Helen Gurley Brown: Mentoring Whores
By Henry Makow Ph.D.
August 14, 2012 http://www.henrymakow.com
(Cosmo Editor in her office in 1965)
She was to women what Hugh Hefner was to men:
Cosmo Editor Helen Gurley Brown, who died Monday, is called "champion of the single girl" by the heterophobic Illuminati media. Thanks partly to her, 50% of American women are childless today. She taught them to sell their bodies rather than wait for love and marriage. She was an Illuminati social engineer, a satanist whore who made prostitution seem chic.
In her autobiography, "I'm Wild Again" (2000) she tells us right away that in 1941, at age 19 she joined an "escort service" and had sex with a 50-year-old man for $5 (worth $80 today.) Page 4
In 1965, Helen Gurley Brown, the editor of Cosmopolitan, said that a housewife was "a parasite, a dependent, a scrounger, a sponger or a bum." She didn't call them whores because she wanted them to be whores.
Her sister-in-arms, Betty Friedan, compared homemakers to "concentration camp inmates" because of the lack of stimulation and opportunity for advancement in concentration camps. (The Feminine Mystique, p. 306)
These crude attacks typify the vicious psychological campaign waged against women and society by Illuminati Satanists.Their program to degrade women, destroy families, arrest heterosexual development, create dysfunction and reduce population was devastatingly successful.
"The scale of marital breakdown in the West since 1960 has no historical precedent," says historian Lawrence Stone. In 40 short years, the marriage rate is down by one third, the divorce rate has doubled, the birth rate is one half, and single parent families per capita have tripled. Forty per cent of all children born in the US in 2007 were out of wedlock compared to 4% in 1957. (Bennett, The Broken Hearth, p.10)
In 1952, the Rockefellers controlled $250 million dollars of media advertising annually. They hyped Helen Gurley Brown's 1962 book, "Sex and the Single Girl" and the movie. Single women were told they should have career and sex instead of family. At the same time, the Rockefellers were also funding and lobbying for population control and eugenics.
As editor of Cosmopolitan (1965-97), Brown was role model for career women the world over (36 foreign editions.) She married her manager at age 37 and remained childless. Along with Communist activist Betty Frieden, and CIA agentGloria Steinem, Brown belongs to the triumvirate of modern feminist social engineers.
(every issue is a HO issue)
WHAT HOUSEWIVES ARE NOT...
Brown respects whores because prostitution is her model for women. In her autobiography, "I'm Wild Again" (2000) she tells us right away that in 1941, at age 19 she joined an "escort service" and made out with a 50-year-old man for $5 ($80 today.)
"Why wasn't I revolted? I was a little but not utterly. I think even then I was a practicing realist.... I tried to do whatever you needed to do to survive." (4)
She got a secretarial job on the understanding that she would sleep with her married boss and he would "take care" of her in return. This arrangement lasted for a few years. She describes the routine:
"After cocktail hour we did go to my flat to make love. The lovemaking? ...This was two people copulating -- he seemed to have a good time...Moi learned to fake often and well." (15)
Brown's excuse is that she was a helping a mother and invalid sister back in Arkansas. (Prostitutes generally don't come from wealth.)
She laments she never really got the promised financial payoff: "I needed somebody to tell me how to treat a man in this situation, how to flatter and cuddle and coo. I should have done it better." (19)
Helen Gurley Brown became that person. She taught women how to parlay sex appeal into profit and control. She helped to transform feminine nature from love and devotion to calculated predation.
Here is how she got her husband to marry her.
"You get the hook in. Darling, charming, delicious, sexy you has to have sunk into him so seriously, the hook [is] buried so deep he can't get it out without severe pain, i.e. can't live without you. You then close in and deliver your ultimatum. I had to deliver mine twice."(27)
While Brown claims she was loyal, she thinks adultery is just fine. The man's wife is to blame if he strays. Sex, Brown says, "is a physical feeling" "it feels good... one of the best things we have...." not to be subjected to "a moral imperative."
Suffocating a sexual urge can lead to "twitches, tension or depression" and driving "off a cliff some night." (52) But, like a practiced madam, she cautions "never sleep with someone who has less money or more troubles than you." (225)
Office romances and even sleeping with the boss is just fine as long as you're discreet. (107) She tells her readers to make the boss "look good," let him take credit for their work, and don't complain about putting in extra hours.
Feminism, it seems, has removed wives and mothers from their families, and put them to work for corporations. Instead of serving husbands and children who love them, women now obey bosses who pay for their services and fire them in a downturn.
In Brown's view, if a loving husband provides for a devoted wife, she is a "parasite." But if she is a corporate slave or whore, then she is "independent" and "liberated."
This quote from the review of a new biography reiterates her contempt for marriage and family: "When "Sex and the Single Girl" came out in the early 1960s, the most shocking thing ... was Brown's matter-of-fact attitude toward affairs with married men."
Feminism is an excuse to sell yourself:
"...she recommended that her readers take advantage of the situation, milking a guilty and grateful married lover for gifts, money and workplace advancement, which Brown regarded as fair recompense for the fact that men got paid more than women and kept the best jobs for themselves."
