Bikini versus Burka

Several years ago, I came across an interesting website developed by Henry Makow. In it he discusses many topics, some of which are of no interest to me. But when he zeros in on the benefits of marriage to Eastern women--in his case women of the Philippines--he is right on.

I contacted Henry and asked his permission to reproduce one of his article entitled “Burka vs Bikini — The Debauchery Of American Womanhood." As you read it, keep in mind that the degradation that he speaks of about woman in the West is something that they are doing to themselves.

On my wall, I have a picture of a Muslim woman shrouded in a burka. Beside it is a picture of an American beauty contestant, wearing nothing but a bikini. One woman is totally hidden from the public; the other is totally exposed. These two extremes say a great deal about the clash of so-called "civilizations." The role of woman is at the heart of any culture. Apart from stealing Arab oil, the impending war in the Middle East is about stripping Arabs of their religion and culture, exchanging the burka for a bikini.

I am not an expert on the condition of Muslim women and I love feminine beauty too much to advocate the burka here. But I am defending some of the values that the burka represents for me. For me, the burka represents a woman's consecration to her husband and family. Only they see her. It affirms the privacy, exclusivity and importance of the domestic sphere. The Muslim woman's focus is her home, the "nest" where her children are born and reared. She is the "home" maker, the taproot that sustains the spiritual life of the family, nurturing and training her children, providing refuge and support to her husband.

In contrast, the bikinied American beauty queen struts practically naked in front of millions on TV. A feminist, she belongs to herself. In practice, paradoxically, she is public property. She belongs to no one and everyone. She shops her body to the highest bidder. She is auctioning herself all of the time. In America, the cultural measure of a woman's value is her sex appeal. (As this asset depreciates quickly, she is neurotically obsessed with appearance and plagued by weight problems.)

As an adolescent, her role model is Britney Spears, a singer whose act approximates a strip tease. From Britney, she learns that she will be loved only if she gives sex. Thus, she learns to "hook up" rather than to demand patient courtship and true love. As a result, dozens of males know her before her husband does. She loses her innocence, which is a part of her charm. She becomes hardened and calculating. Unable to love, she is unfit to receive her husband's seed.

The feminine personality is founded on the emotional relationship between mother and baby. It is based on nurturing and self-sacrifice. Masculine nature is founded on the relationship between hunter and prey. It is based on aggression and reason. Feminism teaches woman that feminine nature has resulted in "oppression" and that she should convert to male behavior instead. The result: a confused and aggressive woman with a large chip on her shoulder, unfit to become a wife or mother. . . .

In the "brave new world," women are not supposed to be nest makers, or progenitors of the race. They are meant to be neutered autonomous creatures that indulge in sex for physical pleasure, not for love or procreation.

At his press conference on Sunday, Donald Rumsfeld said that Iranian women and youth were restive under the rule of the Mullahs. He implied that the US would soon liberate them. To Britney Spears? To low-rise "see-my-thong" pants? To the mutual masturbation that passes for sexuality in America?

Parenthood is the pinnacle of human development. It is the stage when we finally graduate from self-indulgence and become God's surrogates: creating and nurturing new life.

The New World Order does not want us to reach this level of maturity. Pornography is the replacement for marriage. We are to remain stunted: single, sex-starved and self-obsessed. We are not meant to have a permanent "private" life. We are to remain lonely and isolated, dependent on consumer products for our identity, in a state of perpetual courtship.

This is especially destructive for woman. Her sexual attraction is a function of her fertility. As fertility declines, so does her sex appeal. If a woman devotes her prime years to becoming "independent," she is not likely to find a permanent mate. Her long-term personal fulfillment and happiness lies in making marriage and family her first priority. Feminism is another cruel New World Order hoax that has debauched American women and despoiled Western civilization. It has ruined millions of lives and represents a lethal threat to Islam.

I am not advocating the burka but rather some of the values that it represents, specifically a woman's consecration to her future husband and family, and the modesty and dignity this entails. The burka and the bikini represent two extremes. The answer lies somewhere in the middle.

Henry Makow, Ph.D, “Burka vs Bikini—The Debauchery Of American Womanhood,” 9-18-02
http://www.savethemales.ca/180902.html
He welcomes your comments at: henry@savethemales.ca.

Do women really want equality?

The cry for equality is so great that my cousin tells me that his wife only makes her half of the bed. But equality is not really a two-way street. For example, when I ask American women, “How long should Mr. Perfect permit you to be out of work before he leaves you?" I always get the most interesting stare. Either the women answer quickly, “never.” Or they hesitate, realizing the conflict between "equality" and the tradition of men supporting women when they are not working, and answer “never” nevertheless.

Equality is such an overused word that most people can't agree on what it means. Do they mean equality of opportunity, which would include the opportunity to fail. Or do they mean equality in result, in which case, effort is not required because the result is mandated.

I find that it helps to have a working definition so that we can all know what we mean when we use the word "equality." Let me suggest two of the four Oxford English dictionary's definitions:"The condition of having equal rank, power, excellence, etc., with others" as well as "fairness, impartiality."

