LinkedIn post by MIT Technology Review publisher sparks debate on 'masculine energy'

Written By Dr. Piyush Mathur

by Dr. Piyush Mathur

In a provocative LinkedIn post made more than a month ago, Elizabeth Bramson-Boudreau, CEO and Publisher of MIT Technology Review, shared personal anecdotes to challenge the renewed narrative around ‘masculine energy’ in leadership and workplaces. Her post drew mostly agreement but also several qualifications and exceptions, sparking a somewhat jagged discussion on the nuances of gender dynamics and workplace behaviour.

Bramson-Boudreau reflected on her early career experiences, recounting instances of overt sexism and bullying. One example included a boss responding to a comment about her height by saying, ‘Well, not when we're lying down’, a remark that triggered laughter among her colleagues but reinforced a culture of misogyny. She described other moments of harassment and dismissive behaviour (some of which evoked laughter even from her female colleagues)—repeatedly concluding that such toxic actions were emblematic of ‘masculine energy’.

A critique of Zuckerberg’s ‘masculine energy’ call

Her broader critique targeted Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg's (January 10, 2025) deeply muddled call for ‘more masculine energy’ in (American) corporations. In his interview with Joe Rogan, Zuckerberg goes back and forth trying to push vague, confused notions of ‘masculinity’ and ‘masculine energy’—while also referring to an excess of feminine energy in his personal life; in a couple of comments, he would sort of sum up his babble this way: ‘And I think having a culture that like celebrates the aggression a bit more has its own merits that are really positive. And that’s, that has been, that has been a kind of a positive experience for me.’

In her LinkedIn post, Bramson-Boudreau argued that Zuckerberg’s notion is not only unfair to men, most of whom are ‘caring humans’, but it also perpetuates harmful stereotypes; she also suggested that empathetic leadership should not be seen as unmasculine and expressed optimism for a future shaped by women fostering equality and kindness. However, in the same (edited) post, her repeated prior claims that certain problematic workplace behaviours exemplified ‘masculine energy’ were already on a collision course with this later attempt to separate masculinity from a lack of empathy—prompting predictable questions from several readers.

A screenshot of Elizabeth Bramson-Boudreau’s LinkedIn post commenting on Mark Zuckerberg’s push to promote ‘masculine energy’ in corporations.

One notable commenter, Jesse Wu—founder of the strategic communications firm Encour, asked: ‘Why are these examples of masculine energy? Aren't they just examples of inappropriate behavior?’ Wu, incidentally, had already written her own response to Zuckerberg’s interview and the firestorm sparked by his ‘masculine energy’ comment. In a January 15 article for the Australian Financial Review, Wu—rejecting a categorical disavowal of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusivity (DEI) programmes advocated by Donald Trump and Elon Musk—argued for ‘a more nuanced and compassionate approach to creating inclusive spaces’. She clarified her preference in approaching this issue as follows: ‘This means moving beyond the checkbox mentality of corporate DEI programs, and fostering environments where people can bring their full selves to work—their masculinity, femininity and individual quirks.’

Gendered framing of toxic behaviour—and its pitfalls

Wu’s argument reflects a broader concern echoed by other LinkedIn commentators who questioned the wisdom of labeling toxic behaviour as inherently masculine. Laura Spira—an Emeritus Professor of Corporate Governance at Oxford Brookes University—argued that ‘it’s lazy and unhelpful to view leadership qualities and competences through the lens of gender.’ Yet another commentator, Raksha Rao, a Lead Technical Program Manager with TikTok’s California office, bluntly opined that ‘[c]alling these things “masculine energy” instead of toxic behavior fundamentally erodes the concept of humanity’.

This line of critique underscored the folly of conflating toxic behaviours with presumptive gendered traits—a folly, one might add, that could also alienate men who do not exhibit such behaviours. That seemed to happen in the post’s thread itself. Hans Marti, a business consultant, commented, ‘all I read here is inappropriate behaviour…There are many examples of women behaving inappropriately, and if I were to list those, my post would read somewhat similar.’ Paul Massie, a cloud engineer, brought in a local American nuance to the discussion by noting the following: ‘For many of the people in the news today promoting “masculine energy” what they really mean is being a frat bro.’

This is a screenshot of Firdows Muhammad’s comment on Elizabeth Bramson-Boudreau’s LinkedIn post.

The thread included many other reactions, both by male and female commentators, who resonated with Bramson-Boudreau's post, applauding her courage to speak out. ‘Thank you for sharing your experiences. I hope more men can hear these stories, validate their reality, and take accountability’, one commenter wrote. Others shared similar stories of working in male-dominated industries and abusive environments, highlighting the resilience of women striving for equity. One commenter observed, ‘America does not need more masculinity, it needs more humanity.’

But despite its powerful anecdotes, Bramson-Boudreau's argument would have benefitted if she, even as a critic, had refused to join in Zuckerberg’s confused essentialization of the term ‘masculine energy’. Framing inappropriate behaviour as ‘masculine energy’ risks reinforcing sexist stereotypes and oversimplifying complex social issues. By emphasizing specific behaviours rather than assigning them to ‘masculinity’ (as Zuckerberg himself did somewhat), Bramson-Boudreau might have better augmented inclusivity and clarity in the ensuing discussion on LinkedIn.

A sidenote

In the midst of all this somewhat sombre (if passionate) feedback to Bramson-Boudreau’s post, one lighthearted but astute comment questioned Zuckerberg’s sheer suitability for even talking about masculinity! Implicitly referring to Zuckerberg, Firdows Muhammad—an Afro-American female fitness professional from the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area—declared the following: ‘And the kicker is...I dont even think HE knows what masculine energy is...because he definitely doesnt [sic] come to mind when that topic pops up’.

In Zuckerberg’s defence, though, what Muhammad implies about him in her quip was (in the Rogan interview) basically a self-admitted psychological component of his push to embrace, promote ‘masculine energy’—except that this push has emerged out of him rather like a squeal, under the pressure of Trump and Musk: two males who have not lacked feminine company or affections themselves.

Dr. Piyush Mathur is the author of Technological Forms and Ecological Communication: A Theoretical Heuristic (Lexington Books, 2017).

Dr. Piyush Mathur
Next

1X Technologies reveals NEO Gamma in push for consumer-grade humanoid robots; the teaser is filmed inside a plush villa