Feminism versus Love

[wum]

This excerpt is a bit long and requires some upper level reading skills, but I think this guy is onto something :

By Henry Makow Ph.D.

Women want to be possessed by a man's love. God's love of Creation is mirrored in a man's love of a woman. A girlfriend once told me, "I want to be used." In a way, a man channels God's love to a woman by making her a wife and (possibly) a mother. Women want masculine power, but it must be in a man. The same girlfriend also said that without a man, she feels "like a rudderless boat." Similarly, a man without a woman is a rudder without a boat.

A man cannot love a woman who is competing with him for power. Relationships between so-called "equals" are like mergers, or roommates. One psychiatrist, Irene Claremont de Castillejo, calls them "brother-sister" marriages (Knowing Women: A Feminine Psychology, 1973). They cannot achieve the intimacy as when a woman surrenders her will to a man, and a man returns this trust with his wholehearted love. Some psychiatrists say her sexual satisfaction is also linked to her ability to trust and surrender.

Feminine women are creatures of God. In love, they sacrifice their "selves" for love, which in many religions is the key to transcendence. Helen Deutsch remarked on this masochist-narcissist syndrome in her The Psychology of Women: A Psychoanalytic Interpretation (1944). The majority of women only achieve fulfillment as wives and mothers. In their hearts, they know it.

Nor can women love men with whom they compete. Women are hypergamous which means they seek men of higher status than themselves. Even the most ardent heterosexual feminist only can love someone more powerful than she.

The struggle for power is poisoning male-female relations. It is the death of love. Men cannot give up their defining characteristic and expect to be men. Women cannot criticize and challenge men and expect to have satisfying relationships. When I comprehended this, I felt liberated. I established a healthy relationship with a woman who is my female complement, and married her.

In conclusion, the universal complaint is that men no longer know how to be men; women don't know how to be women. It helps to see heterosexual love as a mystical dance. In a dance, the male leads, the female follows. You canit have a graceful dance without each partner playing his part.

The dance is based on love. The male is always considering his mate's wishes, because he loves her. In some cases, he will ask her to lead. As in a ballroom dance, who can say which role is more important. Both partners are of equal value. The dance requires both the leadership and dynamism of the male; and the beauty, love and grace of the female. In the dance of love, two people become one, and the fruit of this mystical union, is often a child.

Discuss.

[robyn]

I'd like to know what he's basing this on. The guy seems a little insecure.

[wum]

Originally Posted by robyn

I'd like to know what he's basing this on. The guy seems a little insecure.

You can see the rest of the article by clicking on the blue hypertext, but the thrust of it is Feminism has hijacked normal male-female relations. He's basing it on how there are more gay people and how marriages are failing and how people are more disfunctional than ever, and how this opposes more "traditional" society and its values.

So i guess you disagree?

[miss.myra]

I was actually seriously reading the article and trying to get the point, but it's coming from a pretty biased source, for some reason I'd have an easier time taking it seriously if it was on anything but savethemales.ca. That really takes away from its legitimacy.

[robyn]

No I don't agree. Not only has he made a lot of gross generalizations about feminism without doing any research, but he's falling back on the fallacy that nuclear family has been the norm throughout history, which is entirely untrue.

The whole article seems to be more about his own inability to come to terms with his own identity, really.

[Funksta]

WHAAAAT???? Robyn please elaborate on how he's generalizing feminism???And where is he showing insecurity???IF anything, buddy here hit the nail right on the head and I think it just ruffled your feathers that he is right....

[ebbomega]

Heh.

More PhDs trying to justify sexism.

This game is older than debating that the world is flat.

[wum]

Originally Posted by miss.myra

I was actually seriously reading the article and trying to get the point, but it's coming from a pretty biased source, for some reason I'd have an easier time taking it seriously if it was on anything but savethemales.ca. That really takes away from its legitimacy.

the name is a play off of "save the whales" but I guess you don't find that too funny. What about the actual points he raises? Like the reciprocal nature of male-female relationships?

Originally Posted by robyn

No I don't agree. Not only has he made a lot of gross generalizations about feminism without doing any research, but he's falling back on the fallacy that nuclear family has been the norm throughout history, which is entirely untrue.

I've done some informal research on feminism, and from what I gather, isn't it true that in this drive towards "equality" (which seems to be defined as sameness) gender identities are abolished and remade towards what social engineers define as fairer?

