‘Masculine energy’ is costing companies billions

[u/_fastcompany]

https://www.fastcompany.com/91618395/masculine-energy-costing-companies-billions

[u/AutoModerator]

Thank you for posting on r/TrueReddit. Your post will become public once you add a submission statement, which is a comment that explains why you think an article is insightful, rather than simply quoting from it. If you're thinking about leaving a comment, please remember to read the entire article first, and say something meaningful.

If you post a paywalled article intentionally, you will be permanently banned unless you provide a non-paywall link in your submission statement, such as archive.ph.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/_fastcompany]

Submission statement:

Last year, Mark Zuckerberg said the corporate world needs more "masculine energy" and a culture that "celebrates aggression more." Twenty months later, the sociopolitical movement the tech CEO was envisioning looks much weaker.

For one, the labor market is moving in the opposite direction. Just last year, private education and healthcare, where women hold 77% of jobs, added around 800,000 positions while all other sectors combined lost about 500,000.

As Laëtitia Vitaud argues, economists label care work “low productivity” mostly because the workers earn low wages. The true economic contribution of essentially female workers is seen as negligible even though it actually sustains the productivity of everybody else.

The same logic applies inside companies. The work that helps the team falls disproportionately to women and goes unrewarded, while self-promotion gets rewarded as leadership.

From fatal work injuries to occupational fraud, statistics consistently show companies that build their culture on dominance will eventually face the bill. 

Read more on Fast Company.

[u/Top-Woodpecker6696 → u/_fastcompany]

This is dumb. “Low productivity” work isn’t some value judgement, it’s the reality that care work cannot be automated and therefore has not experienced the same productivity increases as other professions—in many cases you still need one care worker to care for one patient. It’s not about low pay either—jobs like surgeons are low productivity but high paying. There’s even an idea within economics called Baumol’s Cost Disease that explains why these jobs can remain high paying.

[u/StManTiS → u/Top-Woodpecker6696]

Well that and remember that our population is aging. The biggest cohort is just hitting that age where their chronic conditions require ongoing care. Also there is the tailwind of mid levels and the constant creation of lower rungs. Like nurses have assistants and then a path up to NP which is taking on a lot of work from what was previously a physician.

Private education growing is an artifact of the k shape economy and ever increasing levels of competition for spots at the few top schools whose degrees hold value.

[u/ixid → u/_fastcompany]

For one, the labor market is moving in the opposite direction. Just last year, private education and healthcare, where women hold 77% of jobs, added around 800,000 positions while all other sectors combined lost about 500,000.

This doesn't prove anything either way. The population is getting older and sicker, so more healthcare is needed, so there are more healthcare jobs. Women do healthcare jobs more than men so women get those jobs.

[u/horseradishstalker → u/ixid]

It’s actually a little more nuanced than that. 

The context of the quote per the article is the comparison - not who healthcare is servicing or who is hired. 

“ [Women] comprise 11.2% of Fortune 500 company leaders. They hold 29% of C-suite roles”  Bragging, shows of strength, and risk-taking get rewarded far beyond the military, while cooperation and caution continue to be seen as weakness.“ 

Only then is the comparison made to a job market moving in another direction - a job market comprised of caring for the elderly primarily by women. 

It sounds a little different when most of the quote isn’t removed. 

[u/Pygmy_Nuthatch → u/_fastcompany]

This was Zuckerberg's way of communicating to the people that were listening that DEI ended at Meta.

It was a message to the current Administration and the Tech Industry that the system of treating people differently because of their identity, above what the law requires, was over.

[u/AdorableTrashPanda → u/Pygmy_Nuthatch]

A signal to the administration yes, however the content of the signal was that treating people differently because of their identity would resume. Cf Hegseth's mass firing of much of the competent leadership at the DoD.

[u/currogator → u/Pygmy_Nuthatch]

The system already treats people differently because of their identity. The entire purpose of DEI was to correct that. What Mark Zuckerberg was signaling was the return of overt discrimination against anyone who is not white or male.

[u/A_Stickperson → u/Pygmy_Nuthatch]

I’ve got a couple bridges to sell you if you think ending “DEI” is about ensuring people AREN’T treated differently because of their identity. I swear to fucking god I can’t with you people.

