William said (November 25, 2007):

Excellent article.

"In reality, women are a means to an end..." Absolutely correct. You know scripture says that woman was made for the man, not man for the woman.

"A woman's most important quality is her receptivity to YOU, her willingness to do what you want. A woman shows love by self-surrender, trust and acquiescence. Naturally you first have to impress her with your charm, power (competence, responsibility etc.) and devotion to her well being. "

I wholeheartedly agree. This is the foundation stone of marriage and relationships.

Are you familiar with Marc Rudov at www.thenononsenseman.com? He is generally correct, but he wants to do away with chivalry and traditional relationships. He says they are dead because women want it all their way, so men should give them only equality. He is right, but also wrong, as both must return to real relationships and the right relation of woman to man.

Dan said (November 24, 2007):

Sara said (November 23, 2007):

I am a divorced mom of 3. I am actually lost without a man. My ex-husband was the head of the household, had the final say in all things. Plain and simple, he no longer wanted a family. I used to cry myself to sleep every night over losing him. Now I cry because I can't seem to find a manly man, but sissy pants..........

I have the feminine revolution to thank for all this pain.
Thank you for your site.

This is what the media never talks about. There are millions of women who didn't buy into either feminism or fall for the female version of 'me-ism' and sex addiction. I've known them all along to be the most respectable women I know, but never let them become more than friends because they have children.
It's too bad that male instinct for fatherhood doesn't naturally extend to raising another man's gene pool. That is, single men aren't inclined to do that. But what about single fathers who have found themselves in the same position as these worthy moms?

It all leaves these good women in a terrible spot. I can only suggest that single moms in Sara's position should consider finding groups and activities where single dads who's wives left them for the same reason can be found. They might end up with larger families than they'd envisioned, but the good news is that it only takes one committed father and mother to successfully raise four, six, eight children to sane, normal fully integrated young adulthood.
Less than a century ago large families were the norm. And that's one advantage of heterosexual families. And normal humanity needs all the advantages we have left since we're a targeted endangered species.

What a waste if a good wife and mother like Sara has to raise her three kids without a sincere father to help her complete the task.

Sara said (November 23, 2007):

am a divorced mom of 3. I am actually lost without a man. My ex-husband was the head of the household, had the final say in all things. Plain and simple, he no longer wanted a family. I used to cry myself to sleep every night over losing him. Now I cry because I can't seem to find a manly man, but sissy pants. My kids deserve a father that cares about them and I just want a real husband. My son wants to play football, go fishing, play with his hot wheels, ride his
bike--with, in his words "a real daddy." My girls want hugs and kisses,to be sung to at night, no matter if a tune could be held or not. I
have the feminine revolution to thank for all this pain.
Thank you for your site.

Tony said (November 23, 2007):

Interesting how many comments you are getting on this men "who take no" article. And most very favorable, especially from women who have "been
there."

Vojco is correct that foreign women often get the selfish little princess disease after they've been in our "white" countries awhile. I have lived in various parts of the U.S. and in each have seen newspaper articles of Viet Nam sounding names wherein the husband has murdered his wife - for exactly that reason. He sticks by his culture, she dumps it when she realizes how our skewed statutes give her control over her family, taking it away from her husband. These instances should be lessons for both "white" husbands and wives.

Which brings me to the third party in our lands which you don't mention in the article but which has the final say between men and women today.
Of course, that is the insane courts and the "family" bureaucracies which feed them, which, together, have turned the proper relationship
between men and women upside down. Even if the woman is happy to have the type of man you describe, she can change her mind at any time and
ditch him, run him out of his family and make him a permanent absentee economic slave to her selfishness, ruining his life forever while he
furnishes her comforts she does not deserve if he wants to avoid prison. This is such a common occurrence that you would expect those in charge to eventually understand that women out of place are generally out of control - not willing to curb their selfish, often resentful and vengeful, appetites in gender situations which most men
handle quite well automatically. I hesitate to use the term "bitch" but that is probably the best simple definition of women out of place.
"Empowered" as the feminists would put it.

