Words of the week: Toxic masculinity

Guest Post:

By John Black from rightminds.nz

Jack the Ripper, Joseph Stalin, Justin Bieber… the world does not want for terrible men. But are they terrible because they are men? That’s what this week’s Wanker words suggest: there is something about the nature of masculinity itself, whether intrinsic or socially constructed, that is nasty and irredeemable – toxic, in fact.

According to the Wikipedia definition, “traditional stereotypes of men as socially dominant… and masculine traits such as self-reliance and emotional repression” are some of the behaviours considered toxic.


Isn’t social dominance just leadership? And being independent, isn’t that a good thing? And as for emotional repression, there is an obvious utility in men not going to pieces when facing calamity – do we really want our firefighters, cops, and soldiers wandering about clutching wet hankies?

It gets worse. That font of lefty lunacy, Salon Magazine, gives two examples of toxic masculinity: Quote:

Donald Trump flipping out when someone teases him about his small fingers (and) the ludicrously long and shaggy beards on “Duck Dynasty,” meant to stave off any association with the dreaded feminine. End of quote.

The Don’s digits and a hillbilly’s beard?

Remember the U.S pilot who jet trailed that massive [redacted] in the sky last year? It was awesome, right? A Beavis and Butthead kinda awesome, but still. According to many, it was a prime example of TM.

We’re not talking violence, rape or warfare here; it is the inane and trivial applications of the term that make it a pure wankerism.

It also implies a restrictive, monolithic masculinity that is just not that common. Winston Churchill, that “socially dominant” whisky-soaked warrior for liberty, was also known as a frequent blubberer. He once teared up seeing Londoners queuing for birdseed during the blitz. Even then when codes of masculine behaviour were no doubt stricter, a bawling  Prime minister was acceptable, provided he could repress it when needed, i.e. when sticking it to the Nazis.

It’s undeniable that the male of the species is naturally more aggressive. Therefore, male evil takes a more overt and violent form. But women can be evil too.

I know, I was taught by nuns.

It is the reductive nature of the term that is most galling. It takes neutral male qualities and indicts them for the excesses of some men. Women would hate this if it was done to them. Imagine if every example of SJW caterwauling was labelled “Hysterical Femininity”.

In fact, that’s what I suggest readers do when a wanker (or wankeress) throws “toxic masculinity” at you – reply that use of the term is a prime example of “hysterical femininity”.

Of course, that’s completely unfair. The world is full of rational, clear thinking females.

Although, I personally don’t know any.

Now, that was toxic.

Do you want:

  • Ad-free access?
  • Access to our very popular daily crossword?
  • Access to daily sudoku?
  • Access to Incite Politics magazine articles?
  • Access to podcasts?
  • Access to political polls?

Our subscribers’ financial support is the reason why we have been able to offer our latest service; Audio blogs. 

Click Here  to support us and watch the number of services grow.

A guest post submitted to Whaleoil and edited by Whaleoil staff.

Guest Post content does not necessarily reflect the views of the site or its editor. Guest Post content is offered for discussion and for alternative points of view.

Listen to this post:
Voiced by Amazon Polly