There is great appeal in the concept of equality. It connotes a lack of supression and opportunity. In the male-female rivalry that has existed in the West for sometime, the concept of equality means to many, a sharing of responsibility and freedom from what some women view as obligatory or involuntary servitude. One dictionary defined equality as "the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints . . . immunity from an obligation or duty." But if eliminating external restraits or immunity from an obligation or duty are what you want, then why not remain single?

It almost sounds like freedom. And therein lies the point: freedom, taken to the limit, means a lack of obligation or duty. Who could have more freedom that a single man. The very act of marriage means a surrendering of freedom and the assumption of obligation and duty. It is interesting that women from the East, Asia in particular, recognize that men have a choice. Therefore, they assume that it is their duty to make him want to continue living in an "unfree" state.

Compare this to the appeal to feminism in some advertisements for Salem cigarettes. The headline read, "You can have it all, baby." The belief is among many Western women is that they can have a career, a family, and a husband. Well, I don't know about you, but I find that it is a full-time job just to master one of these and you are lucky if you can master two of them. It is the mistress of the universe who can put in a full day's work, come home and take care of the children, and then make her husband glad he surrendered his previous free state.

So the answer is that many American women do not want equality. They want it all and they don't want to have to pay the price of their Eastern sisters: making their husbands glad they gave up freedom.

The Modern Western Woman—in brief

This blog does not represent a balanced view. It is designed for men who want a non-confrontational, non-contentions, loving relationship, even if it means, from an American woman's perspective, that equality is lacking.

My interest in the subject of marriage, or more precicsely, the failure of the marrige to work, began before my last divorce. I asked women questions that would re-create scenarios I experienced as objectively as I could. that ultimately led to blood-curdling arguments. I attempted to represent both my position and my wife’s. I would then ask these women for their independent response. I interviewed hundreds of women. What I learned was, yep, I was the problem. No question about it. In each and every interview, I received similar responses. In fact, the responses were startlingly similar.

One of the major issues for my wife was money and the lack of it. Our positions on how much money we should have was quite different. We lived at the edge of a very affluent area and I watch one woman divorce her husband because he had a business reversal that forced them to move from a multi-million dollar home into one worth a couple of million. Due to my own experiences and my observations, I became sensitive to the correlation between income and relationship stability.

In my pursuit to learn what I had done wrong, I developed a series of questions, one of which focused on money. Here is one of the fundamental questions I would ask women.

“Suppose that you are madly in love with a man; that you consider him Mr. Perfect; and that you want to spend the rest of your life with him. Then suppose that he loses his job. How long can he be unemployed before you would leave him?”

When the women I interviewed answered, their responses were virtually identical. At first I assumed that this was an anomaly. But as the number of women I questioned increased, so did the similarity of their responses. Here is a composite of their responses:

“Well, that depends on how hard he’s trying.”

So I began asking, “well, assume that on the one hand he’s sitting home depressed, watching soap operas; and on the other hand, assume that he’s out every day, calling on job possibilities. But in both cases, he’s not getting a job.”

Virtually all of the women replied identically.

“Well, if he’s just watching the soaps, I’ve out of there in a week or two. But, if he’s really trying hard, well, then I’d give him six months.”

By the time I had asked over 2,000 woman, I had come to the conclusion that women's concept of "man the provider" was a genetic requirement. Then providence interceded. I took a trip with some clients to Singapore.

The purpose of the trip was to go to a trade show. Unfortunately for my clients, the trade show was small and a disappointment. As a result, we converted the excess time into a strategy session in the cocktail lounge between the Westin Plaza and the Westin Stamford hotels. We spent almost a week there taking up space each day in the same booth. Periodically during these daily meetings we would digress by talking with the waitresses who were bringing expressos and fruit drinks. When it was appropriate, I would ask them the same questions that asked several thousand American women. I began with the fundamental question of how long their “Mr. Perfect” could remain unemployed.

“Didn’t you say I was madly in love with him?” came the first response. Or sometimes the women would reply, “Didn’t you say he was Mr. Perfect?”

“Well, yes,” I said, “but how long could he be unemployed?”

“The issue is not whether he has a job or not,” one waitress replied, “the issue is whether or not he is a good man. What’s the matter? I can’t work?”

I began sensing a different response pattern than I had received all over the U.S. In fact, the more Singaporean women I asked, the more alike were their answers. And they all differed from the typical American response.

It’s a common belief that money and sex, particularly of the unfaithful kind, are the two major reasons for divorce in America. In an attempt to tease out more differences between American and Singaporean woman, I began a new line of questioning. I knew that most American women I had spoken with went ballistic on the subject of infidelity. So I asked these Singaporean women:

“What would you do if your husband slept with another woman?”

“Is my husband a man?” the first woman replied. Taken aback, I replied, “well, yes!”

“Isn’t that what men do?” she responded. Not wanting to lose the momentum of the conversation, I retorted,

“Well, how would you feel about it?”

