Fair, then misandry is part and parcel of traditional masculinity that exclaims "women and children first". I guess it feels weird to me to pile on with this concern here. To your point though, I have noticed this as more widespread than just the BBC. If I'm not mistaken a lot the Ukraine death count reporting does the same as well?
Fair, then misandry is part and parcel of traditional masculinity that exclaims "women and children first". I guess it feels weird to me to pile on with this concern here. To your point though, I have noticed this as more widespread than just the BBC. If I'm not mistaken a lot the Ukraine death count reporting does the same as well?
your observance that it's often men who are misandrous is bang on.
have you ever noticed that when women repeat harmful gender norms it's called "internalized misogyny" and when men repeat harmful gender norms it's called "toxic masculinity"?
sometimes I think about that.
perhaps "internalized misandry" is a healthier way to describe the phenomenon we're talking about here.
Someone is referring to a misandry as "internalized misogyny"? Misandry isn't the only harmful gender norm, but most male deployed harmful gender norms that reach my ears are indeed toxic masculinity, whether it's called internalized misandry or not. My own toxic masculinity has something to say about this level of sensitivity, but we're working on that.
"Someone is referring to a misandry as "internalized misogyny"?"
i don't think so, no.
what i'm getting at is that when a woman repeats a harmful gender norm, like thinking she should do the cleaning because she is a woman, we call that "internalized misogyny".
when a man repeats a harmful gender norm, like thinking his should repress his feelings because he is a man, we call that "toxic masculinity".
the same behaviour is framed differently, depending on who is doing it.
I think I see what you mean. Maybe the more accurate framing to cover both scenarios should be "internalized toxic masculinity". I just can't surrender a term that so often and so accurately perfectly describes what I'm experiencing for one that muddies the water so much.
I appreciate the exchange, you've made me think a lot about the actual definition of misandry to the point I might change my initial opinion.
If the goal of toxic masculinity as a concept is male supremacy, it can't be accurately characterized as misandry. "Internalized misandry" is probably rarely ever better language when TM is involved. Yes, women can do TM, the same as they can do patriarchy, and they can do misandry. Calling all of it misandry, internalized or not, does muddy the water.
People claim the term "patriarchy" also suggests that culpability lies only with masculine actors. It's one of the first things one should jettison from their thought process because the concept is inexorably tied to male supremacy, even when perpetrated/perpetuated by women. Calling it something different will almost surely conceal its true nature of male supremacy (which is not compatible with the term misandry). Likewise with TM.
If a woman engages in a gender role as a result of male supremacist cultural expectations, this can be accurately framed as a result of both TM and internalized misogyny, but the opposite can't be both TM and internalized misandry - it's incoherent.
Men being expendable is a result of male supremacy and meant to be an expression of superior strength/fortitude/endurance in the face of adversity. Men are better equipped to take it because they are males. This is not misandry.
I see now there's a lot of discussion about it. I might still change where I land after reading more.
"I'm pretty sure that men feeling like they can't share their feelings (etc) isn't anyone's "goal"."
In my universe, that's exactly the goal of the societal norm of suppression that's pushed from toxic masculinity, to cultivate an archetype that is impregnable to "feelings" that are something for only women and children to concern themselves with. Mothers and fathers and society alike instill it in their sons, ostensibly to "strengthen" them - not because they hate males. While it surely has negative impacts to men and everyone around them, it's inherently not compatible with the definition of misandry.
We can accept TM as a form of oppression for men (which I do), and that might tempt one to call it misandry, but misandry isn't better language except possibly to fragile personalities that are mistakenly assuming personal culpability purely because of their gender and thus feel persecuted by it. Terms like TM and patriarchy don't describe misandry and they don't exist to do misandry (although I'm sure they are regularly misused for that purpose by many). They define real phenomena that aren't accurately captured by "misandry".
You can have the last word on it - may we both arrive at the truth in the end!
Fair, then misandry is part and parcel of traditional masculinity that exclaims "women and children first". I guess it feels weird to me to pile on with this concern here. To your point though, I have noticed this as more widespread than just the BBC. If I'm not mistaken a lot the Ukraine death count reporting does the same as well?
your observance that it's often men who are misandrous is bang on.
have you ever noticed that when women repeat harmful gender norms it's called "internalized misogyny" and when men repeat harmful gender norms it's called "toxic masculinity"?
sometimes I think about that.
perhaps "internalized misandry" is a healthier way to describe the phenomenon we're talking about here.
