“Painting your nails is girly and therefore wrong” only works if we presuppose that being girly is lesser and wrong.
Not really. It’s also a challenge to the status quo, and people don’t like that in general. By that reasoning, cutting your hair short should’ve been seen as “manly, better and right”, but women who did that were initially frowned upon. Because it’s challenging the status quo, and privileged people who see no issue with the current society see that as a threat to it.
Yes and the status quo is “painting your nails is for girls and therefore wrong for boys”.
Women being discouraged from doing things or looking a certain way or having certain personality traits because those things are “manly” or “boyish” is an aspect of misogyny. Men are the ruling class, women are the subservient class and are not allowed to adopt the guise and the attitudes of the ruling class.
So women not being able to do boyish things is misogyny but men not being able to do girlish things is misogyny too? How does that make sense? You realize there are women perpetrating that too, right? At what point does something turn into misandry in your opinion?
Yes, women are subservient. Men cannot act like the subservient, women cannot act like the ruling class. Both are predicated on women being lesser and subservient.
