Don't drink the Toxic Masculinity Kool-Aid!

Let me be very clear, dear reader. ‘Masculinity’ in itself is not evil. Masculinity, femininity, alllll the ‘inities’ have the potential to become toxic when they are exclusionary and cause physical, emotional, and psychological damage to individuals. It is ‘toxic’ after all, aka ‘poisonous’. 

I’ll first define ‘toxic masculinity’ for those who live under a rock and don’t follow Terry Crews on X. In my interpretation, it’s aspects of masculinity which are socially destructive, like homophobia, misogyny and the expectation to be strong, manly or unfeeling and the leaders of society. 

TLDR for anyone who hasn’t read

Set in 1970s Australia, “The Altar of the Family” by Michael Wilding follows the gentle soul of young David Murray who strives to understand the complicated and often contradictory social rules that govern his world, including his complex relationship with his father. The father is your typical, wealthier, 70’s dad who, in a manner entirely reminiscent of my grandpa, demeans traditionally ‘feminine traits’ and pushes expectations of strength and ‘masculinity’ onto David, who constantly disappoints. In order to gain his father’s approval and adopt the type of masculinity his father and his society prefer, David shoots a possum one night, going against his own, strong values of beauty, peace and an appreciation of nature. In the morning the possum’s body is nowhere to be found, so he has failed in his ‘manly’ duty and has no trophy to show for it. 

When we take into account the drinking and sports culture of Australia, it becomes pretty clear that toxic masculinity can be considered to be entrenched within our society. This UNSW article tackles it well. First, let's dive into the context of this story, how it's still relevant today and what it means to be ‘a man’ in Australian culture. The averages 1970s man in Australia loved the footy, drinking, a root and mullets (which are making a comeback - just another sign toxic masculinity is on the rise) and there was a culture of misogyny within this. They were physically superior, dominated women, viewed females as sexual objects and were protective of anything perceived to be theirs (like land or their wives.) They often asserted this dominance through violence, which is toxic because its not a healthy way of expressing emotion. Much of these expectations persist today. 

With the likes of Andrew Tate on the rise, it is clear more so than ever we have to encourage healthy masculinity, outlets and treatment of other genders amongst our young boys. So, even though Wilding wrote this story 30 years ago, its message about constructing a healthy image of masculinity for young boys is still so relevant. But what does toxic masculinity look like in this short story? What kind of a man does the father want to raise?

Be a man!!!

David’s father (trigger warning, he’s like a modern day Ben Shapiro) can be considered a representation of the expectation of contemporary Australian society for men to be emotionally reserved, physically and mentally strong and protect their property, including their house and female partner. The father is the perpetuator of masculinity throughout the text, and plays a villainous role in the story towards David as he accuses him of being ‘unmanly.’ His power over David is cemented by his lack of a name, dehumanising him and presenting him only as a figure of authority, “Father.” The word ‘Dad’ is used more commonly but David does not call Mr Murray this, as ‘Dad’ connotes warmth, but “father” connotes authority and distance, introducing the negative characterisation of Mr Murray. 

Wilding constructs the character of the Father through zoomorphism, eliciting disgust in the reader at the ‘beastly’ and ‘piggish’ at his actions. Zoomorphism is used to describe the Father exclusively at times when he is exhibiting and enforcing typically ‘masculine’ traits like strength, force, violence, the physical over the emotional, and protecting what is his; like when he is discrediting Father Flynn and yelling about killing the possum he “snorts” out his sentences. His daughter then goes so far to say “You’re a brute, a pig,” enforcing this representation of the father as a ‘piggish’, ‘beastly’ man BECAUSE of his violent and forceful actions. So the Father’s toxic masculinity is not constructed through zoomorphism, the character is, but because he is portrayed as swine and detestable, we come to detest the values he stands for, like male superiority.

The father is misogynistic towards David’s sister, Lindy, and its here we see aspects of his toxic masculinity. When she cries about the potential death of the possum he snorts “Lily-livered chicken-hearted girlish-” at her distress, detailing his belief that ‘femininity’ involves being cowardly, weak and “lily-livered.” The motif of animals is also used here. He describes her as “chicken-hearted” and cowardly because of her appreciation for natural life, which he stands against. This presents him as an authoritarian, inconsiderate figure. This is just one example of where he dismisses an opinion because it is “girlish,” therefore evidence of his flawed mindset. So, through this representation of the misogynistic Father as swine-like, a common literary symbol for the unclean and disgusting, Wilding positions us to criticise the beliefs of male superiority and strength that he stands for, presenting them as less evolved and troglodytic through zoomorphism.

An interesting note here reader is that Pigs will eat anything, including their own young. When we take into account the swine-like representation of David’s father and how it is his expectations on David that cause this metaphorical death, David is indirectly ‘killed’ by his father. This could symbolise that the Father is prepared to hurt or ‘eat’ David in order to please society’s expectations of what a man should be.

Spoiler alert - David (kind of) dies!

Wilding shows the negative impact contemporary expectations of masculinity have on young boys through David.

He gives up his innocence through shooting the possum, and experiences a metaphorical death in the process. Before he shoots the possum, we read that ‘He was stiff with terror’ and his trepidation ‘convulsed his stomach, his bowels…’ This is a deep physical rejection of his values; his body is protesting but he ignores it because of his deep desire for his Father’s approval.  So, in this instance, Wilding shows how by being forced to conform to this toxic image, it is at the detriment of the true values and dreams of our young boys. They are being forced into a mould they do not necessarily fit. 

When he shoots the possum, his mother’s lilies “stood still in the moonlight like altar flowers,” bringing an ethereal quality to them and the description of them as “altar flowers” connotes death. Yes, possibly the death of the possum but as the possum disappears, perhaps the death is of David’s true identity which is much more complex. 

After shooting the possum, Davis is ‘sick…his duty done’. He has taken on the violent role society expects of him but at the expense of his inherently gentle nature. Instead, David has been transfigured into “an automaton figure on a mechanical clock, chiming futile time in the flat emptiness of eternity.” He is no longer a living human boy, but rather now another machine who has conformed to the expectation of who he ‘should be,’ violent and protective as a male, and has, because of this, lost his individuality and himself. The description of him as “automaton” further implies he’s conformed to the expectation of him to be feelings. The use of “eternity” further emphasises this metaphorical death, with David now living in an eternal ‘afterlife’ of sorts, instead of his finite human life, he has given up what made him individual and human, (his inherent values of gentleness and beauty) in order to conform to society’s expectations of him as a young man. This shows the tragic way toxic masculinity can impact young boys. 

Through David’s efforts to conform to his Father’s expectations, as a representation of the greater standards set upon men, David loses himself in the process, sacrificing himself on the altar of both family and masculinity, whilst revealing the tragic impact of toxic masculinity on men themselves.  He drinks the ‘toxic masculinity’ Kool-Aid the likes of Andrew Tate are currently spewing but gives up the most precious parts of himself. Wilding’s purpose is clear, he urges us to change. We cannot continue to set these standards upon men, because it benefits no-one, not even the men themselves as, like David, they might lose themselves in the process. 

Word Count - 1420 words