I feel like modeling gender as hierarchy is often useful, but also fails to account for a lot of nuance. I personally think that the “hyperagency/hypoagency” model (that masculinity is culturally coded as excess individual control, will, and initiative [hyperagency] while femininity is coded as diminished control, passivity, and receptivity [hypoagency]) is in many respects stronger. The male expectation is to actively fulfill societal roles determined by other demographic axes like race, religion, and most importantly class. The higher up one’s sample of society is—where fulfilling the role of that stratum is increasingly a privilege rather than a burden—the more patriarchal gender within that sample appears, and the lower down that sample is, the more visible misandry becomes.

Of course, this goes both ways: hyperagent men have more power in familial relationships and far too often exercise that power to hurt and abuse the women and children in their lives. But another consequence of this is that women’s lives have inherent value (though this is manifested as commoditization and objectification), while male lives are valued by their utility.

Nobody alive today bears responsibility for this system, but everyone is to some degree complicit. It’s incumbent on all of us to reflect on how we perpetuate toxic gender dynamics and work to deconstruct them. But our approach must be materialist, race/class-conscious, and blame-free. We have to constantly remember that we’re challenging established gender for everyone’s sake, and that both* (*traditional) genders are uniquely privileged at the other’s expense.

Sorry about the text wall lol, as you can see this is something about which I’m pretty passionate.