Direct Link to Latest News


Is this Primitive View of Women More Realistic?

July 8, 2014

"In an upright society, men have the predominance of violent power in their relationships, and women have other advantages.  In such a scenario, a woman's emotions will be naturally engaged, as she comes to realize that this man is her meal-ticket, and her protector..."

Benjamin's original article, "Do Women Have Feminine Instincts?" provoked lively debate. His further comments today take it to a new level.

"Women deserve credit for what they actually do for men.  That is, the amount of goodness and nurturing they actually give, minus the problems they cause and the 'taking' that they do." 

Makow Comment: Maybe I was spoiled. My mother just gave and gave, and asked for nothing. I am not endorsing Benjamin's provocative views but present them for further discussion. In my experience, women respond to love with love.

"Woman's virtue is man's greatest invention." - Cornelia Otis Skinner

By Benjamin

I assure you, sir, that I am not cynical toward women.  I am, rather sir, only observant. 

I don't report fantasies, but what is actually before my eyes; even though I too was raised with the fairy tales which are so dear to many hearts.

The truth be told, other than my own children there is nothing on earth that I love more than women.
But, in my love for my fellow men, I refrain from spreading lies to them, about the less-fair sex. 

Why should I poison the hearts and minds of my brothers and fellows, and cause them be even older still, before they'll wake up and see the truth, and adjust their behavior and expectations accordingly?  The longer each man waits, to face the truth, the more bitter will be that awakening, and the more regret for life and opportunities lost... and the fewer the future possibilities for him.

Women do have the capacity to develop various character traits.  But, without the natural circumstance of women and girls (wherein they must win their safety and food and clothing and housing privileges, through goodness and sweetness and faithful service)... again I say, without those circumstances, such flowers (sweetness, faithfulness) never develop on the stem that is a girl/woman.

Instead, when they are pampered and spoiled (taught that there will always be plenty of food and housing and clothing and safety for them, no matter how they behave and no matter whether they are loyal members of the family, etc), then the only things those stems bring forth are thorns.

In sum, I do not contend to you, sir, that women cannot become something analogous to what you have written are the real "feminine" characteristics.  I am only saying to you that those are not the characteristics of a woman in the default state.  Even Eve, our mother, wasn't like that. 

monica_bellucci.jpgZERO SUM GAME

Let's stop thinking so much about trying to be better to women.  Let us not forget the reality that: every time we ascribe to women more than they are due, we absolutely are hurting a man or men.  There is no free lunch.  This is a zero sum game. 

"More opportunities for women", means "Steal opportunities from the man" who earned them by his own merit and efforts.  There is no alternative to the truth of this statement.  (Look at the military, or the corporate world, or much more the family.)  Likewise, when we lie to one another and tell each other that it is the women/mothers who are nurturing to us (it's actually the fathers, primarily), and that women are the seat of our virtue and morality (talk about a house built upon the sand), then we are stealing from the men and fathers who actually earned and deserve the praise/love/credit for doing and making all those good things in our lives/families/society.

The women deserve credit for what they actually do for men.  That is, the amount of goodness and nurturing they actually give, minus the problems they cause and the "taking" that they do. 

finish.jpgGals can be made into something truly beautiful and wonderful to enjoy (in their good moments)... but they aren't that way naturally.  They can be that way only if trained to be, while being given no other choice.

And, to make a long story even longer... this process, if it is going to work at all, has to occur prior to a gal's getting "set in her ways".  These criminals in our society that want to make it impossible for a man to take a woman while she is in the marriageable ages (which have always been 15-19), but instead force them to wait until the crop is seriously over-ripe... after she has a degree and a career and after her psyche and heart and body have all passed the point of malleability and flexibility... these criminals desire nothing more than to destroy us all, and take away all possibility and hope of family happiness for each and every common man.


I will seem to be very argumentative if I say so, and I do hate to sound that way...But, no matter the quality of the components and the design in an electronic system, it cannot function well if there is a "short" introduced somewhere.

Likewise, it is really not possible for men, in the West, to establish "good relationships", as you mentioned, with women.  There are too many short-circuits in our environment, for a good relationship to take root, even if the man has perfect understanding of what he can expect to happen (versus the "unrealistic expectations" you wrote about.)

One of the major reasons is that the "short-circuit" of our feminist government is ever-present.  No woman, no matter how kind and good, is senseless to the fact that the state is always offering to her, whispering in her ear, the violent power of their hired men.

Stronger_laws_keep_domestic_violence_vic_1758160000_6619950_ver1.0_640_480.jpgThis reversed power differential causes every relationship to be poisoned with the threat of violence from the state, against the man... but really not against the woman.  So, men will always dial down their genuine behavior and speech, and women will always feel free to dial theirs up... even if it is subconscious.  In fact, the state is really the "father" and "husband" in every relationship, in the West... and so there is no fertile soil in which "good relationships" between men and women can develop. 

