Weak men and disorderly women


Tocqueville visited America in the 1830s which was long before women voted and wrote that America was great because its women were great. He concludes his book by saying that because American women are truly feminine, America is prospering: "As for myself, I do not hesitate to avow that although the women of the United States are confined within the narrow circle of domestic life, and their situation is in some respects one of extreme dependence, I have nowhere seen woman occupying a loftier position; and if I were asked, now that I am drawing to the close of this work, in which I have spoken of so many important things done by the Americans, to what the singular prosperity and growing strength of that people ought mainly to be attributed, I should reply: to the superiority of their women." He said America is great because of"the superiority of its women" who live traditional roles. Feminists write endless books and give countless speeches saying everything is so much better today because women have given up"extreme dependence." They believe that they can make it just fine without a man, even if they have children, and America is better for it.

He warned America that if it was seduced by feminism then America would decline and the men would become"weak" and women would become"disorderly." Father often uses the word"order." He has come to bring order to this disorderly world. He constantly says women are out of order. Tocqueville's Democracy in America is a classic for good reason. He gave deep insights about America that we can learn from today. He perceptively saw, as he traveled around America in the early 19th century, that if America adopted the deadly ideology of "mixing" men and women we would become a nation of "weak men and disorderly women." Sadly this has happened. Listen carefully to his breathtaking eloquence: "There are people in Europe who, confounding together the different characteristics of the sexes, would make man and woman into beings not only equal but alike. They would give to both the same functions, impose on both the same duties, and grant to both the same rights; they would mix them in all things -- their occupations, their pleasures, their business. It may readily be conceived that by thus attempting to make one sex equal to the other, both are degraded, and from so preposterous a medley of the works of nature nothing could ever result but weak men and disorderly women." Not only has America become"degraded" and"preposterous" but the UC has become digested by feminism and brothers are"weak" and sisters are"disorderly."


Domineering women


By the time Father came to America, women had been totally digested by feminism. Father constantly blasts American women for being bossy: "the chain of order and command has been completely reversed." He is absolutely against the insane interchanging that goes on in America: "In this country women have a commanding voice at home. In a typical American home the wife is master of the house, while the husband is like a servant; his shoulders are hunched over and he is always checking to see what his wife's mood is. Because of the fall of man the chain of order and command has been completely reversed, and now men follow behind women, particularly with regard to love affairs. Men have become so helpless, and women always take command.... Now the time has come for women to restore their original role, particularly American women. Nowadays American men just do not want to get married and become slaves of domineering women.""Chain of command"?"Slaves"? This is pretty strong speech because he sees a matriarchy in American homes. Men may have a lot of position externally, but internally the women wear the pants.


Men are bones, women are flesh


Father says, "American women are saying, 'We want to be in the bone position. Let the men become the soft flesh.' Today America is suffering from terrible confusion; people don't know which side is up. There is no understanding of right order, subject and object, or who takes initiative and who is responsive. What about you American Unification women, are you different?" No, they aren't. They want to interchange with men. Father says, "In America, many women pull the men around behind them and the men just follow timidly. I have never seen so many boneless men as in America C 'Yes, dear, whatever you say.' ... If you women don't change that trend, there can be nothing but darkness for the future of this country. America will not survive. There must be God's order and sequence, a certain discipline. We must maintain that discipline."

Sadly, Elizabeth Cady Stanton's written goal of women getting the vote came true and Marx and Engels' dream of women leaving the home came true. There is power in written goals and putting commitment and energy behind them. Others did not have the same clearly written goals and as much fire in the belly as Satan's champions who unwittingly worked to destroy the family and inflame the battle of the sexes. America was on the rise to be a good nation for the Messiah to come to, but God's efforts to perfect the traditional family were thrown out in favor of Satan's feminist family values. There was very little divorce a hundred years ago. Now feminists are delighted there is 50% divorce because that shows we are"growing." They say marriages of the past were more unhappy than today. This is what Satan wants everyone to believe. The truth is that women were happier back then and society was more stable and in order than today where feminism is the reigning ideology.


Eve castrating Adam


America has declined. Father said in his Day of Hope tour when he came to America that only a Godless nation would take prayer out of schools. Were there prayers in schools a hundred years ago? Yes. Was God welcome there? Yes. The common thinking is that it was a nightmare a hundred years ago and we, thank God, don't live with their medieval views of life. We are modern and enlightened and better and etc. In a book on the history of women's suffrage, Century of Struggle, Eleanor Flexner ends her book saying,"Half a century after adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment, a number of promised or threatened events have failed to materialize. The millennium has not arrived, but neither has the country's social fabric been destroyed." Some people thought the millennium would come because women would clean up society by getting into the man's world. They haven't. But Ms. Flexner is wrong that the social fabric has not been destroyed. Feminists and and this feminist culture are in denial that things are better since women got the vote. Women getting the vote was the death knell for society. It was Eve castrating Adam. All hell broke loose because of it. Cain killed Abel on a global scale. The World Wars were inevitable. But the killing fields of Communism were not. The worst and most tragic wars were not on the battle fields anyway. They are in the billions of homes where there are billions or trillions of fights in the battle of the sexes. No one has won that war. Father has come to stop the fighting forever. He does this by teaching what subject and object mean. He teaches the vertical laws of life from God -- instead of the horizontal ideologies everyone lives by.


Restoration of the Fall


The Principle teaches that the Fall happened because Adam, Eve and Lucifer left their positions. Lucifer dominated Eve, and Eve dominated Adam. Restoration is the Messiah teaching men to dominate women who in turn can dominate angels. Feminism teaches the reverse. It teaches women to leave their position. Satan whispered in Eve's ear and she became the first feminist. Satan whispers in women's ears to make them unhappy in their positions. Women are sold the idea that to be the Biblical wife is boring and depressing. Satan sure thought that of his position. Satan mixes up the roles of men and women. Women initiate the four fallen natures of not seeing from God's viewpoint -- they see things from Satan's viewpoint -- from a horizontal view, not vertical which has man over woman.


Men and women have the same value and their love is horizontal as the four position foundation shows. But that diagram is illustrating the division of men and women and does not illustrate that men"dominate" or lead women.


Three roles for men: protector, provider, patriarch


The three pillars of the traditional family are for men to be protectors, providers and patriarchs. Satan speaks through feminists who hate these roles. Feminists teach the opposite -- women are to leave their positions and join in the responsibilities of leading, protecting and providing. The epitome of this is a real life woman general who is base commander of a U.S. Marine Corps base in America. Today we have women cops and firefighters risking and giving their lives for househusbands. And everyone smiles and thinks, "How advanced we are in our equality!" Feminism is chaos. Godism is divine order. A woman playing general and leading men in the Marine Corps shows, as Father said, that"America is suffering from terrible confusion."


Feminism vs. Godism


Feminism is the ideology that sees it as a crusade to destroy the traditional family by getting women to compete with men outside the home and preferably winning over them and for men to equally share in housework. They misuse the word "equality" just as all Communists misuse good words like democratic and freedom. In the sixties Satan inflamed the fires of feminism to match the blessing of True Parents in 1960. True Parents live by the three pillars of the Biblical marriage. Father doesn't come to abolish the traditional marriage but to fulfill it and perfect it. Name me once when Mother has led, protected and provided for Father? Show me one official picture of the True Parents where Mother leaves her position of being on Father's left?


