Another distinguished sociologist in America is David Popenoe. He is writing revisionist history also saying we have not seen the greatness of the Victorians. In his book Life Without Father he explains that Victorian patriarchy was not as bad as everyone thinks. He says, "The lambasting of the Victorian family by scholars has been relentless. It has been charged with patriarchy and gross female oppression and seen as a domestic tyranny -- a place which men abandoned for the greater glory of the workplace; a family system where people were so repressed sexually that they became emotionally damaged for life; a hierarchy that suppressed children's natural instincts and stifled emotional expression, leading to lifelong psychological difficulties. In short, it has been seen as a historical family form whose departure should be a cause for little short of celebration."
He says they were not perfect, but "the seemingly intractable social problems of the late twentieth century throw into bold relief the strengths of the Victorian family -- not only in contributing to personal security and well-being but also in creating a viable and remarkably successful institution for raising future citizens and for promoting principles that buttressed the social fabric and the national good."
"Examinations of our past in an attempt to draw reasonable lessons for today are often dismissed as mere 'exercises in nostalgia.' The underlying assumption of this invocation seems to be that every aspect of our life has improved, and life in the past is something either negative or better left forgotten."
"The most remarkable thing about the nineteenth-century Victorian family was its great stability -- the rate of voluntary family breakup was extraordinarily low. The stability was especially remarkable because the Victorian family was based heavily on love and affection. Lawrence Stone has suggested that this was 'the first family type in history which was both long-lasting and intimate.'"
He asks, "How was the durability of the Victorian family achieved?" Some would argue that jobs were hard to get for women and divorce laws were more restrictive, but Popenoe says, "But it is also the case that male commitment to family life in the Victorian era remained enormous .... Men took their breadwinner role with utmost seriousness and strongly identified their success in the workplace with the happiness and security of their wives and families. To be a man was to be an economically successful family provider. 'In fact,' as Karen Lystra has pointed out, 'nineteenth century men claimed they worked for women and children in a way analogous to an earlier generation of Americans who claimed they worked for God.' Within the home many men sought to live up to their vows to 'love, honor and cherish,' just as women sought to respect their vows to 'love, honor, and obey.' And just as wives had an economic dependency on their husbands, so did husbands develop a strong emotional dependency on their wives."
"Although Victorian marriages were initiated on the bases of love and parental choice, older religiously based value systems of commitment and obligation were still largely in place. Marriages were held together less by the thin reeds of intimacy and affection, as in the case today, than by a deep sense of social responsibility and spousal obligation. In the words of historian Elaine Tyler May, 'Husbands were to provide the necessities of life, treat their wives with courtesy and protection, and exercise sexual restraint .... A wife's duty was to maintain a comfortable home, take care of household chores, bear and tend to the children, and set the moral tone for domestic life.' With children parents had a built-in attitude of self-sacrifice, renouncing many of their own personal satisfactions for the good of the family unit. As writer Henry Seidel Canby recollected about his Victorian upbringing in the 1890s, 'We knew ... from our own impulsive desires that the father and mother denied themselves every day, if not every hour, something for the sake of the family.'"
"The Victorian era was one dominated by a culture of 'character,' a belief that it was each person's supreme duty to live a life governed by a high moral code and to suppress any natural inclinations to the contrary. 'By the middle of the nineteenth century,' notes historian William L. O'Neill, 'Anglo-American society had formulated a moral code based on three related principles -- the permanency of marriage, the sacredness of the home, and the dependence of civilized life upon the family.' This moral code and the belief in the importance of character provided the interpersonal glue in marriage that love alone is incapable of providing. Once this moral code evaporated -- in the twentieth century -- the fragility of love as the sole basis for marriage became all too apparent."
He writes that this period was "a time of great social well-being .... an extraordinarily high measure of peace and social order, civility, optimism, and sense of social progress and achievement .... By the end of the nineteenth century, for example, rates of crime and deviance reached lows that have never before or since been seen. As social analyst James Lincoln Collier has summarized, 'Pre-marital pregnancy rates dropped sharply; alcoholic intake was down two-thirds from the dizzying heights of the previous era; church attendance rose dramatically; homes, farms, and streets became cleaner, casual violence was curbed.'"
There was, in other words, a movement upwards towards God's ideal. God was working to create a society at the top of the growth period to meet the messiah and have him take them to a perfect world. Satan worked to end this and had by 1920 set mankind on a downward spiral by tricking everyone to believe that the basic values of the Victorian home were bad. Father has come to bring God's values back -- many of the values that the Victorians cherished.
Popenoe writes, "The social well-being of the time stemmed in large part from the high levels of self-discipline and sense of obligation, as well as personal achievement, that the late Victorians espoused. Using todays terminology, this era was highly communtarian in character, marked by a strong sense of shared values and reciprocal responsibilities. 'The main thing that Victorians can teach us,' writes historian Gertrude Himmelfarb, 'is the importance of values -- or, as they would have said, 'virtues' -- in our public as well as private lives.' Indeed, the values that today we desperately clamor to regain -- honesty, trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, and citizenship-- are the very values which characterized the Victorian period."
Marx and Engels were writing against the Victorian home. They wanted to abolish it, and they did. It is no coincidence that they wrote The Communist Manifesto in 1848 in Europe and Elizabeth Cady Stanton wrote the "Seneca Falls Declaration" in Seneca Falls, New York also in 1848. Satan unleashed his terrible ideology that year. Mrs. Stanton mocked the language of the Declaration of Independence urging women to become independent of men. She pushed for the vote, too. She had a good marriage, lots of kids, a big house and maids. Her husband was so upset he didn't attend her meeting and left town that day. She presented her document alone. The seeds for division between men and women were planted. The households of Marx and Engels were even worse. Engels didn't believe in marriage and had a live-in lover. No children wanted here. The seeds of fornication, cohabitation, barren women and fewer children were planted. Marx had an illegitimate child with a simple maid who he treated like a slave. Marx never loved or even acknowledged his son from her. Marx lived in poverty, constantly being thrown out of rented homes. He didn't provide for his family but spent endless hours at the library, the British Museum, obsessed with his satanic hatred of the traditional family and capitalism. He had a daughter who rejected moral behavior and then committed suicide. The seeds for adultery, illegitimacy, immorality, poverty, anti-capitalism and suicide were planted. Aren't these the problems we are harvesting today? But no one knows where it comes from, not even the so-called anti-communist UC which in reality teaches Marxist hatred for patriarchy and capitalism and advocates some glorious new alternative lifestyle without patriarchy that Marx and Engels wanted. Marx had to destroy the Bible because it taught patriarchy.
Tim LaHaye in Six Keys to a Happy Marriage says, "No organization can function if it has two heads. That is particularly true of the home. One of the great hindrances to a happy home today is the false notion that a woman does not have to subject herself to her husband. Modern psychology and education seem to give women the idea that subjection is an old-fashioned notion that went out with the nineteenth century. But when subjection goes out of the home, so does happiness."
"Today we have more frustrated women, men, and children than ever before. With the downgrading of the father image and the rising dominance of the mother role, we have witnessed an increase in juvenile delinquency, rebellion, homosexuality, and divorce. God intended man to be the head of his home. If he is not, he will not have a sense of responsibility but will subconsciously feel he is married to a second mother. His children will soon detect who is boss, and as teenagers they will lose the natural respect for their father that is necessary for their adjustment to life."
"Usually a wife-dominated home is a quarrelsome home until the husband finally 'gives up.' He then crawls into his shell of introversion and degenerates into a sub-par human being. The sadder result is, a wife will eventually grow to despise the husband she dominates .... The Christian woman must be in subjection to her husband! Whether she likes it or not, subjection is a command of God and her refusal to comply with this command is an act of disobedience. All disobedience is sin; therefore, she cannot expect the blessing of God on her life unless she is willing to obey God."
Our culture bombards us with anti-patriarchal messages. Ellen Goodman is one of America's most popular syndicated columnists. She wrote against the Million Man March and the Promise Keepers because they teach men to be heads of their families. She quotes someone from Ms. magazine saying, "They are telling men, 'We've been bad masters, let's now become better masters.'" , "Today, Americans talk about families and communities in chaos. The absence of fathers is described as a national disease. The return of fathers as a cure. But in any chaos it's easy to give up on the democracy of relationships, the give and take of equality. It's easy to long for control, for authority figures, for old icons of manhood .... after all this time, all this change, the new man being molded by this movement doesn't sound much like a partner. He's just a kinder, gentler patriarch."
Movies and literature have attacked men relentlessly. In one book I was reading the writer is from England and, "More sophisticated couples took their ideas from Bernard Shaw's Candida and Man and Superman': from H.G. Wells' Ann Veronica and James Barrie's What Every Woman Knows. All of these mocked the authoritative, know-all husband and made it clear that British men simply make tedious fools of themselves when they try to dictate to their wives and daughters. In any case, all the popular humorists made a practice of caricaturing the pompous German husband, who strutted about in over-elaborate uniform and relegated his wife to Kuche, Kirche und Kinder, and no English husband wanted to be anything like him." It goes on and on. The examples are endless. Several of my kids saw the movie recently with Steve Martin playing the hapless father in "Father of the Bride part two". They know my ideas and told me that the daughter has a baby and announces she will go back to work shortly. Millions of people laugh and then go live this lifestyle. There is nothing funny about this brainwashing by Satan against the homemaker.