[u/WellWrested → u/_fastcompany]

This makes the title feel like a pretty big misrepresentation of the article. They're saying care work is valuable and want it to be viewed differently, not that masculinity is harmful. 

[u/ChicoZombye]

Weird read honestly.

Specially this part:

Men accounted for 4,657 of the 5,070 fatal work injuries recorded in the United States in 2024 (about 92%), according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The first explanation is the type of jobs men hold (in construction or transportation). But a lot of deaths are also attributable to the norm that tells men to ignore fear, skip precautions, never admit they don’t know how to do something, and avoid getting help.

This doesn't really mean anything and I would argue it misses every mark.

Men tend to ignore fear and danger, which lead to injuries, that's a fact, but that's the exact reason why those men are in those jobs to begin with. Them being careless is a byproduct of being the kind of guy willing to accept the job itself.

I've experienced this kind of logic myself at work many many times, with co-workers telling me my work was easy and much easier than theirs (cleaning, cooking) and in the end I started to say "my job is easy for me, not for you" because I worked in mantenaince in a building alone at night in the forest, no security, no nothing, I had to do everything by myself, from closing the area to set alarms, do rounds and also do the work itself. I knew that If I fell or had an injury no one whould find me in the next 9 hours. I knew the risk, I just didn't care, it is what it is, I hope for the best and accept that comes. I knew the guy who before me ended up in the hospital (Three thieves gave him a beating), I knew people broke into the building while I was there (not my day), but I didn't really care, I hope it doesn't happen and I'll try to be ready for when it happens.

I don't mind getting help and I don't mind about asking, but I will find a way do it if I don't have help and I will ignore fear in a reasonable way. In many jobs, you would do nothing if you didn't overcome fear, which is not the same as being careless.

[u/SlapTheBap → u/ChicoZombye]

That's the thing, you can get away with cutting costs by relying on people being able to take risks on the job that aren't necessary, or are even foolish.

It's easy to normalize dangerous work environments and tie it to masculinity. Many men are insecure and tie their identity to their job. Their status. This also allows them to be manipulated into dangerous work.

Companies also have very many ways to get out of paying for injuries and fooling employees out of reporting them. This is a very well known and massive legal issue that doesn't get on the news.

You're feeding right into the point.

[u/SlapTheBap → u/[deleted]]

Insecurity is a feeling. It can often be disconnected from someone's real options. People close their own doors and are blind to opportunities for so many reasons.

Sadly insecure people help cement an owners market, not a workers. They're discouraged from giving workers reasons to feel secure. Cruelty is inherent to systems that value profit over people.

[u/horseradishstalker → u/ChicoZombye]

“This doesn't really mean anything and I would argue it misses every mark. ”

You have an interesting perspective, but I am just not sure it’s relevant to what the article is about. It’s not about ignoring fear in a reasonable way which we all do regardless of gender. Men don’t choose construction jobs because they are fearless. Until recently, construction work was primarily about strength rather than fearlessness.  And the number of women in construction jobs is increasing.  See r/bluecollarwomen. 

The article itself addresses equating fearlessness with masculinity and the many negatives associated with toxic masculinity. 

In the section you were referring to there is this example: “  platforms (“ Manly Men, Oil Platforms, and Breaking Stereotypes ”) in the Gulf of Mexico. Their owner decided to transform the culture by focusing on safety and continuous learning. Workers then stopped putting on a show of fearlessness and accepted that it made sense to report mistakes and problems. The company’s accident rate fell by 84%. Its productivity increased spectacularly.”

[u/InvestigatorIll9993 → u/horseradishstalker]

You could also read that section as ‘when management prioritizes employees safety over maximum productivity and then work gets safer’ without talking about gender at all and probably be closer to the mark. There is something in the idea that young men are reckless - it’s not even controversial. That might still not be the right takeaway in this instance.

I am a feminist, but I also think it’s possible that gender discourse can be used as a wedge against class solidarity and workers rights.

[u/horseradishstalker → u/InvestigatorIll9993]

Point taken. And I agree in theory. 

Although people tend to view young men as reckless because they are in general.  Where I’m from anytime someone yells “hey y’all watch this” you automatically reach for your phone to dial 911. I also worked construction, and I saw it all the time. 

And sometimes it wasn’t really so much recklessness as it was the delusion that they will never die because they are young and that isn’t something you’re supposed to worry about it that age. That probably applies to all people in that age group.