Too, I have to agree with Rick in Hollywood, FL. I would rather be married than not in my old age but why should I put myself in a position
where the little I have to sustain my life could be given, in one simple court hearing, to someone else in whom I've possibly mistakenly placed
my trust? Someone who has done not a thing to earn it, by the way, although courts seem to think that a woman "earns" what a man has worked
for just because she exists in his house. Even if it is properties that have accumulated over a long marriage, the courts seem to think they are
only the wife's.

Aliya said (November 22, 2007):

...As for your point about marrying a woman for intelligence, skills and character and not physical attraction. That is exactly the advice the prophet (peace be upon him) gave to men. He is recorded to have said "A man marries a woman for four things, her beauty, her lineage, her wealth and her practice of faith, it is best to marry for practice of faith"

Henry you really should read a good translation of the Koran. You would thoroughly enjoy it. May I recommend Mohammad Asad's translation (a rabbi convert to Islam). You could get a free online version here

http://www.islamicity.com/quransearch/

Linda said (November 22, 2007):

Regarding your article “Men Who Take "No" For an Answer”, I want to tell you as a woman who once was on her way to “having it all”, you are right on the money.

There was a time, after receiving my engineering degree and setting off to work in a predominately male field, I was quite sure I wanted nothing to do with marriage and especially children.

THEN, to make a long story short, I died to myself and became alive in Christ. His ways are perfect. Women were created to be help-mates, the weaker vessel, and (gasp!) mothers. Why do we fight it? Until we allow the redemptive power of Christ to cleanse our polluted hearts, we will swallow the lies spewed out by this world.

I have a wonderful, godly husband and two wonderful children whom I homeschool. I treasure our time together.

To Candace, two things: (1) Come to know Jesus and (2) give yourself time to mature.

To Toni : Amen Sister!

Vojco said (November 22, 2007):

Most 'white' woman I know do not want a family and kids only a career. Many of the
more established 'immigrant' woman are following the way of the 'white' woman the longer
they are in this society. Pretty soon the disease will effect almost all of them.

We can thank our 'social engineering' friends with the 'ABC's' of tax free foundations such as
the Carnegie Foundation and such noteworthy statesmen such as John D. Rockefeller
who around the turn of the century 'hijacked' the educational, medical, psychological fields for
controlling their social engineering projects. The seeds were planted then and the fruit has ripened know.

Lets not forget our good friends at the 'Frankfurt School of Social Research' in Europe for there
fine work in psychology and leftist socialist engineering. There's tons more of these alphabet
agencies, organizations, foundations ... you know them Henry.

Like a few of your readers have
mentioned, it was not until the radical 1960's and early 1970's where the whole social order of
things got mixed up and the 'socialist' brain-washers won the minds of the kids then who are adults know. Anyone born after this time is in their 'mind control' since junior kindergarten to these 'programmers' through an assault of the mind through television, print, music, education.
Enough rambling on.

Rick in Hollywood (FL) said (November 22, 2007):

What in the world are you talking about? "A woman most important quality is her receptivity to you. Her willingness to do what YOU want". Forgive me but I strongly beg to differ. Today's women, are nothing but men with breasts. As a young man in my twenties, thirties, forties and even fifties, I was a very good looking man. I am now a 61 years old man who spent 40 years of my life, chasing women all over the world and I came to the conclusion that they are highly overrated and an exercise in futility. The ONLY reason we are attracted to each other is SEX, PERIOD. I have never been able to have a female friend. They are overbearing, aggressive and will always have the final word. I gave them up about ten years ago. Don't care for them, do not have any need for them and now I find myself with extra money, peace and something you could NEVER get from them: TRANQUILITY. And NO, I am NOT gay.

Dan said (November 22, 2007):

'Candace',[below] expressed what I heard from many girls I knew during the 70's, when all the social engineering was really kicking in.

