When British broadcaster Piers Morgan speaks, controversy tends to follow close behind. His latest spark? A declaration that “flirting and holding open doors isn’t toxic masculinity … it’s just being a man.”

Predictably, the internet split down the middle. Some applauded Morgan for defending what they see as harmless, traditional gestures of courtesy. Others accused him of minimizing the complex social conversation surrounding gender roles and the evolving definition of masculinity in the 21st century.

But beyond the headlines and outrage, Morgan’s comment taps into something deeper — a cultural tug-of-war over what it means to “be a man” today.

The clash between manners and meaning

Morgan’s words came during a broader discussion about gender dynamics and how certain behaviors are being reinterpreted through a modern lens. For him, the criticism of men who open doors, pay for dates, or engage in light-hearted flirtation reflects an overcorrection — a world where politeness is mistaken for patriarchy.

“I was raised to respect women,” Morgan has said in previous interviews. “That means being protective, being courteous. That doesn’t make me toxic — it makes me decent.”

To his supporters, that statement rings true. They argue that chivalry — though rooted in older gender norms — can coexist with equality. For them, Morgan represents a resistance against what they see as an increasingly fragile culture, where good intentions are often misread as offense.

Yet critics counter that such gestures, while perhaps harmless on the surface, can reinforce outdated power dynamics. They point out that what matters isn’t whether a man opens a door, but why he does it — whether it comes from respect or a subconscious sense of superiority.

“Toxic masculinity isn’t about holding doors,” one sociologist noted on X (formerly Twitter). “It’s about behaviors that assert dominance, entitlement, or control under the guise of politeness. Intent and context are everything.”

The evolution of masculinity

The term “toxic masculinity” entered mainstream vocabulary in the early 2010s, describing cultural norms that encourage men to suppress emotion, reject vulnerability, and assert control — often to the detriment of both men and women. The #MeToo movement amplified scrutiny of these patterns, holding public figures accountable and forcing society to reexamine long-standing expectations of male behavior.

In that light, Morgan’s comment feels almost nostalgic — a defense of a bygone version of manhood where roles were clearly defined and rarely questioned. But in today’s cultural climate, those definitions are shifting fast.

Modern masculinity is being reimagined not as dominance or stoicism, but as empathy, accountability, and balance. Men are encouraged to express emotions openly, share domestic responsibilities, and understand consent not as a constraint but as mutual respect.

That redefinition has been liberating for many — but confusing for others. In a time when masculinity is being deconstructed, some men feel their identity under siege. For them, figures like Morgan provide a sense of grounding, a reminder that being masculine isn’t inherently wrong.

Why this debate won’t die

Part of what keeps this topic alive is that it’s personal. Everyone interprets these gestures — from opening a door to paying for dinner — through their own experiences and values. To one person, it’s kindness; to another, it’s condescension.

Social media amplifies the division. On TikTok, clips of Morgan’s statement were met with dueling comment sections: one filled with praise (“Finally someone said it!”), the other with frustration (“Respect isn’t gendered — it’s mutual”).

That polarization reflects a broader cultural fatigue. Many people feel caught between extremes — between those who see traditional masculinity as under attack, and those who see its persistence as an obstacle to equality.

The power of provocation

Of course, Piers Morgan knows exactly what he’s doing. His career has long been built on provocation — saying what others won’t, or can’t, and then fueling the ensuing firestorm. His statement about flirting and door-opening isn’t just a personal belief; it’s a calculated cultural flashpoint.

By challenging what he perceives as over-sensitivity, Morgan positions himself as a defender of “common sense” — a label that resonates with his audience. But in doing so, he also ensures that every new comment he makes reignites the same cycle: outrage, debate, and virality.

A question without an easy answer

So, is Morgan right? The answer depends on what one thinks masculinity should look like in 2025. If it means courtesy, humor, and confidence — then perhaps opening a door is harmless. But if it means redefining respect as equality and autonomy — then maybe such gestures need to evolve with the times.

The real issue isn’t the door. It’s the gap between intention and perception, between how actions are meant and how they’re received.

And maybe that’s what makes Morgan’s statement so effective. It forces people to ask themselves: when we talk about “toxic masculinity,” are we criticizing men — or the culture that taught them how to behave in the first place?

Whatever the answer, one thing’s clear: the conversation about what it means to “be a man” is far from over.