Gendered Toxicity

I’ve heard many people complain about “toxic masculinity” in the last several years. Some people dislike the phrase because they think its use implies that masculinity is, in general, toxic.

I don’t read it that way. “John ate a toxic burrito” does not imply that burritos in general are toxic. I read it as implying a distinction between two kinds of masculinity: the toxic, and the healthy. We can similarly distinguish toxic femininity from healthy femininity.

“Toxic” is a slightly odd word choice, as the bad kind of masculinity really is not very similar to a poison. But the word sounds better than “bad” in this context, so let’s stick with “toxic masculinity/femininity”. Let’s try to understand both the toxic and the healthy forms of masculinity and femininity.

Some people describe healthy masculinity in terms of being emotional, non-aggressive, etc. In one recent piece, “What Is Healthy Masculinity vs. Toxic Masculinity”, healthy masculinity is defined in terms of emotional awareness, vulnerability, respectfulness, self-care, and accountability.

What’s wrong with this? It erases the distinction between masculinity and femininity. However healthy they may be, none of the above traits sound particularly masculine. None of them sounds better on a list of good masculine traits as opposed to good feminine traits. If anything, it’s the reverse.

Aside: Would anyone compose a list of “healthy feminine” traits that actually read like masculine traits? (“Healthy femininity is all about being good in a firefight.”) Why not?

Let’s start over. What are masculinity and femininity?

There are systematic differences between male and female psychology. Some of these differences are due to a particular culture. For example, in contemporary America, women are more likely than men to think that they are men. Just kidding. But women really are more likely to identify as transgender. But it used to be the other way (men used to be more likely). So the difference in proneness to gender dysphoria is one of the culturally variable differences.

Other differences are cross-cultural. E.g., across cultures, males are higher in aggression (on average, obviously; I will hereafter take this as understood, since you readers are smart people. But some people pretend not to understand this. Those people are not smart enough to read Fake Nous and should go back to reading children’s fiction, such as The Communist Manifesto). Males have a higher sex drive and a greater desire for more partners. They have less interest in children, and more interest in inanimate objects and systems, especially machines. These differences are mostly due to biology rather than culture.

Note: That does not preclude some cultural influence; your particular culture can either dampen or strengthen those natural tendencies, and it can modify how those psychological tendencies will be expressed. In some societies, natural aggressiveness might get channeled into violence; in others, it might be channeled into business competition.

My basic understanding is that masculinity consists of (a subset of) the psychological traits wherein men tend to fall higher on the scale than women. Femininity consists of (a subset of) the traits wherein women tend to fall higher on the scale. There can be some variation in what is “masculine” across cultures, but there is also some commonality, as suggested above.

Some qualifications might be needed for this to match our ordinary use of the terms. Not every trait wherein men and women differ is relevant. E.g., men are more reluctant to ask for directions, but I don’t think we’d consider it “masculine” to refuse to ask for directions. (?) Women tend to put the toilet paper roll on the holder with the loose end hanging over rather than under. But this doesn’t really seem like “femininity”.

Which traits matter? Maybe it’s the most salient ones, or the ones that have to do with each sex’s expected role in society?

Toxic masculinity consists of anti-social masculine traits; healthy masculinity consists of pro-social masculine traits. Pro-social traits are those that support social cooperation, while anti-social traits undermine it. Keeping agreements, telling the truth, respecting people’s rights, and helping people are all pro-social. Their opposites are all anti-social. For society to function, most people must behave in a reasonably pro-social manner most of the time.

And what are these antisocial masculine traits? They are mainly to do with aggression, especially physical aggression but also some non-physical forms of aggression. Males are higher in aggression than females because historically, especially in primitive societies, men had to compete with other men for access to women, and the men at the top of the dominance hierarchy could have multiple partners. Women did not in the same way compete for access to more men.

Aggressive, competitive behavior need not be anti-social, but it very often is, because one way to compete is to harm other people without producing any benefit—to attack them physically, to steal or destroy their property, to stop them from being productive. This kind of masculine behavior can increase one’s own reproductive success, despite causing huge overall harms to society. Genghis Khan, the prototypical toxically masculine man, killed about 5-10% of the entire world’s population at the time, and about 0.5% of today’s population are his descendants (which is a lot).

You might wonder why we need a notion of healthy masculinity, rather than merely a general notion of healthy psychology. Why should virtue be gendered?

In other species, perhaps it would not be. But humans happen to have significant gender-based psychological differences, and gender is particularly important to most people’s sense of themselves. Thus, men particularly find it difficult to have female role models. They think of themselves as men, not merely as generic humans. They want to perform a masculine role (whatever that turns out to mean), one that is different from a feminine role. The psychological differences between men and women contribute to differing gender roles in society, and vice versa.

