Is there an agenda behind calling masculinity toxic? Part 1

When someone posed the question to clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson whether it’s okay to be a man, his response was: “It’s not okay, it’s necessary. What are we going to do without men?”

To illustrate his point, he spoke about men who are up on power lines, building buildings, working in the sewers, keeping our infrastructure functioning and often risking their lives to do these dangerous jobs. 

But, while Peterson is celebrating the differences that make men unique and indispensable, many societies have, over the past ten years or even more, been trying to make the case that the “toxic” characteristics found in men, which, they say, include being abusive, caustic and even prone to violence, are in desperate need of being softened and even feminized. It’s a constant message that has left boys wondering whether or not it’s okay to follow in their fathers’ footsteps. 

At least one person has described toxic masculinity as displaying behaviors such as “violence, dominance, emotional illiteracy, sexual entitlement and hostility to femininity,” noting that it’s bad for women.

Yet, most of us can probably think of a number of women, we personally know, whose characters display one or more of the above characteristics. In fact, it’s fair to say that some of those behaviors stem from bad upbringing, unresolved anger issues and the need to control, the latter specifically being a trait that is definitely not exclusive to the male gender. 

The writer of the above-mentioned article states that “in many societies, boys and men are expected to be strong, active, aggressive, tough, daring, heterosexual, emotionally inexpressive and dominant” which he claims is “enforced by socialization, media, peers and a host of other influences.” 

It's almost comical to read that list, because, as women began to emerge, from their traditional roles as homemakers, seeking to make their mark in the workplace, we were told that we needed to possess almost all of those same masculine traits in order to “compete in a man’s world.” And that’s right about the time that women started to take on tougher personalities in their attempt to succeed and even surpass men.

So now that so many glass ceilings have been broken by women who have left their soft side behind for a crustier exterior, are we to believe that it’s okay for them but not for men?

It seems to be that there is an agenda behind the whole claim of masculinity being toxic. Ironically, the too-tough and too-strong accusation has conveniently turned into a justification to shame men for displaying the personalities that women were told they needed to adopt in order to succeed in the business world. But now, there is a reversal. Women can possess them, but men are expected to change into a softer and more delicate version of themselves. Could it be that it’s a clever way for women to have the more competitive edge? Just a thought.

This term, “Toxic Masculinity,” which one could argue is a behavioral construct, only came on the scene in the 1980s but gained greater notoriety after 2015, when it became more widespread and used to criticize anyone displaying too much manhood. But while some may say that the term solely points to specific male behaviors, which are undesirable and should be eliminated, it’s clear that women are not exempt from what could be defined as toxic feminine traits as well. Oddly enough, no one seems to want to talk about that aspect, though.

So, this reinforces the suspicion that the whole idea behind the toxic masculinity claim is one which is calculated to shame men, put them down and lift up women. But coming back to Jordan Peterson’s statement, “What would we do without men,” it’s worthwhile to extol the value of men and celebrate their place and importance in our lives because otherwise, we might make the mistake of thinking that society would be a better place without them.

Conservative commentator and U.S. presidential hopeful, Larry Elder, has focused his 2024 platform message on the fact that so many of today’s society's ills emanate from fatherless families, claiming that it has become a national crisis. Stating that fatherlessness is the biggest problem for black people in America, he cites former President Barack Obama who said, “Children raised without fathers are more likely to commit crimes, drop out of school and end up in jail.”

In a YouTube clip, featuring Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, he says that the purpose of a man, as early as the Book of Genesis, was to make a wilderness into a garden. God already made the garden, and men are called to expand the rest of the world/wilderness into a garden. Hawley sees this as the highest calling that’s possible.

When considering that role, the tools needed to turn a wilderness into a garden would demand many human traits, both tough and gentle, because clearing out a wilderness takes great physical strength and resolve, but turning it into a garden also requires an eye for beauty as well as an appreciation for style, color and arrangement. There is no question that God gave men all of those qualities, but we women only have to look at ourselves to understand that we can often bring out and enhance what men already have… or suppress and inhibit the fullest potential of men from ever being developed.

While recently on vacation, I heard a clip from Jordan Peterson saying that men are the least encouraged species on the planet. Constantly criticized for not doing the right thing, they suffer from a complete lack of praise and support. I know I’ve certainly been guilty of that, and when I heard it, it made me realize that I had to do better.

Many opponents of Peterson cite the fact that a very large chunk of his followers are men, almost as if to say that he’s providing something to which they are especially attracted, and while it might be intended as a slur, it’s actually true, because many men lacked the mentoring, as kids, which he offers through his many clips, lectures and books. This is crucial information that was not necessarily passed on from their own fathers. Consequently, he has tapped into a huge dearth and deficiency of what it means to be a man, how to best express those qualities which complement women and how to inspire and be helpful, especially to their own families. And yes, men can’t get enough of it, because it’s empowering and affirming!

Why would those things be bad for men to learn and perfect? It would only be objectionable to anyone whose agenda is to radically alter the nuclear family by, first and foremost, completely eliminating the need for men, due to their so-called “toxicity.” Although it’s hard to believe that such an agenda exists, there is much evidence to support its presence. 

The book, “Awake, Not Awoke,” by Noelle Mering, speaks about the ideology/religion of the Woke who “seek to destroy and replace the authority of the family as a key objective.” Part of this agenda is to promote full equality, which would do away with traditional mother/father roles, meaning that men would no longer be seen as the head of the family. 

Just that alone attests to there clearly being an agenda, which is at the foundation of suppressing men and changing the family structure, but the question is – will it benefit society as a whole, and how will it impact society? 

Stay tuned for Part 2 …