The Bible teaches that without vision, a people perish. Vision comes from men. They are the dreamers, the visionaries. God sent the Messiah as a man to give His dream of the future. We are called to help him build it. God doesn't send a woman first; He sends another Adam. The Messiah must be strong like a rock. That means the messiah must be a man. The Messiah must come from a virile, manly society, a patriarchal society. God could not send the Messiah as a white man from the West because they are too weak. Western men were weak and got tired after decades of women nagging and gave them their power of the vote and to become the most powerful influence in the family. Father says men have "striving" natures. They are "designed to reach out for things which they can only imagine. A man naturally seeks after his dream, his ideal, while women are more concerned with the here and now rather than the future, intangible realm. This is why we say that man is symbolized by heaven and women by earth." Father is desperate for leaders who can save lives. He never talks of men interchanging with women. He goes out of his way to explain how they are opposite.
He says constantly that "man is in the plus position and the woman is in the minus". They are never to "compete", but make unity. How can women make unity if they are competing in the marketplace? Mother said women should not compete with men. WFWP, she said, was not going to be feminist and struggle with men but instead be "complementary". Women are to "seek out tasks that men cannot perform". Where is that? It is to be men's supporters, mothers, homemakers, home school teachers, and care for the old, sick and poor and still find time to witness in her Titus 2 ministry. WFWP should have as its major goal to get women back into the home and to stop competing with men outside the home.
Many say that it was wonderful that Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister of England. This is an example, they say, of how great it is for women to get into politics and, in general, to have careers. Let's look at this shining example. Thatcher is a workaholic. You have to be if you want to succeed in life. She is married to a workaholic. Both of them are rarely home. They have lived their life at their offices. A biographer of her says that while she was in school and, "a year after the wedding, Margaret learned she was pregnant .... She did not want birth to keep her from politics." Elizabeth had become queen of England and Margaret was so inspired she wrote an article for a newspaper called "Wake Up Women" saying, "Women can -- and must -- play a leading part in the creation of a glorious Elizabethan era." She encouraged women to have a career as well as have a family. She had twins and said, "I was concerned, particularly with two, that I might be tempted to spend all my time on the household and looking after them and not continue to read or use my mind or experience. I felt I must really use the rest of me as well." She got her law degree and decided to not have any more children." She never even breast-fed her twins." She was too busy with her career of running for political office.
She ran for office saying "I will let the people know what Conservatism is about and I will lead the troops into battle." And indeed she did. "By the time the twins reached five, they had not seen much of her, but once she was elected to Parliament, they would scarcely see her at all .... She made the children breakfast" and would call them at night from her office. The kids grew up with a nanny. Her husband would come home at 9 p.m. "Thatcher's first concentration is work, and from the twins' earliest days she was often gone or distracted by work at home .... without much of a childhood herself, she has never understood children .... Privately, say those close to her, she carries a heavy guilt complex for not being there for the twins when they needed her ... For all her toughness, she is highly sensitive and well aware that her workaholism and political success have come at a price that has contributed to [her children's] difficulties. 'She is an unbelievably successful politician,' says one of her closest friends, 'but an unsuccessful mother and she knows it." She was called the "Iron Lady." When she ran for office she would tell crowds, "In politics, if you want anything said, ask a man; if you want anything done, ask a woman." Women would roar with approval. Unconsciously, men feel castrated.
In an interview for Cosmopolitan magazine she told millions of women, "I hope I see more and more women combining marriage and a career. Prejudice against this dual role is not confined to men. Far too often, I regret, it comes from our own sex .... It is possible to carry on working, taking a short leave of absence when families arrive and returning later. The idea that the family suffers is, I believe, quite mistaken. To carry on with a career stimulates the mind, provides a refreshing contact with the world outside -- and so means that a wife can be a much better companion at home." Satan's lie is told by conservatives too. You've come a long way baby. You can have it all -- as long, of course, if you give up having children and taking care of them. In the great scheme of things looking down from the heavens, maybe God used her for some great purpose, but even if she was needed she is an exception and 99.99% of women should do exactly the opposite of this horrible role model. In an article in Reader's Digest before she became Prime Minister, and was called the "Iron Lady", she had a reputation as being "described at hard, cold, bossy, tough. Columnists speak of her 'laser-beam stare,' 'fireproof' nerves and 'devastating killer instinct." For a woman to make it to the top in the marketplace it requires her to give up her maternal instincts to be a nester and gain these hunter characteristics. It is unfeminine and confuses men in the workplace. Women should only be workaholics in the home.
Father says women are to be men's supporters, not leaders. I agree. I hope the members do not get digested with this quixotic idea that there is some third way, some Completed Testament Way in which women can compete with men and somehow breast feed and home school 12 children. Members should not think like all feminists, that this is too restrictive, not exciting enough, not productive enough, too boring in this exciting time when the messiah walks the earth. So what if Father has mobilized women sometimes and had them travel around. Usually they were single anyway. And for those sisters who are married and have children and have sent to go out and do missionary work, he wants the husbands to make enough money at their jobs or business to support their wife so she can work full time as a witnesser. Father does not want women to fundraise or earn money. He wants men to be the financial supporters. While the wife is away, the children should be taken care of by those sisters in his city. He is not supposed to be a househusband either while she fundraises or works. So what if Mother and a few blessed sisters worked away from home. They represent a tiny percent of women. They are exceptions to the rule. Nora Spurgin said in Lifestyle that Father said sisters who have three or more children have a full-time mission to stay home and care for the children. The roles for men and women are not any more restrictive than rules for any game. We don't have to invent new ones, but play better than our competition.
Members must not see Father as inconsistent. The Bible is interpreted differently. We must not interpret Father differently. We must be absolutely united. In emergency situations there are times when we do extraordinary things, but we must never forget what God's pattern is. Even so, Father is overwhelmingly consistent about married women following their husbands and taking care of 12 children while the husband goes out to support them. He has mobilized single women and some married women at times to do "frontline" work and travel on teams. But I think he wouldn't have had to do that if we had understood the difference between men and women and treated women in a feminine way. Father experiments, but he is basically consistent. Members must not treat Father's words as Feminists treat the Bible by focusing on a few passages and building a whole ideology on it and saying that is what the author really meant. Thomas Boslooper is typical of this in his book The Image of Woman.
To push women into careers is cruelty, not indemnity. Father says men and women have totally different roles to play and never should they reverse them. He says God loves women more than men. She is his ultimate "masterpiece" and "receives more love from God" because "she is to be a mother". Even children prefer the mother, he says. The Victorians spoke like this. They idolized motherhood. They were weepy about it. In this horrible century, children are looked at as a burden. Father says that he "thinks in the far distance and Mother thinks of things close at hand. Woman is the realist". Women are made to stay home and care for children. God gave them the temperament for going round the clock taking care of babies. Men are outside mowing the yard in 100 degree heat and cleaning out gutters. Father spoke tenderly in the Day of Hope tours of Pilgrim fathers teaching their son about God's love for mankind and the earth while they were out in the fields planting. Men want to roam, to hunt. Women want to take care of their nests. I watched a Senator say that men are hunters and women are nesters in a speech at Yale, and the women in the audience booed him.
Father explains that motherhood is a career, "Raising up children is a big job." He says when she is pregnant she suffers and she "grabs God's attention more." Women go through pain in delivery so "God gives deeper love to them." He says women are "so precious" because they take care of babies and therefore are "connected to love more than men."
To emphasize how different men and women are he said once, "Man symbolizes heaven and woman symbolizes earth. They are to unite and form parallel lines." Men are different in that they need to lead. Not every man can lead nations. But every man can fulfill his masculine need for leadership by being the leader of his family. Father said "A man has to have authority." But he has to be a leader that goes out into the community and helps others, not be some martinet. Father says he will hurt his family if he doesn't: "If the head of the household doesn't help others, the family will suffer."
These quotes are in this context:"A woman has to be careful about her mouth. In the family, the problem is usually the woman. Women speak very quickly, like a motorcycle revving. So a woman must be careful with her mouth. Then how about men? A man has to have authority. He must be a person who has authority with which he can judge evil people." And:"The head of the household is responsible for helping others. If the husband, the head of the household, doesn't help others, the family will suffer." (Address at the Eighth Anniversary of the 777 Couples Blessing)
Father hammers home that only men lead. Father says that men are "presidents" of their family. They have the final say -- make the final decisions. The husband is the "judge" and the mother is the "lawyer" and they never interchange. He is the final disciplinarian. Father says, "The family represents the sovereign nation. The father is like the 'president' of the family; that means he must take responsibility for upholding all the laws and orderliness of the family. He must be the one ultimately to distinguish between what is right and wrong within that family. If the Father is in the position like a judge, then the mother's position is like that of a lawyer. The position of prosecutor is filled by the law itself."
This is the classic definition of patriarchy in the marriage manuals like the Andelins. How many sisters defer to their husbands as lawyers do to a judge? The only way to learn how to ride a bicycle is to practice. The only way men are going to learn how to be patriarchs is to be one. It's rough going at the beginning. I didn't yell at my son when he fell down the first few times. I didn't get impatient and give up. And I didn't ride the bike for him.
All organizations are hierarchical
All organizations are hierarchically arranged -- even in our church. Robert Nisbet in The Twilight of Authority says, "Wherever two or more people associate, there is bound to be some form of hierarchy, no matter how variable, changing from one actor to the other, or how minor. Hierarchy is unavoidable in some degree. Our gravest problem at the present time, in many respects, is the disrepute into which this word, this unavoidable necessity, has fallen as the consequence of the generalized philosophy of equalitarianism .... We have seen institution after institution weakened or crippled in the social order as the result of arbitrary power wielded by one or other regulatory agency in the name of a vain and rapid equality. At the present time the ascendant moral philosophy in the West is that which...takes what is in effect leveling as the desired norm of justice. How welcome would be Edmund Burke's words today: 'Believe me, Sir, those who attempt to level never equalize...."
