Episode 2: "Toxic Masculinity" Part 1

The Nice-ish Ramblings Podcast

2: "Toxic Masculinity" Part 1 - What's in a Name?

1×

0:00

-32:31

2: "Toxic Masculinity" Part 1 - What's in a Name?

In this episode I discuss the contentious phrase "toxic masculinity", why it's contentious, and what we would call it if we wanted to name it something different.

The Nice-ish Psychologist

Dec 16, 2021

Hello and welcome to episode two of the Nice-ish Ramblings Podcast with me the Nice-ish Psychologist. If you want to know a little bit more about me and the aims of this podcast, please feel free to go listen to episode one; I can’t really be arsed to repeat all that here as there is quite lot to get through in this episode.

Today, I am going to be talking about something I have taken a remarkable interest in over the last year or so: toxic masculinity. If you follow me on Instagram, you will have seen that I have quite a lot to say about masculinity, particularly the concept of toxic masculinity. But the focus of I want to think about is more around the controversy surrounding the term. I won’t lie, I was – and still am – a bit overwhelmed by the topic as it’s not simply a case of talking about what toxic masculinity is and trying to just set the record straight, as I feel a large reason behind why there is such a controversy over the term stems from a misperception (or two) about what the term refers to.

Because of those misperceptions the information available about toxic masculinity is not necessarily clear cut and coherent. And so, unpacking the term requires working through a fair few different areas. I was originally going to cover everything in one episode, but in researching and writing this episode things just kept piling on and expanding. As a consequence, I have divided this discussion into two episodes, with this episode covering (as best I can) the areas of masculinity, toxic masculinity, highlighting some areas of contention about the term, and some thoughts about what we would call toxic masculinity if didn’t want to call it toxic masculinity anymore.

I feel like I need to highlight that I am absolutely not an expert in masculinity studies. I am very new to thinking about masculinity, and this interest has come about largely because of the work that I do within the field of Forensic Psychology – through my work I have become more aware of the rules of masculinity and how these play out in the offences of male clients I work with and also the impact of masculinity on the female clients I work, in that they have largely experienced abuse and trauma at the hands of men. And so I am very much interested in the interplay between masculinity, toxic masculinity, offending, and the impact on victims; and as part of this interest I have become quite fixed on trying to help unpick the specifics of toxic masculinity, which I noticed online was not so clear cut and as clearly understood as I thought the concept was. So, once again – this is my own exploration and musings about the concept of toxic masculinity, which I am inviting you to join me with (and if you choose to come along for the journey, that’s on you!)

As a starting point, it would probably make sense to try and understand what masculinity is versus what’s it is not. I think a lot of the confusion about toxic masculinity comes from a lack of clarity about what the fuck masculinity is, and perhaps the predominant idea that it is inherently biological and evolutionary. These biological and evolutionary notions of masculinity bring with them the idea that men think and behave differently to women because we have inherently male brains and that much of our behaviour (such as our drive to aggressively dominate, take risks, and be impulsive) is governed by our higher levels of testosterone, and that we are just evolutionarily primed for violence. However, more recently there has been research to dispel the ideas of gendered brains, that men (i.e. biological males) have much higher testosterone than women that governs our behaviours, or that we are inherently violent and aggressive.

There isn’t enough time in the world (or more specifically, this podcast – people have got shit to do, right?) to go through these points in any great depth, however, if you think I’m talking out my ass I would suggest reading “The Gendered Brain” by Gina Rippon, “Testosterone Rex” by Cordelia Fine, and “Humankind” by Rutger Bregman – all three authors can explain things far better and in much greater detail than I can. The take home message, though, is this is: for a large part of recent history it has been thought that much of what makes a man a man is down to how our brains develop to make us think and act, with the addition of higher levels of testosterone that impact on our use of aggression, our tendencies to take bigger risks and act more impulsively; and that basically to be masculine is predominantly to be male. To be fair, this last part has some merit to it, but doesn’t answer the whole question.

