Image attribution source from Creative Commons, Source WikiMedia
Toxic masculinity is a concept as well understood as a cliché, often depicted as the loud, chauvinistic, and testosterone-driven behavior that society has come to scrutinize. These traits traditionally associated with masculinity—aggressiveness, machismo, and homophobia—are under the microscope as we collectively question how ‘toxic’ these behaviors really are. This societal critique forms part of a broader investigation into how certain masculine traits, celebrated in some contexts, can become harmful when they go unchecked, leading to unhealthy attitudes and behaviors. The discussion, however, often overlooks the nuanced question of purpose: for whom, or for what, is this display of masculinity maintained?
The flip side of this coin, rarely flipped over, reveals an often-ignored narrative—a similar kind of toxicity residing within femininity. While some women argue that they engage in such behavior to impress other women, others insist men are the intended audience. Here lies the crux: if there exists a toxic masculinity, by logical extension, toxic femininity must also be acknowledged. This conversation dismantles the illusion that only men can exhibit damaging behaviors, proposing that toxic femininity, too, poses real and significant dangers.
A glance at the pantheon of female celebrities reveals their far-reaching influence, which affects not only adult men and women but also the youth. Celebrities and influencers like Ariana Grande and the Kardashians shape societal standards of beauty, propelling trends that lead to significant repercussions. While one subset of affected women is financially poised to chase these ideals safely, others turn to high-risk, cheaper procedures. These choices, driven by societal pressures, often culminate in complications or even death—a grim testament to the perilous path of toxic beauty standards.
Older women, too, are ensnared in the web of societal desirability, where the allure of bigger lips and larger assets is tantalizing. The financial burden of maintaining such an appearance creates a hierarchy of access—those who can afford the transformation and those left trying to afford it. The struggle to achieve this ideal can exact a toll, pushing some towards hazardous, quasi-legal procedures in their desperation. This is where the shimmering allure of cosmetic transformation turns deadly, as reality TV has starkly illustrated. The lucky ones may walk away with minor complications, but many more suffer severe consequences, learning the hard way that beauty can indeed be a beast.
Young girls look up to these celebrities, many of whom have undergone significant changes. The seductive allure of a completely remade face, as seen with Ariana Grande, presents a challenge when distinguishing natural beauty from constructed artifice. The disappointment upon discovering that beauty can be an elaborate illusion is palpable—a deception that can lead young fans astray. This disparity underscores a much-needed education about the nature of beauty, emphasizing that purchased beauty is extrinsic and cannot be passed down like genetic traits.
The impact of these questionable beauty standards on children is profound. With little Kylies and Jennies growing up in an environment where a parent’s facelift seems commonplace, the search for authenticity becomes pivotal. Though some children may veer from their parents’ paths with more common sense, cultural pressures—exemplified by South Korea’s inter-generational plastic surgery culture—often perpetuate the cycle. The realization for men that ‘the look’ they have married into does not equate to inheritable beauty further complicates the gender dynamics at play.
Men are not immune to these societal pressures, embedding in them perceptions of women’s beauty standards created by media illusions. As young boys idolize surgically enhanced figures, the ideal of womanhood veers into the unattainable, warping expectations and undermining authentic human interaction. The absence of transparency in celebrity transformations fosters a false narrative of naturally attainable beauty.
It stands to reason that those whose livelihoods hinge on their appearance should disclose their surgical enhancements. Doing so counters the false advertising that currently deceives fans. Herein lies the discrepancy—strength-enhancing steroids are vilified and strictly regulated, yet beauty alterations are not. The omission of accountability in beauty industries is particularly troubling given the severe health risks involved.
Social media influencers, musicians, and actors ought to declare procedures and their associated risks, advocating for transparency and empowering consumers to differentiate between reality and artifice. Yet, the profitable partnership between beauty and tech industries sidesteps accountability. The influence of financial incentives obscures efforts to curb toxic masculinity and femininity.
Conversely, toxic masculinity raises the question: for whom is this show of traditional male traits intended? The answer, deeply entwined with notions of evolutionary biology, suggests both genders vie for approval in their own rites. This competition, while part of reproductive behavior across species, exacerbates unhealthy self-presentations. Meanwhile, the absence of external cultural pressures liberates other species from such constraints.
The pressure to conform to gendered expectations weighs heavily on both men and women. The narrative crafted through media affirms that certain possessions define men’s status, while women’s value is often judged by appearance. The 80s and 90s embraced these ideals, creating a lasting impression of the macho man. This has morphed into today’s digital influences, where media content instructs viewers to replicate on-screen personas, underlining the mimetic nature of humans.
The cosmetic surgery phenomenon extends beyond superficial imitation. Women embrace these alterations in droves, eager to emulate media standards. Beyond copying nails or hairstyles, they reshape their bodies to mirror ‘so-and-so’s curves. This pursuit, underpinned by shifting beauty ideals, generates profound psychological repercussions, like eating disorders and dysmorphia, that were all too common during the ‘size zero’ era.
A necessary distinction should be drawn between cosmetic and structural alterations. Cosmetic, as the name implies, should pertain to superficial changes, whereas structural modifications redefine one’s physicality. This territorialization, or reterritorialization, of identity forms the philosophical underpinnings of these dynamics.
Recognizing these constructs is vital—masculinity, in essence, is intrinsically neither toxic nor benign. The toxic label is divorced from gender, acknowledging instead that such behaviors are inherently harmful. By disentangling gender from toxicity, a more insightful dialogue can unfold. Ignoring this disarms a divisive narrative that polarizes and harms societal cohesion. Let us focus on addressing toxicity in its pure, untainted form, free from the constraints of stereotypical gender norms.
