The Rise of Toxic Femininity
2025 was the year of moral panic about ‘toxic masculinity’, with Netflix’s Adolescence summing up the mood among the chattering classes. But the data, far from showing that men are being radicalised by the Right, in fact show that women are being radicalised by the Left. Toby has the details in the Spectator:
At the end of last year, the Government announced a programme designed to tackle the radicalisation of young men in schools. Teachers will be trained in how to spot misogyny in the classroom and children deemed to be at fault sent on ‘toxic masculinity’ courses – an attempt to ‘re-educate’ white working-class boys that’s guaranteed to spawn 1,000 memes. It was billed as a key component of the Government’s strategy to halve violence against women and girls by 2035. Don’t worry about the grooming gangs – the real predators are the knuckle-dragging teenagers, as per Adolescence, which was festooned with Golden Globes by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association last week.
But does Britain really have a problem with young men drifting into the arms of dangerous, far-Right influencers such as Andrew Tate and Tommy Robinson? The survey data suggest that a far bigger issue is young women being radicalised by the far-Left. We’re all familiar with the dinner party talking point that men and women’s political views are becoming increasingly divergent. But the reason for this is not, as is commonly supposed, because men are turning Right.
According to an analysis by the FT, in the 1990s the political ideology of 18 to 29 year-old men and women was more or less the same, with both, on average, mildly liberal. Fast-forward to 2024 and men had become a little bit more liberal – not more conservative – while women had become significantly more so. That is to say, vast swaths of young women have become advocates of the ‘omnicause’ – trans rights, climate justice, open borders, anti-racism and the plight of the Palestinians. The intersectional hierarchy of oppression – and fighting ‘white supremacy’ – is their lodestar.
The same pattern is observable in France, Germany, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States, with young men’s views barely changing over the past 25 years and women veering sharply to the Left. Admittedly, they tend to return to the centre when they get married and have kids, but that’s happening less and less, because woke women don’t want to date non-woke men. As a rule, the more divergent men and women’s political ideology is, the worse the fertility crisis, with South Korea scoring high (or rather low) on both metrics. China isn’t far behind, with the lowest birth rate on record.
What accounts for the radicalisation of young women? The consensus among social scientists is that it has something to do with the rise of social media, which is also a cause of their deteriorating mental health – and the two may be connected. When it comes to the five big personality dimensions, women score on average higher than men for ‘agreeableness’ and ‘neuroticism’, and that desire to fit in and fear of social rejection makes them more likely to go along with the prevailing ideological orthodoxy – which on social media is Left-wing. George Orwell cottoned on to this, which is why he made young women some of the most zealous party members in Nineteen Eighty-Four. We saw the same thing during China’s Cultural Revolution.
The most obvious problem with this, notes Toby, is that “as institutions and professions become majority-female, they are infected by radical progressive ideology and part company with those values that made them successful”.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Woke is a feminist manifestation of totalitarianism.
It’s irrational, hysterical, emotionally charged, accusatory, resentful, toxic, manipulative.
I guess this (feminist manifestation) must be the reason why Woke is in love with the idea of giving men access to women’s toilets, something quite a few women oppose, clearly left-leaning ones like J.K. Rowling among them.
When it comes to the five big personality dimensions, women score on average higher than men for ‘agreeableness’ and ‘neuroticism’,
These personality dimensions are a model of the human mind someone made up out of thin air with no scientific justication for it (not even the possibility of such a justification exists) and considering that only a miniscule fraction of all the women on this planet has ever been assessed according to this model, a statement like women score on average higher than men for […] is entirely unjustified. You’re doing nothing but presenting your and some other people’s prejudices about women.
Do you think Lucy Connolly wasn’t a woman? Or that she – as hinted at in your text – got magically fixed by marrying a man? But if so, how come she married a Tory while ‘broken’?
I further present Annabel Schunke, German ex-model, convicted single and opposed to getting children, also a big Trump fan, prolific right-wing blogger and editorialist (Weltwoche). That’s the one female counterexample to your general statement which is thus logically wrong.
You’re cherry-picking. The statistic is a generalisation – women are, generally, more likely to succumb to bullshit if the bullshit is wrapped up in way that they believe is more empathetic. Because you don’t like it it doesn’t make it untrue. In fact, the denial of basic sex differences is at the heart of the vast majority of problems we now face i.e. if you support the state-driven narrative that the sexes are basically identical, them you are part of the state apparatus and part of the problem.