(The state has eliminated marriage entirely... the process by which we used to form households [that had a head]; and now the state allows us only "domestic partnerships", where the man and woman are partners, and the state is the head of household.)  But, men have no need nor desire for female "partners"... if a man wanted a partner, he'd find a man.  What a man does want is: a helper well-suited to him.  ("A help meet for him".)

In an upright society, men have the predominance of violent power in their relationships, and women have other advantages.  In such a scenario, a woman's emotions will be naturally engaged, as she comes to realize that this man is her meal-ticket, and her protector... the one who stands between her and all the bad things she fears.  He's also dangerous when provoked.  These are the realizations that cause a woman's emotions to become active and attached specifically to this man.


Of course, women being hypergamous, these same emotions and attachments could be triggered by other men of higher status/power.  But, again, in a good society or tribe, the women are aware that the men have already agreed among themselves to eliminate adultery pitilessly... for all of their mutual protection.  So, the idea of seducing another man will engender fear and the "I'm-less-safe" emotions in a gal, rather than the starry-eyed feeling she gets when she thinks about her man who has taken on the task of protecting and providing for her... and whose very name and reputation is what keeps her safe while she moves about, outside the home.

aa-feminism-stop-oppressing-me-good-one3.jpgThese thought and conditions are the levers that need to be pulled, if we are going to activate/engage the good feminine emotions, and if we want to cause the good behaviours and character traits to develop.

But, because the above-mentioned dynamic has been eliminated, there is no environment for "good relationships" between men and women.  The relationships can only be different degrees of lousy.

Just as people certainly will eat, even in a place where none of the food is good or healthy... likewise men and women will still relate, in the places where it can only be lousy or really, really lousy.  But, even that is fading away.  Men are giving up on it, and many women are killing the babies and the children.  This society that is not reproducing will rapidly cease from the world scene. 

And, it will not just go out with a whimper.  Other societies, where the ideas of male and female are not so conflated, are waiting outside the gates to take the assets of those weak people who have gone feminist.  Hispanics, Arabs, Russians... these are strong peoples.  And they have not forgotten so much, what it is to be a man or to be a woman.  They're waiting in the wings, to take the feminist "First World's" goods and their women alike.

Gender-bending carries inside itself, its own end.

Benjamin endorses this video, sent by Rich S, and the woman "Christie Misty" who made it

First Comment from Tony B:

Must say, I started adult life thinking as you think.  But I have learned.  Benjamin is exactly correct.  It is the reason for my often repeated remark that western women are out of place and out of control.

I have begun marking the daily msm newspaper in red ink in way of correction.  I make a joke to friends saying all I need do is write "bull shit" over each paragraph and I'll have it exactly right.  But I have noticed that more and more crimes, especially violent crime against those weaker, are committed by women.  Almost daily women are killing their own children if not deserting them.  I don't mean abortion here, I mean growing, functioning children being murdered by selfish mothers.  Abortion, of course, is the ultimate selfishness.

Most US counties have women clerks running their offices.  In this state, every year the state audits turn up women in those offices who have stolen thousands, often hundreds of thousands, of tax paid money.  They have no compunction not to so steal the citizens' funds and only rue getting caught.  Still, because they are women their sentences are jokingly short compared to any man's sentence for similar crimes.  There is no earthly reason for this dissimilarity. It is simply misguided sentimentality.

The only honest thing about women my now-dead wife said to me was that women have no idea what they want.  Actually, what she really meant - but would never quite realize - was that they always want everything they can get but once they get it, if they see something even better, they then want that instead.

Down through the ages it was automatically understood that women had to be kept in their place and under control, until the last few centuries in the west.  Giving women the vote was just about the last insanity.  Nothing can divide a family faster as women will ALWAYS vote for the candidate who promises to give them the most for nothing without a single thought as to just how he/she/it can manage to do that without someone, somewhere having to pay for that largess they wish to gain without cost.

This could be book-length.

Bottom line:  The only women who show those feminine qualities you mention at times are those who are kept in their place and under control.  Exactly what government has refused to allow in western nations.

Scruples - the game of moral dillemas

Comments for "Is this Primitive View of Women More Realistic? "

Bonnie said (July 9, 2014):

Benjamin is right! Your mother was capable of being loving because during the time you grew up, the rules were very tight for women.
Young people have no idea what the world was like such a short time ago. If a man's wife worked, it was a humiliation for him. The few who worked were teachers, nurses, and secretaries. Any woman in authority was considered unnatural. Gender expectations permeated every aspect of the culture. Women wore dresses, even to do mundane chores and housework. All announcers on the radio and the newscasters on TV were male. There was tremendous pressure for a woman to be married, and since the woman was a reflection of her husband, the tendency was toward controlling her, and she would be loved for her acquiescence.

