destructive masculinity. Toxic masculinity is "the constellation of socially regressive male qualities that serve to foster domination, the devaluation of women, homophobia, and wanton violence," according to Terry Kupers, a psychiatrist who studied males in jail in 2005. Kupers made the case—invoking Connell's work—that although jail brings out the "toxic" features of masculinity in inmates, this toxicity already exists in the larger cultural setting. (Kupers told me that he believes his study's detractors mistook believed that he asserted that masculinity is poisonous in and of itself, but he recognized that the article might have clarified this.)

Since then, the resurgence of toxic masculinity has seeped into popular culture through scholarly literature. Today, the idea offers a charmingly straightforward diagnostic for masculine failure and gendered violence: These are the aspects of masculinity that are "toxic," as opposed to the positive aspects. Men and boys are afflicted by a societal "disease," according to current proponents of the idea, who are sometimes unaware of the idea's historical roots. Cultural renewal, or changing men and boys' values and attitudes, is the solution. Barack Obama, a former president, supports mentorship programmes as a remedy to a "self-defeating model for being a man," according to which respect is acquired through violence. Various workshops and initiatives enable boys and men to explore their to cultivate a strong, "advanced" masculinity and to express feelings. These programmes are starting to become required at some educational institutions.

These initiatives undoubtedly have the potential to be beneficial. Boys and men who have sexist beliefs are more likely to engage in gendered violence, according to numerous studies. According to Connell, "the term toxic masculinity is making a legitimate point when it pertains to the assertion of masculine privilege or men's power. Gender patterns in abusive and aggressive conduct are well-known.

Where do these sexist viewpoints come from, is the question. Are men and boys simply the objects of a misogynistic and violent cultural brainwashing that requires reeducation into the "correct" beliefs? Or are these issues deeper-rooted and the result of the numerous paradoxes and uncertainties that men's lives face as a result of gender inequality? The issue with an anti-toxic masculinity crusade is that by focusing on culture as the adversary, it runs the risk of ignoring the actual circumstances and forces that support culture.

This misunderstanding poses real risk. People who oppose toxic masculinity may unintentionally work with the institutions that support it by concentrating on culture. For instance, the alcohol industry has funded studies that disavow the link between alcohol and violence and place the blame on "masculinity" and "drinking cultures." The industry is reiterating liberal feminist ideas about toxic masculinity in this area. But there is compelling evidence that the number of liquor stores in a particular region raises the local incidence of domestic violence. Any credible plan to stop violence against women will take into account sexism, macho norms, and alcohol availability.

The idea of toxic masculinity promotes the idea that while there are universal causes for male aggression and other social issues, there are universal solutions as well. However, as Connell and her team have been demonstrating for years, tangible realities matter. Violence, entitlement, and misogyny are common elements among societies, yet they manifest in various ways depending on the location. In one Australian programme for preventing violence against Aboriginal people, which my colleagues and I examined, Aboriginal educators collaborated with men and boys to pinpoint the main causes of gendered violence and inequality. Solutions were based on cultural pride, customised for local circumstances, and supported by an understanding of how racism and trauma affect generations after them. Since the programme recognized that masculinity itself isn't harmful, it aimed to recognize and alter the causes of harmful gendered behaviour.

These roots are very different from, for instance, the ones that are present in wealthy, majority-white communities where male violence and sexism are prevalent. Responses to sexism in workplace culture and practices, such as campaigns to eradicate it, are especially well-received in middle-class neighborhoods. They don't have to be—and they aren't universal solutions. The effectiveness of attempts to eradicate gender violence and inequality depends on understanding the variations in men's and boys' lives.