Someone is referring to a misandry as "internalized misogyny"? Misandry isn't the only harmful gender norm, but most male deployed harmful gender norms that reach my ears are indeed toxic masculinity, whether it's called internalized misandry or not. My own toxic masculinity has something to say about this level of sensitivity, but we're working on that.
"Someone is referring to a misandry as "internalized misogyny"?"
i don't think so, no.
what i'm getting at is that when a woman repeats a harmful gender norm, like thinking she should do the cleaning because she is a woman, we call that "internalized misogyny".
when a man repeats a harmful gender norm, like thinking his should repress his feelings because he is a man, we call that "toxic masculinity".
the same behaviour is framed differently, depending on who is doing it.
that's all i was saying.
I think I see what you mean. Maybe the more accurate framing to cover both scenarios should be "internalized toxic masculinity". I just can't surrender a term that so often and so accurately perfectly describes what I'm experiencing for one that muddies the water so much.
I'm not sure that you're correct when you say it muddies the waters to say "internalized misandry" instead of "toxic masculinity".
everyone understands "internalized misogyny", so why would a masculine version of this be less clear?
Here's a related thought experiment.:
my female co-worker asks me how i'm doing.
i say, it's been a tough day.
she tells me to "man up"
who is perpetuating the toxic masculinity here? my female co-worker? are women capable of performing toxic masculinity?
wouldn't it be more clear if we just called that "misandry" when a woman does it and "internalized misandry" when a man does it?
the phrase "toxic masculinity" suggest that only masculine people perform acts of it.
it's not a hill i'm ready to die on, but these things interest me.
if we can use better language we should.
I appreciate the exchange, you've made me think a lot about the actual definition of misandry to the point I might change my initial opinion.
If the goal of toxic masculinity as a concept is male supremacy, it can't be accurately characterized as misandry. "Internalized misandry" is probably rarely ever better language when TM is involved. Yes, women can do TM, the same as they can do patriarchy, and they can do misandry. Calling all of it misandry, internalized or not, does muddy the water.
People claim the term "patriarchy" also suggests that culpability lies only with masculine actors. It's one of the first things one should jettison from their thought process because the concept is inexorably tied to male supremacy, even when perpetrated/perpetuated by women. Calling it something different will almost surely conceal its true nature of male supremacy (which is not compatible with the term misandry). Likewise with TM.
If a woman engages in a gender role as a result of male supremacist cultural expectations, this can be accurately framed as a result of both TM and internalized misogyny, but the opposite can't be both TM and internalized misandry - it's incoherent.
Men being expendable is a result of male supremacy and meant to be an expression of superior strength/fortitude/endurance in the face of adversity. Men are better equipped to take it because they are males. This is not misandry.
I see now there's a lot of discussion about it. I might still change where I land after reading more.
>"If the goal of toxic masculinity as a concept is male supremacy,"
I'm pretty sure that men feeling like they can't share their feelings (etc) isn't anyone's "goal".
No one is trying to make their gender "supreme" by conforming to societal norms and expectations.
>"I appreciate the exchange,"
thanks, me too.
"I'm pretty sure that men feeling like they can't share their feelings (etc) isn't anyone's "goal"."
In my universe, that's exactly the goal of the societal norm of suppression that's pushed from toxic masculinity, to cultivate an archetype that is impregnable to "feelings" that are something for only women and children to concern themselves with. Mothers and fathers and society alike instill it in their sons, ostensibly to "strengthen" them - not because they hate males. While it surely has negative impacts to men and everyone around them, it's inherently not compatible with the definition of misandry.
We can accept TM as a form of oppression for men (which I do), and that might tempt one to call it misandry, but misandry isn't better language except possibly to fragile personalities that are mistakenly assuming personal culpability purely because of their gender and thus feel persecuted by it. Terms like TM and patriarchy don't describe misandry and they don't exist to do misandry (although I'm sure they are regularly misused for that purpose by many). They define real phenomena that aren't accurately captured by "misandry".
You can have the last word on it - may we both arrive at the truth in the end!