Terry Lawrence

In the hysterical atmosphere of modern opinion, in which concepts are tossed about as freely as baubles and trinkets, few have been so overblown or so weakly defended as the so-called "theory" of "toxic masculinity." A phrase applied with all the zeal of a sideshow barker; this is the weapon of choice of a particular style of a feminist commentator who, under the false cover of scholarly examination, peddles a line whose condescension is rivaled only by its corrosive purpose.

To hear these voices, one would believe that masculinity is a toxic social illness pathology to be diagnosed, unraveled, and deconstructed. Let us not be fooled, though, by their rhetorical trickery. We have no fundamental critique of male action here but a heavy-handed exercise in misandry dressed up in the guise of social justice.

A plethora of women have "published" Toxic Masculinity" articles – with nary a thought to their foolishness – typing sexism, reductionism, toxic estrogen – via Christopher Latham Sholes, a man who invented the QWERTY keyboard. On Macs and PC's, it was not invented by poisonous estrogen. Sorry, but if you wish to take the multifaceted sizes, shapes, personality types, and spiritual beliefs of 4.05 billion men and reduce them to a two-word sexism title… Sell your male-invented Mac or PC on eBay. Sell your male-invented car on CarMax; after all, it was built mostly by men, males who primarily fix and maintain it.

Put up or shut up. Either stop flying on male-invented aircraft for business and pleasure or acknowledge how drab, how primitive, and how ever-so-much more painful your shallow lives would be without male innovation, dynamic personalities, curiousness, and invention. Live your lives amongst only your own kind-inventions, Estrogen-Invented-Life. Period.

Toxic masculinity is a bit of semantic conjuring, a phrase that skillfully balances accusation with ambiguity. It implies that there is something inherently malevolent in maleness, that masculinity itself is a poisonous attribute that must be purged from the social body. But what, please, is this toxicity? Is it the tendency toward assertiveness? The suppression of emotion? The drive to protect and provide for one's family?

The feminist arbiters of male conduct are infuriatingly evasive on this point, preferring instead to make sweeping generalities and lofty denunciations. They speak of "hegemonic masculinity" and "patriarchal oppression." Still, these are intellectual fig leaves meant to cover up the unpleasant fact: their complaint is not with masculinity itself but with men as individuals. The sincere, heartfelt desire to be a hardcore, blackbelt dominatrix permeates every word, every clumsy phrase and pithy euphemism, every barfed bit of dogma in such articles. The writers have all the self-awareness and charm of a pit viper – which they then project onto (Daddy) "men." However, the owners of the thoughts in the articles are filled with toxic femininity.

To suggest that men are unable to define their own lives or solve their problems is not only patronizing but hypocritical. Would we take a man who tried to explain the female experience? Would we take a post-operative transsexual lecturing us on the subtleties of heterosexuality? Of course not. And this, naturally, is precisely the kind of intellectual imperialism to which feminist critics are prone when they try to speak for men.

They are, in effect, male mind colonizers, mapping its terrain with all the tact of a conquistador marking land on a map.

The irony is rich, for these so-called experts on manliness are the same individuals who grumble about the "male gaze" and objectification of women. But in their tunnel-vision fervor to excoriate the supposed failures of men, they are complicit in their form of objectification—reducing men to a foul collection of stereotypes and caricatures. They speak of men as "some monolithic thing," a homogeneous legion of aggression and privilege. But men and women, as well, are human beings with their strengths and weaknesses, their hopes and fears.

To reduce them to a checklist of "toxic" traits is not only reductionist but actively dehumanizing.

And what, pray tell, of the so-called 'toxic femininity'? Where we ask, are the exposés decrying the manipulativeness, the passive-aggressiveness, the emotional blackmail women use routinely with the precision of a surgeon's blade? These are the traits that could be considered 'toxic femininity'. Where are the think pieces on how women police insidious gender norms, either by policing women's actions or enforcing strict beauty standards?

The deafening quiet on these questions and the eloquent evidence they give of double standards upon which so much contemporary gender rhetoric depends is regrettable.

But let us not be overly quick to criticize our feminist pals, a term used here to refer to those who advocate for feminist perspectives. They are, to be sure, the latest installment of a very lengthy sequence of moral entrepreneurs. These self-styled virtuous fashioners would seek to compel the many through their conception of righteousness. Like all such crusaders, they are driven by high-minded concern and self-righteous zeal.

They think of themselves as the heralds of a new social age in which gender is not employed as a means of oppression but as a ritual of difference. And all their bluster to the contrary notwithstanding, their vision ultimately is a narrow and constricted world in which men are to live up to a set of standards no less strict, no less oppressive than those they pretend to be critiquing.

