Introduction
Hello and welcome to this episode of The Nice-ish Ramblings Podcast with me, the Nice-ish Psychologist. Today’s episode is the second in a three-part series looking at toxic masculinity. In the previous episode we looked at the term “toxic masculinity” and examined (somewhat succinctly I would like to think, however you may hold different views of this) what masculinity is, what it means, and how this then related to the idea of toxic masculinity; with the primary focus being on the controversy and push-back that exists around the term. Ultimately, the main theme of the episode was me wondering what we would call toxic masculinity if, because we don’t like the term, we didn’t call it toxic masculinity anymore.
If you are joining the podcast at this juncture and you are curious to know what the conclusion was, or you just haven’t the foggiest clue of what I’m chatting about, please do go back to episode two and have a listen. This episode is likely to make more sense if you do.
If however, you are a die-hard fan (as die hard a fan as someone can be with a podcast that is only three episodes in) and you are already up to speed with all things toxic masculinity related, then today’s episode is going to focus more on the harm that toxic masculinity can create – and by harm, I don’t mean the harm caused to those offended by the term, or who think that the term is having a negative impact on men. I have my own views on that – mostly that I think it is ever so slightly a bunch of bullshit – but that is my own personal view, and I am aware that there are others out there who think that the term itself is having a direct impact on men and the way men view themselves.
My argument, as is laid out in the previous episode, is that this impact on men (if there is one) likely stems from a gross misunderstanding of the term, which it why I dedicated time in the previous episode to unpacking it as best I could. Just to clarify, I am not unsympathetic to the idea that some people think that the term “toxic masculinity” is potentially impacting men’s views of themselves – what I am saying is that there is no definitive proof that this is happening – and by proof I don’t necessarily mean experimental clinical trials or empirical research or anything like that because (as I will mention shortly) “toxic masculinity” is hard to conceptualise properly for experimental and research purposes. What I mean is that I am not sure how the term as it is meant to be understood would have a negative impact. But if there is a negative impact, it’s my view that it stems from a misconception about what the concept of “toxic masculinity” is actually trying to highlight in terms of issues around our current, socially agreed ideas of manhood. Because online I am familiar with a rhetoric that “toxic masculinity” labels men as bad and locates “badness” within men – which is not the purpose of the conceptualisation of toxic masculinity – but rather it is a commentary on society and the culture of manhood which forces or coerces of justifies men acting in certain harmful ways.
Anyway, I am getting into territory covered in the previous episode – so, go check that out if you’re interested. And despite being a sceptic about this supposed negative impact the term could be having on men I like to think I have somewhat of an open mind and will happily look at some good research (or just sound logic) that proves me wrong if that ever comes along.
But for now, the harm caused by toxic masculinity I am going to focus on is related to the harm inflicted upon groups and individuals by those who embody and live by the traits that constitute toxic masculinity; that being traits like: endorsing beliefs about the benefits of and the use of violence; homophobia; sexism; misogyny; domination and bullying; and suppression of emotion.
Who does toxic masculinity harm?
So then, who does toxic masculinity harm and how? Before we get into this I would like to make some caveats. This is all theoretical – and by theoretical I don’t mean that the harm being caused is only happening “in theory”. What I mean is that, as discussed in the last episode, the definitions and actions that make up toxic masculinity are not clear cut (even though I tried to clarify it as much as I could). Therefore, if something is hard to define, it is hard to operationalise and then test or conduct research on. As in, it is not possible to make any definitive, empirically based conclusions about the about the harm of toxic masculinity because it is hard to directly and empirically measure the impact of toxic masculinity due to the issues in defining it. But what you can do is draw correlational links. But correlation is not causation, I hear you cry, and well done if you did. Firstly, most research in psychology is usually correlational anyway (someone please factcheck me on that if you want) – in that there is either a weak or strong association between two variables, but that causality can never be 100% determined due to the possibility of extraneous (i.e. unknown) variables that could impact on the outcome of an experiment. And so, you would be right – correlation is not causation – but since we seemingly can’t seem to agree on how to define and therefore operationalise toxic masculinity, because toxic masculinity is based on gender norms for men that have just evolved over time and just are what they are, correlation, hypothesis, and logic are the best things we have to work with at the moment. So, that’s what we we’re going to do. Obviously, I haven’t just sucked these harmful impacts out of thin air; I have read some books and articles to shape this episode and will reference them where relevant; but just know that none of what I talk about is something that has been like “proven” by science or whatever. Again, the usual caveat exists – I am not an expert. I have just read some stuff which I thought would be worth sharing. As always, please look further into anything I say in this or any of my podcasts to increase and expand your own understanding of the issues discussed.
Women
The first group of people that toxic masculinity impacts is possibly one of the more obvious ones, and that’s women. I am not female, nor do I identify as a woman, therefore I have not experienced any of the things discussed in this section as a woman. This section is representative of how I understand toxic masculinities’ influence and its impact on women. If I get anything wrong, it stems from my lack of experience (and possibly erroneous interpretation of research) in this area and is not meant to offend or misrepresent women’s experiences. One of the things I would like to do later on in the development of this podcast is to have guests, and I would love to have a guest on this podcast to discuss this subject in more depth. But until then, this is what I have to offer, and I hope I do it justice.
