Anileve Posted February 7, 2004 Report Share Posted February 7, 2004 http://www.savethemales.ca/040602.html Don't you just love the domain name? This is absolutely hysterical! I am sure that you girls would absolutely love this and some of the men of this forum would identify with this fruit. He is so Anti-Feminist, one has to wonder if he was seriously burned by women in the past. . I do find his thoughts a bit conflicting, on one hand he is also anti-multiculturalism and “cooks and shops” but at the age of 52 he married a Mexican woman, how is that for an anti-cultural ism. Get a load of this quote by him: “Our marriage proves that roles can be flexible when identities are secure”, yet he claims that women by nature are designated specific roles that should not be altered. A strong man doesn't necessarily have to stay with a feminist, he is confident enough of his own security to be intimidated by the strong opinionated and independent woman, and chances are that he will regard her as equal. In terms of helping feminists I don't think that they need help, on the contrary of his faulty belief. It is the women that "gain their purpose in life through a man" that need to be helped. He also claims that feminists are lesbians, which the last time I checked, my mother, my friends and other women that surround me are very much comfortable in the company of men. What leads men to believe this fallacy is beyond me, in fact it is a myth created by men that feel the loss of their purpose in the circle of life, since they have been brought up to believe that they must be providers and their ultimate power comes from money and success. Rather than worry about the loss, they should be thankful of what is gained, that they no longer have to bear the sole responsibility of handling the financial strain, that a woman can really be a partner and a companion in all life's hardships. This is generally the filth coming from very insecure men that are not used to the idea of strong women, thus at the age of 52 they marry a Mexican woman. Plus I love how he mentions that it's “Better to find a woman who is naturally feminine and naturally receptive.”" as if femininity is acquired by nature, although I know many very traditional women that completely lack femininity and many that are feminists that exude feminism, those are not the same or correlated. What gives the men the right to judge what a woman should be like anyway? I don't believe that many women go on preaching what is the standard of masculinity. As much as I understand that role is not engraved, different women want different things from men that are not a standard image of a "provider", a lot of women nowadays simply want a companionship and to share their life by maintaining their independence and not clinging on to the man's pocket. Nonsense! So what do you guys think? Do you agree or disagree with Mr. Expert on Feminity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted February 7, 2004 Report Share Posted February 7, 2004 Sexual intercourse and childbirth are manifestations of a spiritual relationship. 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. A "sapling" ... "towering oak" ... then "child"? I had never heard it phrased that way before. By the way, I liked that characterization of the "inverted" woman... always seeing the male as the predator ... and then putting herself in the shoes of the "victim". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted February 7, 2004 Report Share Posted February 7, 2004 A "sapling" ... "towering oak" ... then "child"? I had never heard it phrased that way before. By the way, I liked that characterization of the "inverted" woman... always seeing the male as the predator ... and then putting herself in the shoes of the "victim". Why you say that seaphan? anything particular about the article that interested you? lol. hmmmmm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anileve Posted February 7, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2004 A "sapling" ... "towering oak" ... then "child"? I had never heard it phrased that way before. By the way, I liked that characterization of the "inverted" woman... always seeing the male as the predator ... and then putting herself in the shoes of the "victim". HAAAAAAA! I know there is a touch of romanticism in his writing, not necessary my idea of romance. "A strong man might help a feminist rediscover her femininity. But you're dealing with milk that has curdled." Interesting terminology regarding the milk metaphor ...A strong man might help a feminist and a weak men will falter and become effeminate. I guess the feminists need help finding their lost femininity, and they certainly need a man to show it to them, now wouldn't that suggest that he must be effeminate to help? That kind of tumbles the theory to the outskirts of my ex-soviet toilet... "If I look at another woman, she doesn't jump on me. She's my friend, not my jailer." Ahaaaaaaaa, why doesn't he just say so instead of rambling on and on. This seems to be the real issue here, I guess a feminist woman is to strong to be disrespected in public by him gawking at other women. However I find that sort of flawed too, because it is generally insecure women that jump to their partners throat for such action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 7, 2004 Report Share Posted February 7, 2004 Well the article was banal. What do men want in a woman? I want a woman that is intelligent, kind, and adventurous. I want a woman who will encourage and challenge me to better myself. I want a woman who I can share everything with, friendship, companionship, love, trust, and someone to laugh with. Most of all I want a feminine woman, not a butch. I don't care about the article's stance but femininity is something that is beyond mere political labels of "feminism" or "traditionalism", it's just femininity. Henry Makow also writes articles against Israel and the NWO conspiracy hehe, just a side issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheekY Posted February 7, 2004 Report Share Posted February 7, 2004 (edited) Well the article was banal. What do men want in a woman? I want a woman that is intelligent, kind, and adventurous. I want a woman who will encourage and challenge me to better myself. I want a woman who I can share everything with, friendship, companionship, love, trust, and someone to laugh with. Most of all I want a feminine woman, not a butch. aww sorry but i'm already taken Edited February 7, 2004 by skittles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 7, 2004 Report Share Posted February 7, 2004 Most of all I want a feminine woman, not a butch. O.K., your choice of women respected, but do you really think femininity is the ultimate marker of womanhood? And what IS