The authors are going to exorcise themselves of numerous demons by crucifying males in text. Fifty-five years of modern feminism, with its built-in echo chamber and dogma, sounds like Charlie Brown’s teacher, if any man simply told the truth. 2025 feminism means nothing to men, it has become as meaningless as trans rights in a world on the brink of thermonuclear war, or “feminist notions” in a planet draining the last of its oil, seafood and farm goods out before the whole system collapses.

Most of the causes of the impending global irreversible collapses are driven by women. Women are foaming at the mouth with hate, even as the last vestiges of modern, civilized life are rapidly draining out of a dying planet. You want your half, and half of his, and half again of the remainder; it appears none of you see how little your offspring will have in the next 5-25 years.

Your sons and daughters, your grandchildren will eat military MRE’s and fight to the death over food, oil and water. Still, you stuff yourself today with a myopic insatiable appetite for “more.”

The "toxic masculinity" hypothesis, in short, is an expression of the fears and apprehensions of those who put it forward rather than a criticism of what men are doing. It is a product of a culture increasingly uncomfortable with difference, which insists on homogenizing all areas of human life. But masculinity—no more so than femininity—is not something so easily cut down or captured. It is a multifaceted, many-sided phenomenon shaped by biology, culture, and individual experience.

To reduce it to a checklist of "toxic" acts is to do a disservice not only to men but to the richness of human life.

Let us then discard the facile explanations and the pat jargon. Let us welcome the complexity of human experience in all its disorganized, contradictory glory. And let us not forget that the ultimate test of a society is not how neatly it measures up to some specific ideology but how well it fits the full spectrum of human variation. Ultimately, it is not masculinity that is toxic but the narrow and restricted vision of those who try to define it. By rejecting reductionist views, we empower ourselves to think critically and embrace the richness of human life.

A Tongue-in-Cheek Lampoon of "Toxic Masculinity" Articles

Oh, the endless procession of articles more sanctimoniously self-righteous than the last, dripping with that particular brand of faux concern that only the profoundly self-righteous can manufacture. "Toxic masculinity," they intone, as if diagnosing some exotic and lethal disease.

"The plague of our times," they chant, with the gravity of a town crier announcing an imminent apocalypse. But let us not be fooled by their huffy declarations and furrowed brows. Under the tawdry façade of learned seriousness lies an altogether more prosaic truth: these essays are mere exercises in moral preening, designed to stroke the ego of their authors and readers.

Consider, for instance, the old "toxic masculinity" article. It starts with a sweeping generalization, a rhetorical flourish that eliminates any possibility of subtlety. "Men are taught to suppress their emotions," they say as if it were some universal absolute. But are they? Or is it more than men are socialized to experience their feelings in ways that don't fit the narrow parameters of the feminist ideology?

Then we are treated to the catalog of men's sins—the same tired, familiar transgressions lined up with all the inevitability of a lineup. Aggression, dominance, and emotional repression are the old reliable, always trotted out to testify against men. But where one asks, is the evidence? Where do studies, research, and hard facts support these broad generalities? Regrettably, they are nowhere to be seen, lost in the fog of ideological certainty that covers so much of the contemporary discourse on gender.

And then, of course, there is the call to action- the moral clarion call to action that is the hallmark of the moral entrepreneur. "We must overthrow the patriarchy," they cry, as if doing so were a question of overthrowing a statue or toppling a wall. But what, precisely? Precisely, what does it take to "disassemble the patriarchy," and who, precisely, is the one to perform the disassembling? It is a question that is all too rarely, if ever, answered, overwhelmed as it usually is by the cacophony of self-congratulatory indignation characteristic of so much of the gender debate today.

Let us be sympathetic to our feminist friends, though. They are, of course, merely the most recent in a long line of moral entrepreneurs—those self-righteous crusaders who would try to impose their limited definition of virtue on the rest of us. Like all such reformers, they are motivated by good intentions and self-righteous zeal. They see themselves as the architects of a brave new world where gender is not a tool of domination but a multicolored celebration of difference. And yet, for all their lofty rhetoric, theirs is a limiting and cramped vision world where men are to be molded to no less rigid and no less dominating standards than those they're attempting to overthrow.

In the end, the "toxic masculinity" notion is itself more a reflection of the insecurity and unease of its advocates than a new critique of manly behavior. It is an offspring of an increasingly queasier culture with differences, one that seeks to sanitize and homogenize human experience. And yet, masculinity, as femininity, resists being so neatly mastered or defined. It is a rich, multifaceted phenomenon, one built from a matrix of biology, culture, and embodied experience. Trying to reduce it to a checklist of "toxic" traits does a disservice to men but to the richness and diversity of human life itself.

