The historical and social discourse around masculinity, particularly toxic masculinity, has evolved over time, shaped by different cultural contexts. The term "toxic masculinity" itself emerged in the late 20th century as part of the men’s movement but has since been embraced more widely to describe behaviors that reinforce dominance, emotional suppression, and aggression. However, its roots can be traced much further back.

In the Victorian era, masculinity was heavily tied to ideals of stoicism, physical strength, and duty to the nation. Public schools emphasized these traits, and men were expected to be emotionally restrained and physically formidable, a culture reflected in the popularization of "muscular Christianity" and imperialist ideals. These cultural forces shaped a version of manhood that still influences today’s notions of masculinity, particularly in Western societies. This Victorian ideal established a foundation for modern-day expectations of male dominance, where being "unemotional" or "tough" became synonymous with being a real man [oai_citation:4,Man Up – The Victorian Origins of Toxic Masculinity – The Historian](https://projects.history.qmul.ac.uk/thehistorian/2017/05/12/man-up-the-victorian-origins-of-toxic-masculinity/) [oai_citation:3,Men and Masculinities: Structures, Practices, and Identities | SpringerLink](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-41531-9_12).

Critics argue that such notions are self-destructive because they suppress emotional expression and vulnerability—qualities essential for psychological well-being.

Scholars, including those studying hegemonic masculinity, have shown that these expectations also marginalize men who don't fit the mold, including those who express traits like empathy or emotional intelligence. This not only harms individuals but perpetuates systems that elevate dominance over cooperation [oai_citation:2,Men and Masculinities: Structures, Practices, and Identities | SpringerLink](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-41531-9_12).

Modern thought critiques—that asserting dominance through economic or physical power is actually "weakening”

It's an argument that men who cling to superficial markers of strength (e.g., money or brute force) are hiding behind a fragile concept of masculinity. In philosophical terms, this aligns with Sartre’s concept of bad faith, where individuals lie to themselves to avoid confronting the complexities of their freedom and identity [oai_citation:1,Problematizing Men and Toxic Masculinity | SpringerLink](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-07088-4_3).

Similarly, Nietzsche’s will to power suggests that true strength comes not from dominating others but from overcoming one’s own limitations and creating new values—something toxic masculinity fails to achieve.

So, when we say a post like this is "unmanly," it's not about dismissing traditional gender roles. It's about exposing the false bravado that masks insecurity, the fear of confronting emotional vulnerability, and the refusal to adapt to changing social realities. The argument isn’t just philosophical—it’s grounded in history, psychology, and social evolution.