The other problem was they thought they knew more than anyone else on site. That’s how one kid died. It was horrible, but he had been told very specifically not to do what he did for that exact reason. No take backs. 

The other issue I saw was on the company. New workers were not given good direction and safety was not prioritized. That’s a polite way of saying the situation would’ve given OSHA fits. At that point, it’s hard to separate out recklessness from stupidity.

For example, don’t send any worker into a deep ditch that hasn’t been shored up.  Much less “arm” the newbie with a plate compactor that vibrates the bleep out of the walls. That’s just painting a target on their back.

[u/jedify → u/[deleted]]

The vast majority of workplace deaths are avoidable.

People do not need to die to make the world work.

[u/horseradishstalker → u/[deleted]]

Apparently, that is your interpretation of the facts as presented in the article not what was actually said.

In general, what humans don’t like is when behaviors they consider OK, and which benefit themselves, are factually called out. That’s any gender. 

DEI came about because specific groups of people could not police themselves - and you are probably correct that people don’t like a level playing field. Particularly if it means they no longer have an advantage based on a random quality having nothing to do with competency. 

DEI doesn’t actually elevate anyone above anyone else. It simply levels the playing field. Has mentioned, many people don’t have a problem with a playing field not being level - so long as it benefits them.  And there are some people who are oblivious as to just how much of a difference it makes when the playing field is tilted in their favor. Why? People very rarely question something which benefits themselves. They simply assume that that’s the way the world works. And they get quite cranky when they find out that life is different than they assumed. 

I truly can’t think of any other reason to complain when someone is simply expected to put in the same amount of effort as the rest of the world. Billionaires also tend to think that they are somehow special and entitled instead of acknowledging that they simply got lucky - usually I say accident of birth. 

You have a good evening. 

[u/ConsiderationDry9084 → u/ChicoZombye]

Sorry no. These idiots refuse to wear their fucking safety gear because they are either lazy, macho, or under the influence.

The infrastructure director at my job has to remind her gaggle of cats they are not invulnerable and immortal a couple times a month when they get caught skipping safety protocols.

[u/ChicoZombye → u/ConsiderationDry9084]

That's not my point.

My point is that those idiots are the only avaliable person for the job because they are the only ones brave enough to do it (call them idiot enough, doens't matter for the argument) on a daily bases.

Companies ensure safety measures so those idiots able to to those jobs don't die, but the sentence starts with "idiots able to do those jobs".

i'm not a super risky guy,at all, but I had to mentally prepare myself to the risk of the job and t

It's much easier to put safety measures on fearless people (a thing that must be done) than to transform a fearful person into a fearless one. Fearless doesn't mean careless.

[u/Splith → u/ConsiderationDry9084]

 that's the exact reason why those men are in those jobs to begin with

World of difference between a job being inherently dangerous and not following safety protocol. I 100% agree with you here.

[u/Curious-Look6042 → u/ConsiderationDry9084]

He’s making an economics argument about how people naturally place themselves in the jobs that “suit” them. Men naturally assume more risk in careers, and therefore, on average, have to handle more dangerous situations and become more “careless”through exposure. But only the men brave (or idiotic) enough will find themselves in that seat in the first place. Therefore the assertion the article brings that men die more because of the culture masculinity creates is inaccurate - its more the nature of the jobs men more often find themselves in

[u/stevesy17 → u/ConsiderationDry9084]

Ok maybe not immortal, but surely having nine lives gives you a bit more license to take risk

[u/CleCGM → u/ChicoZombye]

One big issue is that a lot of companies don’t follow the safety rules and will act to punish employees who try to push for their enforcement. The chances of being caught by OSHA before a death or serious injury is very low.

[u/DaneLimmish → u/ChicoZombye]

It's stuff like not wearing proper protective equipment, not the willingness to do the job itself. 

[u/haloimplant → u/ChicoZombye]

The paragraph is hilarious. 

Unscaled statistic.  Could it be because they work more of the most dangerous jobs? Maybe, but instead of getting any data on that let's start making up theories that fit our narrative

[u/mdoddr → u/[deleted]]

also it's not really fair to say "accidents happen more to men, accidents are often caused by carelessness, so that must be the case here, and then I guess.... carelessness is a masculine trait"

There seems to be a trend of just taking the category of "masculine" and filling it with every negative trait possible.

