Toxic masculinity is not just front page news these days, its the top topic on the front page. Masculinity rests on real biological differences between the genders, but how those differences turn into norms of “being a man” is shaped heavily by history and culture. Most researchers see it as an interaction, not either/or. The biological roots of it lie in hormones. Prenatal and pubertal testosterone shape body size, muscle mass, and some behavioral tendencies. The most consistent biologically-driven behavioral differences between men and women are higher physical aggression and risk-taking, and greater interest in things versus people. Even infant and primate studies show some of these patterns, such as male monkeys preferring wheeled toys. Then there’s the issue of sexual selection. Theory suggests that the sex that invests less in offspring (men) competes more for mates. Across mammals this is usually males, which produces larger bodies, status-seeking, and male-male rivalry. Humans are moderately dimorphic (male/female physical differences), with men about 10–15% taller and having roughly 60–90% more upper-body strength. Men show wider variance on many traits. They are overrepresented at both extremes ranging from those who go to prison and those who get Nobel Prizes. They also range in societal impact between those with early deaths and those with outsized achievements.
Most cultures treat womanhood as a natural maturation but manhood as a status that must be achieved and proven through tests, initiation, providing, or protecting. Social psychologists call this “precarious manhood”. It can be lost, so men feel pressure to keep demonstrating it. Societies under frequent threat cultivated toughness, stoicism, and willingness to sacrifice in young men, who were the expendable defenders. The “plough hypothesis” in anthropology found that cultures descended from plough agriculture, which rewarded upper-body strength, developed sharper gender roles all of which still persist today. Industrialization later tied manhood to the breadwinner role. Expressions of masculinity differ widely, from the emotionally expressive warrior ideals of Homeric Greece to Victorian restraint. That range suggests culture sets much of the script. Evolutionary psychologists argue that core traits are universal and heritable, and that culture mainly amplifies or channels them. Sociologists argue that biology sets loose tendencies, while the specific norms are learned and changeable. Most scholars accept average differences with heavily overlapping distributions. Individual men vary more from each other than the male-female average gap on most psychological traits. But toxic masculinity is very different.
“Toxic masculinity” began in the men’s movement, not in feminism, and it originally meant a specific, harmful version of manhood, not masculinity itself. It’s origins were in the 1980s–90s, right when I was in young adulthood. The term is usually used to contrast the rigid, militarized manhood associated with our father’s generation with a healthier “deep masculine.” It was used in prison research around 2005, describing norms like dominance, emotional suppression, and violence that kept inmates from seeking mental health care. The concept draws heavily on what’s called “hegemonic masculinity”, where its argued that societies rank masculinities and reward one dominant form. Studies have found that conforming to certain masculine norms, especially extreme self-reliance, power over women, and “playboy” attitudes, correlated with worse mental health and less help-seeking. Other norms, like being “winning-oriented,” showed weaker or mixed links. The phrase “toxic masculinity” moved into mainstream and online in feminist discourse, then surged after #MeToo in 2017. Two flashpoints came in early 2019 when the American Psychiatric Association released guidelines for working with boys and men that criticized “traditional masculinity ideology.” The debate today suggests that specific learned norms, such as suppressing emotion, solving problems through aggression, and treating help-seeking as weakness, tie these norms to real outcomes like men’s higher suicide rates, lower healthcare use, and most violent crime. They also stress that the term implies non-toxic masculinity exists. The critics say that the term is vague and often used loosely as a label for men generally. It pathologizes traits like competitiveness or stoicism that can be healthy in context. The middle ground is focused on “harmful masculine norms.” This keeps the evidence-based core while avoiding the culture-war baggage.
But I sense that the Cornell gang rape case has brought all of this back to center stage and may well force a reckoning, at least on college campuses and with regard to the university institutional tolerance of anything resembling toxic masculinity, especially in sponsored or supported campus organizations. Naturally, we all tend to think of fraternities in this context, but I would note that this particular case has also charged the sorority system with some culpability by allowing underage drinking and linking with fraternities where bad actions have taken place. The case within my own family is even more dramatic since all three of my kids attended Cornell over the past twenty-five years (not to mention that I was a member of a Cornell fraternity in the early 1970’s…when much less of this took place like anything resembling today’s toxicity levels). My oldest son certainly had his run ins with the phenomenon in his fraternity with some long-term negative effects. My daughter toyed with the sorority system but ultimately rejected it. And then my youngest son had an even worse experience with his contemplated fraternity choice and did not join. That would more or less comport with the statistics that suggest that about a forty percent of Cornellians do not engage with the Greek system. But the hidden risk is that the toxic masculinity is no longer restricted to the fraternities, but has leached through that membership into many of the other campus membership organizations. My youngest son’s experience with an out-of-control a cappella group became the subject of a University investigation in which I participated as a fact witness (I was an active alumnus, a student parent and a member of the faculty at the time). This became the subject of a national news story which I suspect may be relitigated in the press given the Cornell rape scenario, since the essence of the toxicity of the masculinity culture was on full display, proving that this goes well beyond the fraternity system.
There are less than positive aspects of extreme masculinity that are, unfortunately, also on full display on the national political stage right now and between Trump, Hegseth and ICE I feel that we have a valid national crisis around this issue that needs to be taken seriously and addressed both institutionally and culturally. We have had our moment of thinking that everything is too woke and now the pendulum has swung the other way. PeteHegseth draws the most direct use of the term. Critics point to his new testosterone-testing policy, which he justifies as essential to readiness and “lethality,” and equates military excellence with an outdated macho stereotype. They also cite his “warrior ethos” push alongside criticism of diversity programs and of women’s expanding combat roles. Broadcasting a live military execution is the latest atrocity of this culture. In the Texas Senate race, critics say Republicans questioned Democrat James Talarico’s manhood. The Nation cites Stephen Miller calling him a “transgender Senate candidate.” Trump, Ken Paxton, and conservative commentators also falsely called him a vegan (a masculinity mocking sentiment), even though Talarico says he has never been vegan or vegetarian. Trump’s entire style, posting AI images recasting him as a muscular action hero, warrior, and superhero, along with his history of mocking nicknames like “Little Marco” and “Low Energy Jeb” is clearly both toxic and masculinity focused. Some analysts argue the “bro-podcast” world has turned masculinity into a political language mixing entertainment, self-improvement, and male resentment. The best argument the Right can muster is that Hegseth’s social media persona is a form of “performative masculinity”, but it still clearly sets a tone and a lousy example for young men.
Where does this all go from here? I am a firm believer that our world needs a far better balance of masculinity and feminine grace. I find myself leaning more and more toward female leaders because we simply have too much of this masculine culture distorting our core values. Men love their mothers, their lovers and their little girls, so there is some hope that they can be convinced that tempering the current toxic masculinity trend is important to those they love.