To help clarify this, I am going to read an extract from an introduction to an online bibliography compiled and written by Michal Kimmel (who I think is somewhat of an expert in masculinity studies as his name pops up all over the fucking place) and Tristan Bridges (who I’ve only heard of once – soz Mr Bridges): “While biological ‘maleness’ varies very little, the roles, behaviors [sic], bodies, and identities that are thought of as ‘masculine’ vary enormously. This variation allows scholars to argue that masculinity is socially constructed. First, masculinity varies historically—what is thought of as masculine changes over time. Second, masculinity varies cross-culturally—conceptualizations of masculinity are culturally specific. Third, masculinity varies intra-psychically—what it means to be a man changes over the course of one’s life. Finally, masculinity varies contextually—even within a given society and time period, masculinity can mean different things to different people. Simply put, not all American or Nigerian or Chinese or Australian men are the same. More specifically, ‘being a man’ means something very different to a college-age, white, heterosexual boy living in Maine than it does to a middle-age, homosexual, Latino man living in San Francisco. Since masculinity varies so much, we cannot speak of ‘it’ as though it were a timeless essence common among all men. Rather, we must speak of ‘masculinities’ precisely because masculinity means different things to different people in different cultures and in different historical periods”.

And to quote from another source, this is from a paper entitled “Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept” written by Connell and Messerschmidt in 2005, both of whom I believe are also pretty big hitters in the world of masculinity studies (and don’t worry, we will come on to hegemonic masculinity a little later): “Masculinity is not a fixed entity embedded in the body or personality traits of individuals. Masculinities are configurations of practice that are accomplished in social action and, therefore, can differ according to the gender relations in a particular social setting.”

Essentially, what these two quotes are saying is that while masculinity, or various forms of masculinity, may form part of a gender identity for men, masculinity is not necessarily something inherent within a male body. Just because you have a male body does not automatically mean you think or act in certain ways or believe certain things. These thoughts, acts, and beliefs develops within a man at particular time period in history, within a specific culture, and can vary across contexts. Additionally, masculinity plays out between the different genders, too.

Ok, so now that we (sort of) know what masculinity is, what about toxic masculinity, then? Where does the term come from and what does it mean? Despite what many might think, the phrase did not develop within the feminist movement as a critique of problematic masculine behaviour. According to an article written in 2019 and published in the Atlantic entitled, “The Problem with a Fight Against Toxic Masculinity”, the phrase was first coined around the 1980s/1990s by the mythopoetic men’s movement. Now, I can’t quite figure out what this movement is, but from what I can wrap my head around (and please, someone correct me if I’m wrong on this) it was (and maybe still is?) a spiritual men’s movement which developed in a response to second wave feminism that these mythopoetic men claimed was trying to feminise men – goddamned feminists always trying to make men more feminine – which, as a consequence of this feminisation was leading men to become more aggressive and frustrated due to them being denied the (and I’m quoting from the article here) “necessary rites and rituals to realise their true selves as men.” Sounds like these guys would happily overidentify with the Spartans in the film 300. Anyway, these mythopoetic men created spiritual wilderness retreats and workshops to rescue (again I quote) “deep warrior masculinity” from what they defined as toxic masculinity (i.e. the aggression and frustration arising from nasty feminists trying to feminise men).

Moving on from this bizarre reaction to second wave feminism, it seems the term “toxic masculinity” was first defined academically in 2005 by Terry Kupers, who – when trying to understand the barriers of why mentally unwell male offenders resisted psychotherapy – identified that toxic masculinity might be one such barrier; and defined toxic masculinity as “the constellation of socially regressive male traits that serve to foster domination, the devaluation of women, homophobia, and wanton violence.” Kupers further claimed that prisons brought out these toxic aspects of masculinity. He was criticised for seeming to claim that masculinity itself was toxic, which he denied but apparently admitted he could have made this clearer in his research. And pretty much since then there has been contested debate over the term and what it means.

In his definition of toxic masculinity, Kupers was working from a conceptualisation of masculinity initially developed by Raewyn Connell called hegemonic masculinity. Again, we’ll come to this in more detail shortly, but for this context, Connell was (I think) the first person to theorise that masculinity was not inherent, but could be shaped by class, race, culture, sexuality, and other factors. She was also the first to argue that certain traits of masculinity could be considered problematic because masculinity, specifically hegemonic masculinity, creates a social hierarchy between genders but also between men – of who could live up to certain ideals of masculinity (such as sexual potency and physical strength). But the insecurity and anxiety that arises with the efforts to attain and maintain this masculinity (and also failing to do this) had problematic consequences and often requires the use of force or dominance to regain control over one’s place in the masculine hierarchy.