With regards to women and toxic masculinity, you are more often than not likely to come across discussions of toxic masculinity within the context of violence against women, and usually revolve around discussions of sexism and misogyny. Sexism, in case you don’t know, is discrimination against a person based on their gender – so technically it can go both ways (which is often the argument of most Men’s Rights Activist). But while sexism can technically be perpetrated against both genders, it is typically and more pervasively perpetrated against women. From what I have come to understand about masculinity and the nuanced differences between hegemonic masculinity and toxic masculinity (if you would like to know what these nuances are, listen to the episode before this one), sexism has developed as a consequence of the patriarchal nature of our current, hegemonic form of masculinity, the culture of the Man Box. In their paper, “Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept”, Connell and Messerschmidt write that hegemonic masculinity (which is basically the current most celebrated and honoured form of masculinity at any point in time, culture, or context) exists solely in its position to oppress or dominate femininity. That being women.
Masculinity has developed over time, and somewhere along the way (sometime in the 17th century I believe) women and femininity came to be seen as lesser than men and masculinity. I am no gender historian, and I am sure there is plenty of gender studies research that highlights when and how this came about, but that is beyond the scope of what I want to discuss today; but it is worth noting that Connell’s theory of hegemonic masculinity states that past and current forms of masculinity have existed in order to subordinate femininity and “celebrate” notions of, I guess what you might call patriarchal masculinity.
Misogyny, however, is where I think notions of toxic masculinity come into play more specifically. In the previous episode, one of the important distinctions between hegemonic masculinity and toxic masculinity was that hegemonic masculinity, or the Man Box culture of masculinity, are the rules for manhood; while toxic masculinity is the harmful and unhelpful ways in which men interpret those rules which then shape their beliefs, attitudes, and actions. In part one of this series, I went through the rules of the Man Box; and the rules of the Man Box that relate to women are “real men are sexually dominant”; “real men have control over women”; “real men are providers and never care givers”. You can see how these rules lay the foundation for some men acting in some pretty shitty ways.
Misogyny, as defined by the trusty starter reference, Wikipedia, “is hatred or contempt for women. It is a form of sexism used to keep women at a lower social status than men, thus maintaining the societal roles of patriarchy”. The Wikipedia definition was taken from the book “Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny” by Kate Mann, which I have not read yet, but have seen around and is on my to-be-read list.
How is misogyny different from normal sexism, though, you might be wondering? About a year ago I discovered that sexism is best thought of as ambivalent; as in there are two contrasting ways of thinking about sexism, specifically sexism towards women. The concept of ambivalent sexism was first proposed by Paul Glick and Susan Fiske in the 1990s. The two contrasting forms of sexism that exist are: benevolent sexism and hostile sexism. Benevolent sexism is best thought of as “a set of attitudes toward or beliefs about women that categorize [sic] them as fair, innocent, caring, pure, and fragile. Rather than being overtly misogynistic, these attitudes are often characterized [sic] by a desire to protect and preserve women”.
On the other hand, hostile sexism is “most often associated with negative prejudice against and hostile views of women that are rooted in the belief that women are inferior to men.” These definitions are taken from what I think are three journal or editorial commentaries that are sort of just clumped together on one PDF, which I will include in this episode’s references. But I am going to just read a few paragraphs from the commentary on hostile sexism, written by Tay Hack:
“Hostile sexism also comprises beliefs that women do not belong in the workplace and are too sensitive and emotional to be in high-status positions. A hostile sexist might believe that women who do enter the workforce will likely make excuses for their own incompetence by complaining that they are victims of discrimination. Hostile sexists also perceive women as weak and dependent and not able to independently handle life situations; therefore, men need to be the ones in control. As such, women should be grateful for everything men do for them, and they should submissively accept their prescribed female gender role. Such hostile sexist beliefs incorporate the idea that a woman’s place is in the home and that women should be the ones to cook, clean, and take care of the children.”
Another quote from Hack reads, “Another notion underlying hostile sexism is the idea that women use their feminine wiles to gain special favors [sic] from men. In this view, women use sex to tempt and manipulate men in order to achieve power over them. Women are perceived as ‘whiny teases’ who want to control men by using their sexuality. For instance, hostile sexists believe that women enjoy leading men on but whenever men respond by showing interest, women delight in shutting them down and refusing their advances. Furthermore, hostile sexist views include the perception that once in a relationship women will continue their attempts to control men by putting them on a ‘tight leash’.”
If you are not familiar with incels and Pick-Up Artistry, this last quote is quite literally the underlying beliefs of those two sectors of what is known as the “manosphere”. However, discussions around the manosphere and incels and Men’s Rights Activism is something I am saving for another day, so I won’t go into it here. If I have piqued your interest, though, do read “Men Who Hate Women” by Laura Bates. It’s grim, shocking, and disturbing, but it is equally fascinating and a hugely important book in my view.
