Stop talking about toxic masculinity

Let's talk about what makes a good human instead.

Since its release on Netflix last month, Stephen Graham and Jack Thorne's four-part series Adolescence has become the talk of the town, breaking records to achieve the biggest single-week audience for any streaming show in the UK. Full disclaimer: I haven’t watched it yet. Not because I don’t want to, but because I’m determined to watch it with my husband, and convincing him to start a new series is, let’s just say, a mission in itself.

That said, even without having seen the show, its premise and themes are difficult to ignore. The plot centres on 13-year-old Jamie Miller, who is arrested for the murder of his classmate Katie, and it delves into the toxic, misogynistic online spaces that heavily influence teenage boys today. These themes have ignited widespread debate — not just in the UK, where some have even called for the series to be added to the secondary school curriculum, but internationally as well.

When a show resonates this deeply, it’s worth exploring why. Stories about incel culture and the rise of manosphere influencers have been circulating for years, but fiction has a particular power: it asks us to walk in someone else's shoes. Adolescence confronts its audience with complex, uncomfortable truths, and for many viewers, it’s served as a wake-up call, revealing how pervasive and subtle toxic digital spaces can be. These influences often hide behind emojis, slang and coded language, making them harder to spot and easier to dismiss.

The show has also reignited a conversation around the concept of toxic masculinity, a term that continues to gain traction in cultural and academic discussions alike. While I could easily keep digging into incel ideology and manosphere dynamics (which I touched on in my previous essay No more shame (and no more excuses when it comes to consent), this time, I want to focus on the broader implications of toxic masculinity itself.

Too often, the phrase is linked to outdated and rigid stereotypes that leave little room for growth. It’s similar to the often oversimplified debate around masculine versus feminine energy — labels that don’t always serve us well. Take, for example, Mark Zuckerberg’s absurd comment about corporate culture needing more ‘masculine energy’. He equated it with aggression and toughness, dismissing emotional intelligence and empathy as ‘soft’ traits. But if we trace these ideas back to their philosophical roots — specifically yin and yang in Chinese philosophy — we see a different picture. Yin (equated with the feminine) represents intuition, care and receptiveness; yang (equated with the masculine) represents action, logic and leadership. They aren’t opposites at war — they’re complementary forces, both necessary for balance, and both present in everyone, regardless of gender.

The problem arises when ‘masculine energy’ is defined narrowly, as something hard-edged and dominant, while anything gentler is viewed as weak or unproductive. But research tells another story. A Gallup study found that emotionally intelligent managers led teams with 40% less turnover and 17% higher productivity.¹ Traits traditionally associated with femininity — collaboration, empathy, emotional nuance — are in fact fundamental to strong leadership. If you’ve ever had a toxic boss, think about the traits they embodied. If they’d demonstrated more empathy and emotional intelligence, would you have been as eager to quit? I’m betting not.

So rather than clinging to binary definitions of power and softness, we should be asking a more important question: what does it mean to be a good human being? That might look like balancing strength with vulnerability, action with reflection, decisiveness with compassion.

Of course, when we talk about ‘toxic masculinity’, we must also acknowledge that a parallel dynamic exists: toxic femininity. Although often more covert and less discussed, it can be just as damaging in its own way. Take, for example, OnlyFans content creator Bonnie Blue, who made headlines in October 2024 after admitting to sleeping with hundreds of 18- and 19-year-old men — and filming the encounters — by intentionally placing herself in student-heavy areas.² Her following has since grown, as she embarks on sex-related ‘challenges,’ including the goal of sleeping with 1,000 men in a single day. Similarly, Lily Phillips, another OnlyFans model, filmed herself having sex with 101 men in one day and uploaded it as a YouTube documentary.³

Now, while these cases don’t incite hatred or misogyny in quite the same way some manosphere figures do (I’ll refrain from naming names), they still raise pressing questions. What message do these women send to young girls watching? Bonnie Blue targets adolescent boys, who arguably (and scientifically) are far from having fully developed frontal lobes. Isn’t that, in itself, a form of exploitation for personal gain? In a world where women are already heavily objectified and sexualised, doesn’t this kind of content quietly reinforce the same harmful narratives, suggesting, yet again, that a woman’s body is her greatest asset? It may be wrapped in the language of empowerment, but does it not ultimately serve the very patriarchal structures it claims to subvert?

