"Toxic masculinity" is a counterproductive term—if we want men to be better
If you feel strongly about calling out “toxic masculinity," I’m not telling you to stop using it. But the rest of us should stop for two reasons.
I used to be a fan of the term “toxic masculinity.” But now I think it’s counterproductive, if our goal is for men to be better human beings.
I was scared to write this. The term is a popular way to identify certain harmful behaviors common to men. Like hiding emotions, sudden outbursts of anger, and homophobia. Things that I’m still working on changing about myself. Things that need to stop happening if we want a better, safer world for everyone.
If you feel strongly about calling out “toxic masculinity”—if it’s helping you to heal and hold those who hurt you accountable—I’m not telling you to stop using it. But the rest of us who don’t feel strongly either way should stop for two reasons.
Shame doesn’t lead to change and growth
The first is that the word “toxic” is shaming, and shame actually prevents change and growth. Shame, as social worker Brené Brown writes, is a “intensely painful feeling or experience of believing that we are flawed and therefore unworthy of love and belonging.” Feeling like we did something wrong (guilt) is helpful. It lets us know that we’ve caused harm and that we should take responsibility for it. But feeling that we are fundamentally flawed and unworthy of loving and belonging (shame) is debilitating. It triggers our nervous system the same way fear does, activating our “fight, flight, or freeze” response, the body’s chemical and physical reaction to danger. The wise, rational parts of our brain shut off. We lose access to curiosity, perspective, and compassion—which are needed for true healing and change.
This is probably why so many men react negatively to the term “toxic masculinity.” It feels like an attack on who they really are deep inside. Not a critique of some of the ways we’ve been conditioned to act by our patriarchal society—which is how it lands with me (and why I’ve found it useful in the past).
I realize that I’m focusing on men’s feelings and suggesting that they should be taken into account. This is a newsletter on men’s mental health, after all. But maybe the biggest lesson I’ve learned as a new therapist is that just a hint of shame can stop healing in its tracks. So many of the men who come to me for help are frozen inside with shame. It’s only when I show them that they are worthy and lovable regardless of what they’ve done that they start to heal and make changes in their lives. I don’t expect someone who’s been hurt by men to show them this “unconditional positive regard,” as the pioneering psychologist Carl Rogers called it. But those of us who can should try our best—if we really want men (and ourselves) to be better.
Patriarchy is a systemic problem
The second reason “toxic masculinity” is a counterproductive term is that it makes misogyny, sexual violence, and other harmful behaviors seem like individual character traits rather than the result of political and economic inequality. It individualizes a problem that is systemic.
I came to this realization after reading the sociologist Carol Harrington. She traced the history of the term and argues that “feminists should not adopt toxic masculinity as an analytical concept.” Why? Because it makes it seem like harmful things that men do are only the result of bad choices—rather than the result of our capitalist society and the patriarchy it relies on to function. The idea of toxic masculinity, Harrington writes, “individualize[s] responsibility for gender inequalities to certain bad men.”
Harrington found that the term has an unexpected history. Even though it’s now identified with feminism, it originated in men’s self-help movements in the 1980s. Then it was picked up by conservative scholars, self-help gurus, and others trying to help men. They argued that men need strong father figures, or they will become toxic. “Boys need the right kind of masculinity, the idea goes,” Harrington writes, summarizing the conservative argument, “and mothers can’t give this to them.”
Some of these scholars and self-help gurus pointed to men in prison and young Black men as examples of “toxic masculinity.” This helped them make the case for “conservative political agendas concerned with the social control of low-income, under-employed men and with patriarchal family values.” Only over the last decade, “toxic masculinity” has become a feminist rallying cry. And now, here we are.
I’m not bringing up this history as a “gotcha.” Just because conservatives once said something doesn’t mean it should be banished forever. The point is that the term focuses on individual choices, rather than our economy and political system. It ignores the power that a small handful of ultra-wealthy people (most of them men) have over everyone else. It ignores how patriarchy—a way of organizing society in which men hold power and women are largely powerless that’s been around for thousands of years—helps those people maintain power. It ignores how we’ve only started to chip away at patriarchy. And it ignores that many men are struggling too, because the rich and powerful have rigged the economy, weakened labor unions, and used the government to fatten their wallets at the expense of everyone else.
I’m not sure what we should replace “toxic masculinity” with. It’s been a useful catch-all term for me in the past to name things I’ve done that harm others (and myself). Maybe “harmful masculinity” or just “patriarchy.” I’m curious what you think. Comment below or send me an email (jeremy@jeremymohler.blog)!
But the most important thing is to start to think and talk about the harm that men cause in systemic, not individual ways.