The key difference, then, between misogyny/hostile sexism and, I guess you would call it “general”/benevolent sexism is the hatred or contempt for women, which could be argued fuel and are further fuelled by toxic beliefs about women in an unhelpful, unhealthy vicious cycle. But let me be clear, I am by no means saying that the beliefs endorsed in benevolent sexism are great, after all they still position women as weaker and in need of being “looked after” by men, which is still bullshit. But they are not necessarily fuelled by the strong contempt held within hostile and misogynistic beliefs; and it is this hatred and contempt, or general disregard for seeing women as worthwhile individuals and valued human beings that likely fuels toxic masculine behaviours that then primarily drives violence against women. Be it physical violence and psychological abuse in the instances of domestic abuse, intimate partner violence, murder and femicide, or sexual violence.
As with everything, behaviours occur on a spectrum; some behaviours can be more covert or implicit, while some are more obvious and overt. In this way, misogyny and hostile sexism does not necessarily result in overt and direct aggression towards women. But what misogyny does and has created, and continually contributes to, is the perpetuation of rape culture. 11th Principle Consent, a non-profit organisation that aims to increase awareness and education around consent, developed an infographic called the Rape Culture Pyramid (see the Further Reading section in the show notes to see the pyramid). The pyramid highlights that rape culture – “a society or environment whose prevailing social attitudes have the effect of normalizing or trivializing sexual assault and abuse” – is built on the foundation of men engaging in low levels of misogynistic behaviours that normalise sexual aggression towards women, which only serve to then justify other men engaging in more and more prolific and harmful behaviours, which then justify even further harmful behaviours and so on and so on. For example, the pyramid suggests that rape culture kind of begins with the tolerance and acceptance of sexist attitudes, rape jokes, and locker room banter. And that this tolerance then permits the normalisation and tolerance of catcalling, unwanted non-sexual touching, and stalking, the tolerance of which then permits and normalises flashing and exposing, unsolicited nude pictures, and so on and so forth, which then at the very extreme end, in some men’s minds, justifies and normalises more harmful sexual violence such as abuse, the use of drugging, and rape.
But it is not just misogynistic beliefs that perpetuates rape culture because there are many men out there who do not hold such openly hostile sexist views about women. In fact, I would argue that if most men hold sexist views of any kind, they are more likely to hold benevolent sexist views; those that view women as fragile and in need of protecting – I guess most men are more likely to think of themselves and chivalrous White Knights than anything else.
So, then if hostile and misogynistic views aren’t held by the majority of men, why does a pervasive rape culture still exist? Why haven’t the men who don’t hold these hostile sexist views done anything about it? The answer to this is both simple and disheartening. A culture that normalises aggression and violence towards women, specifically sexual violence exists because of other men’s silence on the issue. As Mark Green puts it in his book, “The Little #MeToo Handbook for Men”: “Men’s overwhelming tendency to remain silent in the face of the daily denigration of women, supports the continuing normalization [sic] of sexual harassment and violence against girls and women”. He also goes on to write:
“So, let’s be clear. No one is collectively calling all men rapists. What we’re saying is millions of men are choosing to remain silent about the abusive behavior [sic] we often witness, and this allows for a culture that puts women in danger. What’s more, we aren’t even fully conscious of why we chose to remain silent. Man Box culture contributes to the normalization [sic] of sexual violence when it encourages men to denigrate women as part of our performance of masculinity. And even though millions of us don’t agree with this behavior [sic], we are conditioned to avoid conflict with other men when they do this. This is because the men who openly degrade women are primed to attack us as well. They are the alpha bullies of Man Box culture, and the first rule of avoiding them is to avoid any defense [sic] of women.”
Mark Green touches on something at the end of that quote which is also quite important to how the Man Box and toxic masculinity impacts on men – I’ll explore it further in the episode, but it is worth touching on now in its relation to men’s silence against male violence towards women. Mark Green notes that men are conditioned to avoid conflict with other men in relation to their behaviour towards women, which is something he notes happens over time and occurs as boys and girls are socialised as different. We are told that having girls as friends makes us “sissies” or “wimps” or even “gay”, apparently. And so even though we might not hold hostile views of women, we are taught from very early on, through societal norms, but also through what can easily be called bullying – either casual bullying in the form of “banter” by our friends and family, or outright psychological and physical bullying – that to defend a woman or girl is a transgression against the rules of the Man Box, and we are liable to be swiftly policed back into line. So much so, that we start to potentially internally police ourselves – we tell ourselves not to get involved. It’s not going to make a difference anyway. At least we’re not the ones being a sexist prick. But that doesn’t help victims. It might make us feel good and it might ease our own conscience that we’re not “that guy” – but not being “that guy” and letting “that guy” get away with whatever he’s doing is, I am sure some would argue and certainly I would argue, just as bad.
I will end this section with one more quote from the book, which, if you have followed me for the last few months or have listened to my previous podcast, you will know I recommend time and time again. But for good reason. Again, Mark Green writes (and this following part is based on US statistics, but the point he makes is still noteworthy):
“Imagine ten women you know personally. Statistically, two of them are likely to be rape survivors. Which two? We don’t know, do we? Now imagine your child’s or any child’s classroom. Picture any ten of those little girls. Which two of them will be rape survivors? Are we there, yet? Are we feeling a little sick? Because this is the place men need to get to on the question of [the] #MeToo [movement]. If men want to really and truly help, the central challenge we must collectively address is how we are trained from an early age to normalize [sic] a whole range of ‘lesser’ acts of sexual harassment and abuse against girls and women.”