There’s also a persistent argument I hear: ‘Well, if men do it, why shouldn’t women?’ But perhaps that’s the wrong question. Should equality mean adopting the worst aspects of toxic masculinity, or should we be striving for something more compassionate, thoughtful and just? Because let’s be honest: if a man were to publicly advertise an event inviting 100 women to sleep with him on camera, the reaction would be swift — moral outrage, media backlash, probably legal consequences. And crucially, few women would actually show up. The fact that boys are turning up en masse says just as much about gender dynamics as the stunt itself.

This isn’t to say women should be held to a higher moral standard, but rather that we need to examine how toxic behaviours, regardless of gender, are often framed differently. When women take on these roles, the narrative often shifts to one of empowerment or provocation, and the lines blur. But it’s still worth asking: are we dismantling patriarchal systems, or just repackaging them in new, more palatable forms?

Ultimately, neither masculinity nor femininity is inherently toxic. Both sets of traits — action and receptivity, confidence and empathy — exist within us all. The harm comes when these traits are twisted into rigid, performative identities, stripped of nuance and wielded to control or exploit. So, when tech CEOs champion ‘masculine energy’ as the cure-all for corporate stagnation, or influencers push an extreme version of ‘feminine power’ for clout and cash, we have to ask: is the energy really the issue, or is it how we’ve been taught to perform it?

Going back to Adolescence, the real issue is systemic. We cannot talk about toxic influences and radicalisation without also evaluating the environment in which these take root. For me, two urgent realities stand out.

First, violence against women and girls is undeniably on the rise. Focusing on the UK — the setting of Adolescence and where I currently reside — the National Police Chiefs' Council reports an average of 3,000 offences recorded each day, with 1 in 12 women becoming victims each year.⁴ Faced with the fact that one woman is killed by a man every three days, it’s no wonder women and girls are feeling increasingly unsafe and afraid.

Second, a 2023 report by the Centre for Social Justice titled Lost Boys highlights that boys in the UK are ‘struggling in education, more likely to take their own lives, less likely to get into stable work and far more likely to be caught up in crime’ than girls.⁵

On one side, we see a victim. On the other, a perpetrator. But it is not always that black and white.

‘Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.’ - Margaret Atwood

The manosphere, red pill, and incel cultures are not isolated phenomena — they are symptoms of a neglected, overburdened system.

As Stephen Graham has said in various interviews, we all bear some responsibility.⁶ When we zoom out and look at wider society, the bigger picture emerges: the cost of living crisis, economic and political instability, a lack of opportunity and a bleak outlook for the future. These factors are impacting all young people.

Importantly, in Adolescence, Jamie comes from a good-hearted working-class family. I’m willing to bet that many viewers from similarly disaffected neighbourhoods will recognise the environment — especially the school — as deeply familiar.

As women’s anger has grown louder and more justified, young boys are simultaneously told they are inherently privileged. But in communities plagued by poverty and limited prospects, that message can feel confusing, even alienating. For many boys, it seems unjustifiably ironic, especially when they are still bombarded with patriarchal ideals that a man must lead, dominate and provide. These are the very messages amplified by manosphere influencers, who promise that boys can escape their reality and ‘get the girl’ by building wealth, muscle and power.

None of this excuses violence or sexist and racist hate. But to me, the conclusion is clear: if we address poverty, we address the root of so many issues — including the conditions that make young people vulnerable to violence and misogynistic radicalisation.

Moreover, a key driver behind the rise of extreme ideas and violence is the digitalisation of our society. In a digital world, polarisation is profitable — for both boys and girls. Algorithms thrive on anger, outrage and emotionally charged content, meaning the most dangerous place for a young person is no longer outside, but at home, alone with their screens.

This is still inextricably linked to social circumstance. With the cost of living crisis limiting access to extracurricular activities, more and more young people are spending unsupervised time online — disconnected, isolated and increasingly vulnerable to radicalisation.⁷

As a mother of both a son and a daughter, I’ve often heard that while boys may be more energetic — even physically demanding — when they’re young, they tend to become easier than girls as they grow older. But in my own experience, that hasn’t held true. When I set aside ‘worry time’ with my children, my son needs just as much room to express himself as my daughter does.