For example, women are taught to not expect love to be connected with sex, and if they do, they suffer from some kind of pathology. Kinda like a man, no? I think he makes a good point when he says that feminism seeks to masculinise women, and making men redundant in the process, throwing a wrench into heterosexuality.

Originally Posted by robyn

The whole article seems to be more about his own inability to come to terms with his own identity, really.

he's actually married

[ebbomega]

Originally Posted by wum

he's actually married

And that has to do with her point.... how?

Anybody can get married. That's easy.

Maintaining respect for your partner throughout the marriage isn't so much so.

This essay reminds me of the chick in Cryptonomicon that wrote the essay about how facial hair is used to mask your personal identity, while dating one of the main characters who had a beard.

If I were this guy's wife I'd leave him after reading this.

[wum]

i think you guys should try to read this article based on it's merits, rather than some kind of partisan bullshit.

[Grapes]

the name is a play off of "save the whales" but I guess you don't find that too funny.

Nuke the males for Jesus.

[ebbomega]

Originally Posted by wum

i think you guys should try to read this article based on it's merits, rather than some kind of partisan bullshit.

Or, you know, we could look at it objectively.

[wum]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

Or, you know, we could look at it objectively.

which is why you come out with the automatic remark that this was simply "sexist"

[ebbomega]

Originally Posted by wum

which is why you come out with the automatic remark that this was simply "sexist"

Like I said. Objective.

It's a sexist article. And thoroughly religion biased. And homophobic. Want more?

[wum]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

Like I said. Objective.

It's a sexist article. And thoroughly religion biased. And homophobic. Want more?

well i was hoping people would talk about the points, instead of throwing out buzzwords.

all you've done is gives meaningless labels to this piece, doing nothing to negate or affirm any of the points.

maybe all what you're saying is crap. It's all an ebbomega-ism.

[ebbomega]

Now you're getting it.

First of all, he assumes too much and generalises even more. There's no concrete evidence for anything that he's saying there except quoting from scripture and a bunch of sources no newer than 1975. Hate to break it to you, but the feminist movement has evolved _A LOT_ since 1975.

All in all, the entire article reads like Men Are From Mars and Women Are From Venus, basically taking some sound psychological theories and distorting them into absolutes, thus assuming that all male/female relationships are the same (and are therefore implicitly different from male/male or female/female relationships). Any psychologist will tell you that claiming absolutes is almost never a reliable practice when it comes to the way in which humans behave, because we seem to always manage to find exceptions to just about every single psychological rule.

Better?

[dabbler]

i'm not a fan of people who blame things on sexism. everyone/everything is sexist. in both ways. girls are JUST as sexist as guys are, (IMO)

[wum]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

Now you're getting it.

First of all, he assumes too much and generalises even more. There's no concrete evidence for anything that he's saying there except quoting from scripture and a bunch of sources no newer than 1975. Hate to break it to you, but the feminist movement has evolved _A LOT_ since 1975.

All in all, the entire article reads like Men Are From Mars and Women Are From Venus, basically taking some sound psychological theories and distorting them into absolutes, thus assuming that all male/female relationships are the same (and are therefore implicitly different from male/male or female/female relationships). Any psychologist will tell you that claiming absolutes is almost never a reliable practice when it comes to the way in which humans behave, because we seem to always manage to find exceptions to just about every single psychological rule.

Better?

this is getting extremely convoluted, but we have to allow for some generalizations (females tend to act feminine, etc.) if you want to say anything useful.

Let's stop taking an immediate antagonistic approach to it and trying to figure out 'where he's coming from' and actually look at what he's saying.

Here are the points: do you agree that men and women are made differently, generally speaking?

In coming together, do they take on identities to make a traditional reciprocal (as opposed to "equal") relationship work? Usually known as a "man" and "woman"?

Accepting this premise, what is it that defines a "man" and what defines a "woman" in the context of a hetero-sexual relationship?

He's saying that feminism has subverted the gender roles.

[Ree Fresh]

I think I understand what the guy is saying and can almost agree with him. Example when he was talking about "the dance". Yet I dont belive its fair to say that a male role is to lead and the female role it to follow only. The part about when a women surends is when she is in love is bloody loopy if you ask me. I can agree that often women like to be controled or guided at time and probly to look for someone that can take care of them... however I think alot of men look for that too and like to be told what to do themselfs at times.

This guy pretty much contredicted himself when syaing an equal relationship is a brother/siter relation ship than turns around to say that its ok when the man and women dance, their equal and can take turns leading.

