Being masculine is a good thing.
By J.B. Shurk
American Thinker
March 20, 2026
For fifteen years now, we have witnessed a social event that has never before occurred in human history: an outright attack on masculinity. As someone who sees human history repeating various cycles (some longer or more complex than others) - and not steadily "progressing" or "evolving" in a straight, predictable line - I find the uniqueness of this war on men a troubling indictment of our current age.
Masculinity is not synonymous with violence. To be sure, violent men are an indispensable component of every emerging civilization. Before the poets have time to speak of virtue and before a class of politicians exist to speak of civic duty, men who are capable of violence must vanquish enemies, intimidate competitors, and move the heavy stones that form every civilization's foundations.
For civilizations to flourish, however, the majority of men must lay down their axes and swords and sublimate any violent instincts into the construction of permanent settlements. When tribes of warriors become guilds of workers, amazing things happen. Men build walls to keep out enemies. They construct freshwater wells and sewer systems to reduce the spread of disease and promote general sanitation. Over time, they become experts with wood, stone, marble, and steel. They build homes, factories, cathedrals, and skyscrapers. They channel their masculinity into strenuous, and usually dangerous, work that transforms small encampments into towns, cities, and metropolises.
Just as men put their weapons aside to build permanent settlements, they put their proclivity for violence aside to build societies. Honor codes and customs restrain violent impulses. Over time, those codes and customs become agreed-upon rules and laws. Those laws form the foundations of institutions that provide a peaceful recourse for otherwise violent disagreements. Men who were, by necessity, forced to defend their own lives (and those of their families) and strike down other men who posed threats to their safety agree to surrender vengeance in exchange for a reliable system of shared laws. Swords are exchanged for writs. Lawsuits replace duels. Whereas once every man was "judge, jury, and executioner" within his domain, societies emerge when men trade those responsibilities for the prospect of general peace.
Masculinity is a great thing. Without it, none of what we have today could exist. To be a man is to know that something dangerous must be done and to do it. To be a man is to fight (even though you may die), to defend (even though it may not be your life that you're defending), and to build (even when blood and calluses are your only rewards). To be a man is to have enough force of will to keep aggression in check and to have enough courage to be aggressive when violence is necessary. A good man must work all his life to remain so.
For at least fifteen years, though, the left has been in a rhetorical war against what Marx's disciples call "toxic masculinity." As with everything the left does, this is a linguistic sleight of hand. It is meant to define masculinity as a "pollutant" or "disease." Leftists pulled the same trick by calling hydrocarbon energies "fossil fuels" and carbon dioxide (the molecule we humans exhale with each breath) a "pollutant." The left attaches pejoratives to people, things, and ideas that it dislikes and uses repetition to program society into believing falsehoods. When an impressionable mind hears the words "toxic masculinity" enough times, there is a subliminal effect: The listener equates masculinity with something poisonous, unwanted, and deadly.
When Delta Force operators infiltrated Venezuela's most fortified compound to extract narco-terrorist dictator Nicolás Maduro earlier this year, were they exhibiting "toxic masculinity" ? When a fireman exits an explosive structure fire with a mother in his arms and a child hanging around his neck, is that "toxic masculinity" ? When work crews endure excruciating heat to pave roads, mine for critical resources, and build new homes, is their masculinity "toxic" ? When the U.S. men's Olympic hockey squad smiled broadly (with plenty of missing teeth) at the State of the Union after upsetting the Canadians, were they suffering from "toxic masculinity" ? When a minister stands before his congregation and leads the faithful down the path toward salvation, is his calling just another form of "toxic masculinity" ? Of course not. To endure, societies require authentic masculinity.
Masculinity is not the problem. The problem is whether men choose to use their natures in virtuous ways. Some men capable of violence use physical strength to rape and murder. Others use their strength to put those monsters behind bars. Some men intimidate and harass those who are weaker than they. Others intervene and put themselves in harm's way for strangers. Some men can't be bothered to hold open a door, give up a seat, walk next to the street, or offer an extra pair of hands. Others do it before being asked. As with all things we humans do, strength of moral character is the quality that shapes and defines our actions. Masculinity is not "toxic." It is an instrument for virtue or a weapon for wickedness.
Leftists are incapable of honestly describing masculinity because they are incapable of honestly differentiating between virtue and sin. They have chosen to construct a gray world in which evil acts are sometimes justified.
For example, leftists want open borders. They believe that every foreigner is entitled to enter the United States. To accomplish this objective, they are willing to ignore, if not condone, acts of horrific violence. They say nothing when illegal aliens abduct, rape, and murder young girls. They block ICE agents from arresting known pedophiles. They turn human-traffickers into heroes and treat terrorist sympathizers as celebrities. They are incapable of condemning foreign men who murder Americans with drugs. They are unwilling to admit that foreign truck drivers are dangerous to everyone else on the road. For leftists, the issue of open borders is more important than saving American lives. Protecting illegal immigrants supersedes what is right or wrong. The ends always justify the means.
In such a world, leftists cannot condemn vice. Everything is relative. Morality is negotiable. Virtue is meaningless unless it can be used to advance "the cause." They blame guns, not murderers. They blame Islamophobia, not Islamic terrorists. They blame toxic masculinity, not sin. Leftists paint with broad brushes because they lack (or ignore their capacity for) moral discernment. It is much easier to condemn all men as "bad" than to consider what qualities make some men heroes and others villains.
What makes the left's war on men particularly destructive, then, is that it not only demonizes masculinity, but also ignores moral character. Society needs both. It depends upon masculine men to do what is needed, even when doing so is difficult, dangerous, and deadly. It also depends upon men to channel their masculinity in virtuous ways, so that the structures and institutions of civilization are built and preserved - not abandoned and carelessly destroyed.
Being a man is a good thing. Being masculine is a good thing. It is leftism that is irredeemably toxic.
This article was originally published on American Thinker.