>
Once upon a time, Henry Makow invented the game Scruples. Once upon a more recent time, he was a prominent Men’s Rights Activist, the proprietor of a website called savethemales.ca, and the author of a book, A Long Way to Go for a Date, an account of how he, a self-described “fat and unattractive 47-year old” traveled to the Phillipines to meet and marry a woman 30 years younger than him. (They divorced shortly afterwards.)
Then Makow discovered conspiracy theory. These days, he spends much less time denouncing feminism than he does attacking the secret Satanic-Jewish-Illuminati cabal that (allegedly) rules the world. Take a look at his site for a virtual buffet of conspiracy theory kookiness.
Today being Halloween, Makow treats his readers to a lovely piece by Richard Evans entitled “Halloween is Christmas for Satanists,” and, yes, he’s completely serious about it. Some of the pearls of wisdom found within:
Halloween as we know it was created by interests which we now identify as ‘Illuminati’ and Satanic. … American children used to be protected by laws which no longer exist. They were protected by families and normal society. Before television it wasn’t so easy for self avowed witches to get inside their heads. The Illuminati recognized Halloween as the opportunity to do that. …
Halloween [has] graduated from benign harvest celebration into a Sex and Death festival. Sex and Death = Thanateros. Don’t tell me that mix of costumes I saw at the grocery store last night dressed either as zombies, or SM sluts, (and I saw two cross dressing males) isn’t a merger of sex and death.
Despite the fact that he now lives almost entirely in crazyland, Makow still gets some attention from MRAs: here, for example, is the first in a series of YouTube intervews he gave an MRA last year on the evils of feminism. (See here, here, and here for more MRAs citing Makow approvingly.)
Still, I rather doubt there are many MRAs out there who actually agree with Makow that, for example, feminism is part of an evil plan by the Rockefellers to depopulate the world, or that the Satanic cult that secretly rules the world is introducing “Freemasonry … as the New World Religion.”
So where are the MRA critiques of Makow — or of other MRAs who cite Makow? So far I’ve only run across a couple of MRA blog posts actually offering a critique of his tinfoil-hat politics. (Apparently, “conspiracy theorists are manginas” who use their “convoluted conspiracy theories to justify [their] manginaism.” Meanwhile, our good friend Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech is annoyed that Makow has suggested, with his typical loopy logic, that all porn is gay.)
Are there any more MRA critiques of Makow out there I’ve missed?
>I think that Henry Makow is a paranoid nutcase and a liability to the men's rights movement, and you can feel free to quote me on that.
>I am from Europe, active as MRA, living in Asia since over 30 years. I never had anything to do with this 'Henry Makow' and I heard the first time about him when reading David's thread.As far as I can see by a quick internet-search, his literature is somewhat political, anti-Jewish orientated, what has this to do with the Men's Rights Movement?He wrote something that 'feminism is an attempt to destabilize society' in his 'theories'.I do not believe in conspiracy theories, but for sure feminism costs us all a lot of money, as it is a non-productive hateful movement.Feminism is not even serving all women, but only certain groups of selected Western females, who are generally in a fairly good financially position.Please check out:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1314747/Cherie-Blairs-Mauritius-trip-gaffe-summit-world-poverty.html
>Henry Makow is largely ignored. What he seems to do is take known facts like Steinem's working for the CIA and their funding of various feminist publications and fused it with illuminatti conspiracy theory and religious ideology.Hes best ignored.
>Like Malows nonsense, feminism is based mainly on conspiracy theory, patriarchy. These ideologies always feature an evil one or group/scapegoat, the devil, International Jewery, Patriarchy, Illumanity and so on.
>Funny how a lone MRA isn't representative of the entire movement, yet MRAs quote every single thing Andrea Dworkin says as if it was taken from some secret feminist bible! @OP This is unsurprising honestly. It's rather clear that MRAs are operating with serious cognitive distortions of the world around them.
