The Hidden Knowledge of Heterosexuality

www.henrymakow.com...

I'm not familiar with the author of this article but, when I stumbled upon it today, I knew I had to post it here for members to review and comment.

Much of what is written will likely incite some anger and disgust in some members, just remember...don't shoot the messenger.

Some of it, without a doubt, goes against the grain of our progressive society and for any feminists out there...you will NOT like this article at all.

There is one point that he makes that I DO agree with. Stay at home moms and housewives are looked down upon in this society...I know this from experience.

I am a college educated (for what it's worth these days) woman and mother of two young boys. I left a very successful and lucrative career after my first son was born to stay at home and raise him.

The backlash from my female co-workers was unreal!

So, I'm interested in hearing what others think about this article.

reply to post by MagesticEsoteric


u just opened ur self up to a feminist bashing and or gathering on this thread, the funniest part is u knew this going into it and even said don't kill the messenger. good luck. one thing i would like to say is about any group of people that believes they r being put down by the man why not focus on yourself and determine ur own reality with that focus, instead of gathering together and trying to make a statement it only makes you a target, the bigger the target the easier it is to hit, by the way i believe in complete freedom for all, its how u use your freedom that determines who u are.

There are many things the author stated that I agree with, except a for a couple of things.

The part about a man showing weakness:

Despite what feminists say, a man should never show weakness. The essence of masculinity is power. If he is weak, he loses a woman's respect.

Although I understand the sentiment, I disagree with this in actual practice. All people have weakness at some time. If a man hides it from his wife, she may be more likely to lose respect for him because he is trying to hide it and being disingenuous about his emotional state.

Also, this part:

If a woman is withholding love or sulking, he should ignore her and let her get over it.

That approach doesn't work so well in many marriages.

In reading this article, I am sure that some feminists will be outraged. In fact, they will be so outraged at the notion that a woman needs a good man that they will need to take two Xanax washed down with vodka, eat two pints of ice cream, obsess about their weight, and cry themselves to sleep.

I'm gonna pay for that last paragraph, aren't I?

There is a lot on this subject that you can find. Feminism is poison. Your husband is a lucky man.

reply to post by MagesticEsoteric


Seems to work well for the Amish Mennonites who still function within principles from the 17th century. Lets all go back to washing by hand, No electricity or IT tech and getting around by horse n buggy... solves a lot of humanities problems.

... or perhaps not as its all rather a backward step. Gender stereotypes is great for keeping chaos at bay in an ant nest or a bee colony but I'd prefer to be an individual.. what's the point of the gift of free will if 50% plus of the population is meant to conform to the expectation of control freaks?

I think it's perfectly fine that you chose to stay home and raise your children, any woman should be free to do so...my problem is couldn't you write about that without citing such a ridiculous source? I think you have a valid point about how stay at home moms are regarded by professional women but you don't need male dominance and female passivity to validate your feelings.

Why would you relinquish your power just because some catty women made you feel bad? Throw it back in anyone's face who judges you so harshly. Be straightforward and angry toward anyone who thinks they have the power to tell you, a woman, a mother...a smart human being what you have chosen to do with your own life.

The article in the OP says:

Homosexuality is the inability to form a permanent bond with a member of the opposite sex. It is commonly characterized by an obsession with sex and promiscuity. Sex becomes a surrogate for love. Doesn't this describe society today?

Oh my hat!
That's a novel definition of "homosexuality", or being sexually or romantically attracted to the same sex, whether the desire is acted upon or not.

I guess that would make most of our biggest cultural heterosexuals "homosexual"?
Liz Taylor - couldn't form a permanent heterosexual bond. What a "homosexual"!
King David in the Bible - had 9 wives and loads of concubines. Totally "homosexual".
Jesus and the Pope - no significant permanent heterosexual bonds. "Homosexuals" too, I guess.
Charlie Sheen - definitely "homosexual".
The Muslim Prophet - oh never mind...

On the other hand Freddy Mercury had a bond from the 1970s until his death with Mary Austin - so I guess he was a true heterosexual then.
Prince Charles had a bond with Camilla that came before and outlasted his marriage to Diana - also a true heterosexual.

