Toxic masculinity is loosely defined as a stereotypical representation of masculinity/gender roles which force men to suppress their emotions and offers a more rigidly defined identity within society. Men are not normally keen on breaking this toxic masculinity because it protects them from ridicule. Being a man today seems to be much more about the performance of masculinity than the truth of one’s character. Toxic masculinity allows men to live within the realm of sex, violence, and competition which molds them into beings bound by stimulation. This stimulation trains them to become a certain kind of man- a man who is admired by other men. What does that look like?
The perfect masculine man is often a womanizer, exudes strength, and emulates depictions of the perfect male as seen on television and other forms of media. He is perfect. The issue with this identity, though, is that almost no one can adhere to these standards. There are layers of intersectionality and marginalization that stop many men from becoming this man. Furthermore, men who do qualify are still run through a wringer to ensure maximum maleness. He must also be tall, athletic, white, and wealthy. My point is that the man that toxic masculinity promotes to be perfect does not truly exist. If by some anomaly a man is born with these attributes, he has not been found. What is more common is that men try to fashion themselves to fit this image. Some get by. Some can pull off this perfect masculine façade. They modify themselves to fit the mold. I would propose that, since it seems impossible to perfect, the “man’s man”/ “perfect man” should be eliminated. I am not suggesting murder. What I mean to say is that we should cleanse our national culture of images of this quasi-existing perfect man. There are a number of social mores and media that should be modified to reflect the truth of who men are and how they should function in our nation.
The perfect place to start in this process would be at the head of our country: the President of the United States of America. This individual is highly influential, especially for men, since we have yet to elect a female president. Our most recent leader, Donald Trump, is one perfect image of toxic masculinity. With his election have come countless passionate anti-bigotry movements and an equally passionate following of men and women steeped in toxic masculinity. I am proposing that Donald J. Trump is a toxic male figure with the power to influence men all over the world and that this time in masculinity is insane. Through refocusing the American people on morality and adjusting the presidential election for moral standing and social and cultural sensitivity, we may be able to steer our masculine individuals in a more ethical direction.
The Breadcrumbs of Media-Molded Masculinity
Men are supposed to pick up habits left by what I call media-breadcrumbs. These breadcrumbs are a trail of instructions and attributes that lead us to a specific conclusion. The breadcrumbs left by the media for men are normally, “toughness, strength, power, dominance, self-reliance, sexual virility…and stoicism” (Yarrow 62). Perfect masculinity, as told by the media, lies in these attributes and more. While this list may not seem to be the worst instructions, it is important that we take a closer look at what men are forbidden to do at the risk of losing their masculinity: “real men don’t cry, don’t talk about their feelings, don’t give up, don’t avoid a fight if provoked, aren’t “sissies”, aren’t passive, aren’t vulnerable, and expect women to take care of the kids and home” (62). These instructions prevent men from connecting emotionally. They also build an ego to protect. The rules of masculinity have been culturally tainted.
What is even more interesting is that our current culture has also relieved the male of much of his to-do list. Men, now that we are in the age of more recent sexuality, gender, and equality politics, have been relieved of their rules. What is curious is that the accepted male attributes have been deconstructed in most of the academic, affluent, and more liberal-minded settings in our country, resulting the exclusion the larger population of intersectional or marginalized men. While women are empowered to enter typically male-dominated fields or work or identity, men are not invited to do the same, barring the possibility that he identifies with the LGBTQ community. The performance of femininity by men, their expression of emotion, the allowance to be domestic, caring, thoughtful, or wise is often left to a queer-identifying male. Where does this leave heterosexual men? Now, this is not an argument that straight men are marginalized or deserve special rights over homosexual men. I am only revealing the suppositions of our nation that for a man to exhibit stereotypically feminine roles he must be gay. This is especially harmful because it emasculates gay men- especially gay men of color. What remains for most men are the most toxic of breadcrumbs. They are left with mildly-accepted or socially-venerated performances. What is most socially venerated is violence and sex.
Our National Role Models
In our most recent media we have seen a cacophony of toxic masculine images, characters, and celebrities. We have, in this age, Donald Trump (self-proclaimed p*ssy-grabber) as our president. While his multiple admissions to sexual assault may have signaled pre-election to many U.S. citizens that he is unfit to run a country, many men joined in on his philosophy. Many spaces became sanctioned for hordes of men who lived by the same masculinity performances as Trump. They rallied and raved for him and he became our president.
“Research on implicit leadership theories further suggests people hold cognitive schemas specifying the traits and behaviors expected of leaders based on past socialization and personal experiences with leadership. When activated, these schemas aid in understanding and responding to managerial behavior, thereby influencing the ways in which leaders are perceived and evaluated by social observers” (Thoroughgood, Sawyer, and Hunter 33).
