Hanna Rosin's Stealth Lesbian Agenda

August 29, 2012

 

rosin.jpg

"The hookup culture [casual sex with strangers] that has largely replaced dating on college campuses has been viewed as socially corrosive and ultimately toxic to women. Actually, it is an engine of female progress--one being harnessed and driven by women themselves."



This is the argument Hanna Rosin, left, makes in an article "Boys on the Side" in the current edition of "The Atlantic"  


Satanism portrays sickness and evil as healthy and good. This article is an excellent example of how "progressive" Jews like Hanna Rosin play this role in Western culture, shredding the heterosexual fabric of society and the lives of millions of people. This is one reason for anti-Semitism throughout the ages.    


In the article, Rosin argues that the "hook up" culture   is actually preferred by women who are too busy pursuing careers to have long-term relationships with men. Tellingly, she likens a loving suitor to "an unwanted pregnancy." 

To the charge that American women have been reduced to desperate prostitutes, she replies, "Is that so bad?" These are the same despicable SHOCK tactics CHANGE AGENT Betty Friedan used when she said housewives were "concentration camp inmates" or when CHANGE AGENT Helen Gurley Brown said they were "parasites." 


Does Rosin imagine that career-driven switch-hitters, coarsened by promiscuity and porn, can morph into loyal and loving wives and mothers? Of course not. Ultimately, she is a CHANGE AGENT  and the change is lesbian.

"Hooking up" (i.e. anonymous sex) is characteristic of homosexuals, most of whom are not concerned with courtship and marriage. 

That this sexual subversion gets marquee billing reflects the occult war Illuminati Jews and Masons  wage on society every day. The true occult nature of revolution (i,e, Communism) is to overturn the natural and spiritual order and replace God with Lucifer.


storyyidlit-janetreitman-0727.jpgFortunately, there is another kind of Jew, like writer Janet Reitman, left,  who portrayed "hook up" culture in its true light in an 2006 Rolling Stone article which I reprise below.  






By Henry Makow Ph.D.

(Originally, "Feminism Killed Courtship on Campus" - Updated from Sept 9, 2006)


Thanks to Feminism, co-eds today do not endure the daily humiliation of courtship. They don't worry about young men proffering flowers or asking them out for dinners, dances or movies.

The dreary days of dating when young men sought them as friends, and potential future wives and mothers are gone.

Today, thanks to the humanizing influence of Feminism,  young women can anesthetize themselves with alcohol and immediately give their bodies to complete strangers! They can behave like prostitutes or porn stars and engage in degrading sex acts without concern for repressive "patriarchal" morality.

This is the picture of college sexual mores in an article "Sex and Scandal at Duke [University]" by Janet Reitman in the current issue of Rolling Stone magazine. It typifies the scene at most universities.


"Whatever sex goes on, the girls say, is done in the context of the ''hook up,'' which describes anything from making out to full-on intercourse. Much to the disappointment of many students, female and male, there's no real dating scene at Duke -- true for a lot of colleges.

adeath.jpg

''I've never been asked out on a date in my entire life -- not once,'' says one stunning brunette. Nor has a guy ever bought her a drink. ''I think that if anybody ever did that, I would ask him if he were on drugs,'' she says.


Rather, there's the casual one-night stand, usually bolstered by heavy drinking and followed the next morning by -- well, nothing, usually. ''You'll hook up with a guy, and you know that nothing will come out of it,'' says Anna. The best thing you can hope for, she says, ''is that you'll get to hook up with him again.'' Some girls they know have managed to score a regular hook up -- meaning consistent sex -- but others play the field, bouncing from one guy to the next."

The phrase "whatever sex goes on" is an understatement.

"Traditional intercourse is common, and oral sex nearly ubiquitous, regarded as a form of elaborate kissing that doesn't really mean very much. ''Everybody gives blow jobs now,'' says Naomi. ''Before,'' she adds -- meaning a pre-Monica/pre-Britney ''before'' -- ''it used to be you'd have sex and then give one.'' But now, girls give them freely -- on their own initiative, she says. (They also tend to get as much as they give, at least according to Duke men.)"


If this article is any indication, Feminism has done nothing for young women's self esteem. Even though these girls get A's and are beautiful, they vie to give their body to high status males, (athletes and fraternity men.) The reason? Other women are so sexually available; this is the only way they can get status and attention.

