It has come to most people's attention that the social phenomenon that is "toxic masculinity" a convoluted of plenty is insulting. Sadly a lot of people assume the phrase is a great tool to address a majority of men's issues; despite the term itself having found great disapproval from a lot of men (for good reason). The Utility of the "framework" itself is not helpful and often misses the mark on a lot of issues that men face. Despite the supposed goodwill behind advocacy against "toxic masculinity" the more obvious and rather more explicit side of the use of the term rears its ugly head. Since the term is mostly simultaneously redefined and undefined I will attack it from the two most common positions I see people take regarding the issue. The first is how toxic masculinity is told to be a misunderstood phrase that aims to help men by addressing how they are socialized. The second is the more commonly used interpretation of toxic masculinity that is primarily used by feminists as an explanation for violence committed by men or social issues where men are the perpetrators which is often used to condemn men with a broad brush and has no place in advocacy for men and boys.

The primary issue with toxic masculinity is that it seems to be defined and redefined by whoever uses the word it is blamed for anything from violence to loud cars and even wars. The phrase itself originated in the mythopoetic men's movement in the 80s; it was originally defined as societal expectations that upheld that men and boys shouldn't cry and that they should not express their emotions. The term was specifically coined by Shepherd Bliss. It was then adapted into academia by feminists it went on to be an explanation for everything and anything male related. Men have different tastes than women? toxic masculinity! murder being committed by men? Toxic masculinity! rape and violence? toxic masculinity! Soon enough even men's own issues like suicide are blamed on toxic masculinity. A lot of people like to claim that the term is a gateway however that couldn't be further from the truth.

While the initial usage of the phrase itself did not hold the baggage it holds now it was more male-friendly and tried to address the genuine plights that men are forced to uphold often by society it still missed a lot of the issues that cause men to commit suicide or get depression nonetheless it was a good stepping stone to better understand men's experience.

That changed however when Dr Terry A Kupers in his 2005 study titled Toxic Masculinity defined toxic masculinity in his study "the constellation of socially regressive male traits that serve to foster domination, the devaluation of women, homophobia, and wanton violence" - This definition would go on to be used extensively by women's advocacy groups as part of their explanation of male rape and violence on women. A small issue persisted however, the study in question did not look at average everyday men it looked at men in prison.

Understandably this is not a good sign as Terry A Kupers was associating traits found in criminals with the rest of the male population most of whom are not even convicted of any violent offenses as he mentioned. More to the point Terry wished to try to use the sample of men in prison 75% of who were not in prison for violent crimes as a way not as a way to better themselves but to try and minimize dangers that these men might commit as well as willfully ignoring systemic issues that prevent any solutions which is odd since Kupers did preface the research by name a number of systemic barriers. This is a persistent theme however for people whose advocacy for men's mental health starts and ends with "talk" and "express emotions".

Insulting Implications through Ideological Bias

It is appropriate to address the elephant in the room yes the 2018 Guidelines are indeed written by feminists to be more specific Division 51 which in their own mission statement mentions that they "Owe a huge historical debt to feminists scholarship". With that out of the way, it isn't the only reason why the APA's guidelines are hurtful.

Now that we established a conceivable timeline for how the term can be is it any good at addressing men's issues? and why are so many men alienated (rightfully so) by the term? Well "toxic masculinity" suffers from a phenomenon called signal disapproval according to Carol Harrington's What is “Toxic Masculinity” and Why Does it Matter? the term was popularized by feminists in 2013 onward often attributing much of what Terry A Kuper's attributed to men misogyny, homophobia and male violence to masculinity often times making the presumption that these are the cause of behaviors of some sort of standards that are taught to men or upheld by men that men and boys internalize.

But another issue that persists is that everyone seems to have a different definition of what "toxic masculinity" is. Harrington also makes a point that the phrase is not defined in more than 60 scholarly articles often relying on what the author called "signal disapproval". Despite this "toxic masculinity" remains the main framework from which most progressives and feminists claim to "help" men with. The reality is that it isn't a stable concept that most people can agree on.

​

https://preview.redd.it/is6x9ceo1sya1.png?width=596&format=png&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=0c3b9c6944b9e9d82abd80e6f490b11db217c65e

​

The term then found renewed popularity again in 2018 when the successfully penetrated even the American Psychological Association in their controversial 2018 guidelines for men and boys some people reading this will be very familiar but to put it into perspective it goes without saying that these guidelines were not just unhelpful but insulting the guidelines according to some experts in the field of psychology are extremely ideological. According to Shawn T Smith, the guidelines lack any acknowledgment of how men and women are different and how our bodies our minds affect how we behave, and how to approach any treatment plans or any psychological frameworks to help men.

The most insidious aspect of trying to address "toxic masculinity" as a mental health factor for men is that it is more concerned with advocating for women and feminism rather than addressing why men commit suicide in such large numbers. This is a consistent theme that is very apparent with people who advocate for the term, it disguises non-gendered issues such as Domestic violence or violence as something that uniquely affects women and makes no mention of it makes no mention of the wealth of studies about male victims of DV or how men who are abused are at risk of suicide more than women.

​

Martin S Fibert collection on studies around male victims of DV.

Many of the citations come from questionable sources at the very least and are quite irrelevant to what is supposedly treatment guidelines for men and boys. The guidelines make the case that "male privilege" is a double-edged sword that hurts men and women which isn't really helpful when trying to address male patients but more so that the definition does not come from a valid source but rather an editorial of the author's own experience as a mental health professional.