I'd started early at college - and flunked out the first year for being a pothead. During a year off before I could re-apply, I had a working class girlfriend who had no interest in college - it never occurred to her to be anything but a homemaker for a man. When I was able to return to school, I broke up with her because she wasn't
'intellectual' enough.

Back with the 'intellectuals', the girls were extremely easy for sex, but extended relations with them turned into Woody Allen scripts of
approach/avoidance and dealing with their angst in indecision. But Candace reminds me of the common notion both the young men and women shared. The believe that we would 'fail miserably' as parents.

Now I've seen that this inexplicable shift to overcomplicating the ideal of parenthood in a generation who's own parents had taken monogamous
marriage and raising families as a given, was due to arrested emotional development. What we couldn't see at the time was that had been done to
us by the success of Bertrand Russell and John Dewey's public school educational models having been quietly put fully in place in the school
systems after world war II.. And of course the 'breakthrough' of the 'revolutions' of media sanctioned promiscuity (with the 'pill' shot from
the starter pistol), freely available recreational drugs, the collapse of prosecution of porn distribution - and feminism. We thought we were
free, not targets of a massive attack.

I share your observation that the female instinct remains in women. The confirmation of that has been hearing the women of my generation now -
expressing their regrets. They were handed the same lie that they hand them now, the notion that they could have children 'later'. Promises of
artificial methods, longer youth, etc. They promised the same things back in the 60's - but the fertility span hasn't in fact changed at all.
I think it's a lot more important to a woman's self identity to think of herself as either fertile, or being a mother when she's past that point in her life. For men, missing out on fatherhood is really perceived more abstractly.

Within the last few years I've listened to three
women in their early 50's get very emotional about their regret in not having had children. And these were women who actually got the careers,
independence and financial security on their own that was supposed to be the ultimate prize. I wonder how women who are struggling alone in
middle age must feel.

Recently the states of Massachusetts and California have legislated bills that will phase out the mere reference to 'father, mother', 'male,
female' in public schools. The onslaught against natural, normal human instinct is relentless. But the best they can do is give us this new society which doesn't support normal human instinct. That's the trick. The solution during these times must be for youth to reject social 'new
normals' and follow their instincts as individuals.

Joshua said (November 22, 2007):

A man is like a farmer, and a woman like a field. He plants seeds in her, of children, of love, of industrious attention, of looking toward the future; whatever he’s doing in life, however he’s interacting with her, he’s planting those seeds in her. In a woman who hasn’t been psychologically neutered, those seeds will grow, without any conscious decision on her part: it’s her nature, whatever they may be: physical seeds become children, attention becomes love, kindness becomes joy, industry becomes wealth and comfort. This means that a man must be careful what seeds he plants, for his harvest may be bitter. If his harvest is lacking something, he should first look to whether he planted what he wanted.

That’s not an ironclad rule, it’s just a word-picture of how I’ve seen the relationships between healthy men and women, and a description of the dynamic I see play itself out every day.

It also makes clear why women get frustrated with men who want to find out what they want. A farmer doesn’t ask his field what he wants; he gives it what it needs to grow the crop he’s planted. He also doesn’t ask what crop the field would like to have planted; he rotates and fertilizes so as to grow the whole farm. If he were to go to his field and say, “Please, just tell me what will make you happy,” the field would think, just as most women, “Good lord, what a twit.”

For a man to plant quality seeds in a woman, one thing that will lift his eyes to the horizon, so he can plant more durable seeds and choose a woman with endurance, he needs to see himself as building a family of more than one generation. If his father gave him no emotional legacy to work with, he can start one now, but only by looking past his own life can he really see what’s important for his few years on earth. A righteous man leaves an inheritance for his children, said Solomon, and I don’t believe he meant just money. My children will be able to say, “I’m a D----, and this is the way we do things…” That’s what I mean.

So there’s my two cents.

