Mark Zuckerberg wrapped up a fast-paced week of policy shifts at Meta — ranging from the dismantling of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts at Facebook to introducing political content suggestions on Threads and Instagram — by guesting on Joe Rogan’s podcast. During the three-hour discussion, Zuckerberg contended that the corporate environment necessitates more “masculine energy,” comparing it to the discipline found in martial arts.
“A significant portion of our society has become very… neutered or emasculated,” Zuckerberg stated, promptly mentioning his sisters and daughters to counter any claims of sexism. He elaborated, “Masculine energy is positive, and certainly, there is no shortage of it in society, but I believe corporate culture has been striving to distance itself from it. I think fostering a culture that appreciates aggression to some extent has distinct positive benefits.”
Zuckerberg’s remarks, which associate masculinity with aggression, perpetuate harmful stereotypes and normalize violence. He asserted that corporate America “used to be heavily masculine” and “hyper-aggressive,” recognizing that this atmosphere may have marginalized women, which he acknowledged was “not beneficial either.” Nonetheless, his comments imply a desire for a return to a more male-centric corporate environment.
It’s important to note that masculinity is hardly absent in corporate America. Men occupy around 90% of CEO roles in Fortune 500 firms, a figure that highlights the ongoing male dominance in leadership. Zuckerberg’s rhetoric seems to function as a gendered dog whistle, presenting masculinity as a cultural value under threat.
Historically, ideas surrounding masculinity and femininity have been exploited to exclude women from the workforce. Avivah Wittenberg-Cox, author of *Seven Steps to Leading a Gender-Balanced Business*, discusses how rigid concepts of masculinity perpetuate workplace disparities. For example, studies indicate that fathers who take leave to care for their families often face harsher penalties compared to men who take time off for traditionally “masculine” activities, such as vacations or sports training. These biases reinforce structures that disadvantage women, nonbinary, and trans individuals, worsening issues like the gender pay gap, the deterioration of reproductive rights, and the revival of traditional gender roles.
Zuckerberg’s statements also disregard decades of research on the social construction of gender. Philosopher Judith Butler argues that gender is not an inherent quality but a performance influenced by societal expectations. By neglecting the varied experiences across race, class, and other identities, Zuckerberg simplifies complex dynamics into basic stereotypes. As philosopher Elizabeth Spelman noted nearly 40 years ago, singular views of gender obscure the intricate ways in which race, class, and ethnicity interact with gender.
The timing of Zuckerberg’s comments is noteworthy. They arrive as Meta retracts several strategies aimed at nurturing inclusivity and security. This past week, the company has terminated its DEI initiatives, removed tampons from men’s restrooms in certain offices, and erased trans and nonbinary themes from its Messenger app. Furthermore, Meta has lifted specific limitations on hate speech and eliminated fact-checkers in favor of a contentious Community Notes system. These decisions have attracted criticism from civil and human rights organizations, which caution that such actions jeopardize progress and safety for marginalized populations.
When Zuckerberg asserts to Rogan that corporate culture requires more “masculine energy,” he is, in essence, advocating for increased male dominance. His statements, paired with Meta’s recent policy shifts, indicate a withdrawal from inclusivity and a reinforcement of traditional power dynamics. This is especially concerning considering Facebook’s origins as a platform aimed at rating women based on their looks, highlighting the company’s troubled history with gender issues.
Ultimately, Zuckerberg’s rhetoric illustrates a wider resistance to advancement. By portraying masculinity as a cultural value under siege, he promotes damaging stereotypes and undermines initiatives aimed at establishing more equitable workplaces. His remarks — and the actions supporting them — serve as a stark reminder that unchecked power