What Does "Masculine Energy" Even Mean, Mark?

Mark Zuckerberg wants more "masculine energy" in corporate America. Speaking on Joe Rogan's podcast, the Meta CEO bemoaned what he called the "neutering" of corporate culture while celebrating the "aggression" he's found in martial arts.

His comments, coinciding with Meta's decision to end its diversity programs and co-host convicted felon and alleged sexual abuser Donald Trump's inauguration gala, have sparked debate about what exactly "masculine energy" means.

Could it mean leadership? The ability to make tough decisions, chart a clear course, and take responsibility for outcomes? That would be convenient – except these traits aren't inherently masculine. History and boardrooms alike are filled with women who've demonstrated exceptional leadership. Mary Barra didn't turn around General Motors with "masculine energy." She did it with competence, vision, and accountability. Calling these qualities masculine isn't just wrong – it's an insult to every woman who's ever led anything.

Perhaps he means competitive drive and ambition? That would be rich coming from the man who acquired Instagram and WhatsApp primarily because they threatened Facebook's dominance. If crushing or buying your competition is "masculine energy," someone should tell that to Indra Nooyi, whose aggressive expansion strategies at PepsiCo were legendary. Or to Whitney Wolfe Herd, who built Bumble specifically to compete with (and eclipse) Tinder. Competition isn't gendered – it's human.

Maybe he's talking about physical strength and endurance? Zuckerberg has recently taken up martial arts and competed in jiu-jitsu tournaments. But physical prowess has precisely nothing to do with corporate success – unless he's planning to settle Meta's next board meeting in the octagon. And while we're on physical endurance, I'd love to see Zuckerberg match the stamina of any working mother who's built a business while raising children.

Could he mean emotional stability under pressure? The ability to remain calm and collected in crisis? That would be an interesting definition from someone who spent $30 billion on a metaverse panic response to TikTok's rise.

Is it protecting and providing? The "Trad" movement sees that as a masculine virtue, but Zuckerberg's version of providing seems to involve laying off thousands of employees while chasing vanity projects. If protecting your workforce is masculine energy, Meta seems to be running a serious deficit. If Zuckerberg wants us to believe that providing is a purely masculine endeavor, Sheryl Sandberg might have a few choice comments to make.

What about stoicism and emotional control? That might align with Zuckerberg's public persona, but it's a dangerous misread of what stoicism means. True stoicism isn't concerned with suppressing emotions—its sages understand and recognize emotions to avoid being ruled by them. Marcus Aurelius wasn't teaching "masculine energy"—he was teaching human wisdom.

What are we left with? What could Zuckerberg possibly mean by "masculine energy?" The timing of his comments – amid Meta's diversity program cuts and plans to co-host Trump's inauguration – tells us everything we need to know.

He means being an asshole. Full stop.

He means the Trump approach to leadership: belittling opponents, dismissing criticism as weakness, and treating basic human dignity as optional. He means the Andrew Tate brand of masculinity: performing dominance while calling it strength. He means the Elon Musk school of management: firing people via tweet and calling it efficiency.

In other words, Zuckerberg is aligning himself with a very specific type of corporate sociopathy that's currently masquerading as masculinity. It's the freedom to be aggressive without accountability, the ability to dismiss workplace harassment concerns as "woke culture gone too far, " the luxury of framing basic professional courtesy as an attack on identity, and the permission to treat employees like disposable resources while calling it "bold leadership."

Zuckerberg isn't bringing masculinity back to corporate America. He and his ilk are creating a world where billionaire CEBros can behave like bratty princes without consequence. Where crying "masculine energy" provides immunity from basic standards of professional behavior. Where any attempt to create a more equitable workplace can be dismissed as "neutering" – because apparently, the only way to be masculine is to be an inconsiderate jerk.

The fact that Zuckerberg is making these comments while cozying up to Trump's circle isn't coincidental – it's the point. He's not calling for more masculine traits. He's calling for permission to emulate Trump's brand of toxic leadership without facing the social consequences. He wants the freedom to slash diversity programs, lay off thousands, and still be celebrated as a "bold, masculine leader" rather than being called what he is: a powerful man using gender as a shield for his worst impulses.

By conflating masculinity with being an asshole, Zuckerberg is saying Yes, All Men. And that, frankly, is an insult to all men.

Real masculinity—like real leadership—isn't domination or aggression. It's strength of character, taking responsibility rather than making excuses, being secure enough in yourself to not need the performance of strength, and understanding that treating others with respect isn't "neutering"—it's basic human decency.

Let's call Zuckerberg's comments what they are: not a defense of masculinity, but a transparent attempt to rebrand toxic behavior as some gender-based virtue. It's not just wrong – it's cowardly. Real masculine energy would be taking responsibility for your company's problems instead of blaming them on too much basic human decency in the workplace.

The saddest part? Zuckerberg's martial arts training could have taught him what real masculine energy looks like. Any serious martial artist knows that true strength isn't about aggression – discipline, respect, and using your power responsibly. Instead, he seems to have learned the wrong lessons, confusing the ability to submit an opponent in a controlled sporting environment with some broader justification for corporate toxicity.

Men deserve better than having their gender used as cover for petulant, capricious and immature misbehavior.