Direct Link to Latest News


The Male Fallout from Feminism

February 8, 2004

Metrosexual manMartha Kirkland is a "happy but poor" 30-something NYC artist who laments that she is dateless despite being "bright, thin, attractive, funny" and traditional.

In an email, she writes that she and many women friends "all possess certain idealism about the very distinct differences between men and women and applaud them."

"None of us wants to either lead or compete in ANY relationship, most specifically, an intimate partnership. We are, at a relatively young age dinosaurs."

Often the first question she is asked on a date is how much does she earn. The second is, does she "have a trust fund?"

"I find it so demoralizing that I lose interest in these men right away...I understand the financial imperative of the NYC area.... What I do not understand is how grace, charm and feminine essences no longer seemingly have value. The last thing my men friends want is ANY woman to be dependent upon them, especially emotionally and secondarily financially."

Feminism lets men "off the hook."

We no longer have to take responsibility for families. Instead we can do as we please. In my case, that meant search for meaning and identity.

Ironically, I learned that these are rooted in the masculine role feminism allowed me to forego. That's the hidden agenda. Feminism unravels the social fabric by blurring inherent sexual differences.

As a result, many men are turning off women, marriage and children. The latest version of Hugh Hefner's playboy is the "metro sexual." He is a straight gay, fastidious about his appearance and possessions, interested in sex but not in emotional commitments.

Martha continues:

"I attempt to persuade [these men] that the wildly successful feminist does not become the Dove Girl at home. That they are asking the impossible, a totally womanly creature that is utterly self-sustaining emotionally, spiritually and financially. I attempt to illustrate how this creature in fact cannot exist. Or rather co-exist, in the same female body, mind, spirit."

Martha has captured the essence of femininity. To be feminine is to be dependent on a man. Men and women can't have it both ways: feminine women who are also independent.


Martha directed me to Jon Hertzog's web site no marriage. com as an example of what she and her traditional friends are up against.

Hertzog says marriage to an American woman is a trap. Sixty per cent of US marriages end in divorce and men who don't divorce "are stuck in sexless marriages with nagging and bitching wives, but they choose not to divorce because they are afraid of being wiped out financially."

Hertzog, a 32-year-old never-married New Yorker, believes American women have "several fundamental problems that will not go away and will only get worse."

These include inherent anti-male bias and preoccupation with "fairness" [equity]drilled into them by education and media; selfishness, ridiculously high expectations, sense of superiority and entitlement; use of sex as a weapon and reward; and general mental instability. "

Hertzog advises men to visit Asia, Eastern Europe or Latin America to discover "how ridiculously overpriced and selfish American woman are." He says men should never marry unless they want children, which cost $400,000 minimum to raise and are a bad investment. American men can get sex without marriage and should drop a woman the minute she starts hinting about commitment.


Hertzog's reaction is natural. However we need to look at the big picture. Writing American women off only furthers the elite agenda. The best answer is to establish strong marriages with those women that still can be salvaged.

American women deserve our compassion and help. They are victims of feminist brainwashing and are suffering the consequences. As Hertzog observes, most are dysfunctional.

Go to Blockbuster and rent Henry James' "The Bostonians" starring Christopher Reeves. The movie demonstrates how a very strong and very patient man can help a feminist become feminine again. Now that's real love!

As Martha's email suggests, there are some American women who have not been contaminated and are desperate for men to take charge.

Another reader wrote: " I thought your ideas about heterosexuality were a little strange, [so] I polled a number of women of all ages...It seems you are correct. Women want a man to make the decisions, they want a man to take care of them, and they hate the F---ing notion pressed upon them about gender sameness. Frankly I think most of them are pissed. They do not like the unmanly men they have had to deal with. You may actually see a change in the near future."

Traditional women want men to take charge. They are instrumental by nature. They need to be used as wives and mothers. A man can recognize these women by making a request. Will she do what he asks? Of course, longer term, this requires earning her respect and trust (i.e. love.)


I lived alone for many years and am convinced that solitude is not natural. Hungry people constantly think about food. Similarly, singles are preoccupied with companionship and sex.

Casual relationships by definition are insecure. They not only are frustrating but also consume too much time and energy. There is no context for love (and people) to grow. Perpetual courtship is arrested development.

A traditional marriage satisfies a man's need for companionship, love and sex. On a deeper level, it validates and affirms both sexes. A traditional marriage is based on the exchange of female power for male love. Men want power. Women want love. Women transform male power into love. They domesticate men and make love a living force. (See "How Heterosexuality Works")

A traditional woman never uses sex to manipulate her husband. When sex isn't an issue, people can focus on more important things. Sexual liberation is not having to think about sex.

As for children, parenthood is the highest stage of personal development. This is when we live for others and take pleasure in them. Both men and women were designed to love. People who live for themselves generally derive little pleasure from it.


We are not taught history for a good reason. Feminism today is Communism. Communism was never a Russian-based revolt of the working class. It was always an elite mechanism to control the common man and establish world dictatorship. Leon Trotsky played chess with Baron Rothschild at Cafe Central in Vienna before going on to lead the Bolshevik Revolution. (Joseph Nedava, Trotsky and the Jews, 1972, p.36) Like Trotsky, most politicians are elite agents.

The Tavistock Institute in London directs the elite's psychological warfare and social engineering. They cooked up second-wave feminism to destabilize society.

According to Byron Weeks MD:

"All Tavistock and American foundation techniques have a single goal, to break down the psychological strength of the individual and render him helpless to oppose the dictators of the World Order. Any technique which helps to break down the family unit, and the family inculcated principles of religion, honour, patriotism and sexual behaviour, is used by the Tavistock as weapons of crowd control."

In a Feb. 1 op-ed piece in the Washington Post, Deputy Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz wrote that the "United States is giving special emphasis to helping Iraqi women achieve greater equality." They have earmarked $100 million for this.

In an email, Culture Wars Editor E. Michael Jones commented: "Wolfowitz talks like a Communist writing for Pravda in the '30s, but he makes perfectly clear in his piece that feminism is a program appropriate for conquered nations... to destroy their culture, reduce the birthrate and keep them in a state of subjugation."

We all live in territory occupied by the New World Order. (See also: "Gloria Steinem: How the CIA Used Feminism to Destabilize Society" )


I don't enjoy being the bearer of bad tidings, but things have gone terribly wrong. Satanic forces have hijacked this planet. Of course, they are not going to tell you about it.

The super-rich have more in common with each other than with you and me. We are "squatters" on their planet. United in secret societies, they have infiltrated and subverted our political, economic, cultural and religious institutions.

They are waging a secret war on humanity and are responsible for the political and economic upheavals of the past 200 years including the slaughter of millions.

The ultimate goal is to organize a weakened and reduced world population in an Orwellian police state. The attack on the World Trade Centre, the "War on Terror" and "Patriot Act" is really about this.

So is feminism. The correct male reaction to feminist social subversion is to uphold rather than eschew the traditional vision of masculinity, marriage and family.

Scruples - the game of moral dillemas

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