March, 2003
The hero of Greek mythology, Theseus, had an interesting solution for dealing justice to the evildoers of the ancient world. For every perpetrator of injustice and crimes against humanity, Theseus avenged the victims by seeing to it that the perpetrator suffered the same fate. Thus, justice was done as the criminals reaped what they had sown.
Possibly the most well known of these dastardly villains was Procrustes. Remember him? He was the guy with the iron bed who forced all who came his way to fit (conform) to the precise proportions of the bed.
His method was simple and deadly. If an individual did not fit, he said "We'll MAKE him fit."
And proceeded to either stretch his victims, as on a rack, if they were too small; or, lop off body parts with an axe, if they were too big. Either way, they died, ignobly and in excruciating pain.
And so eventually did Procrustes, in the same dreadful manner, though the myth does not say which method Theseus used to dispatch this scumbag and send him on his way to Hades.
The mythological 'Procrustean Bed' thus became the stuff of legends, and serves to this day as a metaphorical warning (or at least it should) to those who attempt to force their own rigid standards of conformity on others.
Such an unreasonable, unacceptable and ultimately deadly standard of conformity certainly exists among those who would try to force men and women into rigid gender roles, thus invalidating and denying the uniqueness of each individual human spirit, as created by God.
One of the proponents of the Procrustean Bed modality of rigid gender role conformity is Henry Makow, author of a variety of misogynistic articles, at least one such book, and the architect of a board game called "Scruples". I have to wonder, where are Mr. Makow's 'scruples'? ....as he tirelessly and obsessively attempts to force gender role conformity on the men and women of our modern day world.
In my recent article The Conspiracy Against Self Respecting Women, my stand as regards the misogynistic Mr. Henry Makow and his male supremacist psycho-babble has been made crystal clear.
In response to my article, I received a number of letters to the editor. As you'll see by these comments from readers, some agree with me wholeheartedly, while others take umbrage, attack my womanhood or admonish me for my unpopular, politically incorrect, position.
Make no mistake; it is my OWN position that is truly 'politically incorrect'. For unlike some of these readers, I am not parroting the party lines of ANY group, including those spouting out the reactionary drivel which has become the NEW 'politically correct' position, in the backlash against feminism. Neither do I parrot, nor endorse, the politically correct party line of feminism.
It may surprise some people when I say that I am not a feminist. The simple truth is, I have never been a team player for any special interest group. Nor do I adhere to any form of political or religious orthodoxy. Perhaps one reason why I have always been wildly unpopular among the politically correct proponents of ANY system of indoctrination.
I simply address the issues in the hope that the readers may consider them with open minds and compassionate hearts, without losing a sense of justice; justice based not on gender stereotypes or political or religious indoctrination, but on the most basic principles of human rights and spiritual integrity, irrespective of gender.
Thank God, I've been blessed with a thick skin, so I don't really give a damn what anyone thinks of me personally; it's the ISSUES that are of concern to me. So I'm always happy to publish negative or critical comments written by others about myself.
Being a self-respecting woman is a great thing! People (women AND men) with a healthy self-respect never worry about what others might think of them; they don't care about gaining approval, because they know who they are, what they stand for, and feel secure in themselves and in their own spiritual integrity.
They think for themselves, rather than allowing themselves to be dictated to by special interest groups, most notably the male-supremacist-old-boys-club.
In fact, I thank my critics for even their nastiest and most hostile comments, as it gives me the opportunity to expose the narrow-mindedness; stupidity and indoctrination that are the primary enemies of true freedom of thought and individual rights.
And the issue of INDIVIDUAL rights is always THE issue. Not 'men's rights'; not 'women's rights'; nor any other collective defined by the perception of common attributes.
When the INDIVIDUAL has rights, EVERYONE has the SAME rights. Which is just as it should be. NATURAL rights bestowed by the Creator.
Speaking strictly for myself, nobody, but NOBODY is going to take those rights away from me. And anyone who tries will meet the most formidable adversary imaginable: The one who is not afraid to die in defense of personal liberty. So, you want to mess with me?....enjoy it; take your best shot and be prepared to take the consequences.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Here are some of the various letters I received from readers, in their original form, no editing. My comments follow in brackets preceded by my initials, BH.
RESPONSE #1
Finally! someone else is finally speaking out about this man's misogynistic views of women. i stopped reading anything by him (and a few others' who are also racist) a long time ago because of his call for women to "obey men, submit to men" etc. As long as there is one group of people calling for the submission of any group the balance on this planet will be out of sorts; its the last grab for maintaining domination happening here and no less with the masculine trying to hold on to its own vestige of control over the feminine, which by the way, has been incurring for the last 3,000 years or so.
thanks babs
lili
[BH: And thank you, Lili. Well, she's got that right, about any one group of people calling for the submission of another group. NOBODY has that prerogative. It's a fascistic outrage! That was exactly my primary point.