Bill S said (July 9, 2014):

Another excellent article by Benjamin. This reminds me of the first counseling session I attended - about 1 year into my marriage to a 24 year old Filipina. I asked the pastor, "How do I discipline my wife?" He looked at me incredulously and replied, "You discipline your children - you LOVE your wife!" For the next 10 years, I followed his advice. Yet her attitude grew increasingly insolent, aggressive and disrespectful. I finally reached my limit and divorced her. Had my pastor known what Benjamin teaches, my marriage could have flourished. I knew it instinctively, but had no support - and was led in the opposite direction

Annette said (July 9, 2014):

Please no need to post this Henry, but just had to tell you, that, Bens second article got me again, only this time there is just so much to refute I’m not going to bother to write it all out- it’s a waste of time because Ben has to have a narrative that supports his victimization and subsequent sense of superiority.

Suffice it to say, I’m with you. My mother gave and gave too, and never got squat back from my dad.. Again I say, through my own experience, that drastic negative generalizations made ( by men or women ) about the opposite sex are made by people who don’t know how to take responsibility for their reality.

If you don’t like your life, look in the mirror. Most folks don’t want to do that one- easier to blame it all on everyone else. I once had tremendous anger at men because of my experiences with my Dad and my experiences with my husband early in our marriage. I healed and changed myself and my life changed. People only have to denigrate when they feel powerless.
No argument women have been socially engineered, but that doesn’t prove any inherent defects in women, only that they have been twisted by the engineering, which is not hard to do to any human being.

Debra said (July 9, 2014):

I endorse the contents of Benjamin’s articles (what I’ve read here thus far) 100%. Thank-you Benjamin!!!

Sura 4:34. Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because God has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what God would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance): for God is Most High, great (above you all).

Molecule said (July 9, 2014):

Personally, I would never even think of marrying a girl, or getting her pregnant, unless I knew, absolutely, that she was prepared to give birth to my child in the same bed that we conceived it (my bed, in the safety of my home). And when she brings my child into this world, she births it into no one else's hands other than mine. I give her the seed, with the expectation that she knows she must return it to me. No one else can intervene.

In the not too distant future, I predict that if a woman should so much as even talk to a MD (misognyous demon) while carrying her husband's child, he will, with the help of his family and neighbors, cut her throat, and bleed her out between his legs. That's not so much because men are all of this or that. It's because the police and the doctors have become a mafia for the Illuminati. Their goal is to bring evolution to a complete halt, by chemically messing with our children.

It's really about whether evolution will be allowed to continue with free will, or whether it is all handed over to a bunch of drone jockies who earn pensions by dropping bombs on weddings and funerals, and by bed wetting computer programmers who think life is a video game to be played in a secret basement of the NSA or something.

Joseph said (July 8, 2014):

I'm a fiftysomething Ivy League graduate and medical doctor. It took me decades to figure it out, but now I know that Benjamin is right on target.

Lewis and Clark's journal says that when the Mandan chief discovered the adultery of one of his wives, he simply bashed in her cranium. But the chief took the politic precaution of sharing a smoke with his father-in-law beforehand.

Among the Mandan, women controlled neither the "means of production" nor the "means of reproduction". In "Western civilization" they control both. That will be the death of us all.

Ed said (July 8, 2014):

For any man who conveys my thoughts so simply, yet eloquently will always retain a special place of honor. You Sir, are a genius. Reading this feels like being in church and being the only person who comprehends as well as acknowledges what is being discussed. I do not know anyone personally that would agree with the sentiments in this superbly written article. One of my criticisms of male\female relationships are that there are no allowed mechanisms to control female behavior. This is the ONLY point that my family members agree with me. My solution gets ridiculed for being sexist.

Sir Benjamin points out the logical consequences to this line of thought. I believe it was Henry who said that: "Women empower a man, so naturally they have the ability to emasculate a man as well." This has been effectively used against society to sever the relations between the sexes.

As long as men tolerate such horrible behavior in our women, there will be a disconnect between the sexes and society will eventually the author suggests. I personally do not tolerate such behavior and remain single largely because of this. There is always some thirsty male who puts women on a pedestal and WILL accept this type of behavior.

Even if such a man cannot be found, the government will step in and save a woman from all the consequences of her bad decisions. Sir Benjamin, have you ever offered to write for other websites such as You would fit in well there. Otherwise, I look forward to your perspective here at Henry's site.

Al Thompson said (July 8, 2014):

"These criminals in our society that want to make it impossible for a man to take a woman while she is in the marriageable ages (which have always been 15-19), but instead force them to wait until the crop is seriously over-ripe..."

