The Feminizing of Western Civilization

[August1991]

After the shooting at Virginia Tech, it was common to hear on "Right Wing" websites that individuals in western societies have become passive. We defer to authorities and expect the police to solve our problems. The "Left" has taken control of universities, made them passive and "feminine".

The "Right" argues that individuals must instead assume the burden of civilization and defend themselves, with guns if necessary. (I think Mark Steyn has written a column or two along these lines.) The "Right" argues that when people defer to authority for their protection, they become pawns or subjects. In New Hampshire, Joe Blow stands up for himself with his gun.

Frankly, I find this "Right Wing" reasoning absurd. By its logic, we should arm everyone in society with a bazooka, or a tactical nuclear weapon - just in case.

IMV, a vigilante society is not a civilized society. Mob justice is not justice. And the best measure of civility is how the majority treats the minority - not whether university students can take a gun to class. The West did not defeat Hitler and Stalin by letting kids run around with guns; we did it by concerted action.

A civilized society requires the accountable use of force. We hire police, and check what they do.

So, when I speak about the "feminizing of civilization", I don't mean taking guns from citizens. Instead, I mean something else. Very different.

----

Women are obsessed with status. And now Western Civilization has followed suit.

A society of women is a society of the rules of protocol. Women discern. They decide the acceptable and the unacceptable. Women are primarily concerned with selection and choosing.

Such a society is static at best - it has no future. The competition to win is impossible since if everyone wins, the rules must change - otherwise how to have a winner? We can't all be beautiful, or thin. How clear can one's skin be? What was once "beautiful" becomes merely ordinary.

Women seek a way to decide, to put someone or something on one side of a line and someone or something else on another. Women are cruel.

It disturbs me that women spend so much on cosmetics and cosmetic surgery. It is a feature of Western society, and it is imitated elsewhere as "modern". In the West or East, excepting maybe gays, men don't feel the same compunction.

Women want to set a standard. They want to discern. Women want to be perfect. They want to compete.

A society based on such principles is not tenable.

[blueblood]

The "Right" argues that individuals must instead assume the burden of civilization and defend themselves, with guns if necessary. (I think Mark Steyn has written a column or two along these lines.) The "Right" argues that when people defer to authority for their protection, they become pawns or subjects. In New Hampshire, Joe Blow stands up for himself with his gun.

Frankly, I find this "Right Wing" reasoning absurd. By its logic, we should arm everyone in society with a bazooka, or a tactical nuclear weapon - just in case.

People should stand up for themselves, but a line must be drawn. If more people stood up for themselves in a responsible manner, the police could focus on tackling serious crime. I think that not standing up for yourself is proposterous, it enables those who break the rules to slip through the cracks while the police aren't around. I'm not suggesting that people arm themselves with handguns and machine guns like americans and hunt people down, but say an intruder busts into your home, you should be able to take a bat to him and be able to justify your defence in court without fear of going to jail. Placing a ridiculous amount of checks on the police hampers their job to the point where they are almost not able to do it as they are scared of all the red tape that goes with it. What you get out of that is paying a guy 70,000 dollars a year to write up traffic tickets, why would we need police if they can't do their job they were sworn to do?

Look at it like this, and if you ever get a chance to go to a hockey game keep this in mind. The referees and linesmen are like police and the players are citizens. During a game there are numerous infractions, some of the time the refs catch them and hand out penalties which would be like sending someone to jail. Does this stop the infractions, no not really. A lot of infractions like crime slip out of sight of the police/referees. Say for example someone takes a run at the goalie and gets away with it as far as the ref is concerned, the goalie is critical to a teams success and can't be thrown off his game and runs can contribute to that, something has to be done, what gets done is either the goalie or a teamate will "drop the mitts" and fight the perpetrator if it becomes a problem, justice is served. This sends a message that running our goalie will not be tolerated and if someone else wants to mess around that's what will happen and to a degree this works. If that is the attitude of Quebecers (to hide behind "civility") then I think Quebecers are a bunch of cowards and a bloody embarassment to our country. I'd rather be uncivilized than a coward and an enabler, you can take civility I'll take honor.

Women are obsessed with status. And now Western Civilization has followed suit.