FAMILY vs. FEMINISM: THE BATTLE LINE OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER
The message that sexual urges were not to be denied, that promiscuity was "cool" and "modern," was instilled in women to degrade them and undermine marriage. The state is to intended to replace the family.
In reality, women achieve fulfillment through self-sacrifice. It is a vicious slander to portray devoted hardworking wives and mothers as "bums" and "parasites."
In reality, women achieve fulfillment through self-sacrifice. It is a vicious slander to portray devoted hardworking wives and mothers as "bums" and "parasites."
The assumption that only work performed for cash (state/economy) is of value is sick. They want to denigrate the personal and spiritual realm, the private life of the family and the effort that this entails.
Brown says, "Whenever you live through someone else, they want someone else." This is simply not true. We love mom because she put us ahead of becoming the top producer at Century 21. Love is self-sacrifice.
Beyond a certain point, worldly ambition in a woman is masculine and impersonal. America is full of bitter neutered women and befuddled emasculated men.
Feminism pretends to be about equal opportunity for women. In fact, feminism is a sophisticated elite program to destabilize and depopulate the world by undermining heterosexuality.
It began the process whereby most young women today gauge their self-worth by their sex appeal and are willing to have sex just to be popular.
They are plagued with eating disorders and neuroses because they have lost touch with their feminine instincts. They are unfit to become wives and mothers and take on adult responsibilities; they mistakenly believe having a career makes them grown up. Their children are raised by rent-a-parents who don't have their best interests at heart. Their relationship with their own children is equivalent to an auntie or other once-removed relative.
A wag once said, "Woman's virtue is man's greatest invention." Helen Gurley Brown and Illuminati social engineers prove that the opposite is also true.
(UPDATED FROM 2009) --
Related - Read About Women's Magazines in "How the Rockefellers Re-Engineered Women"
Comments for "Helen Gurley Brown: Mentoring Whores"
Regretsy said (August 14, 2012):It’s hard to believe we ever thought this kind of crap was empowering, but apparently we did. It all comes down to dreamy dresses and cotton balls in your cleavage. And if you aren’t doing that, “then maybe you don’t really want a man.”
Al Thompson said (August 14, 2012):The promotion of fornication and easy sex ruined men and women. There is no possible way for promiscuous sex to be of any benefit to anyone. It has destroyed the family, ruined the lives of children who were missing their mothers or fathers, and fornication has lead the way to all of the other sexual perversions such as homosexuality. With the growing acceptance of fornication from Brown, all of the other sexual trash followed.
Now we can see why divorce and the theater were not allowed in the Roman Empire for over 500 years. Add to that the fornication promoted by Helen Gurley Brown, it is no surprise to me that western civilization isn't so civilized any longer.
Now we can see why divorce and the theater were not allowed in the Roman Empire for over 500 years. Add to that the fornication promoted by Helen Gurley Brown, it is no surprise to me that western civilization isn't so civilized any longer.
David's reply said (April 15, 2009):Robert,[below] I think your suspicions are well warranted, as I've been feeling the same way for about 18 months. Hasn't it become clear that the elite are engineering a violent backlash from the masses? Reasonable individuals know that violence solves absolutely nothing, and plays directly into the hands of the global totalitarian armaggedonites. The real changes we all dream of can only occur through understanding. Yet many people in this massive, heavily tainted "patriot/freedom/truth" movement have been duped into thinking: "They're trying to get rid of the 2nd amendment (which is true) and we need to be heavily armed. If the government doesn't change on their own (never going to happen) we will have to defend/take back what is ours" etc. This line of thinking is mere play, because it fails to follow such a scenerio to its logical conclusion.
What makes us think our rulers won't dump the U.S. as their primary vehicle? It seems to be the right move on their behalf. Yuri Bezmenov, a brilliant soviet defector, detailed the end result of the ideological subversion process in lectures and interviews in 1983-84. Followed by demoralization (1960-2001) and destabalization (2001-present) comes a crisis (when the country crashes and ceases to function) at which point either a civil war breaks out (making the gun push completely valid) or an invasion.
What better way for the whole world to get the picture that things are really about to CHANGE? The U.S. in violent chaos, being patroled by necessary "peace-keeping" troops of the U.N. or whoever.
Knowing the way they operate, I'm sure they are funding the major resistance movements that consider violence at all. As for the possibility of government agents/mind-controlled dupes starting it on "the people's behalf" and therefore discrediting all of us who are legitamately opposed to the international totalitarian agenda, it's anyone's guess. But that's the way I'd do it, and I have a deep suspicion that's what's going on.
In addition, if I wanted to get rid of my greatest ideological enemies (people with great understanding of this system and some form of power ), and chaotic "civil unrest" scenario would be the perfect opportunity. I would have teams of agents pretending to be looters/anarchists that went around killing all the right people. No one would ever know.
Just a terrifying thought.
What makes us think our rulers won't dump the U.S. as their primary vehicle? It seems to be the right move on their behalf. Yuri Bezmenov, a brilliant soviet defector, detailed the end result of the ideological subversion process in lectures and interviews in 1983-84. Followed by demoralization (1960-2001) and destabalization (2001-present) comes a crisis (when the country crashes and ceases to function) at which point either a civil war breaks out (making the gun push completely valid) or an invasion.