>@Eoghan – (1) Patriarchy is real. Western civilization is based on the Roman culture (not to mention the Greeks, etc.) It literally means "rule by father" from the latin "pater". The family unit, where the father had complete and utter control including being able to murder and beat his children (including adult sons), and slaves (wives were usually under control of their father) was the basis for every other cultural institution such as government. For instance, the rich/high class were called "patricians". Unsurprisingly, everything, even our very language,contains remnants of these cultures. Do you not think for instance the Catholic Church is a patriarchial institution? The God damn Pope was originally the Romans spiritual leader, pontifex maximus, and often the emperor, pater patriae (father of the fatherland) took on this title!Here's a decent primer:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pater_familiasEven more, an essay on Roman Women:http://www.moyak.com/papers/roman-women.htmlWomen did have some personal freedoms, but they had little chance for individuality or personal choice. They were under the constant supervision of their fathers, male relatives, and husbands, who regularly kissed them on the mouth to find out if they had drunk wine.(41) Drinking wine was strictly forbidden for Roman women and they could be punished by death. In Memorable Deeds and Sayings from the first century AD, Maximus tells of how Egnatius Metellus beat his wife to death for drinking wine.(42) … Another controlling device that was used against Roman women was the practise of not allowing them to have personal names. Instead, a woman took her father's middle name or nomen and feminized it. From a Roman woman's name, you could tell who her father was and therefore, her position within society.(44) In either case, the women were not permitted to do anything they wanted with their own money, since personal wealth is always equated with power. Of course, there were some exceptions: mothers could spend money on their sons' political careers or education, and one can also read about Cicero's wife, Terentia, who had personal wealth and made land investments on her own. It would seem likely that women with wealth would have more power over their lives, but this would depend upon her father or guardian or husband. Women were expected to have a legal guardian because they were not considered smart enough to act in their own best interests. When Cornelia, mother of the Gracchi, was widowed, she refused to marry again and as a result, made her own decisions, but this was very rare. The only real power that most women possessed was over their personal interactions within the circle of their friends and family. Still, women had to know their place, remain modest, be tireless, and both loyal and obedient — emotionally, physically, and financially to their families. That was what Roman men were looking for.(46)And consider Roman women actually had more rights than most women in antiquity.
>Tec, that's revisionist history, feminist history shouldnt be taken litrally, there are elements of truth to it but patriarchal abuse theory has been thoroughly debunked.I just wanted to add here, David if you read up about the Rockefellers and Sanger, the Rockfeller family did fund Sanger and planned parenthood as a eugenics and population control program.
>Tec You have compared apples and oranges. Its true that random comments and conspiracy theorist dont define the mens movement, its also true that the leaders and most influental feminists define feminism. When the mens movement quotes Dworkin and McKinnon etc, they are quoting feminists that are hugely influential in shaping modern feminism, modern feminist attitudes and large areas of law.
>"Tec, that's revisionist history, feminist history shouldnt(1) be taken litrally(2), there are elements of truth to it but patriarchal abuse theory has been thoroughly debunked."Oh yes, the evil wominz folk made up history and all the written evidence of that time is really false. (See what I mean about comparing MRAs to creationists? Because dinosaur bones don't prove nuttin!) Um, no. For instance, Maximus did not tell that anecdote about a man killing his wife for drinking wine? What's your theory? Some feminazi wrote it instead and made it look old with a teabag? (So crafty…)Again, grave cognitive distortions. Patriarchy is real. The evidence exists. You not accepting it doesn't change that."Its true that random comments and conspiracy theorist dont(3) define the mens(4) movement, its(5) also true that the leaders and most influental(6) feminists define feminism" I see, it's only "Truth" if you agree with it. Bullshit. You're a self-entitled moron but that doesn't make you correct. Henry Makov is fair game. As David notes, he's still being interviewed. And what about the lawyer David wrote about who suggested taking up arms? He's posted on Paul's site, no? If you throw out Henry, you've got to throw out Mr. Arms and Paul as well.Can't do both! (Unless of course, you like every other MRA is a complete and utter hypocrite.)FYI, it's spelled:(1) shouldn't (2) literally(3) don't(4) Mens' Movement(5) it's(6) influential
>Henry Makow WAS once quite influential in the MRM; he is less so today. (As are Dworkin and MacKinnon in feminism.) So Eoghan, in your mind, who are the influential MRA thinkers I should be discussing instead?
>Obviously me.
