Misogyny often isn't about women

[Anonymous]

There's a really good article in the Atlantic by Peggy Orenstein with the title "The Miseducation of the American Boy."
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/01/the-miseducation-of-the-american-boy/603046/

Overall, it talks about the limited cultural view of acceptable masculinity that boys encounter when they grow up. There's a lot in there, and I'd encourage anyone to read it, but she makes an astute observation about the rampant misogyny one encounters in all male spaces: it's often not about women at all. Women are collateral damage in a performance by young men to impress other young men. It's mostly about avoiding shaming by other guys.

Sexual conquest—or perhaps more specifically, bragging about your experiences to other boys—is, arguably, the most crucial aspect of toxic masculinity.
. . .
At 16, reputation meant everything to Nate, and certain things could cement your status. “The whole goal of going to a party is to hook up with girls and then tell your guys about it,” he said. . . . [I]t was all about credentialing. “Guys need to prove themselves to their guys,” Nate said. To do that, “they’re going to be dominating.” They’re going to “push.” Because the girl is just there “as a means for him to get off and to brag.”
. . .
No matter how often I heard it, the brutal language that even a conscientious young man like Nate used to describe sexual contact—you hit that!—always unnerved me. In mixed-sex groups, teenagers may talk about hooking up (already impersonal), but when guys are on their own, they nail, they pound, they bang, they smash, they hammer. They tap that ass, they tear her up. It can be hard to tell whether they have engaged in an intimate act or just returned from a construction site.

It’s not like I imagined boys would gush about making sweet, sweet love to the ladies, but why was their language so weaponized?? The answer, I came to believe, was that locker-room talk isn’t about sex at all, which is why guys were ashamed to discuss it openly with me. The (often clearly exaggerated) stories boys tell are really about power: using aggression toward women to connect and to validate one another as heterosexual, or to claim top spots in the adolescent sexual hierarchy.

[Anonymous]

using power, aggression and a violent narrative against and about women is mysogony OP. They don't talk about kicking their puppies around to prove themselves to other men. 99% of the time its only in demeaning WOMEN that men feel like they prove anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:using power, aggression and a violent narrative against and about women is mysogony OP. They don't talk about kicking their puppies around to prove themselves to other men. 99% of the time its only in demeaning WOMEN that men feel like they prove anything.

Well, right - so maybe "isn't about women" wasn't the correct phrasing -- but women are like collateral damage in this equation. It's not that the men mistreating women necessarily have any specific feelings about the women themselves. The young men are doing it to prove themselves to other men.

[Anonymous]

So ... a reporter interviews 100 "men"... boys... and most in the article is describing experiences of boys who attend all boy private schools and she finds out the culture at their school socializes them to treat girls like shit.

In other news, the sky is blue and the grass is green.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So ... a reporter interviews 100 "men"... boys... and most in the article is describing experiences of boys who attend all boy private schools and she finds out the culture at their school socializes them to treat girls like shit.

In other news, the sky is blue and the grass is green.

My somewhat surprised take away was that the boys mostly seem to not like the system they're caught in. If we can offer them good options that don't involve treating women like shit and chaining down their emotions, it seems like they'll take them. Right now, they're getting advice to "stand up to the assholes." Apparently when they do, they get bulldozed and nothing good comes of the effort.

[Anonymous]

Wow. These boys seem so young to talk like this. My boys are 10 & 12, and I can’t imagine them talking like this about girls in just four or five years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So ... a reporter interviews 100 "men"... boys... and most in the article is describing experiences of boys who attend all boy private schools and she finds out the culture at their school socializes them to treat girls like shit.

In other news, the sky is blue and the grass is green.

My somewhat surprised take away was that the boys mostly seem to not like the system they're caught in. If we can offer them good options that don't involve treating women like shit and chaining down their emotions, it seems like they'll take them. Right now, they're getting advice to "stand up to the assholes." Apparently when they do, they get bulldozed and nothing good comes of the effort.

Most people know all boys schools are toxic... even some boys... their parents don’t care because they care about college admissions and money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's a really good article in the Atlantic by Peggy Orenstein with the title "The Miseducation of the American Boy."
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/01/the-miseducation-of-the-american-boy/603046/

Overall, it talks about the limited cultural view of acceptable masculinity that boys encounter when they grow up. There's a lot in there, and I'd encourage anyone to read it, but she makes an astute observation about the rampant misogyny one encounters in all male spaces: it's often not about women at all. Women are collateral damage in a performance by young men to impress other young men. It's mostly about avoiding shaming by other guys.

Sexual conquest—or perhaps more specifically, bragging about your experiences to other boys—is, arguably, the most crucial aspect of toxic masculinity.
. . .
At 16, reputation meant everything to Nate, and certain things could cement your status. “The whole goal of going to a party is to hook up with girls and then tell your guys about it,” he said. . . . [I]t was all about credentialing. “Guys need to prove themselves to their guys,” Nate said. To do that, “they’re going to be dominating.” They’re going to “push.” Because the girl is just there “as a means for him to get off and to brag.”
. . .
No matter how often I heard it, the brutal language that even a conscientious young man like Nate used to describe sexual contact—you hit that!—always unnerved me. In mixed-sex groups, teenagers may talk about hooking up (already impersonal), but when guys are on their own, they nail, they pound, they bang, they smash, they hammer. They tap that ass, they tear her up. It can be hard to tell whether they have engaged in an intimate act or just returned from a construction site.

It’s not like I imagined boys would gush about making sweet, sweet love to the ladies, but why was their language so weaponized?? The answer, I came to believe, was that locker-room talk isn’t about sex at all, which is why guys were ashamed to discuss it openly with me. The (often clearly exaggerated) stories boys tell are really about power: using aggression toward women to connect and to validate one another as heterosexual, or to claim top spots in the adolescent sexual hierarchy.

This article seem very fishy. It seems the author is interpreting and forcing things to fit her thesis.

[Anonymous]

I played sports, hung with the jock crowd and can attest this is how we spoke 25 years ago too. But we didn't actually tear up our girlfriends or hookups. We had sex, sometimes made love. It's usually just talk, and not saying it makes it right

[Anonymous]

That’s an interesting perspective. Many years ago I dated a guy who was a former football player. He was a nice guy, but physically was just a very large person. He dominated any room he entered. It astounded me how often we’d walk into a bar, and some random guy would pick a fight. He did nothing to provoke it, just some guy would decide he needed to be “king of the hill” and topple the biggest guy in the room. It happened repeatedly. We’d usually just leave, or his buddies would back him up and the instigator would back down. It never happened with the usual thin or short guys I dated, just this one. It was an insight into male behaviour that I wasn’t familiar with before that.

[Anonymous]

You are conflating two very different things.

[Anonymous]

How nice of a woman to decide for boys what is and is not "acceptable masculinity" .

Can we get a male author to tell girls how to be feminine next?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow. These boys seem so young to talk like this. My boys are 10 & 12, and I can’t imagine them talking like this about girls in just four or five years.

They won't. Author is making it up.

[Anonymous]

Acting cruel to women because they don’t care about whether the women are hurt, women only exist as pawns in their King of the Hill battle against other men? That sounds pretty misogynistic to me. I don’t see much of a distinction between that and actively hating women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Acting cruel to women because they don’t care about whether the women are hurt, women only exist as pawns in their King of the Hill battle against other men? That sounds pretty misogynistic to me. I don’t see much of a distinction between that and actively hating women.

I don't know that it's better - it might be worse, but it's different from how I usually see the issue framed. It's not a struggle of men v. women - it's men v. men with women used for points. And of course it sounds misogynistic - this thread is about misogyny.