What better way for the whole world to get the picture that things are really about to CHANGE? The U.S. in violent chaos, being patroled by necessary "peace-keeping" troops of the U.N. or whoever.
Knowing the way they operate, I'm sure they are funding the major resistance movements that consider violence at all. As for the possibility of government agents/mind-controlled dupes starting it on "the people's behalf" and therefore discrediting all of us who are legitamately opposed to the international totalitarian agenda, it's anyone's guess. But that's the way I'd do it, and I have a deep suspicion that's what's going on.
In addition, if I wanted to get rid of my greatest ideological enemies (people with great understanding of this system and some form of power ), and chaotic "civil unrest" scenario would be the perfect opportunity. I would have teams of agents pretending to be looters/anarchists that went around killing all the right people. No one would ever know.
Just a terrifying thought.
Robert said (April 15, 2009):Why are Americans seeing Conceal Carry laws coming up all over the place, letting every one get armed? Most states are now "shall issue" states, meaning that basically if you haven't comitted any felonies then they have to let you carry. I'm all about being armed to the teeth, but it doesn't make any sense. Why arm the sheep all the sudden? It's not like it's a big popular movement or anything (or like it would matter if it was: they really listened to us on the banker bail-out stuff right?). It certainly makes it less easy for "serial killers" and other satanic groupies to terrorize us. Not to mention that it arms people who might resist going to those camps, etc. So why? Just recently in my state of Missouri they've almost passed a law allowing college students to pack heat on campus (it'll probably pass too). It just doesn't make any sense, this has gotta be some sort of one-step-back-two-forward kind of thing but I just can't make it out. If you or any one you know could give some suggestions as to what might be going on, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks Henry!
---
Robert-Perhaps they don't control things on the state level. Any readers have an explanation? -H
---
Robert-Perhaps they don't control things on the state level. Any readers have an explanation? -H
Mahmood said (April 15, 2009):I am a reader of your articles in henrymakow.com and savethemales.ca and I agree with your points of view. What is fascinating to me is that your site, along with many other sites exposing the illuminati and the NWO, are filtered in Iran, the country I live in. I think that while the illuminati is trying to lead the western woman to total submission and prostitution by advocating sex and nudism, the same illuminati is also trying to lead the eastern woman to the same things but this time by imposing very strict laws that are usually over the tolerance of a normal human being.
The famous Ayatollah Khamenei is a KGB agent and part of the illuminati, as was revealed a while ago in East Germany documents.
What is unfortunate is that many people buy the illuminati crap about how sex, nudism, and feminism can lead the world to a better state.
The famous Ayatollah Khamenei is a KGB agent and part of the illuminati, as was revealed a while ago in East Germany documents.
What is unfortunate is that many people buy the illuminati crap about how sex, nudism, and feminism can lead the world to a better state.
Brian said (April 14, 2009):Your article is right on the money, as usual. For anyone who still doubts the fact that a social engineering program is being conducted, using Hollywood movies as change agents, they should check out this trailer for a new movie called "Obsessed", all about how an attractive blonde white woman becomes infatuated with her black boss. Not only is the film sure to cause even more racial tension between black and white men/black and white women, but it also showcases the image of young woman as whore that you are talking about in your article.
Here is the link to the trailer - http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi180683545
Here is the link to the trailer - http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi180683545
Bert said (April 14, 2009):re: Cosmopolitan Magazine --
After shopping in a grocery store in the U.S., a shopper often has to wait in line, (in a "check-out" line of all things) to purchase their groceries, and other household goods and medical supplies. The magazine racks, often on both sides of the "check-out" line, are stacked with magazines such as Cosmopolitan, Redbook, People [with real lives], etc. Thousands of times a day, in each town and city, mothers have to take their children grocery shopping with them, and they must navigate their young children past this gauntlet of PysOps pornography.
As an eye catcher, most magazines depict an underfed white female, in a provocative pose wearing no more than a teenie-weenie bikini. The advertised "Feature Articles" generally run along the lines of -- "101 New Tricks to Sexually Satisfy Your Husband," "What Your Husband Really Wants in Sex," "How to Get Divorced, and Keep the House and Car, and Pension and Medical benefits," "How You Can Know That Your Husband Has Been Cheating on You." etc. In this gauntlet of porn, the magazines are often placed at eye level of the children, along with the candy bars.
What are the long term effects on the developing and curious mind of a young girl, say 9 years old, when she is forced to quietly study images of leering bikini waifs, and the adjoining PsyOps headlines, on Cosmopolitan, et al., each time her mother waits to hand over her cash at the "check-out" counter. I personally think that long-term PsyOps effects, of this exposure of young boys and girls, to this gauntlet of Cosmopolitan-like pornography are devastating.
After shopping in a grocery store in the U.S., a shopper often has to wait in line, (in a "check-out" line of all things) to purchase their groceries, and other household goods and medical supplies. The magazine racks, often on both sides of the "check-out" line, are stacked with magazines such as Cosmopolitan, Redbook, People [with real lives], etc. Thousands of times a day, in each town and city, mothers have to take their children grocery shopping with them, and they must navigate their young children past this gauntlet of PysOps pornography.