I enjoyed this article. Young people should get married at much earlier ages rather than having them go to college and universities only to loose their minds in useless studies. In fact, there's is an early Christian writing allegedly by Clement of Rome(I think) who made the statement something to to effect that young people should marry young so that they don't burn with passion. From my experience, I think that is a great idea. Women belong at home raising the children; that should be a woman's first choice. A career for a woman is not as satisfying as raising children, in my opinion. Feminism is an attack on the social fabric of civilization.

Magda said (July 8, 2014):

In 2012 I worked in South East Asia as an English teacher because my husband got tired of his job and wanted to start a business in China.

I loved the atmosphere of mutual respect and interdependence that I saw there, men were involved very involved in family life and women helped provide and yet there was the understanding that it was a team effort and that men where the spiritual heads of the household.

Like yours, my mom was a giver and in my culture woman are expected to sacrifice for their families. One thing many do not realize is the absolute dependency and weakness we women feel once we are child bearing. We essentially become sensitive and recognize our dependence on our husband and so how can we be arrogant and if he is there for us how can we not be devoted and loving.

I have seen single women and women who have not had fulfilling relationships be bitter, and have corrected their assumptions about men.

Here is a thought, we must be willing to be open, vulnerable and loving again despite what we encountered in the past.

I love my mom and my brothers adore her also for the many loving sacrifices she did for us and I wanted to be the same way for my family.

Rich S said (July 8, 2014):

Can you please post this on "Is this Primitive View of Women More Realistic?" as these videos and links will further help people to see what's really going on with women, feminism and society today.

Rich S.

feminism was created to destabilize society

What Men Know that Women Don't - "The World of Woman"

FEMINISM, PT 1 - "Defining the Feminist Problem" by ChristyOMisty - Good stuff!

Rich's crusade to save women
Is this Primitive View of Women More Realistic?

Wade said (July 8, 2014):

Wow Henry...This guy just gets better and better. His understanding and articulation of
male / female relationships is stellar.

Any man who tells the truth in this kind of raw, unvarnished, and unapologetic manner is
bound to take a lot of flack and endure lots of insults and name calling.

I am a 69 year old male. Married 3 times. My wife is a gem...married 18 years. My experiences
in life have taught me that this guy is speaking the truth. Young men should listen up and learn
things before they learn those same things through painful and costly experience.

Robert K said (July 8, 2014):

like your mother, mine, who just died past the age of 100, "gave and gave". Because she never asked for recognition for all she did, it was only in assuming similar responsibilities that I began to comprehend the depth of her loyalty and the immense support she gave her family.

One has to wonder about the relationship "Benjamin" had with his parents, which surely conditions the views he expresses.

As for his use of the old chestnut (a total denial of Grace, and therefore likely insinuated into society by Freemasonry) that "There is no free lunch", in plenty of parts of the world lunch is literally dropping from the trees. In our part, with probably 99% of current production being the result of applied science and technology derived from developments on which no individual can make a proprietary claim, to assert that we are living purely through our own efforts and merit is delusional arrogance. Of course it suits the banking fraternity that people, whom it regards as drones in the hive, should be blind to these facts.

Yvonne said (July 8, 2014):

Thanks, Benjamin, for sharing. Your thoughts and Henry's comments are a nice blend.

Man wants Love, woman wants Security. God made her to want him to be Righteous.

A woman’s natural state is veritable helplessness, insecurity. A woman is insecure without a divine, God, realized man whose Righteousness exceeds the righteousness of scribes (intellectuals) and Pharisees (Rabbis, Priests, etc).

Without a Righteous man, a woman is as a mama bear — demanding, angry, forceful, and pitiless covertly or overtly, more or less.

Luca (Italy) said (July 8, 2014):

These are raw reflections, that maybe have some points of truth.

What makes a man manly and a woman womanly? and sometimes a man womanly and a woman manly?
How the need of affection has been fulfilled in childhood.

Every child has a basic need of affection and look mostly to the parent of the opposite sex for its fulfillment,a son to his mother and a daughter to her father.

Most commonly mothers are emotionally open and communicative therefore the need is fulfilled and the son finds himself reassured and feel loved. He grows self-confident and determined. He looks in himself for the reasons of abundance of affection and develops a sense of pride and vanity, that he manage trough ambition.

Most commonly fathers are emotionally close and repressed therefore the need remains unfulfilled and the daughter feels a strong persistent need of
affection. Therefore she grows sensitive and insecure. She looks in herself for the reasons of lack of affection and develops a sense of guilt, that she could try to redeem through sacrifice.

The reversal is true: is a son has an emotionally-closed mother he grows sensitive and feminine, if a daughter has an affective father she grows manly,strong and confident.

These dynamics are to be considered in the development of a manly or womanly
character, both in sons and daughters.


Thanks Luca,

I think you've got it wrong. Overbearing mothers make men feminine and detached fathers make women masculine.


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