Nobody has the right to dominate another group, whether it's based on gender or ethnic origin...whatever. As far as 'submitting' to or 'obeying' another person just because he happens to be MAN: To hell with that! That will never happen, not in my world. Who in hell do these guys like Makow think they are?]
RESPONSE #2
Babs,
Although your writings on the criminality of our so-called "leaders" are right on target, PLEASE don't discredit yourself by claiming to be "a real woman",.....a statement as ridiculous as that could render all your writings worthless...
C'mon Babs...You wouldn't know a REAL WOMAN if one hit you smack dab in the face.....your balls are simply too big....but even so, you'll still never be the better man.....
Stick to writing about the criminal PTB....We prefer facts, not statements that make us gag......
Rudy
[BH: Rudy (whose name on the e-mail was given as "Rudolph Valentino") I'm sorry to say, is as misguided and misogynistic as Henry Makow. I find it interesting and amusing how some of these guys seem to think I'm okay when I tell the truth (the facts) about criminals and corruption in government; but evidently their male egos feel threatened when I call their sexist brethren on the carpet and confront them with their lies and propaganda about women.
Which reminds me of a guy who calls himself --get this-- "Joe Liberty". One of these macho-minded morons who posts misogynistic propaganda on one of the private e-mail groups (BATR, just chock full of misogynists of every stripe), supposedly dedicated to 'freedom' and 'patriotism'.
Old Joe is a real patriot and freedom fighter all right....he actually stated in one of his posts that women should have never been given the right to vote!...and blames voting rights for women (rather than the male-supremacist fascism which is ACTUALLY the problem) for most of society's ills.
Ironically, the moderator of this group (a pretentious pseudo intellectual using the screen name SARTRE) keeps sending me the daily digests, inviting me to join, hoping I will contribute my pieces to the group.
Frankly, I have better things to do with my time than get into intellectual sparring matches with the Joe Liberties of this world. And anyway, it wouldn't be fair to fight with unarmed men....Enough said.
Rudy, you're a dickhead if ever there was one. Just keep on gagging, be my guest.
No, despite your comment about 'big balls', testicles are lacking from my anatomy. But then, I don't need balls. I've got brains and courage, which work fine for me.
And contrary to popular belief, these attributes are NOT determined by testosterone levels, nor are they the exclusive province of men.
Maybe you should just try opening your mind and letting those neurons in your brain get some fresh air. Or replace those neurons with some new sparkplugs to increase your mental firepower.
Slim chance, but you might actually see REAL women for what they are, instead of the pathetic parody of a 'real woman' promoted by the likes of your pal Henry Makow.
Or then again, maybe your brain resides in your shorts...but anyway, shame on you, shame shame, shame.
By the way, what have YOU done to fight corruption in government? You sound to me like nothing more than a disgruntled armchair warrior.]
RESPONSE #3
Dear Barbara,
Thanks for going off on this troglodyte gasbag. Long ago I sent him a relatively benign e-mail telling him he is sadly mistaken on this issue. His reply made it abundantly clear that his is a hopeless case. I feel very badly for any woman with the terrible judgement to "surrender" to HIM!
Tilda
[BH: Thank you, Tilda. Your comments are on the money. God forbid! Can you just imagine being married to a guy like this???? A repugnant thought indeed....but then, any woman wimpy enough, or stupid enough, to hook up with a guy like this deserves exactly what she gets.]
RESPONSE #4
was a fan of both, but now what?
I have been an avid fan of many of your comments (the feb. 4 she-man club is a good example), and I have also appreciated Mr. Makow's boldness in tackling certain issues.
He was being tongue-in-cheek with the concluding "masochist" reference.
Are you ultimately as tightly wound as that Ranger Rick chick? You write of your experience and credentials in hunting down male rapists in New York City. Males tend to be more painfully obvious in their crimes. What I've noticed through difficult experience and exhaustive study, is that there are plenty of female rapists out there, too, expecially if you define rape as one female author recently defines it: "any wilfful persistent attempt to break someone's spirit." That's sadism, not masochism, btw.
Did you hunt down coldblooded females who were, and are, frequently involved in committing just such "rape" by that definition? Do you wish to apprehend cold-eyed smiling church ladies who virtually rub their hands in glee at the prospect of emotionally and spiritually abusing and dominating males of all ages?
When a male physically abuses a woman, she's able too run for shelter, call the police, cry on the shoulder of a multitude of male and female amateur "rescuers."
