Toxic masculinity

The term "toxic masculinity" has become a focal point in contemporary discussions about gender, identity, and societal expectations for men. It's a concept that aims to identify and challenge certain destructive aspects of traditional male roles, often linked to harm against both men and women. But what exactly does it mean, where did it come from, and why is it so hotly debated? Toxic masculinity refers to socially destructive aspects of traditional male norms, such as misogyny, violence, and emotional repression, that harm both individuals and society. The concept originated in the mythopoetic men's movement, but gained prominence in academic and popular discourse to critically examine gender roles without condemning men themselves. Adherence to these toxic norms can lead to significant negative health outcomes for men, including increased psychological problems and reduced help-seeking behaviors, while also perpetuating societal issues like violence.

Source: Wikipedia

AI Summary

The term "toxic masculinity" has become a focal point in contemporary discussions about gender, identity, and societal expectations for men. It's a concept that aims to identify and challenge certain destructive aspects of traditional male roles, often linked to harm against both men and women. But what exactly does it mean, where did it come from, and why is it so hotly debated?

What is Toxic Masculinity?

At its heart, "toxic masculinity" isn't about men being inherently bad, but rather about specific harmful aspects of traditional masculine norms. It describes those traits and behaviors within hegemonic masculinity — the dominant form of masculinity in a given society — that are socially destructive.

Think of traits like rampant misogyny, homophobia, and a relentless drive for violent domination. These are deemed "toxic" because they often lead to serious societal problems, including sexual assault and domestic violence. The casual phrase "boys will be boys" often normalizes aggression and bullying, inadvertently promoting these destructive behaviors from a young age.

But it's not just others who suffer. Men themselves are deeply impacted. A rigid insistence on self-reliance and the suppression of emotions can correlate with psychological problems in men, such as depression, chronic stress, and substance use disorders. These toxic traits are also characteristic of the unspoken codes of behavior found in harsh environments, like prisons.

Crucially, the concept of toxic masculinity does not condemn all masculine traits. Qualities like devotion to work, pride in athletic achievement, or a strong desire to provide for one's family are traditionally masculine, yet are generally not considered "toxic." It's about discerning the harmful from the healthy.

However, the term itself has drawn criticism. Some argue that it unfairly implies gender-related issues are inherent male flaws, rather than complex social constructs. Understanding its origins helps illuminate these debates.

Origins of the Term

The term "toxic masculinity" first emerged from the mythopoetic men's movement in the 1980s and 1990s. This movement sought to redefine masculinity, contrasting stereotypical notions with a "real" or "deep" masculinity they believed men had lost touch with.

Authors like Shepherd Bliss within this movement used the term to describe social pressures on men to be violent, competitive, emotionally distant, and fiercely independent. Bliss, for example, advocated for a return to agrarian values as an alternative to the "potentially toxic masculinity" of a pure warrior ethic.

Sociologist Michael Kimmel noted that this idea of "toxic masculinity" was part of the mythopoetic response to male feelings of powerlessness during a time when feminism was challenging traditional male authority. Bliss, he explained, railed against this "toxic masculinity" — which he felt was responsible for much of the world's evil — while celebrating the everyday goodness of men who work hard and nurture their families.

Academic Perspective

In academic and social science discourse, toxic masculinity refers to traditional cultural norms that can be detrimental to men, women, and society overall. The key here is that it emphasizes the harmful effects of conformity to certain ideal male behaviors, not an indictment of men themselves.

This academic lens defines toxic masculinity by a rigid adherence to traditional male gender roles. This often means stigmatizing and limiting the range of emotions boys and men can comfortably express, while simultaneously elevating others, particularly anger. It also highlights societal expectations for men to achieve dominance across economic, political, and social spheres.

Gender studies scholar Raewyn Connell discusses "toxic practices" that arise from what she calls "hegemonic masculinity," rather than essential traits. Practices like physical violence, she argues, can reinforce men's dominance over women in Western societies, making them a salient feature of hegemonic masculinity, though not always its defining characteristic.