>Thats a good question David but I think you're barking up the wrong tree with Makow. For fathers rights Glen Sacks is good, Pelle Billing in Sweden seems to be good on gender roles as is Farrel. You will find some academics here http://www.malestudies.org/4-7transcript.pdf The mr is grass roots, there are many many groups and individuals contributing in their own way, mainly by blogging. It differs from modern feminism, its not an academic discipline, there are no corporations or powerful political interests bank rolling it as is the case with feminism, its still in its infancy. As for Dworkin and McKinnion not being influential, we seem to be lumbered with their ideas, I think that they are so ingrained in modern feminism that they are invisible, we cant go to work without living under McKinnions oppressive legislation, so influential is it that many smart men wont ride in lifts or be in closed offices alone with a female. She is so influential that women can take companies to the cleaners on very little ground, ask most feminists and they will say that these laws are correct while perhaps at the same time thinking that McKinnion has no influence.
>TecYou need to read up about politicized revisionist history and you shouldn't take politicized revisionist history as being factual, its more fairy tale thats been written to suit certain political agendas than anything else.
>What does it take to get added to your enemies list? I belong on it. You already know about my blog.I know Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech has spent some time debunking Makow and the rest of the conspiracy theorists but I'm sure he's tired of them putting their fingers in their ears and going "la la la" to real facts and being accused of being part of the conspiracy.Makow doesn't get talked about much among MRAs because he is regarded as a joke I think and Makow keeps to himself. He doesn't comment on any other blogs (or if he does it's not under his own name). Other than the reddit your examples of MRAs supporting Makow are all the same guy who is really just a mangina internet tough guy keyboard jockey and not a MRA.Months ago on The Spearhead there was this conspiracy theorist called globalman who believed in the same feminism was created by the Rockefellers and Illuminati to depopulate the world but most of the MRAs didn't buy into his crap. (I particularly loved how globalman had a secret plan to survive the depopulation and his belief that the Rockefellers wouldn't care if he survived.) He ended up banned from The Spearhead being a problem (and I think other MRA blogs too). If Makow actually posted on other MRA blogs the same thing would happen to him.
>Yes, Warren Farrell would be a good one to discuss…..oh, but wait….aren't his degrees and his research grounded in the "soft sciences"? [sideways glance]
>Feminism was around before Sanger and Rockefeller put the volentary eugenics program inside it, feminists wanted birth control and clean abortions, progressive power wanted a eugenics/population control program and they both got what they wanted when the eugenics program was housed inside feminism. The main lobby group for volentary eugenics or "choice" was fronted by Gloria Stinem who by her own admission is or was a CIA asset. She has talked about CIA funding Ms. Mag.Child care facilities and jobs for middle class women was initially proposed for its eugenic value by a eugenisist call Frederick Osborn, it was thought it would stimulate the growth of the middle classes. So there is historical element of truth in what Makow says, but most of what he says is nonsense, Makow is regarded as an oddity and generally bad for the MM.JD Rockefeller…"He established the Bureau of Social Hygiene in 1913, a major initiative that investigated such social issues as prostitution and venereal disease, as well as studies in police administration and support for birth control clinics and research. In 1924, at the instigation of his wife, he provided crucial funding for Margaret Sanger in her pioneering work on birth control and involvement in population issues.[9]"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller,_Jr.
>Pam, I dont think anyone is saying the soft sciences are inherantly bad, it depends who is doing the research, social research has been used to horrific ends, great tranches of groups have been gassed, and great traches of abuse victims have been hidden while the experiences of others have been exagerated for political and fiancial ends, for example.
>@Eoghan"You need to read up about politicized revisionist history and you shouldn't take politicized revisionist history as being factual, its more fairy tale thats been written to suit certain political agendas than anything else." So actual evidence from the Roman period is "revisionist"? Really? So what, Maximus didn't write about how it was okay to beat a woman to death for drinking wine? Because I can get the actual quotation if you're that stupid, plus several others that prove my point…
>Tec, if you heard it in womens studies its likely a politically correct adaptation of history thats intended to frighten, indoctrinate and stir up hate in impressionable young people for political ends.And anyway, ancient greece and rome has little to do with feminist conspiracy theory today, hint – ancient.
>Rule of thumb is a good example of feminist revisionist history that many young feminists were deliberatly conned into believing. There is also pseudo goddess history, pusedo matriarchy history, pusedo whchcraft history, pusedo research, conspiracy theories, pusedo egalitarian cultures… and on and on it goes.
>"its likely a politically correct adaptation of history thats intended to frighten, indoctrinate and stir up hate in impressionable young people for political ends."Huh. That sounds a lot like what's on pretty much every MRA site I've ever looked at.(I will check out Pelle Billing's site though.)
