Final decision maker
In every situation there has to be a final decision maker. If two or more come to a decision spontaneously then all is well. But life is often not situations of unanimous agreement. Father wants us to master human relationships. One of the keys to success in living with others is to work within organizations and deal effectively with hierarchy. C.S. Lewis wisely teaches in Mere Christianity God's way of life that man leads in a marriage by explaining that it cannot be a democracy. There are only two people. He says that when a couple cannot"reach agreement ... they cannot decide by majority vote, for in a council of two there can be no majority...so one of them must have a casting vote." And that he says is the man. Helen Andelin writes, "There is a great effort now to do away with the patriarchy and replace it with equality, in which the husband and wife make decisions by mutual agreement. Although this idea may sound good on the surface, it is impractical and unworkable."
Father says men are always"subject" and the"center"
I have so many quotes of father saying men lead and women follow. You have his speeches, so I'll only give a few: "Man is the center or subject and woman is object. Women must center upon or follow their husbands. As the subject and object relationship is solved it will extend all the way to the nation and to the world." Doesn't sound like following a husband is "insanity" here. Father is saying the same as Christian writers such as Andelin on this topic. He says, "Men are built to be masculine and to take a bold and initiating role. God created women to be feminine and take a passive, objective role so that they can follow men. This was God's plan of creation. So you can easily imagine that Eve was smaller than Adam." Father never says men and women are interchangeable. This reads like what the marriage manuals the Founding Fathers read. A popular one at the time was called The Well-Ordered Family. The Andelins teach the same Godly principles.
Father says women must"restore their original role"
Father constantly blasts American women for being dominating. He says, "the chain of order and command has been completely reversed." He is absolutely against the insane interchanging that goes on in America. "In this country women have a commanding voice at home. In a typical American home the wife is master of the house, while the husband is like a servant; his shoulders are hunched over and he is always checking to see what his wife's mood is. Because of the fall of man the chain of order and command has been completely reversed, and now men follow behind women, particularly with regard to love affairs. Men have become so helpless, and women always take command. ... Now the time has come for women to restore their original role, particularly American women. Nowadays American men just do not want to get married and become slaves of domineering women?" Slaves? This is pretty strong speech. It sounds like he sees a matriarchy. Men may have a lot of position externally, but internally the woman wears the pants.
It is true that the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. Larry Christenson in The Christian Family says, "Women can contribute much as teachers of children and of other women. They can pray publicly, but they are not to formulate doctrine or to set themselves up as leaders over men in the church. How much evil has come upon home and church because women have lost the protective shield of a husband's authority. The whole teaching is dismissed as a foolish vaunting of the 'male ego,' a Neanderthal vestige which our enlightened age has happily outgrown. The Bible, however, has no desire to exalt any ego, male or female. The Divine Order set forth for the family serves the elemental purpose of protection, spiritual protection. A husband's authority and a wife's submissiveness to that authority, is a shield of protection against Satan's devices. Satan knows this, and that is why he uses every wile to undermine and break down God's pattern of Divine Order for the family."
Third fallen nature
Understanding these concepts makes the three day ceremony crystal clear. In the Divine Principle we read that "all" the "disorders in the fallen world" originate from the third fallen nature that reversed "the order of dominion." Lucifer was "supposed to be under man's dominion, yet he dominated Eve, reversing the proper order." The purpose of the blessing is to reverse Satan's order. "Eve was supposed to be under Adam's dominion, yet she dominated him." This is why Father talks endlessly about women obeying men. He says men are "bones" and women are "flesh."
Flesh and bone
Father says, "American women are saying, 'We want to be in the bone position. Let the men become the soft flesh.' Today America is suffering from terrible confusion; people don't know which side is up. There is no understanding of right order, subject and object, or who takes initiative and who is responsive. What about you American Unification women, are you different?" They want to interchange with men. Father says, "In America, many women pull the men around behind them and the men just follow timidly. I have never seen so many boneless men as in America -- 'Yes, dear, whatever you say.' ... If you women don't change that trend, there can be nothing but darkness for the future of this country. America will not survive. There must be God's order and sequence, a certain discipline. We must maintain that discipline."
Men enforce laws
America has rejected the traditional family where the husband is like a president and his wife a vice president. She became the president. Eve got impatient with Adam who was playing with horses all the time and decided to take matters in her own hands. American women are just like Eve. They have zero faith in their men. But Godism should be God's laws and laws are supposed to come from men. Why? Because they have to enforce those laws -- sometimes with their lives. Women aren't supposed to be cops, and they are not supposed to be lawmakers either. They are dominating men when they try. Father explains that husbands are supposed to enforce laws. This is the traditional patriarchal role that America has thrown out. Father says, "We know that it is necessary to uphold the laws of a country; likewise, within each family there should be laws which are upheld and enforced by the father. That is one of the father's responsibilities. There is great distance today between this original standard and the reality of today's families."
Back to Patriarchy
Daniel Amneus, a professor at UCLA, writes these profound insights into how good patriarchy brings law and order and peace to society in Back to Patriarchy: "Where are the high crime areas of our society -- and where are there large numbers of families headed by women? The two questions have a single answer; matriarchy and violence are twins. The boy's vice-principal of your local high school, the man responsible for discipline, will tell you that the troublemakers are the boys from fatherless families and that the boys from motherless families are not a problem at all. Boys from fatherless homes frequently fail to learn what it means to be responsible and civilized men. They often grow up lacking self-respect, respect for authority, self-reliance, dignity, and magnanimity, incapable of doing the work of society. Girls from fatherless homes all too frequently produce fatherless families themselves, thus perpetuating matriarchy and violence into the next generation."
"The association between crime and matriarchy is obvious, though the feminist and welfare bureaucrats would prefer that the public didn't notice it, since patriarchal families would mean the demise of feminism and the erosion of the welfare empire. These people would much prefer that the public think crime is the result of poverty -- and that, to eradicate it, taxpayers must dig deeper into their pockets for more money to finance Great Society and Head Start programs and larger AFDC payments, which, of course have the added consequence of enlarging bureaucracies. If crime were caused by poverty, the American-Chinese, who have been up against heavy odds in our society for over a century, ought to have one of the highest crime rates. They don't. They have the lowest crime rate -- and they have patriarchal families. Much the same is true of the Japanese and the Jews -- both groups with low crime and a patriarchal family structure. High crime and delinquency -- and illegitimacy -- come from those areas where there are enormous numbers of families headed by women." Perhaps one of the reasons Japan gains the most members is because it is more patriarchal and therefore more respectful of Father as a patriarch.
True Patriarchy, not false Patriarchy
Patriarchy means leadership. There are a few sadistic leaders like Hitler or the Mafia. Evil men are a tiny percent of men, and they should be jailed. But the vast majority of men, even though they are fallen, should be given leadership in their family. Father's first wife did not respect his position. True Mother has. It has not been easy for Mother to be a follower. But it also has not been easy for Father to be a leader.
UC should humble itself to Helen Andelin
Her faults are minor. She has two silly chapters at the end of her book. The short chapter on sex is ludicrous. But the vast majority of her book is pure truth and clearly written. It is not reactionary or something that is good for only a few people or a step in the right direction or not as high as Completed Testament truth. True Mother lives by these principles as countless millions of women have lived by them in the past. And women in the ideal world will live by these principles. The UC's greatest insight is the concept of living as trinities, but the pattern of traditional roles will never go away. The Kingdom of Heaven is not a leaderless society. There will always be a hierarchy and men will always lead women. Because of the Fall this is extremely hard to grasp. It is more comfortable for Fallen men and women to be rebellious and leave their position. And we have chaos because of it.
No one book by anyone can explain everything. We need to see the great, eternal truths in a number of books that teach traditional values, and we need to write our own. Truth is eternal, and God has revealed some of His truth to those in the past. And if we don't learn from our ancestors, we will waste a lot of time in trying to invent all things new.
How do we get men to study books on marriage?
Men usually don't read books on relationships. It does not come naturally to me. I would rather read about other things. But men should read Aubrey Andelin's Man of Steel and Velvet and humble themselves to the eternal truths he teaches. Unlike his wife's book, his is totally perfect. There isn't one sentence wrong. Brothers should get together like Promise Keepers men do and study, pray and share ideas about how to be better husbands and fathers. Aubrey Andelin's book is the best book ever written for men and completely in line with Father's teachings.
True Patriarchy brings order and happiness
Helen Andelin explains that true patriarchy brings order and happiness: "A home where the father presides is a house of order. There's less argument and contention, more harmony. Taking the lead helps him grow in masculinity. Out of necessity he acquires the traits of firmness, decisiveness, self-confidence and a sense of responsibility. When the wife is removed from leadership duties, she has less worry and concern, can devote herself to her domestic duties and succeed in her career in the home."
"Children who grow up in a home where father's word is law have a natural respect for authority, at school, church, and all areas of society. In a world where men lead we would have less crime and violence, less divorce, and less homosexuality. There would be happier marriages, happier homes, and therefore happier people. If the patriarchy could be lived widely, it would be a world of law and order."
Dr. Andelin writes, "A family is not a democracy, where everyone casts his vote. The family is a theocracy, where the father's word is law. In the home the presiding authority is always vested in the father, and in all home affairs and family matters, no other authority is paramount. This arrangement is not arbitrary or unfair. It's a matter of law and order in the Kingdom of God."
Patriarchy is logical
He says, "There is also a logical reason why the man should lead: Any organization, to have a smooth-running system, must have a leader -- a president, captain, supervisor, director, or chief. This is a matter of law and order. The family, a small group of people, must be organized to avoid chaos. It doesn't matter how large or small the family; even though it be just man and wife, there must be a leader to maintain order."
"But why should the man lead? Why not the woman? Using logic again, a man is by nature and temperament a born leader, who tends to be decisive and have the courage of his convictions. A woman, on the other hand, tends to vacillate. An even more sound reason for the man to lead is that he earns the living. If he must work diligently to provide the living, he needs jurisdiction over his life to do so. Women and children can more easily adapt. The final say rightfully belongs to the breadwinner." If the wife follows well, it is easy for the children to follow the parents and respect authority. First Timothy 3:4-5 says, "He [the father] must have proper authority in his own household, and be able to control and command the respect of his children."
My marriage used to be a roller-coaster of intense love and intense fights. My wife and I could not understand why we could be so madly in love with each other and then have bitter fights. Father said a blessed couple is not supposed to quarrel. They are supposed to be, he says, a "well-oiled machine."
I went to Christian bookstores and read what they said about how to have happy marriages. Many books praised patriarchy. This led me to study marriage in general. And then I found such secular writers as George Gilder and Dr. Brenda Hunter praising the traditional family. I voraciously read everything I could find. I read countless women's magazines. I don't know how many of the Ladies Home Journal's series "Can this marriage be saved" I read. At the same time I read the feminists like Gloria Steinem. The more I read pro-patriarchy books by such women as Phyllis Schlafly and Beverly LaHaye, the more it made sense. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The women and men who wrote for patriarchy had happy marriages and families, while a lot of the feminists who hated patriarchy were often divorced or never married. The few who were married, like Hillary Clinton, often had fewer children, and of course, I couldn't help notice her husband is in bed with other women, and she is in court over her financial dealings with powerful men she spent time alone with. More and more articles and books were coming out about women giving up careers and going back home. Even a prominent liberal, Deborah Fallows, saw the light. Her husband is the editor of Atlantic Magazine, and she has a Ph.D. and a career in Washington D.C. When they had a child she went out and studied day care. She found it was so horrible she quit her prestigious job to be with her baby full-time. She wrote a book at home telling how bad day care is and it was reviewed favorably, even by the Washington Post.