Let us shed these reductionist scripts and avoid the labeling. Let us do credit to the sweeping scope of human experience in all its richness, in all its contradictions. And let us always remember that it is not in how well one sticks to someone's ideology but in how well one accepts the entire spread of human variation. In the end, it is not masculinity that is toxic but the narrow and constricted imagination of those who seek to define it.

You have no clue how men see modern feminists. Chattering gaily, congratulating one another on the overall appearance of a face and body that blooms at 17 and fades away at 37, my body, my face, I am “so liberated” from men. Screaming hysterically for the one word that dominates nearly all of American female existence, “MORE!” Not one jots notice of the burgeoning, irreversible global shortages that will thrust themselves upon all of us. The toxic testosterone writers have no sense of “us” whatsoever. They flame over imaginary “rights” with no consciousness of how dead their efforts are making the planet. Their “trend” is just one more imaginary flavor of an overall death cult. American women focus on face, body, transactional economics and wonder why 2 of 3 marriages fail. Their "mates" did not colonize adequately. This is the rigid, structured status quo of American life, to inflict the very structures they pretend to be dismantling.

Finally, the "toxic masculinity" argument conveniently overlooks the profound and significant contributions men have made to the very foundations of modern life-contributions that its most vocal critics rely on daily. Women who rail against men as "toxic" may consider the irony of their position as they drive on bridges engineered by men, fly on airplanes built by men, and text on devices created by men.

From the vehicles they drive to the phones in their hands, from the electricity powering their homes to the medication keeping them alive, the essentials of existence are surrounded by male genius. The Estrogen Echo Chamber, despite its criticisms, is rooted in the same breakthroughs spawned by the masculine mandate to innovate, construct, and solve. To those ensnared in the fantasy of "toxic masculinity," could they now redirect some reflective consideration to bridging the disconnect in condemning men while benefiting from them?

If masculinity is as irremediably toxic, then eschew the entire wealth thereof. Abandon the creature comforts of our time, reject technology's amenities, and abdicate infrastructure that provides a framework for your life. But naturally, such a proposal is absurd—and that is the point.

Masculinity, like femininity, is a complex and multifaceted force prone to both creative and destructive expressions. Reducing it to a cartoon of toxicity is not merely intellectually dishonest but an insult to the millions of men whose work and imagination have made the world we live in. Let us shed the reductionist stories and find a richer, more nuanced sense of gender that celebrates both the worst and best of women and men but does so without polarized language.

“He took advantage of her and made her pregnant.” The subliminal message is that she was down the street doing seven loads of laundry at the time. Naturally, all of the onus falls upon the male. Then there is the transactional nature of females, they don’t engage in romances, instead, they conduct transactions. Selection, courting, conjugal felicity, and divorce are all financial transactions conducted by the “free,” the “liberated” gender that operates on the rules of your average predatory Carny.

American women are the worst, predatory, carny, unpredictable, completely unreliable. It is not cute, pretty, and certainly not high IQ. There is a growing trend among American men to marry immigrants, rather than being part of a completely, obviously dollars-and-cents “liberated” system.

After all, the poison is not masculinity but the close-mindedness of women who would like to demonize it while partaking in its benefits. The poison negates the whole spectrum of human achievement, regardless of location. So, to the bridges we cross, the planes we fly, and the gadgets we employ—witnesses to the enduring legacy of masculine innovation and reminders that progress is a collective endeavor, not a gendered battlefield.

Most of the Toxic Masculinity articles are riding on Apache Server, and NGINX – male inventions. The articles would have no Internet to exist on if we waited for women to invent the Internet. Typing this only leaves me time to nuke my dinner in a male-invented microwave – invented by Percy L. Spencer, who was male.

The "authors" (echo chambers of "modern" feminism) ergo toxic masculinity writers write both within and outside the lines. Within the lines, all ills worldwide are an inherent chemical in men's bloodstreams, a hereditary evil. Outside of the messily-colored lines, men are oxen-teams to be whipped and managed by hate-filled women conducing financial transactions. If any oxen stumble or fail to yah! or hee! as commanded, they are swiftly cut out of the team and replaced with new oxen. This is the implied "moral imperative" in the articles. The oxen-masters must all be bona fide females, the oxen only 2-dimensional, qwerty-keyboard males.

The ”feminist” qwerty tappers lump all males world-wide into a liquid test-tube of pure testosterone. In 2025, from a purely male perspective, it appears all American females are on board with this hubris, which breeds a vast sea of contempt in men. This last appears to be increasingly ubiquitous, the cash-register-heads calling the men, inhuman.

From the movie "As Good As It Gets: - Staring Jack Nicholson:

Secretary: "How do you write women so well?"

Melvin Udall (Jack Nicholson): "I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability."

The Estrogen Echo Chamber and the Toxic Masculinity Myth:
A Rebuttal with a Wink and a Nod

###

© 2025 Terry Lawrence