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?

Primark do a 300 thread count fitted sheet. It isn't tiered, nor does it sport cut out shoulders or puffed sleeves. A good bit less, yet similar quality to the John Lewis ANYDAY version.

That said, I prefer men in scrubs. Not a fan of uniform generally but I do like scrubs.

They just mean not entirely focused on, lead by and centring straight men.

I’m not sure they understand what it means. I suspect whatever the source of the original language, it was probably written by AI. They don’t really know what they’re trying to say, but they are using buzz words ‘over-feminised’ and ‘anti-American’ and ‘elites’ because all the 27 year olds living in their mums’ basements, plus all their 65 year old dads sitting out in the shed watching this stuff on YouTube on repeat will consume the content and share it and they all will nod along because it’s so deep and it resonates with something they can’t put a name to.

What it really is is billionaires and tech bros making sure there is definitely no way they can get ahead on their working man’s salaries. But they won’t hear that if someone tells them.

They hear this stuff and get all dazzled because it suddenly makes it make sense, it’s the over feminisation of the arts that must be holding them back. That’s what YouTube man said. So they never dig any deeper or think any more, because they heard all the right words that AI churned out. So the machine rumbles on and no one looks behind the curtain.

I was reading about churches' attitudes to women, and came across an argument which may be relevant. Men, who did the early thinking about gender, developed the belief that humans are not animals and are to have dominion over them. But then, they look at women and see animal type stuff. We bleed. We produce offspring in messy and sometimes fatal ways. And we make their bodies do things they haven't planned for. So their creation stories have women as a separate creation. Animals. To a man who holds such beliefs, even unconsiously, to adopt habits from these subhumans must be jarring. Not only less than manly, but also less than human. Doesn't make sense of trans though.

They are referring to an article written last year by Helen Andrew’s called The Great Feminisation. She’s been interviewed on a number of podcasts about it, well worth a listen to understand this theory (whether you agree with it or not).

It is interesting that in Judaism it is the mother's qualification as a Jew that defines the children as Jews. Not the father's. Presumable because in ancient times the role of the father in reproduction was not understood?
Ditto in Scotland the Picts recognised the qualification to inherit the crown only through the female line. Presumably also because the father's role in reproduction was not understood.
I think there are peoples in Africa also where the most important man n the family is not the father but the eldest uncle on the mother's side.

Or couldn't be proven . Particularly in societies when the marital bond was not generally as rigid as later in history so several men could have been the father?

From Wikipedia: Summary of the essay in Compact by Helen Andrews. Wokeness is fundamentally female, as it prioritizes
empathy over rationality
safety over risk
cohesion over competition
The essay was a commentary of the changes that had been brought into Businesses since the increase in women at higher levels of management.

We see the increasing presence of empathy in cases where the lack of Single Sex facilities are not provided. The original Acts of parliament were rational and based on reality. The Supreme Court's decision was simple clear and rational yet so many organisations are trying to soothe the feelings of a very small number of participants.
In Europe businesses are having to modify their investment practices to reduce the risk of loss rather than take chances on new products. Pages of regulations under MiFiD by EU. Also not able to proceed with AI as rapidly as the Americans or India can.
The regulations also reduce the amount of competition and so further slow development of new products. The results will make us poorer.

The 20Century, the most successful century to date was built by capitalism where risks were taken. Those countries that prized cohesion and restricted competition are today's failed states where life expectancy is shorter and where income is far less than in the western capitalist nations.

Which creation myths have women as animals and men not?

Is it this article?

https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-great-feminization/

There's much that might be said about it, starting with that it's a series of anecdotes with the inevitable digression into evolutionary psychology, which is always a bad sign.

Take the notion that men do rationality rather than consensus. Isn't it easier to argue that the hierarchical societies of a hundred years ago were irrational and based on feels? Those nasty non-whites. Those nasty women. So and so blackballed from the Club because his face doesn't fit.

I reckon this piece of rubbish has more to do with a myth that very specific type of manliness built the United States, and it must be retained at all costs or the United States will lose its advantage.

It's America where a lot of right-wing men have a fantasy that they are John Wayne or something, and get annoyed at those silly sissy boys who don't want to join in their game.

You would have loved visiting me while I was hospitalized 🤣

Also, it’s illegal for anything NOT to be tiered and have puffy sleeves, even fitted sheets. Don’t you know the rules?!? 😂

I was referring to the separateness of woman's creation, implying that she did not share in the complete humanity of the man. Eg Eve, who god makes after trying to find a partner for Adam among the animals - contradicting Genesis 1 which has them created together. Likewise Pandora, a later flawed creation. But it wasn't my thought that it is the way that women's bodies are more obviously linked to our animal nature. Should have kept the article.
There is a ridiculous American song "I'm not related to a chimpanzee" or some such words which drums in that we are not animals. Women, by existing, remind men that we are.

I hate this nonsense too.

By 'feminised' I think they mean 'Dumb women make decisions with their emotions while men are logical and rational', which is such bullshit.

I think both men and women are equally rational on the whole but it's more likely for men to cause massive problems due to decisions made in anger. I think a woman is actually more likely than a man to consider whether she's about to do something because she's too emotional, and then stop herself, than a man is.

From what I've read, Jewish society was originally patrilineal but post-Roman persecution a lot of Jewish women were raped and paternity couldn't always be certain, so the matrilineality was a protective measure to ensure Judaism continued. A depressing reason, though later on it gave rise to Jewish women (sometimes) having a bit more household influence than others.

Judaism was always quite concerned with male sperm, and opposed to premarital sex, so I don't think it's the other two.

I have a theory that our mismatched sex drives are one of the driving forces behind misogyny.

Boys’/ men’s sex drive peaks early, and is much higher than their female peers and for several years, girls and women their age are almost indifferent to them. They define themselves through their sexuality - sometimes seeing it as an entitlement that is denied, sometimes as a weakening force elicited by women, etc

Later in life, when their partner’s sexual capacity outpaces their dwindling drive, their identity comes under threat. They resent being reminded of what they can no longer do (and the extent to which they can’t increases steadily).

In the last few generations, the removal of sexual taboos in some societies didn’t produce greater access to sex for all men, just more sex for men who wouldn’t have had difficulty attracting partners anyway.

Feminity is something that they helplessly desire but cannot really control, or rather they cannot control their desire and dependence. Different cultures and social systems seek ways to manage this problem and while they attempt different solutions, the problem remains the same. It’s not primarily about controlling women; it’s about controlling themselves. Women’s rights, indeed women’s humanity, are collateral losses.

In this generation, men have unprecedented access to porn, but that doesn’t meet their basic biological drive to reproduce. It does however undermine their ability to maintain arousal with a real flesh and blood woman. The psychological crisis of not being able to maintain an erection when faced with a desirable and desirous woman, that was previously encountered in middle age, happens younger now.

If you overlay the biology with simplified dichotomies where masculine = ejaculation, and feminine = opposite of masculine, then fear of diminishment of masculinity means fearing becoming more feminine. It’s not logical but humans generally aren’t. We form conclusions through consensus and believe ourselves to be independent rationalists. A small subset of autistic humans are independent rationalists, but the majority are not. Our brains just tell us otherwise.