As just noted, Connell always asserted that she did not think masculinity was something inherent or innate or fixed; however, academics such as Kupers and other since, including the modern media (and here I am mainly thinking about social media), have misinterpreted what Connell was trying to say, and have mistakenly latched onto this idea that masculinity is indeed fixed; perhaps for the reasons relating to historical notions of masculinity being linked to biology and evolution. Therefore, if some think that masculinity is fixed and unchangeable, and now there is this idea that masculinity is toxic, that then means men must be inherently toxic and come predisposed with these innate harmful traits and ways of being that are seemingly are unchangeable. This is where I think much of the pushback against the idea of toxic masculinity comes from.

In a blog post entitled “Talking about ‘Toxic Masculinity’” written in 2019, Randy Flood notes: “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 [and at this point I’m quoting some phrases that one might hear when trying to discuss toxic masculinity]:

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.”

And while I have not looked into this very much, and equally there does not seem to be any obvious research that points to this, anecdotally and from my experiences of social media there appears to be a kind of weaponization of the term from various sub-groups. On the one hand you have a sub-group of men who claim that the term was created by feminists to promote misandry – the hatred of men; and on the other hand, you have what appears to be a sub-group of women who, based on their experiences with men, perhaps understandably do think that men are toxic and do use the term “toxic masculinity” in a pejorative and blaming way. So, in online spaces when trying to discuss toxic masculinity it’s really hard to be like, “No that’s not what the toxic masculinity means and not how its supposed to be used,” when sometimes it is exactly how it is used. So, in these ways I can see how men would dislike the phrase. The consequence of this, however, is that this view of the term gives the sub-group of men who believe that society is fully against men greater opportunity to highlight how the term is sexist towards men, can supposedly cause harm to men and boys (and by this I mean that the term itself is harmful, not the specific traits of toxic masculinity), and use it to drive a men away from the overall aims of feminism and equality.

Something else that seems to have occurred is that there is the belief that toxic masculinity has been pathologized; by this I mean there is this idea that people think the term means that there is something inside men and boys that needs healing (or even detoxifying, maybe). Take for example the fact that the American Psychological Association released a document on how to therapeutically work with boys and men, highlighting that one of the areas that may need to be taken into consideration is the influence of what they call “traditional masculinity” – which they describe as being marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression – and how this impacts on the psychological wellbeing of men.

Personally, I think it’s great that the APA have put forward guidance that takes into account the impact of masculinity on me and boys (as noted earlier I try and think about masculinity in my work with my male clients; also, we’ll get into the impact of toxic masculinity on men in more detail in the second episode of this series) – but there has been some staunch criticism of the APA taking this stance. Jordan Peterson (who, by the way, I have not had enough time to form a solid opinion on yet – but I am working on that) noted that these APA guidelines were an “attack on masculinity”. While another group of UK based psychologists, who I won’t name as I don’t want to be called out for slander, seem to think that UK therapists are hell bent on blaming everything that men do and feel on their toxic masculinity. Almost as is they think therapists are diagnosing men with having toxic masculinity, like it’s a disease or mental illness that boys and men can be afflicted with. It all seems to have become very confused and seemingly blown all out of proportion.

“So,” you might be asking, “if this term seems to have lost it coherence and is being weaponised from all sides, surely we should come up with a different name? Call it something different.” And that is one option, sure and this is something that I have seen being debated and talked about in online spaces. Another reason I have become so interested in trying to clarify and continually discuss the accurate conceptualisation of toxic masculinity is because last year I saw an Instagram post by a pretty big well established men’s mental health charity stating they were refusing to use the term because of the harm it caused. And I was like, surely with your platform you are perfectly placed to set the record straight and educate the men who follow you about the what toxic masculinity actually is. They did not think that was a good idea. So, I was like “fuck it, fine, I’ll do it!” and here we are. Anyway.