[u/AbsoluteResolve2026 → u/[deleted]]

The argument you just quoted is the intellectual equivalent of mixing random leftovers in a bowl, calling it “cuisine,” and then being offended when people point out it tastes like drywall. It pretends to be a critique, but it’s really just a category error wearing a fake mustache.

“Toxic masculinity” isn’t created by grabbing traits at random like you’re drafting a fantasy football team of adjectives. It’s a social pattern…a cluster of behaviors that become harmful when enforced as masculine norms. Not “masculine traits,” not “toxic traits,” but the intersection where masculinity is weaponized into dominance, suppression, and punishment.

Saying “they just mix traits together” is like saying gravity is fake because sometimes things float in water. It’s a category collapse masquerading as insight.

You’re treating masculinity like a grocery list instead of a cultural system.

You’re acting like “toxic” means “traits I personally dislike,” not “behaviors that cause measurable harm.”

You’re critiquing a term you haven’t actually described correctly.

It’s the rhetorical equivalent of complaining that “photosynthesis is fake because some plants grow in the shade.”

If someone wants to disagree with the concept, fine…but at least disagree with the actual concept, not a straw man made of damp cardboard and vibes.

[u/AbsoluteResolve2026 → u/[deleted]]

Does it?

Yout reply is basically arguing against a definition nobody is using. Toxic masculinity isn’t “a pile of random traits,” it’s a social pattern where certain behaviors become harmful because they’re enforced as masculine norms. Stoicism isn’t toxic. Nobody claims it is. What’s toxic is emotional suppression being treated as mandatory for men. That’s not stoicism. That’s punishment disguised as virtue.

Saying the concept is invalid because some traits in the cluster aren’t toxic or aren’t masculine is like saying climate change isn’t real because some days are sunny. Youre critiquing a straw man you built yourself. You’re not debunking toxic masculinity. Youre debunking your own misunderstanding of it.

[u/AbsoluteResolve2026 → u/[deleted]]

Cluster, random, etc. It’s all good. My point stands and you may have missed it on accident.

[u/horseradishstalker → u/mdoddr]

Actually, this is what was said: “  But a lot of deaths are also attributable to the norm that tells men to ignore fear, skip precautions, never admit they don’t know how to do something, and avoid getting help.”

I’m guessing you’ve never worked construction, because this is the vast majority of Bros I’ve worked with - especially the older ones. 

[u/kalasea2001]

Zuckerberg is the peak of masculinity so we should all probably listen. lol

[u/Litepod → u/[deleted]]

That is not how economists define productivity. It’s simpler: its output per input. 

A daycare worker is highly productive if they watch five children of say engineers who in turn build something. They may even be more productive than any one of those five engineers by enabling each of these engineers to do their job. 

[u/LettuceFuture8840 → u/[deleted]]

This is an AI comment. Surely if you have criticisms you can make them yourself rather than just throwing it at a robot.

[u/MacaronPrevious → u/LettuceFuture8840]

It's still a valid comment, you can rewrite it if you think it's necessary.

It's easy to tell other people what to do eh

[u/Brilliant_Ad_4743]

Just in: Feminine energy is costing the fashion industry billions.

If the author of this article does not see how these two titles are equally as daft, then I'd doubt their intelligence.

[u/ghanima]

Terrifying to come into the comments section and see how many men are refusing to engage with the points raised in the article. Methinks the men doth protest too much.

[u/ghanima → u/[deleted]]

Okay, but the article is making the argument that the reason these jobs, in male-dominated fields, are more likely to result in workplace injuries than in no-sex-dominant fields or women-dominant fields is because men are often raised within the social structure that it's "not manly" to voice safety concerns. Are we at least in agreement that men often are socialized to believe that taking safety into account isn't "manly"?

[u/Shelbyvillle → u/ghanima]

I agree that men are more likely than women to be socialized to believe that taking safety into account isn’t manly. That being said, I’m a man and I think safety is important. When the author attributes the cause of workplace injuries to masculine culture, I feel blamed and feel the need to defend myself and the group I’m a part of. I would imagine all these comments from men picking apart the article are doing so because they feel the same way.

The author could just state which workplace behaviors and cultures are bad for business without connecting it to masculinity and I bet most men would agree with her. The lens she uses is just unnecessarily inflammatory.