Question: what do think is the likelihood that there are clearly significant physical differences between the sexes – which the state is working hard at to remove that inconvenience fact – but there are no significant psychological differences? The brain is an organ like other major parts of the body that differ between the sexes and consciousness is not understood (never will be because it is beyond our understanding in this life), so why are you so aggressively against the possibility that we’re not the same? Seriously, what would be the likelihood?
You’re cherry-picking. The statistic is a generalisation – women are, generally, more likely to succumb to bullshit if the bullshit is wrapped up in way that they believe is more empathetic.
You don’t know this. You just want to believe in it. And I’m not cherry-picking. I’m refuting general statements with counter examples. If a general statement is true, there must not be any counter examples.
In fact, the denial of basic sex differences is at the heart of the vast majority of problems we now face i.e
I’m not denying sex-based differences, I’m arguing against a particular kind of difference some people believe to be sex-based despite they don’t have a leg to stand on in this respect. Most women in politics are lefties — even this would need to be proven – is something very much different from “women are naturally lefties.” Do really think Muslim housewives are? They’re women, too.
I think that you will find that these personality tests have been done on enough people to be statistically relevant, even if they are a random selection of traits. Also all these biological studies will tend towards a bell curve, so there will always be outliers, and so no problem with the logic.
They’re aren’t a random selection of traits but an arbitrary postulation of traits some people consider plausible. That’s a classic example of the idealist’s fallacy that truth can be determined by coming up with theories about something instead of by observations and experiments.
These biological studies aren’t biological and aren’t studies. They’re glorified opinion polls of people about themselves and of a relatively miniscule number of people.
Because “social scientists” say so.🙄🙈 A gazillion different ways to interpret data which are collected and presented in a gazillion different ways. But the ‘experts’ say its kosher, so…
Your counter argument is disingenuous and full of fallacies. The continuing feminisation of literally everything is a huge problem that must be addressed.
I guess this is a “thing” to an extent, though it may be possible to overestimate its importance. My club is full of working class men and women and their attitudes to each other seem largely in line with what one might have seen on TV in the 1970s – bloody women, bloody men etc etc, but pretty good humoured on both sides.
I am a woman with mostly right leaning views, however, why would a woman with leftist views be described as ‘radicalised’ or ‘toxic’. And why say that women tend to change their views because of marriage (to a man), rather than because she has got older and, presumably, wiser?
Am I the only one who thinks this article is offensive and misogynistic?
No, you’re not! The scales fell from my eyes during the Covid debacle and I am now apparently a fascist
I think it’s an excellent article making valid, proven points about an observable trend. On a personal level, I have noticed that often the most virulent feminists are actually happily married to a compliant man who tries his best to provide for his wife and children.
Not everyone who dares to criticise women is offensive or misogynistic.
And even if they are, that’s what Freedom of Speech is all about…
I think what you’ll find genuine free speech to be “all about” is reciprocity: you get to say what you want but so does anybody else who disagrees with you. An understanding of this is where you and many others on here fail repeatedly, hence people regularly demonstrate intolerance and hostility towards anyone whose opinions you don’t like, thereby demonstrating your double standards and what hypocrites you are.
I agree with your first sentence entirely but find the rest to be irrational. Surely the “intolerance and hostility” you describe is part of the free speech reciprocity? Otherwise, all we have is an echo chamber which is the antithesis of free speech.
Intolerance and hostility leads to ad hominem, which leads to a name-calling spat, which leads to the breakdown of any form of civilized debate. People kicking off and replying with rude, defamatory or aggressive comments isn’t exactly conducive to reasoned and respectful discourse. This is the tactic of somebody who has no counterargument but wants to beat somebody into submission with their viewpoint and/or is obsessed with getting the last word in because they view it as some sort of ‘win’.
Women is a very broad biological category which applies to billions of people on this planet. I don’t think it’s sensible to make general statements about “women” except insofar these are undeniably biological. And a preference for one of two American parties certainly isn’t. Chances are that most women on this planet don’t even know they exist.