Aside: In most societies, including our own society in the past, gender roles have been overly rigid. Since not every man has the stereotypical masculine traits and not every woman has the stereotypical feminine traits, gender roles need to be flexible, such that people with atypical psychology may take on atypical roles.

Nevertheless, most men are relatively masculine (compared to women), and most women are relatively feminine (compared to men). These different psychological traits make a person suited to playing different roles. So it makes sense for men and women, most of the time, to take on somewhat different roles. We’ve spent decades reassuring men and women that it’s okay not to perform traditional male/female roles. Now we have to reassure them that it’s also okay to perform those roles.

What is pro-social masculinity like? Part of it is being a protector and provider for one’s family and other people to whom one is close. This role fits male psychology; prosocial men want to play this role (though young men may not yet realize this), and they are relatively suited to it, due to the greater average aggressiveness of males. Apart from this, some masculine virtues include:

1. Emotional control: especially remaining calm in the face of pressure so that one can do what needs to be done. You can see some of this in the excellent movie Apollo 13 (about the disaster that occurred on the spacecraft in the Apollo 13 mission). By the way, the movie portrays people getting more emotional than the real astronauts, for dramatic effect. In the original audio from when the disaster first happens, the crew is perfectly collected:

2. Ambition & confidence: the desire to do something valuable and important, and the confidence to make the effort when success is uncertain. Ambition can be either harmful or beneficial, depending on what goal one sets oneself on (e.g., world domination vs. winning a Nobel Prize) and depending on what means one takes.

3. Straightforwardness: the masculine style of communication is clear, direct, precise, and literal. In literature, see Ernest Hemmingway. In the philosophy world, see the prose of David Stove. This style aids genuine communication, and it makes deception and confusion harder. Relatedly, the masculine way of competing is out in the open. See this famous moment from Firefly, featuring the masculine hero Malcolm Reynolds:

4. Strength of character: this includes courage and perseverance in the face of obstacles. In modern society, physical courage is less relevant as we no longer have frequent physical combat. But moral courage remains necessary. This could be something like Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat on a segregated bus, or a whistleblower exposing corruption by their employer, or simply a person speaking up about controversial views that people in power oppose. In the last case, we can think of communists in the McCarthy era (though of course they would also be showing severe intellectual vices), or people with normal (non-woke) views in contemporary society.

One source assures us that “most experts agree” that toxic femininity is about conforming to feminine stereotypes in order to please men (“Toxic Femininity, Explained — Plus, Tips to Overcome This Mindset”). I think the “experts” in question are feminists who declared themselves experts on the subject.

However, this doesn’t sound particularly toxic to me. Acting feminine is a reasonable way of trying to attract men, just as acting masculine is a reasonable way of trying to attract women. And trying to attract members of the opposite sex is in general a reasonable thing to do, not particularly anti-social. A person can certainly go overboard in trying to please the opposite sex (whichever sex that is), but I wouldn’t describe that as “toxic” behavior per se.

Toxic femininity consists of anti-social feminine traits, or anti-social uses of feminine traits. This could include things like engaging in malicious gossip, or manipulating people, perhaps using one’s empathy to figure out how best to push a given individual’s buttons. Think about characters like Cersei Lannister (whom I assume all readers are familiar with; if not, go watch the Game of Thrones series and then come back here).

What is prosocial femininity like? It is largely about nurturing, showing empathy and compassion. Healthy femininity strengthens interpersonal relationships by providing emotional support and gently inviting intimacy.

Perhaps feminists will say that the above sounds like what they call toxic femininity, or at least that it promotes burdensome gender stereotypes. But the above things are all good, prosocial behaviors. I’m in favor of conforming to positive stereotypes, whatever group you belong to.

In listing these characteristics of healthy femininity, I am not implying that only women should show these traits, nor that these are the only virtues that women should display. Nor am I suggesting that only men should show the healthy masculine traits, nor that they are the only virtues men should display.

Ideally, everyone should display all virtues. So healthy masculine traits are also good for women, and healthy feminine traits are good for men. It’s just that each sex is more predisposed, on average, toward developing certain virtues.

You might think: “In that case, we should focus most on training each sex in the opposite-gendered virtues, e.g., train men in feminine virtues, since they are more likely to be lacking there.” On the other hand, perhaps we should initially focus on training men in the masculine virtues and women in the feminine virtues, because that training is more likely to succeed. Our natural masculine/feminine energy needs to be channeled toward pro-social rather than anti-social applications. Once you’ve taken care of that, then it makes sense to work on developing the virtues of the other gender.