Feminists Surprised their Daughters are Sluts

December 27, 2010

100804_teen.jpg"Civilized sexual behavior is based on upholding marriage and motherhood. Only then are promiscuity prevented and females valued for their character and ability. Now they're like cheap whores holding numbers in a Bangkok brothel."

"We must introduce into their education all those principles which have so brilliantly broken up their order."  Protocols of Zion, 16

by Henry Makow,  Ph.D.
(From August 11, Revised Dec. 26)


In a recent article "Outraged Moms, Trashy Daughters"
by Anne Kingston, (Macleans, Aug 16, 2010)   mothers lament that their daughters now see "empowerment"  in terms of pleasuring males.

While the feminist mothers saw power as financial independence and rejected female "objectification," their daughters accept the pornographic message of pop music and advertising. In the words of one mom, they "believe their purpose in life is to be sexual beings who please men."

"A blow job is like shaking hands," said another mom.  "Their attitude is: 'We're emancipated, we're liberated, we're in control. They see [it] as power; I see it as giving their power away."

Indeed it is. But:  Who taught they could have sex outside of courtship, love and marriage? Who tarred the roles of wife and mother? Who tore down men i.e."the patriarchy" ? 

Feminists did.
An essentially lesbian disorder, feminism brainwashed young women to see husbands as oppressors and family as bondage. There was no longer any reason to restrict sex to love and marriage.

"Women's rights" indeed! Feminism is Communist in origin. Communists view women as a public utility. It is classic divide-and-conquer,  satanic subterfuge which now extends far beyond gender.

Civilized sexual behavior is based on upholding marriage and motherhood.
Only then are promiscuity prevented and females valued for their character and ability. Now they're like cheap whores holding numbers in a Bangkok brothel.

Understandably, feminists won't admit they've been cynically betrayed by their teachers and political leaders. Feminism was created by elite social engineers to reduce population and undermine marriage and family.



FEMINISTS IN DENIAL

Even while wringing their hands, feminists are blinded by their ideology. (The article veers off into a discussion of how feminism is still relevant.) 

The words "love," "marriage," "husband" and "family" do not appear  in the article. No wonder they can't understand the problem and what to do about it.

In the past, men had to commit before they could have sex.  As a result, women were cherished for themselves and given a lifelong role  that satisfied their deepest emotional needs.

Both mothers and daughters are victims of deliberate social subversion. A woman's career used to be wife and mother. She consecrated her sexuality for the man she loved, the father of her children, her protector and provider.

Young women today are up a creek. They are going to be left high and dry. Even if they land a man, they've lost the ability to love him.

Marriage and motherhood is a woman's biological and social destiny. It ensures she is needed, loved and secure long after her sex appeal has faded. It's mind blowing that young women are so heedless of their own self-interest.  
 

TRUE BEAUTY

Young women obsess on beauty but true beauty comes from within, from a spiritual purity. This means rejecting all coarse influences and behavior. It means focusing on the qualities that make for a good person, wife and mother. 

"I don't meet many girls who feel good about themselves, even though they are totally gorgeous," one social worker says.

How could they ... giving their bodies to strangers who dump them? 

Girls figure they have to or boys will get it from other girls. That's like saying, "if I don't let muggers beat me, other girls will."

Apparently the saying is true: "Woman's virtue is man's greatest invention." 

"Father" is another word totally absent from the article.  Girls could get love, self respect and guidance from their fathers. But their feminist mothers probably drove their fathers away. 

It's not too late for girls to become women again. There can be no sex without courtship and love. If other girls give it away, let them suffer the consequences. 

Girls can become feminine again by making marriage and family their first priority. If they refocus on being attractive to the right man, they can regain the path to fulfillment and happiness.

