Fragile Toxic Masculine Energy
About a month ago, Mark Zuckerberg sparked extensive critical discussion in multiple media spaces, when he told podcaster Joe Rogan that “cooperate culture had swung to being that somewhat more neutered thing” that lacks “masculine energy.” Unsurprisingly, my first thought was: this deserves a blog post. Now, that I think about it a second time, I wonder if I am really willing to invest my time and “feminine energy” to dive down this obviously deep rabbit hole.
I don’t think Zuckerberg’s statement will surprise anyone, will it? It just fits into his personal narrative, as well as the general socio-political and cultural atmosphere these days. The idea of (superior) “masculine energy” affirms traits of “toxic masculinity,” such as aggression, egocentrism, and power display, as desirable. It thus caters to the ideas of a right-wing and conservative (male) Musky and Trumpy audience (see the Jordan Peterson fan club) that wants to see a biologized gender binary enforced, while it prospers in ableism and transphobia and degrades what it perceives as psychophysiological sociocultural deficits, such as disability or LGBTQIA+ identifications. It joins the campaign against feminism and female “emancipation”—all this for fear of losing control as well as their own masculinity, a masculinity which seems to be measurable in professional success and the degree of attractiveness to women. Very twisted. “Fragile” rather than “toxic” masculinity at its best. If anything, however, Zuckerberg’s statement is merely a reminder that neoliberal capitalism rules the world, and that neoliberal capitalism has always been and can only ever be about the “survival of the fittest” and never about the “survival of all.” In this context, the male agent has never been neutered in his masculinity and masculine behavior—if this is synonymous with self-centeredness, display of superiority, anger, and risk-taking, with the eventual outcome of wealth and political and economic might.
Yes, I am just peering cautiously over the edge of the rabbit hole at this point. But what really itches me is that this masculine energy is actually a vicious cycle of various historical components, or rather the title and product of an exemplary Western fragile toxic assemblage that is thought to keep and thereby keeps Western societies running—straight into conflict, environmental catastrophe, and inhumanity, one might wager.
Zuckerberg, of course, did not need to explain in detail what he meant by masculine energy; in fact, even the critical reactions to his statement did not question that there is such a thing as masculine energy. Instead of questioning the whole concept, many simply called for a “balance” between masculine and feminine energy. It seemed quite obvious that Zuckerberg’s, as well as the popular use of “energy,” is very much in line with what is perhaps understood as the mainstream of alternative spiritual worldviews of the last few centuries. These worldviews propagate the existence of a “subtle energy,” a universal “subtle life force” that is historically grounded in a variety of metaphysical ideas. They are intrinsically linked to the appropriation of non-Western “energy” concepts, such as Chinese qi or Oceanic mana, and non-Western “energy balance” models, such as Chinese yin and yang. For Zuckerberg and the general public, energy seems to materialize as a universal entity bound to the human being and individual character trait with the potential to become a collective atmosphere. Moreoever, energy exists in a female and a male version, which must be in balance for the sake of individual and collective well-being. (The vernacular also translates energy as “vibe.”)
When it comes to what said gender-specific energy entails, different discourses converge. Character and behavioral traits that fall under the heading of “masculine energy” are in some ways congruent with what popular science associates with the “male” hormone testosterone—a hormone whose levels are supposedly not the same for all biological males but vary ethnically and geographically (see here for critique) : “dominance,” “competitiveness,” and “low risk aversion,” though newer studies suggest that only “novelty seeking” is indeed typical testosterone. “Masculine energy” continues a complex process of naturalizing immaterial “masculine” behavior (and material “masculine” appearance). Technically, the use of the term “energy” stylizes “masculinity” into something beyond human biology, but at the same time grounds immaterial gender discourses back into an embodied gender reality—it can be “neutered.”
But fear not, if your testosterone level does not mirror White Western standard. The German TCM (Traditional Chinese Medicine) practitioner (no, I am not linking him) knows that “ancient Chinese medicine” has a solution in store to “boost testosterone without side effects,” because “the common Asian is used to having potency and libido issues due to low testosterone.” So, add to medicinal herbs some martial arts, hunting, as well as typical male sports and fitness training rooted in the nationalist body reform and physical culture movement of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and you might be able to therapy yourself to a strong and healthy masculine body with a strong and healthy masculine mind that reeks of masculine energy. Neoliberal self-optimization guaranteed! Wow, I have indeed dived headfirst down the rabbit hole here.
Let me finish my train of thoughts. “Masculine energy” is not, after all, something that only concerns declared profit organizations like Meta. “Masculine energy” also functions as a driving force in declared educational and critical institutions, their dispositifs and discourses, such as academia. Our code of conduct is very much shaped by characteristics attributed to masculinity in popular discourses, and the “critical” to which we subject our humanities work and research does not translate well to our own behavior under given conditions. In the academic world, it seems, it is always about competition, about winning and being able to compete—academic ability is measured by the visible intellectual strength that one demonstrates in discussions and through the number of publications. No room for weakness, for showing vulnerability—because someone else will thrive on it. So, I will keep my “feminine energy” to myself, I will not tell anyone about my real struggles, because who cares. I will not whine, I will not cry, I will not be soft. I will be all “masculine energy” and quietly celebrate the fact that “masculine energy” is just a socio-cultural historical construction, a toxic fragile assemblage.
Thank you, Mark, for your inspiring words!
#
Lina Aschenbrenner is a postdoctoral researcher in the study of religion with a background in cultural studies. She explores material, performative, aesthetic, affective, embodied, and experiential dimensions of contemporary spirituality from a critical perspective and wonders why critical academic thinking often not yet translates into academic doing. She is also a mother of two girls and will of course NOT stand idly by while “masculine energy” rules the world.
Counterpoint blogs may be reprinted with the following acknowledgement: “This article was published by Counterpoint Navigating Knowledge on 25 February 2025.” The views and opinions expressed on this website, in its publications, and in comments made in response to the site and publications are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Counterpoint: Navigating Knowledge, its founders, its staff, or any agent or institution affiliated with it, nor those of the institution(s) with which the author is affiliated. Counterpoint exists to promote vigorous debate within and across knowledge systems and therefore publishes a wide variety of views and opinions in the interests of open conversation and dialogue.
Photo credits: “WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment) dolls for sale at the toy store Smyths Toys.” © Lina Aschenbrenner, 2025.
