I have to say that, as much as I agree with most of this article, I do get the feeling that Makow likes submissive, docile women. And that is clearly not the right message for a college professor to be sending to young women.
I think there's some truth to that, but I also think there's more here. While he considers a "feminine" woman to be "quiet," "reserved" and "unassuming," he also expects her to be "competent" and "self-sufficient" and to participate in decision-making. He specifically denies that femininity means being an "emotional waif." He deserves credit for this, as well as for his admission that he made a mistake when he married a teenager 30 years his junior.
You may believe that his outlook is not a suitable one to present to female college students, but is it any less suitable than the militant feminist view that is crammed down their throats?
My honey would scream if I was submissive and docile and just nodded my head like a trained dog whenever he talked to me.
This is a little silly. How does Makow's personal preference for any sort of woman send the wrong message about anything? If there had been an accusation that this preference affected the way he treated students, that would be an issue. But the evidence seems to contradict this.
To me this seems a classic example of campus political correctness. He was fired for simply holding an opinion contrary to campus orthodoxy. No matter what message you believe Makow was sending, this other message is surely more harmful by a large margin.
The truth is, we both lost. Your worthless dependent offspring, my empty wealthy life. My life is good, I think it could have been more fulfilling. My dear, odds are yours is hard and poor, not to mention the tremendous sense of failure when you look at your multi fathered offspring.