There have been many manuals of advice written on men/women relationships. The following is an illustration from a manual of advice for housewives published in England in 1913. A wife stands in the warm glow of light as she greets her returning breadwinner.
One book explains the old-fashioned family this way: "Every family is a little state, an empire within itself, bound by he most endearing emotions, and governed by its patriarchal head, with whose prerogative no power on earth has a right to interfere. ' To these words written by the American clergyman Herman Humphrey in 1840, the vast majority of his prosperous middle-class readers in both the United States and Europe no doubt nodded in silent assent, for no group in history, before or since, has so clearly defined and so strenuously dedicated itself to the ideals of family life. The cult of home-- the family 's private universe, and a place, as Humphrey implied, wholly separate from the outside world of work -- has become almost a religious institution. 'A private shelter to cover two hearts dearer to each other than all in the world; high walls to exclude the profane eyes of every human being; seclusion enough for the children to feel that mother is a holy and peculiar name -- this is home, ' wrote a contributor to a ladies magazine in 1856. 'This is the true nature of home, ' echoed the English writer and art critic John Ruskin in 1865: 'It is the place of Peace; the shelter, not only from all injury, but from all terror, doubt, and division. "
Man provides, woman supports
Father is restoring this kind of home. His goal is for men and women to divide their labor. He wants the wife to help her husband by doing her duty in the home. She is her husband 's greatest supporter. Father says the husband's role is public and the wife's role is private, "When you blessed couples start a family, the husband should lead a public life (life of service) and the wife should be in charge of the family life (the domestic life). Will you be a representative and exemplary family?" Father says men are to go out in the world and provide for their families while the wife is to create a loving home. He lives this lifestyle. He praises Mother for helping him prepare to go to work, "When Father, verging on seventy years old, wants to go out to the ocean, Mother prepares all his equipment with her whole heart. She even prepares the supplies needed in case he stays out overnight and prays for the accomplishment of Father's will. What a beautiful helper and supporter she is!"
Home is a refuge
Father explains how women should create a sacred refuge where her husband can refresh himself when he comes home from a long days work. I've read many books on relationships, but Father is the most poetic and romantic: "A wife shouldn't think that she fulfills her responsibility by just preparing a meal when her husband comes home from work. The most important thing is to share a time of confidential talk of love at the dinner table. If she comforts her husband's hard work of the day with the whispering sound that she had in their first meeting, his fatigue will fade away and their conjugal love will become deeper." He once said a woman should be a "pool of love" with no rocks. Father speaks like this constantly. He is for the traditional family. On October 3, 1995 he said, "The mother takes care of the baby all day long while her husband is working. In the evening when the husband returns home, he will run to the baby and give it a hug and kiss."
Next to Father, the best book on the subject of providing is by Aubrey Andelin. He distills the wisdom of centuries into clear language on why and how men should handle this crucial role. He says, "the man is the divinely appointed provider for the family. Any failure on his part to do so is a serious neglect of duty. In the New Testament the Apostle Paul warned, in I Tim. 5:8, 'if anyone does not provide for his family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." Mary Pride says, "My experience is that any employed husband can provide for his family without sending the wife out to work, as long as they are willing to live within his means. Biblically, he should take two jobs before looking to you for support."
Workaholicism is good
Gilder explains that men must be workaholics in the marketplace to succeed, "Just as the female role cannot be shared or relinquished, the male role also remains vital to social survival .... On forty-hour weeks, most men cannot even support a family of four. They must train at night and on weekends; they must save as they can for future ventures of entrepreneurship; they must often perform more than one job. They must make time as best they can to see and guide their children. They must shun the consolations of alcohol and leisure, sexual indulgence and flight. They must live for the perennial demands of the provider role." He must perform a "lifetime of hard labor .... All the major accomplishments of civilization spring from the obsessions of men whom the sociologists would now disdain as 'workaholics. '" Men, he says, "must give their lives to unrelenting effort, day in and day out, focused on goals in the distant future. They must struggle against scarcity, entropy, and natural disaster. They must overcome the sabotage of socialists who would steal and redistribute their product. They must resist disease and temptation. All too often they must die without achieving their ends. But their sacrifices bring others closer to the goal. "
"Nothing that has been written in the annals of feminism gives the slightest indication that this is a role that women want or are prepared to perform. The feminists demand liberation. The male role means bondage to the demands of the workplace and the needs of the family. Most of the research of sociologists complain that men's work is already too hard, too dangerous, too destructive of mental health and wholeness. It all too often leads to sickness and 'worlds of pain,' demoralization and relatively early death. The men's role that feminists seek is not the real role of men but the male role of the Marxist dream in which 'society' does the work."
The prevailing self-fulfilling prophecy view of our culture is that it is impossible for men to be sole providers. In the last few years, though, as more and more women see how they have been betrayed by the feminist line that jobs are wonderful, many have been returning to the home. There are a number of books, magazine articles and support groups for women returning home.
One reason for returning home is financial. Pat Robertson in The Turning Tide, writes how women are beginning to see that feminism betrayed them in pushing careers. He says it doesn't even pay for women to work: "Study after study proves that the working wife and mother on average contributes little or nothing to the family financially. The additional income brought in by the working wife is more than offset by the additional taxes, the cost of additional clothes, makeup, hair care, car, transportation, lunch, expenses, day care for the children, all the other things it takes to keep her working." Another book on this topic is called Two Incomes and Still Broke. The author shows that many families are losing money by having the wife work.
Women Leaving the Workplace
Larry Burkett in Women Leaving the Workplace has a chapter called "What a Working Mother is Worth. " There is so many angles to this. I hope you read his book. Here is a little of what he says, "If we assume the median income of a working mother is $14,500, that means a net return of slightly more than $300 per month for her labor. Based on a 40-hour work week, a working mother nets about $2 per hour (average) for her time! "
"Forget the child labor laws; we have mothers who are working for Third World wages to support our tax system, child care providers, and new car dealers. "
"If that same working mother were available to use her services at home to reduce the family 's food bills, shop at discount stores and garage sales for the kid 's clothes, and reduce her family 's income into a lower tax bracket, it is quite possible that she would net more savings for her family than the income she generates. ... I was sincerely impressed with the ingenuity of many of the women who responded to our survey, particularly as it concerns reducing family expenses. One mother said that she had worked out a plan with her family doctor (and later the dentist) in which he would accept her services in the form of redeemable coupons for child care. "
In an article "in the Chicago Tribune, financial analyst Michael Englung of the MMS International, a San Francisco forecasting firm, noted that even in families where the primary wage earner makes $100,000 and the secondary wage earner makes $50,000, nearly 80 percent of the second income is consumed in taxes, child care, and transportation. "
"That seems a pretty pathetic return for the demands an employer makes on a $50,000-a-year employee, especially a mother. "
"Another interesting side note was reported in U.S. News & World Report. A Loyola University five-year study found that husbands whose wives stayed home received 20 percent higher raises than men whose wives worked. " I could on and on. He gives other examples of studies showing how it usually isn 't worth it for the wife to work financially and studies show men whose wives stay home earn more money than men whose wives work. I wish I could go into all the nuances of all the arguments on this and every idea in this book. I can only direct you to some of the books that I have learned from. One more quick note about Burkett 's book on finance. He goes into a detailed analysis of what it would cost to replace all the services of a wife and it comes out a minimum of $26,000 a year. This is for a live in nanny, housekeeper and private tutor. He says many affluent families he talked to can 't get reliable domestic help at any price.
Helen Andelin says that a woman staying home is the ultimate romantic life. It brings "soul satisfaction," but when the wife works and when men see other women excelling him in the marketplace it breaks his heart, "Picture, if you can, a mother at home nurturing her little ones, making a comfortable home for her family; the father goes out into the world, struggling against the elements and oppositions of life to bring home the necessities and comforts for his loved ones. This romantic scene, instead of being taken for granted, should be viewed as the heart and core of life which, when lived properly, brings soul satisfaction that cannot be measured. There is nothing to equal it and nothing more important. "
"A man also has an inborn need to feel needed as a provider, to feel that his wife depends on him for financial support and can't get by without him. In addition, he has an inborn need to excel women as a provider. A man's feeling of worth can be undermined when he sees women in the work force doing a better job than he, advancing to a higher position, or earning more pay. How much worse when his own wife excels him."
This insane idea that women can bring home the bacon and cook it too completely breaks down if a woman has many children. Golda Meir, the former Prime Minister of Israel, lost her marriage and did not have many children. Margaret Thatcher practiced birth control because a woman cannot have a career and have lots of kids. Father commands UC women to have as many children as they can have. He has said four is a minimum but more than 10 children is better and he often mentions the number 12, "Heavenly sons and daughters should live more happily than anyone else, and should bear more children than people in the satanic realm. Maybe twelve children will be average for you. Continuously give birth to children. Unification Church members cannot practice birth control. You should bear more than ten children."
Father loves the family. He loves children. He criticizes America for not having more children, "Many Americans think they don't need children. But if they would deepen their conjugal love by rearing children, there would be less divorce. They live in false love instead of true love by leaving out children, and repeatedly divorce. The ethics of American society are declining due to this bad trend." Those couples that cannot have children should adopt from third world countries. Why don't we have a church adoption agency to get some of the 40,000 children who die of starvation in third world countries every day into American and UC homes? If a sister can't or won't physically have many children then that couple should adopt until they bring the number to 12 or more. If those 12 children each had 12 children that would give 144 grandchildren. If each of them had 12 children then there would be around 2000 great grandchildren. This is enough for a city with its own school, hospital and graveyard. If the entire UC would adopt on a massive scale, it would have millions of members in just two generations. We should go beyond this world and have huge families. Benjamin Franklin was the 15th of 17 children. Why not adopt to bring our families up to 20 children. If we live as trinities we could do it easily.
Woman 's role: homeschool
Another reason to keep women out of the market place is because their role is to do homeschooling. Father commands all brothers to provide and all sisters to stay home and teach their children: "School education should take place in the family, where the mother renders heartistic education and the father renders intellectual education. However, since fathers must work in order to take care of the family" they must depend on their wives. The man, he says, is the "king" of his castle and the woman is to "attend" her husband and teach the children, "Women should be the central figures to attend their husbands, who are the kings of their families, and become the teachers of true love by rearing children to be future kings." He says, "When a husband looks tired after working, she should prepare water to wash his face, and toothpaste and toothbrush to brush his teeth, and she should be able to wash his feet and comb his hair."
Father wants to abolish centralized education and return to the early days of America where people really got educated before it became socialized. One book on homeschooling gives this insight: "In 1790, it was still possible to get an education in the U.S. One dramatic evidence of that was that Tom Paine 's Common Sense sold 600,000 copies in that year to a population of two and a quarter million, three-quarters of it slaves and indentured servants. Almost nobody has the skill to read Common Sense today, even though its language is simple and powerful. "
"In 1790 school didn 't preempt all the time of the young in endless abstractions, nor did it act as the major destabilizer of family life then, nor did it disseminate a river of half-truths and state-approved myths so that its clientele were turned servile and mindless. "
"Alexis de Tocqueville said in 1831 that the common people of America were the best educated in the history of the world. That was before we had a government monopoly in schooling -- does anyone think he 'd say that again? "
Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to a friend on March 14, 1818 telling him some of his ideas on homeschooling. In it he says, "I thought it essential to give them a solid education, which might enable them, when they become mothers, to educate their own daughters, and even to direct the course for sons, should their fathers be lost, or incapable, or inattentive. My surviving daughter accordingly, the mother of many daughters as well as sons, has made their education the object of her life, and being a better judge of the practical part than myself, it is with her aid and that of one of her elves, that I shall subjoin a catalogue of the books for such a course of reading as we have practiced. "
He goes on to write about the value of women 's work in the home saying, "I need say nothing of household economy, in which the mothers of our country are generally skilled, and generally careful to instruct their daughters. We all know its value, and that diligence and dexterity in all its processes are inestimable treasures. The order and economy of a house are as honorable to the mistress as those of the farm to the master, and if either be neglected, ruin follows, and children destitute of the means of living. " In another letter Jefferson listed some characteristics of a lady: "possessing good sense, good humor, honest hearts, honest manners...music, modesty, and that softness of disposition, which is the ornament of her sex and charm of ours. " When he was traveling through France he wrote, "I observe women and children carrying heavy burdens, and laboring with the hoe .... Men, in a civilized country, never expose their wives and children to labor above their force and sex. " By that definition, we are living in an uncivilized society.
Mary Pride is one of the most famous writers on home schooling. Your public library probably has her books in the reference section. My local library has them. They are full of resources and ideas on how to do it. Larry Burkett has written an excellent book giving many insights into the process of leaving the workplace and staying home. In his chapter on homeschooling he has many great ideas and lists many resources. He lists many books on other aspects of staying at home. Burkett is founder and president of Christian Financial Concepts, a best-selling author of over 40 books on business and personal finances, and hosts two radio programs broadcast on hundreds of stations worldwide. He had Mary Pride on once talking about homeschooling. He says, "Mrs. Pride was expecting her ninth child when she appeared on 'Money Matters. '... Some parents aren 't sure they could handle being with children all day; but, they may be more suited for the task than they realize. 'I think it 's probably those parents who think their kids would drive them crazy who ought to do the most, ' said homeschooling expert Mary Pride on CFC 's 'Money Matters ' radio program. 'They haven 't dealt with a lot of issues in their children 's lives, and they 're just letting them get worse and worse by shoving it under the rug and sending them away from home as much as possible to summer camp and after-school activities. Homeschooling provides, if nothing else, an intensive environment in which you can get to know your children well. " My feeling is that it is too hard for most women to homeschool children all alone and still do all the other things. Women need to live in a community and share teaching and babysitting the infants. More on this in the chapter on communities.