Quite agree, but the article is inkeeping with the general anti-women ( e.g, women are crap and to be blamed for All Things wrong with society ) sentiment of this site, therefore the DS Boys Club ( and flying monkeys ) will lap it up because it confirms their bias. They like their women submissive and compliant, don’t you know?😏
At the risk of some name calling, this site is not anti-women. Women are not blamed for all the evils of the world, no more than men have been blamed for all the evils in the world, eh.? However, for anyone denying psychological differences or physical difference between the sexes its really not credible. In study after study, women are generally found to more interested in people than things, and men the opposite. When riled, men tend towards violence, women towards gossip and innuendo. There are facts well studied, and obvious in normal life. Its obvious in the name calling that you resort to here on these very pages rather than trying to accept and discuss what are peoples genuine observations from real life.. In my opinion, what has changed in society is that through DEI and Equality, women have taken a larger and more senior roles in education, (80% plus female in classrooms) social sciences, medicine, and the public sector. In doing so they have brought their traits into those roles. The education system is something I know quite a lot about. So as an example, school discipline used to be a whack with the cane or slipper, now… Read more »
“…Admittedly, they tend to return to the centre when they get married and have kids…”
Can you point to the alleged “name-calling” you’re accusing me of? The usual misrepresentation of my posts that I’ve come to expect from certain individuals on here when they have a problem with observations i make. Observations based on years posting on this site now. Next you’ll embark on the self-victimisation: “Why are you so nasty/hostile?” tactic, used by your fellow men on here, who can dish it out but can’t take it. You are one such individual who seems repeatedly triggered by my comments and you epitomise what it is to be willfully-ignorant. I wonder why that could be…🤔 This site has always had an anti-women angle and many of the posters latch on to that because it supports their narrative. Why do you suppose I refer to it as a “Boys’ Club”? Because an exclusive club, where only opinions which align with the majority are tolerated, is what this place resembles. Haven’t you noticed the dearth of female commentors on here chiming in with their views on this topic? It’s only ever me, myself and I, because I’m the only one with the balls to speak out and who refuses to conform. If you disagree with my views… Read more »
You’ve accused me and others of misogyny and sexism, almost every time we’ve strayed into this subject, and now i’m ‘wilfully ignorant’. This is a place of discussion and statement of views.We are no more than the words we write and post. I have no idea who is female and male unless they declare it. If you write something I disagree with then I will say so, and explain why I think so. Isn’t that the whole point. No-one is shouting you or anyone else down. You stand up for what you believe to be true, and listen to other ideas. But I’m not duty bound to accept any other opinion, and I don’t feel I should silence myself, because a woman might disagree with what I post.
When I’ve accused anyone on here of being a misogynist it’s because it’s true and based on their anti-women comments/default position of blaming us for everything and i stand by what I’ve said. I can’t help it if many of you are in denial. Or do you mean to tell me that no misogyny exists on these comments sections? Is this the part where you proceed with the gaslighting?🤷♀️ Do you honestly expect people that have demonstrated blatant racism or misogyny, for example, to possess sufficient self-awareness and admit to what they are? A few have admitted to being racist on here, but literally only a few. There is a huge disparity between some people’s perception of themselves vs how others perceive them and they will never admit to what they are, but their posts show the reality. You are the one who stated women manufactured and push all things woke. Myself, and conveniently, articles featured on this site, have refuted you, time and again. The amount of organisations with men at the helm which have embraced the woke madness: be they police forces, armed forces, England Rugby, fire brigades, Jaguar, Universities etc, you name it, who are practicing “positive… Read more »
Well said, sir, well and truly said!
“Birds of a feather….”😏
This (women are crap and …) is basically the Incel ideology. It’s a bit unsurprising to encounter that on the internet.
Some background: The original definition of meme was not “silly picture someone posted on the internet” but the notion that ideas propagate on the internet similar to the way genes propagate in the real world. Once released on the ‘net, the idea travels it on its own using people as hosts for that, combines with other ideas to form hitherto unkown aggregates and mutates into different ideas through errors in reproduction and also, because it’s interpreted in different ways when circumstances differ.
The Incel shit is on the ‘net in great quantities, And hence, it memes, so to say.
I suggest to drop the name-calling as this will only serve to antagonize people. This article is clearly based on unproven and unprovable prejudices about women as “the unknown [and feared] other.” It’s better to refute this (or try to refute it) than to ascribe it to well-known “leftie” slogan-terms (like misogyny).