Candace said (November 22, 2007):

- I just finished reading that article of yours and although it hasn't quite sinked in yet I have some questions on some things that you've said. First off, I'd like to state that I am a 17 year old female living with my single mother
- My question is since I have no desire to get married or have children in the future do you think that I have been unconsciously brainwashed by feminism? I say it is because I want to do "what I want, when I want, how I want and men and children hinder that." Does that sound like a typical feminist saying to you? Lol . I also say that I really enjoy my alone "me" time and I don't want to take care of someone for 18 years and then some and then spend the rest of my life with someone. I also don't want men or children because I don't believe in my ability to be a wife or mother. I think I will fail both miserably. Sometimes I imagine me happily married and with a family but my mind just won't allow me to think that that could be a real reality for me. So I'm just wondering if my feelings (that I don't see changing) are a result of brainwashing, normal feelings, or my insecurities?
-----

Candace,

Probably all three. Let yourself mature before you make any decisions.

Henry

Rob from UK said (November 21, 2007):

I have just read your article: “Men Who Take "No" For An Answer”

I agree with you 100%, a man should lay out his vision for the future and the woman must determine whether or not she fits into that future plan.

The Bible truth is that woman was made for man not visa – versa..

Genesis 2:18. And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for HIM.

And also............ 1 Corinthians 11:8 + 9. 8. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. 9. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

Toni said (November 21, 2007):

I am a 34 year old wife and mother of two small children. My husband is 46. I met my husband when I was 27 and he was 40. This is our first (and
only!) marriage. Many people objected about the age difference at first, but that soon dissipated once they saw how serious we were. What I can tell you is, even though there is a twelve year age difference, our marriage works.

Maybe I was mature for my age and needed someone older or maybe he was a bit immature and needed all of those 40 years to become ready to settle down,whatever the reason, we clicked and the rest is history. Incidentally, we have always put God first and foremost in our relationship, even while
dating. We knew that without Him, our relationship would be doomed for failure. We have had our rocky times, but God has sustained us and made the relationship stronger. I have told my husband many times that on the day we were married, I didn't know how I could love him any more than at that moment, but neither one of us really knew what love was. Even though we had the right motives, we were in strong "lust" with each other. After two babies, buying our first house, bills, losing both of our grandmothers, stresses, etc., I love him ten more times now than I did almost six years ago when we got married.

Let me give your single friend some encouragement; I have always been an "old fashioned" woman, always wanted to be a wife and mother and was teased by my friends for not agreeing with their feminist values. There are other women out there like this. They are looking for "old fashioned" men that share their ideals. They do not aspire to be "equal" to men, they want to be valued for their differences. They do not want to compete with their husbands, rather to truly fulfill their "helpmate" role. They know how important it is to build up their husbands, not foolishly tear them down. They embrace the role of mother as they want to create a "little version" of the man they love. They are faithful and try to provide a warm, loving atmosphere for their husbands to come home to, after battling the world.

My husband tells me that I was what he was looking for all his life, that I was different than any other woman he had encountered. As for me, I fell for him after our third date when he brushed the snow off my car's windshield and headlights. After that simple caring gesture, I could see what kind of man he was and how he might treat me.
---

Toni,

What a treat is is to hear from a real woman, who are becoming increasingly rare, and therefore more precious than ever.

-Henry

Henry

Steve in New Hamphshire said (November 21, 2007):

Regarding romantic love, the advice I give to friends is to masturbate until you're out of orgasms and sick and tired of it, and then ask yourself if you're still interested in the woman. If so, she's probably worth pursuing. In time that hottie will be wrinkled and saggy, and you may become impotent, so there needs to be something else to sustain the relationship. The language is crude, but it worked for me.

From a woman said (November 21, 2007):

Regarding your latest article "Men Who Take No For An Answer". I would like to add something to what you said. It has to do with the expression "Nice Guys Finish Last". In a certain sense I see you like a third party in my own personal relationship, in the capacity of a catalyst, effectively. When I say to you for example: he's such a nice guy. What comes to mind?... Or if I say to you he's a good man... What comes to mind. From my viewpoint, there is a world of difference between the two statements.