--

Pop Music Insider Warns About Sexualizing Children

Note: Reading comments on other sites, I see a lot of people still think feminism is about "equality." Please read my book "Cruel Hoax" to understand how heterosexuality works, and the real hidden agenda behind feminism. Or see "How the Rockefellers Re-engineered Women"  http://www.savethemales.ca/001904.html 




 



Comments for "Feminists Surprised their Daughters are Sluts"

Greg said (December 28, 2010):

Why is there this everlasting craving to be loved?

Why is there this everlasting craving to be loved? Listen carefully. You want to be loved because you do not love; but the moment you love, it is finished, you are no longer inquiring whether or not somebody loves you. As long as you demand to be loved, there is no love in you; and if you feel no love, you are ugly, brutish, so why should you be loved?

Without love you are a dead thing; and when the dead thing asks for love, it is still dead. Whereas, if your heart is full of love, then you never ask to be loved, you never put out your begging bowl for someone to fill it. It is only the empty who ask to be filled, and an empty heart can never be filled by running after gurus or seeking love in a hundred other ways. - J. Krishnamurti Think On These Things

http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti-teachings/view-daily-quote/20101228.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JKOnline_DailyQuotes+%28JKOnline+RSS+Daily+Quotes%29


Anne said (December 28, 2010):

There are many articles you write which are spot on but I have to agree with the woman who mentioned that you blame women on everything..Men have to take responsibility for a lot of what has occurred. I feel many of your subscribers are women haters or have gotten involved with the wrong type of woman, or they are not good mates or fathers themselves but they fail to see that, its easier to blame the women.How is it that these guys manage to pick money grabbing users again and again. Do they not realise they are the common denominator in each of their relationships, that for whatever reason they keep attracting and being attracted to this type of women..

I think many of you live in a fantasy land were you are all fantastic men and you have been undermined by women..I don't know many men, from my generation or my mothers generation or my grandmothers generation that provided the perfect little protective male that you describe..

Stop blaming women and start taking responsibility for you own lives, look at your own situations and your contribution to them.. One you stop blaming everyone else for you choices and mistakes in life then you can attract a better class of lady..


Kevin said (December 28, 2010):

Thanks to the media, I think many young women feel they are ENTITLED to a wonderful and rewarding, high paying and easy, Sex in the City type career. Once they realize 95% of jobs are monotonous, low paying, and boring, then they look for that "high earning" male.. Often times it is either too late, or they have no idea of how to treat a man.

I believe in 18th to 19th century England the feminism movement was a vast improvement as it took women out of the fctories and allowed them to stay home.. OBVIOUSLY not working to sustain life is an improvement to being a working slave..

Yet somehow women today believe they have this new and wonderful opportunity to work, which is quite silly. All women have really done is drive down wages and drove up the price of everything so that now they can no longer be stay at home moms, or it is much more difficult.

Women do not want true equality. They seem to want many of the same old fashioned privileges, with the ability to do whatever they want.. They want a lot of rights, but few responsibilities..


Tera Marie said (December 28, 2010):

Why do you always feel the need to blame women for everything?? (If you have unresolved "mommy-issues", you should really see a therapist; it works wonders.....)

I truly feel sorry for you. You sound like Paul in Acts...he hated women also! And hate is neither a real Christian nor a family value; if you really read the Bible, instead of "just paying lip-service to it", you would already know this.

I have news for you: Men/males, play a larger role in girls/their daughters lives than the Mothers do, so perhaps you should really start blaming men for what is f*d up in this society & in their children. The core issue here is that men, neither respect women, nor the Mother of their children; that is the real issue. Most set a very bad example for their children, and are not good role models for them. Many do not even truly care about their "loved ones", and do not put them or their needs above their own. At best, they use women & toss them aside!

"Feminists" have nothing to do with it; you cannot blame them for the short-comings of men...."Feminist" is merely another word that men like you apply to women who will not bow down & worship the ground that men walk on. With good reason, I might add. Some of us have not found a man worthy of that "honor" yet.....