Personaly I would call this an old fashion frame of mind. I think ppl these days are trying a more modern/politicaly correct way of marige were you dont have the old fashion trends this guy seems to be preaching.

[yoko*]

In conclusion, the universal complaint is that men no longer know how to be men; women don't know how to be women. It helps to see heterosexual love as a mystical dance. In a dance, the male leads, the female follows. You canit have a graceful dance without each partner playing his part.

Just cause he has a Ph.D in ENGLISH LITERATURE from U of T (which is completely irrelevant to the topic of love or feminism) he thinks that he can speak for all people regarding what their universal complaints are? I love how idiots passively accept everything someone with a Ph.D says.

As most people have mentioned already, Makow makes huge generalizations about the nature of "women and men" and attempts to define the relationship between them as dichotomous. In doing so, he completely ignores the diverse identities that individual men and women assume and have assumed across time and across culture. I believe that women and men are only as different as the the norms of the society within which they are a part, demands that they be. There are physical differences between men and women that can't be denied, but the fact that western society has evolved to be more inclusive of women (thus redefining gender roles and expectations), and the fact that various cultures have different expectations of women and men from that of our own society, is indicative of the notion that there are no "real" differences between men and women (at least behaviourally) that we can point to. It would be a sexist, biased and ethnocentric mistake to assume that we can define men as being one way and women as being another.

What bothers me about Makow's writing is the fact that the differences between men and women that he seems to imply is that men naturally seek power and that women are naturally subordinate to them and can only be happy by being dependent on them.

I feel sorry for his wife.

[Grapes]

If he really thinks "there are more gay people" I'm curious how he arrived at that conclusion. A more credible conclusion might be "gay people are more open about their sexuality because they won't be drawn and quartered for it anymore."

If he thinks the altered nature of the male/female relationship was the cause of this (supposed) increase, then whooooaaah that's a whole other case of begging the fucking question.. question being, umm... your proof of cause and effect correlation?

Women cannot criticize and challenge men and expect to have satisfying relationships. When I comprehended this, I felt liberated.

Because you no longer had to take seriously what your woman said to you? I suppose one might see that as liberating... or arrogant...... or childish:

*fingers stuck in ears*

"LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU BECAUSE I'M THE MAN SO YOU CAN'T CRITICIZE ME LA LA LA LA"

Finally Wum...

This excerpt requires some upper level reading skills

I think this statement would probably be true of only certain groups. Like, say, the type of people that would buy this guy's theories hook line and sinker.

I'm not being dismissive or reactionary... there's something to some of what he says, but a hell of a lot of it sounds like coming up with pat answers through specious reasoning that justify beliefs that he WANTS to arrive at... because it would make things so much simpler for him if it was black and white like that.

[Grapes]

I actually think that ^ required a higher reading level than his article. Although I will grant you, "hypergamous" was a new one... and that psychiatrist's last name is pretty tricky.

[robyn]

Originally Posted by wum

I've done some informal research on feminism, and from what I gather, isn't it true that in this drive towards "equality" (which seems to be defined as sameness) gender identities are abolished and remade towards what social engineers define as fairer?
[font=Verdana]
[font=&quot]For example, women are [font=Verdana]taught to not expect love to be connected with sex, and if they do, they suffer from some kind of pathology. Kinda like a man, no? I think he makes a good point when he says that feminism seeks to masculinise women, and making men redundant in the process, throwing a wrench into heterosexuality.

I guess it depends where you're doing your research. Most of the Women's Studies classes I've taken have had a much more historical basis, and have never tried to tell me how to feel about anything.

[robyn]

Originally Posted by Funksta

WHAAAAT???? Robyn please elaborate on how he's generalizing feminism???And where is he showing insecurity???IF anything, buddy here hit the nail right on the head and I think it just ruffled your feathers that he is right....

Feminisim isn't just a bunch of angry girls who all decicded to hate men one day. It's has multiple schools, some who argue that women should remain in the home, but with more power, some who feel that women's problems stem from equality in the home, some Marxists who feel that class equality has to come before gender equality, etc.

And how would this 'ruffle my feathers'? It's not like he's saying anything new.

[yoko*]

Originally Posted by robyn

Most of the Women's Studies classes I've taken have had a much more historical basis, and have never tried to tell me how to feel about anything.

mine as well, I think that it would be anti-women studies for such a course to tell the student how to feel. I always loved the laid back, free and expressive atmosphere of WS classes. Quite enjoyable actually!