>@EoghanI heard it in Roman History and Civilization studies. You still haven't proven how actual quotations from physical evidence from the Roman period is "revisionist" in any way.Basically, your comment amounts to saying this evidence is incorrect or faulty, which it simply isn't.And given how eerily MRAs sound like Hesiod, discounting it as "ancient" and unrelevant is pretty stupid. What's next? Let's throw out Sophocles' plays? Burn Caesar's memoirs? Maybe while we're at it, we can just take down the Pantheon, Flavian's stadium, Trajan's Triumph, Hadrian's wall, etc. Oh, but if we do that I guess we'll have to get rid of Shakespeare and Moliere as well and don't forget the Bible , it's ancient too.
>Here's your cake, Eoghan, did you want to eat it too?So, soft sciences are okay so long as the conclusions support the opinions you already hold.I, for one, wouldn't say that soft sciences are inherently bad (even though my degree IS in a hard science, so don't go there), and I DO know that social research has been used to horrific ends and am appalled at that.However, back to Farrell…Farrell simply regurgitates back to MRAs popular opinions that they already hold regarding the marginalization or invisibility of men in some areas for which women appear to be getting all the attention, and he chooses to further lash out and blame feminists and feminism for the issues that men face rather than come up with or challenge men to come up with constructive ways to effect change in those areas. Just like most MRA blogs I've seen, he's full-tilt with the reactionary blame and juxtapositions to issues that women are trying to deal with and do something about for women, rather than DOING something about men's issues. Or is it that men still expect that women must take care of the DOING part for men and take care of all their needs? For example, an extremely popular MRM topic (and one that Farrell touches upon) is that men's health issues aren't as important as women's health issues, evidenced by the fact that a lot of funding goes to women's breast cancer prevention and research. Prostate cancer is a men's issue, and they want to see more funding go towards prostate cancer prevention and research, and RIGHTFULLY SO. However, they are blinded to the fact that A HELLUVALOT of attention IS devoted to one particular men's health issue that not every man is currently or will suffer from (just as a lot of attention is devoted to one particular women's health issue, even though there are women who don't currently and may not suffer from it), and it was well-received by men and receives A HELLUVALOT of media attention and advertising. In fact, it probably receives so darn much media attention and advertising that the MRM may have forgotten that it IS a MEN's health issue. That would be erectile dysfunction. Oh my Lord, the research time and money that went into coming up with a solution for that has probably been paid back a thousandfold and then some!! And why the hell should the medical community, shareholders, pharmaceutical companies, etc., who are profiting so greatly from the sales of Viagra, Levitra and Cialis, for example, worry about prostate cancer when they're making A MINT off of drugs to correct erectile dysfunction. They are probably making FAR MORE in return for those drugs than they EVER would get in return for the money that would go into prostate cancer research and prevention, especially since it's pretty much a recreational drug now, far from its intended purpose of correcting the dysfunction for men who do truly need it. Ah yes, if men are going to die from complications arising from prostate cancer, better that they do it with a huge smile on their face and a raging hard on in their pants. And please, don't say that it's the feminists who are spurring on the sales of Viagra, etc., because THEY believe that men are nothing but sex machines such that erectile dysfunction should be so high up on the totem pole of men's health issues, oh no, that whopping bit of "misandry" comes from men, it's MEN who are saying it about themselves by placing such a high importance on it. It's stuff like THAT that the MRM and MRAs should be focusing on and trying to alleviate, rather than ranting about women's breast cancer research. Band together to find a way to get prostate cancer to be taken as seriously as, if not moreso than erectile dysfunction.
>Tec, your argument here is irrational, a non sequitur.
>PamThats standard reasoning for a feminist, womens proplems are all the fault of men, and mens problems are all the fault of men. It may be inconcieveable to you that a movement (feminism) that considers men and women to be political/class enemies and goes about winning this faux war through polmics and slanting the system in favour of women could be causing problems for men but its an illogical conculsion, given the facts. As for Farrell, as he says himself, all he does is ask the same questions of men as he did with women when with NOW. Im wary of him as he reads like a marxist primer."Band together to find a way to get prostate cancer taken seriously".What do you think the mens movement does if not band together to bring these issues to light. Thats what the mens movement does. Its about gender equality in many different sphears, healthcare included. Its fucked up that it has to be like that but thats the way feminism has set things up with its gender war, polmics and misandry.