Read on Twitter
okay so this should get some discussion going. A lot of the analysis on masculinity is flat and that is because it lacks the context of race
So let's talk hyper-masculinity and black men. See it is usually discuss as 1. something that black men try to attain and 2. something that give them access to structural power. Namely cis hetero patriarchy. These are both incorrect
The problem with the first part is that hyper-masculinity is forced on to black men. This has a specific purpose ( many but one in particular)
even though it is seen as now something that an "over correction" to get close to the standard. It's original intention was to keep it out of the standard in the first place
one of the ideas of manhood is physicality, and the idea though was this is something only white men could achieve, when that was disprove. There had to be a change
this changes to this sort "golden mean" of masculinity where white had "just the right amount" of "civility" or sophistication to balance them out
but for black men they had too much, therefore it basically made them not human. this leads into the second point
the purpose of this was to keep them out of that access. So it really can't give them the benefits by design. Though for colonization sake believing that standard being reach is a good thing works to continue to disrupt communities. That incentivization still exits even
if its a a wild goose chase. I think the way to understand this is when masculinity is place on black folks that aren't men. There isn't any privileged or advantaged gain. This because of how blackness+masculinity is view. the idea that your more threatening, more dangerous
even sort of "positive" attributes like strength or resiliency is used against you, typically in denied of care or justifying mistreatment. This has deadly consequences
So when you ever "anti-black misandry" this may give a head (it did mined when I first heard it) however it is only seems like this if you view as a counter to cis hetero patriarchy. That typically because reactionary used misandry as a view to refute its existence
however if you understand it as an extension of cis hetero patriarchy, it does make sense.
that's all i have to say lol
