Direct Link to Latest News


Hi Henry, I send your

September 12, 2004

Hi Henry,

I send your site to just everyone. I love it and do not feel threatened at all by your suggestions. I feel men are under siege as you have stated, but imagine a woman who longs to be appreciated for her femininity yet is trapped in a man's world expecting her to be what she cannot?
I do not want to be a man, don't act like one and certainly do not think like one, but because the husband I had left me with two babies, I was tossed into an incredible hurricane where it's tumultuous winds have blown me to pieces, yet I stand under the Grace and hand of God. I drive a truck, can you believe it?
Anyway, thanks for your great articles, most are just so blind, that is so sad. Yet, if some awaken, more will follow.

Dr. Makow,

I have read your site for a year or so. There is one issue that Ive not seen brought up on the site in exact terms that I feel hurts the 1st world birthrate the most. I'll illustrate it with an economic comparison. Before 1929, the average mortgage payment was 19% of the average workers wages. As we both know, its proboably up to a good third of after-tax income now. In 1970, the average automobile cost one-third of the average workers annual income. By 1990, the average car cost the entire median income of the average worker. Can you see it? Housing and transportation are the two biggest ticket items that we ALL need (and generally, unlike food and clothing....couldn't possibly hope to make ourselves). This is many young familes have to have both members working and why birth rates suffer. You are right when you say we are paying "ground rent", we, with outrageously overpiced neccessities, are.


"What do women really want? They want to weave a web of love. This is a family devoted to spiritual ideals."
You blew it right at the end, Henry. Women don't want to weave a web of anything and men should not consider womens opinion to be the defining standard for social behavior. It is *mans* opinion that should define social standards. You may have to consider that change of perspective for a while before you become fully aware of the implications.

Bottom line, what women want is "whatever they think is in their best interest at the time." They have no 'ultimate agenda'. It is all relative and situational. Their definition of what is in their 'best interest' changes by the minute and is best understood as 'whatever they want to do at any particular point in time'. This is what men do not understand and what makes women *appear* 'complicated'. They are not. They are, in fact, simpler to understand than males (who are told that they are the 'simpler' gender).

Masculine males are rationally-driven and operate from a set of *principles*. They will adhere to those principles even though such behavior imposes a cost on them. They *will* reconsider those principles and change them should the cost become too great, but generally their behavior will be 'principle-based'.

Women are emotionally-driven and operate from a set of *desires*. The only goal is to fill those *desires*. *Desires* change frequently and unpredictably. This is what frustrates men who think they are giving a woman what she wants. She did want it at the time, but has now changed her mind and wants something else. The only way to keep a woman happy is to give her 'whatever she wants at the time.' *Whatever* she wants at the time. That will not be consistent or predictable, principle-based or rational. It is only 'whatever' she wants at the time. She is purely emotionally-driven.

Rather than insist that men hold to a standard of abstinence until marriage, women wanted to change the 'standard' to allow *them* to engage in extra-marital sex. The results have been rather predictable, all because the woman's flawed opinion was held up as representing reality and therefore the need to re-define the standard. The real male opinion of concern for wives and daughters subjecting themselves to being used for sexual purposes was portrayed as 'controlling' and thereby denigrated. Well ladies, who was right?

We will have such problems until women understand that they are *easily* deceived into behavior with disastrous consequences and that their opinions are only accurate when validated by males. Nothing has changed since the Garden of Eden.



Dr. Makow,

Thank you for your latest article. You hit the nail on the head for me.

As I sit here and type this, I am staring straight down the barrel into my 50th birthday. I can say without a doubt that the feminist movement has totally stripped me of who I am.

When I was 5 y.o., and other girls were wanting to be a ballerina, teacher, etc. I always wanted to be a senator's wife. I came onto this planet knowing the power of being the woman behind the man.

Alas, that dream never came to fruition.

Thanks to the attitudes of my misguided depression-era parents and the feminist anthems of the late 60's and early 70s, I went straight onto the career track and never looked back.

