I have been silent for a while probably due to the gravity of issues more compelling than understanding masculinity. The Iran war, affordability. climate change and acute political polarization dominate the news cycle and social media. The question is whether these issues have any connection with how we define masculinity? One can argue that the leaders responsible for the Iran war effort align themselves with many of the values espoused by the toxic manosphere including an obsession with testosterone. We hear an emphasis on the warrior mystique and dismissal of the role of women in the military. President Trump has embraced autocratic world leaders touting their alleged strength despite their dictatorial approach to governance and he frequently calls his distractors weak. Let me be clear. As discussed in an earlier blog the warrior archetype is an essential element of masculinity. However, the warrior can operate in the shadow or the light.
The Warrior – takes action, confronts, commands, motivates.
Light (I do)– change agent, protector, disciplined, assertive, leader
Shadow (I take) – violent, bully, uses aggression as primary strategy, tough guy ethos
It appears that the rhetoric supporting the Iran war is based on the shadow stressing aggression, threats and extreme violence instead of assertiveness and discipline as emphasized in the light. The warrior in the shadow shares the beliefs of male dominance and the misinterpretation of strength as defined in the manosphere. It is a view that men who are disciplined and seek change through deliberation and principled leadership are less manly and are labeled as a wuss – a man who is weak, timid, or lacks courage.
I also see a connection between the false philosophy of “social Darwinism” and toxic masculinity. As defined by AI, “Social Darwinism is the idea that the principles of biological evolution — especially natural selection and “survival of the fittest” — can be applied to human societies, classes, races, and nations. The core claim is that social hierarchy reflects natural hierarchy: the “strong” rise, the “weak” fall, and intervention to help the disadvantaged supposedly interferes with nature.
Social Darwinism Actually Argues
- Human society is a competition for survival, just like in nature.
- Wealth, power, and status are interpreted as signs of innate superiority.
- Poverty or weakness is framed as biological inferiority.
- Government aid, welfare, or social reform is seen as harmful, because it protects the “unfit.”
One can reasonably argue that cutting Medicaid and SNAP, a tax code that fosters income inequality, racially based gerrymandering, the aggrandizement of the billionaire class are artifacts of those who believe in Social Darwinism. In other words, if you are poor, disabled and need public assistance you are weak and there is nothing much that can be done about it and you are clearly a wuss. By these standards Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal” that greatly expanded the social safety net made him a wuss and Ghandi’s non-violent protests that led to India’s independence also makes him a wuss. There are many more examples of men who were or are warriors in the light not weaklings.