Reflection on “In Praise of Heroic Masculinity”

By Sergeant Major Daniel L. Roberts

Article published on: May 2024 in the Chaplain Corps Journal

Read Time: < 7 mins

In Praise of Heroic Masculinity

In Caitlin Flanagan’s thought-provoking piece, she provides a stirring counterpoint to some progressive ideas about masculinity. Within liberal circles, the phrase and concept toxic masculinity has been popularized to refer to harmful traits attributed solely to men. Quoting from Shepherd Bliss, Flanagan defines the term as “‘behavior that diminishes women, children, other men . . . a way to describe that part of the male psyche that is abusive.’” Such groups have portrayed men as the cause of much evil in the world, including wars, rape, political power struggles, and domestic violence. Flanagan offers another view of masculinity that is worth honoring and has been the source of much goodness in the world: heroic acts of bravery, the protection of the innocent, and service to others.

It is worth noting that masculinity and femininity are both socially constructed terms and have meaning only within the circles in which these terms are agreed upon. For instance, in some progressive groups, the word masculinity is at best met with suspicion and resistance, and at worst, is subject to derision and attack. Flanagan herself notes, “I’ve talked about this topic [heroic masculinity] before, and almost instantly someone interrupts to report in outraged tones the monstrous action of some man who has been in the news. ‘Is he heroic?’ they will ask.” She continues, “In progressive areas, there is a kind of suspicion about boys, a sense that if things aren’t handled very carefully, they could go wrong and the boy might never express his feelings.” In other words, within the culture she refers to there is a worry that boys need to be taught to be sensitive rather than brutish, and if left to their own devices will likely harm others.

Flanagan counters assumptions about men and boys by using an example from a New York Times article. In it, the op-ed the author explains how she tried to raise her sons in a “gender-neutral way.” Even though she taught them the importance of the inner and emotional lives of people, her sons, aged between three and seven, are only interested in shows and video games that involve combat between two dominant male figures. “Despite her best efforts, she has managed to produce boys who care deeply about being heroic and saving good people from villains,” Flanagan reports. She continues, “Let them be who they are, including those boys—among them many artists and poets—who are very interested in what it means to be heroic, in the sense of defending and protecting the weak.”

Flanagan also makes an important point that some ignore. Generally, men “are larger, faster, and stronger than women. This cannot be disputed, and it cannot be understood as some irrelevancy, because it comes with an obvious moral question that each man must answer for himself: Will he use his strength to dominate the weak or protect them?” This is truly the crux of the matter. As Flanagan points out, both men and women are capable of great strength and extraordinary deeds, but what they use their power for is the determinant of whether they are toxic or heroic.

Where the term toxic masculinity fails is that it is essentialism of the worst order. It paints men with broad brushes and attributes brutish, harmful, and violent traits to one gender rather than recognize that anyone, regardless of gender can perform both good and evil deeds. As Flanagan states, there are good cops and bad cops. Good police officers might be men or women and are willing to place their own bodies in harm’s way. Such honorable servants are also ethical and lawful in their use of both legal and deadly force in defense of the innocent. On the other hand, bad cops are those who abuse their power to serve only themselves. Both men and women are capable of toxicity.

Flanagan shows that masculinity can also be linked to heroism. Borrowing from the common mindset that masculinity is normally attributed to men, Flanagan dispels the notion that traditional views of manhood are dangerous and need to change. Rather, the author points out that the same attributes of strength, power, bravery, and control can be directed against foes that seek to do harm. This is heroic and praiseworthy.

Phrases like toxic masculinity only serve to create division among people by painting classes of humans with broad strokes. Taken as a whole, no one individual matches such descriptions completely. We all are capable of both evil and good actions. Rather than create broad phrases, it is better to examine specific behavior. A person who is physically strong, wields great power, and directs that power against the vulnerable is engaging in toxic behavior. If those abilities are used to protect or help the innocent, then the person is acting in an honorable way. These statements are true whether the person in question is a man or a woman.

In my own research with servicewomen who have been morally injured, I interviewed fifty women veterans. They had been harmed in many ways and over 50% of them had been sexually assaulted, some by multiple people. Nearly all participants traced their wounds to a man who had harmed them. Those men represented an exceedingly gross misuse of power and strength. After hearing a few of those stories, it could be easy to accept toxic masculinity as an appropriate term. Participants also told stories of women who greatly harmed them. Would that be referred to as toxic femininity? Neither masculinity nor femininity is the problem, toxicity is.

To an earlier point, masculinity, like femininity, is a socially constructed term. Given society’s current emphasis on gender fluidity and self-identification, words like masculine and feminine become even more difficult to define in ways that are generally accepted. Adding an adjective like toxic skews the debate even further. If one only looks at the adjectives themselves, clarity is immediately available. The issue is not toxic versus heroic masculinity. The question is, did the person, regardless of gender, behave in a toxic (harmful) or heroic (live-saving) way?

In the Army, it is acceptable to refer to both men and women as Soldiers. This is helpful because it orients them to a common group, a group that has a united purpose. Terms like toxic masculinity and even heroic masculinity are potentially divisive because in most people’s minds, they assign behavior to one gender over another. On the other hand, toxic and heroic are terms that can be used with emotional clarity and refer much more specifically to a type of behavior rather than gender.

Author

Sergeant Major Daniel Roberts currently serves as the Chief Religious Affairs NCO in the U.S. Army Reserve Command Chaplain Directorate. His duties include collaborating with the Office of the Chief of Chaplains to help shape chaplain accessioning policy for the Army Reserve (USAR); developing USAR chaplaincy training policy and initiatives; and advising the USAR Command Chaplain, Human Resources Command and the Chaplain Corps Regimental Sergeant Major on religious affairs NCO issues. His previous assignments include the 82nd Airborne Division, the 25th Infantry Division, the 99th Readiness Division, the 108th Training Command (IET), and the Medical Recruiting Brigade.