''I found myself falling into this thing,'' says Allison. ''It made me very uncomfortable and unhappy, because it's not a way to live. But if I didn't do these things and he broke up with me for some reason, two days from now he'd have somebody else. That's just how it works...If my mother knew, she would smack me across the face. I was not brought up in that kind of environment.''


In the past, the requirement of courtship and love for sex actually empowered women. Marriage was like a trade union. Now all young women are like scabs. They must perform for nothing and even less.


Young men treat them with contempt as illustrated by one male Duke blogger. (Please excuse the language.)


"These delightful young ladies deal with their massive insecurity by getting fucked by frat boys. Lucky for us guys, frat boys treat sorority girls like shit. As soon as Sally Pi Phi thinks she has secured Johnny Soccer Player, Johnny is off boning Chrissy Tri Delta . . .. All of this leads to unhappy, insecure girls all fighting to get rammed by someone of status.''


This is the fruit of "equality." Young women express their independence by being as aggressive and promiscuous as males. ''Sometimes, girls will be like, 'I'm just horny and I want to have sex,' '' one says...."It's our decision if we're going to allow ourselves to be subjected to negative treatment. It's all framed by the way [other] girls behave.''


Feminism depicts traditional women as " chattel" oppressed by their husbands. But by undermining the morality  (fidelity, chastity)  inherent in the family roles Feminism has robbed many women of their  natural identity (wife, mother) and degraded them more than ever.


In the Heterosexual Contract ( love/ marriage) women surrender power  (symbolized by sex) in exchange for male love, which a man must first demonstrate through patient courtship. Take away that contract, and women get less than nothing in return for their power.   


Needless to say, young women  who prostitute themselves for "status" are less likely to have successful marriages. Emotionally, sexual intercourse is an act of  possession based on trust. How often can a woman be possessed  before it becomes meaningless?


This trend is part of a gradual process of eliminating marriage and family by imposing the male homosexual model on society. Studies indicate that less than 10% of male gays form permanent relationships, mostly childless, and that the vast majority are promiscuous with 43% of them having more than 500 sex partners in their lifetime.


Using Feminism as a lever, elite social engineers are foisting this model on society as a whole. Aldous Huxley warned us about this model in Brave New World (1932) where promiscuity was encouraged, marriage and family proscribed and children born in state-sponsored hatcheries. This is where sexual behaviour at elite universities like Duke is leading. These are the "women's rights" our decadent society is fighting to impose on Muslims.


It makes perfect sense that Feminism would kill a heterosexual institution like courtship. Behind the facade of "women's rights," post-war Feminism is lesbian in character. It teaches that heterosexual roles (wife, mother) are "socially constructed" and "oppressive" to women. It encourages women to abandon them  and imitate men instead. It was instigated by the Rockefeller Foundation which continues to finance  it today as part of their plutocratic occult New World Order. All those idealistic feminists who wanted to "change the world" are getting their wish.

------
Note: Before feminists protest the "womyn's movement" is about "equality in the workplace" and "choice" let me say, don't be so naïve, that was a ruse! Educate yourselves about the
origins and hidden agenda of Feminism before it is too late. 

 
Thanks to William for sending this article to me.

Related: My "The Young Lady is a Tramp" 


Gays and Jews   http://www.henrymakow.com/_by_jeff_jefferson.html

Henry Blodgett - Why Do People Hate Jews 
http://www.henrymakow.com/pleasantville.html

Hollywood's Sabbatean Sex Propaganda
http://www.henrymakow.com/sabbatean_sex_propaganda.html

The Scent of Feminist desperation
http://www.henrymakow.com/feminist_at_the_end_of_her_rop.html

Sabbatean Role Models for Youth

And "The Hoax of Female Empowerment" 

Also see: "Sex on Campus" Chicago Sun Times


 

Comments for "Hanna Rosin's Stealth Lesbian Agenda "

Jacqueline said (August 31, 2012):

All this shit is happening because the majority of people world wide are nothing but "Sheeple". They believe everything they are being told and can never really think for themselves. They desperately want to belong to a certain group of people no matter how this affects and hurts them. Better hurt and being used as a useful object than not being part of group of people.

I myself have never budged an inch when people were trying to force (parents) or convince (friends and semi-strangers) me to adapt their ways and became quite obstinate and angry when they didn't stop trying. I rather am a "loner" than being part of the "Sheeple". I choose my friends carefully and by friends I mean real friends not acquaintances. I don't conform myself to the whims of others and never will..

