The concept of toxic femininity has gained traction in recent years, particularly in conservative and contrarian circles, as a counterpoint to the much more widely discussed "toxic masculinity." While "toxic masculinity" refers to harmful norms pressuring men toward aggression, emotional suppression, dominance, or risk-taking, toxic femininity is often framed as the flip side: behaviours or cultural pressures on women that manifest in manipulative, passive-aggressive, overly conformist, virtue-signalling, or socially destructive ways. Critics argue these traits, when amplified, damage relationships, institutions, families, and society at large.
The recent Spectator article (dated January 24, 2026) by Toby Young captures a particularly pointed version of this critique. In it, Young argues that the real radicalisation crisis isn't young men drifting to the far-Right (as governments focus on via anti-misogyny programs and "toxic masculinity" interventions), but young women surging toward the far-Left. He ties this to an "omnicause" alliance of progressive issues (trans rights, climate activism, intersectional anti-racism, open borders, etc.), amplified by social media's conformity pressures. Women, he notes, score higher on traits like agreeableness and neuroticism, making them more susceptible to social ostracism fears and thus more zealous enforcers of orthodoxy. This, per Young, contributes to institutional feminisation (e.g., universities prioritising "social justice" over truth-seeking, journalism turning activist, "two-tier" policing), widening gender-political divides, and exacerbating fertility collapses in places like South Korea.
Young's piece is pessimistic: without intervention (like spotting "misandry" in girls the way we do misogyny in boys), society heads toward totalitarianism and demographic doom. It's a provocative take, echoing broader conservative laments about "woke" overreach.
Roots in the 1960s "Colour Revolution" Era
I link this rise to the 1960s, often shorthand for the cultural upheavals of second-wave feminism, the sexual revolution, civil rights movements, and countercultural shifts — sometimes called a "long march through the institutions" or "colour revolution" in dissident parlance (implying engineered societal transformation via ideology rather than overt force).
Second-wave feminism (roughly 1960s–1980s), sparked by works like Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique (1963), sought to dismantle traditional gender roles, workplace barriers, and domestic confinement. It achieved huge gains: legal equality, reproductive rights, workforce entry. But critics (especially from the Right and some dissident feminists) argue it sowed seeds of what later became "toxic" elements:
• Rejection of traditional femininity as inherently oppressive, leading to a cultural devaluation of motherhood, homemaking, and biological differences.
• Promotion of hyper-individualism and careerism over family formation, contributing to delayed marriage, lower birth rates, and relational friction.
• Emergence of intra-gender competition and resentment dynamics (e.g., shaming women who choose traditional paths as "betraying the sisterhood").
• In some views, the shift toward viewing men primarily as oppressors fostered chronic grievance narratives that persist today.
By the 2010s–2020s, this evolved into fourth-wave feminism's online activism, cancel culture, and "call-out" dynamics. Some commentators label these as toxic femininity in action: weaponised empathy (e.g., moral grandstanding to enforce conformity), relational aggression (gossip, exclusion, pile-ons), passive-aggressive virtue-signalling, or using victimhood status for power. Examples cited include:
• Social media pile-ons and cancellations disproportionately driven by women (per some analyses of hashtag activism).
• Workplace "mean girl" dynamics or "queen bee" syndrome where women in power hinder other women.
• Dating market trends where ideological litmus tests exclude non-progressive men, widening gender-political rifts.
The term "toxic femininity" itself isn't new — early uses date back to the late 2010s — but it exploded in conservative commentary around 2020–2025, often tied to cancel culture, #MeToo excesses, or institutional "wokeness."
From Smouldering to Inferno: The Current State
If the 1960s lit the fuse (cultural revolution rejecting traditional gender complementarity), the 2020s are the blaze. Social media algorithms reward outrage and conformity; mental health crises among young women correlate with heavy platform use; fertility rates plummet in high-ideological-divergence societies. The result, per critics like Young or Helen Andrews (who popularised the term in some circles), is a feedback loop:
• Institutions become risk-averse, empathy-maximising environments that prioritise feelings over facts or merit.
• Men withdraw (e.g., MGTOW trends, lower ambition in "feminised" fields).
• Society faces demographic winter, eroded trust, and cultural stagnation.
In short: What began as liberation in the 1960s morphed, through cultural drift and digital amplification, into a force many see as corrosive. The inferno metaphor fits the intensity of current debates, but extinguishing it likely requires mutual recognition that both genders can harbour harmful norms, rather than endless finger-pointing.