Direct Link to Latest News


In Defence of Male and Female

January 13, 2017

(Is this the face of the future? Yes, if the Illuminati have their way. We become what we worship, in this case Satan.)

"Power = penis. In heterosexual relationships, 
only one is necessary. "
This updated excerpt is from my first foray 
against feminism in 2000 and reflects my
original inspiration.
Feminism and the attack on gender differences
are a symptom of satanist (Masonic Jewish,
i.e Communist) subversion of Western society.
If we weren't mind controlled, this information would
have been disseminated far and wide. 

"The contemporary woman's liberation drive toward a decrease in sexual differentiation, to the extent that is leading toward androgyny and unisexual values, implies a social and cultural death-wish and the end of the civilization that endorses it. The scientific and historical record shows that all the way from unicellular organisms to human beings, progress in evolution has been stimulated by the increase in sexual differentiation."  Amaury de Riencourt, Sex and Power in History, (1974)

by Henry Makow Ph.D.

In 1997, the Canadian birth rate fell to its lowest point in history, 1.6 children per woman. [Hasn't changed. US rate is 1.88] This figure, which represents how many children a woman has in her lifetime, is a decline of 60% from 1960 when the rate was 3.9 children. The birth rate has declined 15% in the last five years [1992-1997] alone.

The declining birth rate is mirrored by the falling rate of marriages and rising rate of divorce. The 2008 marriage rate (440 per 100,000) is lower now than in 1931 during the Great Depression, and at the lowest point in history. It is down about 50% from 1970. The divorce rate in 2008 was five times the 1950 level

In my opinion, these statistics reveal a rapid breakdown in male-female relations that is undermining society and causing untold personal misery. Millions of young men and women are confused about their sexual identity. The cause is feminism, which teaches the young that sex roles are merely the product of social conditioning and oppressive by definition.

This influence was prevalent in 65 female students I taught in 1999-2000 at the University of Winnipeg. These mainly 18 and 19 year-old women saw divorce, not marriage, as the defining moment in a woman's life. They believed marital breakup was inevitable and assumed they would have to support themselves and their children alone.

For example, they applauded Stella Kowalski for leaving Stanley in the movie version of A Streetcar Named Desire. Until then, they saw Stella, a pregnant housewife, as a "doormat" despite the fact that she was obviously very happy and in love.

These attitudes reflect the feminist orientation prevalent in society, especially in government, the media and education. For more than three decades, feminists have been teaching young women to make career their first priority. They are teaching them to see men as violent predators, and to reject traditional sex roles and gender division altogether. 

Who but traitors and subversives would indoctrinate innocent young women with these toxic self destructive ideas? 


In The Flight from Woman (1964), Dr. Karl Stern, a distinguished psychiatrist, defined the difference between the masculine and the feminine.

Dr. Stern's ideas are a variation on the old adage, "The man makes the house, the woman makes the home." They are useful to understanding the feminist attack on traditional sex roles.

Dr. Stern says the essence of masculinity is "power" or mastery over the physical environment. Men are risk-takers, fixers, protectors and providers. Men are drawn to use reason and science to overcome the physical world.

The essence of femininity, Dr. Stern says, is "love": giving and receiving it. Unlike men, women do not stand outside of creation and relate by abstract ideas. They are part of creation, in tune with people, emotion, intuition and what Dr. Stern calls "poetic knowledge."

Unlike men, women do not do, they are. They do not go out to the physical world; they go in to the spiritual realm. Their power is their beauty, wisdom, grace and love. These qualities fit them for their role as nurturer and "home" maker.

Heterosexual marriage, in my view, involves a union of "love" and "power." Women give their worldly power to a man in trust, in exchange for love and security. Men do not abuse this power because they need women's love. Thus, women have a great deal of power, based on love. On the other hand, men cannot love women who compete with them for worldly power.