But here is my question – what would we call it and how do we know that the same thing that has happened to the phrase “toxic masculinity” won’t just happen to the new term? If you Google the definition of toxic masculinity (and I invite you to do this now if you can – except if you’re driving – do not fucking Google anything if you’re driving) all current definitions I find of toxic masculinity make it quite clear that that the term relates to current aspects of masculinity that are harmful and nowhere – literally nowhere – do any definitions point to the fact that toxic masculinity frames men as bad or inherently toxic.

For example, the basic Google definition (you know, the one that pops up at the top of the page whenever you type “what does X mean” into the Google search bar) states toxic masculinity is “a set of attitudes and ways of behaving stereotypically associated with or expected of men, regarded as having a negative impact on men and on society as a whole”. The trusty starting point of all good research, Wikipedia (you laugh, but Wikipedia is usually where all my research starts) has this to say: “The concept of toxic masculinity is used in academic and media discussions of masculinity to refer to certain cultural norms that are associated with harm to society and men themselves. Traditional stereotypes of men as socially dominant, along with related traits such as misogyny and homophobia, can be considered ‘toxic’ due in part to their promotion of violence, including sexual assault and domestic violence. The socialization [sic] of boys in patriarchal societies often normalizes [sic] violence, such as in the saying ‘boys will be boys’ about bullying and aggression.”

And as a final example, the number one hit on a Google search comes from VeryWellMind.com that goes on to say: “There are many definitions of ‘toxic masculinity’ that appear in research as well as pop culture. Some researchers have come to agree that toxic masculinity has three core components. Toughness, which involves is the notion that men should be physically strong, emotionally callous, and behaviourally aggressive. Anti-femininity; the idea that men should reject anything that is considered to be feminine, such as showing emotion or accepting help. And power: the assumption that men must work toward obtaining power and status (social and financial) so they can gain the respect of others.”

Yet, despite the fact that the very obvious, easily obtainable definitions of toxic masculinity don’t highlight that men are inherently toxic or dangerous or evil or anything like that, it is clear that there is still discomfort and unease with the term. So, for the sake of argument it makes sense to look at other phrases that might replace “toxic masculinity” as the catch all phrase to describe problematic behaviours and beliefs associated with masculinity.

For this section I’ll be consulting three resources: the paper written by Connell and Messerschmidt previously mentioned, “Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept”; and two very short, very easily readable books. The first is called “Is Masculinity Toxic?”, written by Andrew Smiler; and the second is (and if you follow me on social media you will have heard me bang on about this book before, and for good reason – it’s great) “The Little #MeToo Handbook for Men”, written by Mark Greene. I am going to try my best to summarise what I have learned from these resources as coherently as I can – but if it all sounds a bit fucked and messed up, please do take some time to read these resources, they have really helped clarify things for me in my understanding of this issue (even though there is the possibility I might fuck this bit up!)

The first such phrase that I have seen suggested that might serve as a suitable replacement to toxic masculinity was mentioned earlier: hegemonic masculinity, proposed by Connell in the 1980s. “But what the fuck does hegemonic mean?” I hear you ask, and that my friends is a very good question – unless you are a walking thesaurus or have ever administered the Test of Pre-Morbid Functioning (that’s an inside joke for psychologists), it’s unlikely the definition of “hegemonic” or “hegemony” is just going to roll off your tongue. Therefore, going back to the old Google method of research, when you type in “what does hegemony mean” (and yes, I am pronouncing it correctly) it is defined as “leadership or dominance, especially by one state or social group over others”. So, basically, if something is “hegemonic” it is the dominant whatever.

So, Connell’s theory of hegemonic masculinity goes something like this: because masculinity is not fixed and changes over time, culture, context, etc, there are often dominant or prominent forms of masculinity at any given point in history, or within a culture, or context. This is what’s known as hegemonic masculinity. In the book, “Is Masculinity Toxic?”, Smiler points out that so far there have been three prominent forms of masculinity, and we are currently in the fourth.