A little bit pregnant


This is Satan's sneaky technique. You can't be a little bit pregnant. You can't have a little bit of adultery. It's all or nothing. You're either rebellious or not. A little bit of rebellion is just a slippery slope to total chaos. Here are twelve quick absolute black and white issues:


1. Women should vote or not

2. Heterosexual sex or not

3. Vegetarianism or not

4. Pacifism or not

5. Nudist or not

6. Jesus is the Messiah or not

7. Father is the Third Adam or not

8. Polygamy or not

9. Abortion is murder or not

10. Adultery is wrong or not

11. Women should be in combat or not

12. God exists or not

Lots of things in life are either absolutely right or wrong, good or evil, of God or Satan. There is no gray area, no third way, no creative brand new invention in the Completed Age, headwing, Godism of the ideal world. Feminism is in that category. You either believe in Father, the Bible and books such as those by the Andelins or you believe in Karl Marx and Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Betty Friedan.

Let's take a brief look at a quote of Father on the difference between men and women. In a speech called"Where and How Do You Want to Live Your Life?" given on June 9, 1996 printed in Today's World (November, 1996) he says,"Who stands in the position of subject? [Man.] Why should man stand in the position of subject? [Because he contains the seed of life.] Unificationist women do not claim that man is the subject because they like that idea, but rather they have no choice in the matter! You did not believe it until you joined the Unification Church."

America has been boiled to death in feminism

 America has been boiled in feminism that wants to interchange men and women's position. Father goes on to say,"Women in this American melting pot society however claim that they should be subject. Who will eventually prevail?" So far American women have prevailed, but eventually Father's politically incorrect message will be heard and lived.


Parable of the farmer and the field


Father goes on to say these powerful words:"If these American women insist upon women being subject, then eventually we can bring women from Africa and India and through them sow the true seed." Why Africa and India? These are cultures that are not as feminist. They are women who are not rich and arrogant like American women. Women there are more objective and feminine. They are not like Amazon American women who are rebellious. Father says,"Then the American women who insist on maintaining their subjectivity will certainly face some problems. What then is your role as a woman? You are like a field waiting to be planted. Whatever seed the farmer may sow in your field you have to produce." American women are now screaming"sexist misogynist!" Father, they say, sees women as sex objects who are supposed to be barefoot and pregnant. He says,"As a field do you have the luxury of telling the farmer what kind of seed to sow? You have absolutely no choice. American women don't like such an idea. In order to respond affirmatively to me, you have had to drastically change your thinking."


Women are thieves


Father says,"Once the farmer sows the seed in your field, can you claim the harvest as your own?" Father is denouncing women for being subjective. They have left their position and usurped men's position. Women have absolutely no respect for men's subjective position. He says,"American law deals with child custody in a misguided way. The woman's responsibility is to follow her husband. If your husband represents the bones, you are like the flesh. Therefore, the two of you have to become one. Otherwise, we will end up with two origins, two directions and two effects. When divorce occurs, who usually wants custody of the children? [The mother.] Since we understand the truth, shouldn't such women be considered thieves? You do not consider them thieves, so am I telling you a lie? [No.]"

A hundred years ago, men got the children if there was divorce. One reason there was so little divorce in the 19th century was that women knew that they would not get the children. Feminists cry for equality. But we don't have equality with feminism. Women overwhelmingly get the children. There shouldn't be equality anyway. The men should be given the children in divorce instead of the women. Father often sounds like Victorians because they were more spiritually correct than we are.


Men are in vertical position to women


Father continues saying,"The father stands in the vertical position. Therefore, if you want to climb up the vertical ladder you have to climb up your father. Your mother is in the horizontal position of the field." I really like Father using parables and other visual images such as a farmer and a field or ladders and baskets to teach his point. It is like Jesus talking. He continues,"The head of your family is your father, not your mother." How much clearer can he get? Men are patriarchs. Men lead. There is no dual leadership or interchanging of positions as feminism teaches. There is equality in value, but not roles. He says,"He stands in the position of the family king. In some American families there are various fathers and mothers, and everything is confused and mixed up." He says the word"mix." Feminists teach that it is good to"mix" men and women because men are out of it. Dear Reader. Choose which use of"mix" you want. Either you can have the order of Father or the chaos of feminists.


Children in divorce should stay with the father


He continues,"This shows that they have completely disregarded this principle. If the law stated that when a couple divorces the children should remain with their father there would be far less divorce in this country. Suppose all of these children desire to follow their father: wouldn't the mother eventually come back because of her love for her children? Don't you think there would be a greater chance of saving the family? No matter how fertile your field might be, if there is no farmer to sow the seeds, then your field will be wasted." One of the principal complaints in the Seneca Falls Declaration in 1848 was that fathers automatically received custody after divorce. When Father or anyone says the truth there is always the opposition with their arguments. Father doesn't get into nitty gritty debates. That's our job. One argument that feminists make against men getting the children is that men are the cause of divorce. They are drunken hairy beasts beating the crap out of pure, sweet, wonderful, godly, innocent, spiritual, sacrificial, kind women physically and verbally. It is fashionable to bash men today. The truth is that women do not have a monopoly on goodness and men do not have a monopoly on evil. One of the causes of many men turning to drink and other addictions is because society has told them they are not valuable. Father teaches the reverse. If society understood that men are the center of the family and held men in esteem and gave them the children in divorce, there would be far less dysfunctional behavior in men. Even if a man is out of it and the wife divorces him, she still should not get the children. They should go to the man's father, brothers or other men in his family.


Titus 2:3-5


Titus 2:3-5 gives the best summary of the role of a woman in the Bible:"tell the older women to be reverent in behavior, not to be slanderous or slaves to drink; they are to teach what is good, so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be self-controlled, chaste, good managers of the household, kind, being submissive to their husbands, so that the word of God may not be discredited." The word that feminists have a coronary over is"submissive." Mary Pride has an excellent book that is based on this quote called The Way Home and a sequel called All the Way Home. The only discussion about sex roles in this perverted society is about women's pain and resentment and how they have got to be put in charge because men are competitive fighters and women are cooperative lovers. There is just laughter or disgust if men ever mention being hurt. Most men don't say anything because of the ridicule and heartless attacks they will receive from both men and women if they open up.

Let's continue with Father's antifeminist speech:"The well-developed breasts of women exist for the sake of their children. Their hips also exist for their children. The beauty of a woman's face is for the sake of her husband. If you follow this line all the way down through the center point of your body you discover a living spring." Now he uses the image of water that symbolizes life. He says,"That means you do not possess anything at all. Every part of yourself belongs either to your husband or your children. No one can argue this fact. Certainly members of the women's liberation movement would oppose these words."




Father knows that the so-called women libbers are obsessed with the word"equality" and that they haven't got a clue to what it means. He says,"How can you claim equality as women when not even in the Olympic Games is there any woman who has competed with men and won? Men are bigger and stronger than women. Even if a woman became a champion wrestler, do you think she would have the chance to win over a male champion wrestler? [No.]"

