When Misogyny Turns Inward

In Misogyny Beneath the Surface, we explored how misogyny often operates in subtle, normalized ways—embedded in everyday behaviors, assumptions, and relational dynamics, even among those who consciously reject it. An extension of that work requires us to consider how these same systems are not only enacted outwardly, but also internalized—and how that internalization may surface within intimate relationships.

Conversations about misogyny often focus on how it is enacted by men. Less frequently named is how misogyny can be internalized by women and how those internalized beliefs may surface within intimate relationships.

This is not a shift in accountability, but an expansion of the lens. Systems of gendered harm shape both men and women, often outside of awareness.

For many women, internalized misogyny develops within the context of lived experience. Messages that devalue femininity while demanding resilience, adaptability, and strength are not abstract—they are repeated, reinforced, and often necessary for survival. Over time, these messages can take root, shaping expectations of self, other women, and male partners.

Within relationships, this can manifest in ways that are less frequently named. Many men describe feeling consistently evaluated, corrected, or challenged in ways that feel less like mutual engagement and more like a questioning of their competence and worth. These interactions often center on areas historically tied to masculinity: intellect, financial stability, decision-making, and physical presentation.

At times, this takes the form of psychological pressure expressed through intellectual dominance; where a partner’s perspective is dismissed, reframed, or scrutinized in ways that create self-doubt. In more entrenched patterns, men describe manipulation that parallels other forms of emotional abuse: their intentions are questioned, their emotional responses minimized, or their efforts to communicate reframed as inadequacy.

These patterns align with dynamics reflected in the Power and Control Wheel, a framework that illustrates how abuse can operate beyond physical violence. Forms such as emotional abuse, minimizing and blaming, using intimidation, or exerting control over decision-making can be present even when they are not immediately recognized as abuse. When these behaviors occur in subtle or intellectualized forms, they may be more difficult to name, but their impact remains.

These experiences can be difficult to articulate. When men attempt to express them, they are often met with dismissal or reframing that positions them as the source of the problem. Over time, this can result in a quiet sense of helplessness. One shaped not only by the relationship itself, but by the lack of recognition or language to describe what is happening.

These dynamics are rarely intentional. More often, they reflect internalized expectations shaped by the same patriarchal systems that have constrained women. For example, beliefs that men must be controlled, emotionally limited, or solely responsible for stability can lead to patterns of correction, management, or critique within relationships. Similarly, expectations around provision, strength, and authority can result in men being held to rigid and often unattainable standards.

What begins as adaptation, an effort to navigate inequity, can become a source of relational strain.

This is not limited to traditional heterosexual relationships. Similar patterns can emerge across non-traditional and non-gender-conforming partnerships, suggesting the issue is less about identity and more about how internalized hierarchies around gender and power persist.

At the same time, these dynamics must be understood within context. For many women, behaviors such as vigilance, correction, or maintaining control may reflect efforts to preserve safety, dignity, and predictability in environments where those have not been guaranteed. These responses carry history. They do not exist without reason.

And yet, impact remains.

In the therapy space, many men arrive not only with frustration, but with confusion and exhaustion. They often struggle to locate themselves within the dynamic; unsure whether what they are experiencing is valid, or whether they are misunderstanding something fundamental about the relationship. Part of the work involves helping them name these experiences without collapsing into defensiveness or self-blame, and without abandoning accountability where it is appropriate.

Therapy also supports men in rebuilding a sense of agency. This includes clarifying boundaries, developing language for their emotional experiences, and reducing the pressure to perform within rigid roles that were never collaboratively chosen. In this process, helplessness is not dismissed, it is understood, contextualized, and worked through in ways that restore clarity and self-trust.

At the same time, therapeutic work with women includes examining how internalized misogyny may shape their expectations, reactions, and relational behaviors, while also honoring the conditions that produced those patterns. This includes identifying when protective strategies have shifted into controlling or diminishing interactions, and exploring alternative ways of relating that do not rely on hierarchy or correction as a primary mode of engagement.

Here, the Equality Wheel offers a useful contrast. It emphasizes shared power, mutual respect, accountability, trust, and open communication: principles that move relationships away from control-based dynamics and toward collaboration. In many ways, therapeutic work involves helping both partners recognize the gap between these two frameworks: where power is being used to manage or dominate, and where it can be shared to support connection and stability.

Ultimately, these dynamics reflect systems that have shaped both partners in different, but interconnected ways. Change requires more than identifying harm, it requires a willingness to examine inherited beliefs, to recognize how power is expressed in subtle forms, and to move toward relationships grounded less in role enforcement and more in shared responsibility, mutual respect, and psychological safety.

— Rayshaun Johnson, LPC, NCC