A family is the most prevalent organization on earth. And the Kingdom of Heaven on earth for trillions of years will have men being the final decision makers. Father says he is most interested in the politics of the family which are all little countries, "The nation is basically a collection of families in which all the generations are included. (Our goal should not be nuclear families but extended families living in communities with other extended families) Each extended family symbolizes one small country .... the man (is) the 'president' of his family, which is a micro-country." Again, no interchanging going on. Father teaches that "training must begin in the family." When a man successfully leads his family then he is eligible to become "a nation's president, then a world's and ultimately a cosmic president." I don't know about you, but I think Father will be the cosmic president. He says the "the original cosmic president ... was Adam ... Adam would have been the ruler, the president."
Let me give a couple of examples from Christian books on marriage that speak on this principle that a man is president of his family. Father is just one person. He can't say and explain everything in every way so every person can understand. Other people can express some of his views in a way that helps people understand. The first is from a book called, You Can Be the Wife of a Happy Husband. She writes that the man is the president and the wife is the vice president and "each office carries with it heavy responsibilities [and] there is never any doubt who is the president. However, the president's success depends on the vice president's help in carrying out the policies. When new decisions have to be made, the president may consult the vice president for advice, but he assumes responsibility for the final decision."
"Once a policy is decided, they work together as a team to carry it out. The president may, if he chooses, delegate some of his authority to the vice president. When the president is gone, he can trust the vice president to carry on as if he himself were there. In this relationship, they share a oneness, good communication, emotional peace, and security, provided the vice president is not struggling to gain control of the organization!"
Phyllis Schlafly in The Positive Woman explains this concept this way to help women understand: "The Positive Woman recognizes that there is a valid and enduring purpose behind this recognition of different roles for men and women which is just as relevant in the twentieth century as it was in the time of Saint Paul. Every successful country and company has one 'chief executive officer.' None successfully functions with responsibility equally divided between cochairmen or copresidents. The United States has a president and a vice president. They are not equal. The vice president supports and carries out the policies enunciated by the president. Likewise with the presidents and vice-presidents of all business concerns. Vice-presidents can and do have areas of jurisdiction delegated to them, but there is always one final decision maker. The experience of the ages has taught us that this system is sound, practical, and essential for success. The republic of ancient Rome tried a system of two consuls of equal authority, and it failed. If marriage is to be a successful institution, it must likewise have an ultimate decision maker, and that is the husband."
Marabel Morgan's The Total Woman
Father often calls men "kings" and women "queens." In The Total Woman Marabel Morgan says this to help women understand what that means: "Marriage has also been likened to a monarchy, where the husband is king, and his wife is queen. In a royal marriage, the king's decision is the final word, for his country and his queen alike. The queen is certainly not his slave, for she knows where her powers lie. She is queen. She, too, sits on a throne. She has the right, and in fact, the responsibility to express her feelings, but of course, she does so in a regal way. Though the king relies heavily on her judgement, if there is a difference of opinion, it is the king who makes the decision."
"Now hold on, I know just what you're thinking; remember, I've been through all of this, too. What if the king makes the wrong decision? Oh, that's a hard one, especially when you know you're right, and there are times when that is the case. The queen is still to follow him, forthwith."
Father explains why men are better leaders in "Perseverance and Contemplation". He says men "as a rule" are more persevering and contemplative than women. Women are more "disruptive" and "problem-causing" because they "react quickly". He compares them to pianos : "If you strike a piano key the tone is played instantly." For this reason, God has rarely made women leaders. He says, "It is mainly because they lack perseverance" that "God has not tried to use women as central figures in the dispensation." Because God's dispensation takes a long time he needs men to lead because they think long range. At the same time: "He should not be dumb though; he should have keen, sensitive thinking."
Women hate men's nature. It drives them crazy. They want everything right now -- just like the children they take care of at home. Women and children live in the here and now, but men don't. Father says it is "nerve-wracking ... especially to Western women ... His wife would like to express keen emotion, but he will just think deeply and come to his own conclusion. A very sensitive woman would get thinner and thinner with this kind of husband. It would be like eating yards and yards of thread, when you can hardly swallow one foot."
"What is the work of dispensation like? It is something like continuing to swallow hundreds and thousands of fathoms of thread, one after another. Which would be easier, to swallow all that thread, or to complete the dispensation? Swallowing thread might be easier. How can we imagine women doing that? Those women who are confident they are different, raise your hand. God knows best, however, and as a result He has refrained from using women as central figures. I would rather have the women, even Mother, leave the room and then discuss the important work of dispensation with men. In this Mother is outdone by her own young son. If Western women hear this they will really protest that I am discriminating. They can't tolerate that idea."
Phyllis Schlafly writes of this persevering nature of men: "Women are different from men in dealing with the fundamentals of life itself. Men are philosophers, women are practical, and 'twas ever thus. Men may philosophize about how life began and where we are heading; women are concerned about feeding the kids today. No woman would ever, as Karl Marx did, spend years reading political philosophy in the British Museum while her child starved to death. Women don't take naturally to a search for the intangible and the abstract." Men are from Mars and women are from Venus. They really are from different planets, from different worlds. Men are far more tenacious than women.
Father says men can fight better than women and take torture better. Men are the ones who will track down an enemy. Satan is the enemy, and men's responsibility is to lead the way to victory. Because of this Father says, "We have to conclude that it was wise of God not to use many women in dispensational history. You women might think you have no reason to feel good at this point!" When men have failed as central figures for God it is because they didn't go the distance: "Whatever mistakes were made in dispensational history usually resulted from a lack of perseverance and deep thinking."
Women are too impatient for God to use. Sisters must be patient with brothers and understand the line in the song in the Pocahontas movie which says you can't know the height of a tree if you cut it down. Father is the ultimate in persevering and thinking deeply. Satan is for everything instant -- instant food and instant sex. Father is training us to be spiritual marathon runners -- men as leaders and women as mothers of 12 children.
Beverly LaHaye explains that women are more emotional and need men to guide them spiritually: "The Bible gives us countless examples of the disastrous consequences of violating the principle of male leadership. With Adam and Eve, we see that Adam, as firstborn, should have provided Eve with spiritual leadership, especially since Eve's open and trusting nature made her susceptible to Satan's lure."
"Interestingly, statistics show that more women than men read Christian books, teach Sunday school, and ask spiritual questions. When not under God-given spiritual authority, this potential strength in women becomes a great weakness. Have you ever noticed that the vast majority of fortune-tellers are women? A recent television commercial advertising a psychic telephone service showed a series of satisfied female customers. Perhaps this is a reflection of women's openness to the spiritual world."
"When the serpent approached Eve, it was not because she was less spiritual than Adam, but because she was more emotionally responsive to misdirection. A modern woman's susceptibility to misdirection is the same as Eve's, no matter how logical or brilliant she may be. It is partially because of the women's interest in knowledge that God directs the husband to be the spiritual head of the family. Remember, a woman's weaknesses are pride and an insatiable desire for knowledge, both of which make her easily deceived. The husband's responsibility for spiritual leadership is a grace gift given by God for the wife's protection from deception."
The cover of Think a Second Time says"Dennis Prager is a true Renaissance man." One of his accomplishments is that he"has coauthored the most widely used introduction to Judaism in the world and is currently teaching the Hebrew Bible verse by verse at the University of Judaism in Los Angeles. Prager has engaged in interfaith dialogue with Catholics at the Vatican, Muslims in the Persian Gulf, and Protestants at Christian seminaries throughout the United States." He writes:
WHY GOD MUST BE DEPICTED AS A FATHER AND NOT AS A MOTHER
"Most people believe that the Bible, the book that introduced humanity to God, refers to God in the masculine because of the patriarchy and sexism of the ancient world."
"It is true that the Bible was written within a patriarchal context, and it is true that there is sexism in Bible-based religion. But I do not believe that these facts explain why God is depicted as a 'father rather than as a 'parent' or 'mother' (a neutered 'It' would be unacceptable because the biblical god is a personal God)."
"The depiction of God in masculine terms, I believe, is essential to the Bible's fundamental moral purposes. To understand why, one must posit two premises: that the Hebrew Bible's primary concern is promoting good behavior, and that the primary perpetrators of evil behavior, such as violence against innocents, are males, especially young males."
"From these facts I derive three reasons that it is in men's and women's best interests to depict God in the masculine."
"Before offering these reasons, a personal note is in order: I strongly support women's equality, and I strongly affirm that God is neither male nor female and that both men and women are created in God's image (Genesis 1:27). In addition, my own religious life is quite egalitarian, and I regard the notion that either sex is superior as nonsense."
BOYS TAKE RULES FROM MEN
"When males are young, they need to feel accountable to a male authority figure. Without a father or some other male rule giver, young men are likely to do great harm. Almost any mother will tell you that if there is no male authority figure to give a growing boy rules, it is very difficult for her to control his wilder impulses. For this reason, a God depicted in masculine terms, not a goddess, not a 'Mother in heaven,' must be the source of such commandments as 'Thou shall not murder' and 'Thou shall not steal.'"
"Women who feel discriminated against because of the male depiction of God should reflect on the consequences of a goddess-or mother-based religious/ethical code. Any discomfort they feel because of a masculine depiction of God is not comparable to the pain they will endure if boys are not civilized into good men."
"The need for male authority figures is illustrated by the current criminal population in the United States. The absence of a father or other male authority in the formative years of a boy's life is the most important contributing factor to his turning to criminal behavior. A widely accepted figure is that 70 percent of the violent criminals in American prisons did not grow up with a father."
"If the father figure/rule giver that boys need is not on earth, a loving and morally authoritative Father in heaven can often serve as an effective substitute."
