Exposing the agenda behind toxic masculinity – Part 2

If you think about it, almost all of the new social constructs that have been pushed on us over the last few years – with an expectation to change the way we think as it relates to what is acceptable – are supported by those who have a calculated agenda with a specific goal it hopes to reach. Once attained, they stand to gain something, and that is what should be explored.

In the case of the catch-phrase “toxic masculinity,” there is an assumption at the start that all males are prone to aggressive, brutish and insensitive behavior. Since it’s assumed to be inherent and part of their DNA, the solution being put forward is that a reprogramming needs to take place for all men, from childhood to adulthood.

However, this sort of conclusion fails to take into account the existence of loving fathers, caring husbands, soft-spoken grandfathers and kind brothers, as well as any men who have served as an inspiration to generations. Forget the stories we’ve read about such individuals. Their heroics, bravery and selfless acts have been forgotten or disregarded. In the year 2023, men are standardized – one size, fits all – and that size is “toxic.” 

From where did this thinking emanate? 

One claim says it is fostered by “family members, teachers, coaches and other authority figures.”

But isn’t that true of every single human being? Aren’t we all influenced by those same individuals, both for the good and the bad? Yet, despite those influences, most of us do change and evolve over time. So why is there a focus on men as being stuck in a toxic freeze-frame throughout the length of their lives?

As previously stated, with every social construct, someone stands to gain by pushing their theory. Who gains the most from the claim that the character of men is in need of a dramatic change? Women surely fall into that category. Just looking back at the vast changes that have taken place within the last 70 years, it’s not difficult to recognize how women have been the beneficiary of those gains. Or have they?

Those of us who were around in the 1940s and 50s, remember a wife having dinner ready when her husband returned home from work. One television program was even named, “Father Knows Best.” Back then, men were revered, respected and honored for being the breadwinner and the leader of the family.

But that dramatically changed once feminism emerged. The moment that women felt empowered, men began to take a back seat, often being relegated to equal or lesser on the family chain. One could just as easily make the case that feminism became toxic by seeking to devalue men in a way that made them feel irrelevant and unnecessary.  

Today, many women believe they are much better off without men in their lives. One article, as early as 2009, entitled, “Would a world without men really be so bad?” illustrates that very point, as it refers to men as “the master race for all our recorded history.” The writer uses the worst examples of men to blame for war and just about every other ill. Ironically, though, in the end, she says they must stay, convinced that they’re worth keeping in the event of a catastrophe. 

Her fantasy narrative serves to expose her utter contempt for men and can only be looked upon as a spoof, since it provides no balance whatsoever. Women who hold such low opinions of men don’t generally exude happiness or fulfillment but are, instead, often angry and disgruntled. This is why it’s worthwhile asking whether women have really made gains. 

While most women may look upon men with such resentment, the feminist movement, for whatever positive changes it advanced, has also done a lot to injure the standing of men while propping up women as their better. Their error was to focus on the toxicity of men rather than the toxicity of all humans, because women are certainly not exempt from many of the same behaviors which are blamed solely on men.  

So, who else stands to gain from the denigration of men? As mentioned in Part 1, those who are committed to the destruction of the traditional, nuclear family. Destroy men, the importance and value of their roles, and replace it with another structure.

Families, these days, have been redefined to include anything from two mothers, to two fathers, to a single parent. With all of the anarchy and lawlessness taking place in many American cities, as we watch them wreak destruction, supposedly in the name of justice, many kids appear to be raising themselves. 

As with any successful structure, there must be a leader, a set of rules and those who are subject to them. Respect and deference must also be present, because without it, everyone does as they please. And those images are constantly being seen and felt in society.

Back in 2020, The New York Post reported that Black Lives Matters scrubbed a page from their website stating that their aim was to disrupt the nuclear family structure, citing that this is “a central tenet of Marxism.”

The gains here are for those who are committed to putting an end to all authority, starting with the one present within the family unit, and then advancing to a place of full-on anarchy.  

Finally, reliance on the “State,” has also sought to replace the traditional male breadwinner. The “Cradle to Grave” concept was not only introduced in America as early as 2012, but also in the UK as far back as 1943 when Winston Churchill coined the phrase. The idea was for government to provide every aspect of a person’s needs throughout their lifetime, including healthcare, education, housing and retirement benefits.  

While it sounds good, in principle, today’s version seeks to dismiss self-reliance and promote deference to the new father figure – the government. They’ll provide alright, but you’ll pay somehow in the end.

Reliance on government can only result in enslavement to a system which seeks to control and dominate its dependents. It lacks love, compassion, real regard and familial attachment, thereby making it an inferior replacement to a family led by an imperfect but, in most cases, caring man.

There is no question that men, just as women, are very flawed human beings. We don’t always do our best, but most of us know there’s no real replacement for the family we were given, and that family works best when there is a man who is cheered on, valued and appreciated by the members of his household. 

Looking at men who were created in the image of the Almighty in a demeaning way may very well be connected to a rejection of God, Himself, who represents the ultimate Father figure to all mankind.  

Ironically, though, it is only through His grace that any of us are able to recognize our weaknesses, endeavor to do better and, with His help, live in a way that inspires others to also improve. We actually become less toxic the closer we get to His character, because toxicity is who we are without Him.  

Rather than maligning one particular gender, shouldn’t each individual work hard to rid themselves of their own toxic behavior? Because, in the end, that’s an agenda really worth promoting with gains for all of humanity!

Click here to read part 1.