'Toxic masculinity' is such a wildly misappropriated term these days.

Whether we like it or not, due to biological imperative, there exist an array of standards/criteria describing more ideal mates across both sexes.

When it comes to the male side of things, there are some who claim the characteristics men strive to achieve are 'toxic'.

Anyone can blame straight men for expecting these things of other straight men, because they do, through shaming tactics -- but only because straight men are in continuous, usually tacit, competition with other straight men for the attention and desire of straight women.

Straight women similarly prize assertive, confident, and physically & psychologically strong men.

Being these things is taxing. It requires genuine strength, patience, maturity, and a very deep well of resilience from which to draw.

Many straight women generally find strong, masculine men attractive. Certainly not all, but many.

If anything even a feathertouch over 50% is considered majority, then I would argue that most straight women find them attractive.

This creates a marketplace wherein certain traits are valued by both sexes for similar reasons. Straight men shame other men for failing to meet certain standards (because devaluing competition in any capacity is a good thing if you're trying to 'win') and straight women maintain and uphold said standards because they simply find certain masculine traits highly attractive.

This shame indirectly pressures straight men to pick up their slack and try harder, which can sometimes result in things coming out a little... sideways. Hence the overused and misapplied term, 'toxic masculinity'.

Failure to recognize this mechanism in critiques of masculinity is ubiquitous as hell. [Edit]: Somehow, our collective anticipation of straight womens' passivity in the dating marketplace is so universal that it even manifests in conversations about the sexes.

I see a lot of commentary on 'toxic masculinity' without so much as a breath spent explaining where the demand for those traits is actually coming from, and so the term inevitably becomes a blunt object favored by persons with unresolved traumas caused by & associated with men to club masculinity without repercussion.

Consequently, to me, the entire dialogue is much ado about nothing.

{Edited for clarity}