Is Public Education Necessary?
There are many books on home schooling. One of my favorite is Samuel Blumenfeld's Is Public Education Necessary? In a speech published in Vital Speeches titled "Why Homeschooling is Important For America" he quotes someone who says this great line, "The family is man's basic government, his best school, and his best church." Blumenfeld gives so many good reasons for homeschooling. I can't go into them or into ideas on how we should do it at this time. Sisters are supposed to be studying these books, not working at some job. If they are they should be helped to understand their role as teacher. Blumenfeld says, "One of the most important actions families can take is to remove their children from the government schools and homeschool them. By now about a million have made that choice, and their actions have had an accumulative effect on American life that is only now beginning to be felt." Public schools are so bad that it is hard to express it in words. They are socialist/feminist nightmares. He says, "Liberalism goes under many guises: progressivism, socialism, collectivism. No matter what you call it, its most significant principle is its rejection of God as the true sovereign over our nation." We need to keep young people away from "statist, humanist, indoctrination." Father is always for decentralization. He isn't interested in improving centralized schools. He wants our homes to be the center of everything. Blumenfeld writes, "the homeschool family is on the frontline of this civil war, and we can only win this long, drawn-out war one family at a time. The quiet revolution is taking place right under the very noses of the humanists, and there isn't much they can do about it. "
"Meanwhile, the homeschooling family is creating a revolution in American family life. The Christian family that lives in obedience to God sets a standard of morality that will stay with their children for the rest of their lives. That even some homeschooled children may go astray is inevitable, knowing what we do about human nature. But the vast majority are becoming the kind of citizens we can all be proud of."
"And so, the reconstruction of the American family is one of the great benefits of the homeschool movement. The homeschooling family creates a generational bridge instead of a generational gap. Parents can pass on to their children their spiritual and moral values, thereby creating family continuity into several generations .... Homeschooled children learn to respect their parents' intelligence, and the parents, who know their children better than any stranger could, enjoy teaching their children." Joy is the word. The WFWP should tell women to quit their jobs and go home to teach their children instead of telling women to achieve great heights in the fields of politics, industry and the church. It's an illusion that that is where women can make the most difference in this emergency time.
Socialists/feminists are Cain and capitalists/traditionalists are Abel. We teach clear Cain/Abel divisions in the Principle ending with Communists and Anti-Communists. That's what is going on here. Feminists are communists and anti-feminists are anti-communists. Marx and Engels wrote their goals in The Communist Manifesto and largely they have been achieved. They wrote "We replace home education by social." Father is an anti-communist and therefore wants to restore homeschooling.
Most people have little or no understanding or appreciation of the free market because of public schools. Warren Brookes wrote, "I asked Nobelist economist Milton Friedman why most American students still graduate from high schools not only with low performance but with such a socialist perspective .... His answer was characteristically clear: 'Because they are products of a socialist system. How can you expect such a system to inculcate the values of enterprise and competition, when it is based on monopoly state ownership?"
Chesterton said, "It is quaint that people talk of separating dogma from education. Dogma is actually the only thing that cannot be separated from education. It is education. A teacher who is not dogmatic is simply a teacher who is not teaching." And he said, "State education is simply Conscription applied to culture, or to the destruction of culture. "
Feminism's goal, Communism's goal is to get people to think that housewives are just "Queens of the couches". There is nothing good about what the communists and feminists teach. Michael Levine, the author of Feminism and Freedom, says, "Yet while feminism may have accomplished some good per accidens, I would no more pander to the reader by straining to praise rape crisis centers than I would strain to praise the punctuality of trains under Mussolini were I discussing fascism."
Women 's role: caring for the elderly
Another reason women should not spend time away from the home earning money is because their role is to care for the aged and sick at home. Father speaks harshly about Americans who send the old "to the asylum for the aged .... Blessed families in theUnification Churchshould be able to attend and serve the grandparents and parents" in their home. Mary Pride says it is women in homes that are to care for the aged and dependent relatives. The last few generations have given up that responsibility to others. Mrs. Pride goes into detail on this subject. I'll only quote a few lines: "It costs a whole bunch less to put Mom in the spare bedroom than to pay for her apartment in a nursing home. And there is equipment available on a rental or purchase basis which will answer all of Mom's noncrisis health care needs." Women can easily become experts on specific health problems. She gives an example of a famous Christian woman: "Edith Schaeffer had a daughter with chronic rheumatic fever, and a son with polio, both of whom she cared for personally. ... Then for years Dr. Schaeffer's aged mother lived with them." And finally she cared for her husband at home instead of letting him stay at a hospital and he died "in front of his fireplace in the arms of his wife." She says, "Can you imagine what a blessing it would be to the economy if this kind of family responsibility spread? And it would show true Christian charity to the world as well."
Mrs. Pride explains that women have three jobs inside the home: first, to be a loving wife, mother and homemaker; second, to homeschool her children and; third, to care for the aged. In God's ideal, families would be extended families where the grandmother would teach and help the younger housewife. Most women have given up these sacred responsibilities. Mary Pride in All the Way Home is furious over the fact that so many parents and grandparents are not helping their children. She writes, "Young parents today have been disinherited. Winnebagos sprout the message on neon red bumper stickers: 'We're Spending Our Children's Inheritance'. While Grandpa and Grandma party, young parents struggle." The Bible says a good man helps his children's children. Patriarchal long range thinking is given up for weak man instant gratification. The last two generations have given up their responsibilities. In Good Housekeeping magazine a woman wrote an essay summing up the satanic ideology of parents abandoning their children and grandchildren. Lois Wyse writes in October 1995 that families are "scattered to the four winds" and it's difficult to get together. She writes, "It's not that we want our grown children surrounding us daily; indeed their productivity and our freedom and pleasure in knowing they have independent, fulfilling lives are often causes for rejoicing. We know that silence and solitude are both the rewards and punishments of life." Solitude is a "reward?" "Freedom." America hasn't got a clue to what freedom is. This woman senses that something is wrong saying, "The once-a-year holiday dinner or occasional get-together doesn't provide enough glue to cement the family." This woman speaks for our culture that has abandoned the extended family. Why has it done this? Because it has abandoned patriarchy. Grandfathers have no power. There is no sense anymore of generational land, roots and group living. Satan has got everyone right where he wants them -- screaming at each other in single family homes.
Mrs. Pride is quite right in being livid that Grandparents voted in a ponzi scheme of social security and ruined the economy for their grandchildren. They failed to teach their children how to be parents. She writes, "Dad and Granddad usually subscribed to the theory that each child (male and female) should earn his or her own way in the world. This translated into dump-'em-out-the-door-at-eighteen policy." She says, "The Bible, of course, clearly says the generations must help each other. Grandparents are not supposed to hop into the Winnebago and vanish over the horizon. They are supposed to teach their children how to teach, and then help teach the grandchildren. ... Adult women are supposed to have a home in their father's house until married. Grown children, in turn, are supposed to take in the dependent oldsters in their families." Instead she says they are having fun in adults-only Florida retirement communities. There are no elder women performing the mentor role in Titus 2:3-5. She says, "Homeworking will not usher in the Millennium, but it will change society. And if homeworkers don't reconstruct society, the feminists will."
Godly women would not have time to work for money because in addition to all the overtime hours they work at home, they are supposed to do community volunteer work. In the UC that is primarily witnessing. But Father, like Christians, wants us to also help our community. He spent millions on trucks to transport food. He wanted us to work with other groups to deliver food to the poor. Father, like Victorians, makes associations to solve their problems. One of the most famous women's organization formed in the 19th century was the Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA). It was one of thousands that women organized, as one author explains, "to rescue women at risk, be they poor or new arrivals in the city, and to make all women over in the image of virtuous womanhood." In the 20th century women turned progressively towards government instead of private organizations. Father is restoring the old-fashioned decentralized approach to solving problems locally. Even the name of his church is called an association -- HSA-UWC. He doesn't make hundreds of organizations just to make himself look good. He sincerely wants them to help people. He is not some socialist that thinks government or 4 west 43rd will cure all ills. He is for Tribal Messiahs, not Headquarter Messiahs or Government Messiahs.
We are supposed to be greater than Mormons. They have welfare farms to help families. Mary Pride writes, "Relieving the afflicted does not stop with our families. The ideal wife in Proverbs 31 was the family deaconess. 'She opens her arms to the poor and extends her hands to the needy' (Proverbs 31:20). Women are suppose to perform charitable acts with sensitivity and creativity. Something government can never do. A homeworking wife is, she says, "a charity expert. The welfare state is a poor substitute for the personalized ministry of Christian wives." She says, "God intended women to spend their whole lives serving other people. Young women serve their children, their mothers, their husbands, and the community at large. Older women train and assist the younger women, and in some cases become church helpers. Women are not called to pursue motherhood for five years, get a career, and thereafter live for themselves. We are responsible for keeping society healthy and human. And for this, we get respect. Charity at home? What an opportunity! What a ministry!"
A Doll 's House
The philosophy that degrades mothers who stay at home to care for their children is feminism. Their favorite play is Ibsen's "A Doll's House" in which the main character, Nora, leaves her family to find fulfillment. True Mother says that it is not in Korean women's "blood" to leave the home: "We must become wives whom our husbands can trust as they trust God. A wife's fidelity is our distinctive virtue. Korean women are descendants of Choon Hyang. We have blood that will never allow us to become descendants of Nora in A Doll's House by Ibsen, who left home."
It is interesting that Jane Fonda played Nora in the Hollywood movie. She was a famous feminist blasting marriage and capitalism. She went through the usual divorces and then met the billionaire Ted Turner a few years ago. One article said, "She was a passionate feminist; and he was, as he announced on one of their first dates, 'a male chauvinist pig' .... In previous relationships, Jane had obviously been the one in charge, picking up the tab, and so on. But here, for the first time, she was being treated in the old-fashioned style, like a lady. And she really seemed to like it." She shocked the feminist world by marrying him and dropping her career. She said on a nationally televised interview that Ted told her to give up her career, and she did. She said, "careers ... are very difficult on marriages" and said, "I can't imagine any movie that I ever made or could make in the future that would be worth giving up the three months of being with Ted." Women's magazines called her a "traitor." A family friend says, "She's going at it as a career, a commitment of a lifetime. She's making an incredible effort to make all this work. She doesn't want it to fail." When they were dating, Ted took Jane with him when he got an honorary degree. In his speech, "Turner offered surprisingly candid assessment of his own life, which seemed to be addressed to one member of the audience in particular: 'Something I've learned -- I'm sharing my deepest experiences with you -- is when you get married, really get some books and get some counseling, because schools don't teach you about marriage." He went on to tell of how his marriages didn't work, and they would have if he had studied marriage. I, of course, am encouraging the Andelin's as the best authors out there. I hope brothers buy Aubrey Andelin's Man of Steel and Velvet. Every woman needs Helen Andelin's Fascinating Womanhood to understand the power of old-fashioned truths. And both men and women should study Helen's book on parenting, All About Raising Children.
Father has always provided for mother. She has never gone out to support her family. Because of their special position she had to go with him sometimes so the members could see both of them. We are their children also. I remember the state leader's meetings in the 70's. Mother never said a word. After the singing and a prayer Father would stand before us and start speaking. Mother would quietly slip away. Father would speak for long hours, and we never saw mother again, but it was enough to just see her briefly. The UC should not use Mother's traveling with Father as a green light to have dangerous bar runs and careers because they think Mother has a "career." Mother's career is her husband. She is not earning money, and the fact that she travels so much with Father is one of the 1% exceptions, not what 99% of women are to do.
Friedan attacks stay-at-home mothers
The Godmother of modern feminism, Betty Friedan says in The Feminine Mystique that was a best-seller in the 1960's: "As she made the beds, shopped for groceries, matched slipcover material, ate peanut butter sandwiches with her children, chauffeured Cub Scouts and Brownies, lay beside her husband at night -- she was afraid to ask even of herself the silent question -- 'Is this all?'" Ever since Friedan's book women have to apologize for being housewives because the vast majority of women have bought this ideology of hatred for the homemaker.
Friedan maligns, as she says, "occupation: Housewife." She presents a "dreary" picture of talents not being fulfilled, dreams not pursued ... no fulfilling sex ... feeling "tired ... desperate ... incomplete ... trapped ... suffering from anxiety and, finally, depression ... and new, unnamed neuroses..." etc. etc. The cure for this nightmare, she writes, is to get a job: "The only way for a woman, as for a man, to find herself, to know herself as a person is" to get a job. "But a job, any job, is not the answer ...." Women must get jobs that are "creative" and "equal to their actual capacity." Jobs that will "let themselves develop the lifetime interests and goals which require serious education and training ... a job that she can take seriously as part of a life plan, work in which she can grow as part of society."