It became very clear here in the U.S. what “cognitive schemas” were socially venerated when Donald J. Trump was elected president. Though none of our preceding presidents were ideal, they all shared some of the same traits: Male, assertive, clearly sexual, physically appealing, strong, and they all stood their ground. It seems that Trump has missed the mark in the traditional sense, though. Further analysis of his rhetoric made one thing evident to me: The majority of American people hold the same “cognitive schemas” as Donald Trump and those beliefs and desires are morally reprehensible.
The impact of this election is simply understood: What a president does is likely condoned by his citizens if he is influential enough, relatable enough, crude and charming enough to break social mores and silk-tongue their way out of consequence. Just look at Bill Clinton! For both Clinton and Trump, sexual immorality failed to deter men and women from cheering for them, sanctioning their behavior, or even just secretly supporting them. Their actions became infamous and transformed the social understanding of sexual promiscuity and sexual assault.
For Trump, it is clear that his “uncanny ability to channel primal dominance” allows him to lead through “intimidation, bluster, and threat, and through the establishment of short-term, opportunistic relationships” (McAdams Abstract). According to Dan McAdams, Trump’s performance is similar to the performance of chimps in the wild. Their performances establish dominance and a follow-the-leader mentality for the rest of the group. McAdams asserts that studies found out that, “the human expectation that social status can be seized through brute force a
nd intimidation, that the strongest and the biggest and boldest will lord it over the rank and file, is very old, awesomely intuitive, and deeply ingrained” (McAdams 5).
Normally, we elect our presidents by the same logic. We have a history of military men and strong-and-silent types. We adore these men who exert strength and an almost dictating rule. Because McAdams explained that the “rank and file” chimps would easily follow and admire these kinds of leaders, he parallels them to us- the voters-the people.
As a country proud of its leaders and insistent upon our citizens to emulate the behaviors of the elect, these actions are unacceptable. Combined with the most recent case of our election for a new Supreme Court Justice and its parallel to the preceding nomination, the images of our political representation seem to be geared towards teaching men that power and sex are, and must be, synonymous. Enid Logan offered that,“Trump’s racialized, patriarchal rhetoric articulates a rage that is rooted in a deeply felt loss of racial and gendered entitlement. For an angry, dying brand of white American masculinity, he stands as validation, spokesman, and belligerent defender” (Logan 28).
The Solution
My solution for this plague of toxic masculinity in the U.S. is simple: Stop electing politicians that exhibit toxicity and enable our “rank and file” men to emulate that toxicity. This does not necessarily include self-help books for toxic leaders. I would offer that a large-scale shift in the way that men perform masculinity is the most important. We have already discussed that the “perfect man” within Northern American masculine practices is white and is afforded privilege, especially because he adheres to the rules of his performance.
Because this performance of masculinity is also imbued with toxic behaviors and beliefs, it is no surprise that an average man would identify with our current president. What seems more effective than dethroning our current leader would be to discourage toxic practices and the dog-whistle politics that encourage this behavior. In the same way that Trump pulled toxic men into his plan, a more morally sound person could be elected. According to Thoroughgood, “Leaders who display confidence, one means of obtaining attributions of charisma, are perceived as more competent and influential” (Thoroughgood, et.al 33). Our society is more likely to vote or believe in someone if they display confidence in themselves and are, more or less, likeable. It is incomprehensible that Trump’s rhetoric allowed him such confidence and charisma that voters began to believe in him. Our moral compasses seem to be off. Whether or not he was charming, Trump displayed otherwise socially-reprehensible behavior and speech which informs us that, since he was defended and ultimately made our president, there are serious deficits in American morality. If we made adjustments in our social behavior—efforts to welcome people of all cultures and socioeconomic backgrounds into spaces (geographical, organizational, familial, or otherwise), inclusive community-building programs, and unbiased respect within our communities—the lives of many could be changed.
Sadly, the leadership traits necessary for election or trust are likely of the male advantage since, “gendered expectations of specific leadership roles within the same organization shape perceptions of errors made by male and female leaders within these roles” (45). While I do believe that it is important that the United States of America has its first female president, it would be equally pleasing to have our country led by an ethical individual that promotes justice, equity, and freedom.
I assert that a new system of election be put in place. I know that this is a large task, but imagine the possibilities: The office of President of the United States of America could be interviewed for through moral and ethical standing, organizational efficiency, leadership skills, political knowledge, and social and cultural comprehension. By these criteria, our presidential election could pivot from being a popularity contest to becoming a pageant of sorts which focuses on the overall emotional and intellectual standing of an individual. We would know if our candidates are bigoted, or misogynistic, or just plain ignorant. Through this interview process, we could get a sense of who our candidates really are. He/She will be scored by an unbiased committee (with a four-term limit at one term every three years) assembled by each state respectively.
I know that this plan is flawed and somewhat unfathomable. I am aware of the constitution-thumping citizens of our country who would virtually combust at the thought of altering our presidential election process, let alone the implications of ethics and morals being at the center of it. But because this is a theoretical essay with options for my own autonomy, I’ll let it be.