Patriarchy places special expectations on men. Men are trained to fulfill those expectations, that is, socialized. This socialization determines the way they view family, society, and politics, the way they think, the process of understanding any situation or event, as well as how they view women and their identity, bodily integrity, and reproduction.

Such socialization is crucial to maintaining male dominance. Such power-centric expectations trap men in the swamp of toxic masculinity, which is one of the main weapons used to maintain patriarchy.

This tendency to give men unlimited power affects women and other marginalized communities due to unequal power relations. However, it is men who are affected the most. In this context, South Asian feminist Kamala Bhasin said in a television program that toxic masculinity makes men harsh, authoritarian and violent and dehumanizes them.

Social justice activist and author Bell Hooks said that the first violence that patriarchy demands from men is not violence against women, but rather that patriarchy forces all men to engage in acts that psychologically damage their own existence. 

Therefore, this is not just a male-centric criticism, but an analysis of how the patriarchal system poisons the male class through socialization to maintain structural discrimination. 

Feminist writer Kate Millett has called patriarchy a political institution. Because it is linked to power and decision-making. Who will exercise power? What will the policies and rules be? These are determined by the administrators of this political institution. Socialization 'classes' are operated based on sources such as religion, tradition, narration, myth, etc., and power holders are produced from this patriarchal furnace. This process extends from the individual, family, and society to the state level. 

According to another feminist historian, Uma Chakraborty, social laws based on religion make women a symbol of morality and purity, while establishing men as controllers and rulers. Through these laws, a power-holding class is created through socialization. 

Socialist philosopher Friedrich Engels has linked male dominance with the ownership of personal property. According to him, male dominance is not natural or biological, but rather a social structure that emerged with the rise of private property. When society moved from collective ownership to private property, men began to control women's sexuality and reproduction in order to pass on their wealth to their children. It is also argued that this process institutionalized patriarchy and toxic masculinity. 

We discussed the source and growth process of toxicity. Now let's talk about current politics and the attitudes of those who consider themselves or want to consider themselves power holders and the toxicity within them. What kind of leader do we envision? What kind of character do we see in the figure of a leader?

Change would be possible if there were leaders who were ethical, respectful of everyone, inclusive, accepting of diversity, and who could be the representative and voice of communities that were particularly affected by historical discrimination. However, in a society where men have occupied leadership positions and roles and encroached on women's place, can we get the leaders we want until the socialization process described above is transformed?

Today's socialization is such that women are constantly being excluded, discriminated against, and subjected to violence based on caste, class, gender identity, sexual orientation, access, and physical condition, while men are being made rulers and violent based solely on gender. Such a socialization, where no one can rise above the lust for power. 

Recently, even through the proportional system, the close-knit, wealthy, and accessible were shamelessly elected. They were displaced by relying on a system that came from the struggle of the common man. The tendency to remain focused on power alone and not accept the existence of others is a strong example of toxic masculinity. 

A few days ago, the daily 'Kantipur' made public the violent statements of some leaders. Those statements contained words full of revenge and hatred such as cutting, killing, and burning. Youth leader Balen Shah's Facebook status of burning Singha Durbar, UML leader Mahesh Basnet's statement 'Ki malai khukuri le rate, ki retin tiru ho' angered thousands of youth. And, it further strengthened the narrative that such expressions are natural for men. 

Moreover, misogynistic expressions were heard from the mouths of the younger generation as they expressed their anger. For example, Sudan Gurung, who claims to be a Gen-G activist, made derogatory statements about women like 'We are not wearing bangles'. This makes it clear why the current situation of the country and the status of women is like this. The political environment is created according to the thoughts and expressions of the leaders, and the prevailing norms in society and our socialization determine the behavior of male leaders.

What is even more surprising is that whether old or young, educated or uneducated - there is no significant difference in the behavior and attitude towards women. There is also no big gap in the way of understanding and analyzing social issues. Therefore, there is a big gap between our desire for society to remain conservative but need leaders who are transformative and the reality. How will young people and so-called traditional leaders with such thinking develop?

Toxic masculinity is a pattern of thinking and behavior created by society, where aggression, violence and dominance are considered symbols of ‘masculinity’. It considers emotional sensitivity, care and empathy as weakness.

It considers control over women and sexual and gender minorities as natural and presents power, authority and decision-making positions as the natural right of men. And, it does not accept women's leadership. Women's participation is seen only for the purpose of increasing votes and seats in elections. In patriarchal state systems, women do not easily reach leadership. Even if women rarely take leadership roles in complex and forced situations, it is only an exception. Because women's leadership rights have not yet been institutionalized. 

This thinking is not limited to control over women's bodies. It also attacks democratic systems and sovereignty. It embraces power-centered, colonialist and expansionist policies. Toxic masculinity is fueling gender violence, militarization, authoritarian leadership, and a natural economic model that exploits nature. Wars are fought in the name of honor and power. This is what so-called power nations are practicing in many countries around the world, including Gaza and Venezuela. Toxicity is a threat to democracy. That is why patriarchy is global – it is directly related to power. 

In the recent Gen-G movement, despite the participation and sacrifice of everyone, placing a few people at the center, overshadowing women's contributions, nullifying women's participation in political decision-making, promoting hate speech through male deification on social media, and reducing ideological debate to a nullity, all these are the effects of toxic masculinity.

How can constitutional rights be ensured in such a situation? How can the achievements brought about by sacrifices and struggles so far be preserved? And, how can the equality, prosperity, and corruption-free society seen by the Gen-G movement be built?

Looking at the increasing violence, inequality, environmental destruction, political instability and corruption that are increasing around the world today from a feminist perspective, these crises did not arise separately or coincidentally. All these crises are deeply connected to the toxic masculinity and leadership that is generalized within the patriarchal power structure.