As an eye catcher, most magazines depict an underfed white female, in a provocative pose wearing no more than a teenie-weenie bikini. The advertised "Feature Articles" generally run along the lines of -- "101 New Tricks to Sexually Satisfy Your Husband," "What Your Husband Really Wants in Sex," "How to Get Divorced, and Keep the House and Car, and Pension and Medical benefits," "How You Can Know That Your Husband Has Been Cheating on You." etc. In this gauntlet of porn, the magazines are often placed at eye level of the children, along with the candy bars.
What are the long term effects on the developing and curious mind of a young girl, say 9 years old, when she is forced to quietly study images of leering bikini waifs, and the adjoining PsyOps headlines, on Cosmopolitan, et al., each time her mother waits to hand over her cash at the "check-out" counter. I personally think that long-term PsyOps effects, of this exposure of young boys and girls, to this gauntlet of Cosmopolitan-like pornography are devastating.
John said (April 14, 2009):While I agree on certain points, I have to disagree with the pretence that women are the downfall of many a great man and instead call for a long hard look in the mirror. Men have always looked toward the “ideal of feminine beauty,” that has always been the case and always will. What I find amusing as a college student, is that men today, who have been burned by these women, really were asking for it in most cases. In my experience, men whose wives or girlfriends stray have taken their “partners” for granted are physically, mentally, emotionally, and psychology abusive and beat these women into the ground.
Occasionally I have seen the sociopathic woman who simply is in a relationship as a stepping stone to something better, but in the whole most of the men I have met are like that until they “fall in love” as well. When men treat women like garbage, which is how they start to see themselves. America has bred itself two generations of this and is starting on another. It is not the woman’s fault, no more then it is women’s fault that the “ideal” man is a 175 pound pure muscle singer whose sexuality would be in constant speculation if he hadn't left a spattering of used women in his wake. While I know that this is not a universal, it is becoming alarmingly more common.
WE have allowed this and promote it ourselves. Were you a woman, what would you prefer; Larry the Cable Guy, or Daniel Craig/ Justin Timberlake? To put it in perspective Naomi Wolf or Megan Fox guys, honestly? We are just as shallow and greedy as they are. If we want to “save the males,” we need to save the females and beating them into the ground by putting the blame on them is not the answer. So guys, brush the “cheesy poof” crumbs off your gut and go Git-R’-Done.
Occasionally I have seen the sociopathic woman who simply is in a relationship as a stepping stone to something better, but in the whole most of the men I have met are like that until they “fall in love” as well. When men treat women like garbage, which is how they start to see themselves. America has bred itself two generations of this and is starting on another. It is not the woman’s fault, no more then it is women’s fault that the “ideal” man is a 175 pound pure muscle singer whose sexuality would be in constant speculation if he hadn't left a spattering of used women in his wake. While I know that this is not a universal, it is becoming alarmingly more common.
WE have allowed this and promote it ourselves. Were you a woman, what would you prefer; Larry the Cable Guy, or Daniel Craig/ Justin Timberlake? To put it in perspective Naomi Wolf or Megan Fox guys, honestly? We are just as shallow and greedy as they are. If we want to “save the males,” we need to save the females and beating them into the ground by putting the blame on them is not the answer. So guys, brush the “cheesy poof” crumbs off your gut and go Git-R’-Done.
TS said (April 14, 2009):I see these issues from your perspective primarily after researching my recent thesis on the failures of education, vis-a-vie; "Dumbing Them Down,"- etc. The sad thing is that this 'Rockefeller' programming is that it so thoroughly complete. And, of course there is my emotionless girlfriend, the one who left me to date a guy with a bigger (you-know-what,) and finally, (now that her child is 15,) she appears --almost-- ready to publicly admit the foolishness of her relative disregard for sincere intimacy and affection. As Jeff R. points out, 'lying through omission' seems to be more or less the order of the day.
Deb said (April 14, 2009):Another early middle-aged woman checking in to say thank you for this piece about the abysmally misguided Gurley Brown and her ilk.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not a subservient 'little woman'! I'm in the top 2% in terms of IQ, have enjoyed 7 figure salaries and am a published author.
It's just that now I too see the callous social engineering and the evil, family-hating support behind the scenes for these 'icons' of feminism.
I would have loved to have four children and been a full-time mom, instead of two and working 3 or 4 jobs to support them and an emasculated husband who was - like many men - edged out of the workforce because of his normal maleness. (Just as boys are crushed and 'feminised' at school by a largely female/faux male/emasculated male staff).
One of my sons was shocked the other day when I said that I've never been a feminist but, rather, expected equal respect for both genders so that each could fulfil their own talents and characters. He'd thought I was always a card-carrying feminist because of all my work etc. He'd mistaken the enormous politically correkt social and economic forces I and so many others were inescapably subject to (thanks to those like Gurley Brown) for my own beliefs.
