Redefining Toxic Masculinity

The term ‘toxic masculinity’ is often used in ways that are ineffective. This paper offers insights into how to take advantage of the framing effect to use it better. A broadly Hegelian dialectic is used to present two framings of the term, identifying their strengths and weaknesses, and offering a synthesis. The Mythopoetic Men’s Movement framed toxic masculinity around its systemic causes, within-group regulation and small-scale solutions. The framing emerging from the popular and feminist discourse since 2015, focused on personal responsibility, between-group criticism and urgent action. For different reasons, both had limited positive impact. A better framing can reduce the divisive character of the term, encourage focus on systemic causes and solutions, and mix the action-oriented between-group use with within-group use which inspires less defensiveness. A virtue ethical definition can further discourage division and instead promote a focus on systemic causes and solutions.