He just wants you to know he's strong. Credit: ALEXEY NIKOLSKY/SPUTNIK/AFP via Getty Images
Of all the ill-informed explanations for why Vladimir Putin has invaded Ukraine, perhaps the most absurd is that he is afflicted with “toxic masculinity”. And yet, there are multiple commentators and think piece writers saying exactly that: the Russian President is so insecure about his sense of manly virility that he had to start a war to prove himself.
You can see where they got the idea. Putin is clearly invested in portraying himself as a literal strongman. He’s posed shirtless, riding horses and doing judo on camera; there have been photo shoots with tigers and bears. He’s spent years building an image of strength and daring, both as a person and as a leader. (Meanwhile his new nemesis Zelensky became an overnight heartthrob when Twitter discovered that he appeared on the Ukrainian equivalent of Strictly Come Dancing in a hot pink suit.)
But using the very Western, very modern framework of identity politics to discuss deep-rooted geopolitical tensions is shockingly irresponsible. The Right often condemns such behaviour, accusing the Left of being decadent or frivolous. And they’ve got a point.
Identity politics have become hegemonic; any news story that can be viewed through their lens seems instantly worthier of our attention. A debate about whether a legal decision or a politician’s speech has racist or sexist implications will generally get more traction than whether it contributes to income inequality or environmental degradation. And so its vocabulary has been trotted out to convince people that they need to take the conflict in Ukraine seriously — more seriously, for whatever reason, than the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan or the 3 million people displaced by conflict in Yemen (which only makes headlines when Angelina Jolie gets involved). Accusing Putin of “toxic masculinity” reels in people who support women’s and queer rights, which have been truncated in Russia, in the same way that the hashtag #ukraineisgeorgefloyd reels in those whose primary concern is racial justice.
That’s not to say that the concept of “toxic masculinity” is empty. It emerged from feminism as a shorthand for the idea that certain masculine traits once heralded as beneficial — chivalry, strength, competitiveness — could be potentially oppressive, especially when they metastasise into violent behaviour against women and other vulnerable communities. And it can be useful in critiquing what we look for in a national leader — a role that has typically been filled by men. Force and self-assuredness have previously been seen as desirable; asking whether they are “toxic” allows us to see how these qualities can shade toward authoritarianism. It can also help us see that qualities once associated with weakness — eagerness to compromise and maintain peace — are in many ways beneficial.
The focus on identity politics more broadly has also highlighted previously under-examined aspects of authoritarianism, like the fact that it is often disproportionately harmful to women and the LGBT community. When a state turns repressive toward gay rights or reproductive rights — either through restricting access to abortion or by forced sterilisation — it can indicate a dangerous turn. Authoritarian governments often try to control rigid gender roles and demonise “deviant” sexual behaviours.
Still, a focus on identity politics can crowd out other criticisms. And it can also be used to shut down criticisms completely. It is tempting to see a government that ostensibly protects women and other marginalised communities as ethically “good”. But it’s common for governments that have faced accusations of corruption or wrongdoing to fight back with symbolic gestures toward these communities.
The Right-wing Colombian administration, headed by President Iván Duque, has faced a year of street protests for its economic reforms and police brutality. It recently decriminalised abortion up to the 24th week of pregnancy: a huge victory for women’s rights groups. Sarah Schulman has documented the way Israel has used its progressive queer rights policies to shore up its international reputation after it was damaged by its treatment of Palestinians — an act she calls “pinkwashing”.
And Israel, she points out, is hardly the only nation to use identity politics to cloak its less progressive reforms. The United States celebrated gay marriage while conducting drone warfare in Yemen; it called the appointment of Ruth Bader Ginsburg a feminist triumph while passing legislation removing social welfare programmes for mothers and children.
Part of the problem is that toxic masculinity is squishy language, used to describe everything from war crimes to taking up too much space on the subway. There have been several high-profile cases where a corrupt or otherwise objectionable politician has been attacked for exhibiting toxic masculinity — while his other, arguably worse decisions went unpunished or unacknowledged. The debate over Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court mostly turned on one accusation of sexual wrongdoing decades ago against one woman; but it was his “toxic masculinity” that led many to believe he was not fit for the powerful position he now holds, whether or not he was guilty. This line of argument overtook any other objections one might have about him occupying a seat on the highest court in the land: his participation in the George W. Bush administration’s torture programme, for example.
A similar problem arose with New York state governor Andrew Cuomo, who ultimately had to step down because of allegations of unwanted touching. He maintains that even if his behaviour was inappropriate at times, it was never criminal — further proof of his toxic masculinity, some feminists would argue. But in all of this his role in the New York’s unnecessarily catastrophic pandemic is ignored. Obviously sexual assault and the violation of interpersonal boundaries doesn’t reflect well on a person’s character, but Cuomo was terrible for all the New Yorkers who voted him in, not just the women who worked for him.