In the past, women made men feel powerful. Men then devoted their power to the service of women (and children). The male quest for mastery and money is pretty empty by itself. Women provided a higher purpose. Men made the living. Women made life worth living.


Women have been selected by nature for a task far more important than anything men do. She creates life. She creates family, the only living thing, which succeeds us when we die, our only link to eternity. We can aspire to no higher achievement than a healthy loving family.

By putting her family first, a woman is the nucleus of a successful family. She starts the circuit of love, which inspires a man to take on the responsibilities of family. She creates the environment, which restores the man and nourishes and shapes the next generation.

"Equality" makes sense only as a marriage of these two different kinds of power. To form durable unions, women should cede male-style power to men. A man will do his best for a woman who respects his masculinity. Men and women were meant to specialize in different areas of the psyche. In marriage, we were meant to find psychic completion.

Feminism has taught women to seek male-style power for themselves and to compete for it with men. Dr. Stern describes them as "phallic women." But as they gain phallic power, such women are losing the source of their own uniquely female power. How can they love someone with whom they compete?

Teaching women to seek male-style power is the same as injecting them with testosterone. Taking this power from men and giving it to women is emasculating men. In short, power = penis. In heterosexual relationships, only one is necessary. Sexual identity is undermined, if not dissolved when women invade the masculine realm, and when men are asked to fill the vacuum left by women.

But this is exactly what the radical feminists want. They seek to erase gender altogether by incorporating male and female power in one person. Thus women are encouraged to be more like men and vice versa.

Their androgynous vision of society is proving to be a recipe for sexual and social suicide. Opposite attracts; same repels. Androgens don't need anyone else. And they don't reproduce, except with a test tube.

Related -- Corporate Cabals promote Gender Dysphoria    When did gender which is universal in nature become oppression? When did looking after home and children become a stigma?
-----------Historical Divorce Rate 

First Comment by G

Hi Henry.  Thanks for your article today.  And I was thinking how feminism opened the door to transgenderism and today, the thing that strikes me the most (irks me really) is that in most cases beauty is sacrificed.  It's like we are being trained into surrendering our natural sense of what is naturally beautiful, our collective sense of aesthetics.  I Googled and found a few pictures to prove my point.

These stirrings of mine are not anti-gay, or even anti-trans (though I do say to those folks, "Make sure your choices are truly your own and not what you are being sold as 'cool and free'"); no, these stirrings are just wanting beauty to not be sacrificed in all this explosion of shock-existence.  What happens to us when our natural repulsion impulse is dead?  Will we one day think ghouls are gorgeous and desirable?  We are being made to embrace ugly and I DON'T WANT TO!!!

Scruples - the game of moral dillemas

Comments for "In Defence of Male and Female "

Jim T said (January 15, 2017):

Again I write to say thank-you for setting forth a reasonable explanation of the male-female paradigm, becoming so misunderstood in our world in these latter days.

Let us face it: there is such a measure of "utter selfishness" all around us (see 2Timothy 3: 2), few are desirous to seek after the beauty of truth in the Sacred Scriptures, thus settling down to marriage in this life, is becoming nearly impossible as a formula to life!

Your explanation: "Equality makes sense only as a marriage of these two different kinds of power . . ." in my humble opinion, bridges the gap created by spiritual insufficiency as to the knowledge of a Loving Creator's highest attainable desire for His creation, and hopefully will help those suffering from too much selfish love, to reason their way to a better understanding of marriage and male female relationships, which may eventually bring them to the Word, and the true meaning as to what life here on the only fallen world in Yahuwah's creation, is all about.

David said (January 15, 2017):

Henry, after 40+ years in the workforce employed by large US corporations burdened with labor laws that go out of their way to shield women from any consequences or responsibility for their actions, for me the operative phrase is "when the going gets tough, the feminists go A.W.O.L.".

I can't tell you how many times at 3am on a trouble call -- when reputations, revenue, infrastructure and quite possibly lives are at risk -- the only ones on the call and in the field trying to fix what's broken and pull everything out of a ditch are the menfolk, and usually it's white guys with grey hair!