I wish the Sheeple the best of luck and hope/wish they will someday open their eyes and see in what kind of created Hell they are living in. I'm afraid that will only happen when "Hell freezes over and pigs fly".


David said (August 30, 2012):

No wonder the young girls today look so angry and unhappy. They are forced by their society to go against what the morals they know are true, right and good. Television and movies and "music" tell them this is correct behaviour. The culture they wallow in is creating an indescribable nightmare for them in later years.


Dan said (August 30, 2012):

23 years ago I lived with a professional feminist for a year, and learned that there really is a network with agendas coming from a top down organization. The hierarchy of the feminist organization was not just lesbians at the top - they were self proclaimed "pagan" witches too.

I remember after we split up, the last time we met she said they'd decided to stop all sexual contact between men and women - period. They decided that only homosexual men would be allowed in the New Age.

The way they intended to turn heterosexual girls was to push them to 'take the initiative' to behave like whores. That would - the elder dykes reasoned - would fuck up their relations with men beyond recognition, and they would be ripe for recruiting by lesbians.

Well, I nearly fell off my chair when she told me that. It sounded insane in 1985. It IS insane, of course. Unfortunately, they went ahead with the plan and they're doing it to this day.

The fellow who said that he's only going to consider women from church is right. The key for males is change what they look for as value in a women to nobler things. If what you seek is a slut - like the culture trains boys to want, you can get it, along with all the woe that goes with that.

Males have to raise their own minds out of the cesspool first. I say if a man is having 'bad luck' in 'relationships' he needs to take a year off to reassess himself.


Marcos said (August 30, 2012):

This is an excellent article, and the core of truth in the whole text is the declaration of the frat boy. Yes, the guy understands that women are hypergamous, i.e., they go after the most powerful or successful man. Men, in the other hand, are attracted to the most beautiful and feminine girl.

In old times, women fought each other to get the best (alpha) man to marry them, keeping sex for later, or at least demanding some kind of romantic involvement before getting physical. Now that sex is easy, they keep fighting for the same men, but with no guarantees of commitment. Things just got super easy for alpha boys. They are the kings of this age. Thanks, feminists !

What is ironic is that the result is the opposite of what feminism preaches: girls are not valued by their grades, or they character, they are valued by their looks and how quick they are to put out for men. Uglier girls, even if they are bright and talented, must put out even faster, if they want to get noticed at all.

Another terrible consequence is that hard working, stable beta boys who in old times could at least have the prospect of marrying a nice girl, now at left aside. Have no doubt, not everybody is getting laid at school, most guys are beta and they are as lonely as ever. We can't have a civilization without stable men inventing things and working for the benefit of the community. Seeing alpha jerks get all the girls is not a good incentive to be a nice boy. This is a downward spiral: even betas are learning "game" (art of seduction) and soon most men won't commit at all.

Finally, Hanna Rosin is just a bitter ugly hag. She would love to have the attention or be proposed by an alpha male, but she knows she can't even practice what she preaches (being a slut), because no man would ever look at her. So she practices schadenfreude by watching beautiful girls wrecking their lives and ending up in the same pit she is. Communism is 90% fueled by envy and bitterness, as anyone with minimal contact with militants can attest.


JCW said (August 30, 2012):

When people or other woman say that women can have the choice of being a homemaker or have a career, they are lying and they know it. My wife has been a homemaker for thirty eight years. She has raised two children and is a wonderful grandmother and she is adored by them. However whenever we go to any family functions or work functions she has had to endure the subtle condescending comments by family members and co workers "WIVES" as well as friends, comments like "Oh your just a housewife?" Or "Why don't you get a job, you should really get a job because you can't put all your trust in your husband." I could go on and on and on about the patronizing comments people make. When I say people I don't mean total strangers. The comments made to her really upset her because she has given totally of herself to her children and me and yet can't get validation for the totality of her existence by other woman. So you women out there claiming that your okay with a woman staying at home and not getting a career, your a "freaking" liar.


Brett said (June 16, 2006):

Your website is totally awsome. Your ideas are surprisingly similar to mine (I do wonder whether I wrote this site and forgot about it).

Let me give you a little background:
I have a degree in psych and have spent about 8 years at uni (part time and full time).
I lived at college (these might be called dorms in CA).
I used to think feminism was a bad thing and now I think it is a disease.