Feminism's Impact on Sex Roles Has Been Negative
Allan Bloom wrote a bestseller, The Closing of the American Mind, and wrote how feminism has hurt relations between men and women. He writes that "Relations between the sexes have always been difficult, and that is why so much of our literature is about men and women quarreling." Before feminism, everyone thought that "A man was to make a living and protect his wife and children, and a woman was to provide for the domestic economy, particularly in caring for husband and children."
"Very simply, the family is a sort of miniature body politic in which the husband's will is the will of the whole. The woman can influence her husband's will, and it is supposed to be informed by love of wife and children."
Reason To Fear the Worst
"Now all of this has simply disintegrated. It does not exist, nor is it considered good that it should. But nothing certain has taken its place. Neither men nor women have any idea what they are getting into anymore, or, rather, they have reason to fear the worst. There are two equal wills, and no mediating principle to link them and no tribunal of last resort. What is more, neither of the wills is certain of itself. This is where the "ordering of priorities" comes in, particularly with women, who have not yet decided which comes first, career or children. People are no" longer raised to think they ought to regard marriage as the primary goal and responsibility, and their uncertainty is mightily reinforced by the divorce statistics, which imply that putting all of one's psychological eggs in the marriage basket is a poor risk. The goals and wills of men and women have, become like parallel lines, and it requires a Lobachevskyan imagination to hope they may meet."
"The inharmoniousness of final ends finds its most concrete expression in the female career, which is now precisely the same as the male career. There are two equal careers in almost every household composed of educated persons under thirty-five. And those careers are not mere means to family ends. They are personal fulfillments. In this nomadic country it is more than likely that one of the partners will be forced, or have the opportunity, to take a job in a city other than the one where his or her spouse works. What to do? They can stay together with one partner sacrificing his career to the other, they can commute, or they can separate. None of these solutions is satisfactory. More important, what is going to happen is unpredictable. Is it the marriage or the career that will count most? Women's careers today are qualitatively different from what they were up to twenty years ago, and such conflict is now inevitable. The result is that both marriage and career are devalued."
"Neither men nor women have any
what they are getting into anymore, or,
rather, they have reason to fear the worst."
"For a long time middle-class women, with the encouragement of their husbands, had been pursuing careers. It was thought they had a right to cultivate their higher talents instead of being household drudges. Implicit in this was, of course, the view that the bourgeois professions indeed offered an opportunity to fulfill the human potential, while family and particularly the woman's work involved in it were merely in the realm of necessity, limited and limiting. Serious men of good conscience believed that they must allow their wives to develop themselves. But, with rare exceptions, both parties still took it for granted that the family was the woman's responsibility and that, in the case of potential conflict, she would subordinate or give up her career. It was not quite serious, and she usually knew it. This arrangement was ultimately untenable, and it was clear in which way the balance would tip. Couples agreed that the household was not spiritually fulfilling for women and that women have equal rights. The notion of a domestic life appropriate to women had become incredible. Why should not women take their careers as seriously as men take theirs, and have them be taken as seriously by men? Terrific resentment at the injustice done to women under the prevailing understanding of justice found its expression in demands seen as perfectly legitimate by both men and women, that men weaken the attachment to their careers, that they share equally in the household and the care of the children. Women's abandonment of the female persona was reinforced by the persona's abandoning them. Economic changes made it desirable and necessary that women work; lowering of infant mortality rates meant that women had to have fewer pregnancies; greater longevity and better health meant that women devoted a much smaller portion of their lives to having and rearing children; and the altered relationships within the family meant that they were less likely to find continuing occupation with their children and their children's children. At forty-five they were finding themselves with nothing to do, and forty more years to do in it. Their formative career years had been lost, and they were, hence, unable to compete with men. A woman who now wanted to be a woman in the old sense would find it very difficult to do so, even if she were to brave the hostile public opinion. In all of these ways the feminist case is very strong indeed. But, though the terms of marriage had been radically altered, no new ones were defined."
The Inadequate Feminist Response
"The feminist response that justice requires equal sharing of all domestic responsibility by men and women is not a solution, but only a compromise, an attenuation of men's dedication to their careers and of women's to family, with arguably an enrichment in diversity of both parties but just as arguably a fragmentation of their lives. The question of who goes with whom in the case of jobs in different cities is unresolved and is, whatever may be said about it, a festering sore, a source of suspicion and resentment, and the potential for war. Moreover, this compromise does not decide anything about the care of the children. Are both parents going to care more about their careers than about the children? Previously children at least had the unqualified dedication of one person, the woman, for whom their care was the most important thing in life. Is half the attention of two the same as the whole attention of one? Is this not a formula for neglecting children? Under such arrangements the family is not a unity, and marriage is an unattractive struggle that is easy to get out of, especially for men."
"And here is where the whole business turns nasty. The souls of men -- their ambitious, warlike, protective, possessive character -- must be dismantled in order to liberate women from their domination. Machismo -- the polemical description of maleness or spiritedness, which was the central natural passion in men's souls in the psychology of the ancients, the passion of attachment and loyalty -- was the villain, the source of the difference between the sexes. The feminists were only completing a job begun by [Thomas] Hobbes in his project of taming the harsh elements in the soul. With machismo discredited, the positive task is to make men caring, sensitive, even nurturing, to fit the restructured family. Thus once again men must be re-educated according to an abstract project. They must accept the "feminine elements" in their nature. A host of Dustin Hoffman and Mery1 Streep types invade the schools, popular psychology, TV and the movies, making the project respectable. Men tend to undergo this re-education somewhat sullenly but studiously, in order to avoid the opprobrium of the sexist label and to keep peace with their wives and girlfriends. And it is indeed possible to soften men. But to make them 'care' is another thing, and the project must inevitably fail.""
He says that there is a vicious cycle that happens when men become less responsible. Women feel they have to fill the void which in turns drives men to be more irresponsible: "women, due to the unreliability of men, have had to provide the means for their own independence. This has simply given men the excuse for being less concerned with women's well-being. A dependent, weak woman is indeed vulnerable and puts herself at men's mercy. But that appeal did influence a lot of men a lot of the time. The cure now prescribed for male irresponsibility is to make them more irresponsible. And a woman who can be independent of men has much less motive to entice a man into taking care of her and her children. In the same vein, I heard a female lieutenant-colonel on the radio explaining that the only thing standing in the way of woman's full equality in the military is male protectiveness. So, do away with it! Yet male protectiveness, based on masculine pride, and desire to gain the glory for defending a blushing woman's honor and life, was a form of relatedness, as well as a way of sublimating selfishness. These days, why should a man risk his life protecting a karate champion who knows just what part of the male anatomy to go after in defending herself? What substitute is there for the forms of relatedness that are dismantled in the name of the new justice?"
Setting the Social Machine in Motion
"All our reforms have helped strip the teeth of our gears,
which can therefore no longer mesh. They spin idly, side by side,
unable to set the social machine in motion. It is at this exercise in
futility that young people must look when thinking about their
future. Women are pleased by their successes, their new
opportunities, their agenda, their moral superiority. But underneath
everything lies the more or less conscious awareness that they are
still dual beings by nature, capable of doing most things men do and
also wanting to have children. They may hope otherwise, but they
fully expect to pursue careers, to have to pursue careers, while
caring for children alone. And what they expect and plan for is
likely to happen. The men have none of the current ideological
advantages of the women, but they can opt out without too much cost.
In their relations with women they have little to say; convinced of
the injustice of the old order, for which they were responsible, and
practically incapable of changing the direction of the juggernaut,
they wait to hear what is wanted, try to adjust but are ready to take
off in an instant. They want relationships, but the situation is so
unclear. They anticipate a huge investment of emotional energy that
is just as likely as not to end in bankruptcy, to a sacrifice of
their career goals without any clarity about what reward they will
reap, other than a vague togetherness."
Susan Faludi got upset about this trend of rejecting feminism and wrote a book, Backlash, and appeared on the cover of Time magazine. She tried to explain how people like George Gilder and Allan Bloom were wrong, but once again, I can't help notice that she is unmarried and frankly doesn't even look like a very nice person. She writes: "In Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind, his lament about the 'decay of the family' is, like the New Right's, really a lament over lost traditional male authority in the home and in public life, an authority that he believes is violently under attack. He writes wistfully of the days when it was still believed that 'the family is a sort of miniature body politic in which the husband's will is the will of the whole.'" Unlike her, the more I read of the "right" the more I liked them. Their ideas work. The teachings by the Andelins set me free. When I lived by the ideals of androgyny of feminists I was enslaved.
Helen Andelin says, "Experience with thousands of women has proved that these teachings bring the results claimed .... Results have been unbelievable. Women who have thought they were happy before have found a new kind of romantic love come to their marriages. Women who felt neglected and unloved have seen their marriages blossom into love and tenderness, and women who have all but despaired over their situations have found the same happy results. Time and experience have proved these teachings to be true, that whenever these principles are applied, women can be loved; honored and adored, marriages flourish, and homes are made happier."
"The first step to a happy marriage is to understand that all life is governed by law -- nature, music, art, and all of the sciences. These laws are immutable. To live in harmony with them produces health, beauty, and the abundant life. To violate them brings ugliness and destruction. Just as unwavering are the laws of human relationships. These laws are in operation even though you may not understand them. You may be happy in marriage because you obey them, or you may be unhappy because you violate them without an awareness of the laws in operation."
"Through ignorance of the laws of marriage relationships, much unnecessary unhappiness exists. We find one woman happy, honored, and loved; and another -- no less attractive, no less admirable, no less lovable -- neglected, unhappy, and disappointed. Why? This book explains why, for it teaches the laws she must obey if she is to be loved, honored, and adored. Fascinating Womanhood will teach you how to be happy in marriage."
Art Buchwald wrote once,"It's not easy being a man today ... there has to be something between macho and wimp." Helen Andelin's husband's book Man of Steel and Velvet explains how men can walk the line between the extremes. True Father, of course, lives it perfectly.
If you had to bet $10,000 between families that lived Mrs. Andelin's beliefs where women did not work and families who lived by feminist's beliefs where women worked, which would you choose as being the happier and having more children? Let's start off by comparing the authors of pro-patriarchy books with those of anti-patriarchy books. If you bet your ten thousand dollars on Helen Andelin and her group instead of Betty Friedan and her group you would easily win.
19th century marriages vs. 20th century marriages
Suppose you had to bet your $10,000 between those U.S. presidents and first ladies who consciously believed in the traditional Judeo-Christian view of the roles of men and women(which is similar to Confucian, Buddhist, Islamic and every other religious belief for the last 5,000 years) to those who consciously believe in feminism. You will only find presidents who believe in feminism in the 20th century. Let's start by comparing the Victorian Teddy Roosevelt to his 20th century cousin, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. FDR encouraged married women to work as Rosie the riveters. There were political cartoons that his wife, Eleanor, who feminists adore, wore the pants in their house. They had a loveless marriage. He committed adultery and died in his mistress's arms while Eleanor was doing her thing in another state.