A society of women is a society of the rules of protocol. Women discern. They decide the acceptable and the unacceptable. Women are primarily concerned with selection and choosing.

Such a society is static at best - it has no future. The competition to win is impossible since if everyone wins, the rules must change - otherwise how to have a winner? We can't all be beautiful, or thin. How clear can one's skin be? What was once "beautiful" becomes merely ordinary.

Women seek a way to decide, to put someone or something on one side of a line and someone or something else on another. Women are cruel.

I wouldn't say women are responsible for that, I'd say that's just nature, it's natural to be competitive, before civilization if you aren't competitive, your toast. I think competition is vital for the progress of everything, look at communism without competition it all amounted to a big pile of monkey crap.

Men are just as guilty of that as women, who are you going to choose in a bar the fat girl who looks like she's been hit in the head with a shovel, or the attractive one? that's been happening since the dawn of time.

It disturbs me that women spend so much on cosmetics and cosmetic surgery. It is a feature of Western society, and it is imitated elsewhere as "modern". In the West or East, excepting maybe gays, men don't feel the same compunction.

I agree that's a big waste of money to be spent on vanity. I think people who spend hundreds of dollars on a shirt and pants needs to have their head checked and those who value that to have their heads checked twice. Either your naturally good looking or your not, accept it and move on.

[Charles Anthony]

I agree with the description in the True Opening Post [not the anti-fire-arms opening post, I do not want to hijack this thread] but I disagree with the conclusion.

A society based on such principles is not tenable.

I disagree because there will always be men, including maybe gays, to keep a balance.

Permit me to slip a recommendation for what I believe is one of the most excellent movies from the past decade:

In The Company Of Men (1997)

Warning: the movie is cold-hearted to put it mildly -- one of the blackest comedies I have seen.

[margrace]

Let me describe the type of woman who scares me. One is addicted to politics but her type of politics involves being on the winning side. The other is addicted to power, the need to have people see her as a top mover or whatever it is she is wanting to be. Both women are out in the public but and here is the big but, neither of these women wants to do the grunt work of improving our society. They only want to be in the pictures in the paper, or have their names on the roster of the organization.

Against that description I see the many women volunteers who put enourmous hours into volunteering. They are the ones who make the cookies and provide the coffee for the above people. They are the ones who raise the money to keep our food banks, palliative care organizations, school organizations and such operating smoothly.

I am not commenting on men because I am not a man and as such really do not have a clue how this works for them.

[kuzadd]

There has been NO feminizing of western civilization, so let's get off the woman blaming.

What it is IMO, is a general dumbing down overall.

This has nothing to do with feminizing, nor right vs left, so get rid of all that rhetorical crap,also.

I find in generally ,not to be snobby or superior, but most people are uninformed, illinformed, don't inform themselves, are generally lazy and would rather have others do things for them.

No i am not speaking about people receiving social benefits payments I am speaking of a vast segment of the population.

They are non-participatory, busy watching t.v , playing video games, gambling on-line, a general dumbed down, non-participatory poulace.

re;

"

"Women are obsessed with status. And now Western Civilization has followed suit."

this is a hugely insulting assumption! Take a look at men and their status obsessions.

"A society of women is a society of the rules of protocol. Women discern. They decide the acceptable and the unacceptable. Women are primarily concerned with selection and choosing."

more assumptions

"Such a society is static at best - it has no future. The competition to win is impossible since if everyone wins, the rules must change - otherwise how to have a winner? We can't all be beautiful, or thin. How clear can one's skin be? What was once "beautiful" becomes merely ordinary."

even more assumtions and insults

"Women seek a way to decide, to put someone or something on one side of a line and someone or something else on another. Women are cruel."

women are cruel?? yeah, they have that all locked up, and men are considerate and kind all the time, right???

"It disturbs me that women spend so much on cosmetics and cosmetic surgery. It is a feature of Western society, and it is imitated elsewhere as "modern". In the West or East, excepting maybe gays, men don't feel the same compunction."

And that has nothing to do with men or marketing eh??

Women want to set a standard. They want to discern. Women want to be perfect. They want to compete.

Reading this, I think someone has women issues, and if your a woman, god help us!

But I am a woman, and that'a alot of crap!