All the women I've ever worked with who see themselves as "empowered" and "in control" are never around when the chips are down.

M said (January 14, 2017):

It's worth noting that in the Canadian immigration process, the presence of children counts for nothing, no additional points at all. Even high IQ, English speaking, educated children.

In face of the demographic disaster, this doesn't make any sense.

James C said (January 14, 2017):

The declining birth rate may have something to do with the fact that it costs $233,000 to raise a child from birth through age 17. Nobody has that kind of money anymore.

Rodney said (January 14, 2017):

I like your article and agree with most of what you say as usual. But you have left out the primary reason for low birth rates in Canada and the USA. BIRTH CONTROL methods.

Women would still be having more children per woman if not for the pill and the like. And let's not forget the 30 plus million abortions used a a backup if she still gets pregnant just in the US alone.

Talking about dysfunction at it's worst: a womans womb is a safe haven for 9 months for a baby to grow. The Communists (Satanist) have turned it into a coffin.

Boris said (January 14, 2017):

However, I find this diatribe regarding feminism has run its course. It is time to move on and stop giving it any more energy. Let's begin to move the discussion to a higher paradigm of thought and consciousness.

I have enclosed an excerpt from a book. You should examine this excerpt and consider evolving your philosophy accordingly and begin to provide a direction, a way out instead of just giving diatribes and discussing the problems. What you resist persists and resistance is futile. If one keeps just dissecting the problem, the universe is going to give you more problem to dissect for this is where the attention and thus "love" is focused. Focus on the solution and the problem ceases to exist.


"The Yokar told me that the ancient Atlanteans discovered the Life Force after many thousands of years of observing life unfolding before them. They determined that the energy of Life flows in a balanced way~that is~ a neutral quality. They realized that the Life Force is made up of three parts: a male or positive propulsive part~ a female or negative attractive part and a neutral part. As it flows~ it responds to the energetic consciousness of all living beings and becomes divided into varying degrees of polarized potential, male and female. The precise way in which the energy comes together manifests all reality according to what is required" ...

... "Exactly! By comparison, creative visualization is only part of the process. It's accurate in that the Life Force will follow consciousness. But in that technique, the person visualizes what he wants and will see himself already obtaining it without any other consideration. Doing that will short circuit the potential energy that might have been created by the visualization. Do you what I mean?" ...

... "Okay. You see Yokar said that real manifestation must follow the 'law of cooperation.' That means that no single conscious being can control everything. That would be dangerous! Instead, everything really cooperates with everything else. When you ask for something, you have to be willing that it will also be in harmony with what everything else needs."

Now this is true nature of the "male" and "female" ... co-creators upon this neutral plane where Dreams manifest: A usufruct in balance with divinity. This is the nature of God.

Duane said (January 14, 2017):

There is a fundamental flaw in this essay:

“Women have been selected for a task more important than anything men do. She creates life.”

None of us can create life ... we are merely vehicles, reagents, substrates for processes that have been happening for eons.

We do not dictate how they happen (other than we currently have ways of stopping them happening). No woman sits there during pregnancy and orders the cells to structure themselves in a particular way ..... divide at a certain time..... and differentiate into the various structures that create the body. She is a vessel in which it happens .... she is not a creator ... but she can be a destroyer if she chooses.

Because you are involved in creation does not make you the creator.

It could be equally argued that as what you give birth too is destined to die ... then you are the creator of death if you stick to the “i am a creator” maxim.

We create nothing ... we are merely vehicles for its movement. Just because we may wave gods wand... it doesn’t make us god ... we didn’t make the wand ourselves in the first place.

That’s the major problem at the moment.... we don’t “make” babies as we are not makers.

To all women.... you have a womb... that makes you precious...... but you are not involved in what happens within it.... therefore you are not god.

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