My point is: You should not judge others, especially women, because you do not know what they are going through. Judgements like that are usually based on personal ignorance, because males like to play God, but, in fact, they are not! I just love the nasty "Biblical quotes" from men who write to you, and evidently agree with your twisted thinking, & use it all as if they are on some kind of "moral crusade". Nothing could be so far from the truth.


Robert said (December 28, 2010):

Karl Marx's position on the family an women is seen in this an extract from The Communist Manifesto(1848):

"Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

"On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

"The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

"Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

"But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

"And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

"The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.

"But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.

"The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

"He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

"For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

"Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.

"Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private."

The pedigree of a concept is revealing. In fact,Marx was not the originator of such ideas, but he was the vehicle chosen by the Hidden Power (rather less hidden today, thanks to the Internet) to wage its war on society.



Charles said (December 28, 2010):

British anthropologist J. D. Unwin,
whose 1934 book, Sex and Culture, chronicled the historical decline of numerous cultures. Unwin studied 86 different cultures throughout history and discovered a surprising fact: No nation that rejected monogamy in marriage and pre-marital sexual chastity lasted longer than a generation after it embraced sexual hedonism. Unwin stated it this way, "In human records there is no instance of a society retaining its energy after a complete new generation has inherited a tradition which does not insist on prenuptial and post-nuptial continence."

Unwin also said that it takes three generations for this phenomenon to occur, so if we start counting from 1960, and a generation is twenty five years, we end up with 2035 as being the end of our civilization. Something to ponder as we enter 2011.


Corey said (December 28, 2010):

Another great article. It seems that God does have a sense of humor, after all. I believe this is called karma, or as Jesus said, "You reap what you sow". So, this is the bitter fruit that the feminists are reaping- their daughters have become whores.

I particularly like your statement:
"Young women today are up a creek. They are going to be left high and dry. Even if they land a man, they've lost the ability to love him."

There is a growing number of men in America who refuse to get married. After all, if they can get sex without marriage, why should they enter into such a dangerous financial contract as marriage with American women (and have a 50% chance of divorce occurring, and resultantly getting their house, car, kids, and a large percentage of their salary in the form of alimony and support payments taken away from them)? A lot of American men that I have talked to told me that they are going to just date and use women for casual sex, and then when they are older and in their 40s and ready to settle down, go over to an Asian or South American country to find a wife. So, this is indeed a practical example of your phrase "They are going to be left hung and dry".

Please keep on writing, Henry. I know it's a thankless task, because your message is very politically incorrect. The truth is usually "politically incorrect", but it still must be spoken regardless, for the benefit of honest people who are willing to hear it.


Pete said (August 13, 2010):

I like your style of writing. Keep on writing what interests you because
it also interests me.

I have often thought, contemplated and wondered about these subjects
but, you make it really clear with your words.

Keep up the good work.


Richard said (August 12, 2010):

I am a long time reader of your posts having followed you back from your many rants/articles picked up by Jeff Rense. The purpose of this brief message is not to lambaste you over your short yet sweet posts that you provide, but rather to let you know that I, as a humble reader, desire more in depth reading than a few paragraphs of obvious facts (or should be obvious to most) complete with common sense conclusions.

Has the general populace acquired the attention span of a gnat that it is unable to grasp more than a few paragraphs of fluff without going into more detail into the concepts which you have to offer? Can you not elaborate on historical studies, graphs, lucid hypothesis as to projections as to what is occurring and what will happen and why given data? Evidence and common sense appears to be on your side in virtually all of the articles which you have written which I have read to date.

Yet I finish reading each post unsatisfied - always. I don't think that I am alone. Perhaps I am... and you can discard this email into the depths of cyberland's dustbin. There is nothing wrong for wishing for... something more...

----

Richard,

A writer cannot please everyone so he tries to at least please himself. I write or post what interests me. There are plenty of other authors who provide "in depth" writing. I aim to get my message across in the shortest and simplest way. But I appreciate your feedback.