Pointing out a problem with feminism or feminisation isn’t ‘misogynistic’. If you find it offensive, you’re part of the problem.
What a perfect photo summing up the whole situation!
Including her provocative lowered neckline…
I still think that male television newsreaders ought to have an “Equality-is-Equality” Day and wear their shirts opened and unbuttoned down to the same level as the plunging necklines of their female co-hosts, then cue the outrage!
Or they could bare one shoulder, or cut slits up the side of their trousers to show a bit of leg like their female co-hosts do. Just to make an important point about “Equality”.
She’s wearing a top under the shirt. There is nothing on view and at least she’s not displaying a carefully manscaped chest and a heavy gold chain.
She’s wearing a top with a low scooped neck that would reveal her cleavage if she had one.
And what a silly thing to say about “manscaped chests” and “heavy gold chains”. This is not Africa.
I think the concept of toxic femininity is just as invalid as toxic masculinity. Just simple labelling and categorizations within the social media cesspit.
The interesting thing in the article is the potential correlation of political separation of the sexes and the birth rate dropping, only time will tell.
For the record, when I met my wife over 30 years ago she was classed as right wing and I was ultra-left. Over time common sense prevailed with life’s experience for me to move close to her – which is the opposite of what the article suggests. Maybe I am an outlier….
Current polling suggests that young women are moving from Labour, which is demonstrably failing to voting Green, which would make things even worse. Do these women even want to learn why their energy and economic policies would not work? The combined alliance of Greens, Labour and Nationalists would probably keep Reform from reforming.
Well I would agree with some of the observations in the article but I am not sure what purpose it serves. I think there are less divisive ways to rubbish the clearly rubbish “toxic masculinity” nonsense.
I don’t think anyone should take this as an attack on all women, but that’s easy for me to say as I am a bloke.
It seems to me pretty obvious and uncontroversial that we function better when yin and yang are balanced.
Suffice to say that the made up term “toxic femininity” is as nonsensical as the other made up term: “toxic masculinity”, which is on a par with another absurd term: “Islamophobia” ( also “Transphobia” ). The thing all of these illogical terms have in common is that they’re manufactured specifically to push agendas. Out of principle we should avoid taking part in this ridiculous narrative and refuse to use such words. It goes without saying there are only toxic people, of both sexes. That’s why I feel quite disappointed in Toby ( or is it Will? ) for lowering themselves and coining such a term. Aren’t you just playing into the hands of the woke, progressive idiots? “We men have had enough of being unfairly demonised and demoralised so let’s give the same treatment to women, whose fault it clearly is in the first place.”…Kind of thing. Such an attitude is divisive and unnecessary. I refuse to play along. Which is why whenever an article like this drops I can predict the responses and who will be responding, because this sort of topic feeds existing prejudices and supports preconceived ideas. It’s also a shame that so many enthusiastically jump aboard… Read more »
What i meant to add ( to my essay that wasn’t intended as an essay😳 ) is that I agree with your final point. Males and females should be having a symbiotic relationship, as opposed to an ‘us vs them’ one where we’re at odds with each other. But that’s the work of the globalists/social engineers/Marxists etc, and why woke, and all it encompases, is THE most toxic and damaging ideology of them all. I’m no fan of feminism, but I think certain people give way too much credit to that particular movement. It’s gone far, far beyond anything feminists could conceive of. Also, where are all the feminist leaders? Maybe point the finger at people with actual clout who are in a position to rearrange society, as we see is happening. The Communists, Fabians etc, who definitely include men.
I think most people here would agree with most of what you’ve written, and my guess is TY and Will Jones would readily agree that there are plenty of woke men and non woke women.
I think the point being made, perhaps slightly cack-handedly, is that an excess of let’s call it fake empathy is not helpful for society. It’s possibly the case that you could do a study and observe that more women than men indulge in such excessive fake empathy, but I don’t know what it would prove and where that would leave us.
Better to focus on ideas and arguments, and not lump people into categories.
I think the point being made, perhaps slightly cack-handedly, is that an excess of let’s call it fake empathy is not helpful for society. It’s possibly the case that you could do a study and observe that more women than men indulge in such excessive fake empathy, but I don’t know what it would prove and where that would leave us.
