The question of toxic masculinity and that of the patriarchy have been presented and analyzed ad nauseam. The words are in all mouths; so much so that it becomes unclear as to what meaning they actually bear in common usage. It therefore becomes all the more necessary to recognize what meaning they do bear and how they denote realities that must be addressed. This article aims to suggest a way in which we can understand these terms and the phenomena they refer to that allows both for efficient action and conceptual exploration.
Toxic Masculinity as a Consequence of the Patriarchy
“Masculinity” generally delineates the set of characteristics and behaviors one expects to observe in men. In Western culture, this mostly refers to assertiveness, power, control, and bravery. The problem of toxic masculinity arises from the rigid socialization of men and boys into a specific “box,” intended to inculcate them with these “values.” Men are told that to be a man means existing in a certain way, and that they must prove they are “man enough.” Asking questions or expressing “too much” emotion is emasculating and frowned upon, an idea reinforced by public figures like manosphere1 commentator Jordan Peterson, who encouraged his audience to “stop being a ‘girlie man.’” This in turn reinforces harmful beliefs about the way men “should” be and discourages them from being themselves. Essentially, toxic masculinity is an excessive posturing of masculine ideals.
Moreover, society sets different expectations for men and women that posit the identity of a man as a “role” to play. When women conform to unequal courtship practices, they write off the inequality of the norms and become complicit in the perpetuation of distinct roles for men and women in the patriarchy. When parents dismiss damaging behaviour as “boys will be boys,” they set different standards for boys and girls that continue into adulthood. It is through these practices that masculinity is reduced to a caricature of an identity; to be a man is to perform a rigid role you did not ask for on a stage in front of everyone. To further complicate the issue, masculinity is also not static. It is a “reward” that must be continuously earned through displays of masculinity throughout a man’s life, thus creating an amplified version of masculinity, forcing men to display an image of strength and self-sufficiency in the endless striving toward the status of a “real man.” All too frequently, this leads to severely stunted or deeply impacted mental, emotional, and physical well-being. The statistics speak for themselves: men are more likely to be both the victims and perpetrators of violence, a somber consequence of the hypermasculine socialization imposed upon them throughout their lives.
The Social Connection Model
Debates regarding women’s and men’s rights often ascribe blame to one or the other faction: for disrespecting the rights of the other, creating a war between masculinity and femininity, and their perceived roles in society. This is not only highly inefficient in fostering any form of action, but it also fails to address the structural origins of these issues. Indeed, rather than working to solve the problem, the discussion turns to blame, and action becomes synonymous with identifying the culprit. The reality is that the true causes of this suffering are probably much more complex than what the practice of ascribing blame suggests.
This echoes the way in which Iris Marion Young’s Responsibility and Justice: A Social Connection Model describes the reproduction over time of structural injustices by large numbers of not necessarily ill-intending individuals following unjust institutional rules that have come to be normalized. Young, therefore, proposes the “Social Connection Model” to address structural injustices, like the consequences of patriarchy. This refers to the idea that we all bear a share in the collective responsibility for the problems in our society, and this comes with simply belonging to the community. We all contribute in seemingly negligible ways to injustice due to the interconnected nature of our social institutions and their reliance upon our actions for their perennity. This leads Young to suggest that, if harm comes from our collective actions, the solution must as well.
Reframing Gender Discourse
Circling back to the issue of toxic masculinity, we can start discerning how it stems from a wider, overarching social structure. If we understand it as a consequence of the patriarchy, Young’s model suggests a need to reframe our approaches to the presentation of gender and the rhetoric of masculinity. We must confront the doxa2 of patriarchy that informs taken-for-granted gender differences that we take as “truth,” and realize that this only holds power if we let it. Our beliefs on how women or men should act only perpetuate harmful, archaic beliefs about what each gender wants or should want, when our desires are more similar than different.
To counter this, we must actively work to deconstruct the way we view gender and the discourse surrounding it. Pointing fingers at each group for the contributions they make within a system that is intrinsically patriarchal wastes energy and only gives momentary revelry in “confronting” the evil. In applying the social connection model as a tool, it becomes evident that looking inward and reflecting on how we can change our own conduct to reflect a greater collective responsibility for change will ultimately prove more productive and close the gaps between both sides of the war between masculinity and femininity.
Looking Forwards
By confronting and steering ourselves towards collective action in the fight against the structural injustice of patriarchy, we can also counter toxic masculinity and move towards a healthier and freer way of existing within our communities. Without the restraints of toxic masculinity telling men what they “should” be, a large part of the burden on both men and women would be alleviated. As Young writes in her work on the “social connection model,” it is up to the members of society to “demand of one another actions to address” the problems within it, and this is how we will challenge toxic masculinity.
Edited by Sofia V. Forlini
- A community focused on men’s rights and issues, which frames them as in opposition with those of women. ↩︎
- Descriptive statements informing on social norms and behaviours, accepted as inherently true yet often under-analyzed. ↩︎
The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and they do not reflect the position of the McGill Journal of Political Science or the Political Science Students’ Association.
Featured image by Chrysalis
Bibliography
Plank, Liz. For the Love of Men: From Toxic to a More Mindful Masculinity. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 2019.
Young, Iris Marion. Responsibility and Justice: A Social Connection Model. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.