Internalised misogyny examples please

Very much so.

I think the people who recognise that society infleunces them even when they consciously reject it are far more aware than the people who claim they are not influenced.

The internalisation is in the things people do or think automatically without even realising it not in the conscious choices they may make.

I think it goes much farther than we would like to think, and I know it's part of my upbringing - even though my DM would describe herself as vehemently feminist.

It's unconscious, and affects our decision making and view of life fundamentally.

I see the opposite as I wasn't allowed to wear trousers and had to keep shoes scuff free. Dd has a girl in her year whose mum won't let her cut her hair or wear trainers (she is now 16 and still not allowed either)...freedom of choice is key. I feel kids need to be able to play and not be put in pristine expensive show pieces that they aren't allowed to get messy. Boys don't get this, unless it is a special event and even then boys in a mini-tux with mud on wouldn't be seen as a big deal. Girls are expected to sit politely in a corner and stay clean meaning they don't get involved or experience play in the same way. They are told repeatedly their looks are what matters.

Yes! I do see women driving slowly, granted, but not dangerously like men, who often seem to think they are in a snowplough pushing traffic along without any desire to indicate or give any gap between themselves or the car in front. Finding out that many of them speeding and weaving on motorways haven't had a ticket because they have fake plates (who knew the law hadn't figured this out when we all see it while driving?) yet I got a mandatory advanced driving session for doing 33 in a 30mph zone, has been eye opening.
The law is another obvious example of sexism, where women get longer sentences for less serious and non-violent crimes.

I always think of my mother and her hatred for feminine dress and behaviour as an example of internalised misogyny. We should all be in unisex jumpsuits in her view. Frills, pattern, swooshy skirts are all bad.

I'm not a particular fan of Jimmy Carr, but I do always remember one of his jokes in the introduction to 8 Out of 10 cats, which went something along the lines of "Statistics show that 98% of serious car accidents are caused by male drivers... meaning that the other 2% are the fault of BLOODY WOMEN!!!"

Also when you are in a car and the driver says "what is this woman DOING?" and it turns out to be a man... I do the opposite because IME 9 out of 10 times it is a man driving badly. Always a bit disappointed when I see these tells in people I know.

Another was a friend's mum who asked why her new partner would want her, seeing as she already had kids from a previous relationship (he does too!). She cautioned her it wouldn't last...

When someone talks in a loud high pitched voice obviously meant to immitate a woman

It’s the woman who thinks her life is more valuable than mine because she has a husband and I am single.

I do roll my eyes every time somebody quite nonchalantly says in a thread or irl that her husband 'helps with' the baby/children, when he is their father.

Even if you've deliberately and mutually decided between you that one of you will work full-time to earn the money and the other will stay at home to run the house - so it would be quite reasonable to mention if the working person 'helps' the housewife/husband by putting on a load of washing or doing some hoovering when s/he gets home from work - being a parent isn't a 'task' that can slot into a set number of hours and then be ticked off the list.

I agree with @Heggettypeg's analysis here. In all institutions, especially religious ones or other cult-like groups, there are mechanisms of coordination, supervision and delegation that are responsible for the institution’s directional strategy and day-to-day management. These are often hierarchical in nature and, generally very male-oriented. Men thus will jostle for positions in the inner managerial circle; women generally assume more subordinate roles, with the men dispensing or withholding rewards to them.
Middle echelon male leaders in such institutions generally become the enforcers of regulations amongst lower status members, despite them not being demographically or democratically representative of, nor accountable to, rank-and-file members. These middle managers tend to feel responsible for keeping those below them in status in line.
Since not all the men in every total institution can be inside the inner circle (or even part of the middle-managerial layer of authority), many end up feeling disempowered. These men (especially those who feel they’ve been sidelined or are somehow inconsequential to the main institutional objective) assert what little authority they have usually over women. Sometimes they even transfer blame to women, who they may even feel are holding these men back from the very essence of their own lives, or from some important destiny they intended to fulfil. Such disempowered men compensated by treating the women in their orbit with disdain.
This then cascades down to the even more disempowered women who take on a similar role with other women in their orbit.

Yes, I didn't spell that out as I thought it was fairly obvious! :) But exactly - It's internalised misogyny when women do it, and in my experience, it happens a LOT. Women look askance at a man who reads "chicklit" or likes netball or are happy for their girls to play with cars but not for their boys to wear a dress.

I'm not sure if it counts as internalised misogyny but all the assumptions that boys/men's stuff is good vs girls/women's stuff. So it's okay for a girl to play with "boys" toys, but not the other way round. It's okay for a woman to be into football, but not for a man to be into netball. This constant assumption that things that have been traditionally female are lesser, or embarassing, or inappropriate in certain settings from books/movies, to sports etc.

