Toxic Masculinity

Is There a Non-Toxic Version?

“Toxic” masculinity is in the news, and no wonder. From Donald Trump threatening to obliterate civilizations to Pete Hegseth boasting about punching people when they’re down, there’s plenty of toxic behavior to go around. But are Trump and Hegseth exemplars of masculinity? Do people look to them as role models for how “real men” behave?

Certainly, under Trump, there’s been a revival of unapologetic “toughness.” But this isn’t about being tough or masculine: it’s more about being a dick. A jerk. A dipshit, if you will.

Of course, the idea there’s a “war” on men and that men have to fight back by reinvigorating and reasserting their masculinity is hardly new. When Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, “Real Men Don’t Eat Quiche” (1982) became a very popular book. I still remember a joke from that book:

How many “real men” does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

None. Real men aren’t afraid of the dark.

Funny stuff. And then there was the “Iron John” movement c.1990 and the book by the same name by Robert Bly, where men were encouraged to get out in the woods and howl at the moon as a rite of passage. (That’s a caricature, I know.) But I’ve never thought American men needed much encouragement to be manly, however that’s defined.

I do, however, question the association of masculinity (however defined) with toxicity, as if “toxic masculinity” is the only brand going. Surely, there’s a masculinity that isn’t toxic? One that involves qualities like fortitude and resolve together with empathy and compassion?

As a historian, I know gender is a “social construct,” and that masculine and feminine are flexible and labile terms across time and cultures. That said, your average person without a fancy degree may embrace traditional notions of those terms unreflectively, seeing masculine in stereotypical terms as GI Joe and feminine as Barbie. (The Barbie movie did a decent job of challenging these terms without deconstructing them, but of course it was a comedy looking to make money.)

But is it really the case that there’s a “Bipartisan Hatred of All Things Feminine,” as Jessica Grose wrote in the New York Times this June 10th? Grose suggests “If we’ve defined authentic power as male, then there’s no way for a woman to claim it.” But who’s defined “authentic power” as “male”? And aren’t there women right now in powerful positions throughout society? (Of course, there should be more women in such positions; the glass ceiling hasn’t disappeared no matter how much women “lean in.”)

A link to Grose’s piece highlighted “the impossible path forward for women in politics.” No successful woman today will say it was easy, but “impossible”? The AI gods tell me there are currently 154 women in Congress, or 28.5% of its members. Yes, I’d like to see more women there, but “impossible”?

At the risk of sounding like a “soy boy,” masculine and feminine are terms that blur into each other. But because these terms are laden with so much cultural baggage, I’m unsure how useful they really are. If I use words like tough, strong, determined, guardian, even warfighter and warrior, can’t a woman be those things? Of course she can. And she can obviously be “feminine” too. Just think of the character of Ripley in the “Aliens” franchise or Sarah Connor in the “Terminator” franchise. Tough, strong, independent, intelligent, outspoken, “feminine” women. And there are plenty of them in real life.

And if I use words like warm, caring, nurturing, compassionate, and sensitive, can’t a man be those things? Of course he can. Yes, “real men” cry too.

There are perhaps as many definitions of masculinity and femininity as there are men and women in this world.

So, instead of toxic masculinity, perhaps we should speak of toxic people. Don’t let the jerks, the dipshits, hide their toxic behavior behind constructions like “masculinity.” Treating other people like dirt is always wrong, no matter how “masculine” you think you’re being as you punch someone when they’re down.