[save the what?!]

Walking down the highstreet today in central London meant not only dodging the myriad of black umbrellas, each jostling to poke out my eye, but also side-stepping the spotty kids canvassing for donatations to help "save" something or someone. Although a poor student I always buy the Big Issue from whoever asks. Today I bought three which, after reading, I gave to some people on the train. I came home wondering about "saving." A google search revealed websites asking for help to save the children, dolphins, rainforest, manatee, san francisco bay, elephants, sheriff, world (i.e. fill with "victim" of your choice). Now, I'm all for helping whoever I can (I volunteered to teach English and computing to people who couldn't afford lessons and I volunteer-taught children experiencing disorders on the autistic-spectrum), but, imagine my surprise when I came across a site called "save the males: exposing feminism and the new world order." I (mistakenly?!) thought saving had to do with helping people who couldn't exactly help themselves? Maybe even something on the verge of extinction or erosion (like the wild bovine, passenger pigeon, or tiger). Instead, Makow rationalises, men face a certain kind of extinction. They fear the loss of their "independant" and "powerful" lives thanks to "feminists." For example if a "normal" "heterosexual male" "shoves his wife" he is just exibiting "natural heterosexual tendencies. Makow goes on to say that this kind of man risks
"jail, legal bills, and the loss of family, house and job if they so much as argue with a woman." (I myself haven't heard of any court-cases where women prosecuted -and won-) Apparently, for Makow, even though in the movies (because THEY are just like REAL life?!!!) "male and female superheroes routinely slug it out," in real life "ordinary men" can be held on assault charges. I think that's right. If a woman abused a man, she too could face charges. But here Makow isn't interested in equality, of any kind, slugging or not. The real point, for Makow, of charging men with assault is to "emasculate men and persecute heterosexuals." Makow's favorite turn of phrase: "sexism is heterosexuality." Wow. In this day and age there are people "thinking" (if I can use such a term) like this...even if he has a ph.d (as EVERY single page of his reminds us). What must his (victimised?) wife think. Well, she agrees with Makow (of course). In Makow's eyes she is a "traditional woman." Apparently this kind of wife, the best kind, notes Makow, is fine with a man who says things like "I do not sacrifice any freedom for love. I am in charge. My wife is comfortable with that. I am twice as free as when I was single." Hrm. A traditional wife also must also agree with Makow in that "A woman needs a man to love her. The notion that she should be "independent" and career oriented is absurd. As if fighting traffic, or pounding a mail route is superior to staying home and caring for her loved ones. As if obeying a boss is superior to obeying the man she chose to love and marry." In an effort to prove his theories, Makow develops an equation. He calls it "the passive female principle." Apparently women are like the earth. Thus:

The earth receives sunshine, water
and seed and produces life. A woman receives a man's love and seed and after a
period of gestation, she performs the miracle of giving birth to a human
being.
Carrying and nurturing the young is the essence of female psychology.
The denial of this reveals the Illuminists' desire to override nature and
control all human life.
Being a wife and mother is what makes a woman tick.
She needs to be intensely needed and loved by her husband and children.
These roles are passive by nature. They involve a great deal of adaptation.
But they also require a different sort of activity. A wife responds to her
husband's needs and a mother responds to her child's.
A woman is not going
to be loved permanently just for her appearance, which is transitory, or for her
accomplishments. Love is not like that. We love the people who sacrifice
themselves for us. That proves they love us.

So, women are just like the earth - does that mean (among other reasons) women should fear extinction? I wonder how Makow knows this. Has he conducted sufficient experiments, does he have access to countless empirical data, has he referenced key sociological texts? No.

What does this mean for feminists or lesbians, both who "ruin" the "structure of marriage" for Makow? Well, both feminists and lesbians make it "impossible" for a man to "own" them. ("Own," I know you can't believe this either!) They both subvert the "heterosexuality" of the marriage contract. Has Makow not been reading/watching/listening to recent news on lifting the bans on gay marriage? (cnn, cbc, bbc). Apparently 10% of the world's population (it might be more now) is gay and it's not like anyone would actively choose to be assaulted, victimised, oppressed on what must surely be a daily basis? Well, for Makow it is all a choice which is especially why "feminists," and he isn't talking about "women receiving equal opportunity (in fact, they often receive preferential treatment.) I am talking about a bogus gender ideology that the financial elite is using to destabilize and depopulate society." Great, so I consider myself a feminist (I'm certainly pro equal rights) that means I'll get preferential treatment....erm, where, when, how? Not according to surveys which state that actually "independent women" or "lesbians" earn 14% less than "visibly straight" women. Hrm.

Makow's tirade which stretches the seams of his website seems to come down to one thing. Is it that he "hates" women, or possibly had a "bad" relationship with his mother, or is he a closet homosexual? Hrm. He explains that it all has to do with being a good Christian: "Male-female love is the closest most of us come to knowing ourselves as God." And women who don't support "male-female" love where men "in sex as in life are in control" are dubbed "Lucifer worshippers." An example of such a woman, Makow points out, is none other than condoleeza rice. Just look at the photo he has of her:
Makow insists that "the world is literally run by Satan-worshipers." Apparently, in order to "rule the world," these "Satan-worshipers" take away "our" (that's what Makow says) belief in God. Hrm. So people who aren't Christians are safe from take-over? He doesn't say. But, feminism re-enters the discussion here. Feminism "thwarts" Christianity (independent women, gay women - all the same thing for Makow) and tries to usurp "man's" power. As Makow (or is it Wacko) climbs to his editorial climax he adds anything and everything into his theory. It's now not only independant women or feminists who thrwart Makow's plans, but also Jews. Supposedly Jews are part of this "new world order" because of their "rejection of Christ."

What can one say to this? Certainly words fill my mind but nothing eloquent. Well, when people say women (and any other "minority") have equal rights and we don't need fierce political involvment anymore or any continued push for equality, we can say that's not true. As long as there are people like Makow who believe intricate and fantasised versions of reality, there will be a need for people (men AND women) to assist the oppressed and the victimised.

The real troubles in this world tend to settle on the misalignment between men and women - that's my opinion, my humble opinion, as I long ago learned to say. But how we do love to brush these injustices aside. Our want is to put up with things, with the notion that men behave in one manner, and women in another. Carol Shields, The Stone Diaries