Toxic Masculinity Has Been Radicalized Into A Hatred Of Men

Sixty-three percent of youth suicides, 90 percent of the homeless and runaway youth population, 80 percent of rapists, and 71 percent of all high school dropouts have one thing in common. They all lack a father.

In the past couple of years, the American far left has perpetuated the idea that masculinity is bad. That’s an understatement. That it’s toxic. Testosterone perpetuates evil. The far left says that the commonality between men like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Chavez, etc., isn’t anger, lack of empathy, violent nationalistic ideals, jealousy, or over-ambition…it’s manhood. Why do they think this? A Pinterest post once said, “There should be an anti-fathers day.” This is another hollow concept perpetuated by the left and 21st-century feminism.

If you think masculinity is bad in nature, you’re incredibly mistaken. A father is needed when it comes to giving a daughter or son the tools necessary to thrive in life. For a boy, becoming a man is essential. But pop culture continues their attack. Modern day feminism has contributed greatly to this. What is so sad about feminism’s role in this is the slow degeneration of their ideology. Feminism went from generating iconic images like Rosie the Riveter, empowering women to conquer the industry in the United States during WWII, virtually saving this nation, to what they are today — an attack on all men. No, not just the rapists and abusers, but all men.

This attack on masculinity is a sad example of where our society is headed at this point. The University of Texas was quoted in saying that masculinity is a ‘mental health issue.’ This attack cannot continue. As this siege progresses, the rivalry between the two genders will continue to grow. This is poisonous and must cease.

A mature person would recognize that throughout history, there has been a plethora of great men who changed the world for better. Some examples include Ronald Reagan, John Paul II, Winston Churchill, C.S. Lewis, etc. That same person would then notice that there are women who had great, monumental effects on history as well. Some examples include Margaret Thatcher, Condoleezza Rice, Pat Summitt, Joan of Arc, Mary, Mother of Christ, etc. So why such a rivalry?

I will never truly understand why; however, it is not hard to see the goals of these men-haters. Break down the image of a man, then ostracize the few that still fit that image. Recently, a movement telling men that it is okay to be feminine has emerged. This isn’t necessarily an incorrect idea. However, that message is slowly turning into “it is better off for men to be feminine.” This is vastly incorrect. It’s laughable.

Throughout history the (radical) left has attacked the white person for being white, the rich person for being rich, the straight person for being straight, the Christian person for being Christian.And now? The man for being, well, a man. Luckily, there are sensible people here like me to give you this message: if you’re a white, Christian, wealthy male, it’s okay. If you’re any one of these things, its okay. If you’re not one of these things, it’s okay. You can be who you are and not who the left tells you to be and it will always be okay. The fact of the matter is the left acts so accepting with all races, religions, and the LGBTQ community, but they’re not. They’re only loyal to those who are loyal to them. If you’re a black person who happens to be a conservative, the left will despise you. Just ask Candace Owens. If you’re a gay person who happens to be a conservative, the left will despise you. Just ask Milo Yiannopoulos.

So here’s a refreshing idea from the right side of America: if you’re feminine, that’s awesome. If you’re masculine, that’s awesome. Be who you are. What I’m about to say goes out to all of us men out there. Our values are under siege. And whether you use a Gillette razor or not, ask yourself this: what would your father say if you ditched your manhood because MSNBC told you to?

  • Omaar Hena

    Bhahahah! #laughable

  • Hank Wordsworth

    John, your column could use more nuance. There are feminists and there are feminists. The archetype you propose may be true of the orchiectominous Laurie Essig, who to judge my her twitter account alone must keep a 5-gallon jar of them on her nightstand like pickled eggs. And on the adjacent nightstand and even bigger jar for her growing collection of penectomies, all from white republicans by the way. But she is 1 in a million, just as one in a million male Republicans is probably a serial rapist. It would be a great tragedy for men and women to fall into a trap (abetted by their academic and media elites) of judging each other by their rabid outliers. Indeed, the vast majority of feminists I’ve met are downright sweet. Before you go off on another rant like this, you be sweet to them and see what happens.

  • Jimmy

    This man had to use “a Pinterest post” as a straw man for his piece because he could not find any actual examples in culture that proved his argument. Sad! Try harder.

