I’ve watched the debate on “toxic masculinity” and people discussing that topic seem to fall on the far sides of a dividing line. On one side you have folks that see any “masculine” behaviors as toxic and on the other side people loath to call any specific behavior as toxic. The former are the well known crowd that is stunned when little boys are given dolls to play with and immediately bend them in half to work as imaginary guns. The latter are a new lot that is bent on alerting us to the collective failure of so many young men to mature. Neither one seems to have a definition of toxic masculinity which seems accurate or particularly descriptive. I think that is by design, although to what end I can not really say.

What they both agree on (and I think is not controversial beyond people who argue just to argue) is that some behaviors are more likely to be exercised by men and others by women. Men can be extremely nurturing and women can be vicious competitors. But, if you pulled a BoG standard man and woman out of a bag, you’d likely find that men are more likely to apply competition where it’s not wanted and women to nurture when it’s not warranted. These are differences of degree more than kind. You’ll find examples of both traits in each subject, but their application and inclination toward those traits will vary along sex lines. Much like a sheep herding dog will unwittingly and inappropriately start herding anything by nipping at the heels, including children, men and women are bred toward some behaviors more than others. It is no more remarkable than the mating dances bred into even the simplest animal.

What is toxic masculinity? It is the application of a gender stereotypical masculine behavior outside the bounds of healthy utility. For example, not asking of directions when you are clearly lost. Or competing with your spouse or children with the same vigor you compete against your great nemesis in business. It’s that simple. When a father comes home and plays basketball with his 11 year old son with the same physicality, aggression, and assertiveness he would use against other men his age, we find that completely inappropriate. If the excuse is to ‘teach a life lesson,’ we have to wonder what that lesson might be? As his son limps into the house, whimpering, abrased, and defeated, with his father crowing, few would see that as healthy. There is only great risk in the child learning to bully who they can.

That display of unhinged aggression and competition is different from winning against your child because you are taller, stronger, and faster, but doing so with moderation. Tuning back the unbridled aggression to teach both a sense of competition and how to play a good, clean game of basketball, is a nurturing, fatherly act. To understand you play the best game you can, even if you think you might lose, and to acquit yourself well, both in victory and defeat, is part of raising a good man. And to let your boy win when he plays well to enjoy the feeling, cultivating the behavior you expect when he does take the day. It also teaches him there are more important things than winning this round, like teaching and nurturing the good in people over a lifetime. It is possible to have both a competitive spirit and a nurturing soul.

It is also worth learning that more controversial tendencies have their place and time. Aggression, applied poorly, benefits no one. But sometimes aggression is needed. In the extreme example, the Ukrainians are aggressively and forcefully resisting decimation by Russia. Like competitiveness, aggression does not need to be taught to boys, their normal hormones will provide it. But it’s correct and proscribed uses need to be taught. Be aggressive when playing sports, but not boundlessly aggressive outside the rules of the game. Be aggressive when trying to win against a business competitor, but within the confines of the law.

One crowd will demonize any form of aggression as a negative trait a pathological “society” instills in males. (“Society” does no such thing and likely provides bounds for their aggression). The other side will see completely inappropriate aggression as something we should be afraid to censure, lest the lads continue smoking cannabis while playing Call of Duty in their basements. It is their choice to do so. At the end of the day, the best lesson we can teach is they are responsible for their choices. We need to find that middle ground where boys are raised to be good men. Because the other options, of either over-restraining or under-restraining their impulses will not be toxic – they will be radioactive. It will poison not only the current generation but deform the subsequent ones.