It seems to me that "homosexual" has become a word for whatever somebody doesn't like.
This is quite interesting because in a dichotomy it defines what is opposite to the ideal of heterosexuality, and even where homosexuality is not present or relevant, heterosexuality can only still draw a moral meaning of its own goodness by constantly redefining itself against "homosexuality".

How far before any kind of feminism would most women like to go?
Before women had the vote?
Since when is it anti-feminist to choose to be a mother and home-maker?

My parents always told me NOT to rely on a man for everyday essentials, you wont have enough money for yourself if you ever need it.

If anything, men should want to look for independant women who make their own money, buy their own clothes, and do their own thing.

This guy is saying a lot if he thinks I'd give up my own career to be his housewife and have to take care of his spawn all day...... :\

Originally posted by Philosorapter
My parents always told me NOT to rely on a man for everyday essentials, you wont have enough money for yourself if you ever need it.

If anything, men should want to look for independant women who make their own money, buy their own clothes, and do their own thing.

This guy is saying a lot if he thinks I'd give up my own career to be his housewife and have to take care of his spawn all day...... :\

But the common conception is that women want to work, have a 10 husband and kids at the same time. 3/3 is rare

not only was this homophobic it is trying to claim the evil Illuminati has its hands in feminism?

the things people believe

Originally posted by paganini
not only was this homophobic it is trying to claim the evil Illuminati has its hands in feminism?

the things people believe

It's not that the illuminati (?) has it's hand in feminism, it's the fact that crazies have their thumbs in feminism

Originally posted by HamrHeed

Originally posted by paganini
not only was this homophobic it is trying to claim the evil Illuminati has its hands in feminism?

the things people believe

It's not that the illuminati (?) has it's hand in feminism, it's the fact that crazies have their thumbs in feminism

Crazies apparently have their thumbs embedded in Christianity and conservatism as well judging by this link.

Mind you i believe feminism is clogged with morons too but the opposition to these morons look just as bad for the most part. the only difference is each side thinks they are correct but spout similar nonsensical gibberish.

Originally posted by DocHolidaze
reply to post by MagesticEsoteric

 

u just opened ur self up to a feminist bashing and or gathering on this thread, the funniest part is u knew this going into it and even said don't kill the messenger. good luck. one thing i would like to say is about any group of people that believes they r being put down by the man why not focus on yourself and determine ur own reality with that focus, instead of gathering together and trying to make a statement it only makes you a target, the bigger the target the easier it is to hit, by the way i believe in complete freedom for all, its how u use your freedom that determines who u are.

I simply opened a forum to discuss an article I found while browsing through various sites...I was fully aware of the potential 'knee jerk' responses. Otherwise, I wouldn't have said "please don't shoot the messenger"

The ONLY part of the article I agreed with was the bit about mothers that stay at home and raise their children.

It's perfectly understandable for people to have different opinions on issues such as this...

Thus, this post...I really like learning from them All.






:

Originally posted by Kali74
I think it's perfectly fine that you chose to stay home and raise your children, any woman should be free to do so...my problem is couldn't you write about that without citing such a ridiculous source? I think you have a valid point about how stay at home moms are regarded by professional women but you don't need male dominance and female passivity to validate your feelings.

Why would you relinquish your power just because some catty women made you feel bad? Throw it back in anyone's face who judges you so harshly. Be straightforward and angry toward anyone who thinks they have the power to tell you, a woman, a mother...a smart human being what you have chosen to do with your own life.

edit on 31-5-2012 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

Did you read my original post?

I posted this article for comment and discussion.

At no point did I say that I agreed with the entire article. In fact, the only thing I agreed with was the stigma of being a stay at home mother or a housewife.

I never stated that I needed, nor desired male dominance...neither one is possible anyway.

Those "catty women" had no effect on me what so ever...other than with my empathy for them.

Originally posted by liquiddrewl
There is a lot on this subject that you can find. Feminism is poison. Your husband is a lucky man.

I'm familiar with what you are referring to...I think???

