What does it mean to be a “man”? This is a question that most people have heard throughout their lives, whether in discussion challenging toxic masculinity or promoting the traditional ideas of “manhood.” It is clear that this ambiguous matter has no clear correct answer but instead is used as a tool to promote certain agendas. And, in recent news, has taken a twist to promote the political agendas of the right.
This discourse has reframed the ideal version of “man” to be one backed in stereotypical and often damaging assumptions. Politicians have called upon the public to reinforce “traditional masculinity” as the only way to save the nuclear family. The reality of this, however, has nothing to do with men. It has to do with fostering a society that criticizes the evolving role of women and the increased visibility of the LGBTQ+ community.
Certain political figures have shifted the narrative away from marginalized groups gaining rights and towards men “being under attack.” This has rallied men behind their political agendas and has created a false reality where some feel threatened by the acceptance and promotion of other groups. When an advocacy of an ideal version of “manhood” is used for political gain it creates a society that fosters hate and division.
This rhetoric fuels polarization and distracts from addressing the real issues men face, such as mental health, economic insecurity and isolation. In addition, young men are pressured to conform to rigid and arguably outdated ideals. These movements promoting hyper-masculinity force men into a space without emotional vulnerability, leaving lasting effects, such as anxiety and depression.
Politics should not uphold restrictive gender norms. Moving forward, a broader and more accepting scope of manhood is beneficial not only for disempowered groups but also for men. Being masculine isn’t inherently harmful, but when politicians weaponize it as a tactic to fuel division, the effects become gravely detrimental.