Teddy Roosevelt, on the other hand, had a happy marriage. He deeply loved his wife, Alice. There was romance. Just before he married her he sent a letter saying, "Dearest love ... Oh my darling, I do hope and pray I can make you happy. I shall try very hard to be as unselfish and sunny tempered as you are, and I shall save you from every care I can. My own true love, you have made my happiness almost too great; and I feel I can do so little for you in return. I worship you so that it seems almost desecration to touch you; and yet when I am with you I can hardly let you a moment out of my arms. My purest queen, no man was worthy of your love; but I shall try very hard to deserve it, at least in part." A biographer wrote, "Always the proper Victorian, Theodore drew a discreet curtain over the wedding night. 'Our intense happiness is too sacred to be written about,' he noted tersely in his diary." The biographer writes this about their first few days of being married:" In the evenings, they curled up before the fire and he read aloud from The Pickwick Papers, Quentin Durward, and the poems of Keats. ... Eleven days later, they were enthusiastically welcomed to the Roosevelt home by his mother and sisters and took up residence in the apartment set aside for them on the third floor. Theodore immediately assumed the role of head of the family and presided over the dinner table. Were the couple, she finishing her teens and he just out of them, happy with this arrangement? Very -- according to Theodore's diary. "I can never express how I love her," he wrote.
I studied many books and diaries of Victorian marriages and this pattern of the husband and wife being deeply in love and reading together at night was common. One example was Sarah Hale who was deeply in love with her husband. It is incredibly romantic with touching tenderness. He died young, and she spent her life writing marriage manuals which say the same things that Fascinating Womanhood says. She is the person who wrote "Mary had a little lamb" and was the lady who convinced Abraham Lincoln to proclaim Thanksgiving a holiday. She writes of how she and her husband had read to each other every night. Feminists have poisoned us against Victorians. Father writes like a Victorian. He lives like one. Happy marriage with lots of kids in a big house. Teddy Roosevelt standing over a huge fish he has caught is like pictures of Father standing next to a huge tuna he has caught. True Mother and Alice Roosevelt praise their husbands and are their biggest supporters.
Bruce Catton is a distinguished historian of the Civil War. He writes about the love between Ulysses Grant and his wife, Julia: "they shared one of the great, romantic, beautiful loves of American history." Her autobiography "spins a story of romantic love, of happiness, of contentment, and there is no reason to doubt that she worked hard to make this possible both for herself and 'my dear Ulys.'" The prevailing belief in the 19th century was that women were queens. The Victorians didn't always live up to their ideals, but they at least tried. How many American and UC wives can say they are treated like these 19th century wives in their old fashioned patriarchal homes?
The four men on Mt. Rushmore are Victorians who loved their wives. If we compare Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Roosevelt who believed in limited government and patriarchy (capitalists/socialists) (although Teddy Roosevelt was weakening on these Victorian values) to four presidents of the 20th century, FDR, Johnson, Kennedy and Clinton, (socialists/feminists) we find the first four had happy marriages; the other four committed adultery. The 19th century had fewer divorces and more children than the feminist 20th century. I find it interesting that in the 19th century the wedding ring was on the right hand, and the 20th century places it on the left.
Thomas Jefferson wrote about marital relationships. To him, it was the most important thing. And it is. Father focuses on it. The 20th century places more importance on politics than family and community. Here is a little snippet of Jefferson writing of marriage in a letter:"Harmony in the married state is the very first object to be aimed at. Nothing can preserve affections uninterrupted but a firm resolution never to differ in will, and a determination in each to consider the love of the other as of more value than any object whatever on which a wish had been fixed. How light, in fact, is the sacrifice of any other wish, when weighed against the affections of one with whom we are to pass our whole life." He goes on to explain how men and women can find harmony. I don't have time to quote him fully. There are so many points to learn from others on how to achieve success in marital relationships. The best books on this are the Andelins.
It is incorrect to think that in the Completed Testament Age men will not be patriarchs. Some truths will continue. Feminists keep experimenting but they just make matters worse. Mary Daly, the feminist theologian, writes what I guess all feminists feel: "As the women's movement begins to have its effect upon the fabric of society, transforming it from patriarchy into something that never existed before -- into a diarchal situation that is radically new -- it can become the greatest single challenge to the major religions of the world, Western and Eastern. Beliefs and values that have held sway for thousands of years will be questioned as never before." The only result of someone who believes such nonesense is tragedy. Daly, for example, lives a lesbian lifestyle. Nothing will replace the traditional family. Terms used in the church like Parentism, Familyism, Headwing, and Godism mean an ideal world of traditional families. We are not pioneering new relationships between men and women, but building a world where every person will have a traditional family. Feminism has castrated so many men and kept them from having the confidence to stand up for God's values.
Man is center
Father has said countless times that men are subjects and women are objects, and they never change positions. He says, "You should feel the family standard keenly. Man is the subject and he should stand in the center. The subject should stand in the position of subject, not that of object. The center should be protected and it shouldn't be at an odd angle. He is in the position of God." It is clear that these positions are not interchangeable. Father often says man is the plus and woman is the minus and these opposite attract and create circular love. They don't change positions. They simply have give and take. Father says, "When a man wants to give to woman and woman wants to give to man in a perfect plus and minus relationship, their love will circulate smoothly." The Principle says the proton is in the center, and the electron revolves around it. If you mix up the plus and negative poles of a battery when trying to jump start a car, it will destroy the battery and may even explode and kill you. You don't fight mother nature. The same is true for the family. The feminists have experimented with other forms of marriages, but they all explode. In the Completed Testament Age men will be perfect patriarchs, perfect leaders. There has never been a society in all of human history that has not been patriarchal. The anthropologist Steven Goldberg wrote a book on this called The Inevitability of Patriarchy which he later revised to Why Men Rule. He says it is as innate a concept as the family and the incest taboo. The sexual revolution of the 20th century has experimented with different kinds of relationships, and human-kind has never experienced such suffering as those in this century.
Lionel Tiger studied the Israeli communities. George Gilder wrote of his work saying, "women in Israeli kibbutzim have increasingly insisted on the maintenance of traditional roles. Despite a fervent initial commitment by the founders to socialist unisex theories, an intensive study covering some forty years, three generations, and 100,000 men and women showed that each successive generation moved more decisively toward traditional roles. Today the kibbutzim show the most distinct sex roles in Israeli society."
Men and Women are not Interchangeable
Like the Israelis and so many others who have tried to substitute something for patriarchy, America will give it up as I did. I hope this book helps to speed up the process because it hurts to see America wandering in a socialist/feminist fog for the last 70 years. The UC must not go down this road. Years ago a brother, Jonathan Wells, said in a church publication, Lifestyle: "Despite the patriarchal inheritance and the Confucian inheritance, I want to point out that Divine Principle is distinct from them and it has some quite novel elements to it ... in this relational mode that we are talking about, subject and object positions and masculine and feminine positions can be interchanged, and often are interchanged. That is, once a subject-object relationship is established, in the language of the Divine Principle it begins to 'revolve,' and there is no relationship that is static in the sense of one position always subordinate to other position." [One sister told me it was"fluid" relationship.] With all due respect to this UC intellectual, this is pure Communism. Satan is a master at tricking people. He has this UC brother teach that when subjects and objects relate they change positions when all they do is have give and take. Give and take creates love, not people changing positions. I am my baby's Dad. We have give and take, and there is love. Never do we change positions, and she becomes Dad and I become a baby. A judge and a lawyer are subject and object. When the lawyer talks to the judge do they change positions and now the lawyer becomes the judge? Of course not. They never change positions. They are simply having give and take. At no time does the judge give up his power. If he doesn't like what he hears he will stop the lawyer from talking. He is the guide. He is the boss. If he ever changed positions, there would be chaos. America has accepted the communist/feminist ideology that rejects the ancient "static" position of man as the head of the house, and now we have chaos. Now we have a "Fatherless America" as David Blankenhorn so movingly writes in his book.
Definition of "act"
Father criticizes American women for leaving their position of object. He teaches that true love comes when people are in order: "Women in the Unification Church should clearly know that the man is subject and woman is object." He doesn't say that they ever switch. He says if they will become one if the man is plus and the woman is minus: "Love does not come unless there is a subject-object relationship. Is man plus or minus? (Plus.) What about woman? Is woman plus or minus? (Plus.) You answered both sides are plus; that's why you just want to receive love instead of giving." He keeps pounding away explaining that opposites attract. He teaches, "When man wants to give to woman and woman wants to give to man in a perfect plus and minus relationship, their love will circulate smoothly."
He goes on saying:"You women, tell me, are you in the minus or the plus position? Do you say, 'No, I do not accept the minus role! I want women to be in the plus position!' Even if you proclaimed, 'I am a plus!' for a million years, the universe would not accept that." It is crystal clear to me that he is saying men and women are not interchangeable. He says,"You might chant to yourself over and over, I am going to become a man,' but nevertheless you will look at yourself and see that you are still a woman. That is absolute. Man is a man; woman is a woman. You cannot change it -- forever; here on earth and in the hereafter. Is that too tedious for you?" Father says,"Did you say, 'I believe in religion because I want to bring about a revolution in the very order of the universe! We women will become men and the men will become women'? No matter how much you might proclaim such a revolution, the universe will just laugh at you and say, 'No way. Impossible.' The 'laws of the dialectic' cannot be applied in those circumstances."
AYou men, no matter how much you might try to become somebody other than yourselves, you cannot do it. Do you say,"We are all created equal, so men and women should be exactly the same'? Can you act one day like a woman in your relationships and another day like a man? Yes or no?"Father says"No." Father is explaining that to be equal does not mean to be the same. Equality means value, not positions. He says,"When God created human beings equal, that means they are equal in the highest possible goal -- the achievement of love. In that realm, men and women are absolutely equal: they are the children of God, period."
The context of Father's speech clearly says subjects (especially men) are not to act, resemble, do, look, dress, work (or whatever word you want to use) like women. I quote numerous Christian authors who say the same thing. This doesn't mean that men and women have absolutely nothing in common. There are elements of masculine in women and elements of feminine in men. Women have some testosterone. The Principle teaches that human beings can imitate the sounds of animals. We resemble monkeys in some ways. But that does not mean that humans"act" like monkeys and monkeys act like humans. God is principled. He made opposites attract. Vive la difference. Father says there are boundaries. There is order.
A common argument of feminism is that women need to get into the marketplace and compete with men because men need to be balanced by women there. Father teaches that true balance is when subject and object keep their positions. We become off balance when we are disorderly. Like Father says, a plus will always be a plus. A man will always be a man. Anything else, he says, is perversion. It is sloppy thinking to say men are not in touch with their feminine part that is gentle and seeks cooperation, and that women need to get in touch with their masculine part and be more aggressive and competitive. Women have a little sense of what is aggressive and competitive because if they didn't they couldn't understand and appreciate and marvel at men. Men have a sense of the maternal, of appreciating the home and feeding children. But they can't nurse. It is amazing to men to see how women can spend so many hours with babies. Men are made to have some feelings for this and therefore love the woman for being so gentle day and night with infants and grateful for her because he can't do that and it must be done.
Father says men and women have roles. I wish I had space to give many quotes of father on how men and women are different. You have, I'm sure, read many yourself. This is a representative one where Father illuminates spiritual qualities from physical characteristics. He teaches how these words apply to women. Women are not to have power in the marketplace but to exercise feminine power in the home and when it comes to competition, Father says men can't even begin to compete with women when it comes to loving children. Father makes it very clear in so many speeches that he is competitive. He is always saying the UC must have a"superior" standard to the outside world. For him to say he loses to Mother is not a light statement. But then nothing he says is light. I read and reread Father everyday. And over the years it still amazes me to see new things, new depths, incredible nuances that I didn't see before or later speeches give. He always talks about the same things, but you might as well say Spielberg makes the same old thing -- movies. The following is a typical passage of Father on men/women relationships: "Women are to assume two roles. First, in giving birth to children women need a strong foundation, and second, they will be living most of their lives in a sitting position, so God provided built-in cushions. Men have narrow hips without cushions because men are supposed to take the initiative and always be in action. A woman is to be objective, receiving grace from her husband and always sitting home comfortably waiting for him. That is the way it should be. At the same time a man should be masculine, and that is why he has broad shoulders and strong arms. Going out into the world is the man's role."