Friedan says "community work" is just "busywork" and "is not satisfying to mature women, nor does it help the immature to grow." She says "being a den mother, or serving on a PTA Committee or organizing a covered-dish supper ... is simply not enough ... for a woman of intelligence and ability." In fact "community activities" will "deteriorate" her "intelligence." She says there is a "growing boredom of American women with volunteer work" and now women have a "preference for paid jobs." The only real work for women is a paid career, "Women, as well as men, can only find their identity in work that uses their full capabilities. A woman cannot find her identity in others -- her husband, her children. She cannot find it in the dull routine of housework .... even if a woman does not have to work to eat, she can find identity only in work that is of real value to societ-- work for which our society pays."
Assault on the Sexes
Andrea Fordham wrote an excellent book called The Assault on the Sexes. She goes into the many arguments of feminism such as the naive view that there are two kinds of feminists -- radical and moderate, man haters and those who don't, etc. She explains you can't be a little bit pregnant. There is no good to feminism. There is no good to a little bit of adultery or one cigarette. Any attempt to destroy patriarchy in the home and in society is Satanic. Period. So many people, even conservatives like Mona Charen, think there is a difference between moderate and radical feminists and that some good came from feminism. Andrea Fordham explains (as Mary Pride did earlier) that you can't be a little bit pregnant: "If you read the popular press, you get the impression that feminists are merely crusaders after simple justice, defenders of all that is just and good .... Most people are for equal pay and equal opportunity. But a feminist, it seems, is something else. Whether she admits it or prefers to hide the fact, a feminist is someone who is encouraging a restructuring of society through obliteration of the sex roles. And in the end, perhaps the truth is just that you can't be little bit feminist any more than you can be a little bit pregnant. All who work to deny and defeat the value of sex roles, however faint or fierce their contribution, are supporting the same revolutionary scheme."
The following is a snippet from Mrs. Fordham to give you a flavor of her book. I hope you go to the library and read it. If they don't have it, order it through interlibrary loan. She writes, "In The Feminine Mystique, Betty Friedan began the ludicrous feminist tradition of pretending that the world is loaded with fulfilling, entertaining jobs. She wrote: 'The feminine mystique has succeeded in burying millions of American women alive. There is no way for these women to break out of their comfortable concentration camps except by finally putting forth an effort -- that human effort which reaches beyond biology, beyond the narrow walls of home, to help shape the future....' "
"Beyond the routine destructiveness of calling peoples' occupations 'concentration camps ' and 'ghettos, ' this kind of twaddle -- which is all too characteristic of the feminist movement -- is completely out of touch with reality. It's exactly the 'dull routine ' of housework and office work and of most work that is unfortunately essential to keep society running. (There are, of course, drawbacks to every job.) The idea that the libbers can give all of us the fulfillment and joy that they obviously have not been able to obtain for themselves is a joke. And when you consider the probable consequences of choices made by women whom the feminists have influenced that tend to weaken the institutions of marriage, home and family, it's a grim joke indeed."
Chesterton criticizes feminists who glorify the workplace over the home. A few feminists are excited with their glamorous jobs such as congresswomen and college professors. But for most women and men the workplace is more repetitive and offers less chance for growth than the woman at home. He writes: "Of the two sexes the woman is in the more powerful position. For the average woman is at the head of something with which she can do as she likes the average man has to obey orders and do nothing else. He has to put one dull brick on another dull brick, and do nothing else;; he has to add one dull figure to another dull figure, and do nothing else. The woman's world is a small one, perhaps, but she can alter it. The woman can tell the tradesman with whom she deals some realistic things about himself. The clerk who does this to the manager generally gets the sack .... Above all the woman does work which is in some small degree creative and individual. She can put the flowers or the furniture in fancy arrangements of her own. I fear the bricklayer cannot put the bricks in fancy arrangements of his own, without disaster to himself and others. If the woman is only putting a patch into a carpet, she can choose the thing with regard to colour .... A woman cooking may not always cook artistically, still she can cook artistically. She can introduce a personal and imperceptible alteration into the composition of a soup. The clerk is not encouraged to introduce a personal and imperceptible alteration into the figures in a ledger
Mary Pride explains that there are no good aspects to feminism. She says, "What happens when women throw out what the Bible says about women's sphere because it 'merely reflects ancient patriarchal culture,' and then launch into a lifestyle that reflects our culture?...Christians have accepted feminist' 'moderate' demands for ... careers while rejecting the 'radical' side of feminism -- meaning lesbianism... What most do not see is that one demand leads to the other. Feminism is a totally self-consistent system aimed at rejecting God's role for women. Those who adopt any part of its lifestyle can't help picking up its philosophy. And those who pick up its philosophy are buying themselves a one-way ticket to social anarchy." She explains how Christian churches stopped teaching that women are to be in the home: "Feminists had a plan for women; Christians didn't .... At every turn Christian women found their biological, economic, and social roles were considered worthless .... Today we are reaping the fruits. Role obliteration is the coming thing in evangelical, and even fundamentalist, circles. If women can't be women, by golly they will be men! All because two or more generations have grown up and married without ever hearing that the Bible teaches a distinct role for women which is different from that of a man and just as important. "
"Homeworking is the biblical lifestyle for Christian wives. Homeworking is not just staying home either (that was the mistake of the fifties). We are not called by God to stay home, or to sit at home, but to work at home! Homeworking is the exact opposite of the modern careerist/institutional/Socialist movement. It is a way to take back control of education, health care, agriculture, social welfare, business, housing, morality, and evangelism from the faceless institutions to which we have surrendered them. More importantly, homeworking is the path of obedience to God."
Woman 's Role: Titus 2:3-5
Mrs. Pride divides her book, The Way Home, into chapters that explore each of the womanly roles listed in Titus 2:3-5: "Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home [literally, home-working], to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God." She says women are "unwilling to face up to" the responsibility to do these things. "Titus 2:3-5 is the most important text in the Bible on married women's roles, capsulizing a young wife's marital, sexual, biological, economic, authority, and ministering roles. Yet women's books routinely ignore, mutilate, or even mock this passage. There appears to be a great desire to accommodate Christianity to our culture, and a corresponding willingness to dismiss the Bible's teaching as a remnant of outdated, male-dominated culture."
Mrs. Pride writes, "For us wives, it boils down to this: are we willing to obey God, to love our husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to work at home (not the office), to be kind, and to be subject to our husbands, so that no one will blaspheme the Word of God?... Homeworking will not automatically solve every problem. But it will get us on the right track. 'The wise woman builds her house, but with her own hands the foolish one tears hers down ' (Prov. 14:1). " Women have helped tear down the home; women can rebuild it. We have seen enough torn-down houses: broken marriages, rebellious children, barren churches. Now it is time to be wise. It's time for homeworking. It's time to see what the true God can do."
Years ago more women lived in extended families that lent itself more easily to do Titus 2, but Satan has worked hard to end that and stick women in isolated little homes without any relatives or friends nearby. Without this protection the suburban housewife was doomed. Betty Friedan lived in the 1950's nuclear family of man as breadwinner, wife as homemaker and children at public school. A popular show on everyone's black and white TV was Father Knows Best which was America's ideal of parents who never yell and a boy and girl who have minor problems to solve. It seems like feminists have written exactly one million books saying how awful those little islands of families were. Stephanie Coontz is one of most popular now. Insight magazine pitted her against David Popenoe, a distinguished sociologist who disagrees with her saying the nuclear family is better than anything she can come up with. I can't go into all the arguments here. It has not been fun for me to read those one million books by feminists who simply cannot think straight.
Dr. Robert Mendelsohn in Confessions of a Medical Heretic writes: "Since few American families live with or close to other relatives, the mother is physically removed from the solace and support her mother or grandmother could provide." He says this is a "recipe for making a mother at least neurotic and at worse crazy." This is one of the reasons we read tragic stories of mothers abusing children. He says, "Since there's no one to help her in the home, the woman tries to save herself by escaping from the home. In many cases, the strain on the husband and the wife is so great when they have only each other to look to as both the cause and the solution of their problems, that the marriage ends in divorce. Or, less drastically, the woman wastes no time finding a 'fulfilling' job outside the home. Either way, the child is shunted off to a day-care center."
No glamorous jobs
In one of James Dobson's books on relationships he prints a letter that a woman, Mary Fay Bourgoin, had sent to the Washington Post. Here is a small part of this letter that represents all those millions of women who have bought the satanic ideology of feminism. She says she read Friedan's book in 1964 when she was in college, "It was a page turner. The happy housewife heroine was a myth." So she combined career with having children and now years later she says, "These days it seems that my home, Washington D.C., is a city of weary women, or, more accurately, exhausted working mothers. For several months, I have been among those who rise at dawn to shower, blow dry their hair, pack lunches, do a load of wash, plug in the crock pot, and glance at the morning paper to make sure the world is not ending before 9 a.m. "
"Provided there is no last-minute scramble for missing shoes, homework, or show-and-tell items, my three daughters are at school by 8:40 and I am on my way to 'the real world.' "
"My job is interesting, working on Capitol Hill as a journalist, investigating the legislative process, interviewing members of Congress -- all described in my alumnae magazine as 'glamorous.' But most of the time I feel that I have one foot on a banana peel and the other on ice. "
"Balancing marriage, motherhood, and career has become the classic women's problem of the 1980s. For those who can pull it all together, life is a first-class act. But judging from my own experience and from talking with other women, life is often a constant round of heartburn, ulcers, and anxiety attacks."
A famous actress, Joanne Woodward, the wife of superstar actor Paul Newman, said women can't have it all and be supermoms: "You just can't leave a child to a housekeeper or the nanny, as a lot of women do. Otherwise you shouldn't have children. I do not believe, being a prime example of one, in being a working mother. If you're going to work, work. If you're going to be a mother, that is an exciting career, if you feel equipped to do it. If not, you shouldn't have children."
"If I had it to do all over again, I would make a decision one way or the other. My career has suffered because of the children and my children have suffered because of my career. And that's not fair. I've been torn and haven't been able to function fully in either arena. I don't know one person who does both successfully, and I know a lot of working mothers."
Help for women leaving the workplace
Many women are going back home. In Staying Home: From Full-Time Professional to Full-Time Parent the authors list some organizations and tells a bit about each one. Some of these mother 's support organizations are FEMALE (Formerly Employed Mothers at the Leading Edge), La Leche League, MOMS (Moms Offering Moms Support) Club, MOPS (Mothers of Preschoolers) International, and Mothers at Home, Inc.
Larry Burkett has a book Women Leaving the Workplace. He gives pointers on how to make the transition smoothly. Here is an example of the good advice he gives women: "Establish a schedule for a typical day as a full-time mom .... It may sound corny to say that a stay-at-home mom should use a daily planning calendar, but it 's a good idea. Businesses invest millions of dollars in individual time-management aids because they have been proven to work. Your time at home is also valuable. "
If you do nothing else, I encourage you to make a daily priority list of things that you want to accomplish. Too much regimen can be legalistic, but too little can lead to slothfulness. As the proverb warns: 'A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest -- and your poverty will come in like a vagabond ' (Proverbs 6:10-11). "
Burkett tells a story of a young mother who experienced blessings when she left work. My wife and I have had the same unexpected blessing when she quit and stayed home. God truly does work in mysterious and amazing ways when you live according to His laws. The woman writes, "I found myself crying each morning on my way to work as I left my sleeping babies, knowing that I wouldn 't even touch them that day until I arrived home at 6 p.m. (or later). How well I remember standing at my stove, still in my heels and suit, balancing a clutching baby on each hip, wondering what to prepare for dinner, trying to give my husband the attention he needed, and not having a clue about what occurred in my little girls ' minds and hearts without their Mama in their lives that day. "
"But the Lord knew all of this, and it was He who opened my eyes. I resigned from my position with the airlines, and in our case, the loss of my $30,000 salary literally cut our income in half. However, when we truly needed something, I prayed, and the Lord always answered. "
"On one occasion when I had prayed for children 's clothing, I received so much that when my husband arrived home from work, he literally could not walk through the living room for all the stacks and boxes of girl 's clothes. (One friend had cleaned out a yard sale of our girls ' sizes and shipped the clothing in huge boxes; other friends 'just happened ' to be cleaning out closets and remembered our children.) "
"My husband just looked at me and calmly asked, 'You 've been praying again, haven 't you? ' This incident is only a small illustration of countless perfectly answered prayers, each one its own beautiful story, every one resulting in a closer knowledge of Him who loves us so. "
Burkett had input from thousands of women nationwide for his book. One woman wrote these poignant words: "I went to college for 6 years to get a B.A. in Elementary Education and a M.A. in Education with the Acoustically Handicapped. I worked in the public school system and loved teaching in one of the highest paying counties for teachers in the United States. "
"My husband made less than I did with no benefits. So our decision to live on one income was based on conviction. Are there any moral principles or biblical guidelines for us to follow in the decision to work as a mother of small children or stay home with them and nurture them myself? "
"Our conviction is based on Titus 2:4-5 (NAS). 'That they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their husbands, that the word of God may not be dishonored. ' "
"God has given me a responsibility as a mother under my husband 's direction and leading to train up my children in His way by teaching them from the home. This means I must be home with my children to impart disciplines to them. "
"I love being home although I have struggled at times, especially on first leaving the workplace, with [self] worth in vacuuming and doing dishes. My criteria of a worthwhile job was the pay. To be home with no income left me feeling worthless at times. I have since learned what being a homeworker entails. It is not just cleaning and cooking but building an environment that is hospitable for outsiders, warm for my husband, and enjoyable yet teachable for my children. "
"Does God care if I work outside the home or home with my children to nurture, train and discipline them? Yes He does! "
Friedan was a housewife with children when she wrote her garbage. She divorced her husband and started a feminist organization to spread the good news. Women had steadily been leaving the home since 1920 and as they did the divorce rate climbed proportionately. The same is true for statistics of crime and illegitimacy. We have declined in every area of life since women left the home. A distinguished economist at Columbia University, Eli Ginzberg, called women leaving home "the single most outstanding phenomenon of this century." He says it has had a greater impact than the rise of communism. What he doesn't know is that communism's core value is to get women out of the home.