If I could do it all again, I'd insist on 4 children and a husband who is man enough to withstand the crushing feminist (that is, social/economic machinations) agenda. But, there's quite some compensation: at least I raised two sons who are indeed, shaping up to be very male in the best possible, 'old fashioned' ways...they're not afraid to protect and care for loved ones, or to be the big strong guys that people look to for solutions, the tell-it-how-it-is straight-shooters who see through all the BS our generation was fed - whilst, wonderfully, being able to show their tenderness and tears without shame when appropriate.
Let's hope there are many more similar young men out there who can take up the cause - not for the purpose of crushing the other gender, but of reclaiming their masculinity and creating a place for women to be women...and honouring and respecting the beautiful difference.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not a subservient 'little woman'! I'm in the top 2% in terms of IQ, have enjoyed 7 figure salaries and am a published author.
It's just that now I too see the callous social engineering and the evil, family-hating support behind the scenes for these 'icons' of feminism.
I would have loved to have four children and been a full-time mom, instead of two and working 3 or 4 jobs to support them and an emasculated husband who was - like many men - edged out of the workforce because of his normal maleness. (Just as boys are crushed and 'feminised' at school by a largely female/faux male/emasculated male staff).
One of my sons was shocked the other day when I said that I've never been a feminist but, rather, expected equal respect for both genders so that each could fulfil their own talents and characters. He'd thought I was always a card-carrying feminist because of all my work etc. He'd mistaken the enormous politically correkt social and economic forces I and so many others were inescapably subject to (thanks to those like Gurley Brown) for my own beliefs.
If I could do it all again, I'd insist on 4 children and a husband who is man enough to withstand the crushing feminist (that is, social/economic machinations) agenda. But, there's quite some compensation: at least I raised two sons who are indeed, shaping up to be very male in the best possible, 'old fashioned' ways...they're not afraid to protect and care for loved ones, or to be the big strong guys that people look to for solutions, the tell-it-how-it-is straight-shooters who see through all the BS our generation was fed - whilst, wonderfully, being able to show their tenderness and tears without shame when appropriate.
Let's hope there are many more similar young men out there who can take up the cause - not for the purpose of crushing the other gender, but of reclaiming their masculinity and creating a place for women to be women...and honouring and respecting the beautiful difference.
Anne said (April 14, 2009):Not all women are shallow manipulators of men that use there looks and sex appeal. If men are surrounded by women like that then there is something about the man that attracts that kind of women and vice versa.They need to look at themselves and ponder as to why they always end up with these cold calculating women in their lives.They need to take some responsibility for it...Like attracts Like.
I find none of my female friends fit the description he put forward..Why? Because I am a decent honest woman and I attract friends who are like me.I cannot tolerate a shallow money grabbing manipulator either male or female.
So the question is...Why do you guys attract such nasty specimens of the female variety?
I find none of my female friends fit the description he put forward..Why? Because I am a decent honest woman and I attract friends who are like me.I cannot tolerate a shallow money grabbing manipulator either male or female.
So the question is...Why do you guys attract such nasty specimens of the female variety?
Len said (April 14, 2009):The social engineers and 'the powers that be' are interested in undermining and destroying the GOD-given roles of men and women in family and society. Their agenda is evil to the core: totally and utterly evil. Love and committment is replaced with sex and selfishness and carnal ambitions. - all this is to make dupes of "animal men & women" and then enslave them to the corporate (often occult-led) oligarchs. - What could be more evil or sinister than that?
The only antidote is to know and love and serve and trust and obey THE TRUE GOD revealed in the Bible: He is a GOD of Love, Mercy, Grace, Truth, and Justice. - He has promised to rule this world [IN RIGHTEOUSNESS] upon the return of His Son. In my honest and very considered opinion: that Day is not long in coming. ... but first: the powers of antichrist must rule "for a little season." Then: they shall be exposed and destroyed forever. THAT is the promise of Biblical prophecy and Biblical Truth.
The only antidote is to know and love and serve and trust and obey THE TRUE GOD revealed in the Bible: He is a GOD of Love, Mercy, Grace, Truth, and Justice. - He has promised to rule this world [IN RIGHTEOUSNESS] upon the return of His Son. In my honest and very considered opinion: that Day is not long in coming. ... but first: the powers of antichrist must rule "for a little season." Then: they shall be exposed and destroyed forever. THAT is the promise of Biblical prophecy and Biblical Truth.
Tony B said (April 13, 2009):
I have to disagree a little again.
You write:
"Feminism pretends to be about equal opportunity for women because no one can quarrel with that."
I quarrel with it. Men and women are basically different critters. Women should NOT be given equal opportunity in the workplace or other worldly matters. They are NOT as valuable to the business, political and economic world as men are in many respects.
The following are all workplace generalities, of course, but they are accurate generalities.
First and most reasonable is that women take off time from work "a million times more" than men for every conceivable reason, many of them trivial. Men sacrifice socialization for the job. Women sacrifice the job for socialization. Baby showers, kid activities; that sort of female thing. Not to mention having babies and losing efficiency as due time approaches and being away from the job for a long period.
Women also spend more WORK TIME socializing than do men.
