I don’t think it’s so much the ‘worship’ itself, as how that ‘worship’ is expressed. Women’s beauty is shown much more appealingly in art than men’s is.
To exaggerate it somewhat:
A woman depicted in art is going to be the center of a swirling vortex of petals and wind-streaks, of hazy shifting hues and thorny rose bushes. She’ll have eyelashes like those thorns, a face like a porcelain doll but with all that those dolls are missing, hair like the tail feathers of a crow or the ocean’s tide at midnight and curves like the arches of a cathedral. She’s going to be a poet, a writer, a singer, an artist–and, by obligation, these days, also a strong, plucky and possibly (retches slightly) quirky individual. She’ll be marked out as unique from all her peers by different colors, different notes sung, different valleys painted and different dreams dreamt.
Contrast that to a man – cast in the orange and brown of dirt and/or shit, smelling of ball sweat and representing generally one-dimensional values of diligence, courage and integrity, with perhaps a sprinkling of sacrifice, with no individuality to it, no dreams, no sense of perception in whatever matters are considered so delicate as to be consigned to women, no intellect regarding aesthetics nor poetry nor allegory nor nuance, just the affirmation of these raw values in the context of a life characterized by dull, plebeian habiliments – hair cut tight to the neck, cologne that allegedly smells like wood, beer to drink, steak to eat, some job that involves little to no creative thinking, either a construction or office worker or a lumberjack or an auto repair guy.
None of what’s within that description of a man is inherently bad, but what is considered inherently ‘manly’ is reduced to just that and a bit more. You could extend it, but it usually extends to stuff like lifting and being a jerk and fishing and gambling and sometimes to a slew of things that scream of repressed homosexuality.
But society’s archetype–no, stereotype–no, caricature, of the ‘purely manly man’ is this lowly, dull-minded existence of complacence with just ‘being a man, a manly kind of man’ without any beauty of art or culture or personality past what is essentially an evolved hick, adapted to a ‘modern’ landscape. Anything further than it is seen as having a ‘feminine side’, or a ‘soft side’, or at least a ‘poetic/artistic/whatever side’ as if that is somehow in contradistinction to ‘muh manliness’.
And obviously there is a place in the world for people who are a little dull, or a little blunted in the aesthetic sense, or who just don’t have interests outside of their work – but these characteristics are not masculinity. They’re weaponized against it, by being synonymized with it.
And if you want to fight this, you’re instantly thrown in with the retards who call any standards of backbone or emotional continence in men ‘toxic masculinity’, or the people who ‘don’t see gender’, or you’re just considered to have a lower apprehension of ‘gender roles’, but these things aren’t gender roles, they’re a minstrel show of what real gender roles are, with quirky strong-black-woman-who-don’t-need-no-man feminism tacked onto the former image while the degradation of ‘men r stupid and dont know how make things pretty’ is splattered across the latter.
And to all of this is added: Men are attracted to women. Some people who obsess over that which they find beautiful want to become it.