[jdobbin]

It disturbs me that women spend so much on cosmetics and cosmetic surgery. It is a feature of Western society, and it is imitated elsewhere as "modern". In the West or East, excepting maybe gays, men don't feel the same compunction.

I thought you were referring to Harper's make-up artist when I read the title of the thread.

How much do you think Harper spends on make-up?

[White Doors]

I find in generally ,not to be snobby or superior, but most people are uninformed, illinformed, don't inform themselves, are generally lazy and would rather have others do things for them.

No i am not speaking about people receiving social benefits payments I am speaking of a vast segment of the population.

They are non-participatory, busy watching t.v , playing video games, gambling on-line, a general dumbed down, non-participatory poulace.

Says the person who believes the government pulled off 9/11.

LOL

[RB]

I'll have to agree that the culture is becoming more "effeminate"

First, women have redefined their priorities, in work, education and the home. I have to agree though that nothing has change for the women in terms of wanting to dress smart, to look and be beautiful - however it happens. I mean there is more awareness now that we can appreciate ourselves for a price. Look, there is technology to modified the nose, called nose job, boob job, joe job, blow...

There is a co-relation of being pretty and the changing or shifting the priorities. Women still have to appeal to men whether it is on their way in an upward mobility climb, sharing the house chores, jumping into bed etc. Well, you can quote me as saying that the "prettier" the female, while being "female" it is easier to get things done by the males.

Perhaps this is the manipulation bit of the beauty. Well, maybe not quite what they desire to do, but a likely motivation is obfuscation. Look, women would subscribe to the beauty and wear it in all its mighty and glorious ways. They can subscribe to the power of beauty - perhaps they are the smart ones also.

The males noticing a burden of trivial chores shifting to them, faces the demand of a successful woman making headway to the top. The man is anxious and uneasy about their roles, but is somehow compelled and mesmerize with their beauties.

It would be abnormal not to imitate the success of women - so our men simply set-off to purchase perfumes, take in a spa, manicure etc., metro sexual is the word

And it seems all right for the males to get in touch with the "female" traits. From a female perspective they look very pleasing to the eye.

So, why the males did not react in the V Tech shooting?

Look, we try our darnest to negotiate a war and settle it verbally (send Carter, and Clinton). Perhaps this negotiation logic played a role. The verbal is feminine traits (women communicate verbally best). Anyway, the bigger point I wanted to make is that there is no need for "men" to be "MEN" like put on an armor and head off to war, to hunt, and to struggle, be manly and look after women. Things are not rough and tumble when men had to be "men". Negotiate and be nice, feel something.

Women are still irrational. Well, since we are creating the feminine culture, the more latitude you give the female the more expressive she becomes and the more capricious her nature will be.

My feeling is if men are walking around like these fickle minded folks they imitate, that they are bound to become insecure.

Which brings me on how to define men now. They are quiet in their ways all the while wishing to be social, follow the female. The problem is that the male in all its glory and intent do NOT induce neurosis in the female as yet .... to make them susceptible to manipulation (for example change an entire culture to be a "man" instead of carrying on with the ideal of being beautiful).

The women can always deny her intent towards the males, and they still follow her around, mate with her and love her. I mean the same is not true of males, if they lie, they are held accountable. I am yet to decide how males can reconcile iniquities, which is why the folks did nothing to protect themselves and others against one lone-armed gunman.

Anyway, the other point I wanted to make that is not so plain as an effeminate culture --- I observed the humongous generosity of giving. This is a very primitive form of female likeness. Look, a woman is kicked out of the house, now expects gift and medicine, the women have to survive. The transference coincidently was from the male hard earned labor, as in the male wealth to the female to make them fell better. There is much of this happening, parallel, as in the war in Iraq. Government are encouraged to large-scale operation to free the people of Iraq to make it a better place, is a policy feminine in nature.

Yes? the big sister theory.

Well that’s it for now

[kuzadd]

I find in generally ,not to be snobby or superior, but most people are uninformed, illinformed, don't inform themselves, are generally lazy and would rather have others do things for them.

No i am not speaking about people receiving social benefits payments I am speaking of a vast segment of the population.

