0
0

CriticismIf toxic masculinity and internalized misogyny are things which exist, then aren't toxic femininity and internalized misandry as well? (self.AskFemmeThoughts)

Pariahdog119Egalitarian が 投稿

Here's some showerthoughts I had at work, which I've been thinking about this week.

As a preemptive disclaimer before someone declares me a troll based on post history, I post in mensrights; I also post in menslib and, before I met Demmian, I was commenting in feminism. If I have to label myself, I'm an egalitarian; I have issues with some things that some feminists do, and with some MRA's behavior. I don't consider myself a feminist or an MRA, except in the sense that I believe that everyone should have equal rights with everyone.

I believe that toxic masculinity is a thing that exists. I've seen firsthand the results when 200 men, locked in a warehouse with four toilets and no ventilation, believe that violence solves every problem and showing any emotion other than anger is a weakness. And while some misandrists define all masculinity as toxic by definition, no one capable of rational thought actually believes this.

So what is toxic masculinity? Here's a few examples:

• Real Men™ are strong. Emotion makes you weak.

• Real Men™ cannot be victims of abuse, and can't talk about it if they are.

• Real Men™ want sex all the time, and therefore can't refuse consent.

The link above has more examples, most of which I agree are toxic (harmful) behaviors typically associated with being male.

But what about the other side? Do women conform to gender roles in ways that are harmful (to themselves or others?) I argue yes, toxic femininity exists. Here's a few examples.

• Women are weak and need protection, either from men or by men.

• Women are always victims and can't be held responsible for their own behavior.

• Women shouldn't do strenuous, dangerous or dirty work; that's what men are for.

But what's the difference between toxic femininity and internalized misogyny? As far as I can tell, feminism defines any bad thing men do as "toxic masculinity," while bad things women do to women is "internalized misogyny" (or "internalized sexism." ) So, the first term refers to a behavior, while the second seems to refer to an attitude about other people.

So if a woman disparages another woman because she's a welder and that's men's work, it's internalized misogyny. If she refuses to do any dirty, unsavory task herself, and demands a man do it for her, that's toxic femininity.

By extension, this means that internalized misandry also exists. It's manifested when men mock other men for displaying emotion, tell them to "man up" when they're being victimized, or disparage them for wanting a relationship instead of just sex. It can also affect men who think that masculinity, in and of itself, is toxic, and overcorrect by trying to be less "manly;" I'm specifically thinking of something I read where a man shaved his facial hair, not because of his or his SO's personal preference, but because he thought it oppressed women.

TL;dr - Toxic masculinity and internalized misogyny exist, but so do their corollaries: if a woman acts in a harmful way due to gender stereotypes, that's toxic femininity. If a man mistreats other men because of gender stereotypes, it's internalized misandry.

全 20 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]FixinThePlanetIntersectional 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Something we used to talk about when I was a mod at MensLib was the angst that using the phrase "toxic masculinity" caused in many of the guys commenting there. Some of us tentatively discussed exclusively using "hegemonic masculinity" instead, which makes it easier to discuss its manifestations without making the men who suffer from it feel attacked.

One of the biggest challenges I've faced in having conversations about gender expectations in society and the ways in which individuals can challenge or transcoded this expectations is the way in which personal failings are coded into gender. The narratives that most of us grow up with cause an inherent imbalance in how we handle criticism on a personal or identity level.

I avoid saying things like "misandry doesn't exist", because although I believe that the word is basically an anti-feminist dog-whistle, I also know that the kind of person I hope to reach will react incredibly negatively to that bald assertion.

A large part of the way I interact with men on these issues is dictated by a (rather sexist but far too often justified) assumption that a majority of them come to the table with very fragile egos; I assume that any conversation will require more effort on my part as the rational adult. You may or may not be surprised to hear this, but quite sadly talking to guys about gender works better when you treat them with kid gloves to a certain extent, which is a bit of a conflict for me. I notice that many men who work towards gender equality in collaboration with women don't really think about it this way; in their minds other men should suck it up because they have themselves. (One of the many issues I had with the head mod of MensLib.)

In my mind there is a definite difference between the academic discussion of gender and the social/casual discussion of the same concepts, and the words we choose and the contexts in which we use them matter a great deal. So to answer your question after that slight digression, is say that the reason that "toxic femininity" or "internalized misandry" aren't defined as concepts is because the phrases themselves make it easier to justify the imbalance of power and the status quo. I don't think all things are equal in this dialogue, and I don't think mirror phrases will help (yet).