Another obvious reason, of course, is their inferior physical characteristics for functioning in the world. Look what has been done to basic military training to make it possible for women to "compete." It is not true that the workplace no longer requires strength. It is amazing how many times a woman worker asks a man to lift, move or do whatever with some heavy item for them.
Women have more health issues than men, making them more costly in several ways to the business.
Women are many times more devious than men. They will cheat in business in ways men would consider beneath their sense of dignity and honor, even if they would never think to word it that way. This often causes a business much bad publicity when they are caught. Women in bureaucratic positions involving fee or tax money are constantly being arrested for theft.
Of course, it is always true that many women will use their sex in all the ways they know how in order to get what they want in the workplace, just as they do in marriage, where it's acceptable. Not the least of the ways they use sex to further themselves is by screaming "sexual harassment" to eliminate a rival or just someone they don't like. No business needs this extra added subtraction from getting the work done.
Women will often bring outside activities into the workplace such as selling cosmetics, food products or home use items. This is not only a distraction, it too often laps over into work time.
Women in politics are lovers of the nanny state - preemptive "safety" at any price against liberty or even good sense. They don't know or care what the law allows or demands, they care only for what they consider immediate needs. Since women in the U.S. were handed the vote this country has become a quagmire of laws on top of laws on top of laws. Everything is "for the children" someone's, usually flawed, concept of safety first, last, and forever, no matter how foolish or inconvenient to society at large and people individually. Mandatory insurance comes immediately to mind. Have you checked the statistics and the law of averages lately concerning home insurance, fire insurance, auto insurance? The odds are against insurance in any of that lucrative racket's coverages. Otherwise they would all go broke. Women in politics are a world wide disaster and the worst is yet to come.
These mentioned disadvantages are off the top of my head, in no way a complete list. Point is that women are not men, even when they try to be. They are not designed to function as effectively in the outside world and they don't. They should be banned from many important activities and are not worth the same pay as men, screaming the opposite to the heavens notwithstanding.
Tony B.
I have to disagree a little again.
You write:
"Feminism pretends to be about equal opportunity for women because no one can quarrel with that."
I quarrel with it. Men and women are basically different critters. Women should NOT be given equal opportunity in the workplace or other worldly matters. They are NOT as valuable to the business, political and economic world as men are in many respects.
The following are all workplace generalities, of course, but they are accurate generalities.
First and most reasonable is that women take off time from work "a million times more" than men for every conceivable reason, many of them trivial. Men sacrifice socialization for the job. Women sacrifice the job for socialization. Baby showers, kid activities; that sort of female thing. Not to mention having babies and losing efficiency as due time approaches and being away from the job for a long period.
Women also spend more WORK TIME socializing than do men.
Another obvious reason, of course, is their inferior physical characteristics for functioning in the world. Look what has been done to basic military training to make it possible for women to "compete." It is not true that the workplace no longer requires strength. It is amazing how many times a woman worker asks a man to lift, move or do whatever with some heavy item for them.
Women have more health issues than men, making them more costly in several ways to the business.
Women are many times more devious than men. They will cheat in business in ways men would consider beneath their sense of dignity and honor, even if they would never think to word it that way. This often causes a business much bad publicity when they are caught. Women in bureaucratic positions involving fee or tax money are constantly being arrested for theft.
Of course, it is always true that many women will use their sex in all the ways they know how in order to get what they want in the workplace, just as they do in marriage, where it's acceptable. Not the least of the ways they use sex to further themselves is by screaming "sexual harassment" to eliminate a rival or just someone they don't like. No business needs this extra added subtraction from getting the work done.
Women will often bring outside activities into the workplace such as selling cosmetics, food products or home use items. This is not only a distraction, it too often laps over into work time.
Women in politics are lovers of the nanny state - preemptive "safety" at any price against liberty or even good sense. They don't know or care what the law allows or demands, they care only for what they consider immediate needs. Since women in the U.S. were handed the vote this country has become a quagmire of laws on top of laws on top of laws. Everything is "for the children" someone's, usually flawed, concept of safety first, last, and forever, no matter how foolish or inconvenient to society at large and people individually. Mandatory insurance comes immediately to mind. Have you checked the statistics and the law of averages lately concerning home insurance, fire insurance, auto insurance? The odds are against insurance in any of that lucrative racket's coverages. Otherwise they would all go broke. Women in politics are a world wide disaster and the worst is yet to come.
These mentioned disadvantages are off the top of my head, in no way a complete list. Point is that women are not men, even when they try to be. They are not designed to function as effectively in the outside world and they don't. They should be banned from many important activities and are not worth the same pay as men, screaming the opposite to the heavens notwithstanding.
Tony B.
Megan said (April 13, 2009):Yet another great anti-feminism article! I love these. I realize I probably shouldn't find any humor in this subject but I have to say it always makes me giggle when I read the feminist opinion of housewives. Parasite? Freeloader? Bum? I love it! How long do you think these hard working feminists would last in my shoes? Let me think.....
I get up every morning at 6 am to start cooking breakfast for my husband and 6 children. (note I said "cooking", not "pouring a bowl of cereal") This takes me in the neighborhood of an hour and a half to cook,serve it to everyone, and clean up afterward. Next I get everyone dressed for the day, which is no small task with 4 children under the age of 5, two teenagers and a husband who can never find what he wants when he wants it. While everyone is brushing teeth, etc I am making lunches for the school kids and for my husband to take to work. (it's not even 8am yet! And I haven't had time to eat .......)
