Commentary: All talk of toxic masculinity, but violence doesn't disappear by declaring manhood an illness

A commentary published in NZZ critiques the contemporary discourse surrounding "toxic masculinity," suggesting it pathologizes manhood rather than addressing the root causes of violence.

The piece notes that while political parties in Germany seek a positive image of men and Swiss parliamentarians request government reports on the "manosphere," the gender debate has become entrenched in self-created stereotypes. The author points to artificial intelligence as an example, where defining "man" is straightforward, but defining "woman" is presented as complex and context-dependent.

“

What is a man?

This complexity, the commentary argues, is not mirrored in discussions about men. The American Psychological Association's "Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men" is cited, which labels "traditional masculinity" as a "suffering" for both men and society. The guidelines reportedly associate typically male traits like competitiveness, emotional suppression, and aggression, but also adventure-seeking and risk-taking, with negative outcomes such as illness, imprisonment, and death.

The article contends that "toxic masculinity" has become the dominant image of men in social media and among the "gender-conscious left," portraying men as suspicious, problematic, pitiable, yet difficult to tolerate. The commentary suggests this framing, which equates manhood with illness, fails to effectively address or eliminate violence.

“

traditional masculinity is a suffering.