your definition of a "woman." Is it someone who has the female genitals or someone who is feminine (that would imply that men who are feminine-acting are women)? Or both? The fact that there are categories "female" and "femininity" means that they are two separate and distinct things, that could occur simultaneously or separately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 7, 2004 Report Share Posted February 7, 2004 O.K., your choice of women respected, but do you really think femininity is the ultimate marker of womanhood? And what IS your definition of a "woman." Is it someone who has the female genitals or someone who is feminine (that would imply that men who are feminine-acting are women)? Or both? The fact that there are categories "female" and "femininity" means that they are two separate and distinct things, that could occur simultaneously or separately. Now let's not get "relative" here. Definitions are not important for we already know what the definitions are let's not make things pliable here. I think we all know what femininity is and what distinguishes feminine women from butch or masculine women. That's all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 7, 2004 Report Share Posted February 7, 2004 Yes, but who says which one is right and which one is wrong? Not that I'm claiming that you're saying that. Just trying to get a discussion going here. Don't get me wrong. I am not a feminist. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I also sport a very obvious dislike of radical feminists, be they women or men. And it depends what you mean by "butch" women. Are you talking about the stereotypical lesbian butch or the short haired woman who is not necessarily masculine in the way she acts, but rather the way she dresses. It's all about a bunch of hair and what you do with it (let it grow or cut it), and clothing. I don't quite understand what the big fuss about all of that is. I'm not underestimating people's taste, just that a lot of people rule out the possibility of butch women being "real women." What's with that? The definition of woman has changed historically and geographically. Some of Levi-Strauss works on that might prove to be helpful in catching up on cultural relativity of what femininity and masculinity are all about. Of course, that doesn't mean that there are no absolute truths, but so far, there has been no proof that the "right" thing to do for women is to act "feminine" and that to act in an "unfeminine" way is abnormal. Or maybe I'm wrong. I don't read much about the scientific analysis of gender and what's related to that (hormones, ..?) You're saying that definitions are not important here. How can you use a label and argue that its definition is not important? How you define something is what makes your use of that term meaningful. Otherwise it's nothing but a word that you use in order to "show" that you're knowledgeable about the latest trends in terminology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted February 7, 2004 Report Share Posted February 7, 2004 I think we all know what femininity is and what distinguishes feminine women from butch or masculine women. That's all. I am not so sure. If you ask a typical "traditional" armenian, he or she may tell you that feminine if synonimous with submissive, obedient, and passive. In my version of "feminine", a woman can be quite the opposite of the above yet still be feminine. A woman can be outspoken, caring, nurturing, open, observant, and to some extent rebelious while still not be "butch" at all. Actually, come to think of it, "feminine" in the traditional sense is a big turn off for me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 7, 2004 Report Share Posted February 7, 2004 In my version of "feminine", a woman can be quite the opposite of the above yet still be feminine. A woman can be outspoken, caring, nurturing, open, observant, and to some extent rebelious while still not be "butch" at all. You're definition is what I agree with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 I dont really see how and why the definition of femininity or woman need be described at all... I think its down to the individuals heart that one is judged, we all very well have our good vs. bad sides.. (bad as in places needing improvement)... so i dont see the reason to described the two words above... I mean that would be generalizing very distinct personlaities into one catagory... would it not? And for each individual who judges a woman as " feminine or not" is comparing with every other woman... Why do that, why compare one who you love, or are wanting to love, to so many other distinct personalities... Comparing is one way of future problems, so you must judgde that specific individual on his/her merits.. and compatibility with your.. Am i making sense.. ?? its hard for me to write exactly how i feel and what i mean.. but i tried Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 Am i making sense.. ?? its hard for me to write exactly how i feel and what i mean.. but i tried You are not making any sense since if you don't compare, you cannot make relative statements about different women and you either will not like anyone, will be neutral towards all, or will like everyone. I highly doubt any of those 3 cases is true for you. Unless you are saying you don't differentiate femininie and masculine in which case I'd say you got deeper problems than not being able to express how you feel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 (edited) You are not making any sense since if you don't compare, you cannot make relative statements about different women and you either will not like anyone, will be neutral towards all, or will like everyone. Sip, I disagree. I think it's the other way around. That is, if you don't make relative statements, you don't need to compare (and in fact are not comparing). So if you look at a certain woman for who she is regardless of her "level" of femininity on the gender spectrum, you are looking at her outside the boundaries of gender (note the difference between sex and gender). Moreover, looking at a woman and evaluating her femininity on a scale, does not imply that you are comparing that woman with all the women or with any particular woman per se, but with the concept of gender and the concept of women as "feminine." Comparison is not the bases of liking or loving someone, unless you say to Woman A, "You're better than Woman B or Woman C, so I like and love you", then that becomes a different issue altogether. But liking someone is not relative. You don't like someone in relation to others. You just like someone. You don't say to your "lover", "I love you more than our neighbour's wife" (or I hope you don't LOL), you say "I love you." Correct? Edited February 8, 2004 by den_wolf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angel4hope Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 vert true sip...feminine does not always have to mean submissive..and as the armenian culture views it as "hamest" and agreeable all the time... i myself, when i hear the word feminine...in this case..i think of someone who has her own views, ideas, opinions, and is quite independent, buthas that certain aspect... that way with people that makes her feminine... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 So Den, let me get this straight ... Let's say there is a person A and a person B. You are saying you are not comparing A and B directly. But what you are saying, is there is a generic concept femininity ... call it Lambda ... you compare A to lambda, and make some decision about A. Then you compare B to lambda, and make some decision about B. Isn't that implicitly comparing A and B? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 But what you are saying, is there is a generic concept femininity ... call it Lambda ... you compare A to lambda, and make some decision about A. Then you compare B to lambda, and make some decision about B. Isn't that implicitly comparing A and B? No. Since the term "femininity" is defined very loosely and varies from one culture and person to another, you're not comparing one person to another by comparing both to the "same" thing. And since we are human beings with free will and autonomy, there is no way one person can be compared to another on an absolute scale. Hence why I used the term "spectrum." And because femininity is not a fixed concept for any one person (i.e. it changes over time and certain situations), it cannot be used for comparison as something absolute and static. It's not as simple as saying, if A = B, and B = C, then A = C. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 Ahh you must be a relativist. Relativity eventually negates itself. Perhaps we need a thread on Moral Relativism, or just "All things are relative" in general. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 Ahh you must be a relativist. Relativity eventually negates itself. Perhaps we need a thread on Moral Relativism, or just "All things are relative" in general. No I am not. I am neither an absolutist nor a relativist. I pick and choose philosophical theories in a way that I see best fit according to the situation. In that sense, I guess I am a relativist. I think philosophical theories are relative. I suppose I'm going way over my head here, especially for someone who just woke up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anileve Posted February 8, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 Excellent posts Wolfy! Thanks and welcome to the forum, what a cool addition you make! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 Excellent posts Wolfy! Thanks and welcome to the forum, what a cool addition you make! LOL. Thanks, I try. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 Sip, I disagree. I think it's the other way around. That is, if you don't make relative statements, you don't need to compare (and in fact are not comparing). So if you look at a certain woman for who she is regardless of her "level" of femininity on the gender spectrum, you are looking at her outside the boundaries of gender (note the difference between sex and gender). Moreover, looking at a woman and evaluating her femininity on a scale, does not imply that you are comparing that woman with all the women or with any particular woman per se, but with the concept of gender and the concept of women as "feminine." Comparison is not the bases of liking or loving someone, unless you say to Woman A, "You're better than Woman B or Woman C, so I like and love you", then that becomes a different issue altogether. But liking someone is not relative. You don't like someone in relation to others. You just like someone. You don't say to your "lover", "I love you more than our neighbour's wife" (or I hope you don't LOL), you say "I love you." Correct? I was trying in some ways to get to this, except.. situation: I have a beautiful girfriend, shes kewl, shes nice she can cook, we have good time, go out, have fun, its mutual relationship.. And, i see and get to know a gril that is all that plus she can cook "better" she looks prettier, and more femenin (whatever feminin is, and if i were to particularly like it in a woman) So, i i were to start to compare the first girl, with the second girl, than yeah at face value she sounds "better" fit for me.. or.. does she>>?? See if we compare like this, then we will never be happy with what we have, and infact den is very right.. apres aper jan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anileve Posted February 8, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 I was trying in some ways to get to this, except.. situation: I have a beautiful girfriend, shes kewl, shes nice she can cook, we have good time, go out, have fun, its mutual relationship.. And, i see and get to know a gril that is all that plus she can cook "better" she looks prettier, and more femenin (whatever feminin is, and if i were to particularly like it in a woman) So, i i were to start to compare the first girl, with the second girl, than yeah at face value she sounds "better" fit for me.. or.. does she>>?? See if we compare like this, then we will never be happy with what we have, and infact den is very right.. apres aper jan. Perfect! An enlightened male, there is hope after all! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 (edited) To address some of the points he tries to make: 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. 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. 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? 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. 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." 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? 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. 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. 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. She doesn't criticize, she doesn't control and she doesn't complain. How feminine of her indeed!!! If I look at another woman, she doesn't jump on me. :lol: 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! 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. 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." 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 February 8, 2004 by den_wolf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anileve Posted February 8, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 I so think you are cool! Thanks, I have nothing else to add. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.