Terry Kupers, a psychiatrist, characterizes toxic masculinity as "the constellation of socially regressive male traits that serve to foster domination, the devaluation of women, homophobia and wanton violence." He contrasts these destructive aspects — like misogyny, greed, and the need to aggressively compete — with positive traits such as pride in sports, loyalty to friends, or success at work.

Feminist author John Stoltenberg takes an even stronger stance, arguing that all traditional notions of masculinity are inherently toxic because they reinforce the oppression of women. This perspective underscores the wide range of interpretations the term has provoked.

Shaping Behavior: Gender Norms

The impact of toxic masculine gender roles is particularly evident in environments like prisons. Here, qualities like extreme self-reliance, the domination of others through violence, and an absolute avoidance of any appearance of femininity or weakness form an unspoken code among inmates and even staff.

This suppression of vulnerable emotions, though perhaps a coping mechanism in such harsh conditions, contributes to deeper psychological trauma. This traumatic socialization often begins in childhood, through bullying among peers or even domestic violence at home. Phrases like "boys will be boys" often dismiss the real emotional pain caused by aggression and lack of connection.

The promotion of these idealized masculine roles — emphasizing toughness, dominance, self-reliance, and emotional restriction — can start in infancy. These norms are transmitted not just by parents and relatives, but also powerfully reinforced by media representations of masculinity, particularly online.

The Toll on Health

Adherence to "traditional masculinity ideology" is associated with significant negative effects on both mental and physical health, according to the American Psychological Association. Men who strictly conform to norms like risk-taking, violence, dominance, and the suppression of emotions face a higher likelihood of experiencing psychological distress.

These psychological challenges can include depression, chronic stress, body image issues, and substance use disorders, alongside difficulties in social functioning. The negative effects are often amplified in men who also strongly adhere to particularly "toxic" norms, such as believing in self-reliance above all else, seeking power over women, or engaging in sexual promiscuity.

The cultural pressure for men to be stoic and self-reliant can seriously undermine mental health. It makes men less likely to seek psychological help or to develop the emotional skills needed to navigate difficult feelings. Preliminary research even suggests this stoicism might contribute to shorter lifespans, as men may be less inclined to discuss health problems with their doctors.

Beyond individual psychology, toxic masculinity also contributes to broader public health problems. Elevated rates of alcoholism and certain types of cancer among men have been linked to these norms. Additionally, behaviors like "trophy-hunting" sexual conquest contribute to higher rates of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.

Psychiatrist Frank Pittman highlighted how rigid masculine norms harm men, leading to shorter lifespans, a greater incidence of violent death, and specific ailments such as lung cancer and liver cirrhosis. It's a stark reminder that these social constructs have very real, biological consequences.

Critiques of the Concept

Despite its widespread use, the concept of toxic masculinity has faced considerable criticism. This critique comes from a diverse range of voices, including conservatives, some feminists, academics, and sex researchers, each approaching the term from different angles.

Academics frequently criticize the term for being poorly defined, promoting biological essentialism (the idea that gender traits are inherent rather than learned), and being overly ideological without sufficient empirical research. Concerns also arise that it individualizes systemic issues, creates a simplistic "toxic/healthy" binary, and lacks intersectionality, failing to account for global cultural and class differences.

Recent studies have shown that men who believe masculinity is a negative trait can experience reduced mental well-being. A 2020 pilot survey found that a majority of men considered the term "insulting, probably harmful to boys, and unlikely to help men's behaviour." This has led some researchers and domestic abuse charities to advise against using the term when supporting male victims.

From a feminist perspective, some scholars like Andrea Waling argue that "toxic masculinity" is an essentialist concept that overlooks the role of individual choice and context in harmful behaviors. Waling further criticizes the idea of "healthy masculinity," suggesting that by using such terms, we inadvertently reinforce masculinity as the only legitimate expression of gender for men, devaluing femininity in the process.