Feminists argue that we are in a period of great transition from the old fashioned ways to a brave new world. In fact, they say, in so many ways, things are better because women have changed the competitive war-like atmosphere men have created to one of harmonious cooperation. The workplace is so much more peaceful now. The workplace was out of balance until women came. In one survey of male CEOs in Fortune 500 companies, they said "Women bring a positive, humanizing quality to the corporate environment." They have been digested by feminism. All male leaders must spout this nonsense to keep from going to court.
To mix or not to mix
The managing editor of a prominent newwpaper said that women have supreme verbal skills and are able to bring love to what used to be a den of fighting: "In the newsroom where it is very tense, there is a lot of pressure and everyone is operating at an optimum because the work you do is visible on a huge public scale every day, a woman's inclination to talk things through rather than fight things through, is often helpful. In our business there is now more of an appreciation for balance in the newsroom." She says it is good to "mix" women and men together in the workplace, "people really see it as an advantage now to have a mix of men and women." Father and Tocqueville use that very work "mix" as well. Father says it's like mixing a match and gasoline. We'll look at Tocqueville's use of the word "mix" a little later. She spouts the same old tiresome rhetoric of all feminists whose party line is that women are creating such a loving atmosphere in the workplace. According to one survey taken, there is loving going on, but not the high sounding kind she talks of: "A survey of 444 readers of Men's Health magazine in fall 1987 showed even more surprising statistics: Over 50 percent of those surveyed had been sexually propositioned by someone at work; and another 18 percent had sex in their place of work; and another 18 percent had sex with a coworker during work hours!"
When women work they usually see successful men. This is dangerous. The Andelin 's write: "Still another harm to consider is the woman 's relationship to her employer, especially if he is a man. The wife is accustomed to looking at her husband as the director of her activities. When she finds herself taking orders from another man, it is an unnatural situation for her. She owes him a certain obedience as her employer, and in countless hours of close contact she may find herself physically attracted to him. Seeing him at his best and perhaps as a more dynamic and effective leader than her husband, she makes comparisons unfavorable to her husband whose faults and failings she knows all too well. " A woman may have a good man as her boss and this is dangerous. She may have an archangel type of man and that is dangerous. The reverse is also true. A man may work for a good woman and compare his wife unfavorably, or he may have an Eve type boss and struggle with that.
Husbands should not let their wives be bossed around by other men. Andelin writes: "She cannot serve two masters. Her neglect of home life results in lack of love, attention, and development of the children as well as her failure to serve as the understanding wife. "
Women working has caused so much divorce. There are so many examples of where even religious women can 't hold a marriage when they have a career. Two that come to mind are Sheila Walsh and Marie Osmond. Sheila was a workaholic as a singer by night and sitting next to Pat Robertson on the 700 Club by day. She wrote a book after her divorce. Her long hours of work were incredible. Instead of having children she got caught up in work. Marie Osmond is part of the Osmond family that used to be the poster family for the Mormon church. For years the church showed a picture of their family in their ad in the Reader 's Digest, the most circulated magazine in the world. Then Marie got a divorce and that ended that. She was a workaholic. One sister wrote to me saying this is not the time for women to stay home because this is a hurting world and needs the nurturing love of women. I agree as long as women try to heal this world through volunteer actions and are supported solely by their husbands. Women should not earn money from business or the church. After their families are taken care of and they have free time then it is fine to spend time in volunteer service. Even then Father says those activities would come after she has successfully witnessed one person a month to accept the Divine Principle or at least got someone to go to the blessing.
Most people in America believe in the feminist ideology that it is wonderful mankind has advanced and now mixes men and women. The party line now says everything is so much better because women can now fulfill their potential and society will be improved. Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson, professor of economics at M.I.T. says, "To the degree that women are getting an opportunity that they didn't have in the past, the economy is tapping an important and previously wasted resource." The Guinness book of records has writer Marilyn vos Savant as having the world's highest IQ. She calls herself an "armchair feminist". She gives advice to millions of people in newspapers and books. Some one wrote asking if she thought working women were taking away jobs from some men who are trying to be breadwinners. She responded, "In essence, then, you seem to think that perhaps women are gratuitously taking jobs that men could have to support women and children. If the situation were changed, presumably husbands would make money (with a bit of help from their wives), and wives would make babies (with a bit of help from their husbands). And that would perpetuate the system that totally blocked the entire female sex from historical prominence in the areas of politics, science, technology, literature, and the arts. The loss of half the contribution of humankind is a truly awesome price to pay."
She says more but there has to be a limit to this book. The arguments are endless. These two smart people, Samuelson and vos Savant have high IQS but low wisdom. I used to believe as they do. I used to think that mothers made no "contribution" to "humankind" and that they were mindless creatures who sat around all day eating chocolate, watching soap operas and getting fat. Housewives are viewed as being parasites and "wasted resources" instead of being out in the rat race having one of those "fulfilling " careers. Then I studied the arguments of those who disagree. Too many women have been digested by this feminist culture. Shakespeare said, "The seeming truth / Which cunning times put on / To entrap the wisest."
Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women
Feminism promises so much but delivers only tragedy. After years of people living feminism 's lie, there is beginning to be some voices of reason speaking up. Christine Sommers is a distinguished professor of philosophy. She says feminists have done great harm to every institution of America. She presents a powerful scholarly reasoned attack on the bankruptcy of feminism in her book Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women. In her chapter on journalism she spends several pages on how feminists like Ellen Goodman have created a chilly atmosphere at the Boston Globe with lawsuits against men working there.
In the area of education she writes, "Campus feminists have made the American campus a less happy place, having successfully browbeaten a once outspoken and free faculty." She gives specific stories of what Rush Limbaugh calls femi-nazis have done. They control campuses. I hope our university keeps them out as if they are the plague -- because they are a plague. One of the main points I want to make in this book is that the 19th century had a masculine atmosphere and the 20th is feminine. The 19th was a patriarchy and the 20th is a matriarchy. It may seem that men are in power, but the tone and direction has been led by women. Men progressively gave up power in the 19th century culminating in the vote. Since then women have progressively become like men, and men have been castrated. Father talks about women leading men in America all the time. Men, he says, are timid.
Tocqueville 's keen insights
Tocqueville's Democracy in America is a classic for good reason. He gave deep insights about America that we can learn from today. He perceptively saw, as he traveled around America in the early 19th century, that if America adopted the deadly ideology of "mixing" men and women in business we would become a nation of "weak men and disorderly women." Sadly this has happened. Listen carefully to his breathtaking eloquence: "There are people in Europe who, confounding together the different characteristics of the sexes, would make man and woman into beings not only equal but alike. They would give to both the same functions, impose on both the same duties, and grant to both the same rights; they would mix them in all things -- their occupations, their pleasures, their business. It may readily be conceived that by thus attempting to make one sex equal to the other, both are degraded, and from so preposterous a medley of the works of nature nothing could ever result but weak men and disorderly women."
I can't believe how beautifully he writes the truth. All this incessant talk of equality by feminists is just a ploy to make men and women "alike." In the end, feminism is a world of unisex androgyny -- a sick spiritual atmosphere of men who are weak and women who are so out of order that you couldn't find the traditional feminine characteristic of delicacy if you put them under a microscope. Father and Mother show true masculinity and femininity. Women are tomboys, and men are gutless wonders who busy themselves with secondary pursuits. Women cut men's balls off, and men helped. Then men went crazy and now we have a bunch of confused little boys. Some men have even degenerated into househusbands.
Men in former times were more in order than today. Tocqueville praises the America he saw for not having weak men and disorderly women. He appreciates America for not only using distinct division of labor in industry, but between men and women as well: "It is not thus that the Americans understand that species of democratic equality which may be established between the sexes. They admit that as nature has appointed such wide differences between the physical and moral constitution of man and woman, her manifest design was to give a distinct employment to their various faculties; and they hold that improvement does not consist in making beings so dissimilar do pretty nearly the same things, but in causing each of them to fulfill their respective tasks in the best possible manner. The Americans have applied to the sexes the great principle of political economy which governs the manufacturers of our age, by carefully dividing the duties of man from those of woman in order that the great work of society may be the better carried on ...."
He concludes his book by saying that because American women are truly feminine, America is prospering: "As for myself, I do not hesitate to avow that although the women of the United States are confined within the narrow circle of domestic life, and their situation is in some respects one of extreme dependence, I have nowhere seen woman occupying a loftier position; and if I were asked, now that I am drawing to the close of this work, in which I have spoken of so many important things done by the Americans, to what the singular prosperity and growing strength of that people ought mainly to be attributed, I should reply: to the superiority of their women." He wouldn 't say that today. Father has more insight into America than Tocqueville ever had and he says over and over how men are weak and women are disorderly.
Communism is anti-traditional family
The ideology that attacks the traditional family is Communism. Feminism and socialism are aspects of Communism and go together like a horse and carriage. Like Betty Friedan, Marx and Engels wrote against the traditional family which divides the labor of men and women. Engels says women are slaves to men, and when they are taken out of the home to earn money then they will be free. He says that when "The man took command in the home the woman was degraded and reduced to servitude; she became the slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children ... within the family he is the bourgeois and his wife represents the proletariat." Women, he says, are unpaid servants who have talents that can only be used if she is earning money in "social production" and "public industry." Like feminists, he disparages homemaking saying that the wife's household labor "became a private service; the wife became the head servant, excluded from all participation in social production."
Michael Levine, in his anti-feminist book Feminism and Freedom says, "There is no doubt that the founders of Marxism were feminists. In The Origin of the Family, Engels wrote: 'It will be plain that the first condition for the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex into public industry and that this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society. Monogamous marriage comes on the scene as the subjugation of the one sex by the other. The emancipation of woman will be possible only when ... domestic work no longer claims anything but an insignificant portion of her time.'"
Feminists still honor him. In a recent book by a feminist titled The Creation of Patriarchy, the author praises Marx and Engels saying, "Marxist analysis has been very influential in determining the questions asked by feminist scholars. The basic work of reference is Frederick Engels ' Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State ... Engels made major contributions to our understanding of women's position in society and history."
Because America has embraced Communism's core belief that women should work, the family has been crippled as they predicted it would. Socialists/Feminists substitute the state for the husband. This is a cancerous ideology. Either you believe in women working, or you don't. You can't have it both ways. You can't be a little bit pregnant. You can't "mix" these two ideologies. You either believe in Friedan and Engels or the Bible and Tocqueville. The concept that men and women will share work and housekeeping is fantasy. Men will never care for babies and do the dishes half the time. And women who combine career and home will end up with two full-time jobs and not be able to become excellent in either. There are limits. To achieve in the workplace you must be a professional and put in long hours. To achieve excellence in the home -- to nurse 12 children, teach home school, care for the aged grandparents, do housework and be a loving, supporting wife -- requires not just full-time, but over-time hours. There are rules for games from chess to basketball. Within those "rigid" rules Michael Jordan and other professional athletes can do their magic. The rules of life may seem "rigid" but within them we can have truth, beauty and goodness.
The most read women in America is Ann Landers. She is typical of America. In one of her newspaper columns a woman wrote in angry at someone who had wrote saying "there would be more jobs if wives and mothers would stay home." She goes on to say to this man, "If you can't stand the heat from competing with women in the work force, get IN the kitchen buster, and leave the jobs to those who are qualified and love their work." This kind of tone comes from the fierce competition in the marketplace that makes women, like this one, tough and unfeminine. Women competing for jobs makes the battle of the sexes escalate. This angry woman continues saying, "Men do not have a God-given right to employment, and I am tired of their whining, while women who need to work get smaller wages and rampant discrimination." Wrong again. This woman is a formidable competitor for men as most women are now. There is no sense that women are "weaker" as the Bible says.
Many people say feminism has been good because it fights discrimination and unfair business practices toward women. It has done nothing of the sort. It has created chaos in the marketplace. Scientific studies show that if we compare in an apples and oranges way women look like they are being discriminated against and earn 70 cents to a man's dollar or 80 cents or whatever the latest rigged statistics feminists come up with. But true studies show that if men and women who work are compared equally in education, time spent on the job, etc. that there is no difference in pay with some exceptions where women earn more than men.
Thomas Sowell in Knowledge and Decisions writes that statistics feminists give for women earning less than men are wrong. There are many ways of explaining how intellectually sloppy and deceitful feminists are, but I'll just quote one small passage to give a flavor of the antifeminist view. Sowell writes, "With women the key variable is marriage. Even before 'affirmative action' quotas, women in their 30s who had worked continuously since high school earned slightly more than men in their 30s who had worked continuously since high school. Female academics earned slightly more than male academics when neither were marrie-- again even before 'affirmative action' -- and unmarried female PhDs became full professors to a slightly greater extent than did unmarried male PhDs. In short, the male-female differences in incomes and occupations are largely differences between married women and all other persons." I don't want to make this book long so I'm not going to get into all the arguments socialists/feminists have. If your interested read books by Thomas Sowell and others. To those who need more nuances and added thought I can only refer to the many books, some of which I quote. I thought about making a thousand page book and going into every point and counter-point, but I decided that would be overkill for most people.