Men
The next section of those harmed by toxic masculinity focuses on men; but this is divided into two parts because there is nuance to how men are affected, because hegemonic masculinity, or the Man Box culture, has rules that only some men can achieve; but also differentiates between hierarchies of masculinity. Therefore, the first section will focus on men in general and how the rules of our current Man Box culture impact most men negatively through toxic masculine behaviours; while the second section will focus on how toxic masculinity affects men who fall into certain marginalised and oppressed populations, specifically the LGBTQ community and men of colour or of certain classes.
As noted earlier, the impact of toxic masculinity is most often considered within discussions about aggression and violence towards women; far less discussed and often overlooked is the impact that hegemonic and toxic masculinity has on men. Some of this section is based on bits I have read, but other bits are anecdotal and relate to either my personal experience or my experience as a clinician through discussions I have had with men about their life’s difficulties, and how these difficulties have been influenced by ideas of what it means to be a man. I am also aware that what I might say and how I think about things comes through a very White, Eurocentric lens. I can’t help that, but what I have tried to do is think about things as broadly as I can, while adding as much nuance as possible without necessarily homing in on specific areas too much. So, I will speak in generalities, so some of what I say might apply to most men listening (or to any men you might know if you don’t identify as a man), but some of it might not. Take what you will from this, but also use what doesn’t apply to you to reflect on how these effects of toxic masculinity might affect men you know.
So, another rule from the Man Box, but one that impacts men, is that “real men don’t show emotions”; and in the book, “Is Masculinity Toxic?”, Andrew Smiler writes: “Masculine norms discourage men from expressing or examining their feelings in depth, and instead encourage men to ‘have a stiff upper lip’ and ‘play through the pain’. This results in many men grappling alone with a problem they are unable to solve.” Pretty much from a young age, boys are told that they don’t cry – “big boys don’t cry” more specifically – and that we are meant to be “strong and tough”, which is another rule of the Man Box.
We then learn to suppress our emotions. Not only that, but due to the way that boys and girls are socialised, girls are encouraged to be more emotionally attuned, which is based on the idea that women are supposedly biologically more nurturing and empathic than boys; and that boys and men are more “doers” and “fixers” than “carers” and “feelers”. Research suggests, however, that (and here I quote from a paper called “Brain Development and Physical Aggression” by Lise Eliot) “the fact that prepubescent boys across diverse cultures act in nurturing ways toward younger children shows that males’ potential for empathy and caregiving is as ‘innate’ as their potential for aggression.” We’ll come onto that bit about aggression in a little while; but what that quote highlights is that young boys can and do act in nurturing ways towards others. However, Mark Green writes that one of the things that Man Box culture does well is suppress boys’ and men’s relational capacities for empathy, which he puts is no accident. He further writes that: “it is the suppression of empathy that makes a culture of ruthless competition, bullying and codified inequality possible. It is in the absence of empathy that men fail to see women’s equality and many other social issues for what they are: simple and easily enacted moral imperatives.”
Empathy is our capacity to perspective take, to put ourselves in the shoes of others, to think about what things might be like for another person and helps us make social connections on a meaningful level, not just in a superficial sense. But if as boys we are taught that empathy – that feeling sorry for others, for being moved by the pain or enjoyment of another person – is not something we are supposed to do, or that it is “girly” to do it, then over time we shut it down. I don’t know the precise mechanisms of how this gets done, but it does shut down.
Along with the rule of “real men are physically strong and tough” that accompanies the rule of “real men don’t show their emotion” is another rule that “real men don’t ask for help”, which is obviously because, you know, “real men are physically strong and tough”. Also, how could we ever register that we might need help if we continually suppress or ignore any kind of emotional signals that alert us to the fact that we might not be okay.
There are statistics abound about how men have shorter life expectancies. Globally, men are more likely to die of cancer, have higher rates of heart disease, diabetes, things like that. And I think there has previously been a focus on the biological differences in men and women that could potentially explain these differences in health outcomes. But the more and more we are coming to understand that there is actually very little difference between men and women on a fundamentally biological basis, and that there is even an expansion into what we know as the sex binary, biology does not always account for these poor health outcomes. Obviously I am not talking about the fact that if your parents have poor cholesterol or have had any kind of illness; because if they did then there is a higher likelihood you will have bad cholesterol or develop whatever illness they have as that is passed down genetically – what I mean is that there are no fundamental biological differences between the sexes (other than in the development of reproductive organs and external physical attributes) to indicate that men should be dying younger.
More and more, thought is being given to how men are socialised – how, as noted earlier, for men to seek help is to be seen as weak. And God forbid you should want to make sure you are healthy and fit and try live longer – no, no, that shit is weak, bro. But it is not just disease that kills us. We men are also more likely to kill ourselves. Most statistics that are available for rates of male suicide put us at three- to four-times higher rates of completed suicide than women. And suicide is the combination of all three of these interlinked rules of the Man Box taking effect – we suppress and ignore our emotions, but we struggle with them when they show up, because they inevitably do. But because we want to be seen as tough, or rather, not to be seen as weak, and to give the illusion that we are OK, or because we don’t know how to say we are not OK because we aren’t sure anyone will listen, we don’t seek help.