I was in the legal field for 22 of those years...what a soulless profession, and it was definitely damaging to my feminine psyche. With a mid-life crises firmly entrenched, I went back to school and retrained myself to be into the healing arts.

But still....having to be out in the world and struggling with having a career is almost too much for me. On the brink of being 50, I now find myself all alone and facing bankruptcy.

It brought tears to my eyes when I read about a relationship being dedicated to God. That is all I have ever wanted, but I guess it's been too much to ask. Being the vessel, the feminine receptive energy is still not acknowledged and valued. What a shame.

Thank you again for voicing my thoughts for me.


"My roots are in the depths of the woods." - Galle


I enjoyed your recent piece on Rense. I especially agree with :

"The proper focus of marriage is not on the man and the woman, but on God.
In particular, the man should have a vision of how he will serve God. The
wife should choose a man whose vision she can share."

I, like you, am taken aback when a woman shows kindness at the checkout
line. I'm used to "hardness" from women, because I see it and interact with
it so often.

It's unfortunate that women don't realize that they are supposed to be a
reflection / embodiment of the Holy Spirit. The Father's own Words would be
null and void if it wasn't for the Holy Spirit breathing (her?) life into
them and bringing them to maturation. Without the Holy Spirit, there would
be no Creation. When the Serpent tempted Eve in the Garden, it wasn't
because Eve was the "weak" link, as we have been taught traditionally. It
was because she was the "critical" link to Adam's future and destiny, as
well as their offspring and the entire human race, even of God's plan for
His Creation.

>From the beginning to the end, the Holy Spirit is involved and never tires,
but is always eager and willing to give birth to God's Words and Will. Oh,
to find a woman of such attitude in serving her man - would be so
overwhelming I don't know if I could handle it in this lifetime - for I have
likewise been violated by the women's rights movement and have built up my
own inner defenses to where I don't know if they can ever completely come
down. The thought of complete surrender to another is just too scary for
me, even though, in the world of ideals, it's what I would like. But I know
that so many people have been much more violated than I, that feel even more
strongly this way than I do. Oh, that we would simply kneel before God and
cry out to Him for the restoration of our souls and that our hearts would be
set aright, so that we could love one another as He has loved us.

South Dakota

Hi Henry!

Just read your article "when love is a one night stand".

You are completely right in your statements. But let me tell you (if I may:)) The reason women get to be feminists etc.

Females in northamerica are raised as inferior to males. In other words they are secondary to men. If a girl even tries to establish some kind of independence and an identity, she is immediately put down and rediculed by her peers.

When she gets older, she will desperately try to establish some kind of identity, but has no idea as how to go about such a thing. Thus she will grab at anything such a feminism or a man, in the hope that this will give her some meaning in life. She will soon realise, that it doesn't. But they NEVER learn, that they have to look inside of themselves for meaning and value.

Some also look to TV commercials for fulfillment because those commercials promise them all sorts of "values", which of course also are fake. They get so utterly confused by all of this they are bombarded with on a daily basis, that they finally have to realise, that they are not happy with themselves at all, but have no idea as to how to change this kind of life they are living.

And may I add, that many men have no concept of what a loving and devoted partnership is. They are also conditioned by TV commercials to believe, that relationships start out in bed with no responsibility for their actions. Scoring becomes their first priority in life.

There is no hope for such men and women ever to find happiness with each other.

People have to be happy within themselves before they can find happiness and meaning with another person.


P.S. This is just scratching the surface dealing with a big problem in a nutshell.


Thank you so much for your open minded research, your website is a strong
contribution to the awakening of many people. I have been an activist and
alternative scientist since the NWO agenda acceleration event of 9/11/01.
However I have been miserably lonely and promiscuous and could not understand why until I read your article: 'When Love is a One-Night Stand'

I think the destruction of the family unit is a core building block for
global tyranny, your brave exposure of the hidden agenda of feminism is
very important, thank you.

Don't know if you've heard of 'chembusters' and 'towerbusters' yet but I've
built a few in Ireland and they work!:

Best wishes,


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