If we are calling out ‘toxic masculinity’ as a society, then why do public responses to softer versions of masculinity shift between curiosity, irony and judgment?
Intro:
Across TikTok and university campuses, young men are rewriting what masculinity looks like today, sometimes with matcha lattes, Labubus, film cameras and thrifted tote bags.
At Toronto Metropolitan University, a “performative male” contest recently drew a sizeable crowd by poking fun at this new TikTok archetype of masculinity. The “performative man” is a new Gen Z term describing young men who deliberately craft a soft, sensitive, emotionally aware aesthetic, signalling the rejection of “toxic masculinity.”
At “performative male” contests, participants compete for laughs and for women’s attention by reciting poetry, showing off thrifted fashion or handing out feminine hygiene products to show they’re one of the “good” guys.
Similar events have been held from San Francisco to London, capturing a wider shift in how Gen Z navigates gender. Research shows that young men are experimenting with gender online, but audiences often respond with humour or skepticism.
This raises an important question: in a moment when “toxic masculinity” is being called out, why do public responses to softer versions of masculinity shift between curiosity, irony and judgment?
I don’t recall there being a phrase to categorically describe men who falsely ascribed “softer” traits to attract women from those times, tho I remember women saying they wanted a more “sensitive” man, and men trying to demonstrate that they were “sensitive” through similar ways.
I do remember sensitive men, either performative or genuine, getting homophobic pejoratives hurled at them, tho. So some things change some things stay the same.