Problematizing Men and Toxic Masculinity

Harrington, Carol

doi:10.1007/978-3-031-07088-4_3

Cited by 2 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A more compelling explanation for the phenomena discussed by Nathanson and Young (2001, 2006, 2015) can be found in Carol Harrington’s (2022, p. 64) discussion of how ‘neoliberal rationality’ (rather than ‘feminist misandry’) is responsible for the problematisations of masculinity and transformation of gender norms. Rather than pointing towards the dissolution of patriarchal structures, contemporary caricatures of men are indicative of the installation of hegemonic masculinities, which may eschew misogyny and traditional ‘toxic’ masculinity but nevertheless perpetuate patriarchal structures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, the kind of men whom Nathanson and Young (2001, 2006, 2015) have in mind are likely working-class and racially minoritised men who are represented as backwardly traditional and hyper-masculine (cf. Harrington, 2022, p. 63). These negative representations of men function ‘to create the appearance that male-domination is on the decline’ ( ibid.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The patriarchy is also a hetero patriarchy, such that men who are not cisgender or heterosexual or who simply deviate from heteronormative expectations are also subject to policing. The heteropatriarchal binary of masculine-coded norms over feminine-coded norms sets up particular kinds of masculinity as the only expressions of gender legitimately available to men and boys (Waling, 2019, p. 363; see also Harrington, 2022, p. 61). It is typically a white, able-bodied and ‘elite’ form of masculinity which serves as the telos for patriarchal norms, such that expressions of a working-class or Black masculinity can be stigmatised and misconstrued as aggressive, criminal or ‘toxic’ in comparison to the so-construed ‘healthy’ expressions reserved for white, high-income heterosexual men (Harrington, 2021, p. 348; 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 5 Alongside the ‘revival of right-wing masculinist politics, misogyny, and anti-feminism’ (Harrington, 2022, p. 63). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 12 I thank the reviewers for bringing to my attention the important discussions that are critical of the concept of ‘toxic masculinity’ (see Waling, 2019; Harrington, 2021, 2022), a concept which was prominent in an earlier draft. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

reclaiming misandry from misogynistic rhetoric

Hedges

2024

Feminist Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, misogyny has become a central concept in philosophy as well as an established concept in public discourse and political policy. But where is misogyny’s supposed counterpart, namely, misandry? In this article, I argue for an ameliorative analysis of ‘misandry’, arguing that it can be reformulated in an effort to reclaim it from misogynistic weaponisation. The term ‘misandry’ is used almost exclusively as a misogynistic rhetorical device for attributing unjust anger, hatred or other similar emotions to a speaker, thereby undermining their epistemic authority. Rather than dismissing the term as conceptually flawed and politically problematic, I argue that we ought to ameliorate misandry to instead refer to a felt anger, hostility or fear towards the patriarchal social order and its valorisation and/or expression in misogynistic and machismo behaviour. To support these claims, I begin with a discussion of Kate Manne’s analysis of misogyny before reflecting on how this can inform our understanding of misandry. I then demonstrate the various ways in which misandry is rhetorically deployed as a means of silencing speakers who express dissent against the patriarchy. Following this, I argue that we should ameliorate the term, not only to undermine these misogynistic practices but also to articulate a legitimate affective and reactive attitude against the patriarchal imposition of a hierarchical gender binary.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%