The Australian government has introduced a noteworthy initiative aimed at addressing the issue of toxic masculinity. This comes in response to the increasing influence of misogynistic figures such as Andrew Tate. The initiative, known as the 'Healthy Masculinities Project,' is set to receive over $3 million in funding and will commence next year as a three-year trial. Its goal is to educate boys as young as five on healthy masculinity, fostering respectful relationships while countering harmful online narratives.

However, not everyone is on board. Some critics argue that this initiative will only serve to further 'emasculate' boys and transform them into 'softies,' likening it to a figurative 'castration.' This reaction is not uncommon when discussing efforts to ensure that young boys and men do not succumb to the isolating ideologies of male superiority and misogyny. Merely mentioning 'toxic masculinity' online often results in accusations of waging a war against all men.

But is the effort to eliminate harmful norms truly a 'war on men'? Or do those who perceive it as such simply fail to grasp what is meant by toxic masculinity, and how addressing it can ultimately benefit men and everyone else?

The fear surrounding 'emasculated' men is almost as old as the concept of masculinity itself. As early as 1835, American writer Washington Irving expressed concern over the upper class's inclination to send youth abroad, leading to what he perceived as a luxurious and effeminate lifestyle. He suggested that a tour of the prairies would foster true manliness aligned with American political values.

Over the years, anxieties regarding masculinity have intensified, frequently appearing in magazines, essays, and sermons. Yet, what we consider 'traditional' masculinity has not always been static. The ancient Greeks and Romans viewed masculinity not as a fixed trait but as an 'achieved state,' valuing self-control and moderation over aggression and dominance.

By the Victorian era, particularly in the latter half of the 19th century, notions of manliness shifted to emphasize toughness, endurance, and the subjugation of others. This change coincided with the publication of Darwin's The Origin of Species and the rise of Social Darwinism, which suggested that human behavior is largely determined by genetics. Moreover, during the New Imperialism period, it became advantageous to cultivate men who embraced violence and dominance, reinforcing the emerging ideal of masculinity.

This revised ideal never truly vanished. Today's concept of toxic masculinity, often referred to as the 'Man Box' or 'hegemonic masculinity' in academic discourse, closely resembles the late Victorian model. It is characterized by aggression, status-seeking behaviors, and emotional repression. If this is simply how men are, why is there a constant push to uphold these standards?

Growing up with a sensitive and gentle brother made me aware that societal norms not only marginalize women but also denigrate men who exhibit qualities deemed 'feminine.' Men who don’t conform to traditional masculinity face bullying and ridicule. The phrase 'man up' is often directed at those who display vulnerability, reinforcing the idea that emotional expression is unacceptable.

Critically, the reinforcement of these damaging ideals isn't solely a male issue; women can perpetuate them too. My partner experienced pressure to conform to masculine standards from women he dated, leading him to question his adequacy. We all internalize rigid gender norms, which can result in shaming both others and ourselves.

It's important to clarify that criticizing narrow definitions of masculinity does not equate to attacking men. Many men do not fit these stereotypes, and even those who do are not inherently predisposed to toxic behaviors. Scientific consensus indicates that biologically deterministic views, such as the 'boys will be boys' mentality, lack substantial support. There is minimal difference in brain structure between genders, and no specific gene dictates violent behavior. Hormones like testosterone do not guarantee aggression either.

As Cordelia Fine illustrates in her book Testosterone Rex, gender does not dictate societal roles. Thus, the issue of toxic masculinity stems more from harmful behaviors enforced through socialization, media, and peer pressure than from masculinity itself.

Even online communities that claim to support men often promote similar toxic ideals. They may claim to empower boys and men, but the reality is that this empowerment often necessitates suppressing parts of themselves to fit into the 'alpha male' mold—defined by toughness, emotional detachment, and dominance. This notion of empowerment can also lead to viewing women as property, fostering a culture that tacitly endorses rape and sexual assault.

Worryingly, recent surveys show that a significant number of teenage boys admire social media figures like Andrew Tate, who endorse such harmful stereotypes. This trend is echoed in the UK, where many fathers also express favorable views of him.

The consequences of conditioning men to adhere to a singular, emotionally repressed model of masculinity are profound. Research indicates that rigid gender norms adversely affect men's physical and emotional health, as well as their interactions with others. The American Psychological Association's Guidelines for Psychological Practice With Boys and Men reveal that socializing boys to be dominant and emotionally reserved leads to an aversion to seeking healthcare and higher engagement in risky behaviors, ultimately putting them at greater risk for health issues.

Moreover, toxic masculinity correlates with prejudicial behaviors toward women and violence, including domestic abuse and homophobia. Conversely, men who embrace egalitarian relationships report better mental health outcomes, a trend that holds true for women as well.

So, how do we cultivate a world where egalitarian attitudes are the norm? While policy changes are essential, they must be coupled with cultural shifts. Initiatives like the one launched by the Australian government may help facilitate this change.

Some argue for the creation of a 'new script' for masculinity, but I remain skeptical. After years of pressure for men to conform to rigid standards, imposing another script seems counterproductive. Instead, can we not focus on fostering better humanity in all individuals?

This is not a war on men; rather, it is a battle against harmful norms that undermine and distort masculinity. While the responsibility largely lies within our societal structures, individuals, particularly men, can take action to prevent the next generation from feeling compelled to suppress their true selves out of fear of failing to meet masculine standards.

It is vital to challenge the harmful notion that 'boys will be boys' and advocate for change. Because, indeed, change is possible.