What is 'overly feminized' and why are these men so afraid of it?

[KaetzenKlumpenz]

I took the title from a reddit poster, which referred to a NYT article (I think) concerning the US government awarding a NY art school $2 million. I was initially surprised, until I read this small segment of the article

"...has argued for the reclaiming of American culture from an overly feminized and anti American elite".

I am fairly keyed in on US politics (who could have missed it!?) and am up to date with my feminism, but this kind of statement always comes across a bit vague to me. No one ever explains exactly what they're getting at.
I am going to presume here that they believe the arts are dominated by women, which is quite ridiculous.

But more than that, what does it really mean,? since men are quite evidently still holding on to the vast majority of global power, whether economically or in the arts and sciences. What is it about the feminine that they despise so much?
Why is feminine a dirty word in a good segment of our culture (it is still used as an insult amongst boys and men)?

I tend to believe that when people are marginalised it is because they pose either a real or imagined threat, to the status quo, to an idealism, etc.

But what is about the feminine that pisses them off so bloody much?

Pipe down bitches...
Men are securing that they need to be in charge!

Could you imagine if women were in charge? I'm sure the world would run with compassion, empathy with common sense.

I think what bugs me is the insinuation that the word 'feminine' is something to eradicate.

I am a big believer in balance, and the joining of both masculine and feminine make a powerful combination. To reduce one is a bit dim.

I mean I was young in the 90's.
I am sure people thought like this, but you didn't tend to see it written down by gov officials and benefactors in the press. What a sewer our culture has become

I've read quite a few articles on this subject and they seem to explain the theory reasonably clearly. The idea is that in certain sectors women are now the majority (I'm guessing in this context they are talking about arts administration more than the artists themselves) and that has lead to institutions becoming more 'feminine' in culture and approach. They would say that things like contextual university offers and widespread acceptance of transgenderism result from this - a culture in which being agreeable matters more than striving to be the best. Normally when people talk about this theory they bring up what they see as the negative effects but of course there would be many positive aspects of 'feminisation', if it is a real thing.

I don't know if it holds any water but I find it quite interesting as a theory.

Well the roots to a fear of the feminine go way back..

I wonder why men in general are so ill at ease with their masculinity that they are offended by having any feminine attributes. We tend not to find masculine attributes insulting amongst women, although most of us would still prefer not to grow a full beard

Gay. They mean gay. The current conservative ruling elite think all arts are controlled by “the gays.” It’s fucking madness.

Especially when we all know the arts are controlled by heterosexual abusers like Harvey “who didn’t I abuse” Weinstein, and Brett “yes, I proudly jacked off using shrimp grease in front of an actress who dared to enter my trailer” Ratner. You know, the guy who directed and produced “Melania”…

Because it’s GAY, OP. Don’t you know being feminine in even the smallest way means you’re ONE OF THEM?!? You know, the homosexuals! You can’t actually own a “salmon-coloured” (pink) shirt unless you’re willing to take it up the bum 😔

Mr Portillo would like a word

On a serious note, men fear feminine colours, women don't give a hoot.

I appreciate the theories regarding women in the arts, current industry jobs etc, but this does go so much farther back than the rise of feminism and women in the arts or workplace. Pretty much the beginning of recorded history.

Joking aside, yes, this goes back as far as recorded history. But why? My favourite of the historical theories was that men can outperform women at physical feats, but in the arts - all are equal, and men in political leadership have traditionally HATED that. Women who are creative make art that is just as good as men who are creative. It’s subversive to gendered “norms” just by existing and being art. It’s also why there’s been so much gatekeeping in art (of every kind) - because women are physically capable of making almost every type of art, so you HAVE to discourage them somehow, obviously.

And yet, however naïve it may seem, I have never understood how it actually evolved. Surely some bright spark, somewhere, at some point in history must have thought 'shit, if we all work together we can do anything!'. But yes, it's overly simplistic.
DH always blames religion, but I am not so sure. We only have what is written down after a certain time.

I wonder how it all began.
I don't like the idea that we have any kind of innate gender issue. There's only the two of us (regardless the idea of becoming a new or other gender), and it doesn't make much sense in terms of survival to diminish one or the other.

So many men seem to hate and fear women, and I just don’t know why. I’ve read the theories about the effect of negative maternal relationships (coz obviously it’s the wimmin’s fault), about the fact that women are the only ones who can bear children and therefore that threatens male control, but what it seems to boil down to is (a) women gatekeep access to their own bodies, meaning men can’t can’t always access the women they want sexually; (b) women are fundamentally different to men in certain ways (not just physical), and many men find difference scary and want to control it; and (c) higher testosterone levels seem to make some men angry and hard of thinking.

That reminded me, although it's a bit of a tangent, of the writer (can't recall his name) who discovered that men who abuse women tended to learn it from the father, as opposed to any kind of issue with the mother.
Was it called 'why does he do that'? Sorry, I can't remember.

But yes, the usual line is it was the mother ffs.

Sorry OP, I understand what you’re saying, but yes, it is unbearably naïve.