"But the last thing that a boy growing up with out a father needs is a female figure to worship. He already has one -- his mother -- and to develop healthfully, he needs to separate from her, not bond with another mother figure. Otherwise, he will spend his life expressing his masculinity in ways that are destructive to women and men."
MALES NEED A MALE ROLE MODEL
"To transform a wild boy into a good man, a male model is as necessary as a male rule giver."
"When the Bible depicts God as merciful, caring for the poor and the widow, and as a lover of justice, it is not so much interested in describing God, who is, after all, largely indescribable, but in providing a model for human emulation. Especially male emulation."
"If God were depicted as female, young men would deem traits such as compassion, mercy, and care for the downtrodden as feminine, and in their pursuit of their masculinity, reject them. But if God, i.e., our Father in heaven, who is , on occasion, even a warrior, cares for the poor and loves justice, mercy, and kindness, then these traits are also masculine, and to be emulated."
"The argument that this is sexist, since girls need moral female models, is both irrelevant and untrue. It is irrelevant because the problem of mayhem and violence is overwhelmingly a male one -- and this is the problem with which the Bible is most concerned. It is untrue because girls are able to retain their femininity and their decency with a male-depicted God. Girls, too, view their fathers as rule giver. Of course, girls need female role models -- but not to avoid violence."
THE MALE IS MORE RULE-ORIENTED
"A third reason for depicting God in masculine terms is the indispensability of law to a just and humane society."
"'Law and order' can be code words for repression. But they are in fact the building blocks of a decent society. It is therefore natural and desirable that God be identified with the gender that is more naturally inclined toward feelings and compassion, two essential qualities for a decent personal life, but not for the governance of society. A male depiction of God helps makes a law-based society possible. And the Hebrew Bible is nothing if not law-based."
"It is ironic that some women, in the name of feminism, are attempting to emasculate the God of Western religious morality. For if their goal is achieved, it is women who will suffer most from lawless males."
"We have too many absent fathers on earth to begin to even entertain the thought of having not Father in heaven."
Victorian Order vs. Modern Confusion
Tennyson in his poem"The Princess" depicted the Victorian ideal of the man-woman relation:
Man for the field and woman for the hearth;
Man for the sword and for the needle she;
Man with the head, and woman with the heart;
Man to command, and woman to obey;
All else confusion.
Toni Grant has a popular radio program and wrote a secular bestseller about this confusion called Being a Woman and subtitled"Fulfilling Your Femininity and Finding Love." She blasts the concepts of women's independence from men. She writes,"Today's woman is an imitation man, at war with actual men, confused and unsettled by it. The contemporary American woman is an Amazon Woman."
"At its inception, the feminist movement, accompanied by the sexual revolution, made a series of enticing, exciting promises to women. These promises sounded good, so good that many women deserted their men and their children or rejected the entire notion of marriage and family, in pursuit of 'themselves' and a career. These pursuits, which emphasized self-sufficiency and individualism, were supposed to enhance a woman's quality of life and improve her options, as well as her relations with men. Now, a decade or so later, women have to face the fact that, in many ways, feminism and liberation made promises that could not be delivered."
"All human beings have dependency needs, but modern woman has been loath to project her need of man in any way. This failure of modern woman to own and acknowledge the passive-dependent aspect of her personality has resulted in serious dysfunction and alienation between the sexes."
Father poetically speaks of women's responsibility to create a sanctuary for men. He says, "Each woman should think to herself, 'I have a huge pool of love within me. No matter how good a swimmer my husband may be and even if he dives down 100 feet, my pool of love is larger than his capabilities to swim it.' Do you have such a pool of love within your mind?"
"You women must allow your husbands to climb up to the highest peak and dive down freely into your pool of love. Or would you put a rock in the water for him to fall on. You should try to put more water in the pool so it will be deep enough to cushion him."
Dr. Harold Voth is one of America's most distinguished psychoanalysts and research psychiatrists. He is senior psychiatrist at the Menninger Foundation. He is also a rear admiral in the Medical Corps and serves as a consultant to the Surgeon General of the U.S. Navy. He has written extensively in books and articles for both professional and popular journals. In one his books he writes,"In my entire career I have never had a woman patient, no matter how militant a feminist or disturbed, fail to spontaneously divulge her secret wish for a strong man in her life -- father when she was a child and husband as an adult woman, even though on the surface she may claim the opposite."
"A woman who can live in harmony with a strong man will herself be a strong woman. These two will not clash or compete with each other. Rather they will divide up responsibilities, and live in harmony. I did not create or manufacture these patterns; I am merely reporting them. It is simply a fact that a family with a weak man suffers and children do not turn out well."
He writes that America has degenerated to the point where what was once deviant and sick behavior is now normal. He says,"Classically, women have been considered best equipped psychologically to be homemakers; now the 'househusband' is part of the social scene. A few years ago it would have been unthinkable to have women drill sergeants for young male recruits, and on and on." He says feminists are"highly destructive. This faction is having its way, and our male lawmakers tremble in their presence like small boys facing a wrathful mother."
The first major woman poet in America was Anne Bradstreet. She was puritan who came to Massachusetts as one of the first pioneers in the early 1600s. She was deeply and passionately in love with her husband. This is my favorite of all her poems to her husband, Simon:
If ever two were one, then surely we.
If ever man were lov'd by wife, then thee;
If ever wife was happy in a man,
Compare with me ye women if you can.
I prize thy love more than whole Mines of Gold,
Of all the riches that the East doth hold.
My love is such that Rivers cannot quench,
Nor ought but love from thee, give recompence.
My love is such I can no way repay,
The heavens reward thee manifold I pray.
Then while we live, in love lets so persever,
That when we live no more, we may live ever.
She had eight children who all grew up to be successful. She adored her father who was a leader in Massachusetts and wrote poems expressing her love for all her family. And she wrote poems of love for God. Her father and husband loved books and had libraries in their home. She was taught at home and got an education that is far superior to any in the public schools of today. She read the classics in the original Greek and Latin. One writer said, "One of the possible values of Bradstreet's writings is that they may suggest a more accurate and broader picture of life in colonial New England than is reflected in the popular image of Puritan society as a spirit-withering monolith. Moreover, Bradstreet's projection of her experience of life may indicate that her society was less repressive in its attitude toward women than we imagine. After all, Bradstreet was not censured, disciplined, or in any way ostracized for her art, thought, or personal assertiveness. Rather, she was praised and encouraged; and there are no indications that the males in her life treated her as 'property.' If anything, the tone of much of the poetry which was first read by a familial audience indicates that she was treated as at least an intellectual equal."
The feminists have brainwashed everyone to believe that it was only a nightmare for women in the past. How many men today write letters like the excerpt from the following of Ben Franklin giving advice to a young man who had just got married: "Treat your wife always with respect; it will procure respect to you, not from her only but from all that observe it. Never use a slighting expression to her, even in jest, for slights in jest, after frequent bandyings, are apt to end in angry earnest. Be studious in your profession, and you will be learned. Be industrious and frugal, and you will be rich. Be sober and temperate, and you will be healthy. Be in general virtuous, and you will be happy. At least, you will, by such conduct, stand the best chance for such consequences. I pray God to bless you both; being ever your affectionate friend." Has feminism made men better than this? I don't see much of an improvement of twentieth century man over the past.
Patriarchy in spirit world
According to one book even spirit world is patriarchal. One of the most famous books on near-death experience is Embraced by the Light by Betty Eadie who says she was taken by her escorts in spirit world to a place of "exquisite beauty" and "a feeling of wholeness." She says, "I was led to a room, which was exquisitely built and appointed. I entered and saw a group of men seated around the long side of a kidney-shaped table. I was led to stand in front of them within the indented portion of the table. One thing struck me almost immediately; there were twelve men here-- men -- but no women."
"As a rather independent thinker on earth, I was sensitive to the roles of women in the world. I was concerned about their equality and fair treatment and had very strong opinions as to their ability to compete with men on an equal footing in most settings. I might have reacted unfavorably to this council of men and no women, but I was learning to have a new perspective about the differing roles of men and women." She goes on to say how they showed her how Satan works: "He would try to destroy families, and therefore humanity, by tempting women. This unsettled me, but I knew it was true. His plan seemed obvious. He would attack women through their restlessness."
She goes on saying, "I was told that once Satan had women, the men would easily follow. So, I began to see the difference in the roles between men and women, and I understood the necessity and beauty of those roles."
"With this new perspective I had no reaction to the council being comprised solely of men. I accepted the fact that they had their roles and I had mine. The men radiated love for me, and I felt instantly at peace with them. They leaned together to consult with each other. Then one of them spoke to me. He said that I had died prematurely and must return to earth." She said they told her she had a mission to fulfill, but she didn't want to go back.
Father says we must live the truth that Jesus taught -- that we must give perfect, unselfish love. He says people tell him, "Rev. Moon, you are coming here repeating the same old truth." But he says he's different than others in that he is teaching that it is possible to live those truths. We are not just to talk about them. They are not theories or philosophies, but are "to be lived ... Although in one sense you know the truth of the things I have been saying, still nobody ever lives it. This truth is as old as God, yet as new as the 21st century. You must live the truth." He says "the revelation of the Divine Principle" can make "this age-old truth real in your heart."
Mormon leaders teach patriarchy
In 1996 the associated press had an article in the newspaper saying, "Mormon Church President Gordon Hinckley said that although women are forbidden the faith's priesthood, they still can contribute by 'working hand in hand with the priesthood.'"
"Hinckley also reiterated that where possible, mothers should forego full-time jobs in favor of raising their children at home."
"'It is well-nigh impossible to be a full-time homemaker and a full-time employee,' Hinckley said in a sermon directed to the women of the 9.6 million-member Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."
