I don't know nearly as much about the feminist movement or the law as I would like, but don't many feminist post-modernists advocate the deconstruction of "masculine" structures -- possibly including notions of assumption of risk. I imagine this is what some people refer to when talking about the feminization of Western civilization: not merely the literal brainwashing of men into a female mindset (though that happens too) but the shift from traditional Western/Modernist concepts and structures to post-modernist, "post-masculine" (or whatever) paradigms.

I think there's an appalling lack of defined terms in the "feminization" debate. The forces that influence how "safe" or "unsafe" our society becomes are based on cultural and economic factors that can't be pinned down to traditional concepts of masculinity or femininity. For instance, liability issues are driven by our legal system (and its financial goals) far more than by our collective concepts of manhood (as is evidenced by shows like "Jackass").

Certainly, there are some in the US who think our culture is becoming too feminine; yet from my perspective, with all of the masculine bravado we're seeing from NASCAR to WWE to the war in Iraq, it seems that Western manhood (a-la Elizabethan England) is still very much alive and well here, and that the term "too feminized" might translate more roughly to "at all feminine in any capacity whatsoever".

The "no girls allowed" sign has been torn down. This isn't a matter of how much femininity is too much. It's the assumption that any femininity at all is undesirable.

This is an assumption that literally begs for challenge.

One of the reasons I prefer the more vulgar term "pussification" is that it implies something else entirely -- a lack of backbone, a lack of willingness to stand up for self, family, community and country, and consequently the refusal to take responsibility for one's own actions. The ridiculous litigiousness of our society that has caused the swimming hole to be filled in is an outgrowth of this denial of responsibility and the mistaken belief that we must be protected from ourselves.

I would use the term "emasculation" or "castration" instead to denote our weakness, the _desexualization_ of Western culture as such, not only the men. If Mr. du Toit had written "We are becoming a nation of eunuchs" I would have agreed with him completely. But instead he wrote "We are becoming a nation of women" and I could not disagree more violently. For a gynosexual man to have such contempt for the very women to whom he is (at least presumably) attracted shows to me a deep contempt for his own sexuality, which reflects and/or produces a deep contempt for his own self, despite his boastings. And that is precisely the problem! I blame the Christian churches for fostering that anti-sex, anti-self mentality which is destroying us.

Thanks for all the comments. There still seems to be a kneejerk tendency in some quarters to decry as "feminine" (or homosexual, or less than "manly") all unpopular things, without much regard to definitions. Queen Elizabeth I was female, as was Margaret Thatcher. One would think that women in power would be a feminizing influence -- whatever feminizing means. The modern women's movement seems wedded to socialism. (Sometimes, so does much of the "gay movement.") But does that make socialism feminine? Or gay? Why?

Eric, THANK YOU for this post.

I prefer the term 'pacification' myself, although 'lawyerization' (??) applies to most of Eric's issues.

The real problem is that there are too many laywers - it's too profitable a profession. And this comes from/encourages too much government. Lawyers bend the police power of government to serve individual ends, including their own.

Who gets to write all the laws? Politcians, most of whom are laywers. Who gets to interpret the law? Judges, who are usually laywers. It's a pretty cozy arrangement, all in all.

It is said that the adversarial system of law is an improvement over it's predecessors (trial by combat, trial by ordeal); but I still think the current system is seriously flawed. I just don't have a serious replacement - except possibly a combination of the transparent society and a perfect truth machine - i.e. a technological solution.

But as long as we have all these lawyers running around who need to make money, then we all end up paying for it with more than just money - we pay with our freedom as well.

(This is offered with no intent to insult you personally - but it's what I think.)