When a female brutally and intentionally stabs at a man's very raison d'etre, breaks his heart or spirit, where is he supposed to go for relief?
The answer is maybe, "a church of Christ," but I don't know of any right now, which are free from the same dense politically-correct vicious hypocrisy you hint at in your feelings of contempt for Dr. Makow, and your sheer misunderstanding of what he's getting at.
--J.
[BH: Let me put it this way: Mr. Makow's comment about masochism in 'real women' -- whether it was meant tongue-in-cheek or not-- is still entirely consistent with the rest of his philosophy about the female sex, which is offensive to the core. His whole article was derogatory and expressed nothing but small-minded bigotry and contempt for women.
Re 'Ranger Rick': I can assure you there are no similarities whatsoever between myself and Brenda Negri aka Ranger Rick. Negri is nothing but a silly little twerp; a law enforcement/intelligence groupie who is desperate for approval from men. Negri worships male authority figures, which is the source of at least some of her severe psychopathology.
In fact, she was posing as a man (a male FBI agent) before she was exposed as a phony, a pathological liar, a provocateur and a rank amateur. Most pathetic, Brenda Negri truly wants to BE a man. It's a classic case of penis envy, a form of psychopathology no self-respecting woman would ever fall prey to.
Women like Negri have bought into the male supremacy indoctrination and swallowed it hook, line and sinker. They'll never be satisfied being women because they don't RESPECT women, and more importantly, don't respect themselves.
Yes, there are certainly female perpetrators of atrocities as well. However, in my article I was simply addressing Mr. Makow's philosophy of misogyny. It was not meant to be a comprehensive essay on all the issues you have brought up here.
One last thing: You are greatly mistaken when you say that I 'misunderstood' Makow's message. There was no misunderstanding at all on my part about what Makow was getting at. I understand precisely what he is saying. And anyone who understood the points I was making (whether they agreed with me or not) would realize that.
I do not misunderstand. I DISAGREE.....vehemently, fiercely and with all my heart. I am an absolute firebrand when it comes to defending my position on this issue. Always was, always will be.]
RESPONSE #5
Geez, the CIA really did do a number on your head!!!
Maybe that explains your reaction to Markow's article which is not in the least offensive to any REAL WOMAN,
You are obviously very insecure and have a very strong complex about your "womanhood". That is obvious from your reaction.
Do your really think you are an example of a "real woman"? Actually you are a perfect example of what is called role reversal.
A REAL WOMAN has something you probably have never heard of. It's called femininity. Without femininity, which is true womanliness, you will never even come close to being or even having the slightest concept of what a "real woman" truly is!
I can't imagine any real man desiring someone with your attributes. It would be like having sex with another man!
Do you think your pretense of being so tough is desirable to real men??!?? You would definitely be the man in a lesbian relationship. Of that there is no doubt.
You are more like a feminist type. You know, those woman's libbers that are nothing more than screwed up frustratged women who have been either used and shit canned by most men, or could never get a man in the first place! That's what they are all about and one can attempt to dispute that with all their hot air bullshit all they want, that is a fact plain and simple. Hating men is NOT an attribute of a REAL WOMAN just as hating women is NOT an attribute of a REAL MAN!
Lets put it this way: Was the CIA's goal to make you into a REAL FEMININE WOMANLY FEMALE?!!! Need one say more?
Without going into all the attributes, A REAL WOMAN is feminine, tender, compassionate, and wants to be loved, protected, and lead by a REAL MAN. Masculinity is the opposite of femininity and very desireabe to a REAL NORMAL WOMAN just as femininity is very desirable to a REAL NORMAL MAN.
A woman's true nature is femininity (something you completely lack) just as a man's true nature is masculinity (more descriptive of your nature) and I don't care how many karate martial arts "kick em in the balls" gung ho feminist garbage crap or kung foo bullshit classes you've taken, you can never be the masculine man the lord created you not too be! You'll simply remain the screwed up pretense of the man you really are!
Sue
[BH: The "man" I really am? Now, here we have the rantings of a bona fide, hysterical idiot....this gal is a real piece of work! And probably the woman of Mr. Makow's dreams......
As my father used to say, "There's no substitute for stupidity". Indeed, not. Be that as it may, I'll address the unmitigated stupidity of her comments anyway.
This bimbo sounds like some kind of religious zealot who has been totally brainwashed by an extremist sect to believe that a 'real woman' should be submissive to men. She's certainly entitled to her beliefs. If she enjoys being a mindless, wimpy little twit, far be it from me to try to change her mind (assuming she has a mind.)
And she talks about MY head being screwed up by "the CIA"?