Hinckley said that even though women do not hold leadership positions over men "I know of no other organization in all the world which affords women so many opportunities for development, for sociality, for the accomplishment of great good, for holding positions of leadership and responsibility."
"Mormon women have their own auxiliary, the Relief Society, and also can serve in leadership roles in programs for children and young women. But only men can serve as bishops of local congregations, for example, or in the all-male hierarchy of the church."
"'It was the Lord who designated that men in his church should hold the priesthood,' said Hinckley .... In a '60 Minutes' interview, Hinckley said only men hold the Mormon priesthood 'because God stated that it should be so. That was the revelation to the church.'"
He is correct. It is God's will that only men lead other men. As usual there is Cain fighting against what is true. The article quotes a woman who has been excommunicated by the church for writing feminist criticisms of patriarchy: "Lavina Fielding Anderson pointed out that no revelation specifically excluding women from the priesthood has ever been published or announced. I think what we have here is a case of interpretive drift. Doctrine is being invented to bolster a tradition."
The newspaper article goes on to say, "The priesthood ban against women has been criticized for years by a small minority of Mormon women. Some have been excommunicated or otherwise disciplined for raising the issue publicly.".
Hinckley is quoted as saying that he understands that many women have to work for economic reasons, but he says they should not work just to have "an elaborate home, fancy cars and other luxuries." The Andelins say the same thing. To me, the only way to solve the problem that some women have to work for economic reasons is to solve the spiritual problem of not living in a trinity and trinities living in a community together.
The argument of feminists in the Mormon and Catholic church that there is no written statement against women leading men is ridiculous. Both religions believe in the Bible and it clearly states the case for patriarchy.
The common thinking of today is that men and women are not different. There is a push for androgyny. Dr. Alvin Poussaint in his Introduction to Bill Cosby's book Fatherhood says, "Men have been struggling with the unfamiliar demands and challenges of this new model of fatherhood. Many have modified their behaviors to some degree in order to adapt more comfortably to changing social and family patterns. In the process of this change, many fathers have seen new possibilities for their own fulfillment by taking a greater part in child-rearing responsibilities. A new movement has been spawned that has been pushing American men and women closer to the acceptance of androgynous fatherhood -- men who take a significant share of nurturing responsibilities for children and the home, tasks that were previously assigned exclusively to women." The Andelins effectively explain how damaging it is to blur the sexes.
Advocates of androgyny think they are restoring "balance" to parenting roles but are in reality unbalancing the family. This confused doctor continues saying that men must "give up old-fashioned ideas about so-called manliness, 'who wears the pants in the family,' and what constitutes 'women's work' as opposed to 'men's work.'" Men, he says, "can be 'primary care givers' and can provide 'mother love.'" He goes on to praise "househusbands." All of this is sad especially since it's placed in a best seller by Cosby and influences many people.
Many books against the traditional family
In a review of She Works/He Works in the New York Times the feminist writer Carol Tavris writes that only "3 percent of all families" fit the traditional pattern of the man as sole breadwinner. She says, "Yet conservatives have ... wailed so noisily about the allegedly catastrophic consequences of change." She says the authors show that the new marriages of today are better. One reason is that because both men and women work, "these couples 'do not feel the gut-wrenching vulnerability' of economic disaster if one partner loses a job." Another reason dual earning families are healthier is "studies repeatedly have found, employed wives are not as depressed and anxious as 1950's homemakers were, nor do their children suffer." Oh, yeah? For those of you reading this who do not like the traditional family then these kind of books will be for you. Liberals see the "new" family as "thriving." I don't. Ms. Tavris continues, "Just as wives aren't the selfish careerists of media stereotype, Ms. Barnett and Ms. Rivers say, neither are husbands 'brutish, uncaring, lazy slobs who are dead set against change.' Today's fathers, they find, are 'not the distant, work-obsessed fathers of the 1950's'; most are closely involved in all aspects of their children's care...Also contrary to stereotype, men's participation in household chores has risen dramatically." Yeah, right.
She ends her article saying that the book brings "good news that 'collaborative couples,' who are now the norm, are healthier and happier than those constrained by the segregation of the past." What is the future? Women aren't going to give up their wonderful jobs: "Women who need and enjoy their jobs aren't going to give them up. People who are unhappily married aren't going to stay together. Teen-agers aren't going to have a mass conversion and choose abstinence until they marry -- if they do marry." Oh, yeah? She ends saying that anyone who teaches differently "is not only delusional but cruel."
Helen Andelin writes, "Now let us turn our attention more fully to one of the most important requirements of man's successful leadership -- your obedience. The first law of Heaven is obedience, and it should be the first law of every home. It is the foundation of an orderly home, a successful family, and the successful lives of the children. The wife is the key. When she sets an example of obedience to her husband, the children follow. It has not only immediate benefits, but far-reaching effects on their entire lives."
"On the other hand, when the wife refuses to obey her husband, she sets a pattern of rebellion for her children to follow. They learn from her that they don't have to obey an instruction if they don't want to .... When such children are turned out into the world they have difficulty obeying the law, or a higher authority, such as leadership on campus or in their work. The problems of rebellious youth can often be traced to homes where the mother disobeyed the father or showed lack of respect for his authority."
"English satirist C. Northcote Parkinson passed judgment on the campus revolution in America in the 1970's, and blamed the whole thing on women. He told a Los Angeles audience that the trouble in American colleges is based on disrespect for authority learned in the home. 'The general movement, I think, begins with the female revolution,' he said. 'Women demanded the vote and equality and ceased to submit to the control of their husbands. In the process they began to lose control of their own children.' Mr. Parkinson said that in his own Victorian childhood, 'Pop's word was law, and Mother's most deadly threat was, 'I shall have to inform your father.' Nowadays, the mother can't appeal to the children in that way because they have denied paternal authority themselves.'"
"On the other hand, women who are strictly obedient to their husbands, showing honor and respect for their authority, set an example of obedience for their children to pattern from. Several years ago I was visiting my daughter in a distant state when our son came from a neighboring university to visit. They visited for some time while I listened in. One point in the conversation caught my attention acutely."
"Paul said to Kristine, 'When we were growing up I would never have thought of disobeying Dad, would you, Kristine?' She said emphatically, 'No, I would never, ever have thought of disobeying Dad!' I broke into the conversation by asking, 'Why would you never have thought of disobeying your father?' Their quick response was, 'You were the key, Mom, because you always obeyed Dad, even when it was very difficult.'"
Women must take criticism from men, not give it
Aubrey Andelin touches on a crucial point in a marriage, but I feel he doesn't explain it forcefully enough and that point is on how a man guides his wife. Helen's book, I am afraid, can also be misinterpreted by women. Dr. Andelin says that a husband should not be "harsh or critical" if his wife makes mistakes. He goes on for several paragraphs explaining how the man should be "patient, forgiving, understanding and sympathetic." Then he says, "When a woman continually makes mistakes which burden others, it becomes her husband's obligation to teach her .... If she is a poor housekeeper or poor cook, perhaps he can encourage her to get instruction. She needs to know how important it is to you to have a well-organized home and meals which are adequate and on time. She must know that a part of the success in her life is to become adept in these skills, and a serious responsibility attaches to it." Isn't this being critical? Isn't this acting like a boss who gives an order? I agree that a man should not be harsh, but he has to be critical. To lead means to give orders and if the leader sees the follower not doing as he wants he must point it out and that is criticism.
The problem is that followers often think they are being attacked instead of being humble and appreciative of receiving a negative view of their performance. How many women are going to hear a husband tell her to take cooking lessons? About as many men who are going to just love the constructive criticism that they should take driving lessons. What woman is going to take an order, no matter how nice he gives it, that she should check out a book on housekeeping so she can learn to be neat and organized? What would be the reaction the average woman will have if a husband tells his wife, "Honey, I really love you and I know how hard you work taking care of the children. Now I don't want you to make a mountain out of molehill and I can't say enough how I am not perfect and that I don't think I'm a better person than you, but I think you could use some help in keeping the house neater. The expert on housecleaning is Don Aslett who has books and a great video on how to clean and organize a house. I would like for you to go the library and check it out. I also think you should study books on Fung-shui that show how to arrange furniture so it spiritual. And there are some good books on diet such as Bodystat that will show you how to feed me better and it will help you lose that extra 50 pounds you have. And I think you should study Helen Andelin's book on raising children, All About Raising Children. She is an expert mother and will show you how to raise our children. Again, I can't say enough of how great you are and that we both have equal value and I am not a perfect person, but I'm the head of the house and this is my direction. Please do this starting tomorrow morning."
What wife in America is going to humbly listen to this or anything a husband has to say? The response in this culture would be the woman immediately attacking the man for being harsh and insensitive and not worthy of giving her one direction because he has not earned it. Women do not see men as vertical to them. Men and women see themselves in a horizontal relationship in which there is constant voting and compromising. They are, in effect, roommates who constantly try to find the middle way.
Let's continue with Dr. Andelin: "If she is habitually late, help her understand how inconsiderate it is to keep others waiting. She may not understand that such a habit is a selfish disregard for the time and comfort of others. Teach her as you would a child, if her fault is a childish one. If she spends money foolishly, she can be taught the principles of economy either by yourself or by special instruction .... If this instruction is given with kindness, free of sarcasm or ridicule, and with an assurance that you don't consider yourself perfect, a woman will usually respond favorably. Otherwise she will resent unexpected criticism, especially when she's tired or busy."
Dr. Andelin has a devout Mormon wife and he leads an exemplary life. Most wives do not believe that their husbands are their guide, boss, leader, or whatever you want to call it. I don't care how a man sugarcoats his directives, he's going to have a fight on his hands and hear what's wrong with him and that he should spend time getting the log out of his eye before he focuses on what he perceives to be a speck in his wife's. And it is a speck compared to the massive problems she thinks she has with her pathetic husband.