My husband knows he's lucky. He just doesn't like to brag.

Originally posted by Philosorapter
My parents always told me NOT to rely on a man for everyday essentials, you wont have enough money for yourself if you ever need it.

If anything, men should want to look for independant women who make their own money, buy their own clothes, and do their own thing.

This guy is saying a lot if he thinks I'd give up my own career to be his housewife and have to take care of his spawn all day...... :\

My mother, indirectly, taught me the same thing...not so much having to rely on a man but, NOT having to rely on ANYONE.

To a degree, this article does have a genuine point...and to a degree it doesn't.

I lived with patriarchy as a child, and as a teenager. My father was a deeply immoral and promiscuous man. That experience, and other observation, taught me that exclusive male authority in a family, is pathological; and it is also generally only something which is desired by men themselves.

I also believe that it is delusional and dangerously naive to believe that the 50s (and earlier) patriarchic familial model, is not chronically dysfunctional in its' own right, or to believe that homosexuality did not exist before the 1950s.

On the other hand, I have also come to believe in the Fabian Socialist agenda to largely destroy heterosexuality, as a means of first destroying human society, and ultimately humanity itself. Some of the objectives that I have seen persued by the gay movement, have been things that I consider socially destructive.

I have seen evidence that gay activists tend to be extremely dishonest, with both themselves, and others, when it comes to their depiction of the real nature of homosexuality. They want people to believe that homosexuality is inherently, unalterably genetic in origin, and they also want people to believe that celibacy is unthinkable. The promoted belief is that if you are gay, you have absolutely no choice. You not only have to be gay, but you also uncontrollably have to be sexually active. Organisations such as NARTH, which persue lines of investigation which suggest that the real answer is perhaps not so completely black and white, are subjected to extreme criticism for refusing to simply be politically correct.

It is also true, that the deeply held feminist belief in the disposability and redundancy of my gender, is the main reason why I have only had a single relationship within my lifetime so far, and at 35, am unlikely to seek another one. I have made the decision that if women do not need me, then for me to need them is unlikely to result in anything other than additional psychological harm to me.

I believe we need real balance, between men and women. I do not want patriarchy on the one hand, or feminism on the other. Both are enormously toxic, with the potential to completely destroy human society. We aren't going to get that balance, however, as long as the Illuminati/Marxist agenda to render us extinct, continues to exist; because promoting imbalance and discord between the sexes, is entirely their objective in the first place.

Originally posted by Philosorapter
My parents always told me NOT to rely on a man for everyday essentials, you wont have enough money for yourself if you ever need it.

I have observed both economic and energetic vampirism among members of both genders, truthfully. I do not think it is possible to generalise, on that score.

Women have violent and acquisitive desires to exactly the same extent that men do. The only real difference lies in the choice of tactics employed. Strong men will attack physically and directly, in many cases. Weaker men and women will attack psychologically and indirectly.

Feminists attempt to take advantage of the same lie that many atheists do; that because they are not physically violent, they can claim that men (or theists, in atheists' case) are responsible for all of the violence which exists, and then ignore the issue of psychological abuse.

Originally posted by halfoldman
The article in the OP says:

Homosexuality is the inability to form a permanent bond with a member of the opposite sex. It is commonly characterized by an obsession with sex and promiscuity. Sex becomes a surrogate for love. Doesn't this describe society today?

Oh my hat!
That's a novel definition of "homosexuality", or being sexually or romantically attracted to the same sex, whether the desire is acted upon or not.

I don't think it's too unfair to say that homosexual monogamy (at least in male terms) is the exception, rather than the rule. If gays were exclusively or primarily monogamous, I wouldn't have any issue with homosexuality at all. I don't think many people would, except perhaps for radical Christians.

The problem is that while they use monogamy as a line of attack, for encouraging people to approve of homosexuality, monogamy isn't necessarily the behavioural pattern which they actually adhere to in fact.

Non-vocal/evangelical, conservative, permanent, monogamous homosexuality is not harmful. The potential for the spread of diseases such as AIDS is removed, and it is not a danger to society in any other real way that I can see.