Edit: typos

[–]danceparty3000Feminist 8ポイント9ポイント  (15子コメント)

I disagree with how you distinguish between toxic masculinity and internalized misogyny.

When women disparage other women for not being feminine enough or something, that is internalized misogyny. When a woman disparages herself for not being feminine enough/polices herself, or aspires to be feminine even when it is unhealthy, that is also internalized misogyny.

Toxic masculinity, to my knowledge, is a term for the behaviors men are taught as inherent to manhood that are also harmful to men - in essence it is one of the ways that misogyny ricochets and harms men.

The reason there is no such thing as toxic femininity or internalized misandry is because misandry does not exist. Misogyny exists, toxic masculinity is a kind of ricocheting misogyny, internalized misogyny is not a ricochet of anything so it can't be equated with toxic masculinity.

The difference here is the power dynamic. Toxic masculinity does hurt men, but the behaviors that constitute toxic masculinity are among the tactics used to gain & maintain power over women. There is no such inverse dynamic by which women have power over men.

[–]JessthePest 7ポイント8ポイント  (3子コメント)

misandry does not exist

Are you saying that cultural misandry does not exist because women don't have enough power over men for women to fear the loss of that power.

Because I have certainly felt misandrist for quite a long period of my life.

I was taught by my father that "all men are pigs" and that they "only want one thing from me" and other awful things. As my dad was the only major male player in my life, and because he was an abusive asshole, it was easy to believe him. I genuinely feared men - all men - from puberty through college. And, once you believe something like that, it's easy for misbehaviors and everyday sexism in regular, non-abusive men to act as a kind of confirmation bias. It wasn't until I started therapy to recover from my abusive childhood when I started to see nuance in male behavior and was able to stop knee-jerk fear/hate men as a gender.

I do agree that toxic masculinity/toxic femininity fall under the misogynist umbrella. But I think that misogyny itself is a tool historically used by the elite and politically powerful to maintain control over society.

Anyway: TL;DR, could you better-define misandry for the way you use it, because I would definitely consider myself an recovering misandrist based on the New Oxford American Dictionary definition that pops up on my mobile.

[–]danceparty3000Feminist 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Prejudice against men is certainly something that exists, there are people who are prejudiced against men. When I say misandry doesn't exist I am referring to oppression of men.

In my opinion, even in those cases of individuals who are prejudiced against men, it isn't really accurate to call it misandry. Because we can't even really say that there are two kinds of misogyny, for example, individual prejudice and systemic oppression, with misandry as the counterpart to the first kind of misogyny, because individual prejudice against women exists in the context of systemic oppression against women. No misogynist is acting independently, no misogynist's actions are independent. Individual prejudice against women is an aspect of oppression against women, and contributes to oppression against women.

[–]Pariahdog119Egalitarian[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

I think there's also a terminology difference here; I believe /u/danceparty may specifically be referring to systemic misandry, based on their mention of power dynamics.

[–]Felicia_SvillingFeminist 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes, which is reasonable as that is the kind of misogyny that is referenced in internalized misogyny, and frankly the systemic kind of sexism is the one who is debated in academic circles.

[–]TransFatAcceptance 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Where did you learn this world view? Is this what is actually taught in sociology and gender studies courses, or did you pick this up from the sort of meta-discussions that take place in various internet hangouts for amateur sociologists like tumblr and here?

The reason I ask because there's a very tenuous presupposition acting as the basis of your world view, which you use to paint the rest of your assertions as simple fact, even going so far as to conveniently redefine multiple terms to support your argument.

You really only see this type of presupposition in the field of theology.

[–]Pariahdog119Egalitarian[S] -4ポイント-3ポイント  (9子コメント)

I disagree with you on two points:

I think misandry exists, because I've seen non-Poe's-law posts from people claiming to be radical feminists (who sound more like gender supremacists) advocating against breast feeding boys specifically to disadvantage them; advocating for the castration of men; for the culling of 90% of men, with the exception of the hot ones; that women should be allowed to kill one man per month with no repercussions... Granted, these are crazy people, and many of them have probably been hurt by men in their life, but being abused by women doesn't excuse misogyny either. A hated of men because they are men can only be defined as misandry.