Andelin makes no sense when he goes on to say, "In review, we can say that it's never wise to criticize. Express sympathy and be understanding and forgiving. Help her overcome the problems caused by her failure." We don't live in a day and age where the average person respects authority. A tiny percent of the Christian community believes in being humble to leadership. Part of that is understandable because there is so little good leadership from any man. But for women to throw out men and seek leadership makes things worse. At some point somebody has to stop the merry-go-ground and fulfill their role. Helen teaches women to follow their husbands, even if they are wrong. But she weakens her argument by saying they are not to be doormats and have to be treated with respect. She doesn't go into detail and so many women will interpret this as being they will not follow a man until he's almost perfect.
The atmosphere of this world is one of competition between men and women, not harmonious cooperation. U.S. Presidents and Vice Presidents get along better than most marriages. There is more harmony between President Clinton and Vice President Gore than there is between President Clinton and the First Lady. In the first relationship Clinton does not fight and in the second he fights. Hillary doesn't see her position as subordinate to her husbands. She is not his follower. She can talk back.
The only time a woman should not follow a man is when he is physically abusive or grossly immoral. There are very few men who are like this and Helen correctly says the woman should leave the home for her safety, but should also look within herself to see how she had a hand in encouraging him to do such things. In some cases, people, both men and women, are simply insane or possessed. But those are extremely few in number. It takes two to tango. Many women do not understand they have played a part in creating an atmosphere for some men to lose control. Most men and women don't take the time or effort to study marriage and family. If there is a problem, they just resort to drinking, affairs, food, work or some other denial and many just give up and file for divorce. Most marriage counselors don't help because they're trying to figure out their own life and haven't got a clue how to fix themselves or anybody else. Father says not to go to them. Marriage counselors usually end up advocating divorce hoping that they will be lucky in the next marriage. They do not know God's plan. They do not counsel women to obey and men to lead. Men are wimps and women hate them for it. And because so many women had Fathers and other men in their lives who were wimps and far from perfect they will fight any man, no matter how good he is, if he tries to guide them.
Helen says women should be tactful with men and be careful about saying anything that may cause him insecurity. How many women do that? Most men have no interest in leading or striving because the women in their lives have near total contempt for them. Men are a mixture of scary monsters and little boys to women. Helen teaches that obedience from women will inspire men. She has many testimonies to prove it. Her ideology works and the feminists who rule this country have an ideology of so-called equality that does not work. It's a black and white issue. Take your pick. Helen explains, as Father often says, that women must see they are in a vertical relationship. Once women deeply understand and live by this principle then there will be an end to the battle of the sexes. And Helen says women should do this not because it is manipulative, but because it is a principle from God. We are to do things more because it is right, not because of what we will receive -- even though we will receive what we want. The focus is on giving, not receiving. The focus is on chopping the wood and building a fire in the fireplace so your loved ones can be warm on a snowy night instead of focusing on building a fire so you can be warm. As Zig Ziglar says you can have everything in life you want if you will only help others get what they want. Women must understand that they must take criticism so the man can learn leadership. And women must understand that men know better overall what needs to be done, not only outside the house but inside as well. Women must understand that the man is the center of the house, not the woman. She is the vice-president in the home and must teach her children to obey their father by showing in her deeds that she obeys too.
It would be great if men could lead perfectly, but they don't. Women must follow anyway. In the end, the man will find the right way. Women must learn patience. They must stop turning to government and themselves to solve society's problems. They must follow their husband's lead and then all will be well with the family and the nation and the world. Men must understand their role and never give up their power. They must not be intimidated by women who criticize not only the directions, orders, commands, suggestions or whatever you call it, but also how the man says it. They should try to be kind but the bottom line is that it doesn't matter how True Father or the average father in the average home says it, women must obey and not smart back. Women must bite their lip when they are criticized if they feel he is being unfair. They should give him a chance to grow in leadership. If he can't get his wife to follow then how much self-esteem can he have in society. First Corinthians 13 teaches us to be patient. It is not the woman's job to correct her husband. God corrects men by speaking to him directly or speaking through other men. This is why marriages are basically doomed to unhappiness because men do not have their souls knitted to other men under the same roof and women do not have other women to talk to and share the burdens together. True Christians have at least found growth stage happiness by living the values taught by everyone from St. Paul to the Andelins. Father is building on that by adding the trinity. Father is not abolishing patriarchy but fulfilling it and deepening it so that women are assured of being protected, provided for and properly led. One husband is not enough. Women need to be in a community of Godly men. That's when marriages and families will be completely happy. That is the completed testament age. The Andelins don't know this, but they do know a lot and we must be humble to them. Someday they will hear about trinity and must humble themselves to Father and his higher vision.
Women have to understand that men have lots of Abels, central figures, and authorities that they must act toward as the wife acts toward the husband. Men have customers to please, church leaders to understand, military commanders to obey, the Messiah to follow, and ultimately God to tune into to and follow. Women say they to have to follow God and the Messiah. But God and the Messiah want women to follow them by following their husband. This is a law of the universe as powerful as gravity. Fight it and you will suffer terribly. America has fought this principle for the social experiment of communism that teaches androgyny. Take a look at our country. It's a mess. There are lots of books by Christian men and women teaching the true order of love. But if you can't read a number of them, at least study the Andelin's.
Age of henpecked husbands
C. Northcote Parkinson said in Mrs. Parkinson's Law: And Other Studies in Domestic Science that women "suddenly revolted in the name of equality. In the early twentieth century they began to exchange their skirts for trousers. This was, in theory, to demonstrate a new democratic relationship between the sexes." But democracy in the family does not work. Parkinson argues that women want their cake and eat it too. They want to compete with men in the marketplace and keep the old chivalry too. He writes, "If a woman is to be treated as a comrade, G.K. Chesterton once pointed out, she is liable to be kicked as a comrade .... A girl in the army should be treated, in theory, like a private soldier, addressed by her surname and ordered curtly to do this or that. A minute's thought, however, or five minute's experience is enough to convince any male officer that such a treatment would be lunacy. It may be theoretically correct to say, "Corporal Baker, you are to have these letters ready for signature by midday,' but one's actual approach is quite different. 'Have you a minute, Valerie? Look, we have to get these done quickly. If you don't want me to face a court-martial, have them finished by twelve. Be a dear and save us all from the firing squad!"
Parkinson would just shake his head to see how women have fought to be drill instructors ordering young men around and have become combat fighter pilots. Women have degenerated so much since he wrote that they no longer care to be treated like a lady. Deep down they do. He says, "The revolutionary may succeed in abolishing the gentleman, but the woman still wants to be treated as a lady. With the situation thus changed in her favor, she is not always so ladylike as to refrain from using her advantage. In the U.S.A. this is the age of the henpecked husband and the age, in consequence, of the deserted wife." Father often says the same thing: American women dominate timid men in the home.
He says if today's so-called "enlightened" woman were to "visit some more traditional society in which the older values are still upheld" (he is playful and gives it the name of Esperanto; I call it the nineteenth century) "the educated woman" would "show a ready sympathy for the downtrodden. 'How dreadful!' she exclaims. 'Does your husband really order you about? It reminds me of the fairy story about Bluebeard! I never heard of anything so utterly fantastic!"
"Gradually, however, she is made to realize that her own example is the subject not of envy but of pity. This is made clear to her by the first local woman she comes to know, whose derision is expressed somewhat as follows: 'All your husband says is 'Yes, darling' and 'No, darling' and 'What do you think darling?' Here in Esperado we like a man who will decide for us and stick to his decision."
"'But that is positively medieval! My husband and I decide things together without any real disagreement. He is too nice a man to oppose me just for the love of argument, and he will freely acknowledge, if you ask him, that I often know best. Ours is a true partnership, you know, not a tyranny of one over the other."
"All this is received, however, with amusement. The women of Esperanto do not regard the 'Yes, darling' husband as a man at all. They suspect, to begin with, that he is impotent. When reassured on this point they doubt whether his virility would come up to an acceptable standard. They prefer a man, in short, who behaves like one. Their rejection of the American ideal is outspoken and prompt." Father says the same thing. American men are scared to death of their wives. Parkinson says, "When the women of today have sufficiently studied the art of marriage, as their grandmothers did, they will come to realized that they can exert more influence by an attractive diffidence than they will ever achieve by militant assertion." I long for the day when Andelin's books are used as the textbooks for marriage to learn "the art of marriage."
Four great quotes by G. K. Chesterton
1. "There are two principles in life, the harmony of which is happiness: the horizontal principle called equality and the vertical principle called authority."
2."Mankind has not passed through the Middle Ages. Rather mankind has retreated from the Middle Ages in reaction and rout. The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried."
3."Do not be proud of the fact that your grandmother was shocked at something which you are accustomed to seeing or hearing without being shocked .... It may be that your grandmother was an extremely lively and vital animal, and that you a paralytic."
4."I believe in preaching to the converted; for I have generally found that the converted do not understand their own religion."
Men are from Mars
John Gray writes that men and women are different in his best-seller, Men Are From Mars And Women Are From Venus: "The most frequently expressed complaint women have about men is that men don't listen. Either a man completely ignores her when she speaks to him, or he listens for a few beats, assesses what is bothering her, and then proudly puts on his Mr. Fix-It cap and offers her a solution to make her feel better. He is confused when she doesn't appreciate this gesture of love...She wants empathy, but he thinks she wants solutions."