Quoting from the book, a summary of the four forms of masculinity are as follows:

“The first model might be referred to as organic or natural masculinity, in which biological strengths dictated male and female behaviours and roles. In most pre-historic hunter-gatherer societies, the adult men concentrated on big game hunting as they were stronger and bigger, while women and pre-pubescent boys and girls did most of the gathering nearer to their kinship group and offspring. Although the roles and responsibilities were differentiated, there was no social hierarchy; these were egalitarian societies. The second model emerged during the late 17th century as part of the Enlightenment movement. In this model, masculinity also became associated with power, patriarchy and passion, with those conforming to this ideal assuming prime position in the social hierarchy. The 20th century saw the emergence of a third industrial model of masculinity. In this capitalist model, competition was added to the mix and passion was replaced by emotional stoicism. Although this remains the dominant model of masculinity today, during the past three decades it has been deconstructed and explored, resulting in the acceptance of multiple forms of masculinity and the idea that individuals can create their own contingent versions of masculinity.”

So then, each of these different forms of masculinity throughout history could be considered the hegemonic masculinity of its time, and those who adhered most closely to hegemonic masculine norms of the era were then seeing as being the most manly. There is a lot of discussion about hegemonic masculinity in relation to how it positions femininity and other subjugated and marginalised forms of masculinity as lesser, but that is quite complex and there isn’t really enough time to go into that in this episode; and I don’t want to muddy things anymore than they might already be.

But what I would say is that while the phrase hegemonic masculinity sort of sounds like toxic masculinity and in some ways it fits, it’s its not quite the same. In the article, “Understanding Toxic Masculinity & Hegemonic Masculinity Through the Simpsons”, Theo Markou writes “toxic masculinity describes the individual reactions to ideas about gender that prompt men and boys to behave in aggressive, abusive and sexist ways in an ongoing effort to feel like and be perceived by others as proper (i.e. cis-gendered, heterosexual and socially dominant) men.” In a nutshell, hegemonic masculinity outlines the rules for being a man, and toxic masculinity are the traits some men choose to endorse and the behaviours some men choose to enact that enable them to stick to the rules and attain those hegemonic ideals. For example, in my head this would be something like hegemonic masculinity emphasising power and dominance over others; however, some men could choose violence (physical or sexual) in order to assert their power, which would be an example of toxic masculinity. It’s not just any violence that is toxic – because boxing is violent, but it is sanctioned or acceptable violence. Personally, I would query the sensibility of beating the shit out of each other by punching one another in the face repeatedly and as hard as you can, but each to their own. Therefore, it is maybe not just any violence that is toxic, but rather a particular kind of violence. Having said that I would also argue that men needing to assert dominance and power over anyone is not necessarily healthy. Equally, these rules of power and dominance might develop into beliefs about women’s roles in relation to men and lead some men to endorse sexist and/or misogynistic beliefs about women.

These toxic traits appear to have also developed over time, too, and a large number of masculine ideals seem to have developed from the industrialised form of masculinity – that bit of Smiler’s book is actually really fascinating; it talks about how the drive within the capitalist society saw men made to work individually in factories, away from each other – literally each man was like two meters away from one another – so that they could not talk to each other and could focus solely on their jobs. Which then had an impact on the ways in which those men connected with each other; producing the stoicism and emotional disinhibition that is now seen as the hallmark of being a strong, independent man.

Additionally, what Connell goes onto say is that even those these current toxic traits might only be endorsed by a small proportion of men, they are still considered normative and in many ways aspirational because they are seen to be held by men in positions of power; or the men have seemingly come into positions of power because of adherence to these hegemonic norms; which then in a way demonstrates to other men that in order to “do masculinity right” this is how you have to be. Bit like a vicious circle of dick-swinging. I will admit that hegemonic and toxic masculinity seem to be quite similar and there could be overlap – but I think the easiest way to think about it is that hegemonic masculinity lays out the general game plan for being a man, and then toxic masculinity is the way in which individual men go about trying to stick to those rules.

Another phrase that could be used instead of toxic masculinity is “the Man Box”, which to be fair I quite like. And to me it echoes a lot of what hegemonic masculinity is, but does so using a nice, easily digestible metaphor.

