To address some of the points he tries to make:
QUOTE
These women are out of touch with their nature and you can tell. Woman's essential nature is to be an incubator of love. Her natural role is to create an environment in which living beings thrive. Her destiny is to love a man, and through him her children. Her reward is their love and happiness.
A woman's "natural" role has changed over time and space, and continues to do so. Terms like "natural role", "destiny", "reward", you can tell this guy is a misogynist. These terms are used by people like him so often that it's not hard at all to point them out from among a crowd of 1000 people.
QUOTE
A man must first plant his spirit in a woman's heart and find a warm reception. That spirit takes root and love grows into a sapling, and then a towering oak. Finally, a child is the expression of this unseen reality.
The idea of the man as the carrier of the "seed" and the impregnator is not a new one, and this argument is used quite often by anti-feminists. What they seem to fail to recognise is that their "theories" crumble in the face of Levi-Strauss' anthropological and cross-cultural proofs of non-"traditional" gender roles and opposite images of the woman as the "receptive", "submissive" individual.
QUOTE
He is an agent of God. Every man has a divine mission and purpose on earth. This mission imbues him with a confident masculinity, which appeals to a woman's higher instincts.
And what, I dare ask, is this "divine" mission that man is supposed to achieve? Appealing to women? And what is the definition of "masculinity" according to this man? He doesn't even bother to define it. Are we to assume that he's talking about Puritan society? And what is there in this "confidence"? Confidence to do what?
QUOTE
Ultimately, women do not get satisfaction in worldly achievement. They find fulfillment from giving and receiving love. They are creatures of love, God's creatures.
Who says they don't? I suppose he lived in the skin of a woman in another life... What proof does he have to support his claim that women only want to be emotionally satisfied? Why does he define a woman in relation to a man without proving that this is the way it's supposed to be? And how can he argue against the success of women on their own, without husbands to "help" them? No, I suppose he considers that abnormal.
QUOTE
She gives her husband and children unconditional love.
Yes, unconditional love. So that the husband would abuse it, and go on with his divine mission of cheating on his wife, because his wife was too "dumb" and unable to "keep him in."
QUOTE
In order for union to take place, a woman must identify her self-interest with her husband's.
And why not the other way around?
QUOTE
Members of couples who remain "independent" are in competition with each other. They cannot know true intimacy. They cannot know true love.
yes, I suppose he has experienced this too. for his information, there can be unity in independence.
QUOTE
Powerful forces in the world use the mass media to create social trends. These forces are promoting sexual inversion in order to sabotage the nuclear family and destabilize society.
Powerful forces in the world use idiots like you to create social trends. These forces are promoting sexual repression in order to sabotage the freedom and equality, and destabilise society.
QUOTE
Men should not waste too much time on inverted women, i.e. feminists.
"Dr." Henry Makow here has "wasted" way too much time on feminists with this "article" of his, I think.
QUOTE
She doesn't criticize, she doesn't control and she doesn't complain.
How feminine of her indeed!!!
QUOTE
If I look at another woman, she doesn't jump on me.
Good old Henry seems to have a very very bad case of short term memory: "He must love the woman who loves him. Otherwise he should leave her alone." Whatever happened to that? It seems like he wants to have the freedom to do whatever he wants whenever he wants, and the freedom to talk against the same things and accuse women for it. Hypocrite alert!
QUOTE
I do all the shopping and cooking and try to make her happy. Our marriage proves that roles can be flexible when identities are secure.
So what IS he trying to say exactly? I thought he was making a point, until I got to this sentence, and he basically wiped out everything he said in the first place. What is it about "masculinised" women that he doesn't like? What aspect of it? What does he consider to be "masculine" and hence wrong for women to engage in? I don't get it.
QUOTE
I might have slavered over these young beauties. Now you couldn't pay me to have sex with any of them.
Of course, no one needs to pay YOU to have sex with them. Because in your Utopian society (read Dystopia), you can have sex with anyone you want, even if you're married to a nice Mexican woman who has a degree in IT, who's not your jailer, yada yada yada, JUST because you have a penis. What a nice society. And yet, he argues against those who are "obsessed with sex."
QUOTE
He received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto.
I suppose it's easy for people to get PhDs these days. Ahhh, what has become of "traditional" scholarship!!!
Edited by den_wolf, 08 February 2004 - 02:42 AM.