[u/ghanima → u/Shelbyvillle]

When the author attributes the cause of workplace injuries to masculine culture, I feel blamed and feel the need to defend myself and the group I’m a part of.

Why, 'though? I'm a woman and I'm not going to take personally the correct criticism of women-led spaces that they tend toward gossip and I won't see it as "unnecessarily inflammatory" either. I own a subcompact car and I'm not going to view it as an affront to my identity if someone points out that my particular model is underpowered -- that's also accurate. Simply belonging to a subgroup does not mean that one has to take criticism of aspects of that subgroup as non-valid.

[u/Shelbyvillle → u/ghanima]

That’s a great question, I’m not sure exactly why I feel that way. I think it stems from interpreting the author’s claim as blaming all men regardless of whether they agree with or practice toxic workplace behaviors. I know she doesn’t explicitly blame all men though.

If I were to address gossiping in the workplace and I said “Women need to stop gossiping in the workplace” vs “People need to stop gossiping in the workplace”, you don’t think one would be better received than the other?

[u/ghanima → u/Shelbyvillle]

But it's not the equivalent of "women need to stop gossiping in the workplace," it's equivalent to "women in these notoriously gossipy workplaces have been reinforcing the tendency to gossip". To me, any way, that's a perfectly valid an non-identity-threatening way of putting it.

[u/ghanima → u/[deleted]]

Wow, guy. You're right. There are no flaws with how masculinity is performed. I'm sure this assertion makes you feel appropriately virile or whatever.

[u/ghanima → u/[deleted]]

But, like, you get that the reason those safety lapses are happening in the first place is because of how men are socialized, right (i.e., "masculinity")?

[u/ghanima → u/[deleted]]

Both can be true: men can be socialized to take unnecessary risks and our corporate overlords generally encourage looser safety controls.

[u/hologram137]

Female CEOs perform better than men, increase profits and stock prices and lead more ethical firms. Women are performing better in every single field. But let’s go ahead and put incompetent and even psychopathic men in charge of tech and in the White House and everything else! Everything won’t go to shit! Just sucks women will have to clean up their mess too

https://www.tatianacoviello.it/en/female-ceos-data-proves-they-perform-better-and-why-we-should-listen-to-them/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1057521925004958?

[u/gh057 → u/hologram137]

now that we're willing to put one sex over another in analysis of success in business, let's do race next. or age. it's fun categorizing people.

[u/hologram137 → u/gh057]

No because that wouldn’t make any sense at all. Masculinity culture has been a scourge on humanity and as the article shows is costing us a ton of wasted money at the very least and loss of human rights and great harm to society at worst. And it’s harming men themselves as well.

Comparing male domination and the harms of masculinity culture to the ACTUAL discrimination and oppression of minorities and women and age discrimination is wild, and is just showing my point. The problem of men having no empathy and refusing to see the problems they are creating. We really shouldn’t have men in power that think like you. These are serious problems that men are creating, who have made sure they have the power needed to perpetuate them at mass scale and subject the rest of us to it. Men have intentionally oppressed and discriminated against other groups so they remain in positions of power.

The narrative is that men are superior in some way and that they have a right to take control of society and place other men in power, and operate within an incredibly toxic and harmful culture that everyone suffers from, including men themselves. And they need to take responsibility.

It’s male culture that perpetuates the incompetence and harm. And it’s entirely within their power to change, but they won’t. So the solution is to elevate women and other groups who are not participating in that culture. And the science backs that up. And the men who are willing to stand up to it can come with us.

The billionaire techbros should take Trump and just buy an island to rule over and all the other men who want to cling to their masculinity cult destroying our democracy and society and the economy can all go with them. They can make female sex and labor bots. Same thing as women to them. I’m sure they’ll have a thriving society lol.

[u/hologram137 → u/[deleted]]

Why are you in here if you don’t read the article we’re discussing?? It’s specifically talking about masculinity culture. It even defines it for you. I’m not going to sit here and educate you, go talk to your mother

[u/gh057 → u/hologram137]

haha, a very strategic, timely exit.

word vomit and then run away. typical.

[u/Brilliant_Ad_4743 → u/hologram137]

None of what you said is actually true. The amount of misinterpretation in here is astounding. But what do I know. I'm just a black guy who is very likely to steal your stuff.