The Feminizing of Western Civilization

[Higgly]

Wow August1991. What great thread.

I can't say that I think women or men are more less one way or another, but I do agree that there is a tension in society between compliance and entrepreneurship.

People who lean towards compliance will be exclusionary. People who lean towards entrepreneurship will be inclusionary, but only as far as it will produce some gain for them. And then there is the third way... mwha ha ha...

In terms of all this stuff about calling 911 versus vigilante justice....

I'm on the side of 911, but only if it's securely tethered to a well-functioning justice system. No way do I want to see the fate of the accused abandonned to the hands of the police. That is a police state and the police by definition are not the arbitrors of justice. They are the accusers. I would no sooner see justice in the hands of the police than I would see it in the hands of the criminals. And no I am not drawing some sort of moral equivalency between the police and the criminals, thank you very much.

Vigilante justice is a society of sociopaths. No thanks.

Edited October 7, 2007 by Higgly

[DarkAngel_]

but rather that we return to an older paradigm involving male honor and dignity.

that of which you speak has changed, defining manhood is now based on your worth: as in $$$

it is a shame i agree, but more for the fight of which you speak to be contested then brutalized may indeed reignite honor.... or rage.

by the way i see it, the men of the present wish to forget the men of the past, because they are ashamed of the men of the future (and no thats not Nietzsche)

honor and dignity reappearing now may hamper that boiling point that makes the conscience either kick in... or die. let those who wish to be lead by this immasculation be lead until they find, that they are weak as the men of the present... or am i misinterpreting your meanings?

I'm on the side of 911, but only if it's securely tethered to a well-functioning justice system

as well one must learn to defend home and country, as well as self. the cops don't get to a 'shoot out in progress'

they get to a crime scene, even if they do catch them, the damage has already been done... in my book, the civilians, crimanals, and police are weak, in the end it never stops and no one wins... unless they're lucky.

[August1991]

Wow August1991. What great thread.

I can't say that I think women or men are more less one way or another, but I do agree that there is a tension in society between compliance and entrepreneurship.

People who lean towards compliance will be exclusionary. People who lean towards entrepreneurship will be inclusionary, but only as far as it will produce some gain for them. And then there is the third way... mwha ha ha...

I don't quite know if I understand what you mean by "compliance and entrepreneurship" but I do appreciate that you are one of the few posters in this thread that seems to have understood that there are in fact two ideas in the OP.

1. A civilized society is not composed of individuals who defend themselves individually against bad people. IOW, a civilized society does not depend on vigilante justice. A civilized society calls 911 and then has a system of justice to decide whether the accused is truly guilty. (Such a civilized society is not what I mean by the Feminizing of Western Civilization. That is, if we call 911 rather than defend ourselves, this does not mean that we are feminized wimps.)

2. By feminization, I meant rather that we are increasingly a society (species) in which it is women who expend effort to attract men. I wondered what that meant and offered a conjecture based on the assumption that women are more discerning than men.

Anyway, along these lines, here's an interesting exchange that appeared on Craig's List:

What am I doing wrong?

Okay, I'm tired of beating around the bush. I'm a beautiful (spectacularly beautiful) 25 year old girl. I'm articulate and classy. I'm not from New York . I'm looking to get married to a guy who makes at least half a million a year. I know how that sounds, but keep in mind that a million a year is middle class in New York City, so I don't think I'm overreaching at all.

Are there any guys who make 500K or more on this board? Any wives? Could you send me some tips? I dated a business man who makes average around 200 - 250. But that's where I seem to hit a roadblock. 250,000 won't get me to central park west. I know a woman in my yoga class who was married to an investment banker and lives in Tribeca, and she's not as pretty as I am, nor is she a great genius. So what is she doing right? How do I get to her level?

Here are my questions specifically:

- Where do you single rich men hang out? Give me specifics- bars, restaurants, gyms

-What are you looking for in a mate? Be honest guys, you won't hurt my

feelings

-Is there an age range I should be targeting (I'm 25)?