"The most frequently expressed complaint men have about women is that women are always trying to change them. When a woman loves a man she feels responsible to assist him in growing and tries to help him improve the way he does things. She forms a home-improvement committee, and he becomes her primary focus." Gray goes on to say men and women are so different it's as if they were from two planets. Men are Martians who "value power (I talk about power in Chapter nine), competency, efficiency, and achievement. They are always doing things to prove themselves and develop their power and skills. Their sense of self is defined through their ability to achieve results. They experience fulfillment primarily through success and accomplishment...They don't read magazines like Psychology Today, Self, or People. They are more concerned with outdoor activities, like hunting, fishing, and racing cars. They are interested in the news, weather, and sports and couldn't care less about romance novels and self-help books."
"They are more interested in 'objects' and 'things' rather than people and feelings. Even today on Earth, while women fantasize about romance, men fantasize about powerful cars, faster computers, gizmos, and new more powerful technology. Men are preoccupied with the 'things' that can help them express power by creating results and achieving their goals."
"Achieving goals is very important to a Martian because it is a way for him to prove his competence and thus feel good about himself." And so, Gray explains this is why men give advice to women, when all they want is to be listened to. He says women are "Venusians" who "have different values. They value love, communication, beauty, and relationships. They spend a lot of time supporting, helping, and nurturing one another. Their sense of self is defined through their feelings and the quality of their relationships. They experience fulfillment through sharing and relating."
"Communication is of primary importance. To share their personal feelings is much more important than achieving goals and success .... This is hard for a man to comprehend .... Two Martians go to lunch to discuss a project or business goal; they have a problem to solve .... For Venusians, going to lunch is an opportunity to nurture a relationship, for both giving support to and receiving support from a friend. Women's restaurant talk can be very open and intimate, almost like the dialogue that occurs between therapist and patient."
"On Venus, everyone studies psychology and has at least a master's degree in counseling. They are very involved in personal growth, spirituality, and everything that can nurture life, healing, and growth."
"Because proving one's competence is not as important to a Venusian, offering help is not offensive, and needing help is not a sign of weakness. A man, however, may feel offended because when a woman offers advice he doesn't feel she trusts his ability to do it himself."
He spends his entire book giving ideas to help men and women communicate better. The good thing is that he at least sees that men and women are different. Deborah Tannen does the same in her books. The problem is that all these self-help books are superficial. One of Gray's former wives is Barbara de Angelis who also has best-sellers and an inforcommercial teaching how men and women to love. Barbara and John used to give marriage counseling sessions together when they were married. He is one of her five husbands. The last time I saw she was not married but living with a man and has never had children. They are not religious people so they miss the core truths of lasting and happy marriages. There are so many books on marriage, but the Andelins say it best. Do as they teach and there will be little chance of having major problems.
Parents are friends of their adult children, but they are always parents and honored as elders. There will always be a sense of vertical. Father says the English language is too horizontal: "You are proud of English, but it has no vertical implications. It is a flat language ... it is the speech of manual laborers; it is confusing and degrading. English is inadequate for expressing vertical relationships, such as royalty, parents, teachers, elder brothers or uncles, for which there are ten levels of formality in the Korean language. English has only one word for 'you,' whether the person is addressing his father, an elder brother, a younger brother or a teacher. It is like a flat desert."
One author wrote, "Washington Times columnist Suzanne Fields has been especially outspoken about the dissatisfaction of women with men who wear rings in their noses for feminists to grasp. In a typical column on the subject, she complained about how many 'young men, their consciousnesses dutifully raised, seem more concerned with proving they're 'thinkers' and 'feelers' rather than fighters. There's little status in some circles for a man to be proud to be a man; better he should aspire to be Peter Pan or Alan Alda. Gary Cooper and Alan Lass are dead, and nobody knows what happened to Randolph Scott.'"
"'Today's single, silent young man is too vulnerable to be heroic. He sacrifices himself on the altar of his sensitivity, or cowers behind a diagnosis of his fear to assert himself .... Over the past decade more men have rushed into print to say how proud they are of crying than have come to the defense of someone in trouble. They're proud of their feminization, and women are struck with paying for it.'"
Alan Alda is a famous hollywood actor who is often presented as a feminist male role model. What is not mentioned by feminists is that he has a traditional marriage where his wife stays home and cares for his daughters.
No real men anymore
Mort Sahl said, "Women want their men to be cops, to be their fathers... to tell them what the limits are .... When they push, what they're waiting for you to say is, 'This is Checkpoint Charlie, don't go any further' .... Men in America have fallen apart. The country is gasping for breath .... And the women are angry because there are no real men anymore."
Private first, then public
First Timothy 3:4-5 explains that men should not be leaders in the church unless they have proven to be good leaders in the home: "The Father must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God's church."
Feminism taught in UNews
In the 1980s there were a few articles in the UNews critical of the traditional family. Henry Thompson had several articles. He was Associate Professor of Religion and Society at the Unification Theological Seminary. He wrote,"The Bible is a Living Book. One reason it is a Living Book is that it is reinterpreted for new needs and times. It has been suggested that it is the responsibility of biblical scholars, theologians, preachers and for that matter anyone who takes it seriously, to reinterpret the Bible for each generation. This has been regularly and frequently done."
Some interpretations, however, persist over generations. One interpretation that has lasted for a very long time concerns I Corinthians 11:3, 'the head of the man is Christ and the head of the woman is her husband.'"
In Ephesians 5:22-23, the message is repeated. Women are to be subject to their husbands for the man is the head of the woman as Christ is the head of the Church."
In Colossians 3:18, wives are again told to be subject to their husbands. Verse 19 includes the instruction that husbands are to love their wives and not be harsh with them. This latter point is not heard so often." Oh? Every book I have ever read of a man or a woman who believed in these quotes did their best to live up to them and that includes not being harsh. In this book, I quote a few men who actually do what they preach. Their wives are very happy people as we have seen by the many quotes of them I have in this book. Thompson is a feminist. Feminists see what they want. They see many fall short of a written ideal and therefore the ideal is bad. We might as well say we have a written ideal to be religious, but since so many religious people like fundamentalist Muslims smother women with veils and Jimmy Swaggart betrays his wife, etc. we must give up on religion. How easy would it be to read passages of Father and interpret that he is cruel to women? How did he treat his wives? He's always talking about how hard Mother's life is as he takes her away from her children and with him on his grueling trips. Former members would say Father"drags" her around. They write books about how brutal Onni was in California. My son's time in boot camp for the U.S. Navy was not a cup of tea. He only got two hours of sleep a night for over a month and had absolutely no freedom and his leaders were"harsh" with him and every other young man there. We must be very careful about what is harsh in this period of restoration.
Thompson goes on to quote Genesis which says Eve is to be ruled over by Adam and says,"The interpretation through the ages has been that women are subject to men and must submit to them or be submissive to them. In one sense, the interpretation is natural enough is natural enough. The interpreters have been men!" If you're a man and reading this, how do you feel? If you're a woman reading this, how do you feel about men? The point is clear. Men are jerks. Men are bad. They misuse power.
Professor Thompson's male bashing
Dr. Thompson continues his male bashing in an another article (Feb. 1987):"From time immemorial it seems men have put down women." All men? How about the millions of men who gave their life in defense of women? And are women exempt from criticism? Have there ever been men who did God's will and had wives who hindered them? What kind of help did Noah's wife give him as he went out to build a big boat in some place that looks like the wheat fields of Kansas? Father's first wife, if I heard correctly, threw literal human feces at him(I guess it's not spiritual to say the"S" word. But then maybe it is. If it is, let me know and in the next edition I might say it.)
Leaders are supposed to take full responsibility. Men have been leaders so therefore they take full responsibility for everything women may do that looks fallen? I know some women who cannot see any speck in their eye or in any other women's eye and focus on the logs in the eyes of men. Thompson has been digested by Satan's ideology of feminism and like so many liberals fight hard for their beliefs. And they have ruled in this century. Thompson doesn't see women working in the marketplace as"harsh." In fact, it is harsh for men to keep their wives at home. He writes that men hate women, especially their mothers, and"spend the rest of their lives getting even, getting back at mother by beating up their wives, pushing women to the sidelines of 'kitchen, cooking and children,' unaware that they thereby perpetuate the very thing they protest." Men, he says,"refuse to grow up." Human history has been one long nightmare for women who are tortured by men. How many men have died working at dangerous jobs to build a better world for women? How many have been injured as they walked around construction sites, welded bridges hundreds of feet in the air, dug ditches in 110 degree heat to bring water to those homes where women are living a nightmare cooking dinner? I read a story recently of a man who had never missed work for years at his cities natural gas plant. He got some kind of flu bug or something and just had to call in sick that day. On that day his buddies that he had been working with for years were all killed at a site they were working on that day."
Feminists like Thompson are dangerous. They get themselves in position of power in society and then relentlessly brainwash everyone for their diabolical beliefs. Seminaries are really spiritual cemeteries. Thompson says men"through the centuries" have used"brute strength, the strength of the beasts [to] keep the human female in conditions varying from slavery to a 'Doll House' to quote Ibsen." I go on and quote more of his nonsense. Unfortunately, he is not the only person pushing women out of the home and into leadership in business and the church.
Ideal wife in Proverbs 31
Let's look at the Bible's famous explanation of the Ideal Wife in Proverbs 31. Mrs. Pride writes that feminists see this passage as teaching women to have careers"as a real estate salesman, office worker, factory worker, merchant, and who knows what else." She says no one examines the passage"in context." She does. She writes,"We are going to walk through the entire passage, so we can see for ourselves what it says."
A wife of noble character who can find?
She is worth far more than rubies.
"This tells us that the woman who is about to be described is a good example for us to follow."
Her husband has full confidence in her
And lack nothing in value.
"She is not an autonomous feminist following 'individualistic pursuits.' Her husband's needs are her concern, and she works to satisfy them."