"How can you claim equality?" He answers that we"claim equality" in love making. The"concave and convex shapes become totally united centered on true love." Vive la difference! Father doesn't mince any words. He is a voice crying in the wilderness that upsets this world so much that they jail him in America because he is such a threat to society. He is seen as an abuser. What he says is infuriating.


Fathers, not mothers, have "central position"


Father goes on to say:"The children should revolve 180 degrees around their mother in unity." So much for househusbands!"The father's central position cannot be replaced; however, the position of mother can be replaced. The mother revolves around the father." Circular motion is not both revolving around each other. The center stays put and the object focuses on the subject. Wives are supposed to focus on their husbands. Father never says people change positions.




Let's continue with Father's revolutionary (not reactionary) view of how men are higher up the hierarchy than women in leadership:"Do you American women understand? All of you have to climb up your husband's ladder in order to reach God. The father is responsible to the mother and the children. ... The mother and children all have to climb up the father's ladder to reach a higher dimension. ... The only thing that we have to care about is the seed of life following this vertical line. The seed is important, but the mother floats around through 360 degrees. Therefore, the wife has to absolutely follow the husband."


Me? Obey Him?


A good book I recommend for sisters to read that speaks as strongly as Father does about women following is Elizabeth's Hanford's Me? Obey Him? When you order the paperback from your Christian bookstore, be sure to order her audio cassette of the same title. It is a speech she gave at a women's meeting summarizing her book. In her tape she laughs as she begins by saying that a woman came up to her once and said that she was so angry when she started reading it that she tried to flush it down the toilet! But it wouldn't go down, so she then tried to burn it, but since the book was wet it wouldn't burn. Later, though, she read it and studied it because she was desperate. Her family was falling apart and after she did as Mrs. Hanford taught, their family was happy. One thing that I really like about the tape is the voice and tone of Mrs. Hanford. It is a spiritual experience to hear a feminine and Godly voice teaching the true meaning of subject and object roles for men and women.


Women are like "baskets"


Finally, Father says in his parable-like speech,"American women may feel that my explanation of life gives them no value whatsoever. Women are like an empty receiving basket. Your value will be determined by the contents you hold within your basket. I suggest that you utilize your beautiful face, well-developed bosom and hips and produce as many precious children as possible. That is your value." A woman's value does not come from competing with men in the marketplace. It is in having many children and caring for them in the home. Everyone is supposed to witness, but our first priority is to have lots of children who are not taken care of by strangers so the wife can have a career. I call upon those who can't physically have children and want them to start adopting instead of waiting around for blessed babies. It costs a lot of money to adopt so these couples should focus first on getting themselves to look good to adoption agencies. And the rest of the members should adopt to bring their families up to at least 10 children if not 20.


 It's time for the UC to grow up


Father then goes on to explain how sons are different than daughters. He explains how they play differently. The boys are out chasing animals while the girls are content to play with toys in the home. This is absolute antifeminism. Father is saying exactly what feminists go out of their minds in disgust. He sounds, to them, like a male chauvinist pig. Some kind of horrible Ayatollah restricting their"freedom" by"imposing" his"stereotypes" that men and women are different and therefore have different roles. This is the kind of thinking that suffragists literally screamed against for 70 years. Finally, men got so tired of the racket they gave them the vote to shut them up.


70 Year Battle of the Sexes for the Power of the Ballot


Satan worked to destroy this world and make it hard for the messiah by creating confusion. He made men weak and women disorderly. One of his greatest victories was upsetting the order of who has power by giving women the vote in 1920. There was a 70 year battle by suffragists from 1848 to 1920 in America. This act castrated all men. Many people, especially women, fought this valiantly but lost.

In 1848, Satan struck with a vengeance. He had Marx and Engels publish The Communist Manifesto in Europe and Elizabeth Cady Stanton publish her Declaration of Sentiments in Seneca Falls, New York. Both attack the traditional family in the name of"equality." It sounded ridiculous to people when they first heard this, but the dedication of socialists/feminists was greater than the majority who did not take them seriously. There is the story of the frog that got boiled to death as the water was heated in the pot he was in and he didn't even know what was happening to him until it was too late.

Satan is tricky. He has worked by creating an ideology that deceives people by giving them what appears to be a noble ideal -- the ideal of equality. A world that is fair and selfless. The means to that end was government. Marx and Stanton turned to government force to end what they saw as the tyranny of men leading families. Christians usually use the word"headship" instead of patriarchy. Satan's ideology of socialism/feminism has been bought by the majority of the West. What seemed preposterous 140 years ago is now the guiding principles of practically everyone.

Now we must begin the marathon race of restoring men to be the head of their families. Stanton in 1848 wrote her goal of women getting the power of the vote and therefore the power to rule over men. She relentlessly pounded away in speech after speech and book after book that women were slaves under patriarchs. In one speech she said her revolution was the greatest"the world had ever seen, because it goes deep down to the very foundations of society."

"...A question of great magnitude presses on our consideration, whether man and woman are equal, joint heirs to all the richness and joy of earth and Heaven, or whether they were eternally ordained, one to be sovereign, the other slave....Here is a question with half the human family, and that the stronger half, on one side, who are in possession of the citadel, hold the key to the treasury and make the laws and public sentiment to suit their own purposes. Can this be made to change base without prolonged discussion, upheavings, heartburnings, violence and war? Will man yield what he considers to be his legitimate authority over woman with less struggle than have Popes and Kings their supposed rights over their subjects? No, no."

Socialists/feminists campaign against monarchy. They fight for horizontal, not vertical. Naturally this leads them to government instead of the church.

Stanton writes,"This is woman's transition period from slavery to freedom and all these social upheavings, before which the wisest and bravest stand appalled, are but necessary incidents in her progress to equality." They were stronger fighters than their opposition, especially women who were uncomfortable to fight against them because they were gentle and feminine.

Feminists are unfeminine. They are pushy and noisy. Stanton continues,"Conservatism cries out we are going to destroy the family. Timid reformers answer, the political equality of woman will not change it. They are both wrong. It will entirely revolutionize it. When woman is man's equal the marriage relation cannot stand on the basis it is today." When women got the vote it did change the marriage relation and now men are not the leaders. She goes on,"But this change will not destroy it .... We shall have the family, that great conservator of national strength and morals, after the present idea of man's headship is repudiated and woman set free."

When men are not the head of the family and democracy has been achieved then marriage will be lifted to it true height she says:"To establish a republican form of government and the right of individual judgment in the family [she loves individualism] must of necessity involve discussion, dissension, division, but the purer, higher, holier marriage will be evolved." The UC needs to fight this evil teaching. WFWP must denounce democracy in the family and women voting. Stanton fought for divorce to made easier and women to be independent financially to keep men from having any power over women. She taught Satan's lie that men should not be the sole provider. She wrote it is a"false theory" that has been in"the minds of the human family for ages that woman is born to be supported by man and to accept such circumstances as he chooses to accord to her. She, not like him, is not allowed to control her own circumstances. The pride of every man is that he is free to carve out his own destiny. A woman has no such pride."