My Ex-defacto wife of 4 years decided to run off and screw other guys and I was labelled too "conservative" or an 'old fuddy duddy type' for not being liberal enough to see why this was ok. I spent several years arguing with my defacto about why I didn't feel it was acceptable for her to take her clothes off for photographers under the guise of "modelling" and "art" and lost, being told that "I was controllling" and I was "acting like a father" (she never got paid a cent). Anyways, she decided to end it (my beloved defacto whom I shared the flower of my youth and the depths of my heart) by screwing around with several guys and then telling me how much of a looser I am.

The answer I am currently pursuing is to go to church. No one wants these girls because they don't "put out" (immediately). Its still a minefield of potential harpies but I have hope.

With much respect and thanks,


djd said (June 15, 2006):

Your critics/commentators seem to live in their own delusional realities. Feminism and such ideas are not the problem. The problem is
SNAKE POWER! That is a type of energy which compromises the consciousness of the victims so that they do the bidding of the PREDATOR. It is usually a dis-orienting power, creating a loss of
conscious decision-making ability.These girls respond to force ie they go with guys who can render them unable to respond. Thus good guys who
don't have the ability to FREEZE the girls will always be passed over. I am sorry if my conclusions are not in tandem with your chosen
philosophy. I am juat a FREE SOUL who don't care if I live another day.


Susan said (June 15, 2006):

Susan replies:

In response to your replies: You are completely mistaken if you think I believe the playing fields have been levelled. What I do say is that women in the west are far better off now than they once were. I am only sorry the liberation is not happening in other parts of the world.
Please do not make the mistake in believing I am an American. I am not. My employer does not contribute a cent towards my medical expenses. I pay for a percentage and the government pays the rest. As a taxpayer, I guess I pay it all, or other people�s money is used to keep me free of cervical cancer. I do hope you are not suggesting that women be excluded from health benefits.
In any social movement there are always extremists. These people care passionately about the cause and in retrospect might go overboard in fighting for it, but for the main part the cause would not move forward without them. So yes, there was a time when women who chose to stay at home were belittled. I like to think that we have moved beyond that. Just as I would not belittle a man who decided to be the primary care giver, I would not think any less of a woman if that was her choice. The problem arises when it is not her choice. And when it is not her choice whether she be educated, and when it is not her choice whether or not she has children, and it is not her choice as to what career she can choose.
You people keep on holding up the ideal of �family� when your model of �family� has only been around in western society for around 100 years. It obviously was unsustainable and so it changed. If it worked, it would not change.
Take the time to look outside the United States, where women suffer abject misery and brutality at the hands of men. They need equality, liberation and protection. They need control of their own bodies, of their fertility and they need education.
Men are not custodians of women. That power was given to them by the misogynistic, politically motivated religious faiths, responsible for so much misery in this world they should all be outlawed.


and finally... to Evan... you were engaged for four years??? What�s with that? When you get engaged to someone you set a date and marry them. No wonder she left you.

Not Either Or But Both And
Still not had enough of me? Take a read of my blog: http://isidingo.blogspot.com/


David said (June 14, 2006):

Henry, when I read mail like the one from "Susan", I see how deep and total the propaganda about feminism runs in Western society. She is convinced the playing field has been "levelled" and all the marching has resulted in "freedom" and "rights" which women are not about to relinquish. There are so many ways -- from Title IX in intramural sports to hiring quotas to family court biases to set-asides for female-owned companies to exemption from combat duty -- where women are treated UNequally to give the illusion that men and women are competing on the same footing, that it has become pointless to use the word "equality" when talking about the sexes. It's a smokescreen like the imaginary distinction between "Republican" and "Democrat".

Also, as any actuary will tell you, women are far greater medical risks than men are. The skyrocketing cost of health care, particularly through employer-funded benefits programs, is just one unintended consequence of the massive entry of women into the workforce. This is a hidden cost of doing business that women never consider when they gripe about not receiving "equal pay for equal work". Wages have declined across the board for women AND men due to these additional silent drains on productivity.

Also, she makes the common mistake of assuming a "right" is something that must be forcibly taken from one and given to another. She, like so many feminist-indoctrinated women, are the recipients of privileges and special considerations that have been falsely marketed as "rights". It is one of the many reasons why America has lost its competitive edge with the rest of the world in so many arenas.


Dylan said (June 14, 2006):

Susan [below]says that feminism is about women having the choice to pursue a career or to stay at home. In principle, one can define feminism this way. But the feminist viewpoint in mainstream Western culture is a viewpoint that glorifies the career woman and belittles the stay-at-home mom.