They are non-participatory, busy watching t.v , playing video games, gambling on-line, a general dumbed down, non-participatory poulace.

Says the person who believes the government pulled off 9/11.

LOL

Is that what I believe?

Now you are a mindreader??

wow!

and arrogant to boot?

is the topic 9/11??

i don't think so?

I am playing by the rules are you?

[Nocrap]

I can't believe we're having this conversation. If a woman is competitive she's blamed for ruining the world? Men and women both want to look good. It's part of the mating game. I feel like I'm stuck in a time warp.

Virginia Tech had NOTHING TO DO WITH WINGS or WOMBS. A MENTALLY ILL YOUNG MAN WAS ALLOWED TO BUY A GUN. THE REST IS INEVITABLE!!!!

[buffycat]

I can't believe we're having this conversation. If a woman is competitive she's blamed for ruining the world? Men and women both want to look good. It's part of the mating game. I feel like I'm stuck in a time warp.

Virginia Tech had NOTHING TO DO WITH WINGS or WOMBS. A MENTALLY ILL YOUNG MAN WAS ALLOWED TO BUY A GUN. THE REST IS INEVITABLE!!!!

No crap eh?

[ScottSA]

I'm amazed that with all the theses about the feminization of society out there , that almost no one in this thread has the slightest idea what it actually means. Women are more competitive than men? Good grief!

[RB]

I'm amazed that with all the theses about the feminization of society out there , that almost no one in this thread has the slightest idea what it actually means. Women are more competitive than men? Good grief!

what is good grief is that men are indulging in a cult of weakness. the women have change the way men operate, think and look at themselves - indulge in weakness is actually seen as strengh. cry if you may, show emotions, i love you for this, stay safe.

k - got to go but will respond here later

[ScottSA]

I'm amazed that with all the theses about the feminization of society out there , that almost no one in this thread has the slightest idea what it actually means. Women are more competitive than men? Good grief!

what is good grief is that men are indulging in a cult of weakness. the women have change the way men operate, think and look at themselves - indulge in weakness is actually seen as strengh. cry if you may, show emotions, i love you for this, stay safe.

k - got to go but will respond here later

I was actually going to say that you were included in the "almost"; that is to say, you seem to get it. The 'feminization of society' is a term coined from feminist literature...something I spent a great deal of time studying in another life...and it comes specifically from standpoint and postmodern feminism. It started out with the idiotic liberal feminist notion that men are no different from women (the "unisex" ideas of the early 70s) and later, with the realization of the obvious: that women and men are not the same after all; it morphed into the later feminization attempts. In essence, the ideation of feminization of men originated with the standpoint idea that men tend to be combative while women tend to be consensual; a ridiculous proposition at best; and that therefore men should learn to live in harmony like women allegedly would if patriarchy didn't make them behave otherwise. As a subset of this notion is the postmodern idea that men/patriarchy represent rationality and women/matriarchy represent emotion, that men operate of the phallus and women of the womb, that men attack and women receive. All of which is pseudo-academic gobbledygoop for "women are better so men should be more like them".

It's utter nonsense of course, and all the various attempts to change men have produced is a lot of mixed up men and scornful women. "Zero tolerance for violence" in the schoolyard, the campaigns against "bullying", and various other attempts to reform boys have done nothing but drive the schoolyard fistfight underground to re-emerge in the form of rape and gangs and gunfights instead. The current attempt to make celebrate homosexuality is just another offshoot of this quest.

[Catchme]

The premise espoused in the originating post, is apparently a personal opinion, that appears to be derived from personal bias, as opposed to concrete facts. Perhaps they have been reading too much Rushdoony?

First, the premise that "feminizing of men" is causing a violent society has no basis in fact, either currently with studies, or historical record. In fact, it is indictive of many things, non eof them good.

Historically, men have been what was outlined as effiminate on a much broader scale than today. And not that very long ago either. The rigours of nation building in NA, brought "today's blue jeaned men to the norm. Prior to that, men were fashion plates, they wore cute little heeled pumps with sparkly buckles, wore wigs, had yards of lace at collar and cuffs, powdered their faces, wore beauty patches, long hair tied at the end with ribbons, they wore bright colours in velvet and satin. Even in this "femine" attire, or togas, or kilts, men have been the aggressors, while the women have been the peace builders, that is proven historically and currently by studies and observation.