When you get on this slippery slope of Satanic logic you always end with a denial of life and love. She criticizes her fellow Victorians for having large families calling it"a mere animal function that we share in common with the beasts of the field" that becomes"noble, healthy and happy" only if people stop just"adding numbers alone with but little regard for quality."

She and her comrades won the war of ideas and now True Parents have to fight against a culture that values small families. Voices like Mary Pride who teaches that big families are of God are tiny voices in the wilderness today.

Stanton predicts that when women get the vote and end patriarchy men and women will have"health and happiness" and"a joy and peace that passeth all understanding shall yet be ours and Paradise regained on earth [Communists, socialists, and feminists have a great idealistic dream]. When marriage results from a true union of intellect and spirit and when Mothers and Fathers give to their holy offices even that preparation of soul and body that the artist gives to the conception of his poem, statue or landscape, then will marriage, maternity and paternity acquire a new sacredness and dignity and a nobler type of manhood and womanhood will glorify the race!!"

Let's look at men and women who wrote words to counter the nightmare Stanton wrote of. Antisuffragists wrote many books and articles. One of my favorite is Feminism: Its Fallacies and Follies by Mr. and Mrs. John Martin. They give some good arguments against feminists and suffragists. They wrote the book in 1916 before women had the vote. He wrote the first half of the book; she wrote the second half. In her part she says that feminists have been like a child on a crying spell for 60 years and men should not give in to them:"Woman suffrage propaganda flourishes because it is the only remedy now being publicly offered as a cure for women's discontent. Because it does not comprehend the nature of her disease and refuses to admit what really ails her. Therefore it is a quick remedy, and will make her rather worse than better if she adopt it. It only tends to increase the force of that pressure which is driving her away from the home and which, when her trouble is correctly diagnosed, is itself the underlying cause of the distress."

"Nevertheless we who are opposed to votes for women, for reasons which seem to us wholly adequate, have most of us taken with regret the position of standing in the way of the gratification of their wishes -- no matter how childish they seem to us -- as expressed by so many women. There is no disguising the fact that it is our opposition alone, not that of our good-natured American men folk, which has prevented and will prevent suffrage from being given to women. Most mothers have found it expedient, however, when a child cries long and earnestly for something which, after all, cannot do it a great deal of harm, to grant its request. It seems the only way, for the moment to stop its crying, and the only way for it to learn how mistaken its desires were and how worthless their object. Therefore the writer would feel inclined to yield to the importunities of suffragists, who certainly have wailed piteously and kept up an unconscionable racket, for some sixty years or more -- a long crying spell for a child of any age -- were it not for the fact that to grant their plea means to work an even greater injustice upon other -- and in her judgement -- wiser, women who do not desire to vote."

She says women do not make things better when they enter the business world:"Suffragists assure us that their very presence in man's savage and barbarous world would soften and civilize it. Yet women have entered business by the thousands; have they altered business by their influence? They have entered journalism in shoals; have they effected any change in newspaper methods? Is the press any the less vulgar, less sensational, less prying, less scrupulous, for her presence in the editorial office? The press is susceptible to pressure, but it must come from the box office, from the advertiser, from the reader. Woman in the home, as reader, as buyer, as wife of an advertiser can affect journalism; as employee of the press she has no influence."


Volunteer instead of voting


She says women should put their energy into volunteer work -- not politics:"Women who are burning to be useful may be reminded that there are, in New York City alone, over eight thousand civic and philanthropic organizations, all shouting for helpers; and they never ask whether one has a vote or not. Yet one meets women who seem to be positively yearning to take part in 'municipal housekeeping' -- whether they have made much of a success of their home housekeeping or not. The latter is so sordid! And, of course, there is nothing sordid in hiring street cleaners and garbage collectors or in superintending city dumps! Any work is inspiring if only it is not done at home! They would like to give the 'feminine touch' to city management."

One of the most famous women campaigning for women to get into government was Jane Addams, the founder of Chicago's Hull House, a community center for the poor. She crusaded for woman suffrage so women could influence legislation to solve domestic problems. She was also a pacifist and received the Nobel Peace Prize. In"The Modern City and the Municipal Franchise of Women" she wrote in 1910 that it was"going badly" in the cities and people there had"not yet learned to arrange its affairs satisfactorily. Unsanitary housing, poisonous sewage, contaminated water, infant mortality, the spread of contagion, adulterated food, impure milk, smoke-laden air, ill-ventilated factories, dangerous occupations, juvenile crime, unwholesome crowding, prostitution and drunkenness, are the enemies which the modern cities must face and overcome, would they survive." Government, she says, must solve these problems:"personal welfare is now being considered a legitimate object of government." People, she said, must"submit to a minute regulation of their affairs" because there is so much"selfishness" that must be"curbed" so they can develop"higher social feelings." Women need to get into government because"men of the city have been carelessly indifferent to much of the civic housekeeping, as they have always been indifferent to the details of the household." She says men are more concerned with"enemies" outside America and want to spend tax money on stupid things like"increasing the national navy" instead of dealing with the"details" of"health and welfare of young children" and men do not have"a responsibility for the cleanliness and comfort of other people." Women have always swept their homes and should now form a"Bureau of Street Cleaning." Women have always kept their homes"from the days of the cave dwellers...clean and wholesome" and should now create a"Bureau of Tenement House Inspection."

America went downhill fast when women got the vote because men listened to women and created our welfare state. Men became weak and women became disorderly. America became weak militarily because it was feminized. Many thousands of women knew how dangerous socialist/feminist/pacifists like Jane Addams were. They wrote books and articles against the relentless nagging and yelling of the suffragists. Finally men became exhausted fighting them and gave them the vote. New York State Representative Fiorello La Guardia in frustration told them:"I'm with you. I'm for it. I'll vote for it. Now don't bother me." Men gave in and bought the argument that they were unfit to be the final decision makers.

One of the most powerful arguments against the vote was that it would give women power that they should not have. That is the power to decide how government force is used. They shouldn't decide because they can not back it up by personally using force. Women are not to fight. Since the women got the vote they have gone down a slippery slope where they are now fighting wars. The Martins explain how women shouldn't have anything to do with force because they cannot back up their vote. By getting their foot in the door, they have thrown it open and lost all protection from men. They write,"At a time when half the world is at war (they are talking about WWI) and the truth is made plain that the governments of all nations rest upon force, and that no law is worth a scrap of paper more than the force of the gun behind it, woman suffragists propose that women shall encumber government with special laws, which they themselves could not enforce, and which men must, therefore, be prepared to die for if necessary. The male voter is committed to the task of backing up his vote with his fist and his gun in case it can be enforced in no other way. A woman's vote has no guaranty behind it and therefore she can never be a citizen in the same sense that a man is a citizen."

"As boys playing 'soldier,' with sticks for guns, the woman voter carries a gun that won't go off. She casts her ballot when and where men suffer her to do so. She can neither secure the ballot nor hold it without consent. She may rail at this as much as she likes; but such is the case, and nobody is to blame for it except Nature, which made her the weaker.It is true that not every man could enforce his vote; the cripple could not. But, after all, disabled men are a handful; while disabled women (physically) are the whole sex. Moreover, the man's disability may be temporary and he may one day recover his strength. But womanhood is an infirmity from which women rarely, if ever, wholly recover."