My husband leaves for work and the big kids get to the school bus stop and now I am ready to get dressed, take the two preschoolers to school and go grocery shopping with the babies. I usually get home from this in time to start the first of 3 loads of laundry for the day , wash snack dishes, take the smallest ones outside to play while I garden or shovel snow or whatever outdoor chores need done and then it's time to start picking up the middle 2 from preschool. When we get home I make lunch, read them stories, tuck them into nap and then what?
Do I rest? Noooo...... my parasitic self starts the housework for the day. Bathrooms, mopping floors, vacuuming, dusting...... more laundry. They wake up about the time the two oldest ones get home from school and then everyone wants a hot snack, so I am cooking again. When they are all full and doing homework or watching a video or something I start to cook dinner and wash more dishes. My husband walks in the door and we eat. Then I need to wash his work clothes and iron before it gets too late. He plays with the children while I clean up the dinner dishes and we all have some family time before we start the bedtime routine. Which takes an hour or so.
Getting 6 children into bed requires baths, stories, checking for monsters over and over and laying out the next days clothes. It is 8:30 before we are finished with the 4 smaller ones. The bigger ones are out by 9:00pm. If anyone is keeping track, that is a 15 and a half hour work day for me. And after that I do not sleep, my husband and I have not seen each other all day and need our time together too....... so I am in bed usually by 11pm. Ahhhhhhh the life of a freeloader. I think I would be significantly less busy if I had a "real job". Anytime Ms. Brown or her ilk want to take my place they are welcome to try, I bet anyone they wouldn't last past lunchtime!
Not all women are lost Mr. Makow, there are more of us than you think who truly enjoy our families, and are truly appreciative of the men lead our families and provide for us!
I get up every morning at 6 am to start cooking breakfast for my husband and 6 children. (note I said "cooking", not "pouring a bowl of cereal") This takes me in the neighborhood of an hour and a half to cook,serve it to everyone, and clean up afterward. Next I get everyone dressed for the day, which is no small task with 4 children under the age of 5, two teenagers and a husband who can never find what he wants when he wants it. While everyone is brushing teeth, etc I am making lunches for the school kids and for my husband to take to work. (it's not even 8am yet! And I haven't had time to eat .......)
My husband leaves for work and the big kids get to the school bus stop and now I am ready to get dressed, take the two preschoolers to school and go grocery shopping with the babies. I usually get home from this in time to start the first of 3 loads of laundry for the day , wash snack dishes, take the smallest ones outside to play while I garden or shovel snow or whatever outdoor chores need done and then it's time to start picking up the middle 2 from preschool. When we get home I make lunch, read them stories, tuck them into nap and then what?
Do I rest? Noooo...... my parasitic self starts the housework for the day. Bathrooms, mopping floors, vacuuming, dusting...... more laundry. They wake up about the time the two oldest ones get home from school and then everyone wants a hot snack, so I am cooking again. When they are all full and doing homework or watching a video or something I start to cook dinner and wash more dishes. My husband walks in the door and we eat. Then I need to wash his work clothes and iron before it gets too late. He plays with the children while I clean up the dinner dishes and we all have some family time before we start the bedtime routine. Which takes an hour or so.
Getting 6 children into bed requires baths, stories, checking for monsters over and over and laying out the next days clothes. It is 8:30 before we are finished with the 4 smaller ones. The bigger ones are out by 9:00pm. If anyone is keeping track, that is a 15 and a half hour work day for me. And after that I do not sleep, my husband and I have not seen each other all day and need our time together too....... so I am in bed usually by 11pm. Ahhhhhhh the life of a freeloader. I think I would be significantly less busy if I had a "real job". Anytime Ms. Brown or her ilk want to take my place they are welcome to try, I bet anyone they wouldn't last past lunchtime!
Not all women are lost Mr. Makow, there are more of us than you think who truly enjoy our families, and are truly appreciative of the men lead our families and provide for us!
Lesley said (April 13, 2009):Another right on article on Helen Gurley Brown. I grew up in the 70's along with Helen's book, "Sex and the Single Girl". I felt sex was pushed on me by the culture when I was not ready. I had fairly liberal parents who I could talk to about sex and therefore was not promiscuous. But the message clearly, to the young women of my time was, "have sex or you are really square or a prude". I know I had the outside pressure to have sex before I was mentally ready.
I used to read Cosmopolitan throughout high school and college and always wondered why I bought it afterwards because the whole rag was always about sex And it seemed to be put forth in a devious way. I wasn't THAT interested in it. I felt it was shoved down our throats. Consequently, many young women of my time had a lot of sex and now really regret it.
I just bought your book, "Cruel Hoax" and know before reading it that I was a part of that cruel hoax. I am now twice divorced with a 10 year old and no husband helping me to raise him. If I knew then what I know now, I would never have never bought into the Social Engineering that was oh so prevalent in the 70's and 80's, while I was in high school and college. I did not really know what it meant to have a happy marriage and family as my own parents divorced when I was 21. (I was always searching for that wonderful career that I thought was out there for me, so I wouldn't have to depend on a man. My mother's words). My parents divorce crushed me and ruined my college career trying to take care of my suicidal mother.