  • Emma Flynn

    John,

    While I acknowledge that this piece is labeled ‘opinion,’ upon reading it I found myself wishing that there was more research involved in your analysis. I believe that, even if it is labeled ‘opinion,’ we each have a responsibility to ensure that the opinions which we publish publicly are well-informed and founded on research in order to avoid injuriously influencing readers. That being said, I hope to introduce you to some sound academic research on this topic, with which I happen to be well acquainted since I studied many of these intensely upon first questioning my formerly conservative point of view and since I am now a Sociology and Psychology major, which has in practice brought me into contact with research on this topic quite often.

    I noticed that you often equate a feminist’s condemnation of toxic masculinity with a condemnation of masculinity in general. However, there is a difference between these two concepts beyond the descriptive adjective (which designates an entirely different term and concept, not merely a feminist-created description). R. W. Connell, a doctor of sociology and professor at University of Sydney, defined toxic masculinity (also called hegemonic masculinity) as “the configuration of gender practice which embodies the currently accepted answer to the problem of the legitimacy of the patriarchy, which guarantees the dominant position of men and the subordination of women” (1995). To add to this, Mimi Schippers, a doctor of sociology and professor at Tulane, notes that “hegemonic masculinity, when embodied by at least some men over time and space, legitimates men’s domination over women as a group” (2007). As you can see, toxic/hegemonic masculinity by definition includes the subjugation of women and any feminine traits. One can clearly see that this concept in practice would be dangerous to women (since it involves methods employed with the goal of keeping women in their position as second-class citizens), but it is also critical to note how it would prove quite dangerous to any man not possessing an undiluted form of toxic/hegemonic masculine traits. I have often been first-hand witness to men being deemed “f*ggot” or “b*tch” for displaying any hint of feminine qualities (such as sympathy, expression of emotions, or admiration of other women). This debasement of other men is another way in which toxic/hegemonic masculinity is realized, as it serves to keep only those men subscribing to the strict interpretation of pure, unadulterated toxic/hegemonic masculinity at the top of the power chain and all others at the bottom. This includes any person who demonstrates masculine traits but not toxic/hegemonic masculine traits.

    It is also worth noting that many toxic/hegemonic masculine traits can contribute to much worse physical and mental health outcomes for those who subscribe to it, such as an earlier death, injuries, mental unrest/disorders, and others outlined by Creighton and Oliffe, two doctors specializing in men’s health (2014).

    Toxic/hegemonic masculinity is not synonymous to normal masculinity, which is simply a term designating a particular set of traits that do not necessarily involve the degradation of other categories of people (many of which I happen to possess, meaning I too have a stake in a somewhat-masculine identity).

    Now that we have established the distinction between toxic/hegemonic masculinity and regular masculinity, one can understanding why feminists of all genders, races, sexualities, and social classes would be prompted to work toward the elimination of this practice in society. In order for any woman or man not practicing pure toxic/hegemonic masculinity to be able to rise to a position of equality in our society, it is essential that those practicing toxic/hegemonic masculinity be informed of their dangerous practices and compelled to stop them.

    I also urge you to hesitate before suggesting that feminists have their sights set on the social destruction of all men. Rather than targeting masculine traits for elimination, the feminist ideology attempts to identify those displays of toxic/hegemonic masculinity which have held the majority of men and women in a position of inferiority for much (if not all) of history while the feminist ideology also attempts to heighten the social value of feminine characteristics, careers, and ideologies.

    I hope that you have found this distinction informative and that it has piqued your interest in feminist ideologies. It is crucial to consider whether the information which forms the foundation of our opinions is founded on academic research or other sources, such as protectionist preachings. I encourage you to look over the sources I have cited throughout this response in addition to an article titled ‘Marginalized Masculinities and Hegemonic Masculinity: An Introduction’ (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3149/jms.0703.295) by Cliff Cheng, which does an excellent job of distinguishing toxic/hegemonic masculinity from masculine traits and emphasizing the harm that is done to many people (including most men) by the practices of hegemonic/toxic masculinity.