"Feminism" is yet another example of a good concept -- in the case of feminism, equal rights and equal protection under the law -- being used in the real world to other effects. Keeping women out of the home, away from their kids. This is a means of thought control used by the so-called elite: to sell the naive and gullible masses a pretty package wrapped in legitimate ideas, but the contents of which work toward different ends. See "democracy", or "liberation". Most or all crucial political concepts are presented in their ideal form, but applied in a subverted form.

Of course people are well within their rights (perhaps even morally obliged) to not allow the definitions of their ideals to be mis-used. But they also are obliged to examine whether they accepting the corrupted version of the idea.


Susan said (June 14, 2006):

Talk about missing the point. I think the question you should be asking is why is so lacking in these girls lives that they think they need to engage in this kind of behaviour to be acceptable. As they seem not to want to do it, what is liberating about them doing it in the first place.
This is not what feminism is all about and I suspect you actually know that. Feminism is about equal choices and equal opportunities. If women want to be mothers, that's their choice. If they want to be home makers, that's their choice. If they want to be genetic engineers, that's their choice.
Once again you portray women as simpering weak-minded individuals who fall into these traps. Yet I don't see you saying that men should be chosing to date women, or that men should be chosing anything different.
Basically, the ship has sailed. We have rights and freedoms now, and just because some women are making bad choices - just like some men make bad choices - it doesn't mean we should have those choices taken away from us.
wise up, you call yourself a doctor, maybe you should look at things with a more open mind.


Evan said (June 12, 2006):

I've been reading your site for a while and I really appreciate you trying to draw attention to the true cause of the destruction of our society. I have hoped I never had to deal with the current dating scene for 20 somethings but I lost my fiancee who I had been with for 4 years and had to watch her immediately 'hook-up' with every single one of the males in my social group, none of which who will speak to me because I'm 'weird and possessive' for being angry that they would do that to me when I was obviously in a lot of pain. I'm college educated, and make plenty to support a family but I haven't been able to get a date in 6 months, if people my age even still do that, and I refuse to lower myself to the drink/hump/screw scene. I more or less consider myself asexual, never in my youth could I have imagined a society so alienated from tradition, so distracted by their idolatry, and made vapid by MySpace/Wikipedia/pornography. Who knows what list contacting you will place me on, since you have the bravery to stand up and speak out, but I don't care any more. I had to send you this so that no matter what comes you will know you have provided comfort with your voice. I have no one depending on me and will probably not reproduce before the final battle for our collective conciousness occurs, so I have no fear except for the souls that are in the future trapped by occult monetary control if we fail.

"We are the dead."


Ben said (June 12, 2006):

Courtship is dead on campus and everywhere else, thanks to Feminism and the false empowerment of women. As a student I see it everyday, all around me, and it is sickening. Most young women are sluts, plain and simple. They've
been empowered to the point of depravity, and their false gods are materialistic plastic whores that pass themselves off as entertainers -
Paris Hilton, for example. Decent men that are actually very interested in a relationship with a real woman are left with nothing, and are forced to consider one night stands for biological reasons. The small few moralistic
women left seem to be floating on a ridiculous cloud, dismissing inarguable truths such as the coming NWO. To sum up the learning environment, the great deal of chicks are either sluts, brainwashed or a lethal concoction of both
- the latter applies far more often. In my next life I hope to reincarnate as a woman and enjoy all the apparent creature comforts and outrageous perks that the New World Order has to offer.


SA said (June 12, 2006):

will someone wake up Brian [below]from his delusional �solution�. The same people who run these universities are those very ones advocating this moral decay and foul social engineering (free condems, co-ed dorms,
parties on-campus plays and movies etc). Giuliani is a prime example of those responsible for the fascism and decay in absolute morality, logic, truth and Justice. I�m sure feminism and sexual promiscuity aren�t keeping Rudy up a night either, he was married to a feminist and had an affair on the side to cap it off.


Brian said (June 11, 2006):

I think the solution to the moral problem on campuses is obvious - universities need to reinstate strict rules and enforce them. It's time for the leadership on campuses across North America to put their foot down. Young people are ready to embrace high moral guidelines - they just need someone to show the way. Giuliani came to office with a crumbling NY city, got tough and eventually cleaned up the city, much to the displeasure of the NY media who criticized his every move. He's now seen as a hero for solving a problem many thought irreversible. I think today's students would flock to a university that advertised a high moral standard and kicked out university students who were there just to hook up. Once students knew everyone would be obliged to follow a well defined moral code on campus, no one would feel they were missing out on something and they could get back to the business of learning.


