⚠️ This is an opinion post that references violence from the outset and alludes to suicide; if you are based in the UK, the Samaritans are available 24/7 on 116 123. If you’re affected by the topics mentioned here, this list of links may be useful.

---

For a while now, there has been some discussion about the term “toxic” masculinity and particularly some disagreement about whether it should be used. The World Health Organisation calls it Harmful Masculinities (I use ‘narrow’ and ‘harmful’ interchangeably).

In any event, what we call it can become a distraction from the conversation we need to have about male violence, and ironically proves the point that we have to make it palatable for men to hear it for fear of upsetting them. This, in itself, speaks to the restrictive ideas of what society has come to believe it means to “be a man”, if we believe that we have to walk on eggshells around them. As the saying goes “not all men” are violent, but we do need to talk about the reality that some are.

An example of toxic/harmful/narrow masculinity is that there are those who assert that “men aren’t allowed to express their emotions” for fear of being seen as “weak” or “soft”.

Except, of course, some have no problem expressing anger, for example, including in violent ways. The Men Are from Mars, Women Are From Venus narrative has us convinced that men have a limited range of emotions and ways to express or communicate their feelings or “needs”.

If you’ve ever seen – or been – a man at a football match though, you’ll know he has no trouble expressing how he feels, in a range of ways, from feeling joy through to disappointment, including openly crying in front of others at times whether a team wins or loses.

It is fair to say, that he may have been socialised from an early age not to talk about certain feelings (like love), especially if few spaces allow him to express them safely without ridicule among his fellow peers – this, in turn, harms men. Just as women’s emotions are policed and suppressed through sexism and misogyny, when they are told to withhold their anger, for fear of being called “too emotional”. The point is, society seems to have a problem with people expressing certain emotions, not just men.

The way men are policed for “soft” emotions feels toxic, hence why, as a version of masculinity, it feels important to talk about: the (false) idea that expressing certain emotions, like love, or prioritising meaningful connection, makes a man look “weak”. 

Narrow ideas of masculinity are also sexist; they can keep men away from jobs that are seen as “feminine” when men are just as capable of doing those roles. It (wrongly) asserts that only men can do certain jobs, because they need to be “strong” but never seen to be “caring”. Yet even in military roles, caring is a pre-requisite, and many military and policing personnel describe their colleagues as “family”.

Narrow versions of masculinity are aligned with militarist* narratives that endorse sexism; that men are simply “protectors” and “warriors”, and (wrongly) positions violence as “natural” and even “honourable”.  A common sexist, militarist joke, is “What’s the difference between women and toast? You can make soldiers out of toast”.

*Militarism is a term that helps explain narrow definitions of “protection” and “security”; it is not anti-military, because many professionals in the safety/defence arena sign up to be keepers of the peace, not “warriors”.

Performative Manhood

Men also have a tendency to try and impress other men – even at the expense of intimate relationships with women.

One example is how men can – and do – talk about how many women they’ve had (or want to have) s€x with. A common piece of “dating advice” among men is apparently “to get over a woman, you have to get under one”. This tells men “don’t feel sad, use women to “feel better” as if she’s an object – but more than that, it’s a performance for other men; it prioritises status over connection, and prevents them from showing up authentically with the people they say they care about.

Sadly some “manfluencers” work very hard to convince men that they are the “real” victims, as if no one really cares about them – a common trope in the man0sphere. Men are told their existence is in “crisis”, even though women have the worst mental health – not because of feminism (another man0sphere trope), but from centuries of being oppressed and harmed, predominantly by men, while men seem to do very little about that.

But let’s be clear – there is no amorphous entity pulling men into dark corners of the internet; it is a choice, set up by beliefs that prioritise greed and control (rather than connection), a society that rewards status and power (rather than character) and a system from which violent men can benefit, when it excuses the violence they do – if it punishes them at all.

For all that these narrow definitions of masculinity also ultimately harm men, it does help them obtain more power and control. It promotes dominance, greed, status through hierarchy, power and even superiority; the more dominant he can become, the more powerful he can be. It’s a mindset rooted in harmful ideology of male supremacy, enforced by behaviours and mindsets like misogyny. He learns he can get what he wants and feels entitled to it. 