Second, Professer Leyton a world renowned expert on serial and mass murderers has shown in 1 books that when countries are involved in war, the offshot at home is violent actions of the type conducted by the disturbed young man who murdered those at Virgina Tech. Another factor is racial intolerance and bigotry. War propaganda, violent movies and videos are also contributors.

Third, this trying to cognatively link the world's problems to women's equality goes deeper than that, as it is the mind actually looking for a scapegoat, as opposed to taking ownership of actions by one self or society at large.

Fourth, the mentality that holds that pacifism is colluding with the enemy, believes that life is permanent warfare. And that is a fallacy, no matter the gender holding it to be truth. Though historically it is the male gender that believes this erroneous state of existence, not the female gender, there have been a few examples of women.

Fifth, fear is the driving force behind the blame game reactionary thinker, as well as not taking responsibility of actions. Traditionalists long for an utopia in the past that never existed, but the past is known to them, unlike the future. Thus it is about control, and you can only control what is past, not what is in the future unless you make it the same as the past, failed state that the past may have been.

Sixth, the male "heroic" distain and intolerance of women is an attempt to have control over sex, as everything else is really beyond the control of an individual. The more out of control they feel the world is, the more they want to control women aka sex.

Seventh, there have always been homsexuals, and plenty of them were powerful men and conquered nations and peoples. It has nothing to do with women seeking equality. Again, for the most part, IMV, those who want to control the sex lives of others, have an inability to cope with a world they cannot control and have fear of. Or they desire constant warfare until such a time as there is a; 'end of all things war' and they long in their minds to be the hero, they never realize they are killing others in their haste to die as a hero.

The hero complex could be a military accomplishment, or be the chosen ones who were 'right' and who are swept up in the mythical rapture, or they could believe they are getting 70 virgins.

Nevertheless, the driving force behind this cognative dissonance of blamming women for the world's current ills is erroneous and nonsensical as a belief system.

[moderateamericain]

I disagree with a few things. First and foremost is that we have the absolute right to defend ourselves. If a armed man comes into my home im not going to wait for the police to get there its either me or him. (him) I would kill anyone who came into my home shooting. Why people believe its wrong to meet violence with violence is beyond me. I will never let someone take that which is honestly mine by force. Not individuals, not governments. A Democracy only last as long as people are willing to hold there government accountable for its actions. I don't believe this is a weakness in men just complacency. Most Americans have never had to work hard for anything in there lives. Not like a peasant in Russia or an Asian farmer in rural China. Things we have like fresh water and electricity, the most basic of things we don't have think about is an everyday struggle in some place.

[Catchme]

First and foremost is that we have the absolute right to defend ourselves. If a armed man comes into my home im not going to wait for the police to get there its either me or him. (him) I would kill anyone who came into my home shooting.

I absolutely agree we do have the right to defend ourselves, when attacked directly, if possible that is. If someone comes into your home shooting, it is unlikely you will be able to; get to your gun, get the bullets, get the bullets in, and the trigger lock off, and aim and shoot, before you are shot. But truthfully how often does that really happen?

Moreover, you will find women by the majority, when faced with harm to themselves, their children will try and protect by the use of violence, if required. This "feminizing of society, non-logic would try and say it is women who are fault for societal ills, war and student violence because of seeking equality and calling for diplomacy and consensus as opposed to constant warfare and watching children die. Men were long the diplomats, seeking diplomatic solutions to end war, since their was war, the art of diplomacy is no "new" thing brought upon society as an evil, by women gaining equality

The largest single source of deaths by gunfire, other than war, and gang related shootings, are women being shot, by someone who professed to love them.

Why people believe its wrong to meet violence with violence is beyond me.

That really is situation selective violence now isn't it? Violence to meet violence, might be appropriate one time, while diplomacy and negotiations are better at others, or silence is even better at other times.

Violence meeting violence never creates a solution, it creates more violence.

I will never let someone take that which is honestly mine by force. Not individuals, not governments.

Hmmm, that seems like a double dilema, and not quite logical, as what if you reside on land, or own something that was not honestly gotten in the first place, for you to have ownership of it?