According to the Mental Health Foundation website, only 36% of referrals to talking therapies are men; and this is not to say that talking therapies are what will stop men from killing themselves entirely, but it does highlight that men are not accessing the potential help available. Now, I don’t want to diminish the systemic and social barriers that exist for people to access talking therapies, or mental health support in general, and I am not saying that all men’s issues are going to be solved just by rocking up to therapy. The factors that influence a person’s decision to complete suicide are massively complex, and can range from job loss, to career pressure, relationship difficulties, substances use (which we’ll come onto in a second), socio-economic status, and lots of other things. But it seems that the idea of not looking weak, as well as not being able to recognise when we are struggling with our mental health, potentially adds another barrier to being able to ask for help.
But it works both ways, right? In order for someone to talk they must have some sense that someone else will listen. The Man Box and hegemonic masculinity tell men that they don’t show emotions, and therefore, others may then not react well, or know how to react if and when a man decides to open up. Choosing to open up and talk about shit that is going on takes courage and a certain amount of vulnerability, something that men will likely struggle with. So, if that happens men need to be listened to – not shunned or shamed or told to “man up” or “harden the fuck up”.
Having said that, according to a ten year follow-up study by the mental health charity, Mind, who looked into men’s mental health in 2009, it has been noted that in 2019 men are 10 percent more likely to look for information about their mental health online, 12 percent more likely to see their doctor, five percent more likely to talk to their family, four percent more likely to find a self-help book, and 11 percent more likely to find a therapist or counsellor. These aren’t huge shifts in a 10-year period, but it is an indication that perhaps men are more able to (for whatever reason) seek help for their mental health.
Another consequence of being told that men do not or should not feel emotions or that we should temper our emotional connection with others, is that we tend to not know what to do with our emotions when they arise. Because we have not necessarily been taught how to manage or deal with uncomfortable emotions like guilt, shame, sadness, and disgust, we get confused by them; they can become overwhelming, too much to handle. So, we find ways to deal with those feelings. Or rather to avoid dealing with them. Men are excellent avoiders of all things emotional.
One of the ways we do that is through “banter”; we make jokes, we put humorous spins on things, we make light of anything that remotely feels like it might be heavy or serious. Because if we’re laughing then we aren’t feeling uncomfortable, right? It’s the emotional equivalent of playing hot potato, and making jokes is metaphorically saying, “fuck, I don’t know what to do with this; here have it back but I’ve coated it in something funny”. Now, I am not trying to shit all over having a laugh with your mates. Laughter and laughing is a fantastic way to engage with your friend and family or loved ones. So, I am not saying that every single time someone has a laugh it’s avoidance of emotional discomfort; equally, I am not saying that brining levity to a serious situation can be a can’t be a good thing. Being irreverent about certain things and creating a humorous situation can be the emotional push someone needs to break out of a bit of a funk or feeling stuck about something. What I am trying to say though is that if you as a man or your male friends only ever joke about serious shit, then it means that you are potentially (or almost certainly) not able to cope with or manage that serious shit; but it might also give the message that serious shit it never to be openly discussed – and that means men are then required to hold onto their problems and distress on their own. And that is inversely very isolating, and emotionally and psychologically demanding. So, what we might do instead is drink our pain away!
Something else we do as men is we tend to use substances to cope. In the Adult Substance Misuse Treatment Statistics report for 2019 to 2020 published by Public Health England, men made up just over two-thirds of those accessing treatment for substances (including alcohol, opiates and non-opiates). Booze is not our friend, guys. Booze is a depressant – that is, it fucking bums us out. So, if we are already struggling with our emotions or mental health or stress or relationship issues, continuously drinking is not going to help us feel better. If anything, it is likely going to make us feel worse – and because we can’t talk about how we’re feeling and offloading some of that shit, we just end up drinking more. And around and around we go.
Ironically though, in the book “Is Masculinity Toxic?”, Andrew Smiler notes that one of the reasons that pubs became so popular with men was because it gave them opportunities to socialise outside of work. Which, if you listened to the first episode, was important because during the Industrial age of the 70s, men were actively discouraged from speaking to each other to make them more productive at work.
But it seems that one of the ways in which men connect with each other also happens to be one of the unhelpful ways that we deal with our shit. But I am aware that meeting your mates at the pub for a swift one is still pretty common practice – you know, as opposed to going for a mindful walk in nature or whatever, which might be less damaging to our health. Equally, I’m not demonising having a drink now and again – everything in moderation, including moderation, right? But I guess the issue comes in when alcohol or drug use becomes a way in which to get through the day; to numb whatever might be going on for us. That’s when it becomes an issue. It’s not even about thinking of it as an addiction – a big clue as to whether you might be reliant on the use of alcohol as a coping strategy is to think about if having a drink or a line of coke is an almost automatic response to feeling stress or emotional discomfort. Just something to think about, I guess.
Another consequence of all these problematic ways in which we men deal with our emotions is that we get angry. Because anger is a good way to discharge all the uncomfortable feelings we have. In the book “Is Masculinity Toxic”, it talks about how anger is an “emotional funnel system” which we can use to deal with the rest of our emotions that we don’t always know what to do with (mostly because we have not been taught as children how to deal with these emotions appropriately).