Other critics, including Timothy Laurie, argue that the misuse of "toxic masculinity" can lead to a damaging misperception that feminists are uninterested in, or even hostile toward, the well-being of boys and men, thus alienating potential allies.

Josephine Browne views the term as counterproductive and reductive, struggling to escape its historical roots. She describes it as "lazy" because it homogenizes men globally, particularly older, poorer, or less educated men, shifting the debate from institutional issues to individual nature. Instead of a binary, she advocates for language that encourages richer self-awareness and social analysis among men.

Carol Harrington's research, surveying academic works, found that over half used the term without providing a clear definition, highlighting its imprecision. She echoes concerns that the "toxic/healthy binary" individualizes responsibility, reducing complex behaviors to character flaws, and ultimately helps maintain gender hierarchies by blaming "certain bad men" rather than addressing systemic inequalities.

Unsurprisingly, many conservatives and members of the alt-right reject the concept outright, viewing it as an incoherent attack on masculinity itself. When the American Psychological Association issued guidelines warning about the harms of "traditional masculinity ideology," conservative commentators quickly criticized it as an assault on male identity. The APA clarified that their focus was on negative traits like violence and hyper-competitiveness, while also acknowledging positive masculine traits like courage and leadership.

Ultimately, the ongoing debate around "toxic masculinity" reflects a broader societal struggle to understand and redefine what it means to be a man in the modern world — a conversation that Rutger Bregman suggests could benefit from exploring its opposite: "heroic masculinity."

Article

Toxic masculinity

According to social learning theory, teaching boys to suppress emotions, as in the saying "big boys don't cry", is a significant part of gender socialization in Western society.

Toxic masculinity is a concept used in academic and media discussions to refer to those aspects of hegemonic masculinity that are socially destructive, such as misogyny, homophobia, and violent domination. These traits are considered "toxic" due in part to their promotion of violence, including sexual assault and domestic violence. Socialization of boys sometimes also normalizes violence, such as in the saying "boys will be boys" about bullying and aggression.

Self-reliance and emotional repression are correlated with increased psychological problems in men such as depression, increased stress, and substance use disorders. Toxic masculine traits are characteristic of the unspoken code of behavior among incarcerated men, where they exist in part as a response to the harsh conditions of prison life.

Other traditionally masculine traits such as devotion to work, pride in excelling at sports, and providing for one's family, are not considered to be "toxic". The concept was originally used by authors associated with the mythopoetic men's movement, such as Shepherd Bliss. These authors contrasted stereotypical notions of masculinity with a "real" or "deep" masculinity, which they said men had lost touch with in modern society. Critics of the term "toxic masculinity" argue that it incorrectly implies that gender-related issues are caused by inherent male traits.

Terminology

Toxic masculinity

The term "toxic masculinity" originated in the mythopoetic men's movement of the 1980s and 1990s. It later found wide use in both academic and popular writing. Media discussions since the 2010s have used the term to refer to traditional and stereotypical norms of masculinity and manhood. According to the sociologist Michael Flood, these include "expectations that boys and men must be active, aggressive, tough, daring, and dominant".

Mythopoetic movement

Some authors associated with the mythopoetic men's movement have referred to the social pressures placed upon men to be violent, competitive, independent, and unfeeling as a "toxic" form of masculinity, in contrast to a "real" or "deep" masculinity that they say men have lost touch within modern society. The academic Shepherd Bliss proposed a return to agrarianism as an alternative to the "potentially toxic masculinity" of the warrior ethic. Sociologist Michael Kimmel writes that Bliss's notion of toxic masculinity can be seen as part of the mythopoetic movement's response to male feelings of powerlessness at a time when the feminist movement was challenging traditional male authority:

Thus Shepherd Bliss, for example, rails against what he calls 'toxic masculinity'—which he believes is responsible for most of the evil in the world—and proclaims the unheralded goodness of the men who fight the fires and till the soil and nurture their families.

