In the current cultural climate, conversations around gender and behaviour often lead us to confront a now-popular phrase: “toxic masculinity”. This phrase has emerged as a catch-all to describe aspects of male behaviour that are aggressive, emotionally distant, and destructive. Yet, it’s time we reconsider the term itself. While the behaviour it aims to critique is indeed harmful, the phrase “toxic masculinity” is, ironically, a form of linguistic toxicity.
Of course, acknowledging harmful behaviours stereotypically associated with men is necessary. Society has long been burdened by a culture that promotes aggression, discourages emotional expression, and glorifies dominance – traits often assigned to masculinity. This critique is not about invalidating these problems but about the terminology used to address them.
The term “toxic masculinity” paints with a wide brush. It potentially implicates all facets of masculinity as toxic, failing to differentiate between healthy, positive aspects of masculinity and their harmful counterparts. In reality, “toxicity” is not an inherent characteristic of masculinity. Instead, it’s a component of individual character flaws, harmful social expectations, and a culture that perpetuates these negative stereotypes. Such a sweeping phrase can be damaging and stigmatizing, especially for those men who do not subscribe to these toxic norms.
Another issue is the mental health implications associated with the term. As someone who has personally navigated the complex landscape of male mental health, I can affirm that labels matter. Using a phrase like “toxic masculinity” can contribute to self-stigmatisation, guilt, and shame among men, who may already struggle with societal expectations and mental health issues. It hinders the vital conversation about men’s mental health, turning it into an accusatory discourse rather than one centered on understanding and support.
Let’s consider the term’s psychological impact. Men are less likely than women to seek help for mental health issues – a trend largely attributed to the societal expectation that men should be strong, independent, and unemotional. Now, introduce the concept of “toxic masculinity”, and we have men fearing they’re part of the problem, that their struggles, their fears, their emotional complexities are somehow “toxic”. This fear further discourages men from seeking the help they need, creating a vicious cycle of silence and suffering.
If we genuinely wish to address harmful behaviours associated with masculinity, we must employ language that fosters open dialogue and understanding, not shame and defensiveness. We need terms that differentiate between positive and negative traits, promoting an image of masculinity that is healthy, balanced, and emotionally aware. Words are powerful tools for change, but only if they are used in a manner that uplifts rather than oppresses.
We also need to move away from gendered language that divides and otherizes. The underlying behaviours we wish to address – aggression, emotional suppression, dominance – are not exclusive to men; they are human issues. A more inclusive term, like “toxic behaviours”, doesn’t single out a specific gender and reinforces the idea that these issues are universal, shared, and can be addressed by all.
The term “toxic masculinity” – while arising from a place of valid criticism – needs a critical re-evaluation. It’s crucial to challenge harmful behaviours and societal expectations that breed such behaviour. However, the language we use to do so should be carefully considered to avoid causing further harm. If we want to create a more empathetic, understanding, and mentally healthy society, our terminology must evolve in a way that promotes unity, respect, and equality.
Jason Rowe is a mental health advocate and freelance writer. Having faced his own mental health battles, Jason uses his experiences to raise awareness about men’s mental health issues and promotes a more nuanced understanding of masculinity in today’s society.
