Abstract
In Nontoxic, Ben Almassi enters the debates on normative masculinity by contending that toxic masculinity is a useful reminder of the need for alternative normative visions of what masculinity should be. In the book, he puts forth his vision of feminist allyship masculinity by engaging with two questions: (1) what, if anything, is left of masculinity when you remove the toxic traits, characteristics, and practices?—allowing Almassi to explore efforts to remake normative masculinity; and (2) what distinguishes these practices as distinctly masculine as opposed to feminine, or human? This allows him to examine feminist androgyny, which is defined as, “a sex-neutral standard of successful human development” (p. 31). For Almassi, feminist androgyny holds the vision of a hoped-for future free of gender inequality but ignores the current reality of gender oppression. In the book, his goal is to establish nontoxic masculine practices through feminist allyship masculinity, which he argues is the best path forward for men (acknowledging complicity in historic and contemporary patriarchal oppression) as men, to contribute to feminist-led projects that are seeking to end gender inequality.
In Chapter 2, Almassi groups the feminist analysis of men and masculinities into two approaches, (a) remaking gender, and (b) setting aside gender. He traces these ideas into the history of white liberal feminist thought in the works of Mary Wollstonecraft’s theorizing to reconfigure and redeem the concept of gender. Second, he presents Harriet Taylor and John Stuart Mill’s arguments for the “reunification of good human properties that have been artificially divided into masculine and feminine” (p. 26), which Almassi suggests set the groundwork for androgyny.
In Chapter 3, Almassi turns to examine androgyny through the works of Mary Anne Warren and James Sterba to highlight the idea that undesirable characteristics and practices are not confined to masculinity - all people can be equally vicious and controlling. Instead, they propose virtuous androgyny which hopes to nurture positive masculine and feminine values in everyone. Almassi’s critique of feminist androgyny is that this approach is at risk of minimizing men’s complicity in structural oppression. Instead, he argues that we should direct our focus on how men reckon with historical and contemporary injustices perpetrated against women, transgender, and non-binary people.
In Chapter 4, Almassi reviews attempts by bell hooks to retain masculinity and “loving manhood” while discarding patriarchy, and Michael Kimmel’s vision that “real men support justice.” These endeavours to reconfigure masculinity work to maintain a gender distinction and reclaim masculinity from toxicity by promoting a vision of masculine practices that are loving, kind, and ethically courageous.
In the final chapters, Almassi critiques previous work to remake masculinity and goes on to synthesize the ideas that men cannot abdicate gender privilege because it is structural and bestowed, and this privilege demands that men reckon with their complicity in gender inequality. He proposes that normative masculine practices should be remade as feminist allyship—acknowledging our privilege and realizing that we cannot rely on our “unchallenged independent judgment about when and how to put his privilege to work toward collective feminist ends” (p. 101). Almassi then takes up an intersectional analysis to integrate the diversity of men into his vision which includes converging multiple oppressions in the project of gender equality—e.g., race, class, ability, sexuality, etc. We must take responsibility for our education and seek deep, long-term relational accountability as feminist allyship practices that contribute to the objective of ending gender inequality. Returning to our shared present of gender inequality, he reframes the toxic masculine refrain to “man up” to a call for men to “stand up” for gender inequality.
Nontoxic reads as an important contribution to the field of masculinities by deftly integrating an intersectional analysis of men’s relationships with women and the objective of gender equality. In defining feminist allyship masculinity, he aligns with many intersectional scholars' goals to end structural inequalities rather than simply define social identity locations. One notable absence was a dialogue with the rich scholarship on hybrid masculinities. Integrating these insights could have allowed Almassi to further explore how his strategies of relational accountability might address instances where men’s feminist allyship reasserts patriarchal power.
Overall, Almassi’s proposal for feminist allyship defined through the practices of accountability and relationality holds great potential for men joining in solidarity from intersectional experiences of oppression—e.g., race, class, ability, sexuality, etc. and the converging political aims these hold with projects for gender equality. His direction reminds us (men) to focus on practices of accountability for our (male) privileged locations and relationality in pursuing a present and future where we focus our efforts on maintaining good relationships—which hopefully guide us well in avoiding the pitfalls highlighted by hybrid masculinities.