Academic usage

In the social sciences, toxic masculinity refers to traditional cultural masculine norms that can be harmful to men, women, and society overall. This concept of toxic masculinity does not condemn men or male attributes, but rather emphasizes the harmful effects of conformity to certain traditional masculine ideal behaviors such as dominance, self-reliance, and competition. Toxic masculinity is thus defined by adherence to traditional male gender roles that consequently stigmatize and limit the emotions boys and men may comfortably express while elevating other emotions such as anger. It is marked by economic, political, and social expectations that men seek and achieve dominance.

In a gender studies context, Raewyn Connell refers to toxic practices that may arise out of what she terms hegemonic masculinity, rather than essential traits. Connell argues that such practices, such as physical violence, may serve to reinforce men's dominance over women in Western societies. She stresses that such practices are a salient feature of hegemonic masculinity, although not always the defining features.

Terry Kupers of the Wright Institute describes toxic masculinity as "the constellation of socially regressive male traits that serve to foster domination, the devaluation of women, homophobia and wanton violence", involving "the need to aggressively compete and dominate others". According to Kupers, toxic masculinity includes aspects of hegemonic masculinity that are socially destructive, "such as misogyny, homophobia, greed, and violent domination"; these are contrasted with more positive traits such as "pride in [one's] ability to win at sports, to maintain solidarity with a friend, to succeed at work, or to provide for [one's] family". Feminist author John Stoltenberg has argued that all traditional notions of masculinity are toxic and reinforce the oppression of women.

Gender norms

Toxic masculinity

According to Kupers, toxic masculine gender roles are a feature of life for men in prisons in the United States, where they are reflected in the behavior of both staff and inmates. The qualities of extreme self-reliance, domination of other men through violence, and avoiding the appearance of either femininity or weakness, comprise an unspoken code among prisoners. Suppressing vulnerable emotions is often adopted to successfully cope with the harsh conditions of prison life, defined by punishment, social isolation, and aggression. These factors likely play a role in suicide among male prisoners.

Toxic masculinity can also take the form of bullying of boys by their peers and domestic violence directed toward boys at home. The often violent socialization of boys produces psychological trauma through the promotion of aggression and lack of interpersonal connection. Such trauma is often disregarded, such as in the saying "boys will be boys" about bullying. The promotion of idealized masculine roles emphasizing toughness, dominance, self-reliance, and the restriction of emotion can begin as early as infancy. Such norms are transmitted by parents, other male relatives, and members of the community. Media representations of masculinity on websites such as YouTube often promote similar stereotypical gender roles.

According to Ronald F. Levant and others, traditionally prescribed masculine behaviors can produce harmful effects including violence (including sexual assault and domestic violence), promiscuity, risky and/or socially irresponsible behaviors including substance use disorders, and dysfunction in relationships.

A 2026 study in New Zealand found that a desire to feel "manly" was not necessarily a sign of holding socially damaging views. The study found that only a small percentage of men surveyed fell into the worst category of "hostile toxicity", and that toxic masculinity tends to occur mainly among socially disadvantaged men.

Health effects

Toxic masculinity

The American Psychological Association (APA) argues that "traditional masculinity ideology" is associated with negative effects on mental and physical health. Men who adhere to traditionally masculine cultural norms, such as risk-taking, violence, dominance, the primacy of work, need for emotional control, desire to win, and pursuit of social status, tend to be more likely to experience psychological problems such as depression, stress, body image problems, substance use, and poor social functioning. The effect tends to be stronger in men who also emphasize "toxic" masculine norms, such as self-reliance, seeking power over women, and sexual promiscuity. The British Psychological Society argues that concepts such as toxic masculinity and hegemonic masculinity, although intended to describe specific behaviors, tend to imply that all men are dysfunctional in some way and advocates against "ideological approaches" such as "patriarchy theory" in treating men's mental health.

In the United States, the social value of self-reliance diminished during the first two decades of the twenty-first century, as society has moved more toward interdependence. Both self-reliance and the stifling of emotional expression can work against mental health, as they make it less likely for men to seek psychological help or to possess the ability to deal with difficult emotions. Preliminary research suggests that cultural pressure for men to be stoic and self-reliant may also shorten men's lifespans by causing them to be less likely to discuss health problems with their physicians.