Women can and do use what I call toxic feminity to control and manipulate men; the one example that I've experienced personally, as a blue collar worker, is being asked by female co-workers to do part of their job because I'm "a big strong man." I'm not talking about helping a shorter person reach a high object, team lift, etc - but an attitude that she shouldn't have to do as much work because she's a woman, and that I should do it for her. I've also seen examples of women who engage in inappropriate behaviors (such as assault, screaming at people in the street, etc) who immediately call for help when called out. One video I remember showed a woman shoving herself against a man while screaming for him to stop grabbing her breast; his hands were in the air and he was trying to back away. By using the toxic stereotype of the helpless woman, she seemed to be attempting to gain the support of the onlookers by playing a victim in an encounter that she was clearly instigating.

[–]JessthePest 8ポイント9ポイント  (4子コメント)

I agree toxic femininity exists, but that it is serves misogyny. When women, (on a macro/historical-level) feel powerless, they reach for whatever power they can get: conforming to and manipulating the systemic mores of misogyny.

You examples would be one; my question would be "how did that woman feel powerless?" In those moments, she's reaching for the only "weapon" she has: (an)other culturally-trained misogynist with more social power than her to "enforce" her power. It's like the "woman behind the throne" meme.

One of the things I study is power-dynamics, and even in relatively violence-free encounters, like the woman who wanted you to do her work, it's not necessarily that she believes she shouldn't have to do as much work as you - misogyny has never subscribed to the idea that women do less work than men - but that she's attempting to assert a measure of power and leverage it for her own gain. Perhaps she was going to ask you for something later and needed to establish you as a White Knight-type, or maybe was angling for a promotion based on her ability to "get all her work done," or "delegate," or to prove to herself that she was liked and you had her back. But, usually (barring psychopathy) people don't assert power for the sake of asserting power. It has its roots in vulnerability, fear and anxiety.

And, that is why toxic masculinity exists: it's a way for men to assert their power and prevent the exposure of vulnerability. Keep in mind, I believe misogyny has been cultivated by men in power to maintain their power; the 1% of the 1% throughout history. Like the southern working poor voting Republican against their own interests, or like a school bully is often abused at home, the systemic misogyny that is practiced on a global level keeps men without political power vulnerable and then permits them to assert social power against women as a kind of pressure-valve or as a salve to their exposed and bruised dignity. But like the "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" conservative, the benefit of being male (and, likely white) allows men to believe they have a chance at the kind of power denied them.

There's an interesting article on the front page of /r/femmethoughts about why men marry Melanias and raise Ivankas that perfectly illustrates my point: men want unfettered access to the social power misogyny gives them even while they climb in power politically. I think the article misses the mark on the raising of their daughters. Men of power and status have always wanted their children to benefit from the fruits of their labor; it is a conceit of their own power-status that they are able to marry their daughters up. Ivanka isn't released from her father's misogyny because he is powerful; she is more fully immersed in it - she is grateful for the opportunities she wouldn't otherwise have been given, and is more jealous of threats to her own power-base (her father's power) because she has more to lose than most women who climbed to her heights alone. Any feminism she claims is a privilege of her father's misogyny. And I'm not talking about nepotism, though there is that. Any woman who sits with a smile as her father tells millions of Americans he finds her hot enough to date, defends her father's record of feminism, even while he tears down his opposition on the basis of her womanhood, hires a running mate so opposed to women's interests and gone on-record with several glaring, major examples of blatant sexism, receives more of a benefit from her father's position of power than she does from feminism as a social movement. Or, to put it another way, if ISIS took over America tomorrow and declared all women slaves to their nearest male relative, Ivanka Trump's life would barely be affected while every woman on this sub's life would be devestated.

Anyway, I'm rambling at this point. Does any of this make sense? Lol.

[–]Pariahdog119Egalitarian[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (3子コメント)

It does, although your description seems pretty close to a Patriarchy-as-conspiracy theory that i don't exactly agree with; I'll buy Patriarchy-as-phenomenon. (In other words, it's a thing that exists, and obviously individuals will use it to gain power just like they'd use anything else, but I don't think it's a conscious decision on the part of the world's ruling elite; the idea that this is the one idea they'd all agree in seems a bit too tinfoil - hat to me.)

And I do think that most of the privilege that people have is a result of, primarily, their social class and wealth.

On a tangent, I don't think the candidate who says "listen and believe the victim (unless the accused is your husband)," reportedly laughed at and mocked a twelve year old rape victim on the witness stand, and demands that women vote for her because her naughty bits are on the inside, is a feminist friendly candidate either - but I'm voting against both of them.

[–]JessthePest 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

The interesting thing about power dynamics is that in order to gain power, you must conform to it; and by conforming to it, your reinforcing its dynamic.