Lets look at a graphic example to show how absurd feminism is in its push for equality in the marketplace. One year the leading cadet at West Point was a woman name Kristin. I saw a picture in a magazine of a tall male cadet saluting this little woman. Her standards for physical strength are far less than his. Feminism has no sense of what is truly fair. Has this woman cadet taken a job away from a man? Yes, she has. Has she earned the right to be the boss over men? No. It was good discrimination when our military academies were "rigid" in having only men. It is satanic discrimination that puts women in the men's realm. I'm not against discrimination; I'm for it. Phyllis Schlafly was right to fight against the satanic ERA amendment. Sadly, most first ladies went to a feminist rally for it years ago. You can't be a little bit pregnant. The feminist agenda is totally false. It's black or white. It doesn't matter how high sounding, how idealistic, how many pie-in-the-sky promises socialists/feminists make the result is the breakdown of marriages, families and the economy. The result will be little women trying to protect men and coming back in body bags or raped by the enemy or raped by their fellow soldiers who have lost all respect for themselves, women and the family.
Continuing on through with this 20th century tough as nails in-your-face woman's letter: "Many women work because the bum they married is lazy or disappeared or abuses alcohol and drugs. Other women are married to good men whose jobs just don't pay enough to support the family." Before I look at this argument, let me say something about arguments in general. There are so many things to analyze when you look at the endless arguments people give. I wish I could fully go into every one. All of this debate reminds me of the Causa book and slide show. It had to go one by one into countless arguments that communists make . Analyzing all the nuances of Marx, Lenin, etc. is time consuming and usually too much for the average person who doesn't even read the Bible, let alone The Communist Manifesto. I'm that rare person who has read a bunch of the avalanche of books by socialists and feminists and anti-socialists and anti-feminists. I've heard all the arguments of feminists which go something like this: "Common sense says the earth is flat. If it was round, we'd all fall off." They say this with a patronizing attitude of "how stupid and Neanderthal can a person get." Gilder says he is "America's number one anti-feminist." He writes eloquently and debates some of the idiotic arguments of feminists, but they keep winning. They win over the average person and the President of the United States. They even win the UC. The anti-feminist argument goes something like this: "The earth is round and people don't fall off because of the law of gravity. We must respect and obey the law of gravity. It may seem 'rigid ' but it really is a wonderful law from God and anyone who disobeys it will get hurt and possibly die."
The arguments of feminists versus anti-feminists is a black and white issue as many issues are. Either Jesus is God, or he isn't. Either Chapter two is right about the Fall of Man, or it isn't. Either men protect, or they don't. Either fornication is bad, or it isn't. There is an exception to every rule. Mary and Zachariah committed fornication. God approved. But that's about it. Either women stay at home or not. Like adultery, we can't say it is good for some but bad for others. The law of the universe is simply that no woman should provide for her family. Her husband, her brother, or other men in her community should always take care of her. That is God's ideal. To the degree that we violate this law is the degree to which we suffer.
Getting back to Ann Lander's macho woman, she says that "many women" have to work because there are so many bums out there. Ultimately men should take responsibility if things are not right, but in all fairness men have been beaten over the head by feminists for a hundred years who nag and complain and refuse to be patient and usurp men's role. Women want everything yesterday. Father says they live in the now, and men live in the future. Eve got impatient with Adam. She left her position and led. Men are dreamers, and this drives women crazy. Anti-feminist books by such authors as Helen Andelin, Mary Pride, Phyllis Schlafly, and Beverly LaHaye teach women how to help men achieve. Mrs. Norman Vincent Peale in The Adventure of Being a Wife teaches women how to support their husbands. It is a beautiful story of how she helped her husband who had many insecurities and quirks that at first amazed her, but she says women are to study their husbands as she did and help them.
Let's look at the Amazon's statement to Ann Landers about those good men who have jobs that don't pay enough. It's a matter of cause and effect. There is a pervading atmosphere that men are weak, so men become weak. The reason many men don't strive to earn extra money, to improve their skills, etc. is because their wives deep down don't believe in their husbands, or they feel trapped in the house or won't live within his budget. It is also very hard for men because they have to compete with other women, and it is demoralizing. Their conscience says to protect women, and then they spend their whole time competing with them and sometimes losing to them and being bossed by women.
Let's continue: "Stop blaming others for your failure. I know men who have opted to stay home and keep house while their wives go to work. They say it was the best choice they ever made, though most admit keeping house was not the cinch they thought it would be." This is more fantasy and disorder. Househusbands are total wimps. We can only pray their children are not totally as confused as they are and become homosexual. Men do not have the temperament to care for children -- let alone 12.
Let's look at some more outer space logic. She writes, "There is no prescribed role for any human on this planet. It's up to each of us to find our own special niche without denying that opportunity to anyone else based on gender. signed Proud Professional." There would be more and better jobs done more professionally and happily by men if women lived their "prescribed role" as a "professional" homemaker. There would be more intact and happy families if men and women lived God's way of life where the man is the sole provider. Ann Lander's reply to this letter was, "Beautiful. Thanks for a superb rebuttal." Most of America would agree. I used to agree. Like a good member I lived this way and thought my wife was an idealistic "strong" soldier fighting Satan and filling the indemnity bank when she got in and out of her junk car all alone in parking lots of bars late at night. She was Rosie the Riveter in this emergency war -- a war greater than WWII. She was frontline. Of course I didn't know I was doing exactly what my enemy, Marx and Engels, wanted me to do. And I didn't know how much damage to the home those married Rosie the Riveters caused in WWII. I especially didn't know I was being castrated.
Home by Choice
Brenda Hunter has a great book that goes into so many points on how devastating it is when women leave the home to work. She is a renowned psychologist who has appeared on radio, national television and before congressional staff. In Home by Choice she gives excellent scientific data and insights into the damage of day care for children, the terrible damage to women and the devastating effect on men. She writes that she appeared on "The Jenny Jones Show" with Faye Crosby, who chairs the psychology department at Smith College. Her book, Juggling, is a best seller that gives Crosby 's ideas of the advantages of women working on children, women and men. Hunter says, "whether she knows it or not, she makes a strong case against juggling by citing in her book all the losses men (and their wives) incur when women try to combine family life with paid employment... " She says, "Crosby says that men in traditional marriages can count on their wives' help as they climb the corporate ladder. Wives direct family life, care for the kids, and feed and help clothe their husbands. This leaves men free to pursue careers It is not surprising, says Crosby, that men in dual career families feel deprived when wives work outside the homes."
"Also, men lose their role as sole provider when wives work full-time. Men grieve, says Crosby, when this role is lost because being a good breadwinner is central to their self-concept. Men may see the entry of women into the marketplace as an indication that they have somehow failed in the provider role. Some men, as a consequence, grow to dislike their jobs. When a woman assumes or shares the provider role, Crosby says even the most liberated husband will feel a keen sense of loss."
Hunter goes on to say that when women bring home paychecks, "men lose authority." Crosby has "little sympathy" for men on this. But the result is that men increasingly get less strong and decisive. Finally, she says, "intimacy" is lost from the home. A woman, she says, is the "architect of intimacy," and when she works she is too stressed, tired and busy to really respond to her family as they need her. She says that "when emotional intimacy disappears in a marriage, it isn't long before sexual intimacy evaporates as well." She writes, "grown men, as well as little children, need someone at home to function as a 'secure base.' The wife and mother, it seems, is the architect of intimacy for her husband as well as her children. "
"The point of this brief examination of male vulnerability is to assert that sons and husbands need the women in their lives to nurture them, appreciate them, and express interest in their lives. As little boys or as high-powered executives, males suffer from neglect." TV evangelist James Robison says, AWomen have great strength, but they are strengths to help the man. A woman 's primary purpose in life and marriage is to help her husband succeed, to help him be all God wants him to be. "
Everything I write about in this book and everything the authors I like write about is challenged in other books. There is always a Cain/Abel split on issues. If you don 't like what I write you have many books to support whatever lifestyle you want. In the above we saw how Brenda Hunter differs from Faye Crosby. Crosby is a feminist liberal from Smith College. Other women from prestigious colleges write the same kind of nonsense as Crosby. For example, Rosalind Barnett and Caryl Rivers wrote She Work/He Works: How Two-Income Families are Happier, Healthier, and Better-Off. Both have long careers and written other books. Barnett is a scholar at Radcliffe College and Rivers is a professor at Boston University. Both say they have raised two children who are happy. Radcliffe mentions in her book that she is divorced. They deny everything I write in this book. To me it is like reading a criticism of the Principle saying how wrong it is that we believe Jesus is not coming back on the clouds. I find the opposition 's arguments ridiculous. They title their first chapter, "Ozzie and Harriet Are Dead. " They say, "The new American family is alive and well. Both partners are employed full time, and according to the latest research, the family they create is one in which all members are thriving: often happier, healthier, and more well-rounded than the family of the 1950s ....That 's the message of this new, myth-shattering study of such couples, funded by a 1 million-dollar grant form the National Institutes of Mental Health. Our study shows that the full-time-employed, dual-earner couple is a success .... The men and women are doing well, emotionally and physically, and the children are thriving. They go into how it is so much better than the 1950s and the Victorian era. One of the historians they love to quote is a fellow liberal feminist, Stephanie Coontz who wrote The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap. Insight Magazine did a Cain/Abel type article pitting her with David Popenoe, a even more distinguished writer than she is. Coontz is divorced and has one son.
The authors say that only 3% of families fit the traditional model and we will never go back. So those (like me) who write of the "fantasy " of the past are making people unnecessarily guilty and bringing on unhealthy thoughts of inadequacy and low-self esteem. This "new nostalgia " is basically coming from the Christian right that they despise because it is a terrible backlash to feminism. They paint a picture of the 1950s as one where fathers were distant and today they are close. The Victorian man was drugged out on opium, women in corsets, and men with VD from their mistresses. They say the nineteenth-century writer Henry James was wrong to say in his famous novel, The Bostonians: "The whole generation is womanized. The masculine tone is passing out of the world. It 's a feminine, nervous, hysterical, chattering, canting age.... "
"It was against this backdrop that Teddy Roosevelt 's hypermasculinity charged onto the world stage. It wasn 't secure manhood that the Rough Rider represented, but the anxiety of the time about what men were, or ought to be. "
"The Boy Scouts were founded in 1911 in large degree because of a worry about the 'feminization ' of young boys who spent their days in the female world of school. "
They quote studies showing that children do not get "maternal deprivation " when their kids are in day care. They are hurt that Hillary Clinton is "trashed " so much when she is such a wonderful role model. They say it is impossible for men to be the sole providers and even if they could it would be wrong because it would stop women from growing in the marketplace and stunt the spirit of men who need to change diapers and do dishes equal to the woman. They write, "We have to get rid of the idea that a man is what he earns, that a man who is not the sole breadwinner is somehow a failure as a man. That fiction dooms today 's and tomorrow 's men -- who will be part of the collaborative couple -- to high stress and poor emotional health. We have to allow men to get more of their self-esteem from their roles as fathers -- and also as members of the community. To tie men 's self-esteem totally to their jobs in a time of such great economic flux is dangerous. " They are scared of the traditional family and I am scared of them. They are dangerous to me. We are at war and there is no compromise. True Parents have a traditional and collaborative marriage. But it is not the kind of collaborative feminists dream of. I probably repeat myself too much, but once again I 'll say that the past was not perfect, but there are some major things we need to restore and in the restoration of the world the UC is pioneering, many of the values of the past are part of what we need in the Completed Testament Age.
Feminization of men
In a chapter titled "The Withering Away of the Family" in the Book The Recovery of Family Life, Elton and Pauline Trueblood write, "When we consider the human price of this increasingly accepted social patten of double earning, we usually stress the harmful effects upon children or the hardening of the mothers, but the effect upon the adult men may be quite as important in the long run. Once men took great pride in being able to provide for their families and resented any implication that a second pay check was needed, but now many men welcome whatever help the wife can give. What we are witnessing is a feminization of men, a psychological development independent of physical characteristics. In modern life a man often goes from dependence on one woman to dependence upon another. Thus the man is cheated of his basis of self-respect and the woman is cheated in that she never has the sense of security which a strong man gives. In this situation it is hard to know how much is cause and how much is effect; the wife has to earn because the man does not provide sufficiently, but his very failure to provide may come partly because of a social pattern which undermines his self-respect."
"We are sure of two things. First, those of us who do not face this economic and social problem must be very tender toward those who do, and, second, we must understand clearly the human harm which comes as the family withers away at important levels in our society. Only as we understand the loss will we have the incentive adequate to make us use our imagination to reverse the process of decay." He says women are trying "to perform the miracle of carrying on two full-time occupations at once."
I wish I could give all the arguments against "mixing" men and women in the marketplace. I don't have time to quote great passages from the Andelin's as they explain how dangerous it is for women to be working with high powered men and comparing them with their husbands. So much immorality happens when we put women with men. Children's personalities are hurt and sometimes they are abused in day care centers. (As well as abuse to seniors in old folk's homes). Socialists/feminists promise a utopia of equality but deliver an equality of suffering. Hollywood gives America its most vivid images. The movie 9 to 5 is a comedy about three women who kidnap their boss and run a company better than him. Jane Fonda, Dolly Parton and Lily Tomlin star. Images such as this castrate men and confuse women. The personal lives of these movie stars are a disaster because they believe in feminism. None of them have been successful at marriage. Except now for Jane Fonda who is playing the traditional wife to a billionaire third husband so she won't lose him. She cannot run his company better than him. There was a ridiculous TV show years ago where a woman was a single mother who, on the sly, risks her life being a spy, and all the time being a great mother at home. America is being brainwashed and doesn't even know it.