Hey, who needs CIA when you've got the holy-rolling, woman-hating religious fanatics? And contrary to her silly beliefs, CIA did not "create" me, nor are they responsible for my viewpoints on these issues.]
THE PROMISE KEEPERS: MALE SUPREMACY RUN AMOK
This is the type of woman whose husband would be likely to belong to a group such as The Promise Keepers. These guys are religious fanatics with a dangerous (hidden) political agenda....nothing less than to take over the world and to implement a so-called "Christian" fundamentalist fascist State.
Naturally, they deny having any political agenda; yet all you need to do is read some of their literature, which reveals the truth of exactly who they are and what they are all about.
And despsite the fact that Mr. Makow is Jewish, their viewpoint about women is chillingly similar to that of the misogynistic Mr. Makow.
The lunatic who runs this organization, one Bill McCartney, gives fiery speeches, shouting and pounding his chest like an ape and invoking his male supremacist brethren to "Storm the Gates!.....the Promise Keeper motto.
Naturally, women are regarded as little more than domestic servants, sex slaves and breeders, whose 'duty' in the eyes of God is to submit and allow themselves to be 'led' by their far-superior, holier-than-thou husbands.
Promise Keepers, naturally, think it's a sacrilege for women to be ordained as ministers of God. Along with like-minded fanatics from other organized religions, their battle cry is a resounding: No women allowed!
In their boundless ignorance and arrogance, they actually believe women to be spiritually inferior and as such, confined to certain 'roles' by a directive from God Almighty. All I can say is, these macho fools are in for the surprise of their lives......wait until they shed their earthly physical shells and find out that in spirit, gender is of no consequence and that truly, God is no respecter of persons (male or female).
If the Promise Keepers were successful in implementing their nefarious agenda, the result would assuredly be a nightmarish scenario akin to Margaret Atwood's, The Handmaid's Tale: A fascist state where men would reign supreme; their misogyny unchallenged, institutionalized and even codified as law.
And all women would be reduced to the status of the 'handmaids'. And yet, the Promise Keepers would promote precisely this hellish state of affairs, and all in the name of Jesus!
Many true Christian churches, run by sane, reasonable men and women, have publicly denounced the Promise Keepers and see them for the fascist bigots, misogynists and oppressors they are.
God save us from the Promise Keepers....and for Heaven's sake, stop them from keeping their promises!
Just a few more comments for this fool's edification:
Her insulting contention that I would be "the man" in a lesbian relationship is a moot point, since I am not a lesbian, never have been and never will be .
And just because I have a policy of ZERO TOLERANCE for the oppressive and unjust agenda of the misogynists does not mean that I "hate" men. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I do not hate men, nor do I hate anyone. In fact, it is those who support the misogynists' agenda (be they men or women) who are operating out of hatred.
And this woman is a perfect example of those whose hatred is based on a fear of anyone who does not conform to the stereotypes of 'masculinity' or 'femininity' which are dictated by her male supremacist overlords.
Because she is not capable of thinking for herself, she will always be trapped in a self-inflicted state of slavery, based on hatred and spawned by fear.
I have no desire whatsoever to be a man. I'm perfectly happy to be a woman. What I am NOT perfectly happy about is the bigotry and injustice that I have had to encounter throughout my life because I refused to accept certain 'roles' dictated by the male supremacist misogynists, based purely on my gender. I have never accepted being limited to these gender-based roles, nor barred from others, and I never will.
And as for her comments about 'real men' finding me unattractive, I'm afraid she's wrong there too. Of course, I'm sure her definition of a 'real man' (a Henry Makow clone) bears no resemblance to mine.
But in truth, I have more suitors and would-be beaus, including so-called 'real men' of every variety, than you could shake a stick at.
And no, these men do not consider me 'masculine' at all, nor do they consider me 'unfeminine'. These are simply men who appreciate me for who and what I am. Who appreciate strength, courage and intelligence in a woman. That's what a REAL woman is all about .
For that matter, these same attributes are present in a REAL man. A REAL person, of either gender, would never allow himself/herself to be forced into the Procrustean Bed.
Nor would they attempt to force others to conform to their own standards. They can appreciate and respect others, regardless of gender, for the unique INDIVIDUALS they are.
Barbara Hartwell
March 6, 2003
The shoe that fits one person pinches another; there is no recipe for living that suits all cases.
--Carl Jung
Where love rules, there is no will to power, and where power predominates, love is lacking. The one is the shadow of the other.
--Carl Jung, "On the Psychology of the Unconsciousness", 1917
Your vision will become clear only when you look into your heart...Who looks outside, dreams. Who looks inside, awakens.
--Carl Jung
For more of my writings against the male supremacist and misogynist philosophy, please see my article, Reign of the Macho Minded Morons.