Patriarchy-as-Conspiracy isn't what I believe; if only for the fact that few families (other than the Hapsburgs) have been around long enough in an unbroken line of power to prove it the case. And patriarchy has certainly been around longer than Anglo-Christian monarchies.

Patriarchy-as-Phenomonon is closer to accurate, but then internally I balk because it sounds too close to Patriarchy-as-Nature. I simply think that anyone who has tried to "go against" power structure has either been destroyed by it and served as an example, or has been assimilated into it like the Borg, rendering any change they desired defunct. How this original power dynamic made its way into the human experience, I don't know, but certainly misogyny has proven to be an effective suppressor of populace power, even if those who are in power are churned. Perhaps that makes mysogyny more appealing to politically-disadvantaged men; historically a few of them will rise to power, and effectively learning power dynamics before a political rise makes their political rise more effective.

I also think that historically, when bourgeois class emerges is when affective misogyny rises. When all people are peasants, forced into submission but generally ignored, by a tiny aristocratic class, the individual skills of each serf for the survival of their village (which would be the only place most people would live and experience) is paramount. But have a few scrabble up into minor, begrudging power and suddenly there's a cage match for the scraps thrown from the wealthy's tables.

Keeps in mind, I'm not idealizing the Middle Ages for women, I'm simply saying that the more power perceived to be available in distribution, the more people will fight for their share of it. Or, everyone being on the knife's edge of survival makes people too tired to care overmuch about things we care very much about now.

Hillary is exactly like Ivanka, just forty years older. And, I'm not saying this is better or worse than Ivanka's position, but when Hillary and Bill signed up to be a political powerhouse together, they did it durning a time when political wives were the submissive adornment to their husband's careers. Hillary leveraged her position as Bill's wife in a calculated political move no different than Ivanka leverages her position as Trump's daughter for power.

Now, where it gets sticky is it's been fifty years and the moves necessary back then and the moves necessary now should be different. But, like I said above, conforming to power dynamics is often the most effective way into power. All politicians subscribe to some form of misogyny in order to reach the level of power they enjoy, and female politicians are no different.

The question each voter must ask themselves in this election cycle is who would do the most harm. That answer, hands down, is Trump. Feminism rises when political ambiguity is at it's lowest. Trump would destabilize so much of our current political foundations that feminism would die a swift death on the national level.

And, unfortunately, since the Twelfth Amendment requires at least one candidate to receive the majority of electoral college votes, or the President is chosen by Congress (meaning Trump), the only option for feminists is the candidate-of-least-harm, Hillary.

Or revolution.

But, then, see my previous point: women's rights die in times of political turmoil. So, I got nothin'.

But then, I'm just an arm-chair redditor.

[–]Pariahdog119Egalitarian[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Completely off topic: unless you live in a purple state, I'd recommend voting third party. Yeah, we all known Johnson and Stein can't win, but they can get enough votes to shake things up a bit (and get funding for next time around.) California will vote Clinton and Texas will vote Trump (ooh unexpected alliteration yay) regardless of what us little people do, so if your state is red or blue, consider voting in this election to change the next one.

And don't forget the down-ballot candidates! That's where it starts.

[–]JessthePest 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

The twelfth amendment states that the winning candidate must receive 270 electoral votes, or Congress gets to decide the president. Since both the House and Senate are Republican, that's a Trump presidency. I mean, theoretically, they could chose Cruz or Bush, but since the RNC didn't have the balls to affect the convention, they're not going to go off-ticket if it happens.

And since most states are winner-take-all, if Johnson and Stein do shake things up and manage to get electoral votes, that only reduces the chance for a Hillary presidency. Maybe you think that's a good thing, but unless Johnson or Stein (not both) get 270 electoral votes, that means Trump is president.

Ok, so this infograph from fivethirtyeight.com shows the current state of America red vs. blue. Right now, it's projected Democrats will receive 332 electoral votes in the election and Republicans 206. Now, some states are more "saturated" than others. Colorado (9), Florida (29), Ohio (18) and Virginia (13) are all within two percentage points of going Republican. If Hillary loses these four states, Trump wins even if they don't vote Rebublican. Only Maine and Nebraska award electoral votes based on popular votes. The 538 numbers estimate turnout based on history, but these could all change if people don't get out and vote in November.

Stein is Green Party, and attracts progressives. Johnson is Liberatarian and tends to attract non-social-issue conservatives, but the field is wider here. A lot of people I know are voting for Johnson, including my mother who's a registered Democrat. Just from my own experiences, third-party candidates will hurt Hillary this election cycle more than Trump. Partially from disappointed Bernie supporters, partially from "Neither One" decriers, and partially because Hillary herself is polarizing and over the course of her career has made a lot of enemies.