Your life will be a lot better if you understand one thing: men don’t actively wish women were dead (for the most part). They just wouldn’t CARE if we died. Remember: men are afraid women will laugh at them and women are afraid men will kill them.

I mean, that’s not just about art. It’s about science. Why is research into women’s cancers so underfunded compared to research into cancers that men might some day have? They are telling us very clearly, dollar for dollar, that they do not consider us worth as much as men. When they finally perfect the artificial womb, I worry. Imagine a much, much bleaker (can’t believe I’m saying this) Handmaid’s Tale. What’s worse - insane misogynistic religious leaders who at least needed women for breeding or what would happen to this world if insane sex abusers, like Trump or Epstein, were in charge and women weren’t needed to carry on the human race? I mean, we’d be doubly fucked since so many quote-unquote “allies” who are men just claim to support women’s rights on behalf of their mother or sister or wife…

That’s why it has nothing to do with religion, in my opinion and experience, and everything to do with inherent, internalized misogyny that probably started when a caveman was trying to hit a cave woman over the head to drag her back to the cave, and it was the first time a woman said, “No, fuck off!” And they’ve been angry about any ounce we have of autonomy (to make art, to work on women’s issues, anything) ever since.

I think you’re talking about Lundy Bancroft?

Well I'm not THAT naïve, but you make excellent points.

Your comment reminded me of how up until recent decades, women hadn't been used in scientific studies for pharmaceuticals, which many believe explains why we have a good deal of issues/ negative reactions to them today.

I suppose I can't describe my feelings too well, but whilst I have a good grasp of these issues in the contemporary space, I know little about pre history. And this is what puzzles and interest me. You may very well be correct, that perhaps we can't quite relate to those impulses, of why a 'caveman' might become pissed about not getting his way.
But I am not convinced.
I feel that it may have a societal origin, as in something that evolved after civilisation? and the tensions that run within that - and yes, the desire to own or control the body that gives birth.

Same applies to the question of why have women always been happy to read books by men about boys (oliver twist, huck finn, etc) yet men and boys are still reluctant to read books by women about girls?

Not asking so much as thinking aloud.
These are far from groundbreaking questions, obvs, but then I am still dazzled by Germaine Greer's insistence that men inherently despise women. I can feel it, not always, but I don't understand or like it.
I wonder about how to locate the root of that.

Ha, did not mean to imply you were horrifically naïve; sorry about that wording in my part.

So, I don’t disagree with you that it may be something to do with the concept of a society even existing. Societies mean different things, but they almost always mean there is a majority and a minority, as well as a “top” and a “bottom.” It is not incidental that so many societies develop class systems, whether you call them classes or castes or something else. When you say your husband believes misogyny is due to religion, what religion does he mean? Just all of them? Because I think societally internalized misogyny predates the Bible by quite a bit, though I’m not sure about the written word (though the Bible has played an absolutely enormous part in the development of women’s medicine, and particularly that belief that pain is just something women have to deal with, because they were once BFF with a snake 🐍).

Studying pre-history for cultural information can be quite difficult. Yes, my part about a single caveman was flippant, but (I believe? I need to double check) there are a lot of studies about level of testosterone causing certain behaviors.

This is fascinating to think about, so thank you for sharing your thoughts.
We are so used to the immediate issues of sexism, that pondering it's origins often gets lost in the noise.

I suppose, if we are going there, we have to consider what we perceive pre history to be, so that is going to be quite different across cultures and religions. So much of human behaviour and history boils down to a matter of belief; what people subscribed to at the time.

And if we consider biology, hormones, etc, then we have to ask why didn't evolution predispose us to prefer equality, since it really does benefit the species?
I think this is what makes me think sexism is a result of civilisation, perhaps a certain amount of decadence, as a result of commodification.

I have literally no real idea. Just thoughts.
But we got here somehow, and these ecent manifestations of discrimination are intriguing, not to mention disturbing.

I recommend, if you’re interested in the idea of written history and pre-history, not just in regards to the development of sexism, that you read Hamlet’s Mill. It compares myths and stories from all over the world and the amount of similarities in them and what those similarities say about us as humans, regarding what is natural and innate and what is social and societal (specifically centred on the idea that axial precession has been known for much longer than we surmised and had been passed on in myth, and that myth was how we communicated knowledge before the written word. Even if you disagree, I think it’s a philosophical book worth reading).

In most religions men wear dresses.

I don't think there's much to discuss. The idea of 'feminisation' is a caricature. It's just a slogan to rile up the gullible and get their political support. All the things they decry as 'feminisation' involve things that men have routinely done at some time or another. Cry? Care for children? Have long hair? Put families first? Show kindness? Self-sacrifice? Meekness? None of these things are the preserve of women. Or maybe they're worried about decadence, helplessness, laziness and dependence. They're not the preserve of women either.

It's not worthy of serious discussion and it should be ridiculed.

Thank you, i will look into that.

And they suit them, I must admit. Thankfully they don't shop at Hush or M&S, as the fabrics are dire
...

And of course, you are correct.

Nothing says “my god is the best god” like a viscose-polyester blend.

😂 Standards have definitely declined. Modern times.