"Many women think that they want the vote because they do not quite know what voting is about. They don't realize that its object is to make laws. And laws, as every woman knows, are a nuisance. Who wants to be always making laws, always trying to rule and repress and regulate other people's affairs? What pleasure can there be in perpetually worrying your fellow-beings with more laws; have they not troubles enough already!"

This is a feminine woman. Betty Friedan is not feminine. Compare the two. Betty says we shouldn't have fought communism in Vietnam:"Women are closer to life, I think. If women were 50 percent of the United States Senate, we would not have continued the Vietnam War year after year .... Those kinds of changes will take time -- we're still electing women officials who are really imitation men -- but you will get a change in political behavior. Men will change, too, because they will have to share more and more of women's work, including the rearing of children. In the last analysis, women are going to be the ones answering the question: What is it worth to die?" And women don't want to die as readily as men will fight and die for freedom.

The anti-Suffragists were called Antis. They knew women should not get the vote because it would destroy the family and endanger America, especially the Bolshevists took control of Russia in 1917. They knew that socialism was wrong and that problems must be solved through local organizations. Maybe the vote was inevitable to give women self-esteem. It was the wrong way to do it though. The experiment of Prohibition was called The Noble Experiment. Like Prohibition, women voting, hurt everyone and made matters worse. America declined domestically until now we have an epidemic of AIDS and divorce. Our foreign affairs have been a disaster. We were asleep at Pearl Harbor. We won that war but a few years later as men became weaker, we lost half of Korea and as time past and men became totally feminized, we lost all of Vietnam.

Admiral Fiske was a prominent leader and writer in America. In a speech in 1925 he"upbraided the peacemakers. He said the effeminization of our country was responsible for the unpreparedness with which we entered World War I. He cited Germany, Russia and Japan as strong, virile nations over against England, France and the United States as effeminized. When asked how we could get virile again, he responded, 'Nothing can be done, or if it can I don't know what it is. No man respects and admires women more than I do, but some women have faults and the fault most commonly found is a seemingly insatiable desire to interfere in matters they do not understand. War they understand least and from it they instinctively recoil. There is danger in this situation. Women now have the vote and outnumber the men. There must be some action by the men which will bring women to realize that it is for their comfort and protection that all wars are fought. It is to the interest of women that they permit men to obtain the necessary armament. Only in this way can they be assured of the comfort and protection they need. In spite of themselves we must protect the ladies!"

Men did not teach the ladies. Richard Reeves wrote,"By the middle 1970's, after a history of relatively low interest, women began participating in politics -- talking and voting -- at the same levels as men. And since there were more women -- they live longer -- their political ideas were inevitably going to become more important than men's. They had become the majority in a country where the majority rules. Of course there could only be a majority if it was made up of people who disagreed about something with a minority. What American women and men disagreed about was militarism: they disagreed about going to war."

"Polls, surveys, and political scientists -- and years of plain conversation -- showed that, whatever the situation, women were more opposed to military action than men."

Gloria Steinem in the following quote shows how women were becoming more powerful and less understanding of power. She was young when the Korean War broke out. America had degenerated to the point it approached the war half-heartedly. America was stronger during the Korean War because women were not as influential to be pacifists in politics then. Steinem went along with the war. Later she would be a voice against Vietnam along with countless other women who had weakened America so much it totally lost that war. She said,"Women are more inclined to mistrust violence. We're not trained for it. And it's usually been used against us.... In high school, I remember the guys going off to the Korean War. Some of the girls cried, but there was a feeling it had to be done. Moreover, there was feeling it was the right thing to do. I don't think that's true anymore, for women or for men."

Jeanette Rankin was the first woman to serve in the U.S. Congress and the only member to vote against U.S. entry into both World War I and World War II. Rankin was defeated in 1919 due to her antiwar stand. She was reelected in 1941 but served only one term, again because of her antiwar views. She was the only person in Congress to vote against the United States entering WWII after Pearl Harbor. President John Kennedy said of Miss Rankin"She was a blind isolationist and an impractical pacifist who refused to recognize the harsh realities of world conflict and national security." When she cast her lone vote in not declaring war on Japan the top leaders of both parties went to her on the floor of Congress and tried to explain to her how important it would be if there was a unanimous vote and to have total unity in going to war. She refused.

The Anti-suffragists often wrote of how illogical and dangerous women would be when they got into the public realm. Miss Rankin is one of the most dramatic examples showing that women have no place in government. The following quote is representative of the argument of those wonderful ladies who fought against the feminist campaign for the vote. It is from a magazine that is now out of print. It was written by Ella Winston in 1896. She said in her article"Foibles of the New Woman":"When woman revolts against her normal functions and sphere of action, desiring instead to usurp man's prerogatives, she entails upon herself the inevitable penalty of such irregular conduct, and, while losing the womanliness for which she apparently scorns, fails to attain the manliness for which she strives. But, unmindful of the frowns of her observers, she is unto herself a perpetual delight, calling herself and her kind by the new epithets 'new,' 'awakened.' and 'superior,' and speaking disdainfully of women who differ from her in what, to her judgment, is the all-important question of lifeC'Shall women vote or not?' To enumerate her foibles is a dangerous task, for what she asserts today she will deny tomorrow. She is a stranger to logic, and when consistency was given to mortals the New Woman was conspicuously absent. Her egotism is boundless. She boasts that she has discovered herself, and says it is the greatest discovery of the century." This is a perfect description of feminists like Jeanette Rankin.

Mrs. Winston goes on to say that women had for the"past forty years" been"demanding of man" and"he has graciously granted her" those things."She wanted equality with him, and it has been given to her in all things for which she is fitted and which will not lower the high standard of womanhood that he desires for her. This she accepts without relinquishing any of the chivalrous attentions which man always bestows upon her. The New Woman tells us that 'an ounce of justice is of more value to woman than a ton of chivalry.' But, when she obtains her 'ounce of justice,' she apparently still makes rigorous demands that her 'ton of chivalry" be not omitted." Women cannot expect to compete with men and be treated tenderly as ladies.

She says,"Woman asked to work by man's side on his level; and today she has the chance of so doing. The fields of knowledge and opportunity have been opened to her; and she still 'desires that of which her grandmother did not dream,' because, like an over-indulged child, so long as she is denied one privilege, that privilege she desires above all others. She has decided that without the ballot she can do nothing, for, in her vocabulary, ballot is synonymous with power." A house divided, falls. She goes on to explain how illogical women are. She says,"The New Woman is oftentimes the victim of strange hallucinations. She persists in calling herself a 'slave,' despite her high position and great opportunities." She says people are"weary" of the"constant" complaining of"would-be female politicians" who ignore their"privileges and the silent testimony of countless happy wives." Women she says are not to"make the laws, she trains and educates those who do, and thus is indirectly responsible for all legislation." This is a common theme in antifeminist literature a hundred years ago. Women are to be"indirect" and men"direct." Women are to be educators. The 20th century went to public schools because women got into government and changed the direction men were going. One of the problems in the 19th century was that men put women too high on a pedestal. They gave up too much power to women in educating their children and in church activities. Schools and the churches became feminized. Men gave up spiritual leadership. They incorrectly saw women as purer and more spiritual. They got too caught up in physical work. Hardenbrook gives the history of this sad development in his book, Missing From Action.