- Why are some of the women living lavish lifestyles on the upper east side so plain? I've seen really 'plain jane' boring types who have nothing to offer married to incredibly wealthy guys. I've seen drop dead gorgeous girls in singles bars in the east village. What's the story there?

- Jobs I should look out for? Everyone knows - lawyer, investment banker, doctor. How much do those guys really make? And where do they hang out? Where do the hedge fund guys hang out?

- How you decide marriage vs. just a girlfriend? I am looking for MARRIAGE ONLY

Please hold your insults - I'm putting myself out there in an honest way. Most beautiful women are superficial; at least I'm being up front about it. I wouldn't be searching for these kind of guys if I wasn't able to match them - in looks, culture, sophistication, and keeping a nice home and hearth.

And here's an answer:

read your posting with great interest and have thought meaningfully about your dilemma. I offer the following analysis of your predicament. Firstly, I'm not wasting your time, I qualify as a guy who fits your bill; that is I make more than $500K per year. That said here's how I see it.

Your offer, from the prospective of a guy like me, is plain and simple a cr@ppy business deal. Here's why. Cutting through all the B.S., what you suggest is a simple trade: you bring your looks to the party and I bring my money. Fine, simple. But here's the rub, your looks will fade and my money will likely continue into perpetuity...in fact, it is very likely that my income increases but it is an absolute certainty that you won't be getting any more beautiful!

So, in economic terms you are a depreciating asset and I am an earning asset. Not only are you a depreciating asset, your depreciation accelerates! Let me explain, you're 25 now and will likely stay pretty hot for the next 5 years, but less so each year. Then the fade begins in earnest. By 35 stick a fork in you!

So in Wall Street terms, we would call you a trading position, not a buy and hold...hence the rub...marriage. It doesn't make good business sense to "buy you" (which is what you're asking) so I'd rather lease. In case you think I'm being cruel, I would say the following. If my money were to go away, so would you, so when your beauty fades I need an out. It's as simple as that. So a deal that makes sense is dating, not marriage.

Separately, I was taught early in my career about efficient markets. So, I wonder why a girl as "articulate, classy and spectacularly beautiful" as you has been unable to find your sugar daddy. I find it hard to believe that if you are as gorgeous as you say you are that the $500K hasn't found you, if not only for a tryout.

By the way, you could always find a way to make your own money and then we wouldn't need to have this difficult conversation.

With all that said, I must say you're going about it the right way. Classic "pump and dump."

I hope this is helpful, and if you want to enter into some sort of lease, let me know.

In particular, I liked the reference to the "efficient markets hypothesis" in the response. The responder assumes that there are no transactions costs and that clearly is not the case in a market such as this one. Indeed, in such a market, is it the seller or the buyer who advertises (assumes the search costs) to seek an opposite party?

Compared to the elephant seals who occupied a stretch of beach as described earlier in this thread, it is women who apparently take out ads on Craig's List. Now then, what does this portend for the future of Western Civilization?

Edited October 10, 2007 by August1991

[ScottSA]

I don't quite know if I understand what you mean by "compliance and entrepreneurship" but I do appreciate that you are one of the few posters in this thread that seems to have understood that there are in fact two ideas in the OP.

If I may, I believe you are misusing the phrase "feminizing of society." You make wondrous points, but they don't belong attached to that phrase.

[August1991]

If I may, I believe you are misusing the phrase "feminizing of society." You make wondrous points, but they don't belong attached to that phrase.

It is women who assume the (search) costs to advertise and attract a mate. This is what I meant by the phrase "feminizing of society" and I think the phrase is apt.

I don't mean that women assume all of the costs. But it seems to me that in modern society, they assume more and I'm wondering out loud what this means.