Now, at age 51, unmarried with a small child. I regret it all. (Except for my son). It was all lies and a hoax.. I would give anything now to have a loving husband and family. No career goals can compare. That turned out to be a crock as well. I know my fulfillment comes from family but it was a hard and long and painful lesson to learn.
I personally have no respect for Ms. Brown and her agenda. I can't stand Cosmopolitan magazine and the trash they put out for young women. I do believe that for most heterosexual women fulfillment comes from having a family. I only wish I had realized it when I was young. I was trying so hard NOT to be like my European mother who felt dependent on my father. Education was stressed in my family but the big piece missing was the family....
Thank you Henry for always pointing out the folly of our ways especially falling for the Social Engineering and conseqently, the descruction of the family and family values. God bless you.
I used to read Cosmopolitan throughout high school and college and always wondered why I bought it afterwards because the whole rag was always about sex And it seemed to be put forth in a devious way. I wasn't THAT interested in it. I felt it was shoved down our throats. Consequently, many young women of my time had a lot of sex and now really regret it.
I just bought your book, "Cruel Hoax" and know before reading it that I was a part of that cruel hoax. I am now twice divorced with a 10 year old and no husband helping me to raise him. If I knew then what I know now, I would never have never bought into the Social Engineering that was oh so prevalent in the 70's and 80's, while I was in high school and college. I did not really know what it meant to have a happy marriage and family as my own parents divorced when I was 21. (I was always searching for that wonderful career that I thought was out there for me, so I wouldn't have to depend on a man. My mother's words). My parents divorce crushed me and ruined my college career trying to take care of my suicidal mother.
Now, at age 51, unmarried with a small child. I regret it all. (Except for my son). It was all lies and a hoax.. I would give anything now to have a loving husband and family. No career goals can compare. That turned out to be a crock as well. I know my fulfillment comes from family but it was a hard and long and painful lesson to learn.
I personally have no respect for Ms. Brown and her agenda. I can't stand Cosmopolitan magazine and the trash they put out for young women. I do believe that for most heterosexual women fulfillment comes from having a family. I only wish I had realized it when I was young. I was trying so hard NOT to be like my European mother who felt dependent on my father. Education was stressed in my family but the big piece missing was the family....
Thank you Henry for always pointing out the folly of our ways especially falling for the Social Engineering and conseqently, the descruction of the family and family values. God bless you.
Bobbi said (April 13, 2009):
Regarding "Helen Gurley Brown Taught Women to be Whores," people are going to live the way they want no matter what your opinion is and that is the way it should be. The same shoe size doesn't fit everyone at the same time nor should it. The only way things will change is if we have a tyrant dictator, and that is not American. The flag stands for freedom. For now, at least we still have some remnants of that. Anyway, most women aren't whores, thank you very much. I must say, though, that you are missing the fact that more men than women are "whores" and always have been. Heaven forbid you say anything to criticize them, though.
Regarding "Helen Gurley Brown Taught Women to be Whores," people are going to live the way they want no matter what your opinion is and that is the way it should be. The same shoe size doesn't fit everyone at the same time nor should it. The only way things will change is if we have a tyrant dictator, and that is not American. The flag stands for freedom. For now, at least we still have some remnants of that. Anyway, most women aren't whores, thank you very much. I must say, though, that you are missing the fact that more men than women are "whores" and always have been. Heaven forbid you say anything to criticize them, though.
By Henry Makow Ph.D.
I read a book in the 1970's, "Gentleman of Leisure: A Year in the Life of a Pimp." The book was the project of two urban sociologists in New York City.
The Pimp - 'Silky' - introduced himself with, "The term is pimp, but I don't use it. I'm a professional gentleman of leisure. I have a Ph.D. in pimping. I have absolutely nothing to do. I'm just a connoisseur of resting and a television freak. I do make more money than the President of the United States."
In that world pimps and hoes didn't used the word 'prostitution', they called it "The Life". As with all Luciferian delusions, everything is backwards.
"Straights" see hoes as being used - the pimps teach the girls that hoes are using the trick.
Brown saw herself as predator, even in her marriage which Huntington Post and the rest are holding up as a banner of 'yes! you CAN have it all'.
Listen to how she spoke of reeling in her wealthy husband in her autobiography,
"You get the hook in. Darling, charming, delicious, sexy you has to have sunk into him so seriously, the hook [is] buried so deep he can't get it out without severe pain, i.e. can't live without you. You then close in and deliver your ultimatum. I had to deliver mine twice."
That's so messed up on so many levels I don't know where to begin. Like a pimp or madame, Brown saw men as prey, and marriage as emotional blackmail. Sex was an opiate to her. The mind set she taught was for the girl to learn to get her fix sated by anybody with an erection, and to make the "man of her dreams" associate his sex addiction ONLY with her. She thus viewed relationships as an exercise in position of power vs position of weakness.