Sarah Hale was one of those ladies who wrote and influenced Americans that women were spiritually superior. She was wrong on this but she was right about the dangers of the feminist suffragists. She goes into the argument that suffragists are illogical in that they can't back up their vote by being a soldier and fighting for their vote. The New Woman, she says is inconsistent when she says,"She who bears soldiers need not bear arms." She says the so-called New Woman,"has not the aversion to being represented by men on the field of battle that she has to being represented by them in the legislative hall and at the ballot-box."

She goes into the argument that women are more powerful in the home than in politics. If she leaves it the home will collapse and things will get worse. She explains how ridiculous it is for women to fight for prohibition laws saying,"When we read of women assembling together, parading streets, and entering saloons to create, as they say, 'a public sentiment for temperance,' it is but natural to ask, What are the children of such mothers doing in the meantime? And it will not be strange if many of them become drunkards for the coming generation of reformers to struggle with. The New Woman refuses to believe that duty, like charity, begins at home, and cannot see that the most effectual way to keep clean is not to allow dirt to accumulate."

She goes into the argument that women will purify the world if they are politicians. She says it is woman's duty to raise boys to be good men, not compete with men. She says,"It was the New Woman's earliest, and is her latest, foible that woman is superior to man. Perhaps she is. But the question is not one of superiority or inferiority. There is at bottom of all this talk about women nature's inexorable law. Man is man and woman is woman. That was the order of creation and it must so remain. It is idle to compare the sexes in similar things. It is a question of difference, and the 'happiness and perfection of both depend on each asking and receiving from the other what the other only can give."


AFor woman is not undevelopt man,

But diverse: could we make her as the man,

Sweet Love were slain: his dearest bond is this,

Not like to like, but like in difference."


"Sentimental and slavish as this may sound to many ears, it is as true as any of the unchanging laws governing the universe, and is the Creator's design for the reproduction and maintenance of the race." What a great lady this is. The women of the UC should follow in her footsteps and fight feminism. This book is about"unchanging laws" -- of "the Creator's design."

One man, Henry Wood, gave a speech to anti-suffragists meeting in 1918 during WWI saying,"this was no time to unman the Government by this foolhardy jeopardizing of the rights of both sexes .... one wonders at the spectacle of strong, masculine personalities urging at such an hour the demasculinization of Government ... that this from now on is a man's job -- the job of the fighting, the dominating, not the denatured, the womanlike man." He said,"the woman suffrage movement was hopelessly given over to pacifism in its extreme socialistic form." In closing he said that"for any sentimental or political reason it is a damnable thing that we should weaken ourselves by bringing into the war the woman, who has never been permitted in the war tents of any strong, virile dominating nation."

One of the main arguments against women getting the power of the vote was that it would destroy the home. Traditionally the man represented the family. The family had one voice. With the vote, the family would have two different voices. One Brooklyn antisuffrage group in 1894 wrote,"the household, not the individual is the unit of the State, and the vast majority of women are represented by household suffrage." They correctly saw that there would be an escalation of the war between the sexes that one book said"would rip the family in half. Pointing to the higher divorce rate, for example, Alice J. George warned that 'Woman Suffrage Is The Last Straw In Many A Family.' And without the family, American society would crumble .... Fundamentally, then, the antis were defending the spheres assigned to each gender."

Francis Parkman was a leading historian in his day who is best known for his book The Oregon Trail. In"The Woman Question," (North American Review, October, 1879) he wrote,"High Civilization, ancient or modern, has hitherto rested on the family. The family, and not the individual, has been the political unit, and the head of the family, in esse or in posse, actual or prospective, has been the political representative of the rest. To give the suffrage to women would be to reject the principle that has thus far formed the basis of civilized government."

In American Journey Richard Reeves writes,"Howard Phillips, a former federal official, was the national director of a lobbying group called the Conservative Caucus. In a speech to a 'Pro-Family' conference of California Citizens for a Biblical Majority in June of 1980, he said: 'The family is increasingly being eliminated as the basic unit of self-government in America and being replaced by state control over the individual .... In the eighteen-hundreds, legislation was enacted which freed the wife of economic dependence on the husband. [Women] were given property rights .... We saw how women were liberated from the leadership of their husbands politically ... we had one family, one vote. And we have seen the trend toward one person, one vote. And the ultimate extension of this philosophy has been the sexual liberation of the woman from the husband as our government and as our established elites in America have condoned adultery, promiscuity and other forms of immoral behavior which undermine the family....'"

One of the most distributed magazines of the Antis was The Woman Patriot. Even after 1920 it continued for years to fight as it said in its masthead,"against Feminism and Socialism." In one issue it said,"The suffragists are bringing us to the culmination of a decadence which has been steadily indicated by race suicide [low birth rate], divorce, breakup of the home, and federalism, all of which conditions are found chiefly in primitive society." They were right. America's birthrate plummeted and divorce skyrocketed. One woman liberal writer of today said this about the efforts of the Antis,"How do you explain this hostility? The tempting answer is privilege and paranoia -- a defense of male power and a hysterical fear of change. But this quick answer does not help us understand exactly what the antis were afraid of nor, still more puzzling, why so many women opposed their own enfranchisement. If we listen to what the antis said, we can hear beneath the furious, sensationalistic, often silly rhetoric a profound fear of social disorder." Now women have"hysterical fear" of patriarchy. Everything has been completely turned around. Today we have women like Gloria Steinem who says,"We don't just want to destroy capitalism, we want to tear down the whole f.....g patriarchy."

Men lost their patriarchy when they gave the vote to women in 1920. The nation should not have rejoiced over that. The Kansas City Star proclaimed,"The victory is not a victory for women alone, it is a victory for democracy and the principle of equality upon which the nation was founded." The Democratic candidate for President, James Cox said,"The civilization of the world is saved."


1920 was turning point


The 1920s were the turning point in history. The messiah was on earth and Satan worked feverishly to make people weak and disorderly. He did everything he could to make it hard for the messiah. He gave the world his values -- anti-patriarchy and anti-capitalism. He made women lose their femininity by taking away their role of mother. He made women have fewer children. He made their clothes skimpy. He enticed them to rebel and go into the workplace and to vote. One book said it this way:"There were many kinds of American deaths during the First World War -- not only 115,000 doughboys, not only the Wilsonian illusions of worldwide capitalist democracy, but also the Victorian concepts of manliness and womanliness. The men who returned home found themselves in a bewilderingly new culture. Amid the raucous beat of the Jazz Age, the flapper danced and drank and smoked, talked bluntly of sex and often did something about it, demanded the right to a home and a career. In short, she was saying that she was as good (or as bad) as any man."

"The flapper brought with her a sudden shift of cultural generations. Older feminists regarded her as a traitor to their ideals of equality. And men responded with discomfort or dismay. They still understood their role in old-fashioned manly terms -- as patriarch of the breakfast table, as breadwinner in the marketplace, as roughrider on the range."