[DarkAngel_]

"feminizing of society." thats like asking "when the hell did people become alirgic to peanuts?!"

women have equal rights, so we as the 'alpha' must equalize... we agreed to this guys... don't go changing your minds now. (or we may have to sleep on the coach)

[August1991]

If I may, I believe you are misusing the phrase "feminizing of society." You make wondrous points, but they don't belong attached to that phrase.

I think that I am using the term "feminizing of society" precisely and with interest. Indeed the post from the Craig's List is now making the email rounds, with additions and edits.

At issue is who should assume the cost of advertising and searching for a mate. I argue that a species in which females advertise and compete will not survive. Females are discerning. They choose. Males should compete for attention. A species in which males compete for attention will survive. Females are badly placed to compete for attention.

Edited October 26, 2007 by August1991

[August1991]

A poor university student in New Zealand who offered her virginity on an auction site has accepted a £20,000 offer to sleep with a stranger.

The 19-year-old, who has not been named or pictured, said she posted the advert to help pay for her university fees.

The girl, from Northland, in New Zealand's north island, is only known by her username Unigirl.

Teenager sells virginity for £9,000 She wrote on auction site ineed.co.nz after the auction had finished at NZ$46,000: "I have accepted an offer in excess of $NZ45,000, which is way beyond what I dreamed."

The student added that the advert had been viewed by more than 30,000 people and had received more than 1200 offers.

Telegraph

This has been done before and it amounts to a one-night stand. It's interesting nonetheless because the men are competing among themselves for the woman. This is like elephant seal behaviour.

[Shwa]

This has been done before and it amounts to a one-night stand. It's interesting nonetheless because the men are competing among themselves for the woman. This is like elephant seal behaviour.

Which suggests you can remove the man from nature, but you cannot remove nature from the man.

[bloodyminded]

To respond to the OP I shall use forums in my analogy. When reading or posting on forums as a Right winger I believe that the left have made us a society of weak, lame and lazy people. Male and female, the left idiology of no seperation of state and it's people are the root of this belief. Instead of becoming more productive citizens we've become a society of cry babies, when something goes wrong the first thing a left leaning person does is demand the "Government" pay for it, or fix it. Right wingers tend to their own affairs, we don't want government intervention into our private lives. Personally I find many (not all) of the left/socialist leaning males (on forums) weak and whiny as are many of the women who support Liberal/NDP idiology. They are oversensitive, easily offended, find the word black offensive even when describing the color of your dress. I find males who lean left to be personally unattractive even though I can't see them. Their words make me cringe most of the time, as a female I don't find weak males who spew forth tripe and snivel attractive.

One only has to log on to a left/left or NDP forum and the conversations that are taking place are amusing, their over sensitive egos are so fragile that calling a cat a "Black Cat" offends them lest it offend a black person who reads the word black.

As a right winger, I believe the police should not be investigating nonsense as racial slurs-hurt feelings and insults are not crimes. Racial issues seem more important than criminal issues with left leaning males and females. In short, this right winger believes in government running our country not our lives. The police are for law enforcement, laws that we as a society demand from our government not laws legislated to give special interest groups or minorities more power.

As for the male/female thang, LOL as a female I loath weak whiny men. I hate chick flicks, camping is the devils work. Do I strive for profection? Jesus no, nor do most males that are over the age of thirty. I'm equal to or greater than most males I've met, depending on the issue or subject at hand. If males are feeling immasculated perhaps they should turn off the TV, the computer and learn some skills to feel manly and please stop blaming the modern independant women in society for your failures fellas.

I think you're mistaking ideological commitment for astute observation.

No one, but no one, is more whiny than the far-Right male. They're positively dainty, like delicate little flowers.

[bloodyminded]

I think that I am using the term "feminizing of society" precisely and with interest. Indeed the post from the Craig's List is now making the email rounds, with additions and edits.

At issue is who should assume the cost of advertising and searching for a mate. I argue that a species in which females advertise and compete will not survive. Females are discerning. They choose. Males should compete for attention. A species in which males compete for attention will survive. Females are badly placed to compete for attention.