Kirche, Kuche, und Kinder
Feminists like to say how horrible "Kirche, Kuche, und Kinder" was. They are wrong. Church, Kitchen and Children are the "rigid" and wonderful roles for women.
Korean culture honors patriarchy
Korea has a better understanding of the roles of men and women. Russell Warren Howe's book The Koreans says "Husbands of the middle or upper class feel the most diminished if their wives take jobs. Korean men probably work harder than any people on earth. They come home late and expect to find the women waiting."
In Introducing Korea, the author Peter Kyung writes, "The primary function of Korean women is to serve their men. They do so by bringing up their children properly and by preparing excellent meals for their families, especially their husbands. It is often said that the happiness of a family depends on the quality of food served in the household. Like the French, the Koreans take food very seriously. Well fed husbands are known to be more considerate and affectionate toward wives than ill-fed ones."
Hillary vs. Tipper
It was an insult to millions of women when Hillary Clinton said, "I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was fulfill my profession." Perhaps if she had stayed home, her husband would have been less interested in other women. Feminists never see homemaking as a "profession." Tipper Gore, the Vice President's wife, gave up her career to help her husband. Hillary has one child; Tipper has four. Having high powered careers rule out children. Hillary could have adopted, but she focused on her career, and it has been a nightmare for her family. Mrs. Gore said in an interview, "If I had pursued a career we would have had two separate lives, and I don't even know that we would have stayed married,' she says slowly, shaking her head... She finds herself at odds with the feminist ideal, that marriage and children can and should be a strictly 50-50 undertaking. 'I used to subscribe to the feminist doctrine, but now I find it more difficult... I've dismissed a lot of it as unworkable,' she continues, referring to the myth that today's superwoman can go from a high-powered career to a PTA meeting without missing a step. 'It was making me unnecessarily miserable."
Many women have lost their husbands because they didn 't do as Tipper did and quit working and take care of their husbands. Terry Bradshaw, the great profootball quarterback, says he's proud of being what feminists call a male chauvinist. His first wife was a fanatic for her career in ice skating. His second wife stayed home and had a baby. He says his second wife is better. He says of his former wife, Jo Jo Starbuck, "My ex-wife seemed to be competing with me. All she wanted to do was just spend my money and hit the airwaves and skate in every town in the world and buy skating outfits. Hell, I never saw her. This gal, when I'm around, she makes me feel like a king."
I 'm not saying that women should never leave the home. They should not earn money but do volunteer work, preferably church work. Men should volunteer and help their community too. But we must first get our families in order. And if that means that the woman is too preoccupied with raising her children and can 't add volunteer work or if the man is scrambling to provide for his family and can 't do volunteer work then that should be respected. In this world just to keep up to the high standard of living an orderly life is difficult and to produce a good marriage and good children who are not a drain on society is a great accomplishment. God wants us to stretch and reach out to other people though. Being inspirational all day long is beyond what most of us can do. But if we see our life and this battle with Satan as a marathon run with high feelings and low feelings then we can better fight the good fight on a daily basis. How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. It is especially hard to live an inspirational life in a society that is upside down. The temptations are so great. Especially the temptation to just be lazy. Because we can 't see those 40,000 children who die every and nobody talks about it, it is easy to forget the pain of God who has to watch all this. But we must keep pumping ourselves to stretch and be nonconformist and fanatics for the mission to witness. Americans are obsessed with TV. Drive down a street at night and you 'll see the blue glow coming out the picture window. Unfortunately the image is Roseanne whining away. There are never shows about religious families. Or shows that teach us to forgive. It is easy to judge people instead of seeing how evil spirit world pushes people around. Years ago the TV shows were more wholesome but still they were secular and trivial.
Roseanne disparages "domestic goddess "
The 1950's Ozzie and Harriet, Father Knows Best, Leave It To Beaver, and The Donna Reed Show never had the wife with 12 children being helped by grandparents and spending time outside the home doing church work. The only series that had a large family and grandparents was the popular series The Waltons which was based on a real family. Even then the Father refused to attend church while the wife went. All Christian manuals of marriage teach that the wife should not go to church if the man doesn't and win him over with her serving spirit. I can't go into that argument now. You'll have to read their books to understand how a woman is to live with different types of men. Even though these shows were not perfect they were better than today's garbage on TV like Roseanne. In her autobiography she tells how she became a feminist after having spent time at her local feminist organization and realizing she was just "barefoot and pregnant ". She became a comedienne basing her humor on making fun of Helen Andelin's phrase "Domestic Goddess." Women today have no concept that they are to be supporters of their husbands -- to help him grow and succeed by using feminine means. Father says, "The wife should make her husband successful; that is to say that she should be his great supporter." Sisters think they have to be "strong." Their greatest strength and talents are developed in the home and church. Adding work, even part-time, can only weaken her. Chesterton said, "I do not deny, that women have been wronged and even tortured; but I doubt if they were ever tortured so much as they are tortured now by the absurd modern attempt to make them domestic empresses and competitive clerks at the same time."
Because feminists teach the lie that women can interchange with men, men are using their natural aggressiveness in unhealthy ways. David Blankenhorn, in Fatherless America, says that this is America's number one problem. Blankenhorn says it is the cause of most of our problems, "from crime to adolescent pregnancy to child sexual abuse to domestic violence against women." He says that nobody understands this: "The most urgent domestic challenge facing the United States at the close of the twentieth century is the re-education of fatherhood as a vital role for men." I don't have the space to go into the reasons men are so out of it, but one of the major ones is that men are hurting because they are not the sole providers. His book is excellent in showing how our social problems are caused by the insanity of throwing out traditional values. He writes, "In sum, over the past two hundred years, fatherhood has lost, in full or in part, each of its four traditional roles: irreplaceable caregiver, moral educator, head of the family, and family breadwinner. As the historian Peter N. Stearns put it: 'An eighteenth-century father would not recognize the ... parental leadership granted to mothers or indeed the number of bad fathers.' Blankenhorn details how men have become unneeded. Feminism has destroyed the role of breadwinner and has therefore destroyed men. Gloria Steinem said it for all those who don't believe in the division of labor for men and women: "We are human beings first with minor differences from men that apply largely to the act of reproduction. The only functional difference between men and women is the woman's ability to give birth; therefore a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." This is the belief our culture holds for men and women. Interchangeable parts. More and more men are saying, "What's the use?" and checking out.
Blankenhorn is a powerful voice against the feminist's dream of taking the breadwinner role from men: "Does paternal breadwinning burden men? In some ways, of course, yes. A man who embraces the New Father philosophy of employment does indeed unburden himself. He frees himself up to make choices, perhaps to express more emotions, certainly to discover himself apart from externally defined 'roles.' Certainly there is much to commend in this aspiration. Freedom is good. Especially in America, freedom is hard to argue against. But in this case, let me try. "
"For in liberating fathers from the breadwinner role, the New Father model also seeks to liberate fathers from widely held norms of masculinity. At the same time, our elite cultural script notwithstanding, most men in our society simply do not wish to be liberated from their masculinity. This viewpoint is a key to understanding their unprogressive, lopsided commitment to the provider role. "
"Paternal attachment to breadwinning (and I would add, women as homemakers) is neither arbitrary nor anachronistic. Historically and currently, the breadwinner role matches quite well with core aspects of masculine identity. Especially compared to other parental activities, breadwinning, is objective, rule-oriented, and easily measurable. It is an instrumental, goal-driven activity in which success derives, at least in part, from aggression. Most important, the provider role permits men to serve their families through competition with other men. In this sense, the ideal of paternal breadwinning encultures male aggression by directing it toward a prosocial purpose. "
"For these reasons, the breadwinner role has always been, and remains, a basic cultural device for integrating masculinity into familism (does this word sound familiar?) -- the clearest, simplest means for men to act out their obligations to their children. Faced with these stubborn facts, our society can respond in one of two ways. We can, through the New Father model, continue to assault male breadwinning in a root-and-branch attempt to reinvent men and deconstruct traditional masculinity. Or we can endeavor, however imperfectly, to incorporate men as they are into family life, in part by giving them distinctive, gendered roles that reflect, rather than reject, inherited masculine norms -- such as, for example, the breadwinner. "
"The New Father model does not merely unburden men of breadwinning as a special obligation. Ultimately, it unburdens them of fatherhood itself. For, as the example of breadwinning demonstrates, the essence of the New Father model is a repudiation of gendered social roles. But fatherhood, by definition, is a gendered social role. To ungender fatherhood -- to deny males any gender-based role in family life -- is to deny fatherhood as a social activity. What remains may be New. But there is no more Father."
Stu Weber says at Promise Keeper rallies that most young criminals come from fatherless homes: "The root of all the wrongs? Failure in the highest office in the land: the dad. It's the greatest title you'll ever have, and the most powerful office."
Enormous burden of be the sole provider
Helen Andelin writes, "When you work, you rob your husband of his right to meet ordinary challenges, and to grow by these challenges. And, as you become capable, efficient, and independent, he feels less needed, and therefore less masculine. This weakens him. As you lift, he sets the bucket down. "
Helen Andelin teaches women how different men and women look at the world of business in a section titled "His Pressing Responsibility to Provide." She writes, "A woman needs to understand with an all-comprehending sympathy what a man faces in earning the living." She says Dr. Marie Robinson gives an excellent description in her book, The Power of Sexual Surrender: "For the majority of men, when they come of age and marry, take on an enormous burden which they may not lay down with any conscience this side of the grave. Quietly, and without histrionics, they put aside, in the name of love, most of their vaunted freedom and contract to take upon their shoulders full social and economic responsibility for their wives and children."
"As a woman, consider for a moment how you would feel if your child should be deprived of the good things of life; proper housing, clothing, education. Consider how you would feel if he should go hungry. Perhaps such ideas have occurred to you and have given you a bad turn momentarily. But they are passing thoughts: a woman does not give them much credence; they are not her direct responsibility; certainly she does not worry about them for long."
"But such thoughts, conscious or unconscious, are her husband's daily fare. He knows, and he takes the [worrying] thought to work with him each morning (and every morning) and to bed with him at night, that upon the success or failure of his efforts rests the happiness, health, indeed the very lives of his wife and children. In the ultimate he senses he alone must take full responsibility for them."
"I do not think it is possible to exaggerate how seriously men take this responsibility; how much they worry about it. Women, unless they are very close to their men, rarely know how heavily the burden weighs sometimes, for men talk about it very little. They do not want their loved ones to worry."
"Men have been shouldering the entire responsibility for their family group since earliest times. I often think, however, when I see the stresses and strains of today's marketplace, that civilized man has much harder going, psychologically speaking, than his primitive forefathers."
"In the first place, the competition creates a terrible strain on the individual male. This competition is not only for preferment and advancement, it is often for his very job itself. Every man knows that if he falters, lets up his ceaseless drive, he can and will be easily replaced."
"No level of employment is really free of this endless pressure. The executive must meet and exceed his last year's quota or the quota of his competitors. Those under him must see that he does it, and he scrutinizes their performance most severely, and therefore constantly."
"Professional men -- doctors, lawyers, professors -- are under no less pressure for the most part. If the lawyer is self-employed he must constantly seek new clients; if he works for an organization he must exert himself endlessly to avoid being superseded by ambitious peers or by pushing young particles just out of law school and fired with the raw energy of youth. A score of unhappy contingencies can ruin or seriously threaten a doctor's practice, not the least of which is a possible breakdown in his ability to practice. A teacher must work long hours on publishable projects outside his arduous teaching assignments if he is to advance or even hold his ground."
"There is no field of endeavor that a man may enter where he can count on complete economic safety; competition, the need for unremitting year-in, year-out performance is his life's lot. Over all this he knows, too, stands a separate specter upon which he can exert only the remotest control. It is the joblessness which may be caused by the cyclical depression and recessions that characterize our economy."
Helen then says, "Do women who work feel the same pressure men do? Women who work do not feel the same kind of pressure men do. This is because they have a different orientation to the world of work. Whereas a man feels he cannot turn aside from his work with a clear conscience, a woman doesn't feel this same sense of duty. She can resign her job at any time for any reason, without a feeling of guilt. Economic problems may result but she won't have a lower opinion of herself or feel disgraced in the eyes of the public."
"On the other hand, if an able-bodied man were to stop working it would injure his feeling of worth and his image to the public. He and everyone else would consider him a failure if he were to neglect this important duty. A woman feels pressure, but of a different kind -- a time pressure which comes from living a double role. A man feels a binding moral pressure."
Men look at work completely differently than women. Gilder says in Sexual Suicide that the feminist goal of having equal pay for equal work is "extremely difficult to apply." Employers value motivation and career ambition more than anything. And men are more innately motivated because it is their god-given responsibility. He writes, "To most men, success at work is virtually a matter of life and death, for it determines his sexual possibilities and affirms his identity as a male in a socially affirmative way. A business thus can control a man by paying him well and can almost irrevocably purchase his loyalty by paying him above the amount he can earn elsewhere. The business literally has him by the balls. For a female employee the sexual constitution of money is much less important. Her sexual prospects are little affected by how much she makes. Thus even if the woman is a very dependable employee, a payment to her does not usually purchase as great a commitment as does a payment to man." This is why women can take welfare and not suffer as much as men who take welfare. They are biologically and made by God to be more objective and to be provided for. The reason government has grown so big is because the twentieth century is feminized. If our culture was masculine centered instead of feminine centered, if it was centered on the subject instead of the object, then there would be very little government and much more religion.
Fascinating Womanhood 's many testimonies shows it works
Mrs. Andelin has many testimonies from women who wrote to her saying how their life has dramatically changed since reading and living the principles taught in Fascinating Womanhood. The following is one of the letters Helen quotes in her book. As you 're reading it, I hope it motivates you to read her book. I hope it motivates you to do something to get exciting and well-written books on the Principle on the best-seller list like Helen's has been. It's time for millions of Americans to read the truth and the UC can begin receiving letters telling how a book changed their life. A woman writes: "After nine years of marriage I felt I had a good marriage, exactly what was expected for a young successful couple. My husband and I had good jobs, two children, a house, a car, and the necessary ingredients for happiness. But we were not happy."
"The one main event I can pinpoint as a reason for our problems was when I received a promotion into upper management. I felt I owed my company more of my time; therefore, my job became my number one priority and my husband and family were pushed down the priority ladder. As the arguments between my husband and me increased, so did the tension level in our home. As we tried to talk things out my husband kept saying I had changed. I agreed that I had changed, but only into the ideal career woman and working mother."
"After coming home from a ten-day vacation with my husband things were no better between us. The mailman arrived with a flyer advertising Fascinating Womanhood. My mother had highly recommended it so I bought the book and read it. Up to now I thought I liked my job. After reading Fascinating Womanhood and mulling it over, I realized I really did not like my job. My boss pressured me in areas that were compromising my values and family life. After a lot of thought I asked my husband if I could quit my job to stay home and take care of him and the children. He said yes!"
"From that day forward my marriage has been wonderful, marvelous, unbelievable! The tension has left our home, since I'm not trying to be a liberated woman and make my husband do my domestic jobs. I'm not trying to put out fifty percent and wait for my husband's fifty percent to make my marriage successful. As the tension left, my husband and I talked without arguing. I found that my job threatened him as a provider, because I could have supported the children on my salary and he felt I did not need him anymore.
"Thanks to F.W. my life is going in the right direction. My husband is happy, the children are happy, and I am more content than ever before. I take pride in being a Domestic Goddess and look forward to following the teachings of F.W. to become my husband's ideal woman."
The massive numbers of women who have entered the workplace has hurt our economy, contrary to liberal thinking. Mrs. Andelin predicted the economy would get worse years ago. Every few years she updates and adds to her book. In her latest revised edition of Fascinating Womanhood she says, "The working wife has also upset the economy of our country so that now she feels locked into working. In 1975 I made a prediction on national TV. It was a time when women were crying for the choice to work outside the home. I addressed such women with this statement: 'If you don't stop crying for the choice to work, you will so upset the economy of this country that the time will come when you will not have a choice -- you will have to work.' That time has come. Employers have now lowered pay to fit a two-income family. In many cases a mother feels she must work. She seems to have no choice. She feels locked in." She titles her next section: "Solutions." I hope I've whetted a desire to read and reread her book.
Man 's work is number one
Wives should understand and teach their children to understand that a man fulfills his role by focusing on his work and public service. Women and children are to help him by creating a base camp for him to be refreshed as he pursues climbing mountains. Father's first wife did not understand this. Father constantly teaches women to let their husbands go. President Reagan's first wife should have stayed with him. Instead of being bored by his obsession with politics, she should have helped him. Men must be workaholics. They can't focus on their families. They have to focus on the world. The wife's job is to teach that to her children and other women as Titus 2:3-5 says. Women must find daily companionship in a trinity with other women. John Gray is wrong to think men should not give advice and become more feminine. Women need to humble themselves to men and do what they say. Gray is wrong to think men can become more feminine and fulfill their wife's needs. Only other women living together can do that. Helen Andelin teaches this in her book. I can't quote her whole book but here is a sample of the wisdom women need to learn from her: "Although a man may love his wife devotedly, it is not always possible or even right for him to make her Number One, and this is because of the nature of his life. A man's Number One responsibility is to provide the living for his family. Often his work and life away from home are so demanding that it must take priority over all else if he is to succeed. This often means that he must neglect his family .... In reality, he is putting his wife and family both Number One, but women often fail to interpret it this way."
"In addition to making the living, men have always shouldered the responsibility to make the world a better place. They have largely been the builders of society -- have solved world problems and developed new ideas for the benefit of all. This challenging role of public servant is not easy and also demands the man's attention away from his family."
"If you will examine the lives of these noble public servants, you will usually find a wife who was willing to put the man and his work Number One and be content to take a second place. President and Mrs. Dwight D. Eisenhower are a good example of this. Mrs. Eisenhower recalls that during the first two weeks of their 53-year-long marriage, her husband drew her aside one evening and said, 'Mamie, I have to tell you something...My country comes first and you second.' Mamie accepted this, and this is the way they lived. So, when you make a man Number One, you also make his work and outside responsibility Number One. But when the wife takes a second place to the man and his world, she loses nothing. The tender love he returns for her cooperation is more than a compensating reward."
"When a woman fails to fill the man's need to be Number One, when she puts her children, homemaking, career or other interests first, he can suffer a tremendous lack. This is often the very reason a man is driven to another woman. In fact, it is a very well known fact that men are seldom driven to a mistress because of sex passions. It is usually her ability to fill an emotional need, to make him feel appreciated and important in her life."
And there are few real mothers, too. Edith Schaeffer is one who built a world wide ministry from her home. In her books she teaches women to treasure the career in the home to build families as an "oasis" as she did with her home. In one place in her book What is a Family? she tries to explain her point by saying everyone is concerned with the environment. There are laws in nature, and when man disrupts them all hell can break loose. She gives examples of how devastating things became when people did simple things like introduce an animal or a plant to an area and change its whole ecostructure. She goes on to detail how devastating it is when women leave the home or how the environment blossoms when women do the right things in the home. She ends that section by saying, "A living, growing, changing real family is as thoroughly an ecological demonstration of what human beings thrive in as any 'experimental farm.' It is as noble a career as can be entered in the ecological field! Profession? 'Housewife.' No! 'Ecologist' -- in the most important area of conservation -- the family."
Man of Steel and Velvet
Aubrey Andelin writes in Man of Steel and Velvet: "Women are misled if they feel they will best achieve their duty to mankind by becoming a figure of renown in politics, science, and industry. Although they're capable enough, they can render no service of greater consequence than to establish an ideal home. Theirs is the prime opportunity to prevent and correct the great social evils in the place most of them start. There would be an absolute minimum of social problems if our homes were in order. Too much emphasis can't be given in reminding our girls and women of their vital role in the well-being of society. The shaping of the lives of children is of such magnitude and consequence as to be incomprehensible. These values are realized not only here but extend into eternity. "
"If men can 't solve problems of government and industry, if we must lean on women for these responsibilities, then we have failed as men. Half the population is male. There are plenty of men to produce the material necessities, but not enough women to be good mothers. "
The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world
Helen Andelin writes in her marriage manual for women, Fascinating Womanhood: "To be a successful mother is greater than to be a successful opera singer, writer, or artist. One is eternal greatness and the other a short-term honor. One day my young son said to me, 'Mother, boys are more important than girls, aren't they, for they can become presidents and generals and famous people.' I replied, 'But it is mothers who make presidents and generals and famous people. The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world.'"
"Every woman can make a worthy contribution to society through her children, but not every man can through his work. Some jobs are unimportant or even destructive. If women feel they must serve their country, the best way is in the home, making a success of family life. Calvin Coolidge, former U.S. president said, 'Look well to the hearthstone. Therein lies all hope for America. ' "
"The work in the home is a different kind of glory than career women enjoy. A great mother lives in obscurity, and the perfect wife is even less known. Her reward is a quiet, unacclaimed honor. Her glory is the esteem of her husband, the happiness of her children, and her overall success in the home."
I want to make it clear that I understand some women have to work. What I've written is in no way meant to be judgmental to them. My heart goes out to them. But even to them, I say focus, not on your career, but get a Godly man or men to take care of you. There are millions of single mothers and married women who have husbands who for a variety of reasons can 't work or won 't be the sole provider. They must focus their energy on finding a community to live in that has men who will provide for her. In chapter seven I explain how these communities should be organized. Women should not focus on careers or government welfare, but on building a God-centered community that has men who will provide, protect and lead all the women in the community. Kids need to have close contact with good role models of true men who live by the values taught in this book. Everyone needs a community, especially women who are vulnerable. It 's not a perfect world and there will be cases of some men and women committing adultery and abusing others, but it would be a minor problem if men and women did as I write and not associate alone with each other. The situation now in America is so bad that it is hard to express in words how tragic it is. Everyone needs to fundamentally change their view and stretch to not only get along with a mate but with others under one roof.
Until then, millions of women need to earn money and I think the best option is for women to build a home-based business if they can. Mary Pride says that a married woman might be able to incorporate a home-based business into a teaching exercise for children to learn about business.
Mrs. Pride is disgusted that Christians don't help women in need and then send them out to work: "feminism has infected even staunch conservatives. One of the most orthodox and caring Christian women I know, upon hearing that a friend of mine had been divorced by her husband, suggested that I baby-sit the friend's baby so she could get a job. No suggestion here of charity, of helping a mother stay home. Why should the church help her? It's the widow's or divorcee's job to pay her own way! Thus withers and dies Christian charity .... Feminism's ultimate goal is to have all wives work at all jobs."
Wife helping a husband
One of my most vivid memories is a show I saw when I was a boy in the 1950s. Loretta Young played a role of a wealthy woman. I don't remember every detail, but I remember the essence of this short little film. I wish it were on video to see. It's amazing to rent videos and watch some of the black and white Ozzie and Harriet shows that I saw as a boy. Loretta Young is traveling in a fancy convertible with her husband. She is wearing an expensive fashionable dress. Her hair is immaculate. She has make-up and looks fabulous. For some reason the man stops at a plain farm house because he needs some kind of help with the car. He goes off with the farmer to get a part or something.
Miss Young sits down next to the farmer's wife who is on the ground surrounded by mounds of tomatoes or something. She is in overalls, exhausted and in a bad mood. They start talking and Miss Young discovers that all is not well in their marriage, and they are struggling financially. The young woman is doing some extra work with these vegetables to sell and earn some money. Loretta Young mentors the young wife explaining that it is more productive to be feminine and inspire the husband, as she has done, than work like a man.
When the farmer comes back with the well-dressed husband, he enters the kitchen where he finds his wife in a dress and looking fresh and happy. He is shocked. Then he's nervous. What about the work outside? She says it is all right. She just knows the work will get done. And then she shows him the new curtains she put on the kitchen window. Miss Young is sitting regally at the kitchen table smiling from ear to ear watching this scene. Our young farmer gets nervous again and asks where she got the money for the new curtains. She is bright and happy and says she sewed them out of some extra material she had. Her husband is beginning to change. He looks around the kitchen and says how nice it is. He doesn't know what's happening to him, but Loretta Young and her husband know. After their successful guests leave, the young man, almost with tears in his eyes, holds his wife and starts to tell her he has just realized he doesn't want her to earn any more extra money but spend time continuing fixing up the house because he feels confident now to do what he has dreamed of doing but never felt motivated till now. He is going to invite some men friends over to his nice warm house to discuss his plans. It is a beautiful scene. We are in the position of God seeing how a man has come alive again and a love in a marriage rekindled in a simple little home because someone told them the truth.
Helen Andelin did this for me when I happened to pick up my wife's copy curious about what she was reading. I became alive again. I called this great lady to say thanks. Mrs. Andelin was as wonderful on the phone when I called her as she is in her book.
Nancy Hanna reviewed Fascinating Womanhood in a Blessing Quarterly magazine. She praises the book saying it "is the self-help book for a happy marriage and happy homemaking 'par excellence.'" I couldn't agree more. It is the best. She goes on to say, "It is the first book I've ever come across which is about what it is to be a woman and to be feminine. Chapter after chapter clearly explain what womanhood is all about. I, for one, found it very helpful to have things spelled out. In America today there is a lot of confusion about what a woman should be, as well as the rejection of traditional feminine roles. When I read this book ten years ago it came like a revelation; I still reread it once a year or so to refresh myself in its uncommon ideas." This is great. Don't you want to read it after hearing this from an elder sister? The Andelins have been "like a revelation" to me too.
She says that "in the stampede to enter man's world, I think many modern women have lost sight of the greatness and joy that lie in the vocations unique to woman: of wife, mother and homemaker." She says role models for women are "usually career women who are only secondarily wives and mothers."
Nancy then talks about Golda Meir, "who became head of the modern state of Israel, said that nothing in her career ever compared to her experience of having children." Then she goes on about how wonderful being a mother is. I could write several pages now on Golda Meir and go into her life. You can read her autobiography and biographies as well as me. She was a workaholic career woman. She got a divorce, had a few children and felt extreme guilt over not being there for them. It is painful to read her. Maybe Golda was necessary as a political leader, but she is definitely not a good role model. 99.99% of women are not to live as she did. Let 's look at women like her as strange freaks of nature.