"These notions were becoming daydreams, however. An increasingly liberated younger generation of middle-class women was over-turning the Victorian code of 'purity.' An increasingly urbanized, bureaucratized society was rendering patriarchy into a masculine mystique. In the history of American sex roles, the 1920s marked the beginning of modernity."

There began an increase in divorce and a drastic decline in the birthrate. One book said,"The American family was in crisis. Social scientists were persuasively documenting the situation, and then, in 1903, the president of the United States himself gave a name to it. With his talent for the pungent phrase, Theodore Roosevelt announced that Americans were committing 'race suicide' ... If people read the divorce and birth rates as evidence that the home was tending toward collapse, how did they explain the peril?" There was a"theme" to who to blame,"they blamed the women. According to the New York Times, for example, nine-tenths of New York mothers had undermined their household systems by buying ready-made food at delicatessens. Others blamed the wives decisions to take jobs outside the home. Ida Tarbell, herself a famous journalist, rebuked those of her sex who perverted their feminine qualities by doing the business of men. Professor Ward Hutchinson told the American Academy of Medicine that the employed woman 'commits a biologic crime against herself and the community .... Any nation that works its women is damned and belongs at heart to the Huron-Iroquois confederacy.'"

Later this book says,"'A race is worthless and contemptible,' said Theodore Roosevelt, 'if its men cease to be willing and able to work hard and, at need, to fight hard, and if its women cease to breed freely.' He was echoing the truisms of three Victorians generations before him. Social progress began at home, the warm greenhouse lovingly tended by a woman. When the last Victorian generation, born in the 1850s and 1860s, discovered rising divorce rates and declining birthrates, it saw the ethical order being undermined. And it blamed women, at least certain women."

In 1895 William Croswell Doane wrote in The American Review,"The slavery of American women exists only in the warped imaginations and heated rhetoric of a few people, who have screamed themselves hoarse upon platforms or written themselves into a rage in newspapers. There is no freer human being on earth to-day, thank God, than the American woman. She has freedom of person, of property, and of profession, absolute and entire. She has all liberty that is not license."

A man wrote at the turn of the century:"President Roosevelt, in his address before the Mothers' Meeting in Washington in 1905, said: 'The primary duty of the husband is to be the home-maker, the breadwinner for his wife and children (and, may I add, to be her protector from violence); the primary duty of the woman is to be the helpmeet, the housewife and mother.' In these words Mr. Roosevelt has gone to the heart of the woman question. The call to woman to leave her duty to take up man's duties is an impossible call. The call on man to impose on woman his duty, in addition to hers, is an unjust call. Fathers, husbands, brothers, speaking for the silent woman, I claim for them the right to be exempt in the future from the burden from which they have been exempt in the past. Mothers, wives, sisters, I urge you not to allow yourselves to be enticed into assuming functions for which you have no inclination, by appeals to your spirit of self-sacrifice. Woman's instinct is the star that guides her to her divinely appointed life, and it guides to the manger where an infant is laid."

In Feminism: Its Fallacies and Follies John Martin writes,"The woman's movement is a movement towards progressive national degeneration and ultimate national suicide. Already the evidence is conclusive that the effects of Feminism upon the inalienable function and immemorial duty of woman -- the bearing of children -- are so appalling as to threaten the perpetuation of the best part of the nation. The one duty to society which women alone can discharge is the bearing of children."

"The 'devouring ego in the 'new woman,' warned Anna Rogers in the Atlantic Monthly, has created 'the latter-day cult of individualism; the worship of the brazen calf of Self.' Instead of acknowledging that 'marriage is her work in the world,' she has tried to enter the masculine realm with ambitions for education, careers, and other public activity. 'Apparently her whole energy is to-day bent upon dethroning herself.' A woman who would leave the pedestal 'has the germ of divorce in her veins at the outset.' Mrs. Rogers gave ferocious articulation to the thoughts that hovered in the cultural atmosphere of 1907. According to one report, 'no magazine article for a long time has been so widely exploited and discussed.' The 'new woman' was the enemy of marriage, the home, and therefore civilization. Indeed, outside her feminine sphere, how much of a woman was she? 'That is the Woman Question in a sentence,' said Lyman Abbot. 'Does she wish to be a woman or a modified man?"

"Advocates of the traditional female role in the early twentieth century" did their best to"drown out the siren call of the new woman." Of course the siren was Satan. All historians say that the 1920s were a major turning point. Because we know the Principle we can understand God's view and the forces behind history. When the UC teaches the parallels of history it should explain how Satan worked to destroy the family and society with anti-patriarchy and anti-capitalism. Patriarchy and capitalism go together like a horse and carriage. Anti-patriarchs are always socialists who hate capitalism. Socialists want to destroy the men leading in society as well as the home.

Over a million American men have died in wars. Millions more men have fought and died for freedom around the world. Women have suffered as their men went to fight. At the horror of Valley Forge when thousands of men were dying in agony that winter they would receive letters from their wives asking them to come home and help them. One of the most powerful words I have ever read was in a book called George Washington and the American Revolution. In the chapter describing the agonizing death thousands of men were facing while others were suffering from frostbite and disease at Valley Forge we read,"As one officer was to report, he was handed letters every day by veterans who stood with tears in their eyes as he read the pathetic pleas of their wives: 'am without bread, and cannot get any, the committee will not supply me, my children will starve, or if they do not, they must freeze, we have no wood, neither can we get any. Pray come home." Women have suffered as well as men in human history. But women must not be in control because they are too pacifist. Father teaches women to be strong and able to make it without their man if he has to go off and fight. If this happens then women must band together as trinities instead of trying to do it alone.

Age of Rebellion

 Beverly LaHaye wrote in her book The Desires of a Woman's Heart:"Because of the character education promoted in books, women's magazines, and the popular McGuffey's Reader, America's crime rate actually declined for a whole century. Only during the 1920s -- an age of rebellion -- did the crime rate begin to rise again. Women of the nineteenth century had a tremendous civilizing effect on their society."

She also wrote,"Feminist philosophy is dangerous not merely because their suggestions ultimately would cause harm to women, but because the motivation behind the movement is clearly rebellion. In their desire to be equal or superior to men, feminists reject God's plan for male leadership in the home and in the church. This rejection is regrettable in the secular world and even more unthinkable in the Christian church, where it has begun to take root."

Elizabeth Elliot wrote,"Adam and Eve made a mess of things when they reversed roles. She took the initiative, offered him the forbidden fruit, and he, instead of standing as her protector, responded and sinned along with her. It's been chaos ever since. No wonder that the further we move from the original order the more confused we become."

One book said this about the argument the Antis had over women taking the power from men:"...if politics were taken away, little would remain. Man's power to rule was what evened the balance between the sexes. Without it, man would be shorn of his manhood and the balance between the sexes destroyed. 'What woman wants a man whose power of law-giving is no more than equal to her own?' She has her great gift from God to serve as mother of men, 'the exemplar and expounder of all noble, moral and spiritual gifts.' His birthright is equally inalienable. If he robs himself of it, 'what would become of that mutual homage and respect which is the natural bond between the sexes? No, let him keep for himself something by which we may still reverence him, the horns of Moses, his manly power of law-giving!"