You make some interesting specific points, but I think in a larger sense you're mistaken. Women's searching for a mate is arguably more overt now, but they have always been the primary iniators (sexually and relationship-wise); it's just that it may once have been more subtle.

[Oleg Bach]

People don't know if they are coming or going these days - visions and images of human torsals artifically enhanced through un-natural repetative movements called exercise or body forming - woman are looking like muscular boys and boys are looking like muscular woman - body fat once believed healthy is now scorned...wonder what these "beautiful people" will do in a famine with out reserves?

IT might be my age but I have noticed that females with no body fat are almost unseducable..probably because the estrogen level is almost non-existant - people have so-called protected sex under the guise of disease prevention when it is actually state sanctioned birth control on mass.

It is not actual gayification that is taking place but a de-sexing of the population that is apparent these days. Homosexual behaviour is naturally a thing of choice - IF the conditioning is consistant and relentless - very few by nature are homo-sexuals..In time you will see that worship of the human body will develope into a religion - and the groping and objectifying of the human form as a thing of beauty to be possesed and used and disposed of will become common fare. It is NOT feminization of males but the demasculinization and destroying of the patriarchal and matriarchal familiar system that is being destroy by those that seek to turn us all into slaves busy f*cking anything that moves including the family dog. Providing the mut has a pretty face and nice fur...

[bloodyminded]

Homosexual behaviour is naturally a thing of choice

very few by nature are homo-sexuals

So...which is it? These are inherently contradictory statements.

but a de-sexing of the population that is apparent these days.

turn us all into slaves busy f*cking anything that moves including the family dog.

And again.

Edited February 7, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Oleg Bach]

So...which is it? These are inherently contradictory statements.

And again.

I will be honest - Homosexuallity is strickly something created by the human imagination..in other words - I really don't believe it exists. Frankly most these days are conditioned - by about 25 years of propoganda and sexual interference by crazed liberal adults along with Zionist fools who want to make sure their race grows and YOURS does not.

I have watched the world for almost 60 years and I do not remember that many freaks running about with the urge to blow the guy next door. Maleness like femaleness comes in degrees - If you are less male than expected then society will push that male towards being with other males - It is ugenics and a way of getting rid of inferiors. Having ranted that.....! It is a choice but the freedom of choice has been erroded.

[Oleg Bach]

It is extremely irksome when your typical soccer mom and liberal man push homo-sexual behaviour as a right - and say that gay marriage is a good thing..seeing that most who push the gay agenda are not gay is quite weird...they stand tall protecting a fledgling gay institution saying that it is relevant because "straights have great failure rates when it comes to the commitment between the opposite sexes - in other words they support gay marriage and not their own marriage...talk about the lack of survival skills and a the fleeting of the life force - We need more people - not imports that could not cut it in their own nation of origin - If our immigrants were of good quality they should have done well where they were... point being - get to it CANADA - START breeding and forget this whole divorce ridden "I need room to breath" society - and do your duty as a human being...make love to a woman even if some jerk has you convinced that you are gay.... What is next on the agenda of the destroyers - chemical sterilzation and mental sterilization bringing about impidence?

[bloodyminded]

I will be honest - Homosexuallity is strickly something created by the human imagination..in other words - I really don't believe it exists. Frankly most these days are conditioned - by about 25 years of propoganda and sexual interference by crazed liberal adults along with Zionist fools who want to make sure their race grows and YOURS does not.

There has been no "sexual interference" on behalf of homosexuals...by "crazed liberal adults" or anyone else.

And what in hell do Zionists have to do with anything?

I have watched the world for almost 60 years and I do not remember that many freaks running about with the urge to blow the guy next door.

Your caricature aside, I assure you you're quite safe, even from the hyper-predatory, crazed liberal adult Zionists who lust after you so continually.

You saw less overt homosexuality many years ago because it was dangerous for them to be open about it.

Because of people like you. You're the danger, Oleg. Not gay people; you.