The other day, I listened to two stories on NPR. I can't remember if they were back to back, but they stuck out during my shirt trip to the grocery store. Typically I find NPRs stories and articles to be informative and relevant. They feel more like news and less like propaganda and brainwashing than other news sources.

The stories I listened to left me wondering if I was being too sensitive or if they were subtly pushing misandrist views. The first story was about old ladies diving for trash and the second about conscription of men in Ukraine.

https://www.capeandislands.org/local-news/2022-08-02/old-ladies-dive-into-cape-ponds-seeking-trash-emerge-triumphant

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/15/1117605630/ukrainians-express-worries-over-conscription-following-russias-invasion

The first story had an interview with an old woman. She stated she had denied men from the group, which is fine. She goes too far when she gives her reasoning - women can do everything and don't need a man's help. I can't help but put the shoe on the other foot and imagine what it would be like with roles reversed. I don't think that kind of comment would have worked if some old men denied young women from helping because they don't need a woman's help.

The story regarding conscription of men in Ukraine danced around saying anything about being a gender issue or sexist, claiming that forced conscription is a human rights or treaty law issue. It juxtaposed two sides of the argument - 1. We need men to fight because it's a war and 2. The involuntary conscription is unpopular with the Ukrainian people, and goes against human rights/treaty law. The article gives the arguments "equal time". A woman is asked to comment, and she likens Ukraine to Israel, saying that even women should be ready to fight. Putting that idea forward is egregious as the story is about men being conscripted (men's issue? But what about women?!) and women being conscripted in Ukraine will likely never happen. Saying so seems like an attempt to absolve women of responsibility. The ideas are also presented mostly by women, or at least in a woman's voice. Finally, the story places the potential consequences of not having involuntary conscription squarely on the shoulders of the men who value their lives over the outcome of the war.

Are these stories objectively misandrist, or am I overthinking? Any thoughts?