"The Antis, like the suffragists, did not really question the basic patriarchal norms that expected the male to be provider, authority, stoic, protector, or lawmaker. On the other hand, since the Antis' view all of these roles depended primarily on the male's greater physical strength, and since they believed that governments operated by rule of force, the question of how man could harness this brute force and yet not lose his manhood was crucial. By employing it to enforce the dictates of a civilized state, man's brute strength was transmuted into a special social virtue. Man the animal became man the governor."

"According to the Antis' formula, not only was government the rule of force (and therefore man's work), but political life, in which the business of government was carried out, was 'modified war.' The attention they lavished on depicting the horrors of political life is understandable given their belief that suffrage meant more than voting. It meant entering the field of politics .... One step will lead to another, they predicted, 'first suffrage, then office, one barrier after another disappearing and then promiscuous commingling,' until both sexes are debased." The slippery slope of the vote has plunged men and women to a lot of"commingling."

Elihu Root was one of the most famous men in America at the turn of the century. He held such positions as Secretary of State, Secretary of War and U.S. Senator from New York. The clarity and masculinity of him stands in contrast to the Secretaries of Defense we have had lately that approve of women being fighter pilots. In 1915 he wrote to Alice Chittenden, president of the New York State Anti-Suffrage Association:"Suffrage, if it means anything, means entering upon the field of political life, and politics is modified war. In politics there is struggle, strife, contention, bitterness, heart-burning, excitement, agitation, everything which is adverse to the true character of woman. Woman rules today by the sweet and noble influences of her character. Put woman into the arena of conflict and she abandons these great weapons which control the world, and she takes into her hands, feeble and nerveless for strife, weapons with which she is unfamiliar and which she is unable to wield. Woman in strife becomes hard, harsh, unlovable, repulsive; as far removed from that gentle creature to whom we all owe allegiance and to whom we confess submission, as the heaven is removed from the earth.' In closing, Root affirmed that the functions of men were by no means superior to those of women. What he was expressing was simply a variation of the theme that 'the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world."

He said,"The true government is in the family. The true throne is in the household. The highest exercise of power is that which forms the conscience, influences the will, controls the impulses of men, and there today woman is supreme and woman rules the world."

The universal thinking that women voting is wonderful and that we have progressed is equal to the belief that the earth is flat and that doctors don't need to wash their hands before surgery. To challenge the view that women can lead men make one seem as crazy and dangerous as someone who used to say the earth is round and invisible germs exist. The women who fought against the suffragists, the Antis or Anti-suffragists or Anti-feminists as they were called, started out living in an atmosphere where the idea that women would rule over men was like saying the earth is flat. But as the suffragist/feminists kept pounding out their lie, people began to listen to Satan's lie and eventually it was all turned around. It took 70 years. Now after 70 years we have crude women like Gloria Steinem and macho women like UC sisters selling alone in bars on Saturday nights. America has hit rock bottom. No idealistic suffragist would believe it if she had been told that the result of her campaign would be women cops out alone with men cops and getting shot.

Look at some of the titles of books and articles by these precious men and women against voting and see how accurate they were in seeing how evil the feminists are and the terrible consequences that would come if America gave women the vote:"Woman Suffrage Would Unsex Women" by Charlotte Perkins Gilman;"Woman Suffrage Would Increase Divorce" by George Gilman;"Indirect Influence is Enough" by Beatrice Hale;"Women are Different from Men" by Harriet Laidlaw;"Women Would Take the Offices from the Men" by Fola La Follette;"It Would Make Woman Less Attractive" by Hutchins Hapgood;"Woman's Place Is In the Home" by Inez Milholland;"Women Are Already Overburdened" by Sadie American;"The Ballot Means the Bullet" by Haynes Gillmore;"Woman Suffrage Would Increase Corruption" by Lincoln Steffens;"Women Cannot Defend Their Right to Vote" by Maud Nathan;"Woman Suffrage Unnatural and Inexpedient" by Octavius Frothingham;"Woman Suffrage a Menace to the Nation" by Helen Lewis; Woman's Profession as Mother and Educator by Catherine Beecher; Women's Suffrage: The Reform Against Nature by Horace Bushnell;"Women Competing With Men," in Woman Patriot magazine May 31, 1919.

Here are some titles showing their insight that feminist suffragists were also socialists and naive to communism: Socialism, Feminism and Suffragism, the Terrible Triplets, Connected by the Same Umbilical Cord, and Fed from the Same Nursing Bottle by B.V. Hubbard;"Suffrage and Socialism" by Margaret Robinson;"For Home and National Defense Against Woman Suffrage, Feminism and Socialism" by Alice Wadsworth in Woman Patriot (April 27, 1918);"Shall Bolshevist-Feminists Secretly Govern America?" Woman Patriot magazine. These are just a few of the thousands of books and articles during 70 years of intense debate. An editorial in The New York Times (February 7, 1915) (it was conservative then. Now Father has to build a conservative voice against the feminized big papers in America) said, "The grant of suffrage to women is repugnant to instincts that strike their roots deep in the order of nature. It runs counter to human reason, it flouts the teachings of experience and the admonitions of common sense." Even Queen Victoria herself criticized the suffragists for unsexing women: "The Queen is most anxious to enlist everyone to join in checking this mad wicked folly of Women's Rights with all its attendant horrors .... Women would become the most hateful, heartless and disgusting of human beings were she allowed to unsex herself; and where would be the protection which man was intended to give the weaker sex?"

Queen Victoria was right. Women have got the vote and now we have"disgusting" women like Gloria Steinem and Pat Schroeder pushing women into war where they are raped by their fellow male soldiers and by the enemy. The Antis knew women's lives would get worse if they got the vote and took power into their hands. They knew that America would be in danger because women can't see long range and would make mistakes in judging how to use power. They knew women are too timid and would resort to pacifism instead of fighting evil.

Chesterton said women should not bloody her hands. This reminds me of the scene in Macbeth where Lady Macbeth calls upon the spirits to"unsex" her so she can commit murder. Chesterton wrote in one essay: "Two things are quite clear about the vote. First that it is entirely concerned with government; that is with coercion. Second, it is entirely concerned with .... public quarrel .... to desire a vote means to desire the power of coercing others; the power of using a policeman .... That woman should ask for a vote is not feminism; it is masculism in its last and most insolent triumph."

He says that government is not as important as family: "The two or three most important things in the world have always been managed without law or government; because they have been managed by women. Can anyone tell me two things more vital to the race than these; what man shall marry what woman, and what shall be the first [things] taught to their first child? Yet no one has ever been so mad as to suggest that either of these godlike and gigantic tasks should be conducted by law. They are matters of emotional management; of persuasion and disuasion; of discouraging a guest or encouraging a governess .... The old-fashioned woman really said this: 'What can be the use of all your politics and policemen? The moment you come to a really vital question you dare not use them. For a foolish marriage, or a bad education, for a broken heart or a spoilt child, for the things that really matter, your courts of justice can do nothing at all." