How Harmful is Toxic Masculinity for Both Women and Men?
In the post “Me Too” era, a particularly resonant and contentious term has infiltrated the zeitgeist: “Toxic Masculinity”. If we investigate this term, it becomes clear that there is a difference between the term and theory behind it, versus the metanarrative surrounding it and the ways in which it has been misrepresented. Toxic masculinity is toxic not only to feminist aims like gender equality, but also to the very men it supposedly defends from the vilification of ‘maleness’. But what is toxic masculinity? In what sense is it toxic? And who is the target of this toxicity?
1. What is a metanarrative?
The abstract concept ‘metanarrative’ is one first formulated by philosopher Jean Francois Lyotard to mean something like a story which seeks to totalise myriad socio-cultural, political, and historical events into one cohesive scheme. It attempts to unify and make sense of events in a way which conforms to some overarching story. For example, the metanarrative of the Freudian theory is that human nature can be reduced to repressed sexual desires. It is an oversimplification that dismisses nuance and often sidesteps the more precise and intended point. Most critically, metanarratives often endorse and normalise certain existing power structures and social norms.
The concept of metanarrative can help us understand an important distinction with regards to toxic masculinity. The first is the theory of toxic masculinity which, when properly and objectively understood, refers to a social and archetypal infrastructure that damages all expressions of gender. The other is the metanarrative around toxic masculinity; this is a misrepresented, stereo-typified account of the theory which perpetuates cliched ideas of feminists and the so-called feminist agenda. This toxic masculinity metanarrative, in one broad and coarse stroke, paints those who use the term as a means to gender equality as men-haters.
2. What is toxic masculinity really?
The etymology and origin of the term ‘toxic masculinity’ is unknown to most. It was born out of the mythopoetic men’s movement of the 1980s-90s which was not only in service of but also founded by men. These mythopoets, according to sociologist Michael Messner, believed that the nature and norms of society at the time “trapped men… blunting [the] powerful emotional communion and collective spiritual transcendence” and sought therefore to restore the “deep masculine”. This early formulation even spoke to the idea that men’s emotional expressivity was being suppressed in such a way that was actually in direct conflict with the “deep masculine”.
The movement itself makes certain problematic assumptions about feminism and its effect on “the man”. But those aside, there is at least one idea which speaks to the underbelly of toxic masculinity, namely that masculinity, when fully developed and allowed to exist without the restraints and restrictions of limiting gender archetypes, is not in itself toxic. The problematic themes like destruction, misogyny, violence, dominance which are so often attributed to masculinity in general, are in fact merely abnormal and harmful mutations. There is an account of masculinity which has morphed to mean something one dimensional, something which denies the very human, holistic expression of maleness, and it is this that is toxic rather than maleness itself.
Toxic masculinity is less about castigating and demonising ‘maleness’ or male attributes in general, as it is so often misconstrued to be, and much more an examination of the ways in which blind conformity “legitimises men’s dominant position in society”. It aims to explain how and why men maintain dominant social roles over women and other gender identities. In truth, toxic masculinity is something like a systemic beast in itself that damages not only women, but men too. It asks men to deny and reject any parts of their natural being which are considered anti-masculine. It insists that the prerequisite for manhood is the restriction of emotion and vulnerability, and the use of violence to assert power. Anything in opposition to these ideals renders them feminine and “weak”.
It is easy to see how these kinds of behaviours, which stem from a hostility toward the “feminine”, allow for a socio-cultural climate where violence and sexual assault can breed. Those who don’t understand the concept of toxic masculinity or are more interested in its metanarrative often overlook its pernicious effects on men.The patriarchy is an animal in and of itself with its own agenda, which is to maintain the historical status quo of male power in every sphere of society. It needs “soldiers” for lack of a better phrase. It also needs to keep every “non-man” from achieving power which could disrupt this hegemonic authority. Thus it seeks to preserve the notion that men must be a certain kind of thing, a thing which deliberately excludes large portions of the population, in order to be acknowledged and accepted as “masculine” - this most lauded of traits.
The reality, however, is that men are not as simple or one dimensional as the patriarchy would have us believe. Men have the same emotions that women do, and yet this construct behooves them to suppress some and amplify others. The traits which are disproportionately encouraged, like rage and dominance, must take precedence over anything that could be (under a patriarchal conception) painted as overtly feminine and thus weak; for example, things like sensitivity, connection to one’s inner emotional world, or tenderness.
What toxic masculinity points to is the patriarchal conception of what it is to be masculine. This definition is fundamentally anti-femininity. As a consequence, anything considered feminine must not be accessed by men because their maleness will be compromised. The implicit threat here is not only that femaleness is something inferior and unwanted, but that maleness - expressed in a very narrow and particular way, to the exclusion of anything feminine - is the only thing that makes a man worthy. This is why it is considered toxic; it is harmful not only because it perpetuates gender inequality and a culture which demonises women, but also to men who are consequently not permitted to explore a whole and balanced version of themselves.
This is where the toxic metanarrative of “toxic masculinity” begins.
3. What is the metanarrative of toxic masculinity and how is it weaponised by anti-feminists?
The metanarrative claims that those who espouse toxic masculinity are of the belief that being a man is toxic; that masculinity itself, or anything “masculine” (traditionally things like strength, courage, independence, leadership, assertiveness etc.) is toxic. This just simply is not true. Firstly, masculinity is not limited to being experienced or expressed by only the male gender. It is an energy, an attitude, one half of a whole which every human is born with.
These two energies are not binary, nor are they options available to us that we need to choose between. Rather, they are like two parts of a whole, shades on one continuum, which should both be fully developed, allowed, and expressed by the individual, regardless of gender. So where before we have seen what toxic masculinity actually seeks to address, there is a separate and large scale metanarrative which aims to discredit the term. It weaponises the misrepresentation of the toxic masculinity narrative and undermines feminism at large. Ultimately it strengthens the underbelly of the longstanding historical socio-cultural metanarrative that feminism hates all things “male” or “masculine".
4. How do the consequences of this metanarrative both hinder the feminist aim and negatively impact men?
Metanarratives are dangerous in general because they tend toward a totalising truth. By design they aim to simplify or distill entire ideologies or movements into one cohesive schema and therefore leave room for misrepresentation. The phrase “toxic masculinity” has almost started to become toxic itself as a result of a metanarrative that is slowly gaining traction, particularly in alt-right socio-political groups. According to this metanarrative, the term “toxic masculinity” is used by people who are against men and anti-masculine in general. This is simply and fundamentally false. Masculinity is important, necessary, beautiful. To define it as narrowly as it historically has been, does a disservice to its potential. Masculinity that is free of anti-feminism is powerful without being domineering, assertive without being violent, strong without the exclusion of emotional availability.
The feminist aim (once again quite contrary to the anti-feminist metanarrative) is to dismantle a system which subordinates women, but also to free men of the chains that the patriarchy ties them down with; to highlight that things like crying or emotional connection are worthy and safe for men. That there is so much more to the male identity and to a man’s value than simply being viewed as a “man”. According to psychotherapist Amy Morin, there are three fundamental integrants of toxic masculinity, each of which can be shown to be detrimental to men themselves:
“i) Toughness: This is the notion that men should be physically strong, emotionally callous, and behaviourally aggressive.
ii) Antifeminity: This involves the idea that men should reject anything that is considered to be feminine, such as showing emotion or accepting help.
iii) Power: This is the assumption that men must work toward obtaining power and status (social and financial) so they can gain the respect of others.”
It is obvious that a culture which insists on male toughness, male power, and anti-femininity will continue to uphold the patriarchal system. It will not only blatantly favour men in every sphere of the socio-political, cultural, economic construct, but also actively seek to disempower and hegemonise any population which threatens its structural make-up.
But what is less salient about toxic masculinity, as a direct result of the metanarrative which overpowers it, is the way in which it injures men. Here is where the intersection of toxic masculinity and its metanarrative becomes very interesting. The latter is a breeding ground for claims, predominantly of far right disposition, that the term “toxic masculinity” exacerbates hatred toward maleness. In fact, it is toxic masculinity itself which is the cause of many of the problems affecting men.
If you are born into a world without gender inequality, and your biological sex or gender identity aligns with the folks who are in power, it is inevitable that you will endeavour to comply with this identity. When the requirements for this identity are rigid and inflexible, you will likely be expected to reject those parts of you which do not conform. For men this means a very limited self expression; one which demands emotional impenetrability, a renunciation of anything understood to be “feminine” (these things include but are not limited to ideas of nurturance, sensitivity, gentleness, and empathy), and ultimately a set of rules to abide by in order to be validated.
Those who demonise the idea of toxic masculinity through a false, simplified, and inaccurate metanarrative under the guise of protecting and defending “the male” are ignorant of the ways in which this narrow and unyielding definition of masculinity impacts men. Men are three and half times more likely to commit suicide than women. This is not surprising in a world where emotional awareness, reaching out for help, experiencing “feminine” emotions such as fear, or crying without shame are not part of the patriarchal lexicon as it pertains to men. So toxic masculinity not only has an actively negative effect on men, but its pervasiveness prevents the development of healthy masculinity. This is made worse by the metanarrative which continues to insist that “toxic masculinity” is a false and unfounded notion that is championed by man-hating feminists.
It is not only toxic masculinity which is in itself damaging. Perhaps even more threatening is its metanarrative and those who seek to uphold it; the notion that ‘toxic masculinity’ and its destructive effects are limited to impacting women or the feminist movement is simply part of that false narrative. Unpicking toxic masculinity, rather than being some targeted attack on men, is in fact the dismantling of a larger, more deeply problematic sociocultural system which constrains both men and women. Doing so seems the only way we might ever achieve comprehensive and holistic gender equality.
Image 1: Women workers showing protection worn during sand blasting operations in the Granite Works of Messrs. Stewart & Co. Ltd., Fraser Place, Aberdeen, October 1918; photograph by George P. Lewis
Image 2: Illustration from a 1467 manuscript of Hans Talhoffer's fight book.