Do you then feel, that those who had their possessions taken dishonestly, and by force, should meet back with force, to get that which was theirs, but taken dishonestly and sold to another?

A Democracy only last as long as people are willing to hold there government accountable for its actions.

Yes, I agree, and the correct way to this is by; critical thinking skills, informing oneself with truth, even if it is unpleasent to comprehend, take thoughtful actions, as opposed to negative kneejerk reactions, holding your elected officials accountable, and by creating an actual electoral system that represents fairly the will of the people, such as proportional representation, plus numerous other non-violent ways. It is not bearing arms and marching upon Ottawa.

I don't believe this is a weakness in men just complacency.

What exactly is the weakness in men that you are speaking about, that you label as complancent?

[RB]

I disagree with a few things. First and foremost is that we have the absolute right to defend ourselves. If a armed man comes into my home im not going to wait for the police to get there its either me or him. (him) I would kill anyone who came into my home shooting. ...

a man comes armed into your home without an intent to shoot is more protected by the law than your inpulse to shoot him.

Anyway my thoughts are the female collusion for change is filled with conventional ways to keep old structures in place which makes a lot of things confusing, for both men and women.

Look, men accepted and shoulder the blame very quickly of the inequality and injustices created between the men and women. I mean now we have effeminate leadings.

Like it is not so terrible for a men who are mocked and mar to merely look in the mirror, and who also sees medusa and did not turned to stone. We actually encourage compassion. I posit that also men have the means to change in an instant.

Men, still do not acknowledge inherent gifts that they bring to this world. Look, women started up being a feminist many years ago and is still vouching for equal this, that.

I wonder how quickly can a man denounce a feminine culture, and replace it with the likes of patriarchy. I am still of the believe that men have the power to damage and heal, to play and win, to continue with old ways, to dismantle structures and practices.

In the end whatever they do simply legitimize their practices as normal. For now it is an culture some are not happy with.

[B. Max]

Nevertheless, the driving force behind this cognative dissonance of blamming women for the world's current ills is erroneous and nonsensical as a belief system.

Actually it is cultural Marxism which has its roots in 1920 Germany and can be traced to the (Frankfurt school) is to blamed for the western worlds current deterioration, and feminism is but of the corner stones of cultural Marxism.

[moderateamericain]

First and foremost is that we have the absolute right to defend ourselves. If a armed man comes into my home im not going to wait for the police to get there its either me or him. (him) I would kill anyone who came into my home shooting.

I absolutely agree we do have the right to defend ourselves, when attacked directly, if possible that is. If someone comes into your home shooting, it is unlikely you will be able to; get to your gun, get the bullets, get the bullets in, and the trigger lock off, and aim and shoot, before you are shot. But truthfully how often does that really happen?

Moreover, you will find women by the majority, when faced with harm to themselves, their children will try and protect by the use of violence, if required. This "feminizing of society, non-logic would try and say it is women who are fault for societal ills, war and student violence because of seeking equality and calling for diplomacy and consensus as opposed to constant warfare and watching children die. Men were long the diplomats, seeking diplomatic solutions to end war, since their was war, the art of diplomacy is no "new" thing brought upon society as an evil, by women gaining equality

The largest single source of deaths by gunfire, other than war, and gang related shootings, are women being shot, by someone who professed to love them.

Why people believe its wrong to meet violence with violence is beyond me.

That really is situation selective violence now isn't it? Violence to meet violence, might be appropriate one time, while diplomacy and negotiations are better at others, or silence is even better at other times.

You make a good point perhaps I should have said Meeting violence with violence in a selective case should be used.

Violence meeting violence never creates a solution, it creates more violence.

I will never let someone take that which is honestly mine by force. Not individuals, not governments.

Hmmm, that seems like a double dilema, and not quite logical, as what if you reside on land, or own something that was not honestly gotten in the first place, for you to have ownership of it?

Only if you assume i live dishonestly

Do you then feel, that those who had their possessions taken dishonestly, and by force, should meet back with force, to get that which was theirs, but taken dishonestly and sold to another?

A Democracy only last as long as people are willing to hold there government accountable for its actions.