Anger is an interesting emotion – at its most basic level, it is the emotion we use to protect ourselves – it can mobilise us into action when we feel an injustice has been caused; it allows us let others know when something has upset us. But from what I can tell, the emotional funnel system of anger is not about this – it is about not knowing how to deal with stuff and then lashing out, either at the person who triggered the emotional discomfort, but sometimes also at others who had nothing to do with making you feel the emotional discomfort. In this way, anger is also what’s known as a secondary emotion – that is, it arrives almost immediately after an emotion we don’t like (on an unconscious level I suppose) – and here I am talking about things like shame and guilt. And we then respond with anger; usually aggressively or confrontationally.
I guess not many people realise that you can be angry but express it in a healthy and constructive way – it does not always have to be shouting, screaming, swearing. You can channel it in a way that seeks to resolve the issue in a more constructive way. I might do an episode on anger one day; it is a fascinating emotion (that’s right – only a psychologist would say an emotion is “fascinating” – moving on). The main point here is that for men, sometimes anger is not always about the transgressions of boundaries or values and letting someone know they have overstepped; but rather we use it because we are more familiar with expressing anger and less familiar with recognising and feeling other emotions that make us uncomfortable.
On a slightly less severe level, our difficulties with empathy as noted earlier means that men connect less with other men: we have a handful of friends that we usually relate to over things or activities (sport or exercise, films, drinking down the pub, things like that); and this is not to say we don’t have best friends or life-long male friends, because we do. But I guess what I mean is that we connect with our friends more over things that we “do” rather over things that have a more emotional meaning.
I’ll use myself as an example and perhaps other men listening might relate to this...or it might be something specific to my friends and me. But when the first lockdown hit and Zoom socialising was all the rage, friends of mine who I used to live with and who I have known for the better part of a decade, used to meet up on Zoom calls for like an hour; and every time we ended the call my partner would ask me how my friends were, and I would say “fine”. My partner would then ask what their lives are like (work, relationships, one of them was expecting their first child around that time), and I would be like “Oh, I don’t know about those things.” Exasperated, she’d ask me what I had just spent the last hour talking about, to which I would shrug my shoulders and say, “You know, movies and shit” (we’re mostly big film geeks!) And I said – and the irony of this kind of only hit me in the last few years – that we always say to each other that if there was ever anything important we needed to let each other know about, we would.
But now, I wonder if we would? And I also wonder sometimes how many hardships or stresses my friends have been through without me knowing, because I never asked – and I mean really asked, not in the “How’s life, you bellends?” kind of way. And this is what I mean – not that we can’t form friendships, but that foundations of what those friendships are built on might sometimes be someone more surface level; that we don’t necessarily think it is worth asking how someone else might be feeling, or what they might be experiencing is something that doesn’t necessarily feature immediately at the forefront of our minds as men. The model of those friendships then potentially translates into the lack of ability to be open about the shittier side of life more broadly. Cos if you can’t be open with your friends – your closest comrades, those who you choose to spend your time with – then it is unlikely you will be open to others in your life.
This impact of empathic suppression also means we connect less with women. It impacts on our abilities to form healthy and wholesome relationships with romantic partners. As an example, for a long time – a long time – I was so wary of talking about being in love. For years, as a way to seem cool I guess, or maybe somewhat edgy or who the fuck knows what, I often talked about the fact that I did not believe in love; and that instead of falling in love I believed rather that we find people who we can tolerate. I even said this kind of shit in the early years of dating my partner – so, you can imagine how fucking great I must have been making her feel at the time. You’ll be glad to know I have grown the fuck up and I don’t think this way anymore, but even as someone who considered themselves a nice guy and in touch with their “feminine side”, this was how shallow my engagement with emotional connection was. Furthermore, the suppression of empathy means we prioritise our own needs over the needs of others. It means we are not always the best at seeing things from other people’s perspectives. This is why men become “doers” and “fixers” – we tend to attend to the things that require less emotional or relational connection or consideration.
On a more severe level, our lack of empathy is possibly what contributes to our violence towards women and to each other. Lack of empathy has long been an area of risk assessment with violent offenders and often factors into treatment plans for rehabilitation, often with a focus on victim empathy, which focuses on affective empathy – how someone else might feel, emotionally. So, for example, how an offender’s victim might have felt at the time the offense was committed. There is some contention about whether victim empathy work should now be included in offender rehabilitation; as in, is it fair to ask someone to have empathy for their murder victim if the victim was abusive – seems somewhat unethical, but that is perhaps a discussion for another day. But increasing empathy is a key factor in offender rehabilitation, often focused instead on trying to help offenders increase their ability to perspective take and increase their cognitive empathy – so being more able to put themselves in someone’s else’s shoes and think about how their actions might impact someone else, bit like a ripple effect
Alongside this, and once more in line with the idea that “real men are tough and strong”, men are socialised to engage in more violent behaviour – hear how I phrased that. Men are socialised to engage in more violent behaviour. There has been a long standing, and I believe still fairly pervasive view, that boys and men are inherently more aggressive. The theories for this relate to evolutionary and biological determinism: that is, we evolved from cavemen, hunter-gathers, who used violence and aggression to survive and thrive, and essentially become top of the evolutionary food chain. And which is supposedly how have come to be the dominant species today. Additionally, there has also been a pervasive myth that men and women have typically gendered brains, that men have higher levels of testosterone, and bigger amygdalas (the area of the brain responsible for emotional processing). As mentioned in the previous episode on this topic, the books The Gendered Brain, Testosterone Rex, and Humankind are great resources that put to bed these notions. However, if you don’t have time to read all three of those books, the paper I cited earlier, “Brain Development and Physical Aggression” by Lise Eliot is a great paper to read on the subject. The take away message is that while there might be some slight displays of more boisterous behaviour seen in boys (like rough-and-tumble play) potentially influenced by prenatal testosterone (the research on this in humans is inconclusive – and here I quote from the paper again) “hormones can bias this developmental trajectory [in boys], but they do not, in and of themselves, fix brain circuits for life. To become chronically aggressive, one must have fighting partners and an environment that tolerates or even encourages such behavior [sic]. Such fighting, in turn, affects brain development in ways that likely facilitates aggression later in life.”