But clearly the US is not ready to confront its Covid failures — the confused messaging, the crumbling public health system, the lack of compensation for job loss, the massive fraud that was committed via its Paycheck Protection Program. These things led to unnecessary suffering and death. Similarly, it’s worth wondering whether, had Kavanaugh not been accused of sexual assault, his other transgressions would’ve gone unconfronted. There would have had to be a widespread conversation about the torture and unjust imprisonment of those designated enemies during the war on terror. But the media, the justice system, and politicians of both parties supported these ethical transgressions. And we still can’t seem to close our Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp.
And now that Cuomo is trying to stage a comeback, based on the image of a reformed man (reformed for his misogyny, not for his pandemic policies), we should pay attention to the way “toxic masculinity” can be a gift to the men accused of it, because it downplays their other crimes. As useful as the accusation of “toxic masculinity” can be as a political weapon, it can also have a nasty rebound effect.
Critics often suggest that identity politics have created brain rot in the West. Lionel Shriver wrote in The Spectator that Putin felt free to invade Ukraine because we’ve gone soft: “Decolonisations, contextualisations, gender-neutralisations … — it’s all a load of onanistic, diversionary crap, and the West having shoved its head up its backside is one reason that Putin feels free to do whatever he likes. We’re not scary, because we’ve made ourselves ridiculous.” Ben Shapiro made a similar accusation on Twitter, blaming Russia’s invasion on “The West” being obsessed with “exploding the gender binary”.
But they, too, are trapped in this conversation about identity politics, even if in an adversarial mode. They can’t stop referring everything, even serious geopolitical matters, back to a battle about pronouns and racial discrimination.
Of course, they’re right to point out that our conversation about Ukraine is blinkered. Like the culture war, this war is framed as a battle between good and evil, and this simplification allows us to ignore the fact that it has roots in centuries-old discussions of territory and autonomy. It’s about the meaning of nationhood, which is not always straightforward.
If we faced that, we’d also be forced face our own hypocrisy, as nations that feel free to violate airspace whenever it suits us. If we weren’t distracting ourselves with condemning the insecurities of one dictator, we might consider that our democratic countries, too, have let economic concerns drive international policy. We have invaded sovereign nations. We have killed civilians.
Or perhaps we’d find another easy answer, to help us ignore awkward questions.
Jessa Crispin is the author of three books, most recently Why I Am Not A Feminist: A Feminist Manifesto.
jessa_crispin 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeBut Lionel Shriner and Ben Shapiro are absolutely correct in this case. Identity politics has done serious damage to the global image of the West. By indulging in it, we have effectively neutered our best and most brilliant in order to make way for our most naive and arrogant. Heck, our colleges are producing graduates that can’t work out the difference between a man and a woman. If I were a brutal dictator I would probably choose this moment to start a war too.
Thank heavens someone else sees this! I couldn’t agree more.
It’s not as though I’m arguing for the resurrection of the Spartan state but we could try to remember that “a house divided against itself cannot stand”. Putting every stone of our cultural foundations up for grabs to the loudest shouter doesn’t do much for our external security, I would suggest.
Many sensible arguments, but the whole thing is clearly by a person marinated in a left-wing hyperfocus on everything that is wrong with our societies. Hence she quite likes the smear term ‘toxic masculinity’, even if she thinks it is not well applied to Putin. I suppose it is good that even ultraprogressives can notice the limits of identity politics, but this is too far out to be of interest to people outside the in-group.
Excellent Observation. It’s as if she was using a trumped-up beef with “toxic masculinity” as cover to attack everyone and everything from Brett Kavanaugh (hinting that he was guilty as charged – which is just plain ridiculous), pro-lifers, etc.
How strange must the world look through the feminist prism! How bizarre to focus on the issues above amidst the chaos and misery that we see unfolding in Ukraine.
Nowhere have I seen feminist outrage expressed that women are being discriminated against by NOT being forced to remain in the country to fight and die. After all, why does it take a Y-chromosome to pull the trigger on a Kalashnikov or launch an anti-tank missile? Surely, equality of opportunity by total integration of women into the military forces of most progressive western nations is self-evidently a good thing, so why should they not be fully integrated into the defence of Ukraine?
Imagine the treatment of a chap who turns up at Ukrainian border control and claims the right to flee: “Because I am transgender and identify as a woman.’
It takes only a small degradation in the fabric of society for ‘toxic masculinity’ to be urgently rehabilitated into ‘courageous manliness’.
Most forms of wokeism can only survive and prosper in the abnormally oxygen-rich atmosphere of 21st century liberal democracy. The tiniest fracture in the bell jar sees a rapid return of oxygen levels to normal, when most of the ‘….isms’ rapidly become irrelevant
Excellent comment!