For me the word nice is wishy washy it implies someone who doesn't stand for anything, someone unwilling to rock the boat, always does what's expected of him, go along to get along. In that sense I can see the relevance of "Nice Guys Finish Last". However in my view a good man is strong, stands for something, is willing to rock the boat, doesn't always do what's expected of him, doesn't go along to get along, has convictions, has the courage to stand on his convictions, is not a nice guy, but is good and kind, is willing to risk his life for someone and/or for what he believes is right.

The man I live with is a good man but I would not call him a "nice guy". A smart woman, in my view, is looking for a good man, not a nice guy. A stupid woman (I apologize if that sounds too harsh) would be looking for a "nice guy," one she can easily dominate, basically and will be too willing to please her. This is also why some woman naturally (more so in the past, but it still exists even today) are not drawn to "nice guys".

Perhaps you could suggest to your male readers that if their going out on a first date that they lay it on the table right away and ask her: "Are you looking for a nice guy or a good man"? Start from there. Her reaction would say a lot, I would think.

Of course the guy would eventually have to show the woman that he is a good man as would the woman have to show the man that she is worthy of him.

I do believe this, that we do need more "good men" to step up to the plate and more good women to stand with (not behind) them, which gives meaning to the expression " Behind every great man is a good woman". I disagree with the behind part which is why I said "with".

I believe in order for this to happen men and women have to cleanse out of their minds all the bullshit they have been taught to believe. The good news is, it can be done, I am living proof of that. However, it would take a book for me to explain all of that.

Jerry, MD from CZ said (November 21, 2007):

With all due respect I am very much afraid you have made a mistake, Dr Makow.
The last line in the latest article "If you think you've found the right one, you won't take "no" for an answer. " is a gross violation of the first rule of social interaction, which states that both participants must want to play with each other, which clearly means if one does not want to play the one that wants to MUST respect that decision. That is as long as he is at all human and even reluctantly civilized!Otherwise I fully agree with the point you made.
--
Dear Jerry,
In the old days, before normal heterosexual behavior was stigmatized or banned, men were able to overcome resistance with the power of courtship!

Guy in UK said (November 21, 2007):

Where you say:

'Our neo-pagan era worships the fertile female, not as wife or mother, but as a sex toy. We invest enormous power in these pneumatic playthings.'

Well, as regards to that we are not so much in 1984 as in Aldous Huxley's 'Brave New World' ( at least in England where I live) in which the women are always referred to as 'pneumatic', always available for men and carry contraceptive belts around with them everywhere. They have an hysterical fear and hatred of aging etc - the parallels just go on.

Feminists almost by definition are bourgeois Left and have no sense of irony - pre-feminist era, girls dressed with a lot more modesty - if one goes out into the West End of London on a Friday night now, the ordinary girls are all dressed like the prostitutes in 'Pretty Woman' Don't feminists see this? I suppose the answer is, they don't have to - the powers that be will subsidize the feminists, and are quite happy if the ironic end result of all that is that the non 'politically aware' females come on like female cats on heat.

The feminists seem to be colluding in their role as dupes - I'm sure you will get a lot of outraged reaction to your post, but how about they just stop and consider a new paradigm for a minute? They can go back to the old one, but how about just for a second?

---

Guy

The feminist message that you can be just like men and don;t need to wait for marriage has turned women into disposable sexual playthings. These poor dears don;t realize the feminism is about stopping them from marrying and having families.

Dan said (November 21, 2007):

It's the right advice Henry.
The strongest and most important advice in your column is that men simply need to focus on being themselves, and quit obsessing on women in
general. Too many single men have been trained to feel that sex with women regularly affirms their identity as a 'winner'. And not just sex
- another kind of man that thinks he has to 'have' a woman or be married to one to affirm his identity as 'complete'.