Doing what others want you to do and going boldly into face great danger in the unknown is a respectable masculine behaviour though. There isn't anything toxic about that, it is the only way that the unknown is going to get explored. I agree that it'd be a much better idea if he'd stayed home to look after his wife and family. But the behaviour isn't toxic, it is still productive. Ill advised without a doubt.
But that is like saying a married man shouldn't join the army. There is a reasonable expectation that some married men will die horribly in service of their society leaving behind widows and orphans. Particularly in the pre-antibiotic era we're talking about when horrible death was a real possibility at any moment anyway.
At least the article implies that he was conflicted about his decision to go at it again. His surroundings pushed him towards that end; see quotes above.
- harmful (to him / his family)
- deplete of choice (context of strong social pressures / authority)
- no benefit other than for colonial grandstanding
I agree with 2/3rds of that but none of it is toxic. You aren't very well going to send women out to get themselves killed and being pressured into it is a good thing. Men aren't supposed to go out and get themselves killed for nothing, they're only supposed to do that when someone else tells them to. A key point of responsible manliness is accepting that you have a responsibility to support your community and that might require you to make some sacrifices. Hopefully not death, but that is very much on the table. If a death is going to be involved in that era they were going to be making sure that it is a man who dies because the alternative was a woman who are much more important at a societal level.
How else do you see them figuring out what is at the top of Everest? Someone had to go up and have a look. It is like spaceflight or exploring the oceans; death is highly likely for the first few people who attempt it but someone had to do it. They couldn't send a drone up - they didn't have them.
> no benefit other than for colonial grandstanding
This is the one I disagree on - they're dealing with the unknown. They didn't know very much about climbing tall mountains like the Everest. The point of that sort of thing is they don't know if there is anything worthwhile about the act or not, and they deal with that by doing it to see what happens.
The colonisation process was horrible but undeniably hugely beneficial to the European powers. "Colonial Grandstanding" of this sort turned out to be hugely net positive to the countries doing it on average.
But that is like saying a married man shouldn't join the army. There is a reasonable expectation that some married men will die horribly in service of their society leaving behind widows and orphans. Particularly in the pre-antibiotic era we're talking about when horrible death was a real possibility at any moment anyway.