[yossarian]

If you go to his site, you'll see he's not a "dating guru" he's a lot closer to a conspiracy guy.

Dharma, I think your point about the feminine is very interesting. It seems to me that fundamentally, the feminine is receptivity, and the masculine is initiative. If the male rejects his role of leadership, the contract is broken, and the female will reject her role of receptivity to his leadership. The female will leave. So the statement, "If I let my dog off the leash, she will leave" can be seen as a simple fact, just like "If I put my hand in the fire, I'll get burned."

Leader and follower. This seems to be the most pure form of each gender. Why should our male aspect FEAR losing the female? I don't think Henry Makow fears losing the female, but he pragmatically and consciously chooses the arrangement of leader/follower.

Any kind of FEAR is maladaptive, but I don't see fear as being necessary to this viewpoint. You can possess someone without having a fear of losing them - it is a mutually agreeable situation. The woman chooses to be possessed by a man of her choosing, and once the relationship begins she defers to his judgment as long as she is content to do so. This is voluntary possession. Fear is inability to live in the present moment. It has nothing to do with leading or following.

If at any time she stops deferring to his judgment, the relationship is over. When she starts questioning him, this is the end of the heterosexual relationship and now they turn into roommates with benefits. All the PUAs have recognized that the instant they let a woman lead in a relationship, the relationship is over. It may drag on after that, but it is miserable for both. The man is emasculated and the woman is stripped of her femininity. All the charm of a heterosexual relationship is gone.

You can be just as attached to poverty as you are to wealth. If you are scared of having possessions, you are attached to poverty, and this is delusion too. The enlightened being is comfortable to possess things but possesses them without fear of loss.

We came to this earth because we wanted to experience humanity from inside a human body. We incarnated in male or female bodies because our spirits thought, "It would be fun to play a male." or "It would be fun to play a female."

When I get in touch with my inner self, my inner self pretty much delights in heterosexual norms. My inner self says, "It is a supreme joy to play the role of Wife and Mother in God's creation." Likewise, it says, "It is a supreme joy to play the role of Husband and Father in God's creation." But it also recognizes the entire point of having polarities is that you can't be both at the same time.

I believe in freedom for everyone, and equality in terms of human rights. The point is not that anyone should be forced to accept heterosexual norms - it's that voluntarily choosing heterosexual traditional relationships will bring them the greatest joy possible out of any relationship arrangement. This is the hypothesis, and I see a lot of evidence for it.

The modern world makes my inner child cry - literally cry. When I get in touch with that inner child I have visions of him crying because the creation that he so loved has been scrubbed off the face of the earth by the censors.

It occurs to me that I've never really known a feminine woman. All the women I've known well have been raised in the modern world and taught to act like men. The only feminine woman who I've been able to observe over a long period of time is my grandmother, who has a traditional heterosexual relationship with my grandfather, and ironically, despite my feminist brainwashing, these two have always stood out to me as being healthy people in a sea of sickness. They are a team and they work well together. They've been married for over 60 years and I've never ever seen them say a cruel word to each other.

Contrast this to my parents - a Marxist father and a feminist mother - who are constantly at each other's throats. It's hideous. It's the furthest thing from love imaginable, it is hate. It's the opposite of love.

Is it because my grandparents are enlightened while my parents are evil? No, that doesn't hold up. It's because my mom has been taught to act like a man and my father has been taught to act like a woman. "Everybody Loves Raymond" is the pinnacle of this brainwashing. "Everybody Loves Raymond" is a weapon of mass destruction.

The feminist brainwashing says traditional family arrangements are sick and gender role reversal is healthy. It demonizes women who want to be wives and mothers as "stepford wives". But in reality, everytime I've see a "feminist" relationship, I see dysfunction, and everytime I've seen a conventional heterosexual relationship, I see harmony.

Before people start jumping down my throat, realize that I personally was raised by feminists in a big way. I'm extremely intimately familiar with all the feminist arguments about how heterosexual men who lead their families are alcoholics, rapists, and so on. The fact is the numbers just don't add up. All throughout history men have been willing to sacrifice their very lives for their wives - they went down on the Titanic, they go to war, they work dangerous jobs. This hasn't changed in the modern day. I've worked very unglamorous construction jobs - basically the most dangerous and unappealing jobs in the world - with poorly educated men and none of them like the work. They ALL do it for the sake of their wives and children, and they are HAPPY to do it. This is the male spirit, it is a giving, sacrificing spirit. But it is also an initiative taking spirit, a spirit of leadership.

Feminism has turned men and women alike into James Bond automatons seeking self-gratification. They seek wealth, sex, and power, and see any kind of family as an impediment to these things. For all their craving for success, do they feel joy? No. These people hit their 40s and end up depressed and suicidal, both men and women. Normal human existence happens in the context of heterosexual family. We were designed this way.

Henry Makow documents who all the leaders of the feminist movement, in their 40s and 50s, end up wishing they had a family instead of a career. This makes sense, afterall women are biologically programmed to nurture family. Likewise, men are biologically programmed to materially protect family. The man protects and provides, while the woman nurtures and loves. Doing is masculine, Being is feminine.

Many spiritual teachings today classify Doing as evil. I think this is wrong. Doing needs to be done in the right mindset, but it can't possibly be evil.