“Oh,” she said, “that’s different. Well, if I saw it, I would want to kill him. But, if I only heard about it,” she said, letting the sentence halt momentarily as she glanced at the ceiling. She then continued, “you have to understand. At the end of the evening, what’s important is whether his slippers end up under her bed or mine.”

After asking hundreds of American women the same question on infidelity, I came to the conclusion that there was indeed a difference between East and West.

Several years later, I was divorced and had moved to Washington, D.C. This capital city is the domicile of thousands of emigrants from all over the world. So, instead of having to travel to collect world-wide opinions, I was able to interview women from all over Asia, Africa, Europe, and the Middle East. (I confess that I have scant data from Central and South America.) A pattern emerged. American women thought differently than women from the rest of the world. Of course, there are individual differences, but I feel safe in making such a generalization.

My education was refined after questioning one particular Filipina women. I asked her what Filipina women thought about American women.

“We think American women are too dependent,” she replied. Surprised, I replied,

“Well, if an American women were here, I’m sure she would differ with you. American woman believe they are very independent.”

The young Filipina replied without hesitation. “Well, American women want everything to be equal, don’t they?” she asked. I nodded.

“O.K. then, there is the dependence. See, if everything has to be equal, and the man fails to give his 50 percent by backing off to 40 percent, to keep it equal, the woman has to back off to 40 percent. If the man backs off to 30 percent, she has to back off equally. Eventually, if the man backs off to 10 percent, then the woman backs off to match it, and eventually the relationship falls apart.

“In the Philippines, we are not dependent for our pleasure on what the man does. We derive our pleasure by giving 100 percent regardless of how he behaves. We do this because we know that we will receive the maximum by giving all that we have. So, if the man is capable of only giving 35 percent, then that’s the most we’re going to get. But we don’t wait for it to receive our pleasure. Our pleasure comes from giving all that we can give.”

Her response was a revelation. It continued in the presence of a friend. I explained to him how differently my Filipina friend thought, and how her fellow Filipinas viewed male-female relationships. This friend asked, “how do women in your country handle arguments?” Before she could answer I said, “you know, I don’t believe we’ve had an argument.” She replied, “we haven’t.”

“Does that mean that I’ve never made you mad,” I asked.

“You’ve made me mad several times,” she answered.

“What did you do about it?” I asked.

“I took care of it later.”

Not remembering any contention or negative energy of any sort, and I want to emphasize the use of the word “any,” I asked, “was it to your satisfaction?”

“Yes,” she replied, “everything was dealt with to my complete satisfaction.”

What she did and when she resolved it was a complete mystery to me. But I was to experience this subtle art later on a full time basis.

I eventually met and married a wonderful woman from southern India. Indians have a culture that encourages families staying together. This cultural trait was the reason my wife asked me if her mother and later her brother could live with us. On each of those two separate conversations, I said most emphatically that they would never live with us because I wanted my privacy. My wife never mentioned it again. But years later, I realized that sometime later, it was I who suggested that her mother, and then later, her brother live with us.

After some time, I realized that my life had changed completely. I was, for the first time, experiencing what I saw in my home growing up. Conflicts were dealth with a civil, loving manner. Behavior that would have resulted in my getting verbally eviscerated by an Ameerican wife caused not a ripple from my Indian wife. Something had clearly changed. At a certain point, I decided that other men might appreciate knowing that there was a possibility of having a non-confrontational marriage.

I began saving conversations with the idea that I’d write a book some day. By 1994, I had asked several thousand American and foreign women a series of expanded questions. One of my favorite was “do you believe in unconditional love?” Virtually all of the American women I interviewed said something similar to this: “for my children yes, but not for a man.”

Some American women replied yes. When they did, I began asking questions such as, “what would you do if you husband slapped you. Not hard, but just in an attempt to get your attention?”

“I’d leave him,” was usually the first reply.

“What if your husband cheated on you?”

“I’d leave him.”

As soon as the responses came foreword, I would ask,

“Well, now we established two conditions. Can you think of any more?”

“Well, that’s different,” they would say. To which I replied, “no, those are simply your conditions."

In 1994, I took the second of three trips around the world. I spent a month traveling to Korea, Singapore, Vietnam, Thailand, Sri Lanka, and India. I repeated my series of questions. Again, I received consistant answers that were totally different from those I received in the U.S. The first woman I asked in Vietnam what she would do if her husband was unemployed replied,

“My husband’s been unemployed for 19 years. Whether he has a job is not important. What’s important if whether or not he is a good man. I have a job. I can work.”

The responses I received all over Asia were as similar to each other as women from various states in American were to each other. I began to see that culture played a large part in the relationship between men and woman.

Upon my return, I continued my questioning of American women as well as the emigrants that swell the population around Washington, D.C. The pattern did not change but my perception did. To tweak it, I took another trip around the world. This time I visited Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore, and once again, India. I began to perceive that the family unit was so fundamental to the women of other countries that they would endure virtually anything to keep the family together.