But, I keep thinking of the Brexit vote and how so many Britons regretted their vote. They, too, voted to make a statement, not necessarily to leave, and now they've made a bed.

Neither Johnson nor Stein will be President. The only two options our country has are Trumo and Hillary. There is no scenario where Johnson or Stein (or Sanders) becomes President. The next President will be Trump or Hillary.

I'd encourage people not to play games with their vote. We are in an untenable position where a Hillary loss - in whatever way - is a Trump win. Don't vote for someone other than Hillary, unless you prefer Trump to Hillary.

Down-vote candidates is also a good piece to mention, but I want to say something else:

For Godssakes, vote in your primaries. Most states have them in the spring. The people on this ballot are shoo-ins for political office on the ballot you'll be using this fall. Oftentimes, you'll notice, many of these candidates are running unopposed. This was decided in your spring primaries.

Vote every year. Make it a PTO day. Decide now that voting once in the spring and once in the fall is the least (it, literally is the least) you can do to maintain a working republic.

Choose something you care about now: Citizens United, Electoral College, Gerrymandering, grassroots Third-Party building, whatever and work for it even after the President has been chosen. The reason why Congress is red in a blue nation is because in 2002, purple states with red State Houses gerrymandered the fuck out of their national congressional districts so that in 2010 they could take over the House of Reoresentatives and Senate. It will take at least eight years to correct this problem, which means whether Trump or Hillary win the Presidency, they'll be working with a Republican Congress for at least two more years (and that's only if the DNC was as active and as effective as the GOP was back in 2010 when it turned). Long-term party planning is necessary to win the battles we care about, so pick something you care about and devote some consistent time to it for the next few years.

[–]danceparty3000Feminist 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

A hatred of men because they are men is not misandry. There is no system of oppression against men. If I hate White Sox fans because they are White Sox fans, my prejudice demands no special terms.

The idea of misandry is a red herring, it equates itself to misogyny at least in some ways, it projects/encourages the idea that women/feminists need policing lest they go too far and invert the power dynamic. It is a bogeyman.

[–]TransFatAcceptance 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

A hatred of men because they are men is not misandry.

This is the definition of misandry.

You're conflating misandry and oppression so that you can easily discard both.

There is a disdain and disgust in our society for men who do not conform to the ideal expression of masculinity. This is a form of misandry, and internalized misandry of this type manifests itself in male suicide, as one example.

[–]Pariahdog119Egalitarian[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Is the reason you're opposed to the term "misandry" more about a correlation with "systemic misandry," which doesn't exist, or because it's used by MRA's?

I'm asking because I posted this there as well - and several seem to oppose the phrase "toxic masculinity" on the grounds that feminists coined the term, despite the fact that it obviously exists; if I'd called it machismo, instead, they'd probably agree with me more.

If I said "gender discrimination against men," though, would it really be better than saying "misandry," or just longer?

And I'm sure that fans of the Red Sox could come up with some creative words...

[–]danceparty3000Feminist 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't think it's accurate to posit misandry as anything other than systemic misandry (which doesn't exist) or at least including systemic misandry, because misogyny does not exist in cleaved parts - individual and systemic. Individual misogyny exists in a context of systemic misogyny, it comes about from it and contributes to it. These terms/concepts are not reducible. Misogyny wouldn't exist, the concept nor the term, without systemic oppression.

I also dislike the term because it is used to convolute the issues and demonize feminists, and it is used that way by people who have no connection to MRA's too.

I would suggest "prejudice against men," because really most of the feminists saying "misandrist" things don't hate men because they are men, they hate men because men oppress. "Misandry" is almost universally a reaction to oppression which is enacted by a gender group, and that is different from a creation of oppression against a gender group.

You said earlier that men are not excused of misogyny even if they've been abused by women, but the context of abuse is not equal to the context of oppression. A man who has been abused by women contributes to oppression with misogyny, a woman who has been abused or oppressed by men does not contribute to oppression with "misandry."

[–][削除されました]  (2子コメント)

[removed]

    [–]AutoModerator[M] -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Your comment has been removed: Only feminists are allowed to answer questions directly.

    If you wish to debate the topic please start your own thread. You are still free to respond to other comments in this thread.

    I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

    [–]Pariahdog119Egalitarian[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Boo, bad bot.