That’s something which cannot be done because indulge in fake empathy is not something which can be measured objectively and because all of these so-called studies involve (and can only involve) minuscule subsets of the population. Even if the latter could be changed, the population isn’t static. People are born, grow up and die and change their opinons. At best, one could compile an accurate historical snapshot: At 2:30pm 27th of January 2028, more women than men were of the opinion … which would be an entirely useless bit of historical information.
Yes, social science is pretty vague stuff, though if many studies suggest similar conclusions which are consistent with everyday experience and with the logic of biology then it’s not unreasonable to give them some credence. But yes, I agree that the “information” is probably not that useful. I’d like to ask TY what difference it makes either way. He’s not daft.
Something which happened to me in the past was that three women approached me in a night club in Reading to make an extensive manual assessment of the tactile quality of my balls. Is this consistent with your everyday experience as well?
That’s arguably an uncommon example. The point I’m trying to make is that your everyday experiences differ from my everyday experiences in ways with both cannot really imagine and both involve only a very limited sector of the world during a given timespan. This doesn’t lend itself to generalizations.
Further, the problems with observational studies (remember the term) by so-called social scientists are systematic and unfixable. All of such studies are based on hearsay with no way to prove that what someone claims about himself or someone else is actually true and they always only apply to a very limited subset of the population. This is not science but mathematically decorated reading of tea leaves and it cannot ever become anything else.
What cannot be measured cannot be researched.
Your nightclub incident only ever happened to me with women on their own rather than in groups 🙂
We have to agree to differ. I think it’s reasonable to observe tendencies and generalise and when your observations are similar to many/most other people you speak to then it’s either a mass delusion (possible) or an observation with some foundation in truth. But one should not get hung up on them and as I said earlier I can’t see the use of this article.
I do stay away from all dogs because some of them are aggressive and can be dangerous and I can’t tell which ones. But there’s no real downside to staying away from dogs.
Historical example which is worth repeating here: Kurt Tucholsky was a Communist German author at a time when the patriotic bouregoisie society which developed during the 19th century was still mostly intact. One of his recurrent laments was that “women” were all natural enemies of the cause because of their inherent lack of empathy for their fellow creatures and their equally inherent tendency to idolize power and those who wield it, the more ruthless the better.
That’s pretty much the exact opposite of the empathy claim made by someone from the other group ‘women’ are nowadays said to flock to ‘inherently’. He obviously had by-and-large the same prejudices about women and their lacklustre abilities as the people behind this article, just his conjectured outcome was 180⁰ different.
I liked the acronym in the latest Gato Malo substack: AWFULs (affluent white female urban liberals).
https://boriquagato.substack.com/
Linking Andrew Tate and Tommy Robinson together, and labelling them both ‘far-Right’, is cheap.
Absolutely spot on!
It’s intentionally employed BS. Maybe sometimes unintentionally because of stupidity. But I’m pretty convinced that there are some sharp PR people at the bottom of this who just work for the other camp.
The article photo has the young lady sneering down her nose at the young lad , so called fiction but the message & labelling shown here is clear , however it’s a million miles from where real & serious threats come from in todays re jigged society .
I’ve been with this site since it started in 2020. I have NEVER felt that it has an ‘anti-women’ view. Why don’t I contribute more? Well, those who have been here as long as I have might remember that I did in the past comment quite a lot. I stopped commenting (much) when we had to have a b____ password. I think it was because my usual passwords were ‘too weak’ and I had to come up with something else, and on the occasions I do want to comment, I have to go and find my ‘clue to passwords’ list to be able to, and usually end up changing my mind. (Which in many cases is not a bad thing.) I suspect this is the case for many who used to contribute more. Nowadays, it’s the same small group of people talking to each other.)Why do men tend to comment here more? Well, yes – it’s because, certainly in my circle men tend to be more forthright and ‘right wing’ and yes, women, on the whole, worry more than men do about being ‘kind’ (or worry more than men do about being seen as nice, kind people). It’s true….me, Mogwai… Read more »
That’s basic logic: A general rule must apply generally, which means there must not be any exceptions. When talk about women without qualifying this further, their statements must be applicable to all women. Declaring that all women their statements don’t apply to are simply not proper women (“outliers”) is an instance of an informal logical fallacy called No true Scotsman.
I don’t know how most women are because I’ve never met most women and neither have you. We can both just speculate about this. Or – which is what I prefer – accept our ignorance and don’t speculate.