In the book, “Is Masculinity Toxic?” Smiler notes that the idea of the Man Box was first conceptualised in about in 1976, based on the industrialised version of masculinity and has four components (like the sides of a box): “no sissy stuff”; “be a big wheel”; “be a sturdy oak”; and “damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead”. It underwent a few iterations, but was made most prominent in a 2012 Ted Talk by Tony Porter, the founder of A Call to Men, and is currently defined as “the enforcement of a narrowly defined set of traditional rules for being a man”. These rules are that “real men”:

don’t show their emotions;
are heterosexual, hypermasculine, and sexually dominant;
never ask for help;
have control over women;
are providers, never caregivers;
are economically secure;
physically and emotionally tough;
are sports focused

And these rules, writes Mark Greene in the “The Little #MeToo Handbook for men”, “are enforced through shaming and bullying, as well as promises of rewards, the purpose of which is to force conformity to our dominant culture of masculinity.”

I like the Man Box description as it is a bit simpler to understand than hegemonic masculinity; because essentially the Man Box is our current hegemonic masculinity. We currently live in the Man Box. But while I like it, and while the Man Box neatly makes something as abstract as hegemonic masculinity a bit more tangible, if you didn’t know what the Man Box was, you would need to highlight that it’s about masculinity. You would need to explain that what you are talking about is our current climate of masculinity, which is dominance based, suppressive of emotional connection, and rewards displays of strength and control and stoicism. This then results in men believing certain things about manhood and masculinity and then acting in ways that are unhealthy and harmful. And it’s these acts or ways of “being a man” that are the toxic traits once more highlighted by the definitions of toxic masculinity.

So, in my view (and this might not be viewed by everyone), we may as well just call a spade a spade and talk about toxic masculinity which exists inside of the Man Box. This may be a very tiny sticking point, and I concede that of the other ways of talking about toxic masculinity, the Man Box is probably (if anyone gives a shit about my opinion) one of the better ones. But again, if you are going to talk about masculinity, it just makes sense to me to talk about masculinity, but maybe use the Man Box as a metaphorical description to highlight the rigidity and expectations of the current hegemonic masculinity.

So, I guess that is my main point really, the final crux at the end of this monologue: there is this current understanding that certain aspects of masculinity are unhelpful and harmful to society and the people in it, that form part of our current conceptualisation of masculinity and what it means to be a man, which we call toxic masculinity. But the phrase “toxic masculinity” gets people’s backs up; gets them defensive; suggests to them that there is something wrong with being a man, or that in some way masculinity it tainted and not good – all of which is never mentioned in the literature (that I can find anyway) other than when it is highlighted as being what toxic masculinity is not. There are a few options we could call it. There’s potentially “traditional masculinity”, possibly “industrial masculinity”, “hegemonic masculinity” (which we have highlighted doesn’t point to the actual beliefs and actions that are toxic as it were) and then the Man Box (which I understand to be a metaphorical conceptualisation of hegemonic masculinity, but then is not necessarily explicit highlighting it is focusing on masculinity per se).

But I suppose I would like to draw this to a conclusion by quoting from the blog piece written by Randy Flood: “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.” And I guess this is why I bang on so much about toxic masculinity and why I question the point and purpose of finding a new phrase or term or way of talking about it. There is already a perfectly good, succinct, and accurate way of talking about problematic aspects of masculinity; we just need to somehow get the right definitions and conceptualisations out there to counteract all the misperceptions that exist. And hopefully I have gone some way in helping clarify that for some of you today. Obviously the choice at the end of the day is yours about what you say and how you speak and the language you choose to use.

In the next episode I will be focusing on who toxic masculinity harms, how we as men can work towards a more positive form of masculinity (and what they maybe looks like); and possibly, if I can find enough literature, I will talk about ways to figure out if you engage in toxic masculine behaviours. Thanks for taking the time to listen to this. As always, if you would like to get in touch and leave me feedback or further the discussion, you can find me on social media (@the_nice_ish_psychologist on Instagram and @theniceishpsych on Twitter) or you can email me at theniceishpsych@gmail.com, or leave me a comment on my Substack page at theniceishpsychologist.substack.com.

Resources: