How Putin’s toxic masculinity has driven his violent policies against Russians and, now, Ukrainians

Whether posing on horseback or with a gun, Putin has long portrayed an image of hypermasculinity that has helped legitimise his repressive policies against women and minority groups at home
Now, with the invasion of Ukraine, the strongman narrative is being played out on a global stage

Salomé Grouard

Published: 3:30am, 16 Mar 2022

Why you can trust SCMP

Describing Vladimir Putin as “manly” is a euphemism. Throughout his political career, Russia’s leader has relied on hyper-masculine performances to build a macho image for his supporters. Posing shirtless while riding horses, petting tigers, firing big guns and doing martial arts for the cameras have become an inherent part of his brand.

His alpha male image is so exaggerated that many tend to not take it seriously. He has been Photoshopped riding bears, eagles and sharks, and even carrying a baby Donald Trump. Yet making Putin a central figure of today’s influential “meme culture” unintentionally contributed to his soft power.

That’s why this kind of macho display should have been taken more seriously from the beginning. Pop culture has glamorised Putin’s toxic masculinity, legitimising the violence he has inflicted on Russians for the past two decades, and is now using against Ukraine.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, toxic masculinity is defined as “a set of attitudes and ways of behaving stereotypically associated with or expected of men, regarded as having a negative impact on men and on society as a whole”.

Masculine traits that are considered “toxic” generally include: using or threatening the use of violence, acting aggressively, suppressing emotions, trying to appear tough and using power over women, “weaker” men and marginalised groups.

Putin’s policies have always reflected his idea of manhood. Since 2000, he has led Russia with a firm, conservative and patriarchal hand.

Images of Putin like this one, taken in 2009, have contributed to the development of his “macho” persona, which has been central to his brand and leadership. Photo: AFP

He decriminalised certain forms of domestic violence in a country where domestic abuse kills a woman every 40 minutes. He banned “gay propaganda” in 2013, which has contributed to a rise in homophobic harassment in the country. He has failed to address growing corruption in Russia while consolidating his own authoritarianism and silencing opposition.

With the invasion of Ukraine, Putin continues to show that his idea of masculinity can shape not only interpersonal conflicts but also interstate ones.

The link between toxic masculinity and wars has been made many times. In 1993, scholars Vandana Shiva and Maria Mies famously wrote in Eco-Feminism that “it is no coincidence that the gruesome game of war passes through the same stages as the traditional sexual relationship: aggression, conquest, possession, control. Of a woman or a land, it makes little difference.”

Gender is an important factor in war: women suffer disproportionately during and after conflicts. The invasion of Ukraine doesn’t challenge this narrative; already, there have been reports of sexual assault on Ukrainian women by Russian soldiers, as well as reports of sexual exploitation of Ukrainian refugees.

Anna Dovgopol, a Ukrainian activist, explained in a recent interview that it is not possible to detach gender from Russia’s invasion of her country as it is a portrayal of Putin’s “virilism”.

She said that Putin acts like “a man who physically assaults his soon-to-be ex-wife because he can’t stand the fact that she’s breaking up with him”. What he can’t have, he will take by force, she said.

Dovgopol points out Moscow’s long-standing military interest in Ukraine. After losing influence in the country following the impeachment of pro-Russia president Viktor Yanukovich in 2014, Russia annexed Crimea. For many, the invasion of Ukraine is a continuation of this aggression.

Putin has rejected this narrative, and has tried to justify his war with different excuses. But actions speak louder than words.

It is difficult to believe, as Putin has claimed, that he started the military operation in Ukraine to “protect people who have been bullied and subjected to genocide by the Kyiv regime for eight years”.

The casualties involving at least 1,500 civilians, the billions of dollars in property damage, and the more than 2.5 million Ukrainians who have been forced to become refugees are telling the world otherwise.

03:02

#CallRussia volunteers cold-call Russians to counter Putin’s propaganda about Ukraine invasion

Putin also used the expansion of Nato as a justification for war. While the eastward expansion of the Western alliance raises legitimate concerns in Russia, the invasion of a country and the killing of its civilians will certainly not resolve them.

But Putin ignores diplomacy and negotiations, even when he has the advantage, and continues uncompromisingly until his vision is achieved. He shows off physical power first, and thinks of human interest second.

Whether it costs his country more military losses than expected, leads to more discord inside his own country, and creates greater global insecurity, it doesn’t seem to matter. And for what?

The world keeps asking for strong leaders, but it is time to question what kind of strength we want them to display.

Salomé Grouard is a digital production executive with the Post