Henry



Morley said (August 12, 2010):

Good article, Henry. Here's an example to raise our spirits. My optometrist as a young woman in her late twenties. She had a baby seven months ago. Now she is back at work. When I saw her the other day in her clinic, I asked her how she likes being a mom. She paused and then said she really loves being a doctor and she plans to keep working all her life. However as much as she loves her job, nothing compares to being a mom. She feels being married and being a mom is the most satisfying thing she has ever done. Her husband is a doctor too. Who looks after the baby when she is working? Her mom. My eye doctor is Italian. She is the best! I am a huge fan of women, especially beautiful young women. I love them! What a dreary place the world would be without them. I wouldn't want to live here if they were gone.

- Morley

Morley Evans
[email protected]
www.morleyevansjuiceplus.com


Christine said (August 12, 2010):

Last night I saw an episode of "Property Virgins," which showed a Mohammedan woman from Toronto attempting to buy a house.

As is often the case nowadays, the woman was dressed like a woman from the waist up, with a scarf and nice blouse. From the waist down, she was dressed like a man in pants.

Her garb seemed to underscore the confusion of women in modern times. It seemed really strange to see a semi-religious woman dressed partly like a woman and partly like a man.


HN said (August 12, 2010):

When man runs after shimmering mirages of happiness false and into dis-natural deserts where living waters of true happiness (just desserts of law divine) moisten not the burning sands haunted by the demon, and does not stand like the God-man against the blandishments sense-tempting against approach unto fountains springing to eternal life (fallen though man be), but rather man-ufactures his own man-machinated auto-centric spheric sub-stitute de-natured in the face-- man-dated by his hand and conceited in his mind, lucified to change the time and proud his laws to make-- and believes only in himself to be beyond nature's circumstance, then nature's consequence ensues (to push-back or blow-back) back to blow away the grasping mortal warring on her face.

Running into such a desert delusional, (wo)man enters the shifting land of scorching sand of 'unintended consequences'-- (s)he gets burned: "The results they obtain are the opposite of those they desire." The example you evinced is that although the feminists, in following the followers of the demons, expected a species of earthly utopia, their own female offspring now are degraded in their low-servile service willing to the lowest of men willing. That heat is not what they wanted. Another burning issue for the lovers of choice (i.e. abortion, since one doesn't need to choose to keep the child-- nature takes care of that-- and since an unmarried woman virtually cannot choose both career development and illicit sex without choosing to early kill the child sometimes) is the uncomfortable proportional gender-specific disparity of abortion rates. The feminists have tried to push abortion all over the world, but now due to gender-selective abortion, far more female children than male are aborted worldwide. Small world: unintended consequences-- a type of karmic pay-back.

The conclusion? When one loses God, one loses everything (including oneself). "He who discards the eternal [God] for the sake of the temporary, loses the eternal and without doubt loses the temporary also." So, we should try not to lose God. In their way, your articles are helping.


Victoria said (August 11, 2010):

In a bigger picture, for me, feminism has been a necessary 'evil' because it has taught women that having children is not a free pass to never having to support oneself financially but arrogantly depending upon a man to do it (after all, "I'm the one having the children so you can pay the financial price").

Many girls now know that, within themselves, they must have whatever skills they need to support themselves. Hopefully, this will do away with some of the male resentment at being 'used' as a money producer by opportunistic women.


Will said (August 11, 2010):

Excellent article, Henry. You are one of the few people on the Internet who can so clearly illuminate this cruel hoax.

I fear it is too late for society to reclaim the family values it once had in the face of the media, education, and dissolution of the family. Your articles provide an excellent moral foothold for those individuals who want to pull their own lives and families out of this mess that has been created all around them.

Thank you for explaining to men and women their god-given roles (paths to happiness) which, if adhered to, will allow society to pull itself out of this socially engineered hell that we have allowed to be created for us and by us. It is good to know that you are out there educating people about what truly matters in life and that there is honor is being strong and standing for what is right and true.


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