She writes that UC sisters often develop "masculine qualities" before marriage and become "competent, efficient, fearless and independent .... the strongest women" anywhere. She warns sisters to not be digested by our culture that rejects old fashioned roles for men and women: "A great deal of unhappiness in American life today comes from the rejection of masculine and feminine roles, and even Unificationists are susceptible to these cultural influences. That's where the value of a book like this comes in."
She accepts the Andelin 's teaching of patriarchy saying, "I'm grateful that my husband always insisted on being the leader and didn't let me dominate him."
Peter Marshall was one of America's most famous ministers and former chaplain of the U.S. Senate. There is even a movie on his life. The following is an excerpt from a sermon called:
"The Keepers of the Springs"
Once upon a time, a certain town grew up at the foot
of a mountain range. It was sheltered in the lee of the
protecting heights, so that the wind that shuddered at the
doors and flung handfuls of sleet against the window panes
was a wind whose fury was spent.
High up in the hills, a strange and quiet forest dweller took it
upon himself to be the Keeper of the Springs.
He patrolled the hills and wherever he found a spring, he
cleaned its brown pool of silt and fallen leaves, of mud and
and took away from the spring all foreign matter, so that
the water which bubbled up through the sand ran down clean
and cold and pure.
It leaped sparkling over rocks and dropped joyously in crystal
cascades until, swollen by other streams, it became a river of
life to the busy town.
Millwheels were whirled by its rush.
Gardens were refreshed by its waters.
Fountains threw it like diamonds into the air.
Swans sailed on its limpid surface
and children laughed as they played on its banks in the
But the City Council was a group of hardheaded, hard-boiled
business men. They scanned the civic budget and found in it
the salary of a Keeper of the Springs.
Said the Keeper of the Purse: "Why should we pay this romance
ranger? We never see him; he is not necessary to our
town's work life. If we build a reservoir just above the town,
we can dispense with his services and save his salary."
Therefore, the City Council voted to dispense with the un-
necessary cost of a Keeper of the Springs, and to build a
So the Keeper of the Springs no longer visited the brown pools
but watched from the heights while they built the reservoir.
When it was finished, it soon filled up with water, to be sure,
but the water did not seem to be the same.
It did not seem to be as clean, and a green scum soon befouled
its stagnant surface.
There were constant troubles with the delicate machinery
of the mills, for it was often clogged with slime, and the
swans found another home above the town.
At last, an epidemic raged, and the clammy, yellow fingers of
sickness reached into every home in every street and lane.
The City Council met again. Sorrowfully, it faced the city's plight, and frankly it acknowledged the mistake of the dis-
missal of the Keeper of the Springs.
They sought him out in his hermit hut high in the hills, and
begged him to return to his former joyous labor.
Gladly he agreed, and began once more to make his rounds.
It was not long until pure water came lilting down under
tunnels of ferns and mosses and to sparkle in the cleansed
Millwheels turned again as of old.
and convalescent children playing in the sun laughed again
because the swans had come back.
Do not think me fanciful
or too extravagant in my language
when I say that I think women, and particularly of our
mothers, as Keepers of the Springs. The phrase, while poetic,
is true and descriptive.
We feel its warmth ...
its softening influence ...
and however forgetful we have been ...
however much we have taken for granted life's precious
gifts we are conscious of wistful memories that surge out of
the past --
poignant fragrances of love.
Nothing that has been said
nothing that could be said
or that ever will be said,
would be eloquent enough, expressive enough, or adequate to
make articulate that peculiar emotion we feel to our mothers.
So I shall make my tribute a plea for Keepers of the Springs,
who will be faithful to their tasks.
There never has been a time when there was a greater need
for Keepers of the Springs,
or when there were more polluted springs to be cleansed.
If the home fails, the country is doomed. The breakdown of
home life and influence will mark the breakdown of the
If the Keepers of the Springs desert their posts or are un-
faithful to their responsibilities the future outlook of this
country is black indeed.
This generation needs Keepers of the Springs who will be cou-
rageous enough to cleanse the springs that have been polluted.
It's not an easy task -- nor is it a popular one, but it must be
done for the sake of the children, and the young women of
today must do it.
Every UC home should have Helen Andelin's All About Raising Children. Nancy Hanna highly recommends the book. It has excellent general principles and many good details. I want it understood that whenever I recommend a book I do mean that I necessarily agree with every line the author writes. The Andelins are not perfect. Only True Parents are.
One of the best statements about the role of women is Helen Andelin's statement in her book All About Raising Children. The only thing I would add is that women should also teach this to other women as Titus 2-3-5 says and that families should live as trinities. Helen writes the following that should be the cornerstone of the mission statement for Women's Federation for World Peace instead of the vague cliches it has made in the past that anybody can read anything into: "In the ideal family the woman's role is that of wife, mother and homemaker. Although the feminine role is different from the masculine, it is equally important. Together the husband and wife form what can become a perfectly functioning unit to manage a family successfully."
"1. The Wife: The role of the wife is one of counselor and supporting companion for her husband. She tactfully expresses her views and brings an important perspective to matters he is considering. She frequently must defer to his better judgment. She helps him carry out his plans and objectives, participating when needed. When he is discouraged she offers him understanding, encouragement and continual hope. She tries to bolster his self-esteem, to keep him going in a positive direction. This is a difficult role, but when she does it well she is a key to her husband's success and the well-being of the family."
"2. The Mother: Her role as a mother is challenging. She is responsible for her children's day-in, day-out care. Along with her husband she patiently and persistently trains them to become obedient and responsible adults. If she is to succeed, it will require years of time and dedication. It is vital for the mother to remain at home and devote herself to the training and development of her children."
"3. The Homemaker: The mother must also manage many facets of a household and make a comfortable home for her family. To successfully live this role, she will need to make her career a career in the home. If she manages her time well, she may be able to do other things such as develop her talents or give benevolent service, but these should be secondary roles. If she is to make a success of family life, she will need to make her duties as wife, mother and homemaker, priority roles."
John Rosemond is a nationally syndicated columnist and writer of many books on raising children. In one column he wrote against several books that preach "equality". A person wrote in saying the books, Parent Effectiveness Training by Thomas Gordon and Your Child's Self Esteem by David McKay and Dorothy Briggs were good, and he was wrong to think it was "encouraging parents to become wimps.' Rosemond says, "No, Gordon and Briggs didn't say, 'Hey, parents! You should be wimps!' That's my editorial take on the nouveau advice, which became the 'party line' of parenting psychology in the 70s and 80s and hangs on to this day."
"The letter writer says he can't believe I really, in my heart of hearts, disagree with most of the advice Gordon and Briggs dispensed in their best-sellers. He's right. I don't disagree with most of what Gordon and Briggs and their followers say; I disagree with all of it!" Rosemond goes on to explain how these authors treat their children as "equals" and as "friends." He says, "in P.E.T. Gordon writes that the use of power and authority by parents is 'immoral.' He criticizes parents who 'believe in restricting, setting limits, demanding certain behavior, giving commands, and expecting obedience.' No, I'm not making this up, nor am I taking it out of context." Rosemond explains how parents are to be stern. He says, "Gordon and Briggs think my old-fashioned attitudes are psychologically damaging to children. In his latest book, 'Teaching Children Self-Esteem", Gordon even says that when parents stop using power and authority with their children, there will be less violence in the world! Apparently he doesn't know that since American parents began using his advice, the teen-age violent crime rate has tripled (almost irrespective of socio-economic background) as has the rate of teen depression."
"Gordon and Briggs were enormously influential, but so were Marx and Engels." He says parents have tried the "democratic approach and fallen flat on their proverbial faces." He recommends James Dobson's The New Dare to Discipline. Rosemond says his "old-fashioned ideas " will not appeal to "the majority of mental health professionals" and "That is why I titled the introduction to my latest book, 'A Family of Value,' 'I, Heretic.' In short, I am guilty as charged, and I will never repent." There are many books on parenting. The UC has none. Until then, Rosemond is good. I don't agree with everything he says, but he is conservative and therefore light years ahead of the liberals. After years of reading, I've come to see Helen Andelin's book, All About Raising Children, as the best. It towers over everybody. It should be in every home. Nancy Hanna told me she endorses this book also.
In one of his books, Rosemond says, "I can still remember listening to one of my college professors -- he was teaching a course in marriage and family relations -- lectures on the differences between 'democratic'; and 'autocratic' families."
"In the democratic family, he said, everyone was regarded as an equal. Therefore, obedience (from the children) was not mandatory, and disagreements were resolved with discussion, negotiation, and compromise. Cooperation and harmony were the hallmarks of a democratic family. 'How marvelous!' I thought, reflecting upon the way my parents had limited my freedom, kept me in a state of virtual servitude, and said things like, 'Because I say so.'"
"In contrast, the autocratic family was a hierarchy, with parents at the top. Children were punished if they disobeyed and were not allowed to make decisions for themselves. Compromise between parent and child was possible only on the parent's terms. Obedience, rather than joyous cooperation, was the bill of fare for children of autocratic parents."
"How nasty!' I said to myself" And he tried it. He says there was no harmony but "anarchy." Then he and his wife demanded obedience and all was well. His children "didn't have the right to make any decisions for themselves. However, we allowed them the privilege of making many decisions, reserving, as our right, the option of taking this privilege away whenever it was abused or the potential consequences were not to our liking .... In short, we created a nasty old autocratic family, and my wife and I were dictators -- 'Benevolent Dictators,' to be exact."
"Benevolent Dictators are gentle authorities who understand that their power is the cornerstone of their children's sense of safety and security .... Benevolent dictators do not need to instill fear in order to communicate their influence. They are authorities, but they are not authoritarian. They do not demand unquestioning obedience. They encourage questions, but make the final decisions. They restrict their children's freedom, but they are not tyrants. They restrict in order to protect and guide. They make rules which are fair and enforce them firmly. Life with a Benevolent Dictator is predictable and secure for children. That set of certainties guarantees more freedom than would be possible under any other circumstances."
"We usually associate dictatorships with oppression and torture and people disappearing in the night. But dictatorship is simply a system of government where one person is in control and is responsible for making decisions for a group of people who count on him or her to make good ones. And that's what parents do, isn't it? Like it or not, parents are dictators, preferably dictators of benevolent nature." I would submit you could put wives in that category of children in the previous passages. Men must be benevolent dictators to their wives. Women are not children, but they are in position of follower to their husband who has the final decision over what she does.
Power in the home
Let's talk about power in the home. The Bible explains that men cannot lead until they successfully lead their families and create happy homes. Men learn leadership there first. The path of Headwing is a fine line. You can't cross the line and not get hurt. The Bible has great wisdom the UC should learn from. Father would agree, I think, with the insights some Christian conservatives give in their advice on how to handle authority in the home and that this is also how UC brothers should handle authority in the church and state. Dr. Kevin Leman says in Making Children Mind Without Losing Yours, "What I see and hear is that, in too many homes today, otherwise sophisticated and educated parents are still not sure they know the difference between discipline and punishment, between permissiveness and loving nurture. I believe that difference is clearly spelled out in a brief passage from the New Testament where the Apostle Paul writes:
'Children, obey your parents; this is the right thing to do because God has placed them in authority over you. Honor your father and mother. This is the first of God's Ten Commandments that ends with a promise. And this is the promise: that if you honor your father and mother, yours will be a long life, full of blessing. And now a word to you parents. Don't keep on scolding and nagging your children, making them angry and resentful. Rather, bring them up with the loving discipline the Lord himself approves, with suggestions and godly advice.'"(Ephesians 6:1-4).
"The above scripture passage is the basis for this book. The word that we are going to pay particular attention to are obey, authority, and loving discipline.... My goal is to give parents specific ways to use their authority correctly as they bring up obedient children with loving discipline."
Men have not been handling power and authority correctly in the home and they have not understood power in society in the 20th century.
Family not democratic
Dr. Lee Salk in his book Familyhood gives an example of a family he knew that tried to get away from the vertical model of a family: "A colleague of mine in the area of group dynamics believed absolutely that his family-- which included his wife and two children-- should be run as a democracy, with each member having an equal say in family decisions. They carefully discussed everything, from where to go to dinner, to appropriate bedtimes for the children. They even voted. Invariably, the two children assumed one position, the parents another, which usually led to a great deal of further discussion and many painfully contorted compromises. The system, cumbersome as it was, worked after a fashion, until a third child came along. When this youngest family member first learned to say yes or no, his siblings immediately lobbied for his vote. The three children outvoted the two adults, and havoc reigned. The democracy collapsed."
"A family needs an authority figure (or two). It must be run in an autocratic way, but it must also be an autocracy with a soul and a heart and with respect for its constituents. As parents, we have all heard ourselves say on occasion, 'You'll do it because I'm your mother and I say you have to do it!' The occasional dictatorial outburst is only human and does no harm. But as a parental modus operandi, it not only doesn't work over the long haul, it doesn't instill and encourage the values children need."
"Someone has to be in charge and that someone should never be the child, although ideally she will feel her opinions have weight and count. Children feel important and respected when they participate in grown-up decisions."
I pledge to help the everyone understand the value of Biblical, traditional families. Families should try to live as extended families with the grandfather as patriarch.
A man is to earn enough money to keep his family comfortable with the basics of life. A woman is to provide by being a good homemaker, caretaker for the elderly, teacher in homeschool, and teach women to be obedient to their husbands as a Titus 2 ministry.