Women have a maternal instinct to deeply love children more than men. He says, "Father cannot compete with Mother in loving a child. Because the mother pours out power more than anyone else and suffers more than anyone else in bearing a child, she more than anyone else loves the child. In this respect, woman occupies the eminent and precious position in the realm of emotion. No matter how much the father loves his baby, he doesn't know love as much as the mother does. Therefore, women will go to the Kingdom of Heaven of heart. Understanding this, it is not too bad to be born a woman. God is fair." This kind of explanation is reminiscent of Victorian love for large families and the special regard they had for women caring for children
The fundamental differences between men and women balance out and complement each other. Feminists are so fanatic about making the sexes into some kind of unisex thing that they get all excited about building a new world where there is total equality or sameness. Phil Donahue wrote a book called The Human Animal in which he predicts that in the coming brave new world of feminists that men will nurse babies. He quotes from a well-known liberal scientist, John Money, that scientists in the future will be able to operate on men and make their breasts able to produce milk. This is the kind of grotesque thinking that the slippery slope of feminism takes people. Father is into absolute values.
A key word for socialists/feminists, as I've written often in this book, is"equality." Father says we are equal in value, but equality doesn't mean we are equal in sameness. Father sees relationships as being fundamentally vertical, not horizontal. In his speech quoted above, Father goes on to say that even though we are all"equal," there is still a vertical relationship between people. He says,"Let's say that your grandparents live in your home. Should your grandfather be seated in the lowest, most humble place, or in the highest place? What about God, then? As you know, God is the oldest Granddad for everybody, without question. Then shouldn't God have the highest seat of all? Is that an easy place or a difficult one? Can you say to God, 'Please come down. I want to be up there and You come down to my place"?
He constantly blasts Western women for acting like men. He says, "The sickness of American women" is due to a reversal of roles. Notice that he will use the word "power": "The master of the American family is woman. Men are overpowered by women in the family. The man dresses the woman instead of the woman dressing the man. (Note that he doesn't say that men "sometimes" dress the woman). It is total inversion. When the husband comes home from work, the wife who has spent idle time at home commands the man to do things. If the wife greets her husband with a joyful, welcoming heart and invites him to eat right away, happiness dwells with the family."
Different interpretations of Father?
In "The Role and Responsibility of Women" (12-8-95) Father is translated as saying men must follow women. He says, "Men ... you cannot follow your appetites and abuse your wives. You must consult with the women; you must seriously receive and follow them, acknowledging that the heavenly way of blessing is coming through them. The women are on my side, so the 2.5 billion women are hanging on to me; what can I do with them, since I am only one person! In order to re-create the 2.5 billion men, we must cut out the body of Adam and engraft the pieces to them. By serving their wives and children completely, men can stand in the position of the Archangel who has completed his responsibility." He then says something about a "national blessing" in the future in which men "will become the Second Adam." After this "second level blessing" there will then be a third blessing.
What does Father mean by this? I think it would be wrong for UC feminists to take this speech to mean Father is against patriarchy. In the context of all his speeches, he is 10 to 1, or 100 to 1, or maybe 1000 to 1 emphatically for women following men. He practices what he preaches by appointing men 100 to 1 to leadership positions. He overwhelmingly preaches for women to stop being domineering. What he is saying in the quotes above is that women should be respected, listened to and if they have a good idea, followed. Any leader should do this with his followers. Women should think and offer ideas and insights.
Father starts his speech immediately saying that the world is in "such a mess because of women." Eve blew it and God has had "to work hard for tens of thousands of years." Women, he says, must restore Eve's mistake: "all women are responsible for restoring their husband and son." How do they do this? He says, "Each woman has to find her husband and educate and nurture him to be the kind of husband whom God desires. The woman has to restore her husband into the ideal husband." Women throughout history have "killed" God's Adams: "She killed three men: Adam, Jesus, and the Second Advent. Adam represents the center of the family, Jesus the center of the nation, and the Second Advent the center of the world. These three husbands were killed by Eve. The prepared bride must restore the rights of Adam and enable him to gain the elder sonship, parentship and kingship on the family, national and worldwide levels."
Women must restore Eve by helping men become the "center" of all levels of leadership. Men are the leaders and Eve set in motion the pattern of women bringing men down, even the messiah. Father often says men are the "center." He says "center" means "subject." Women are never to be the "center."
The plan in restoration is for women, he says, to "absolutely obey" the messiah because he is the perfect Adam. Women then can "kick out" Satan. Throughout history "there were only deficient husbands" who must now "help" their wives "fulfill her position." Adam was spaced out in the Garden and didn't pay enough attention to Eve. Men must restore this by respecting Eve and follow her ideas when she is right. Men are not supposed to be arrogant authoritarians.
In the wine ceremony, the woman receives it first. For forty years, Father has always stressed the importance of women in restoration. I interpret this speech to one of those times when he is being principled by saying that since the first human being who screwed up was female, then women must take initiative to do what Eve did not do. I wouldn't read more into this speech. I don't see it as a call for matriarchy in the home or the state or the church. Father wants men to be the subjects -- before and after the blessing. I think he is saying that men must not be cruel, insensitive, and patronizing to women. Jesus treated women with far more respect than anyone ever had before. Unfortunately, many men did not follow in Jesus' footsteps. Father cares for women as much as he does for men, and if they have a good idea or revelation he will praise them and have everybody go learn from them. The question is how do women "nurture him to be the kind of husband whom God desires." I feel the best handbook that goes into detail and brings Father's airy philosophy to earth are Christian books such as Fascinating Womanhood, The Way Home and Me? Obey Him?
One of the best ways for men to help their wives so they can go out and do community work is to build a successful career or business that provides enough income for the family to live decently and for the wife to have some money to spend on missionary work.
When Father occasionally says things that may seem to differ from what I'm saying, we must look at the context of his words. For example, he may say that men are archangels and women are Eves and that men should serve and learn from women. I interpret this as meaning that men should not be martinets and earn their right to be leaders. Men are supposed to listen to women. God speaks through them also. They are to be partners as well as followers. Father is not into authoritarian dictators.
Beverly LaHaye's The Desires of a Woman's Heart
Beverly LaHaye writes in her book The Desires of a Woman's Heart, "Unless we accept the Bible's teaching that woman was created for man, we cannot begin to follow God's plan for happy marriages. Denial of this foundational truth may be the first step of rebellion against God's plan for happiness in marriage."
She titles the next section "Feminism's Toxic Influence" saying, "Our world is reeling from the ravages of feminist rebellion against God and God-given authorities. Women are taught to resent male authority as well as every other authority in their lives. The liberal feminist line teaches that women and men are interchangeable, and some in our churches are misinterpreting Galatians 3:28 to mean that there is no difference between men and women with regard to spiritual authority. However, a contextual look at this passage reveals that it speaks of equal access to God and equal entitlement to God's spiritual promises and blessings. It does not live up to the feminist ideal of identity of function."
"A man's role as leader is threatened when the woman refuses to give him the support he needs in the challenging task of undertaking godly leadership. We continue to see women usurp men's roles in the home and in the church, which squelches men's ability to lead, protect, care for, and provide for their families, churches, and communities."
"But sometimes men are their own enemy in the struggle over roles. They are often as confused as women as to what their roles should be. Afraid of being regarded as politically incorrect and chauvinistic, men often retreat into the safety zone of indifference, listlessness, and apathy. I believe that men must rise above the worldly criticism and solve this problem by developing and living according to biblical convictions on their calling and responsibility as men, regardless of whether or not they get the encouragement from women to do so."
"Men and women are not interchangeable. We need each other as men and as women, not as androgynous human beings. Most women are not looking for emasculated, wimpy men. What do women want in a husband? Let's look at several important characteristics."
She says women want godly husbands: "We want to love and respect husbands because they are godly, but the biblical model of a godly man in leadership and a wife who submits is not followed in today's world. 'The Western world,' writes James Dobson, 'stands at a great crossroads in its history. It is my opinion that our very survival as a people will depend upon the presence or absence of masculine leadership in millions of homes .... I believe, with everything within me, that husbands hold the keys to the preservation of the family.'"
"I believe women want a husband who will be loving and respectful to them and at the same time exhibit the strength and courage necessary to lead the family."
Words can trip us up easily when discussing relationships. We have to define our terms. One of the most popular words used today is"partner." Homosexuals especially like this word. The feminist author of The New Victorians explains the communist/feminist dream of partners:"For many, such an oversimplified view of the sexes and society is ridiculous .... many young women .... don't like the idea of ... archconservatives promoting sexist stereotypes. Young women today want women and men to form equal partnershsips in work and family, not to be driven apart and forced into confining gender roles." Aubrey Andelin defines partners correctly. He says that a husband and wife have a "complimentary partnership" but have separate roles that don't interchange except in "emergencies". He says, "In the ideal home the man's and woman's duties are distinctly divided. There's little overlapping except in emergencies. Not only does this follow divine command, but also logic and reason. Every group must be organized to avoid chaos. This consists of delegating duties to each member, making each accountable for his assignments. A family is a small organization and thus must also follow this pattern."
"The joining of these roles forms a complementary partnership. Neither the man nor the woman is superior. Both are indispensable and of equal importance. But as we see so plainly, there is a difference of responsibility." Men and women are partners in that they are united in a common cause and have equal value, but the word"partner" is not the best word to use because men are to lead women. The relationship between men and women is vertical also. It is a monarchy, not a democracy. Feminists like the word partner for that very reason. It is rebellion from their position as objects or followers.
For hundreds of years Americans read books teaching this truth from authors who believed in the Bible. One of the most popular manuals of the seventeenth century was Of Domesticall Duties written by William Gouge in 1622. One of the most popular in the eighteenth century was The Well-Ordered Family by Benjamin Wadsworth in 1712. In the nineteenth century many lived by these principles as taught in Manners: Happy Homes & Good Society All the Year Round by Sarah Hale. One of the most popular today is Helen Andelin's book, Fascinating Womanhood. The UC should be writing a book to carry on the task of explaining and refining this truth in the language of today.
Let's look at some passages of the Swiss theologian Emil Bruner who wrote in Man in Revolt: "The primal truth, however, is this: God created man in His own image; male and female created He them. This truth cuts away the ground from all belief in the inferior value of woman. The Creator has created man and woman not with different values but of different kinds, dependent upon one another, a difference in kind which means that each complements the other."
"Man and woman have received a different stamp as human beings ... Both are called to be persons, to live in love, in the same degree, but in different ways. The man is the one who produces, he is the leader; the woman is receptive, and she preserves life; it is the man's duty to shape the new, it is the woman's duty to unite it and adapt it to that which already exists. The man has to go forth and make the earth subject to him, the woman looks within and guards the hidden unity."
"The man must ... generalize, the woman must...individualize; the man must build, the woman adorns, the man must conquer, the woman must tend; the man must comprehend all with his mind, the woman must impregnate all with the life of her soul. It is the duty of the man to plan and to master, of the woman to understand and to unite."
"In these distinctive qualities there lies a certain super- and sub-ordination; but it is a purely functional difference, not a difference in value, it is not a scale of values. The special call to serve where love is perceived as the meaning of life, is rather a privilege than a humiliation."
"As husband and wife -- with their different structure and their different functions -- are one in the physical fact of sexual union, so they ought to be one in all their life together; through all the differences of mind and spirit, they should be one in all they do and are, for one another, and for their whole environment. The husband, for instance, simply because he enters into contact with the outside world, is not the only one who is related to the whole. Just as the wife is of equal value as a member of the Church, of the community of the faithful, so she also, like her husband, should bring her own contribution to the welfare of the nation, and of humanity as a whole. Only her contribution will always be more intimate, less evident to the outside world, more hidden and individual than that of the man .... If woman is to give her best, and is to make her specific contribution, there must be, even in her public service, some measure of differentiation from man's way of doing things, some space for the more intimate and personal element."
