Ranjona Banerji | Stop Griping About ‘Toxic Masculinity’

The term “toxic masculinity” is the current buzz phrase. Since a TV series about a murderous teenage boy became all the rage, men, women, people, experts, schools, opinionists, podcasters are all into the game. What has happened to young boys and men? Why do they hate women so much? What is going on? Who is to blame? And so on.

Forgive me while I yawn. Are you really asking: “what is going on”? Are you so innocent of human history? Don’t get me wrong, please. I am not diminishing your angst about toxic masculinity. Nor am I saying it is not a problem; far from it. I am however questioning, scathingly if I must specify, your apparent innocence and ignorance. I mean naivete. And wilful blindness.

How does one define toxic masculinity? The term became popular in the 1980s and ‘90s in academia. The definition from American psychiatrist and academic Terry Kupers is thus: “the constellation of socially regressive male traits that serve to foster domination, the devaluation of women, homophobia and wanton violence, involving the need to aggressively compete and dominate others”.

O my.

What woman does not know of these traits?

I would hazard only unborn women. And they’ll find out soon enough, if they make it, that is.

The need to understand masculinity is indeed important, given the stranglehold that patriarchy has had over human society since Day 1. I am in this instance specifically not referring to human “civilisation” because there is little civil about patriarchy.

The definition of this sort of masculinity has understandably led to the usual whataboutery arguments. Not all men are like this, men have good traits as well, men are important, necessary, sensitive, have feelings, women can be and are also horrible, and so on. Conservatives, liberals, centrists, everyone has jumped in. And even, with inordinate courage, some feminists. Who are possibly the bad guys here.

So let me add to the cacophony. Fraught as it is with rage, frustration, despair, hope, sensitivity and all the rest of it. After all, are we not right to get upset about men being seen as toxic? While we ignore all the best qualities of men, which include, apparently, being good at sport? I guess that’s why so many men who are self-declared women are allowed into women’s sports, because the best has to be showcased in any way possible?

Controversially, I believe that the best of masculinity is also the best of femininity, which is the best of humanity. It is not a singularly male trait to be good at sports or to be a good sport – after all, it is women who are consistently called upon to be good sports and to be tolerant of male frailties. Don’t criticise him too much, darling, male egos are very fragile. Encourage him, my dear, in case he feels inadequate. All daughters regularly get this sort of advice from their mothers.

This includes, “don’t anger him too much because you will get hurt”.

That is what you have to avoid at all times, and so you don’t face that poor ego-driven toxicity.

It’s always been there, see.

Before the movies, before TV, before social media. Patriarchy.

Don’t feel bad when I say this, but what I have seen in the last 10 years is the dismantling of very hard-fought-for women’s rights. The right not to be treated as goods and chattel. The right to opportunity. The right not to be killed at birth. The right to work at jobs which women were not allowed to work at. The right to education.

I’ve not even listed the other rights: to not be beaten, sold, used, thrown for instance. And I accept that these are tricky ones. No one wants to be beaten, sold, used, thrown, except those with a few quirky kinks. It’s just a question of who is the usual predator, and who the usual prey. You can work that out, as you spit out to yourself: temptress, tease, gold digger and so on. Because men are so defenceless when faced with an evil female. Could you say that women are similarly defenceless and to greater cost when faced with male predators?

I know. How did I even write that?

Maybe there are podcasters who tell little boys how they should not respect women. How women are for the home and hearth and need to be shown their place. This is very not nice. But it is also very not unusual. The podcaster has replaced older school friends and brothers, that creepy uncle, those manly conversations in manly places.

And sometimes, in open places. There’s an interview doing the rounds, from early private television in India. A well-known TV anchor asks a famous character actor, now past his prime but once celebrated for his roles as a villain, which of the then current crop heroines he would like to rape. The anchor is full of glee, practically rubbing his hands with excitement. The actor clearly does not want to answer. But is pushed and coaxed by the anchor. The two men decide that the woman to be raped should be beautiful and that ugly women should not exist. Do laugh. It’s supposed to be a joke. Don’t be so sensitive for god’s sake. For those who came in late, “rape” was once a regular form of entertainment in Indian cinema. That sexual violence was seen as fun, and that such a question can be asked on national television not that long ago, tells me at least what is wrong with this discussion on the supposed recent upsurge of toxic masculinity and what can be done about it.

For one, there is no upsurge. For another, as in the TV series which has excited everyone, women are non-existent in the discussion. Except as mothers, daughters and other associates of men. Or objects of violence. But women? Who and what are they? Some parliaments and courts in western democracies discuss, in 2025, whether women exist at all in the natural world. Others work at curtailing the very few rights that women have managed to get.

So please forgive me if I don’t take part in this chat. Unless you prove to me that this problem is unforeseen and undiscussed. Until now.

I know what you know. That you can’t.