Yes, I agree, and the correct way to this is by; critical thinking skills, informing oneself with truth, even if it is unpleasent to comprehend, take thoughtful actions, as opposed to negative kneejerk reactions, holding your elected officials accountable, and by creating an actual electoral system that represents fairly the will of the people, such as proportional representation, plus numerous other non-violent ways. It is not bearing arms and marching upon Ottawa.

I don't believe this is a weakness in men just complacency.

What exactly is the weakness in men that you are speaking about, that you label as complancent?

Im not speaking of weakness in men. the OP did, I am in disagreement with that line of thought. I think as a society in North America we have not had the hardships that are forefathers dealt with. Are complacency is based on the ease of life we have had. Not that its a bad thing, I for one dont look for hardship. Btw I responded to some of your other questions in the quotes via italicized sentences.

[August1991]

I have various thoughts on this thread but it seems that Charles Anthony was one of the few to notice that the OP makes two points - and the first is a false OP.

First and foremost is that we have the absolute right to defend ourselves. If a armed man comes into my home im not going to wait for the police to get there its either me or him. (him) I would kill anyone who came into my home shooting.

I absolutely agree we do have the right to defend ourselves, when attacked directly, if possible that is.

I absolutely disagree with vigilante justice. We should phone 911, rather than try to solve the problem alone.

Several thousand years ago, individuals defended themselves as they could. Nowadays, we don't. We organize ourselves and hire police or armies to defend ourselves.

I don't agree with this "citizen justice" argument. That's fine for citizens who are strong but what about short, thin citizens or citizens in wheel chairs? A civilized society creates institutions to protect itself and peacefully resolve disputes. Individuals did not defeat Hitler; we did it together.

A society where everyone has a gun is no society at all. Individual gun ownership is no guarantee of democracy; it's just a guarantee of wasteful competition. Should individuals have the right to have RPGs or Tactical Nuclear Weapons? How far should we go in allowing individual firepower?

Curiously, this leads to the main (second, genuine) point of the OP.

Women are engaged in a wasteful competition. They compete to be perfect. Many women know that such a competition is pointless but they can't leave it.

Women discern. They discern among men and in the process, they discern among other women. Women raise their noses. And if a woman doesn't, other women claim that she has "self-esteem" issues.

In a world of several billion people, it is a wasteful exercise to try to be perfect. I think men understand this. They compete but they aim for perfection differently.

My OP's genuine point was to argue that if people in a society compete for beauty or perfection, such a society is moribund.

Reading this, I think someone has women issues, and if your a woman, god help us!

But I am a woman, and that'a alot of crap!

Kuzadd, your post makes my point.

You have judged me and put me on the other side of the line. You have used your discernement.

And this, let's be honest, has nothing to do with media campaigns, men or marketing.

First and foremost is that we have the absolute right to defend ourselves. If a armed man comes into my home im not going to wait for the police to get there its either me or him. (him) I would kill anyone who came into my home shooting.

Moderate American, what gives you the right to be police, judge, jury and executioner. A civilized society does not give any single person the right to impose justice.

But as I say above, we defeated Hitler by organizing ourselves. If we use your logic that individuals should fight criminals, Hitler would have won. It takes concerted effort to defeat bad people. And that's why IMV, phoning 911 is a good thing.

[kuzadd]

August1991

I have various thoughts on this thread but it seems that Charles Anthony was one of the few to notice that the OP makes two points - and the first is a false OP.

Kuzadd, your post makes my point.

You have judged me and put me on the other side of the line. You have used your discernement.

And this, let's be honest, has nothing to do with media campaigns, men or marketing.

everyone" discerns", man or woman,

discern, simply means to perceive:dis·cern (d-sûrn, -zûrn)

v. dis·cerned, dis·cern·ing, dis·cerns

v.tr.

1. To perceive with the eyes or intellect; detect.

2. To recognize or comprehend mentally.

3. To perceive or recognize as being different or distinct;

my intellect tells me your promoting a nonsensical arguement based on your own biases.

I am sticking by my original contention, you have woman issues, IMO you perceive woman have become to empowered and influential in society. You are woefully wrong.

just look at the judgements here you make, the discernments, based on your perceptions....