Beverly LaHaye writes in The Desires of a Woman's Heart: "Deborah Tannen, author of You Just Don't Understand: Men and Women in Conversation, found that men turn conversations into competitions for power. Women, by contrast, tend to view conversatioins as negotiations for closeness in which people seek and give confirmation and support and try to reach consensus. Perhaps it is our need for intimacy and affirmation that has strengthened our communication skills."
"Some feminists try to avoid discussion of the very physical, psychological, and social differences between men and women, because these dinstinctions don't do much to support their ideology. Tannen observes that 'the desire to affirm that women are equal has made some scholars reluctant to show they are different, because differences can be used to justify unequal treatment and opportunity."
"It is interesting to note that in spite of the negative impact these findings may have on feminist ideology, Tannen feels compelled to reveal them. She realizes that understanding and honoring the differences between men and women plays a pivotal role in forming and maintaining healthy relationships between the sexes: 'Denying real differences can only compound the confusion that is already widespread in this area of shifting and reforming relationships between men and women. Pretending that women and men are the same hurts women, because the ways they are treated are based on the norms for men. It also hurts men who, with good intentions, speak to women as they would to men, and are nonplussed when their words don't work as they expected, or even spark resentment and anger.'"
"It is clear that in spite of feminist rhetoric downplaying the uniqueness of men and women, there's no denying the fundamental differences between us. Woman, of course, is the only sex capable of giving birth to and nursing a child. Our unique brain structure produces suble and not-so-suble differences in the way we interpret our surroundings. Our conversational style differs from that of men. When it comes to relationships -- the crux of life -- men and women have different needs and experiences."
"Unless women become tough and callous, repressing our God-given sensitive nature, we will always be hurt when treated roughly. We are not 'one of the boys.' We are women, and we want men's appreciation for who we are."
"I'm not saying men should treat us as though we are weak, powerless, incapable, inferior creatures. Far from it -- we've all seen the power of a determined woman! We want men to encourage us to exercise our influence in a godly way. We want the power to be meek, not weak. This power will free us to live according to our feminine nature as nurturers, supporters, and bearers of culture and civility."
"We would like men to understand us as women and to stop competing against us as if we were imitation men. We would like them to befriend, defend, and support us. We would like both men and women to be free to be the friends God designed us to be."
Barbara Bush is an example of a woman staying in the background and now she has a son who is Governor of Texas. The hand the rocks the cradle rules the world. Some sisters equate Father's rare comments on politics or to do some public service to mean they are to have careers. How interested is Father in politics? Does he talk about things that politicians talk about -- like trade, welfare reform, the deficit, the DEA and all the alphabet soup agencies? What does Father talk about? He spends all his time talking about men and women, marriage and family. He is interested in the billions of homes on this earth and the trillions of homes that will come in the future. He is interested in blessing millions of people and having all women stay home and homeschool their children. He is not very interested in a tiny percent of women running for political office. Even if every U.S. senator was a woman, that would be only 100 women. What is that compared to 1 billion wives? It's not even worth talking about. What Father wants 99% of sisters to do is stay home and homeschool their 12 children with other sisters who also have 12 children in a community where they all live together.
God and Father are capitalist/traditionalist. Father is giving money to the conservatives, not the liberals. Father is for "prescribed roles". He says, "A woman must become a true wife and the homemaker of the family." I have never visited a UC home where the brother cooked dinner. This sure looks like sisters have prescribed roles to me. Father says unmarried men and women are not to shake hands with each other. Father says, "A wife should have the attitude to accept her husband's opinion 100%. She should create so strong an internal bond to her husband that she accepts his actions 100% as well. She should go east when her husband orders her to go. If a woman doesn't follow where he goes, she is not a wife at all." This quote is not an isolated one or taken out of context. It is the central motif that runs throughout his speeches.
The most grotesque example of socialism/feminism invading the UC is when it publishes and then sells Thomas Boslooper's book, The Image of Woman, at literature tables at hotels when Mother speaks. I've suffered through hundreds of feminist books, but Bosloopers is the worst. It is a pure expression of Satan. He taught for years at the UC seminary. I can't even imagine the damage he has done to the minds of so many members, some who are leaders in the UC. His book is so bad I don't even know where to begin. He starts off with the common fantasy of feminists that there used to be a society of women leaders called Amazons. Logic and reality are not a part of socialist/feminist thought. The distinguished anthropologist, Steven Goldberg says, "Over the course of fifty years Margaret Mead repeated her denial a hundred times, in response to one or another claim that she had found a society that reversed sex roles; in a review of my The Inevitability of Patriarchy, she wrote 'It is true, as Professor Goldberg points out, that all the claims so glibly made about societies ruled by women are nonsense. We have no reason to believe that they ever existed .... Men have always been the leaders in public affairs and the final authorities at home." The title of his article is called "Feminism against science" subtitled "'Feminist science' began with a willful misreading of Margaret Mead and went on from there. Besides feminist anthropology, now we have feminist physics and feminist astronomy. Watch out for feminist molecular theory." The UC thinks it is above the cultural war that rages on in society because they are off having "internal unity of heart." What is really happening is that the UC is out selling Boslooper's book whose central message is against patriarchy and for women to be competing with men in the marketplace.
In the book Tender Warrior the author, Stu Weber says, "The pattern of masculine leadership and feminine responsiveness is well established in Scripture. It is also very conspicuous in our world. Stephen Clark, a historian at Yale University, observes: 'Men bear primary responsibility for the larger community. Women bear primary responsibility for domestic management and rearing of young children. Every known society, past and present, assigns to the men a primary responsibility for the government of the larger groupings within the society, and assigns to the women a primary responsibility for the daily maintenance of household units and the care of the younger children.' In our suspicious culture people might expect such a statement from a male sociologist. But Sherry Ortner, feminist scholar, states it even more emphatically: 'The universality of female subordination, the fact that it exists within every type of social and economic arrangement and in societies of every degree of complexity, indicates to me that we are up against something very profound, very stubborn, something we cannot root out simply by rearranging a few tasks and roles in the social system, or even reordering the whole economic structure."
"I would flatly assert that we find women subordinate to men in every known society. The search for a genuinely egalitarian, let alone matriarchal, culture has proved useless.' We're dealing with something very fundamental here. Masculine headship is universally present. It is the anthropological standard. It is the historical practice. Most importantly, it is the scriptural mandate. How then should we respond to it? Accept it and live with it. Trust it and obey it. Take the orders, and follow them. As men under authority."
"Still, many in our culture kick against it. It is campaigned against. It is mocked. It is ridiculed. It is legislated out of fashion. But it will persist. Manhood is here to stay. How tragic though that some Christians, who reputedly accept the authority of Scripture, would resist it."
"The solution (to this confusion) is manly love. Men must develop a thorough, biblical, manly love. Now what is that? In a word -- headship. It is leadership with an emphasis upon responsibility, duty, and sacrifice. Not rank or domination. No 'I'm the boss' assertion. Most people who have to insist that they are the leader, usually aren't .... The key to leadership is serving -- not 'lording' it over .... Harsh dominance is not the way of Christ."
Take your pick. Does Stu Weber and the Andelins sound better than Boslooper and another professor at the UC seminary, Henry Thompson, who wrote articles in the UNews making sure everyone knows that Ephesians 5 is outdated? I choose the right, not the left.
Either feminists are right, or anti-feminists are right. There is a Cain/Abel division here, and the UC needs to get on the side of Abel instead of being on the side of Cain but thinking they are Seth who has gone "beyond" his brothers and doesn't really care what they were fighting about. There is no Completed Testament Age new and exciting ideas shedding light on whether the earth is flat or round. It's a black and white issue. Father is not pioneering anything new when he teaches against fornication, adultery and homosexuality. We can join the Christians on this. The same is true for patriarchy. We should be standing with Christians such as Jerry Falwell, Phyllis Schlafly, George Gilder, Gary Smalley, Tim and Beverly LaHaye. We should be standing with Mormons like the Andelins and Stephen Covey. We should be standing with all the other major religions. This is the last days, and God's people must stand against feminists like Anne Wilson Schaef who wrote Women's Reality: An Emerging Female System in the White Male Society. She writes that women make the mistake of thinking they really need a man:"Many women feel that they cannot be whole without a man." She says women shouldn't be"terrified of being alone." Not only are men in general not that important, but the specific man, the messiah, isn't needed either:"Remember that in the Original Sin concept, we can only be 'saved' with the help and intervention of an outside intermediary. We are taught that we will be all right if we can attach ourselves to an innately superior being, a man, who will intercede for us." So much for Jesus. The UC must be careful to not let feminists influence them.
We have a century that has sown alternatives to patriarchy instead of perfecting it and has reaped a harvest of broken bones and broken bodies the like of which the world has never seen. It is a century of total chaos. Father constantly says the world, and especially America is out of order. One book I read that went into detail on how all the major religions believe in patriarchal order said this about Islam: "For Muslim folklore, one of the signs of the end of history is a reversal of this order. When women rule, the Judgment Day is nigh."
The sixties sexual revolution was Satan's attack on patriarchy. The core ideology of Satan is the blurring of the roles of men and women. Satan's greatest achievement was taking out the word "obey" from the marriage vows.
A pastor wrote an article for the magazine Christianity Today entitled "Love, Honor, and Obey" on June 6, 1969. He wrote, "There was a time when the word 'obey' was included in marriage vows. The husband vowed to love and honor his wife and she vowed to love, honor, and obey her husband. The vow of obedience was based on Ephesians 5:22 and First Peter 3:1, where wives are commanded to be in subjection to their husbands."
"Today many marriage counselors and pastors regard the vow of obedience as an anachronism. They argue that the husband-wife relationship taught in the Scripture is culturally conditioned. Since it was fitting in Bible times for a woman to be submissive to her husband, they say, Christians were enjoined to follow this principle to avoid scandalizing the non-Christian community."
"Women today are less inclined to vow obedience than they were in years past. Deluged by books and magazine articles by advice-to-women experts, modern women view marriage as a partnership in which the husband and wife stand as individuals who maintain separate identities. Some women are outraged at the thought of a bride's vowing obedience. Mary Daly in her book The Church and the Second Sex attacks what she feels is the Church's prejudice against women. She says the Church contradicts its moral teachings by harboring 'oppressive and misogynistic ideas' about women."
"Women need not feel threatened. God has provided safeguards for the woman in Christian marriage. Her husband is to love her as Christ loves the Church -- to have her best interest always at heart. What a staggering demand on the husband! He is to love her as he loves his own flesh, for, says Paul, she is his flesh. The apostle Peter commands husbands to keep in mind that woman is a fragile vessel, and is to be treated as such (1 Peter 3:7). What is more, she is an heir together with him of the grace of God. Whereas the human relationship of the husband and wife is that of the leader and the led, there is no such distinction in the spiritual realm. The wife is just as much the object of God's grace, just as much the heir of the riches of divine grace, as her husband. The husband who selfishly indulges in the good things God gives and refuses to share with his wife stands in danger of divine displeasure."
"Peter's teaching answers the argument that in Christ there is neither bond nor free, neither male nor female. It is true that the male-female distinctions are broken down in Christ; woman is the object of God's grace as much as man. Yet in the organization of the home God has ordained the headship of the man and the submission or obedience of the wife."
"When a pastor teaches that wives must be submissive to their husbands in everything (Eph. 5:24), even if the husband does not obey the word (1 Pet. 3:1), women are sure to ask how far they are to go in their submission. They will want to know what they are to do if a husband is cruel or is a violent drunkard."
He says that women are basically to follow. If a husband says not to go to church, she is to obey and act as 1 Peter 3:1 commands her. She is to be silent and prayerful. Women need to study books like the Andelins and Hanford's Me? Obey Him? to learn how to be a follower. Marriage, like anything, takes study. Christian women's books usually have stories that help dramatize these abstract concepts. I don't have the space to tell some of them. You'll just have to read them on your own. The pastor above goes on to say a woman should only leave the home if she the husband is violent, or she just can't obey. But both should stretch to save the marriage and reconcile. Sometimes divorce is necessary, but many times the people weren't patient enough. The most published Christian writer is Og Mandino. In one of his books he tells a little of his story. He was a fall down drunk for many years, and one day his wife packed up, took the kids and left him. Years later he accepted Jesus, remarried and built a happy second family. He has become an exemplary family man. The key to love is being patient as first Corinthians teaches. The pastor ends by saying,"there are times when a woman must leave her husband for her own protection. But it must be with a view to reconciliation (1 Cor. 7:10,11)."
Elizabeth Cady Stanton
The seeds for wifely disobedience came from the founder of American feminism, Elizabeth Cady Stanton. A biography of her says that at her marriage ceremony on May 10, 1840,"Suddenly a question occurred to Lizzie. Exactly what did this minister intend to say in the marriage ceremony? The gentleman seemed rather surprised by the question, but he rapidly told her the words he would use."
"No!' Lizzie shook her head decisively. 'You must leave out the word, 'obey.' I absolutely refuse to obey someone with whom I am entering into an equal relationship."
"Henry Stanton looked startled, as if he had just discovered what might be in store for him. Nevertheless, he nodded to the minister." And America went downhill.
There is a cultural war going on between the feminists and anti-feminists. Hatred towards patriarchy is the core belief of feminism. Either you are for it or you are against it. Either you a part of the solution or the problem. It is absolutely black and white. Either you are a capitalist/traditionalist or socialist/feminist. Feminists have experimented with every imaginable type of alternative to patriarchy in this century. And this century has been the absolute worst century in human history. The intellectual Berlin wall is socialism/feminism.
Bones and Flesh
Any member who thinks Father is not clear or can be read different ways is wrong. Father is absolutely clear. He is not some pioneer trying out things until he finds the truth. He has said the same thing his entire life. Men are subject and women are objects. He is the ultimate teacher. He says it in different ways so everyone can understand. One way he explains it is by using vivid language. He repeatedly tells American sisters that their husbands are "bones" and they are "flesh". Father says, "The reason man's bones are made stronger than woman is ... to earn money ... to support his wife and children." He says men are "over" women in a million different ways. Father is always using the word "order". He is even into ordering how clothes are put away. He says man's clothes are always ( no interchanging) to be over the woman's: "When using a wardrobe, man is to use the right or upper side and woman the left or lower side. Woman shouldn't put her skirt or underwear on the man's upper clothes. The woman's clothes shouldn't be on the man's clothes." It is time to have prescribed places for clothes and for brothers to be respected and even as the Bible says, to be "revered" as patriarchs. Sisters have got to get over the negative connotations this century has put on that word and study the Andelin's books on how to live this way. Father is prescribing lots of things. He says, "In walking, men are to step right foot first and women are to step left foot first. Men are to sit in the East and women are to sit in the West. There is always a certain order to anything -- the order of setting the table or the order of hanging clothes." He says, "Man is to look down upon woman from above." Patriarchy is a loaded word to Satan. He has made women and men hate the word. UC members must not think patriarchy will be substituted with androgyny in the building of the kingdom, in the actual kingdom of heaven on earth or in spirit world. Men and women will become sinless but they will not change roles. Any member who is waiting for new patterns to emerge can stop waiting. They emerged in 1960. Father is the perfect patriarch.
Let's look at Boslooper's book again. We looked earlier at the nonsense of Amazon women he teaches about. He later says western civilization unfortunately went with Aristotle instead of Plato. A syndicated columnist, Kingsley Guy, wrote an article about this topic explaining how the Democratic party is descended from Plato and the Republican party is from Aristotle, "In 1994, American voters opted for change .... the battle lines have been clearly drawn .... Republicans say they are for strong families, small government and private property rights." Democrats are "collectivists who favor Big-Brother government, and who are hostile to traditional family values and private ownership of property .... In a much broader historical context, the battle lines can be traced all the way back to the 4th century B.C., and the point-counterpoint between Plato and Aristotle in ancient Athens .... Aristotle's social thinking helped form the intellectual foundation of 18th century classical liberalism and modern bourgeois capitalism. Plato's helped form the basis of 19th century socialist doctrine, epitomized by Marx .... Plato thought women deserved equal political rights and were capable of joining the ruling class. Aristotle argued that women were not suited for politics or leadership positions in society. While women were due great respect, Aristotle insisted a woman's proper place was in the home." He says he may sound "politically incorrect" but these "long-dead, white male, toga-clad egghead thinkers .... have had a profound influence on ... 20th century America." Ideas are powerful, and Boslooper is teaching Plato at the UC seminary.
Boslooper says, "The time has come to take a fresh look at Hebrew-Christian scriptural tradition, to view the Bible as the record of man's prejudice against woman" and then to look at it with feminist glasses and see how mankind for thousands of years has not read it correctly. Boslooper spends the rest of his book bashing male patriarchy. Like all Feminist theologians he says "dominion over creation" was men destroying the planet. If women had been "equal" with men then there would have been a "constructive force" instead. Boslooper has discovered that "St. Peter and St. Paul" look like the greatest "male chauvinists of history" if we read the Bible "strictly literally and somewhat casually." Boslooper is finally leading us to the promised land of men/women harmony. What is this magical breath-taking insight? We have to throw out all those interpretations that men were the head of the house. Boslooper quotes one line out of a passage of 13 lines on men and women relationships, Ephesians 5:21, which says that men and women are to "be subject to one another" which, to all feminist theologians, means men don't lead women. What it really means is that men and women have equal value. The next 12 lines are the most famous in the Bible for man being the "head of the wife." But these 12 lines are now to be ignored because of the one line that supposedly cancels out the rest. Feminists see what they want.
The other quote that socialist/feminist theologians hang on to for dear life is Galatians 3:28 which says, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Boslooper says, "The passage in Galatians 3 should be understood as Paul's major theme, his universalizing principle on the relationship between the sexes. For the apostle there is an equality between the sexes in salvation." I agree. God loves men and women equally. But it doesn't mean that there are no differences between the sexes. Beverly LaHaye in The Desires of a Woman's Heart writes, "'Biblical feminists' like to quote Galatians 3:28, claiming that it means that there are no distinctions between men and women .... But, clearly, there are distinctions. Paul was not writing that distinctions such as those between Jews and Greeks, slaves and free, male and female did not exist in the world. Slaves did exist in Paul's day, and Paul wrote that they were to serve their masters well. If there were no differences between men and women, it would make no difference whether a woman married a man or a woman; but God makes it clear over and over in his Word that homosexuality is an abomination to him. Obviously, differences exist in the world, and we must live with those differences as God has commanded us."
Aubrey Andelin in Man of Steel and Velvet, writes,"Advocates of the 'share alike' philosophy demonstrate an unusual lack of insight into human behavior as they ignore completely the serious social problems which arise from this blurring of the male and female roles. Countless children grow up in environments where the distinction of the sexes is so obscure that no clear-cut example exists for them to follow. Many homes lack definitive leadership, and the very differences that should be emphasized are purposely minimized as men act like men. This in turn can lead to underdevolpment of the child to his own sex and in some cases to homosexuality."
Frances Schaeffer, in The Great Evangelical Disaster, echoes this thought:"If we accept the idea of equality without distinction, we logically must accept he idea of homosexuality. For if there are no significant distinctions between men and women, then certainly we cannot condemn homosexual relationships."
Mrs. LaHaye goes on to say: "Paul was making the point that men and women are equally sinful and equally redeemable by the sacrificial death of Christ. Missing the point, many feminists continue to argue that men and women are interchangeable. To infer that men and women have the same function in the body of Christ from Galatians 3:28 is taking this Scripture out of context."
"We can't deny, however, that there have been real problems in the church with regard to the treatment of women. As Mary Kassian notes in her book The Feminist Gospel, too often men have been authoritarian, domineering, and proud, while women have been passive and insecure. Locked into stereotypical roles of service and behavior, men and women have not thrived according to God's plan. This is not the biblical model; the Bible teaches that women in the church must be treated as coheirs of the grace of life (1 Peter 3:7), equal and yet different, distinct from men but equal and just as vital. We must seek to complete, rather than compete with, each other."
"As Christians, our goal is not to 'find ourselves,' but to lose ourselves. Paradoxically, it is in losing ourselves that we find life. Jesus told us, 'If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it.' (Luke 9:23-24)."
"Christianity is incompatible with seeking full possession of our individual rights. To say we serve Christ while serving only ourselves is antithetical. A life focused on self -- me, my, mine -- cannot bring happiness. Any woman who emphasizes her personal rights will breed discontent. Men and women alike are called to abdicate their 'rights' and lose their lives for the sake of others. This is, after all, the example Jesus Christ left for us."
"When a church begins to question the Bible's inerrancy and cultural relevance, it steps onto the slippery slope of moral relativism ...." Amen, sister.
Boslooper has a chapter called "Feminist Theologians: Women's Ordination." His dream, like all disgusting feminists, is for women to be over men. He profiles prominent rebellious women such as Mary Daly. He quotes Rosemary Radford Reuther saying we all need "liberation...from the false polarities of masculinity and femininity" and we need "the exorcism of the demonic spirit of sexism in the Church." She and Boslooper are the demonic spirits. He saves the worst for last. He has a full page picture of True Parents and then says, "Woman has the right and responsibility to create herself in God's image and as a fulfilled individual express herself as a mother and as a professional woman." Boslooper does not see stay-at-home moms as professionals. A UC sister has "brothers with whom she shares equal rights and responsibilities in every area of life." Are brothers going to cook and clean 50% of the time? Are Army Rangers and Navy Seals going to be 50% women? Will the cow jump over the moon? This is pure Communism.
Boslooper's particular area of focus is getting women to compete with men in sports and hopefully beat them. He has no sympathy for men feeling threatened when women beat men at sports. He quotes somebody saying this crap: "The healthy relationship is for the male to recognize that physical prowess in a woman, even though it may exceed his, makes her just that much better a woman." Either women follow this lunatic to hell or follow Aubrey Andelin to heaven. The choice is yours. After all the years and all the hundreds of books by feminists, it still never ceases to amaze me how they keep thinking the earth is flat. For the life of them, they cannot ever use logic or common sense. Maybe in something like bowling a woman can beat a man but in many sports a woman will never win. He has a picture of Chris Evert, the tennis player. Boslooper apparently wants her to compete with men and if she beats them they should not have fragile egos. Men need this to grow and to respect women when they compete and win over men. The problem is that if you did not separate women and men, Chris Evert, who for years was the best women's player in the world, would never bother to even try to compete because she would always lose. I watched her in an interview once and she said that the best players in the world are ranked. I think it was one to a thousand. She said every man on that list could beat her easily. She said every top male player for colleges could beat her. She would only start winning at mid-level college team players. If men and women were not separated, how many women would go to the Olympics? How many women would make it on the Olympic basketball team? How many top women college basketball players could get in the NBA? The best of men will always be better than the best of women in sports and every area of life outside the home. What is so obnoxious about Boslooper is the attack on the homemaker. Boslooper incorrectly reads the Bible, thinking that it is against women because it keeps them in the home. He says, "Biblical tradition ... keep women in a position inferior and secondary to men." He says "Jewish, Roman Catholic and Protestant religious communities" have "discriminated against women." Women in Godly patriarchal marriages are not"inferior"'or"secondary." They are treasured so much that men die for them. In Boslooper's sick world, women get to be cops and soldiers so they can have the honor of protecting and dying for men like Boslooper. I don't like Boslooper's crowd. I like women who are feminine. Billy Graham's wife, Ruth, has as one person wrote, "a dazzling advertizement for marriage." She said once, "I am a strong believer in women's lib, to this extent: I think women should be liberated from ... having to work for a living .... They need to be liberated ... so they can devote themselves to their homes." It's a joy to read and see anti-feminist marriages. It is a heavy spirit world around feminists like Boslooper who hate patriarchy.