She brings him good, not harm,
all the days of her life.
"By implication it is possible for a wife to bring her husband harm. The rest of the passage will tell us how to be good, not harmful, wives."
"Notice how this woman's husband is emphasized. Feminists hate this. They don't want a woman to be identified in terms of her husband and children. But this woman's achievements are stated in just these terms."
She selects wool and flax
And works with eager hands.
"Wool and flax are the two raw ingredients of Mideastern clothing. Nothing careerist about this so far."
She is like the merchant ships,
bringing her food from afar.
"Now the chorus starts. 'She's a merchant!'"A salesman!' 'An able-bodied seaman!'"
"But how is she like the merchant ships? Does she bulge and sit low in the water? Is she covered with two coats of deck paint? This is a simile, not a definition. She is like the merchant ship in particular respect, that of 'bringing her food from afar.'"
"Look at the following context (getting up while it is still dark, staying up late at night at home), and you will see that she does not go in person to Syria or Tarshish on business trips. She is bringing home food, literal food, not a paycheck. Like the merchants, she has scouted out her neighborhood for food offerings of quality and value, and like their ships she carries them home."
"Picture a housewife coming home with bags of food, having stopped off at the supermarket first, then the health food store (because yeast and other bulk items are cheaper there), and the produce market (for fresh fruit and vegetable), and you've got it. This is the picture the passage is trying to convey. Wives who join food co-ops, who trek out monthly to a nearby farm to buy eggs, honey, and grains in bulk, who carefully sift over the radishes before putting any in their shopping basket, who have learned to stretch the dollar farther and buy better food with it -- these are the women this passage commends."
She gets up while it is dark;
She provides food for her family
and portions for her servant girls.
"This wife personally provides the household's food. She has servants for the housework, it seems. Housework is not what staying home is all about.... Today our servants are mostly mechanical: dishwashers, food processors, vacuum cleaners. Thus technology makes homeworking easier for those who can afford these tools, just as male and female servants did in the old days. Paul Hawken, author of The Next Economy, says that every man, woman, and child in America today employs the equivalent of 100 servants through the services of our energy-fueled technology."
She considers a field and buys it;
out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.
"Tell me how buy shoes for your family make you a shoe salesman, and I'll be able to explain to you how buying a vineyard makes this woman a real-estate dealer! Christian magazine articles and books commonly refer to her as such, but this makes no sense. She bought one field for her family's use; she didn't resell it, much less make a career out of buying fields here and there and tooling around on her donkey to show the properties to prospective buyers."
"As for planting a vineyard: Some folks have gotten it into their heads that homeworking means nothing but dishes and diapers. So then, they reason, if Scripture shows a woman doing anything but inside-the-house tasks, that must give us all license to do anything we want to outside the house."
"But houseworking means working on the home estate, not just within the four walls of a house. Housewives from time immemorial have planted gardens in their back yards, or tended truck patches on a portion of the family's forty acres. This was considered household work and rightly so, for the wife never strayed off the family property. Furthermore, she was producing goods under her own supervision, not that of an outside boss."
I am tempted to quote her completely as she goes verse by verse to explain what the ideal wife in Proverbs means. In one passage Proverbs says"She opens her arms to the poor/ and extends her hands to the needy." Mrs. Pride explains how this is charity at home and she has an entire chapter on women's role to help others such as doing charity work. She ends this section of her book saying,"Her husband, her children, and ultimately the whole community praise her. Male patriarchal bias? This passage shows none of it. There is not one negative comment about women in this passage; instead we are told that many women do noble things."
"The men who wrote the Bible weren't prejudiced against women. They didn't call housewives dull drudges and parasites. Who throws around those insults? The feminist movement, which claims to be on our side!"
"Scriptural endorsements of careerist wives? There's not a one."
The Reader's Digest has a column called"That's outrageous" that highlights some of the ridiculous things that government and liberals do. One example is that the federal government printed minted dollars honoring the feminist Susan B. Anthony. No one liked them. So they took them and put them in storage -- all 248 million of them. Then they just them sit there year in, year out. Cost per year to store them: $30,000." Another example of the lunacy of liberals the Reader's Digest showed was about MacArthur Foundation's"genius grants" that are in the range of $300,000. It wrote,"One of this year's 'geniuses' is Susan McClary of U.C.L.A., cited as 'a musicologist who relates the creation of musical works to their social context.' There's a plainer way to say this: she is the feminist in charge of discovering that classical music is full of phallic themes, patriarchal violence, and 'the necessary purging or containment of he female.'"
"Another of Ms. McClary's breakthrough ideas is that Beethoven's Ninth Symphony adds up to non-orgasmic rape. She hears 'the throttling murderous rage of a rapist incapable of attaining release.'"
"This is a far more serious charge against Ludwig than the one by 1994 McArthur winner Adrienne rich, a radical lesbian poet whose verse suggests that Beethoven wasn't thinking about rape in the Ninth Symphony -- he was fretting about impotence." It's a battle out there. We are at war every second of the day. Satan is trying to kill us and he has no conscious, no mercy. In third world countries he works in many ways including kills 40,000 children a day by having them drink putrid water in puddles in front of their shacks. In rich America he works in many ways. One of his most insidious methods is to cause a terrible war of the sexes in which no one wins. UC members must be wise to Satan and not get fooled into thinking that so called radical feminists go too far, but moderate feminists have great insights.
A book all the rage now is Reviving Ophelia by Mary Pipher. She pushes for this insane idea so many have, like Mrs. Rubinstein has, that people can do everything. There are no limits, no boundaries. Be like Captain Kirk of the starship Enterprise and go where no one has gone before. Captain always came out alive. People in real life who live this way don't. Pipher gets her title from a character in Shakespeare's Hamlet who commits suicide, according to Pipher, because of the cruel treatment of Hamlet who is like all men, a vicious, uncaring misogynist. Pipher has a Ph.D. and counsels young girls who have problems in Lincoln, Nebraska. She is a best seller. People Magazine said it was about time we had a guru from Nebraska. The liberals at People magazine are once again wrong. She writes:"An androgynous person can comfort a baby or change a tire, cook a meal or chair a meeting. Research has shown that, since they are free to act without worrying if their behavior is feminine or masculine, androgynous adults are the most well adjusted." Mrs. Andelin teaches women to not change tires. I guess Mary Pipher does. A lot of women are out there changing tires. And that is why there are so many young girls in Pipher's office saying they want to or have tried to commit suicide. Feminist like Pipher are the cause of the problem, not the solution. Pipher is out preaching her garbage and the news media falls all over itself to give her free time. One night I saw her on prime time TV being introduced by Jane Fonda. Please join me to advertize the truth. It's an uphill battle, but we can't just let the Mary Pipher's speak out and then say nothing.
Father repeats over and over that women are objects. On True Parent's Day, April 18, 1996 Father said, "In this world man stands in the position of king. King is subject. Woman is not subject, no matter how proud a position they possess the object cannot control the subject. American women, be careful. Women need to follow behind their husbands. I can feel that American women don't feel so good about that idea. No matter how you may feel, you have to take an opposite way from now on. America needs Divine Principle. This is not Father's viewpoint, this is the divine perspective. You have to know that clearly. Women have wide hips like a cushion whereas man has narrow hips and wide shoulders. So you see they compliment one another; woman is wide at the hips and man is wide at the shoulders. Combined into one they make a square box, a secure foundation."
Some see mother as a career woman and a role model for women to go get jobs and hopefully even lead men at those jobs. I see Mother as being a helper to her husband that Professor Thompson preaches against. At the Tenth ICUS Mother spoke to the women attending the conference. I saw a video of this. She was sweet and feminine. Notice that she spoke to women only. She said,"They say that behind every great man, there is a woman. In this sense, I respect you all very much. You have helped your husbands create many things to help mankind."
"I also try to be a wonderful helper for my husband, Reverend Moon. But it is hard because, as you know, his ideals and goals are very high. Sometimes I wonder how good a job I am doing to help my husband. I never get a report card. If you have a chance to ask him, please do so, and let me know his answer!"
"Anyhow, I gave him twelve lovely children, so I hope he will give me one medal at least." Then she goes on to explain how the family if the most important place in the world. I interpret this as the man leading and the woman following. Others would see it differently, I guess. They would see that Father has given her a career. Some would even read into that Father is"harsh" because Mother said it is as she says,"hard" to follow him. And then he is especially cruel because he doesn't even bother to thank her for it. Some would read into what she says that she is afraid of him. She can't even talk to him. Some would say she is pathetic in that she has to ask others to ask him what he thinks of her and pathetically she hopes he will like her. She isn't. She is dedicated to the mission and joking. She doesn't need constant reassurance that she is doing right.
Thompson reads the Bible and sees misogyny. Antifeminist traditionalists see man's love for women. Some see True Parents and see one thing, others see another. If you're reading this and think there is something in between feminism and traditionalism, think again. There is no center, middle way, new improved completed testament age roles that no one has gone before. You have to make a decision. Either the woman gets a job or not. It's a black and white issue. It doesn't matter that we are in an"emergency situation." Mankind has been in an emergency situation since Adam and Eve. Even during this special time with True Parents on earth, we should not emphasize women earning money and acting like men even if Father has sometimes separated couples and asked women to pioneer. Many of those situations were in the early days when there very married couples and very few members. It's been over forty years and now there are tens of thousands of members and it is ludicrous to think that women should be out competing with men in the marketplace.
Did what Mother say to those women sound like an elder teaching a younger the role of women helping her husband as taught in Titus 2:2-5? Is Mother out with Father in his little boat on the ocean in bad weather? No. She is safe at home. Is Mother driving men to the airport and talking about political science?