Not a bit. I didn’t want to use real women as an example since I was not trying to prove the point - only telling what I believed - and see how many people recognize both Tolkien and Tennessee Williams characters. But if you think that cowardice is a feminine trait, like the author of the OP apparently does, be prepared from some blow-back from any women in your life.
And so we see how this in glass houses do think they can throw stones.
The Church did anything but actually deal with the problem and has already admitted its complicity in some cases.
What does Matthew 7:5 say?
I went back and re-read the linked article. The author has quotes from Jeffrey Kuhner of the Washington Post, Msgr. Charles Pope, Paul Bios of the Daily Wire, (who quotes Thomas Aquinas), and C.S. Lewis. The qualities of womanhood are not even mentioned. Cowardice is not mentioned except in the context of “heroic courage” in a C.S. Lewis quote. I don’t see where anyone equates cowardice as a feminine trait.
I was referring to the title of the OP: the problem of effeminate men. That’s “effeminate” as in “like a woman”. And the content of the article sure implied that the men so named are afraid to stand up for the victims of Harvey Weinstein. Either afraid or apathetic. Either way it is attributing to these men a very negative trait and calling it feminine.
You see I don’t have any problem with the content of the article. Only the title of this thread.
Okay, I see. But I don’t think that “effeminate” is used as a synonym for feminine qualities, but rather as a lack of masculinity in men. Women are not effeminate. They are feminine, which does not preclude strength and courage.
I’m not clear where you got the idea that cowardice is the lack of virtue that is entailed by femininity.
I was thinking when I first looked at the topic that an important difference between men and women is that women are protective of those around them by putting themselves in harm’s way or shielding for the sake of the vulnerable, whereas men tend to be aggressive/attacking in response. Neither of those are linked to cowardice, just a different way of responding to danger.
Perhaps that is a mischaracterization and perhaps even stereotyping, but I think that is what the title of the post and the article both imply.
This quote seems to sum up the current situation in modern western society.
Any normal boy is full of spit and vinegar, is aggressive, competitive, and anxious to test his wings. But many boys are scolded, punished, and even medicated for these normal tendencies. They are told to behave more like girls and to learn to be nicer and to get along, etc. It will be granted that limits are necessary, but the tendency for boys to roughhouse is normal. The scolding and “socializing” to more feminine traits continues apace into early adulthood. And then there are other cultural phenomena such as the slew of ‘Men are stupid’ commercials, etc.”
A main takeaway would be that in cultures that play the game of survival by using an offense/defense paradigm, women traditionally played the defensive role and men the offensive. So men abdicating the offense role to play defense aren’t exhibiting weakness because they are taking a feminine role, but rather they are weakening the entire strategic structure by abandoning the offensive role. Men have, on the whole a much more robust upper body strength, bone structure and musculature – those are undeniable; try doing a few pull-ups. Since men are built for that specific role, by taking on a protective role – the feminine one – they are opening human society to vulnerabilities that needn’t be there.
Read the quote above. Do you disagree that boys are being socialized to be nicer, to get along and to not show aggressive tendencies? Surely you are not saying girls are being taught to roughhouse, be boisterous and aggressive, are you?
Socializing does appear to stress the more traditionally feminine characteristics and downplays the more masculine/aggressive ones, thus feminizing men by making them more protective and nurturing than aggressive and attacking. That could be seen as a weakness for men since they aren’t called on to use their natural strengths, but wouldn’t be a weakness for women given protection as a defensive strategy would play up their natural strengths.
A very generous interpretation of the use of the word effeminate. Perhaps if we did a survey of 100 women upon reading the title of this thread, we might see how many of them would have the impression that their sex was being denigrated.
As an analogy, suppose the article was about laziness among some white folk instead of cowardice among some men. And suppose the title of the article was “When whites surrender their ambition - the problem of whites who are more black than white.” Would you excuse that title by saying “It just means a lack of whiteness among some whites and not a slur against blacks?”
Well, if the men who knew of the Harvey Weinstein acted like the women you just described, they would have sacrificed their careers and told everyone what they knew. If that is “effeminate,” then we need more effeminate men. Or they could punch Harvey in the nose, get thrown in jail, and accomplish nothing in the way of protecting the victims. That’s what you get with “spit and vinegar.”
I disagree with the part I bolded. I don’t believe boys are told specifically to behave more like girls - not in those words. They might be told to get along. And for some overly aggressive boys, that is appropriate. It is a question of degree that cannot be answered in one or two sentences. Boys also have a natural tendency to impregnate any girl who will allow it. Not every “natural tendency” is to be tolerated.
It doesn’t seem to me an apt comparison. Women might refer to particular men as 'effeminate, but they wouldn’t by that mean, “too womanly,” but rather, “not manly.”
