A believer in “toxic masculinity” challenged Charlie Kirk to defend his position against the “hyper-feminization” of the West, and the challenge led to a thoughtful discussion, even if combative at times.
The Turning Point USA founder took on students of the Oxford Union in the U.K. on May 20 about various topics, but one exchange about toxic masculinity was especially engrossing.
‘We’re actually living under a hyper-feminist West that is toxic. What does that mean? Speech police, feelings first, emotion over reason, community over individualism.’
The unidentified interlocutor first defined Kirk as a supporter of the idea that “there is an active attack on masculinity, that men are being oppressed in a way, [and] that men’s rights need to be advocated for.”
He asked Kirk if he acknowledged other possible reasons for the growing apathy of males in the West.
“Do you see this generation of lost boys as a failure of, like say, masculinity, or are there potential other factors — economic, social factors — such as the death of the American dream, increasing costs of living in America, increased cost of education?”
“Yes, I acknowledge all of them, of course,” Kirk responded. “It’s a very good-faith question, thank you.”
Kirk agreed that some of the causes of the fall of masculinity were rooted in economic decisions in the 1970s, ’80s, and ’90s that led to hardship among the working class.
“A family used to be able to be supported on a single income of 35 weeks of labor a year. Now it takes upwards of 60 weeks of labor a year,” he explained.
“However, given all the economic and social factors, the largest of all of them is the cultural and the educational that has infantilized men and hyper-feminized them in the messaging, in the outreach, and in the treatment.”
When the questioner asked for specific examples of the educational system feminizing males, Kirk pointed to the overmedication of males and the insistence on criticizing “toxic masculinity” in school curricula. They launched into a debate about whether such a thing as toxic femininity exists and why it is not taught in schools.
“Toxic femininity often comes from a reaction to a misogynistic system which fundamentally oppresses and systematically oppresses women,” said the Oxford man. “And I’m not saying that toxic femininity is a good thing, but I’m saying it’s a much more understood and valid reaction to a system of oppression versus toxic masculinity, which oppresses.”
His explanation garnered enthusiastic applause from the audience.
Then Kirk responded.
RELATED: Charlie Kirk exposes the moral rot at Cambridge in a devastating exchange
Photo by Nordin Catic/Getty Images
He argued that “toxic masculinity” was the result of a backlash against the total vilification of masculinity in schools and elsewhere in society.
“Young men see this pattern in the West and in our country, from the authors, from our curriculum, from the music, from the movies. And we see in the educational system proper, we have seen the infantilization of the young male,” said Kirk.
“We’re actually living under a hyper-feminist West that is toxic. What does that mean? Speech police, feelings first, emotion over reason, community over individualism. We’re seeing this. And by the way, is it working? Is the West stronger as it’s become more feminine in the last 30 years? No.”
They went on to debate whether the TV series “Adolescence” was an example of society oppressing young males. Kirk described the controversial movie as a “slow-motion humiliation ritual for the boys of Britain” and asked if a similar series about girls was even possible.
“Could you imagine if there was a similar movie criticizing young women?” he asked rhetorically.
Kirk then cited suicide rates in the Anglosphere to support his thesis that the feminization of the West has led to disastrous results for males.
“I guess I would just ask this question in closing: Do you think men would be happier if they are married and providing for a family?” he asked.
“I don’t think marriage or the institution of marriage is the only way a man can be happy,” the interlocutor responded.
“That’s not what I said,” Kirk replied. “I said generally happier. Do you think men will be generally happier if they’re married, providing, and have children?”
RELATED: How US universities morphed from cradles of liberty to cages of conformity
“I don’t think that’s a necessary factor to contribute to men’s happiness,” the man responded.
“Then what is your solution to bring about male happiness in the West? Mine is men get married, have children, and provide. What is yours?” Kirk asked.
“That’s a good question,” he responded. “Um.”
After a moment of consideration he responded: “I think an affirmation of their emotions, their emotional states. I think an openness to allowing men to express themselves in whatever way they want, even if that is in a more effeminate way.”
The man then argued that British males were unhappy because of austerity, the policy of lower government spending.
“You’re scrambling for an excuse to get away from the truth that’s right in front of you!” Kirk challenged. “Maybe men should get married and have children! Because it’s worked for 2,000 years!”
Editor’s note: This article has been corrected after publication. The debate took place at Oxford, not at Cambridge. It was Tuesday, May 20, 2025. Blaze News regrets the errors.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