Toxic masculinity is also implicated in socially-created public health problems, such as elevated rates of alcoholism and certain types of cancer among men, or the role of "trophy-hunting" sexual behavior in rates of transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.

Psychiatrist Frank Pittman wrote about how men are harmed by traditional masculine norms, suggesting that this includes shorter lifespans, greater incidence of violent death, and ailments such as lung cancer and cirrhosis of the liver.

Criticism

Toxic masculinity

The concept of toxic masculinity has received criticism from conservatives, as well as some feminists, academics, and sex researchers.

The concept has been criticized by academics for being poorly defined or under-defined; for promoting biological essentialism; for being ideological and yielding little empirical research on violence; for individualizing structural or systemic issues; for promoting a simple "toxic/healthy" binary that is unhelpful or harmful; for lacking intersectionality and failing to account for global cultural and class-based differences in expressions of masculinity; for being used to target men belonging to marginalized groups; and for being harmful to male mental health.

A 2020 pilot survey of 203 men and 53 women found a majority, around 80%, considered the term "insulting, probably harmful to boys, and unlikely to help men's behaviour", leading some researchers to argue against use of the term when dealing with male survivors of domestic abuse. Some domestic abuse charities' guidelines for handling male victims suggest alternative terms or avoiding its use altogether.

Researcher Andrea Waling argues that toxic masculinity is an essentialist concept that ignores the role of choice and context in causing harmful behaviors and attitudes related to masculinity. Waling further criticized the concept of 'healthy masculinity', stating that in using the term "we continue to set masculinity up as the only expression of gender that men can legitimately engage in, thus reinforcing the notion that femininity [...] remains a less valued, and less legitimate, expression of gender", concluding that use of either term contributes to, rather than addresses, gender inequalities. Scholars Timothy Laurie et al. further argue that the misuse of the term "toxic masculinity" can contribute to a misperception that feminists are uninterested in or hostile toward the lives of boys and men.

Josephine Browne argues that the label is counterproductive; a reductive term that struggles to escape from its historic roots, reducing complex socially learned behaviours to biological essence and allowing critics to shift the debate from institutions and structures to nature versus nurture. Browne describes use of the term as 'lazy' because it "homogenises men on a global scale – especially older men, or powerless men, the poor or the uneducated". She argues that many men are acutely aware of women's suffering and care deeply for women in their lives; therefore instead of limiting men's emotional vocabulary to "toxic and non-toxic", feminists should "support language that will generate much richer self-awareness and social analysis".

Carol Harrington criticizes the term as a poorly defined moral shorthand, surveying 60 published academic works in 2016 and finding "more than half" use the term without providing any definition. Harrington echoes the concern of Waling, arguing the "toxic/healthy binary" is individualizing, reducing behavior to a character flaw and serving to reinforce the very gender order it seeks to criticize. Harrington argues that 'toxic masculinity' should not be adopted as an analytical concept by feminists for these reasons, as it ultimately helps to maintain gender hierarchies, "individualize[s] responsibility for gender inequalities to certain bad men", and because accusations of 'toxic masculinity' have historically been leveled at marginalized men.

Many conservatives, including those in the alt-right, see the concept as incoherent or reject its existence. In January 2019, American conservative political commentators criticized the new American Psychological Association guidelines for warning about harms associated with "traditional masculinity ideology", arguing that it constitutes an attack on masculinity. APA chief of professional practice Jared Skillings responded to criticism by stating that the report's discussion of traditional masculinity is about "negative traits such as violence or over-competitiveness or being unwilling to admit weakness" and noting that the report also discusses positive traits traditionally associated with masculinity such as "courage, leadership, protectiveness".

Rutger Bregman stated after his first Reith Lectures that the opposite of toxic masculinity is heroic masculinity.