Problematising ‘Toxic’ and ‘Healthy’ Masculinity for Addressing Gender Inequalities

ABSTRACT

This article discusses the emergence of ‘toxic’ and ‘healthy masculinity’ in public discourse in addressing gender inequalities. ‘Toxic’ has emerged through greater awareness of men’s violence against women, and men’s high rates of health distress and lack of help-seeking. ‘Healthy’ is thus a response to ‘toxic masculinity’, attempting to encourage men to engage in expressions of masculinity that are not harmful to others, or themselves as a way to address gender inequalities. This article argues that in using a term such as ‘toxic masculinity’, we continue to position men as victims of a broader vague entity rather than highlighting their agency in the reproduction of masculinity. Equally, in using a term such as ‘healthy masculinity’, we continue to set masculinity up as the only expression of gender that men can legitimately engage in, thus reinforcing the notion that femininity (and by extension, androgyny) remains a less valued, and less legitimate, expression of gender. In doing so, ‘toxic’ and ‘healthy masculinity’ continue to reproduce, rather than address gender inequalities, and do not support the breaking down of gender binaries.

KEYWORDS:

• Masculinity
• hegemonic
• toxic
• healthy
• gender inequality

Acknowledgements

The thinking for this piece began quite a while ago, first as a book chapter turned journal article around theorising masculinity back in 2016 (Waling 2019a). This was followed by conversations at the American Men’s Studies Association conferences, invitations to guest lecture and keynote lecture on men, masculinity and men’s health, and various conversations I have had with colleagues and friends where I was inspired to think more about the manner in which ‘toxic’ and ‘healthy’ masculinity have emerged in public discourse. As such, I’d like to first thank and acknowledge Karla Elliot, Steve Roberts, Steven Dashiell, Cliff Leek, Meghan Bohren, Jonathan A. Allan, Steven Angelides, Frank G. Karioris, Gary W. Dowsett, Chris Haywood, Michael Kehler, and Duane Duncan, with whom I have had a number of conversations with about these issues. I’d like to thank the anonymous reviewers, and the editors of AFS Maryanne Dever and Lisa Adkins who have provided sound guidance that I feel has greatly improved the quality of this piece. I’d like to thank John Mercer, Mark McGlashan, Heather Widdows, Clarissa Smith, Mark Simpson, and Jamie Hakim with whom I had the pleasure of joining a lively discussion about toxic masculinity and body image as part of the AHRC Masculinity, Sex and Popular Culture network launch in Birmingham, UK, 2019. I’d like to also give a heartfelt thanks as well to Jonathan A. Allan and Steven Angelides who provided feedback on this work prior to submission, and have always been supportive and encouraging of my research.

Disclosure Statement

Dr Andrea Waling has previously done consultancy work for the Department of Health Victoria regarding her expertise on masculinity and men’s health and has received compensation for this service. The terms of this arrangement have been reviewed and approved by La Trobe University in accordance with its conflict of interest policies.

Notes on Contributor

Dr Andrea Waling is an interdisciplinary researcher and lecturer specialising in qualitative research methods, LGBTIQ+ health and wellbeing, men and masculinity studies, raunch culture and sexualisation, and studies in gender and sexuality. She has a keen interest in research that supports marginalised communities. She completed her PhD in Sociology in 2015 at Monash University and is currently working across a number of research projects at the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University. She is the current Book Reviews Editor for the Journal of Bodies, Sexualities, and Masculinities, is a CI on an ARC Discovery Project ‘Improving Australia’s legal, policy and educational response to the technological transformation of sex and intimacy’ and released her first book, White Masculinity in Contemporary Australia: The Good Ol’ Aussie Bloke with Routledge Press in August, 2019.

ORCID

Andrea Waling http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1370-5600

Notes

1 Strategic essentialism was first introduced by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (see Danius, Jonsson, and Spivak 1993). Spivak conceptualised this as a political tactic for minority groups, nationalities, or ethnic groups as a way to represent themselves. Spivak notes that through the recognition of a ‘shared’ experience such as that of gender, it can be advantageous to temporarily ‘essentialise’ a group identity in a simplified way to achieve certain goals.

2 This includes lack of individual attribution to female feminist writers, token gestures to feminist thought and pedagogy, the institutionalisation of men and masculinity studies as distinct from gender and sexuality studies as a way to direct resources away from the study of women and non-gender binary people, the lack of critical engagement with feminist work and theory, and the homogenisation of feminist work (for example, a clear disregard for the multiplicity and diversity of feminism).

3 Bondage/discipline, Domination/submission, Sadism/masochism.

4 Leather is in reference to Leather subcultures, a sexual subculture often connected up to BDSM practices and typified by the wearing of leather garments and/or use of leather items for sexual play (for example, leather floggers), as well as the eroticism of power and heightened masculinity and love of motorcycles and motorcycle cultures.

5 Numerous products, specifically that which might be connected up to femininity (for example, skin and beauty products) are often repackaged and relabelled to appear more masculine. This is achieved through use of colour (neutral colour schemes with one bold colour, such as red or blue), font style and shape of the package (harder lines rather than soft curves) and names of the product (‘Facial Fuel’ rather than ‘Face Cream’).