Between accusation and self-determination — how masculine may a man still be?
The masculinity debate runs in black and white: toxic or outdated. Neither helps anyone. The real task lies beyond accusation and justification — in a stance you take responsibility for yourself.
Why the black-and-white debate loses everyone
The question "How masculine may a man still be today?" comes up almost daily — and it's rarely asked honestly. On social media, camp-thinking dominates: here the accusation "toxic masculinity," there the defiant defense of the old ways. Both sides win likes and lose the subject.
No one is helped by it. Men lack orientation. Whoever pressures them to change produces resistance instead of openness. And the loudest voices usually want agreement, not clarity.
It's worth shifting down a gear and asking differently: not "Who's right?" but "What stance do I actually want to take responsibility for?"
What we associate with masculinity
Certain qualities have long been tied to masculinity: assertiveness and strength, independence, emotional restraint, dominance, professional success, the provider. These images are culturally shaped and changeable — they were never a law of nature, even if they felt like one.
The problem isn't that these qualities exist. The problem begins where they're made absolute — and where showing feeling counts as unmanly.
When behavior tips — in both directions
Paracelsus already knew: the dose alone makes the poison. That holds here too. Strength or assertiveness aren't the problem; their derailment is.
Toxic masculinity shows in the suppression of emotions, in dominance and aggression as supposed proof of strength, in devaluation and a claim to control. That makes people ill — the man himself and those around him.
Less often named, but real: the other spectrum has its "too much" as well — internalized dependence, passive-aggressive conflict avoidance, pressure to be perfect. The pattern is the same: a behavior that poisons in exaggeration.
Whoever accuses only one side misses the actual question. It isn't which gender produces the better people, but: which behavior is appropriate in which situation?
Out of the judging
This is the central move. We are quick to judge and condemn — people and behavior. That very reflex blocks the solution. Whoever constantly checks whether something is "still allowed" acts out of fear of others' judgment, not out of their own stance.
A brief personal note: in my own background, silence about feelings counted as strength — with the result that suppressed emotions broke out physically and psychologically. The way out didn't lead through a new, equally narrow role model, but through the ability to recognize my own feelings, accept them, and set boundaries. Self-determination instead of conforming to the next ideal.
What helps
Step out of camp-thinking. The question "toxic or outdated?" is a trap. More useful: which concrete behavior serves here — and which harms?
Don't sort qualities by gender. Setting clear boundaries and showing care, being assertive and empathetic — these are human capacities, not male or female ones. Whoever has both spectrums available is more capable of acting.
Develop a stance from within. Not "What am I still allowed?" but "Who do I want to be, and what does that carry?" That is more strenuous than an external rule — and the only thing that holds in a stressful, changeable world.
What this means for leadership
Modern leadership demands the same move. There too the old ideal has had its day — the dominant, never-doubting boss. And there too no new, equally narrow counter-image helps, but the ability to act appropriately to the situation: sometimes clear and boundary-setting, sometimes attentive and listening. Whoever chooses this by effect rather than by role cliché leads more maturely.
Closing
How masculine may a man still be? That's the wrong question as long as it seeks permission.
The right one is: which stance do I take responsibility for — beyond accusation and justification? Whoever steps out of judging gains what no camp can grant: the freedom to decide for himself who he is.