So, are boys really easier, or have we simply been conditioned by patriarchal thinking to believe they need less emotional care? Are they easier, or are we just being negligent?

I’ve always disliked the label ‘toxic masculinity’ — not because the behaviours it describes aren’t real, but because it feels like yet another sweeping generalisation. Rather than encouraging a more constructive or positive image of masculinity, it shifts focus away from the deeper issue: the system we’re all operating in.

We’re constantly told that feminism is a call against men, that feminists hate men — but true feminists love men. We give birth to boys, we raise them, we care for them, and we fight for a fairer society in which they, too, can be free to express emotion, vulnerability and softness. It is not men we hate. It is the patriarchal system that harms us all.

That said, phrases like ‘toxic masculinity’ were coined to try to name the problem — to help men understand the harmful conditioning they've been exposed to, and to identify how this impacts not just women, but themselves. Still, it’s hard to communicate the depth of both conscious and unconscious bias women navigate daily — or the fear baked into our everyday routines: walk with keys between your knuckles, avoid eye contact, don’t speak too loudly, don’t draw attention.

The more we talk about these issues — with honesty, empathy and nuance — the more chance we have of building understanding. And with understanding comes the possibility of change.

Recently, I came across an episode of Loose Men (essentially Loose Women, but with men hosting) and it filled me with hope. For once, I saw men come together in the same way women often do with their friends: breaking down difficult topics and discussing what can be done to incite positive change. As they said, the best thing men can do is guide young men. But that requires openness, vulnerability and accountability — all the things patriarchy and the current far-right manosphere discourage.

Young boys undeniably need better role models — men who can show them how to connect with their emotions, who understand the challenges women face and who aren’t afraid to call out harmful behaviour, whether it comes from men or women. As the men on Loose Men showed when they read letters to their younger selves, emotional intelligence and sensitivity should be at the heart of masculinity, and that’s something we should all be encouraging. Just as importantly, there’s no reason young boys shouldn’t look up to women for guidance too. When we move away from rigid ideas of gendered energy and instead ask young people to reflect on what makes a good human being, we give them the freedom to admire and learn from anyone who embodies those values.

Rather than fixating on phrases like ‘toxic masculinity’, we should be talking about what it means to be a good person. By clinging to narrow, stereotyped ideas of what it means to be a man or a woman, we do a disservice to both. The problem isn’t masculinity but the absence of what it means to be a good man, which is essentially the same as being a good human. The issue isn't with masculinity itself, but with the system we've nourished. We all have a part to play in this shift, and it begins with the language we use.

1. Gallup, Inc. ‘State of the Global Workplace’. Gallup, 2024, https://www.gallup.com/workplace/349484/state-of-the-global-workplace.asp.

2. ‘Bonnie Blue’. Cosmopolitan, 14 Mar. 2024, https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/reports/a62751240/bonnie-blue/.

3. Bindel, Julie. ‘Shame on the Men Exploiting Lily Phillips’. The Spectator, 18 Feb. 2024, https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/shame-on-the-men-exploiting-lily-phillips/.

4. National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC). ‘Call to Action as Violence Against Women and Girls Epidemic Deepens’. National Police Chiefs' Council, 25 Mar. 2024, https://news.npcc.police.uk/releases/call-to-action-as-violence-against-women-and-girls-epidemic-deepens-1.

5. ‘Men Still Killing One Woman Every Three Days in the UK. We Need Deeds, Not Words’. Femicide Census, 27 Feb. 2024, https://www.femicidecensus.org/men-still-killing-one-woman-every-three-days-in-uk-we-need-deeds-not-words/.

6. Sky News. ‘Stephen Graham on How the Rise of Incel Culture Influenced New Netflix Show “Adolescence.”‘ Sky News, 1 Apr. 2024, https://news.sky.com/story/stephen-graham-on-how-the-rise-of-incel-culture-influenced-new-netflix-show-adolescence-13327207.

7. Liao, Yi-Hsiang, et al. ‘A Critical Review of the Incel Movement’. PubMed Central (PMC), 2016, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4779664/.