Actually, neither strategy would be very good since neither would succeed in bringing about the ultimate outcome being sought.
Women would, in the past, have warned each other, stood together, pre-empted attacks and strategized. Sacrificing careers would only have been a last resort since it is a losing strategy. But the fact that so many women were left vulnerable to one rat, it doesn’t appear that the women involved even played their traditionally defensive role all that well. Perhaps, they were too busy trying to be like men – competitive and offensive – to successfully carry out their strengths. And the men were too busy playing defensive and nurturing roles (and doing those very badly), that Weinstein slipped in between badly played offense and defense because none of the players executed with their strengths. In better days, women being women exceptionally well, and men being men exceptionally well, would have taken care of the annoying rat.
Besides, in better days, a man protecting a woman’s honour by punching another in the nose WOULD NOT have gone to jail. Perhaps another sign that societal roles are not being well executed?
Perhaps if fewer effeminate men were judges there wouldn’t be so much protecting of the perpetrators. Noses could be properly punched without risk of a jail sentence. Seems to prove the point, no?
I am severely concerned about some of the replies here.
No one deserves to be sexually assaulted.
No one except for the person committing the assault is to blame, at any given time.
Women should not have to “band together” to protect themselves, and men shouldn’t have the okay to “punch each other out” when they find out someone has committed sexual assault.
The situation in Hollywood is not too different to the child sexual abuse crises that happened in the Church. People in power looked the other way, downplayed it, didn’t believe the victims, or put their self interest first.
Victims are afraid. They bear no blame in what happened to them, and no blame in not pursuing him legally.
Untrue. There were those who aided and abetted Mr. Weinstein not only by not speaking out, but also by covering for him and even setting up the situation – meetings and such – which enabled his activities.
They shouldn’t HAVE TO, but they SHOULD when the need arises.
No one said punch “after” a sexual assault. The punch was to PREVENT the assault from occurring. After the fact the assault is a criminal offense and ought to be prosecuted.
Untrue. Hollywood is a propaganda machine for precisely the kind of behaviour exhibited by Weinstein. The actors play-act precisely the same kind of behaviour as an aspect of what they have allowed themselves to perform with great frequency. All of Hollywood, except for a few exceptions, glorifies or normalizes the type of behaviour Weinstein acted out regularly. To some degree, he was playing a role that was almost as accepted as playing the same role in a movie or series as part of the debauched facade we have come to be persuaded is “entertainment.”
The apparent “victims” permitted themselves to take part without saying a thing and permitted Weinstein to continue to victimize others. Omission and cowardice are blameworthy to some degree. They are as blameworthy as, for example, the bishops who moved priests around and did not report them for much the same reason. There was significant pressure, I suspect, in most cases to not “blow the scandal into the open” because of the repercussions that would significantly harm many innocent people in the Church by destroying their faith. To the secular world, where faith means nothing, this is not well appreciated. The harm to the Church was significant, just as the Weinstein scandal has harmed the legitimacy of the entertainment industry.
I don’t have contempt for the women, but I don’t think any of them are heroic by any means. Nor do I think Wienstien’s actions were the fault of men not protecting women, but the fault of women not protecting themselves. Men protecting women went out the window 50+ years ago. And I do think any of these women who are feminists, democrats, liberals, or promiscuous at all were at least 50% to blame for what happened to themselves and others.
I agree with this.
Once you have been sexually assaulted, I doubt very much you are thinking about anything other then self preservation. Banding together doesn’t help, even in very close knit group people are sexually assaulted.
Again, this is victim blaming. Victims usually only care about self preservation.
The faith was already destroyed in the countless lives who were and still are affected of the crises. This only swept it under the rug.
This makes no sense whatsoever. Why would they be afraid of these things? Also, these allegations are not brand new. The behavior of Weinstein have been known throughout Hollywood for a very long time.
You are a victim blaming.
Hollywood is, shall we say, different.
Warning: Some offensive language. Scroll down to read the “travelogue.”
You’re talking gibberish. Women have been victims of rape for thousands of years. There’s nothing Weinstein did that powerful men haven’t done countless times through the ages, and there have always been willing, unwilling and unwitting accomplices.
Well, given that there are only two genders, and that they are frequently described in binary terms, “not manly enough” automatically means “too womanly”, no?
If I was described as “not adult enough” in some respect, given that the binary opposite of an adult is a child, “not adult enough” is synonymous with “childish”. There isn’t really a third option.
We can just look at the very first description of the word “effeminate” in the dictionary:
" having or showing characteristics regarded as typical of a woman"
Only as a secondary meaning does the dictionary list “unmanly”
It should be expected that a woman reading the title of this thread would take it to mean that the negative characteristics described in the article (“cowardice,” etc.) are being identify by the label “feminine.” and thus be offended.