So, boys and men are not born inherently aggressive – we are pushed towards being that way through the long-held belief that to be a man we must be tough and strong, and one of the best ways to do this is to dominate. Dominate women and other genders, but also other men. There are many ways to dominate, for example, through intellect and skill in the workplace, educational institutions, socially, materialistically; but one of the easiest ways to dominate if all those things fail is through aggression and violence.
From the book “Is Masculinty Toxic?” Andrew Smiler writes, “violence provides a method of gaining status or respect, by literally beating one’s opponents and thus moving up the dominance hierarchy and potentially proving oneself to be the alpha male.” He adds: “The acceptance that violence is an integral part of enacting power is a key reason men’s lives are shorter than those of women. Men kill men at notably higher rates via homicide and war; what could be a clearer indication of power than killing? In both cases, the vast majority of victims – and killers – are younger men, aged between 15 and 39. In the USA, for example, 75 to 80% of homicide victims each year are men.”
In the UK, according to the latest figures from the Office of National Statistics, the percentage of men killed by homicide between March 2019 and March 2020 was 73%. So, not only are men dying younger because we have difficulty in seeking medical and mental health support, but we are also literally just killing each other, too. Smiler further highlights how socialised pressure and need to dominate also influences the rape culture against women. He writes: “overpowering a partner to convince, or intimidate, them to have sex can also provide status because the man can then claim another sexual conquest and burnish his credential as promiscuous.” The societal pressure to be a man, which for some men can be measured by how many women they sleep with, can impact how women are viewed and objectified as notches in a bed post and nothing more; this further dehumanises women and increases the chances of some men committing acts of sexual violence against them.
That shit is fucked up, man.
Bullying is also something that men do to each other. I mentioned this earlier in the section of male violence against women; but it bares mentioning again here. Bullying seems to be a part of the fabric of being a man. Now, I am aware that bullying is not a gendered behaviour, and anecdotally I know women can bully each other, too (trolling on Mumsnet comes to mind) – which, thinking about it now, is something I would like to discuss with a guest one day – but once more, in his book, Mark Green talks about men’s “collective trauma”, which I found to be an interesting phrase – he writes: “Men are in crisis. We are collectively traumatised and often deeply isolated.”
And it got me wondering what he was talking about – so I read the book again and picked up that he talks about men being bullied, policed, kept in line through domination of one another and for the purposes of making sure we don’t transgress the rules of the Man Box. But more interestingly, I had never considered the bullying could be so pervasive so as to potentially have a traumatic impact on a whole collective of people. In principle I understood that persistent bullying can takes its toll on a person – I was bullied at school to some degree, and it has left some impressions to say the least – but had never quite envisioned that bullying could have such a collective traumatic impact. And this might not even be what Mark Green was on about, but I did do some research; and while I don’t want to get into it here too much because I would like to do an episode on this topic in and of itself, there is a very interesting paper called “Bullying Victimisation and Trauma”, published in 2021 by Thormod Idsoe and their crew. And basically, the paper details how bullying, which is primarily perpetrated by boys and men can have a long-lasting trauma impact that could meet the criteria for a complex PTSD presentation. Which is just fascinating; sorry – I find awful things that human being do to each other continually fascinating. Guess that’s why I’m Nice-ish, right? Anyway, bullying ties into this next section of the episode.
Marginalised and Oppressed Men
There is another collection of men who are affected differently by hegemonic and toxic masculinity: men who belong to marginalised or oppressed groups. So, initially I had planned for this section to be longer than it is, but I have decided to not delve into it as deeply as I wanted for several reasons. The first being that I am a white, cisgender, heterosexual male and I have no experience of being affected by toxic masculinity from the standpoint of being a Black or Asian or Aboriginal man, or a gay man, or a transgender man or transgender women (the reason I include both trans men and women is because the experiences of transition from either gender might have its own unique experiences of impact by toxic masculinity). “But you are not a woman, and you had no issue chatting about toxic masculinity and how it impacts women,” I hear you say. And you are right, I did; reason being is that there seems to have been more thought dedicated to examining and looking into the impact of toxic masculinity (or rather the behaviours associated with the concept of toxic masculinity to be more precise) on women than there has been on its impact on marginalised and oppressed groups of men. I have had a look, and there is not all that much out there looking into it. Therefore, I do not feel I am able to do this section as much justice as I would like. As I have said throughout this episode, I would like to get guests on to talk about their experiences of toxic masculinity and speaking to a men from these population groups is something I am keen to do, too.