I think @FlirtsWithRhinos has it right too that a lot of it is about putting down things that women are interested in as being meaningless or less important.

The one that always annoys m is the way that when both parents work, it doesn't matter what job they both do, the woman's job is ALWAYS perceived as the more flexible/less important and therefore in the case of sick children, she is the one who must manage it. There was interesting research with couples where one was a gp and one a lawyer and this exact dynamic played out time and time again - whether the woman was the doctor or the lawyer, HER job was the one that had to be put aside to care for sick children.

Personally I think this is why the men have rolled out AI so fast - they need to stop women working quickly to turn us all back into trad-wives and stop the "loneliness epidemic" which was only funny when it was women ending up with cats and of course isn't their own fault at all

One example you see on here all the time is that working mothers are apparently working for frivolous luxuries whereas working fathers are working to provide for their families.

I wonder what would happen if they called the respective components "mother" (larger, embracing) and "child" ( smaller, embraced) instead?

Dont be like the other girls.

On one level a funny example. On most other levels cosmically depressing.

Androg[yn]ous Spacecraft docking because neither the US or Russia wanted to be the "Female" docking part.

So- there's a society where for a long time, group A are dominant. Group B are tolerated if they get with the project and don't make trouble, but are at risk of disapproval or punishment if not.

Group A dominance is in the interests of group A members. So if you're an A, you don't need to actively signal loyalty to group A; it will be assumed unless you demonstrate otherwise. You can even behave quite nicely to Bs.

Group B, though, are always more or less suspected of not really being on side, or else they're just not thought about at all.

If you're a B and disinclined to be a rebel, are afraid of being suspected, or want more than crumbs from the A table, signalling loyalty to A is an obvious strategy. One way to do it is to jump on any B who steps out of line.

Doing that is also the only power- game available to a B who likes power, other than learning to manage and dominate a malleable A, which is trickier. (Assuming there are no C's even lower in the pecking order.)

All this applies in many other situations besides the relations of men and women, and has to do with power dynamics, rather than inborn characteristics.

I was accused of internalised mysogeny
i reflected
I had generalised but at the same time - it was a direct result of girls and young women bullying me for not being girly and feminine enough. I understand a young girl will start to avoid relationships with women after a decade or more of abuse perpetuated by women and girls. The boys / young men were more prepared to take me as I was. It was the the women trying to enforce the patriarchal norms more rigorously than men.

I must politely disagree. I am a boringly average woman. Yet I have never accepted these messages relating to women's roles, society's expectations etc. I have never complied with these messages, maybe because my interests, my work, my hobbies etc. have always been those more usually associated with men and finding myself on the "wrong" side of expected roles has probably toughened me up.

I've always seen "no" as a complete sentence. I dunno: maybe I am an just an oddball and there is indeed something within many women's natures that draws them to be compliant and absorb society's subtle messages or e.g.marketing shit. Or maybe after sixty years in the communications business I recognise even subtle manipulation more easily.

Whatever.

I've never understood how something can supposedly be disgusting, a sign of depression or make you look ill when one sex does/doesn't do it, but it's not even expected that the other sex might ever do it at all.

Yes, if you go for a month without showering or smear your poo over the walls for fun, that IS clearly disgusting, whichever sex you are; but when it comes to personal free choices such as shaving/not shaving hair or wearing/not wearing makeup, it's deranged... and it is indeed internalised misgyny. Also the ridiculous 'it's not professional' claims: if a male office worker has five identical shirts and pairs of trousers and dresses exactly the same every day, nobody even notices; but if a woman wore the exact same (clean) identical outfit every day, she would likely be taken to task for it.

Penis portions are another one - especially amongst certain generations of women. Not even just expecting that men will generally choose to eat a bit more, based on having larger bodies, but actively denying food to women and shaming them for wanting any more than a picky toddler would eat.

Serving up a huge plateful to the men, whilst giving women a tenth as much - often whilst commenting about 'wanting to watch your figure' or similar. And not even going back a few generations further, where nothing was even plated up; the men were given full and exclusive access to all of the food and IF there was anything left that they didn't fancy or just couldn't stuff in... well weren't the women and girls lucky, eh?!

It was because the men were the ones who had to go out to work to provide for the family, you see, so they needed to be big and strong and full of energy. Women didn't do anything remotely energetic or of any importance to the family, so whether they got anything to eat or not was pretty arbitrary and irrelevant...