Out of Mark Zuckerberg’s three-hour interview on Joe Rogan’s podcast, one comment stood out to me. The Meta CEO said that large companies needed more “masculine energy”, because the corporate world was becoming “culturally neutered”.
“I think having a culture that celebrates the aggression a bit more has its own merits that are really positive,” he told Rogan. After the interview, numerous commentators rushed to accuse the Meta CEO of toxic masculinity, and of having a “toxic revamp”.
Zuckerberg has previously discussed his love of martial arts and butchering his own meat – anecdotes that can be seen to promote a view of masculinity steeped in archaic rhetoric about male aggression and strength.
Toxic masculinity is generally defined as “the constellation of socially regressive male traits that serve to foster domination, the devaluation of women, homophobia and wanton violence”. This definition was used to describe men in prison by psychiatrist Terry Kupers in 2005, but he also argued that these traits were present in the male population at large.
Yet arguably, Zuckerberg’s comment is reflective of a certain form of patriarchy rather than simply toxic masculinity.
In a patriarchy, men’s power over women is the norm, embedded in the cultural and economic systems that men have built and in which they thrive, and from which women are frequently excluded. Many academics, myself included, have been at pains to define toxic masculinity as distinctive from patriarchy – not all qualities associated with male power (think leadership, strength) are necessarily “toxic”.
Indeed, research has shown that in many circles, masculinity has become more inclusive of different views of “how to be a man”. But Zuckerberg’s comments show that a specific view of masculinity as aggressive still holds power in the most influential spaces. As a result, the distinction between toxic masculinity and patriarchy becomes blurred.
How patriarchy harms men and women
In a patriarchy, even if only a few men are in charge, all men benefit from the unequal treatment of women, which is known as the patriarchal dividend. Even if some men are not obviously powerful, they will benefit from things like certain jobs or university courses being more male-orientated.
Patriarchy has a long history, and as men began wars and fought for domination, ideas about differences between men and women became more pronounced. These ideas are reflected today in gender stereotypes, like the view that women are more caring and nurturing, and men are naturally violent and aggressive.
These norms, which are perpetuated by parents and society from birth, harm men as well as women, for example by communicating to boys that they must be aggressive and cannot share their emotions. It also makes things more difficult for people of all genders who challenge norms of gender and sexuality.
They also create a smokescreen around what men and women are “good at” in terms of the workplace. That there are more men in the tech industry doesn’t mean that men are better at technologically sophisticated work than women are. It’s simply that men have greater opportunities than women do.
This is arguably evident in statistics that show women are vastly underrepresented in computing, maths and IT roles. By saying that companies need more “aggression” and “masculine energy”, Zuckerberg sends an even stronger message that women aren’t welcome.
Threats to patriarchy
It is difficult to argue that Zuckerberg’s business has been “neutered”, when Meta made a net profit of US$62 billion (£50 billion) in 2024. But this is a compelling narrative to men who feel that their position at the top might be under threat.
One of the things that men who benefit from patriarchy fear is losing power. This is reflected in recent political trends. In the US, this fear has been abated by Donald Trump winning the election, while displaying traditionally strong-man practices of misogyny, entitlement and wealth.
This might further explain why in the UK, self-proclaimed misogynist Andrew Tate claims he is interested in running for prime minister. In many cases, whoever is in power sets the tone for what brand of patriarchy is considered dominant.
Read more: Trump represents a specific type of masculinity – and it's dangerous for women
Much of this is part of a backlash to the apparent gains women have made. A recent survey of young people in the UK found that 45% of male respondents aged 13 to 27 said “we have gone so far in promoting women’s equality that we are discriminating against men”.
Indeed, Zuckerberg commented to Rogan that the world had “swung culturally” to a view that “masculinity is toxic and we have to get rid of it completely”. I would argue that it’s not about getting rid of masculinity, but about recognising that there can be more than one way of being a man.
Patriarchy is a hegemonic system, meaning that men being in a more powerful position than women is accepted by both as “the natural order of things”. It is also bolstered by views on race and ability that hold white, rich, able-bodied men at the top. That this is socially valued in US politics today is evident in who was given pride of place at Trump’s inauguration: Zuckerberg and his fellow “broligarchs” Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos.
But what figures like Zuckerberg should remember is that a rigid view of masculinity and “masculine energy” is harmful to men as well, despite the ways in which they benefit from patriarchy. It is known to lead to shutting down emotions in men and even suicide. Not to mention that hypermasculine energy can have a negative effect on workplaces, including leading to burnout and bullying.
Zuckerberg himself took paternity leave after the birth of his first daughter. He must know that it is possible for masculinity to be composed of things other than aggression – but perhaps he needs reminding.
Ashley Morgan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