Boslooper says that the UC teaches women to be a "mother" and "a professional woman." Feminists, like Boslooper and Betty Friedan, degrade motherhood by not seeing it as a "profession." The greatest profession on earth is to care for a family, homeschool children, care for the elderly and volunteer to help the poor. Boslooper is part of the elite who dominate intellectual thought and that is why Barbara Bush was hated by the women at Wellesley College when they found out she had been invited to speak there. Catherine Beecher was one the most influential writers of advice books in the 19th century. She urged women to obtain "appropriate scientific and practical training for her distinctive profession as housekeeper, nurse of infants and the sick, educator of childhood, trainer of servants and minister of charities." In this way women would "develop the intellectual, social and moral powers in the most perfect manner" so they could become excellent mothers, wives and social reformers.
And those who rationalize their work away from home because it is an emergency like World War II and women had to become Rosie the Riveters, are blind to the kind of war we are fighting. Brothers are not overseas carrying guns and killing bad guys while the little wife gets a check from Uncle Sam. Our war is winning the next door neighbor. We are supposed to be competing with Jerry Falwell and the Lutheran Church near me who are out knocking on doors in my neighborhood.
One sister wrote me saying she heard that Father wants to have a Senate of men and House of women. I would like to see this quote in context of the speech. It's too easy to get into some phone game where people think they hear something when Father isn't saying it. Let's look at this quote that this sister says she heard. Is this Father's big goal? Sisters are to focus on being political leaders? Or is he more interested in billions of women finding happiness in their homes where they focus on homeschooling? What is interesting about this so-called goal is that the men and women are separated. I was watching a video of Mother speak in Japan and Dr. Pak was translating. He was not standing next to her as he does with Father. He was way off at another podium. I have never seen such a thing. But it is principled because there can't even be an appearance of something unprincipled as a married woman associating too freely with a man who is not her husband. The clincher to this example is that our Founding Fathers made the Senate to have longer terms and to be a place of reflection as opposed to the more emotional, noisy world of the instant represented by the House. They wanted the Senate to guide with more thoughtful wisdom the House of Representatives that may not see the long view. Senators had six year terms, and Representatives had two year terms. Senators were not supposed to be interested in re-election so often so they could spend more time being contemplative. Both were valuable, but different. The Senate was subject, and the House was object. Notice in this example that men are in the Senate. The women are still in the object position. Also, homemaking is a lifetime career. Politics is supposed to be a temporary place of service and is not supposed to be a career for men.
The same argument goes for the idea one sister told me that Father had of women having their own United Nations. Again, Father is separating men and women. Father knows that both men and women have a brain and that women are interested in politics and men are interested in the how their house is run. But Father is not for mixing men and women together in leadership.
The argument that women can and should lead as much as men because True Mother will lead the church after Father dies also doesn't stand up. There are exceptions to every rule. Zachariah and Mary is one of them. Mother is an extreme exception. She is the only True Mother of the universe and if Father wants her to be in charge then that is fine. Also she is older and never spoke publicly until she had had 14 children and they were all older. This is a transition time and in this intense cultural war we do some things that are not always graceful and smooth and the way it will be in the ideal world. Nevertheless, we should be very cautious when we use means to the end that are different than the end.
One sister wrote saying that in the future we are going to end male leadership and "couples will run governments." Again, we're talking of far less than 1% of women (even if it's true which I doubt). And just what is it that "governments" in the ideal world will do? Everyone is perfect. There is no crime, no hunger, no police, no wars, no poverty, no pollution. Everyone is like Rev. and Mrs. Moon. Everyone believes the same. If a bunch of great-grandparents want to get together once a month and give some advice to 50 billion people I don't care. What has that got to do with men being the head of the house? True Parents are perfect and Father is head of his house and head of this church. Does a couple match? No. Father does it alone. One day Father made 4000 matches. Men are made to work in the world and make many quick decisions. Women are not. If you don't believe me, read his sermons. He only says it about nine million times.
A sister likes a feminist book
In a church book, a sister, Patricia Zulkosky, wrote an article complaining about how the UC was a patriarchy and she was unhappy. She wrote, "In the meantime, women continue to experience the pains of patriarchy alone and without understanding. The most readable and enlightening expose of the pains women experience under patriarchal religion is Sonia Johnson's book, From Housewife to Heretic. She uses her experience and story to illustrate many experiences which I have also had in the Unification Church."
She is very angry that she has been abused by male leaders in the UC. Sonia Johnson is angry too. Her Mormon husband betrayed her. She criticized the Mormon church, and they excommunicated her. She writes that "women are locked in a life-and-death struggle with patriarchy ... When we love ourselves and men enough and are proud and angry enough to come forth and refuse to be oppressed one moment longer, only then will we be credible. Doormats -- or old shoes -- inspire no respect in anyone, including and most especially and most seriously themselves. When we do not value ourselves, no one else does either. So we must make it difficult -- make it wretched and miserable -- for men in power to fight us. We must stop allowing them to walk across our faces with their cleated boots while we apologize for being in their way. Only then will they -- and we -- respect us. It is time to desegregate the Old Boy's Club."
Father not for veils, but not for feminism either
I feel sorry for these women who have been abused by male leaders in their churches. I'm sorry for all their "pains" and the "pains" of all women who have suffered under evil men leaders. Father sympathizes: "Women have been mistreated and miserable throughout history, cast out of their true position. They have been exploited by evil individuals, evil families, societies, nations and by Satan himself" and women will only be totally liberated when the "true man" comes. He doesn't say, though, that women should not follow men or lead men now or in the ideal. He wants women to lift up men, not usurp their position. He says, "Always in the past women have been taking positions above men, even trying to control them. This trend in the history of women will continue until 1988. The women's liberation movement has certainly been successful in this country, with American women seizing the role of empress." He says men were too restrictive with women throughout history. They made women wear veils. But, he says, women are right to want to be liberated from that extreme position, but they have gone to far. He says, "But instead of just taking off their veils, women have even taken off their clothes! Throughout the world women are accepted even when they are practically naked."
Feminists work relentlessly for their cause. Anti-feminists keep losing. But someday the tide will turn. An example of where feminists fight for the kind of unfeminine behavior Father talks about is the battle they finally won over letting female sportswriters have the right to enter the locker room with men. This is a graphic illustration of the Last Days to see some woman interviewing a male athlete while he has a towel on and other men walking naked to the shower. This is what happens when we mix men and women in the marketplace. John Adams spoke a universal truth when he said, "From all that I had read of history and government, of human life and manners, I had drawn the conclusion, that the manners of women were the most infallible barometer, to ascertain the degree of morality and virtue in a nation.... The Jews, the Greeks, the Romans, the Swiss, the Dutch, all lost their public spirit, their republican principles and habits, and their republican forms of government, when they lost the modesty and domestic virtues of their women." When the UC and America restore "domestic virtues of their women" they will become great.
The Victorians were moving in the right direction to give women their proper rights, but women went off the deep end and wanted to lead men. Women got the vote in 1918 in England and now Father says its been 70 years (1918 plus 70 makes 1988) of this nonsense and women must become feminine: "for 70 years women will be trying to assume their rightful, original role .... I understand the reason behind such initiative in America, but it is also time for restored women to resume the objective aspect of their original role. All you sisters, would you like to be recognized for being feminine and charming, or would you like to be known for being very courageous and tom-boyish? All you brothers who laughed, would you like to have tom-boys as your wives, or women who are feminine and charming? When I was matching couples for the Blessing, I asked the Western men what nationality they would like their wives to be. Ninety-nine percent of them asked for Oriental women. I am sure it was very embarrassing for the Western sisters to hear this." Father goes on to explain how women are to sit at home being good objects while the man goes out taking the "initiative". Father says American women have "commanding" voices and it's time for men to stand up to them.
The UC should see that being an object is a privilege, not something that is a degrading habit from the fallen world and headwing will elevate women to something equal to or above men. Father says, "God gave women the privilege of always looking up to their husbands. They should not look down on men. That is the Principle. God actually made women shorter than men for the sake of women. If women were taller than men, then throughout history their lives would have been even more miserable because they would have to do all the reaching for high things." He says God gave a lot of thought to this. There is no interchanging, no equality of height or greater height. Father uses the word "always". Men are born leaders and protectors. They are always over women, not to hurt them, but to take care of them. The mother is taller than children. She is their leader and must not abuse her power.
In Jin Nim says, "Being a woman, I find listening to the Principle about the subject and object relationship very amusing because I know that a lot of sisters have trouble being the object, right? You sisters must know that being an object is not something inferior. In fact, it is really a blessing and an incredible responsibility." I heard she's getting a Ph.D. So what? Her husband got one first so she isn't over him. There are exceptions. I even know one couple Father matched and blessed where the brother is shorter than his wife. We are not to run our lives by exceptions to rules, but by the rules.
Feminists live in fantasy world with no reality. Men are never going to do housework contrary to the pathetic dream of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who said "This is my dream of the way the world should be .... When fathers take equal care of their children, women will truly be liberated. Is that an impossible dream? I don't think so." Mr. Mom is a myth. Studies show that families where men do housework are more quarrelsome than traditional families (a Penn State study).
Elizabeth Hanford has an excellent book, Me? Obey Him?, that teaches women about submission. She says, "We've had the impression that women as a class were more spiritually minded than men, with sensibilities more refined, and purer thoughts. It hurts my feminine pride to have to admit that the Scriptures say the opposite is true! Women are more often led into spiritual error than men. Perhaps it is caused by her intuitive, emotional thinking. Intuitive thinking is God's gift, and not to be despised, but it needs the balance of man's reason."
Women are hurt more easily than men, but they must guide their emotions better. Women can't think they can compete with men in the marketplace and then want them to be a Victorian gentleman and treat them like a lady as Teddy Roosevelt would do. The first woman to go up in space was Sally Ride. She has decided to never have children. She has pioneered other women to go up in these incredibly dangerous space craft. The result was the death of a school teacher who the nation watched get blown to bits. Feminism makes some women barren and kills others. It is an ideology of needless death. Teddy Roosevelt would be shocked at this behavior. Father would see this as just one more example of aggressive American women. It's time for women to start seeing men's pain and men's hearts too. Women's history has been tragic, and I'm sorry for that, but I'm also sorry for men who have suffered under everything from immature, stupid men to outright mean S.O.Bs. too. We must watch out for resentment that can make us not think clearly. Throwing out patriarchy because some men are evil is like throwing out arranged marriages because some didn't work out. People who focus on being victims have a tendency to throw out the baby with the bath water, which is exactly what these women have done.