There is no such thing as toxic masculinity.
Once again, strawman arguments.
Putin’s world view is informed by hyper-nationalism, not toxic masculinity, or “western hypocrisy.” And there are quite a few Russian women that hold views just as dangerous.
Hyper-nationalism is a very common trait in many nations that feel aggrieved about the post-Cold War world order. The term “toxic masculinity” lacks intellectual rigour, since it can–and is–applied to any male who does things we don’t like.
But “western hypocrisy” is even less rigorous. One can be against the Iraq War (which I was) without seeing it as somehow a greenlight for failed strongmen to make one last throw of the dice.
Introducing meaningless terms about situations that are already well defined shows how low our current intellectual standards have sunk.
Western culture for the last 1500 years has always been based on the idea that humans are very imperfect beings. Hence human societies are also. That a few slogans– based on very questionable social science–will somehow change the human condition is ludicrous.
And toxic.
Swap out, ‘his sense manly virility’ with, ‘his sense of Russia’s virility’, and you paraphrase Putin’s own words.
Add to this the ample evidence that Putin has reached that inevitable stage of despotism where the leader’s sense of self and nation are fused, and it is clear that the proposition is sound (albeit one factor amongst several).
To acknowledge this is not to accept a point of identity politics, but of psychology. Confusingly it is the author who overreaches the identity politics:
The US used gay marriage to cloak drone warfare? Now that is a hilariously ill-informed, decadent and frivolous opinion.
Meanwhile, in the real world, when war started Ukraine called upon *men* aged 16-60, full of toxic masculinity, to fight for the country.
As Bill Burr said in one of his comedy routines, there are no feminists in a house fire.
Correct me if I am wrong but I thought the origin of the term “toxic masculinity” emerged from the mythopoetic men’s movement of the 1980s?
Further, perhaps approaching men’s method’s of acting in the world from a feminine perspective may lead to pathologising male behaviours in particular, rather than seeing such behaviours as those found in both men and women – arguably, perhaps, more often in men. Hence
… certain masculine traits once heralded as beneficial — chivalry, strength, competitiveness — could be potentially oppressive, especially when they metastasise into violent behaviour against women and other vulnerable communities.
It can be argued these so-called certain masculine traits are also found in women, but viewing such traits as particular to men allows for the pathologising of ‘masculinity’ through an inappropriate reduction to only men.
Yes indeed. Masculinity in men is to be discouraged, while in women it needs to be celebrated. I think that this may also be a contributing factor to male-to-female transitions. As women become more man-like, men searching for feminine beauty and sexual ideals attempt to recreate it in themselves.
I commented in a similar “this is too big to look at from an identity politics perspective” on the Julie Burchill article in todays Unherd.
Not even in moderation anymore, it seems, just banned.
Bindel. My comments are vanishing too.
Thanks, keep making that mistake – similar people, as well as names.
I am not an unqualified admirer of Ben Shapiro, but he is pretty much correct about how the ‘west’ (in particular the Anglosphere) looks when viewed from the east. Add a semi-senile (verging on undead) POTUS to the absurdity of wokesters, and it is not hard to see why Putin might have decided he was not going to face serious geopolitical opposition. Frankly I can’t blame him for thinking that, although I am delighted he turned out to be wrong.
Is this a desperate attempt to get acknowledgement of the me!me!me! nature of identity politics into discussions about this war?
How appropriate, the exhibitionists trying to get some attention.
Putin comes from a humble background. He has fought his way to Presidency through foul or other means. Like many before him, he has been in ‘power’ for far too long. This always results in them becoming power crazy and surrounded by pathetic sycophants and they loose touch with the real world. In Putin’s case Covid came along and reinforced his isolation. Then he was diagnosed with terminal illness and is now stuffed with steroids which have exacerbated his problems. IMHO NATO should make a swift and overwhelming strike on his forces surrounding Ukraine and instantly retire back to base. So overwhelming and successful that it strikes the fear of God into all his forces and it must kill as many Senior Officers as possible so as to ‘turn’ all others.
“Toxic masculinity” is a shameful exploitation of society’s mental weakness. Masculinity, feminity, childhood, being at parent, a worker, an artist, a soldier, a nurse…..none if these things are inherently toxic or bad or good.
Journalists and publications paying excessive attention to the terminology created by social warriors is counter productive for society. It’s appeasing or pandering to a cultural terrorism. And public figures are terrified saying things in public these days, least it is misconstrued now or at any point in the future.
Better to focus on plain, non-divisive language that minimises the use of labels. Drop the PC sycophancy. There have been unhinged, murderous despots and warmongers for millennia and quite a few of them were women. There would be more women involved at the sharp end, but patriarchal societies have surpressed female involvement. There really is nothing inherently good or bad about being a man or a woman or being masculine or feminine.