​

https://preview.redd.it/r464odje2sya1.png?width=1026&format=png&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=ecfa2fcffb5cf7e7f2051f6a41b6ab1574035e50

​

https://preview.redd.it/6iga5t333sya1.png?width=656&format=png&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=ece38f2f06004136d04fba0a8c15f9674213b3cd

​

https://preview.redd.it/532tpmq33sya1.png?width=655&format=png&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=1a54450845516223689da5411aad903a5e0dc899

The guidelines also make no mention of the effects of domestic violence on men but even cites the Duluth model a suggestive theory that undermines male victims of female perpetrated abuse and the. The Duluth model essentially suggests that men cannot be victims of physical or psychological abuse. Unsurprisingly such a contributor to men's well-being is neglected in favor of biased ideological beliefs. This is not only disrespectful to male victims but has no place in treatment guidelines that are meant to address men's health acting more as a dangerous deterrent.

​

https://preview.redd.it/x03z3anh3sya1.png?width=696&format=png&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=010f771e385289e78ea3f07d6aa731cf80e7c6c9

To put the nail in the coffin however the APA's guidelines attempt to address"toxic masculinity" are not only harmful but really useless only being concerned with how men can be of some use to activism regarding women's rights. The main focus again, isn't how men's lives could be improved but rather how men as a societal group need to work in favor of addressing their privilege in the hopes that their own lives will "improve" as a result. This is incredibly disingenuous as women's issues (rightfully) belong to them and them only but the same is not treated with men.

​

\"Male Privilege\" according to the APA.

The APA is the biggest accrediting institution for psychology training programs and these snippets are not representative of the bigger picture of why these guidelines are not helpful This video goes into greater depth and breaks down the troubles of the guidelines and how they lack any male perspective. It is egregious that any of these guidelines are even remotely appropriate, these act more as an insult to men and their issues and make barely any effort to address why men commit suicide.

Empty calories

Now that we have sifted through the laughably insulting ideological bias behind the term and those who advocate for it. It is more than appropriate to look at why men and boys commit suicide with 11 British men, 98 American men (of all races), and 358 Indian men taking their lives each day the question asks itself? Does the fight against "toxic masculinity" help men meaningfully in that regard?

The short is no they are not. The guidelines as we have already discussed are framed in a way concerned with reconstructing masculinity in a way that does not have any vested interest in helping men but framing them as violent oppressors that are a constant threat to women and children. The Long answer is still no. Men and boys kill themselves for a variety of reasons and the issue of male suicide is much more complicated and nuanced than most mental health advocates who put "toxic masculinity" as their main pillar care to admit. While emotional suppression is true for most men and boys it is not a cause but rather a symptom of a slew of systemic issues that men and boys face all of which the Guidelines only mention in passing; so let's take a look at those causes shall we?

The All Party parliamParliamentaryentary Group called for major reform to how society views male suicide. In their 2022 report titled (Tackling male suicide: a new ‘whole system’ Approach). The group calls for major reforms and a new lens from which we look at male suicide and they have the best view of the crisis of suicide amongst men and boys by far. Nick Fletcher of the APPG calls for a complete system-wide review, as he states that we should aim to look at the causes of why men kill themselves. According to the APPG male suicide is a response to external stressors which include but are not employment ( or lack thereof), workplace culture, relationship breakdown, bereavement, and financial problems. The APPG explores causes such as domestic abuse of men, sexual abuse of men and boys as well as a whole host of issues that contribute to male suicide.

​

https://preview.redd.it/ce3k1maq3sya1.png?width=870&format=png&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=de8708b4aef41a1e94d53d6144ebd9e26d9a22da

​

The APPG even regards the term "toxic masculinity" as not only faulty but exasperating the problem. "A key underlying issue that has been raised in this inquiry is the pervasive male-victim blaming narrative. It is clear that the phrase ‘toxic masculinity’ is damaging and adds additional stigma and barriers to male help-seeking". The phrase not only fails to address all the underlying systemic issues that affect men that cause them to commit suicide it doubles as a paperweight on men that does not help their well-being as it takes all those external issues and internalizes them into something that is broken within men.

An example of this is that many people claim that men don't seek medical help (because of toxic masculinity), which is not only false but dangerous it shifts away from the fact that the system fails men onto a simplistic notion that men should just seek professional help plenty of middle-aged men have been in contact with a frontline service or agency and out of those men many of them were classified as low risk or no risk.

​

https://preview.redd.it/gkldkf9w3sya1.png?width=823&format=png&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=5fc01bf32c24092db1085f955fc1b10e38e0aa8a

APPG's promotion of a positive and well-informed view around male suicide has come as a pleasant surprise to many and is a positive step to help men; looking at the issue from multiple sides and dismissing the ever-pervasive hyper agency that is assigned to men and their issues. It is a solution exclusively focused on men in a positive way. Rag-tag male groups have shown great success and an even better blueprint for how we should look at male suicide. If we want to advocate for men's health then we would absolutely confine the term to the dustbin of history.

Conclusion

It is apparent that "toxic masculinity" as a phrase and an applicable concept as demonstrated before are used to address how men can be better for society through a warped view that they are the cause of all the ills in the world but also adds salt to the wound by internalizing a delicate and complicated issue of suicide as a problem caused internalizing; ignoring all the systemic issues that divert the conversation from where it needs to be to a place that leaves the existing problems to fester often times to a conversation about how men can benefit everyone else but themselves. It is often through a passive-aggressive notion that men are either perpetrators or potential perpetrators this lack of positivity not just around masculinity but around being a biological male is insulting to most men at the very least but exasperate a delicate and mostly systemic issue by laying the blame at the feet of ordinary men who have no control over their material conditions.