Until that is, he ages out of the ability to do those things (or people around him walk away from that narrow mindset), and becomes lonely as a result of his choices. This is what’s become known as “Man Box Culture”.

This harmful ideology can also show up in toxic behaviours – like misogyny – where some men feel entitled to abuse women, especially if they see women as “less than”. Beliefs of supremacy over women can intersect with other acts of harm like racism, and hostility against the LGBT+ community, often rooted in false assertions about what it means to be “a real man” or “a real woman”.

Defining misogyny

Misogyny is the vehicle that helps to “justify” male violence towards women. It is a choice of behaviour rooted in the flawed ideology of male supremacy: specifically, a false sense of superiority and entitlement to objectify, subjugate, oppress and possess women. 

It can be seen in the mindset of men (and others) who engage in (and is not limited to) belittling, shaming, coercive and dominating behaviours towards women (including shutting down conversations about misogyny), as well as using violence in all its forms.

Men who display misogyny can be motivated by greed and status, and choose power and control over meaningful learning, care and connection.

Misogyny is not a mental illness.

The narrative that women are “hysterical” and “too sensitive” (a tale as old as time) sits within this definition, because it seeks to oppress women (and anyone else who expresses how they feel) and pressure them into silence. 

It can also show up as internalised misogyny, where women tell others to “lean in” to dominant ways of being (eg, at work), comply with oppressive culture and become “one of the lads”. Or just be “a good girl” and keep quiet. 

Unpacking the Man Box

Men’s “friendships” can be conditional on them acting “man enough”. But men are not helpless to create a new social circle – and many do – which allows him to be authentic with others, or to assert what behaviours he finds acceptable – or not.

But here’s where it gets worrying: some men choose to stay in The Man Box, (even if they don’t know that’s what it’s called). He keeps a false sense of entitlement that women “should” meet his “needs”, as housekeeper, therapist and for s€x. For the men who support the false belief that men are superior, they may even “justify” violence to get their own way. The more power they have, and the more they enjoy it, the more they benefit; the more they benefit the more they will choose to dominate and so it goes on.

Chuck Derry’s work highlighted this: that men who choose violence do so because it’s functional – it gets them what they want. Until, that is, as Mark Greene’s video highlights above, a man ages out of the ability to “perform” (or people around him walk away from his narrow mindset), and he becomes lonely as a result of his choices. 

Deeyah Khan discussed the reasons men are abusive in her documentary about domestic abuse. As you’ll see, several describe it was from a belief system where they felt they had the right to control and force compliance from women, with one man, when asked “Why did you do it?”, he simply replies “because I could”.

A male supremacy mindset helps to endorse false stereotypes that women are “hysterical” or “too sensitive”, while at the same time “unintelligent” and “irrational”. It says women shouldn’t be in a board room because (in male supremacist terms) she’s “too thick” on the one hand, but so manipulating (“she cries to get her own way”) and cunning that women should never be trusted.

But it hurts men too. Narrow versions of masculinity keep him confined to small ideas of what it means to “be a man”; his identity is formed around the idea he must “protect and provide”. This can then lead to depression if he feels his failing at that, and he may even turn that violence towards himself.

All of this, is what I call the “paradox of patriarchy’ and, in the end, it hurts everyone.

The idea that men should be one thing and women another ignores our differences and the gifts and skills we all bring to the world, regardless of our gender.

There is another way

What if we challenged all of this? 

Here’s some food for thought:

💡What if we allowed people to feel a range of emotion, and encourage them to do the work in developing skills to regulate and express them healthily? 

💡What if we asserted that men and boys are not in fact entitled to dominate, and that everyone is allowed to exist safely in the world? 

💡 What if we asserted that no one has the “right” to hurt anyone, especially not because they see themselves as simply “better” than someone else? What if we trained people in skills of upstandership and encouraged healthy values both at work and at home.

💡 Finally, what if we expanded the idea that there is only one “right” way to be a man; that there are a range of masculinities (see the work of R.W. Connell and Cynthia Enloe) but there is definitely a wrong way, and that’s to be abusive in any form?

That sounds like a peaceful world we could all live in. Who wouldn’t want that?

---

 © Delphi Ellis All rights reserved. This is an opinion post which may have featured on other websites. For full terms and conditions of accessing this content, please read these policies.