"Women are engaged in a wasteful competition. They compete to be perfect. Many women know that such a competition is pointless but they can't leave it."

men do the same dam thing,they preen like there is no tomorrow, look at themselves in the mirror, fuss over there hair, etc., men compete for women , for work, and you attribute that to woman only???

simply not credible.

[August1991]

men do the same dam thing,they preen like there is no tomorrow, look at themselves in the mirror, fuss over there hair, etc., men compete for women , for work, and you attribute that to woman only???

simply not credible.

Men do this but not as much as women.

One of the few occupations where women earn more than men is in fashion modelling.

Women and gay men are the overwhelming sufferers of eating disorders.

But I'm not certain that these facts are related to my main point.

3. To perceive or recognize as being different or distinct;

This is the meaning that I intended.

[moderateamericain]

I have various thoughts on this thread but it seems that Charles Anthony was one of the few to notice that the OP makes two points - and the first is a false OP.

First and foremost is that we have the absolute right to defend ourselves. If a armed man comes into my home im not going to wait for the police to get there its either me or him. (him) I would kill anyone who came into my home shooting.

I absolutely agree we do have the right to defend ourselves, when attacked directly, if possible that is.

I absolutely disagree with vigilante justice. We should phone 911, rather than try to solve the problem alone.

Several thousand years ago, individuals defended themselves as they could. Nowadays, we don't. We organize ourselves and hire police or armies to defend ourselves.

I don't agree with this "citizen justice" argument. That's fine for citizens who are strong but what about short, thin citizens or citizens in wheel chairs? A civilized society creates institutions to protect itself and peacefully resolve disputes. Individuals did not defeat Hitler; we did it together.

A society where everyone has a gun is no society at all. Individual gun ownership is no guarantee of democracy; it's just a guarantee of wasteful competition. Should individuals have the right to have RPGs or Tactical Nuclear Weapons? How far should we go in allowing individual firepower?

Curiously, this leads to the main (second, genuine) point of the OP.

Women are engaged in a wasteful competition. They compete to be perfect. Many women know that such a competition is pointless but they can't leave it.

Women discern. They discern among men and in the process, they discern among other women. Women raise their noses. And if a woman doesn't, other women claim that she has "self-esteem" issues.

In a world of several billion people, it is a wasteful exercise to try to be perfect. I think men understand this. They compete but they aim for perfection differently.

My OP's genuine point was to argue that if people in a society compete for beauty or perfection, such a society is moribund.

Reading this, I think someone has women issues, and if your a woman, god help us!

But I am a woman, and that'a alot of crap!

Kuzadd, your post makes my point.

You have judged me and put me on the other side of the line. You have used your discernement.

And this, let's be honest, has nothing to do with media campaigns, men or marketing.

First and foremost is that we have the absolute right to defend ourselves. If a armed man comes into my home im not going to wait for the police to get there its either me or him. (him) I would kill anyone who came into my home shooting.

Moderate American, what gives you the right to be police, judge, jury and executioner. A civilized society does not give any single person the right to impose justice.

But as I say above, we defeated Hitler by organizing ourselves. If we use your logic that individuals should fight criminals, Hitler would have won. It takes concerted effort to defeat bad people. And that's why IMV, phoning 911 is a good thing.

Actually by the laws of the United states I have the right to be Judge, jury and executioner in my own home in regards to that highly hypothetical and unprobable situation. I am fully in my rights as a citizen of the United States to off anyone who comes into my home unwelcome with a firearm. Whats more is while I obey the laws of my country I will never let them define my actions. As a Freeman I will take whatever course of action I deem in the best interest of my family. Now before you get all slippery slope on me, No im not a killer, no I wouldnt beat someone for being on my lawn, and no I wouldn't join an American Nazi party.

[Charles Anthony]

Just as a point of order: It is not necessary to repeat the entirety of a previous post. Check out these threads:

NEW RULE! - Trim Your Posts, Please take the time to remove the bulk of the post your quoting

Trim Your Posts and Quotes, Don't just hit "Reply"

Using the [ Quote ] Feature:, Avoid using more too many quotes!

The forum Administrator wants us to reduce the amount of redundant quoting.

Go back and edit out the extra quotes.