"The Wounded Heart of God: the Asian Concept of Han and the Christian Doctrine of Sin by Dr. Andrew Sung Park says human history has been brutal to women, such as men raping countless women and girls and feminism's favorite image -- Chinese foot-binding . There are several crucial points missing in all this. Not only have women suffered under mean Abels and mean bosses and mean national leaders. Men have too. Haven't countless men suffered "alone and without understanding?" What about those men who were tortured in the Hanoi Hilton? What about my "pains" having to be led by totally incompetent women state leaders? Arianna Stassinopolous wrote on this selfish blindspot of women to focus only on their pain in her book, The Female Woman. She was in her twenties and single when she wrote how women are so focused on their pain that they can't see that men suffer also: "The Women Libbers are ... so obsessed with the 'wrongs' of women that they never really come to terms with the question of what life is like for men." She has great insights on how perverted feminists are. She is now a leader in the Republican Party.
Because of evil men like Hitler, millions of boys gave their lives to protect their mothers and all other women and girls and the thanks they get is Sonia Johnson who lumps all men as evil. Because of an evil patriarch in North Korea, 50,000 American boys lie in graves. Thousands more live with mangled bodies. And one man suffered in a death camp in Hungnam. He is a man. And he had "pains." Is there any woman who can stand up and say she's suffered more than him?
Different kinds of patriarchs
There are good leaders and bad leaders. There are shades of good and bad men who lead their families. Feminists must see the whole picture and not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Male bashing is not enough. The messiah is male. Jesus was male. Jesus came to perfect patriarchy. Father comes to raise men to a Completed Testament level patriarchy. Lucifer dominated Adam. Adam never grew up. Leaders are spiritually teenage boys. Father is a man leading young men into manhood. But women are also teenage girls spiritually and not more spiritually advanced than men. Even if they were they should still not usurp leadership from men and help men be leaders by being good followers. Father wants women to follow their husbands even though they are not perfect. They are to help them. The best books on how to do this are the Andelins. I also recommend other Christian books such as Elizabeth Hanford's Me? Obey Him? Also listen to her audio cassette of the same title. Order them at your local Christian bookstore. There is nothing more important than for men to become true patriarchs and women to learn how to raise them. They don't do this by being impatient, and they certainly don't help when they try to usurp power. It is an art to leading and following. I've talked to Helen Andelin. She's a great lady. She is the perfect spokeswoman for Godly family values and has been on the Donahue Show, Today Show and others trying her best to help women find love and romance if its lost and increase joy in marriage for others. She has created a beautiful family of eight children and tons of grandchildren.
I can't even begin to stress how much men should read Dr. Andelin's book. Brothers should form their own promise keepers type organization and meet together to share, pray and help each other in being good leaders and providers for our families.
Power of sexual polarity
Gilder in Men and Marriage explains that feminism has taken power from men and society has suffered tremendously for it, contrary to feminists who think society has improved with non-traditional lifestyles: "The imperious power and meaning of male sexuality remains a paramount fact of life and the chief challenge to civilized society ... Failing to come to terms with masculinity, a society risks tearing its very ligaments, the marriage and family ties that bind men to the social order. For it is only their masculinity, their sexual nature, that draws men into marriages and family responsibilities. When our social institutions deny or disrespect the basic terms of male nature, masculinity makes men enemies of family and society."
He says "contemporary sexual liberals" cannot see "the inevitable antifamily consequences of their beliefs. They continue to maintain that the differences between men and women, such as men's greater drive to produce in the workplace, are somehow artificial and dispensable. They insist that men and women can generally share and reverse roles without jeopardizing marriage. They still encourage a young woman to sacrifice her twenties in intense rivalry with men, leaving her to clutch desperately for marriage as her youthfulness and fertility pass. Although they declare themselves supporters of the family, they are scarcely willing to define it. They often maintain that the traditional family is dead because at any one time some 10 percent of all households may contain a working man, a housewife, and children (though some 80 percent take this form for some period of time). In seeking a broader definition of the family, they seek to overthrow the normative pattern of a male with the with the chief provider role and a woman who focuses on child care."
"Sexual liberals often declare that their true end is sexual freedom for both men and women. But nothing is finally free, least of all sex, which is bound to our deepest sources of energy, identity, emotion, and aesthetic sense. Sex can be cheapened, as we know, but then, inevitably, it becomes extremely costly to the society as a whole."
In the most elemental sense, the sex drive is the survival instinct: the primal tie to the future. When people lose the power of sexual polarity, they also lose their procreative energy and faith in themselves and their prospects .... They ... distribute contraceptives 'nonjudgmentally' to teenagers without telling their parents (i.e., 'squealing'). They delay marriage and family. They exert moral pressure and impose financial penalties on families with more than one or two children. They promote a program of zero population growth that leaves the nation unable to support it increasing array of programs for the elderly, who themselves are increasingly cast beyond the care of family. They foster a politics strangely hostile to our genetic perpetuation as a nation and an economics based on the foolish notion that population growth hurts economic progress."
He says, "sexual liberalism chiefly liberates men from their families .... I understand the terrible losses inflicted by sexual liberalism on the men and women I know who try to live by its remorseless egalitarian code, who attempt to twist their lives and bodies into the unisex mold, who tangle in loveless sterility on the Procrustean beds of emancipation."
Missing From Action
The truth has set my wife and I free of the deadly ideology that she and I interchange positions. Another excellent book that explains how America has gone off track is Weldon Hardenbrook's Missing From Action. He writes, "It is imperative that American men understand that Jesus attempted not to destroy or to replace the patriarchal function of men, but to explain its full meaning. His teachings on virginity, equality of the sexes, loving one's enemies, the value of human life, humility, good works, and the absolute sacredness of the marriage bond served to complete the proper patriarchal image of pre-Christian Israel. Jesus came not to abolish patriarchy, but to reveal it. In all honesty, apart from Christ, men will not be adequate fathers. It is only in Him that the fullness of the Father is disclosed."
"Being the kind of fathers men are supposed to be means that they must return to patriarchy. Therefore, men should reject the historically inaccurate assertion, so naively believed by Americans of both sexes, that patriarchal families were oppressive families in which women and children suffered at the cruel hands of despotic men. An objective look at the period in American history when patriarchal families were the norm tells just the opposite story. It plainly demonstrates that spouses and children felt far less oppressed and far more content than their modern counterparts."
"This antipatriarchal propaganda is part of the Victorian myth that disgraces not only the prerevolutionary colonial family, but the entire Judeo-Christian tradition, whose influence provided family order for the entire world. 'Alternative' families are not adequate replacements for traditional families. They are Band-Aids on cancer. Patriarchy is the only workable blueprint for the family. The American home has no chance of survival without it."
Feminists have been constantly brainwashing America about how bad the Victorian patriarch was and how they have a brave new world. The following is against Helen Andelin because she teaches Victorian values. Notice that you will hear the standard line of how men back then had mistresses and wives were so unhappy. Afterward I'll quote a scholar on the Victorians who will say this is not the way it really was. Most men were loyal and most families were happy and intact instead of the other way around since this century tried Marx's equality in marriage and work.
A book criticizing Helen Andelin and those who champion the traditional family is Patricia Gundry's The Complete Woman. She writes "Women are seeking. From where I sit I can see in my bookcase The Fulfilled Woman, The Total Woman, Fascinating Womanhood, and The Feminine Principle. All these books try to tell women how to find what they are seeking. They tell how to get what you want. Or how to want what you get, and convince yourself it is wonderful. And they all do it by telling women to be weak, submissive, even subservient."
"They insist that God is on their side. In fact, that is their proof that their way is best, guaranteed. God is in it. And that's exactly where they are wrong. God does not require that women stifle themselves to please him. The position reflected in these popular books is the result of a distorted view of God and of what the Bible says about women." She is the one with distorted views. These books do not "stifle" women.
She goes on to say that Andelin and others "limit," "demean," and make women into "slaves." She teaches that women need "a marketable skill .... We have too long believed that all we needed to do was to be good wives and mothers and leave the supporting to our husbands. It doesn't work out that way for too many women. Without warning, they suddenly find themselves displaced by younger women, or through the death or disablement of their husbands."
"For purely practical reasons, quite apart from any joy one gets from a skill that is also marketable, women need to be able to support themselves." This sounds good on the surface but there is a higher view. That is trinities. Women are to not only be provided for by one husband. They need two or more other men to take responsibility to care for them. God's life insurance is trinities and community, not impersonal companies. Women should focus on building a community, not on getting skills for the workplace.
She writes that the Victorian patriarch saw his wife as an "asexual, pure, idle and decorative creature protected and kept in this lofty state by a man who went out to prostitutes for sex in order not to brutalize and destroy his pure lily at home." This is a myth. She writes, "It is this attitude about women from the Victorian Era that led to the Total Woman and Fascinating Womanhood mystique. This mystique is the logical result of the new view of woman as decoration and lapdog begun way back there." Nothing could be further from the truth. She goes on to glorify work in the marketplace for women.
The world's authority on the Victorians is the historian Gertrude Himmelfarb who wrote The De-Moralization of Society: From Victorian Virtues to Modern Values. She teaches that we have a completely wrong view of the Victorians.
She refutes the common belief that Victorians had repressed sex lives:"In the absence of any Victorian equivalent to the Kinsey Report (which itself is notoriously unreliable), it is hard to speak confidently about Victorian sexualit -- even about ideas of sexuality, let alone practices. Yet there is enough evidence to suggest that the conventional view of sexual repression is much exaggerated; the many happy marriages, for example, surely testify to satisfactory sexual relations. It is also significant that whereas Evangelical writings in the early part of the century tended to be puritanical about sex, the later one stressed the importance of conjugal sex for a happy and healthy marriage." Himmelfarb discounts a book by Acton that is considered by many historians as the truth on Victorian sexuality. She writes,"According to one historian, he exposed the sexual repression that was at the heart of the Victorian age, a time when 'hypocritical prudery' combined with 'sexual asceticism' to produce a 'concept of women as sexless, domesticated, child-bearing machines.' For another, he confirmed the view of women as 'either sexless ministering angels or sensuously oversexed temptress of the devil."
"There are good reasons, however, to distrust Acton's book. Mistresses were not a commonplace of Victorian life -- certainly not among the middle or working classes -- so that most men need not have worried about overtaxing their sexual capacities. Nor were prostitutes as plentiful as some contemporaries thought. Nor were the concepts of the 'sexless' wife and the 'oversexed' mistress or prostitute nearly as pervasive as Acton made it appear. The memoirs and letters of some contemporary women, including eminently respectable ones, testify to a recognition of a strong sexual desire on their part; since this was not a subject that was readily discussed, even in private communications, one may assume that there were a larger number of such women than has been supposed. There were also other doctors who had a more modern conception of female sexuality. One of England's first woman doctor, Elizabeth Blackwell, who believed female sexuality to be as strong as that of males. Another was James Paget, a distinguished teacher and surgeon, the author of classic medical works who was far more influential than Acton (he was consulting surgeon to Queen Victoria) and who had much moderate views on the subject of sexuality. In addition to medical books, there were marital and sex manuals, which in themselves belie the image of a thoroughly repressed and inhibited society."
She also destroys the myth that men were basically brutal and insensitive patriarchs:"The stereotype of the tyrannical, abusive paterfamilias applied to a small minority...it was the exception, not the rule, and an exception much frowned upon by neighbors and relatives. That minority, to be sure, inflicted untold misery upon their families. The misery was usually suffered in silence, but when a wife brought an official complaint, the court generally found in her favor, granting her a judicial separation and a maintenance allowance and sentencing the husband to several months at hard labor." Men and women were basically happy living in their"separate spheres." Can we say that about marriages today?