Randall said (June 11, 2006):

I think what this article missed:
the frenzy of young women seeking high status males is accompanied by complete indifference towards lower status males. Those lower status males are either sexually active with older women, other men--or not at all.

I would agree that high status males would be
completely indifferent to these women if they aren't sexually available. Similarly, these women are completely indifferent towards most younger men. This has implications beyond courtship. These young men are being taught that the world is a rough place.


Sarah said (June 11, 2006):

Poor Henry, poor Henry. Look deep in yourself and consider the idea that you are blaming women for your life failures. You want to feel better about yourself so you need a women to push you up and give you self worth. You are the problem. Not woman wanting to have fulfillment and equality for all.


Kevin said (June 11, 2006):

Modern feminism is anti-feminine and anti-male. The femin-ism of the first part of the twentieth century was pro-feminine and pro-family.
Today, many males have adopted and been conditioned with female traits i.e., "let the so-called `female side' express itself," etc. The
nature and nurture of female nature, is naturally and normally, subjective, immediate and resonates with emotions. The natural and normal disposition of men is to be less
emotional, more objective with clearity and vision towards the future. When men act like women,the nation forfeits its future because men
lose their vision and moral mettle.


Ty said (June 10, 2006):

It has been almost 2 yrs since I happened upon your site. How it came about I cannot recalled, but I am forever grateful for all your wonderful articles and historical facts. Your site provided me the spiritual guidance missing from my daily life by connecting many of the missing dots. It is amazing so much of what you say is verbatim to what I hold inside but can never seem to put it in the right words. I have waited this long to send you this Thank You note for fear that I might end up on the NWO hit list in our near future. But something strange came over me recently and I feel I am becoming ready to stand up and be counted as one of the good guys even if it means there is a price attached to it. I hope more people will be lucky enough to reach your site like I have and whenever I meet someone who feels lost, I always send them to your site for a better understanding of the reality we live in.


Tina said (June 9, 2006):

Courtship seems to be something of the past. Men no longer need to put themselves out there since today women unfortunately have taken the place of men. In fact, men have lost the art of courtship entirely and as a result a decline has occurred.

It used to be that men would court a woman for marriage. Now why would a man court a woman when sex is easy to get.

Consider that a few months ago, friend of mine, a 57 year old man, well educated, casually said to me that he can see the benefit of other men frequenting prostitutes. His reasoning is that when sex is all that a man wants, he should skip any sort of real intimacy especially if any other intimacy is not wanted. A sad comment perhaps but this is how far gone men have gotten.


William said (June 9, 2006):

Good article. I think there are several sub-currents going on here.

The first is what you have written so well concerning, namely the utter impoverishment of female morality.

The second is that these women, who all believe themselves to be feminists, to the contrary of feminist doctrine, want and need to be with men even if the only way they can do it is by being sluts. Rather than embrace feminist lesbianism they desire men, even if the only thing they can get from them is one night stands or hook-ups.

The third, is that the girls are looking for masculine authority to define their femininity. They naturally recognize male status and that it is ultimately the male who chooses and defines the relationship - if the man is masculine and not a wimp or wuss. And, as we are dealing with male sportsmen at Duke, we are dealing with what remains of acceptable masculinity in the feminist nanny State.

Finally, we are seeing post-feminism in action. Lesbianism is passe'. Women want MEN. However, today's men have been largely raised by feminists who have taken the concept of chivalry, morality and family from them. They have never embraced these concepts because they have been taught they are bad, bad, bad. So these men, unfortunately, are not able to communicate, or relate, in a mature way with these women who so desperately want them.

Further, given the legal milieu whereby the male loses everything if the woman decides to split, there is even less desire for young men to marry; having seen already what their mothers did to their fathers.

In other words, to use an old cliche', the chickens have come home to roost.


Lawrence said (June 9, 2006):

I just read your article titled, "Cruel Hoax! Newsweek's 'Marriage Crunch'".

As usual, your comments were accurate, intelligent and straight to the point. What you stated in your article is exactly what I was thinking when I read the story appeared on Newsweek. Yes, our modern society is headed in
the wrong direction and something must be done as soon as possible. It will take people like you to inform the public about the truth and motivate them to take action against misconceptions perpetrated by the media.

Keep up the good work!


Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at