    Sincerely,

    Emma Flynn

  • Emma Flynn

    John,

    While I acknowledge that this piece is labeled ‘opinion,’ upon reading it I found myself wishing that there was more research involved in your analysis. I believe that, even if it is labeled ‘opinion,’ we each have a responsibility to ensure that the opinions which we publish publicly are well-informed and founded on research in order to avoid injuriously influencing readers. That being said, I hope to introduce you to some sound academic research on this topic, with which I happen to be well acquainted since I studied many of these intensely upon first questioning my formerly conservative point of view and since I am now a Sociology and Psychology major, which has in practice brought me into contact with research on this topic quite often.

    I noticed that you often equate a feminist’s condemnation of toxic masculinity with a condemnation of masculinity in general. However, there is a difference between these two concepts beyond the descriptive adjective (which designates an entirely different term and concept, not merely a feminist-created description). R. W. Connell, a doctor of sociology and professor at University of Sydney, defined toxic masculinity (also called hegemonic masculinity) as “the configuration of gender practice which embodies the currently accepted answer to the problem of the legitimacy of the patriarchy, which guarantees the dominant position of men and the subordination of women” (1995). To add to this, Mimi Schippers, a doctor of sociology and professor at Tulane, notes that “hegemonic masculinity, when embodied by at least some men over time and space, legitimates men’s domination over women as a group” (2007). As you can see, toxic/hegemonic masculinity by definition includes the subjugation of women and any feminine traits. One can clearly see that this concept in practice would be dangerous to women (since it involves methods employed with the goal of keeping women in their position as second-class citizens), but it is also critical to note how it would prove quite dangerous to any man not possessing an undiluted form of toxic/hegemonic masculine traits. I have often been first-hand witness to men being deemed “f*ggot” or “b*tch” for displaying any hint of feminine qualities (such as sympathy, expression of emotions, or admiration of other women). This debasement of other men is another way in which toxic/hegemonic masculinity is realized, as it serves to keep only those men subscribing to the strict interpretation of pure, unadulterated toxic/hegemonic masculinity at the top of the power chain and all others at the bottom. This includes any person who demonstrates masculine traits but not toxic/hegemonic masculine traits.

    It is also worth noting that many toxic/hegemonic masculine traits can contribute to much worse physical and mental health outcomes for those who subscribe to it, such as an earlier death, injuries, mental unrest/disorders, and others outlined by Creighton and Oliffe, two doctors specializing in men’s health (2014).

    Toxic/hegemonic masculinity is not synonymous to normal masculinity, which is simply a term designating a particular set of traits that do not necessarily involve the degradation of other categories of people (many of which I happen to possess, meaning I too have a stake in a somewhat-masculine identity).

    Now that we have established the distinction between toxic/hegemonic masculinity and regular masculinity, one can understanding why feminists of all genders, races, sexualities, and social classes would be prompted to work toward the elimination of this practice in society. In order for any woman or man not practicing pure toxic/hegemonic masculinity to be able to rise to a position of equality in our society, it is essential that those practicing toxic/hegemonic masculinity be informed of their dangerous practices and compelled to stop them.

    I also urge you to hesitate before suggesting that feminists have their sights set on the social destruction of all men. Rather than targeting masculine traits for elimination, the feminist ideology attempts to identify those displays of toxic/hegemonic masculinity which have held the majority of men and women in a position of inferiority for much (if not all) of history while the feminist ideology also attempts to heighten the social value of feminine characteristics, careers, and ideologies.

    I hope that you have found this distinction informative and that it has piqued your interest in feminist ideologies. It is crucial to consider whether the information which forms the foundation of our opinions is founded on academic research or other sources, such as protectionist preachings. I encourage you to look over the sources I have cited throughout this response in addition to an article titled ‘Marginalized Masculinities and Hegemonic Masculinity: An Introduction’ (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3149/jms.0703.295) by Cliff Cheng, which does an excellent job of distinguishing toxic/hegemonic masculinity from masculine traits and emphasizing the harm that is done to many people (including most men) by the practices of hegemonic/toxic masculinity.

    Sincerely,

    Emma Flynn

    • Hank Wordsworth

      Emma, very well documented. I agree with everything you say here and hopefully am doing my part to detoxify my masculinity up to and including daily reruns of Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood. A particular favorite of mine is Mr. Rogers’ interview with Big Bird, which I must have watched at least a 100 times this semester alone. Now, how about a kiss?

  • An Adult Male

    Here’s a recommendation offered with regard to prudent future action, take Introduction to Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies next semester.