What I will comment on from an academic standpoint, though, is that Connell, who first put forward the idea of hegemonic masculinity, noted that alongside subordinating and dominating women, hegemonic masculinity also seeks to subordinate and dominate other lesser forms of masculinity, which are called (surprise, surprise) marginalised and subordinated masculinities. Marginalised masculinities, as defined in “Is Masculinity Toxic?”, “includes support for the hegemonic form [of masculinity] combined with the least ability or willingness to adhere to its norms, as well as the lowest level of cultural benefits for being male.”
Furthermore, marginalised masculinity is “enacted by men with the least ability or willingness to meet the hegemonic definition, but who still respect the masculinity hierarchy. This includes men from tolerated minority groups and lower-class men in low-level service positions. Nerds have long been the icon for this form of masculinity.”
Basically, what I can derive from this is that the rules of the Man Box were laid down by those men in a position to make the rules of what it means to be a man; which, as history dictates, has predominantly been white men with money. Therefore, they set the bar – and anyone else who is not white or not rich who wants to try and attain those levels of manhood or masculinity can try if they wanted but will likely not be successful. Therefore, it seems that racism and classism are the toxically masculine products of the Man Box.
Subordinate masculinities (and again I am quoting from “Is Masculinity Toxic?”): “have notably different definitions from the hegemonic form and are actively discouraged by the culture. Discouragement may take the form of social prohibitions or laws.” One of the final rules of the Man Box, then, is that “real men are heterosexual and hypermasculine”; as such, anyone who is not heterosexual or cisgender, is then considered to be subordinately masculine, and is therefore subjected to either homophobia or transphobia, two more toxic manifestations of The Man Box.
So then, to adhere fully to the ideals of hegemonic masculinity, one must be white, rich, heterosexual, and cisgender; be dominant over other men and especially other women and willing to use violence or aggression to assert and maintain your dominance. Along with this, you must be stoic and never show emotion, unless it’s anger. And you can never ask for help, because to ask for help is to be seen as weak. And to consistently adhere to the ideals of hegemonic masculinity you may need to engage in harmful, dangerous behaviours and endorse harmful, dangerous beliefs which include misogyny, racism, classism, homophobia and transphobia. This, is essentially as far as I can make sense of it, what toxic masculinity is and why it is so very harmful.
Well, that’s it. That’s my deep dive into the harmful effects of toxic masculinity. I hope I have managed to make some sense. I've really tried to capture as much nuance as possible within the time frame of this episode – but it is entirely possible this has been a solid shit show of non-sensical drivel.
In the next episode I am hoping to explore the other side of all of this; how we as men can work towards a new ideal of masculinity. Something which I am fully aware is being worked on by a number of men, but I will look at that a bit more next time. Try and bring some balance to what has felt like quite a heavy topic, but one that I hope you will agree requires some thought and critical analysis.
If you have enjoyed this episode (and I use the word “enjoy” lightly) please let me know. And if you really liked it, please subscribe, rate the show, and leave comments to let other potential listeners know how good (or shit) I am. And as always, you can find me on social media if you want to discuss anything further. On Instagram I am @the_nice_ish_psychologist, on Twitter I am @TheNiceishPsych. You can email me at theniceishpsych@gmail.com, or you can sign up to my blog page at Substack (just search “The Nice-ish Ramblings Podcast” and “Substack” on Google and I am sure I will pop up – otherwise it’s on my Linktree on my Instagram page).
Anyway, that’s enough bullshit from me. Go and enjoy the rest of your day. Or not. Whatever, no pressure.
Further Reading
“Is Masculinity Toxic?” by Andrew Smiler (2019)
“The Little #MeToo Handbook for Men”, by Mark Greene (2018)
“6 Harmful Effects of Toxic Masculinity” by Weiss (2016): https://www.bustle.com/articles/143644-6-harmful-effects-of-toxic-masculinity
“Ambivalent Sexism” (Grubbs); “Benevolent Sexism” (Good), “Hostile Sexism” (Hack): https://pages.nyu.edu/jackson/sex.and.gender/Readings/AmbivalentSexism-Sage17.pdf
Wikipedia – “Misogyny”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny
Wikipedia – “Sexism”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism
“Adult substance misuse treatment statistics 2019 to 2020: report”: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/substance-misuse-treatment-for-adults-statistics-2019-to-2020/adult-substance-misuse-treatment-statistics-2019-to-2020-report#people-in-treatment-substance-sex-age
“Homicide in England and Wales: year ending March 2020”: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/homicideinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2020#suspects-in-homicide-cases
“Get it Off Your Chest: Men’s Mental Health 10 Years On”: https://www.mind.org.uk/media/6771/get-it-off-your-chest_a4_final.pdf
“Bullying Victimisation and Trauma” by Idsoe, Vaillancourt Dyregrov, Hagen, Ogden and Nӕrde (2021).
11th Principle Consent Rape Culture Pyramid: https://www.11thprincipleconsent.org/consent-propaganda/rape-culture-pyramid/
3: "Toxic Masculinity" Part 2 - What's the Harm?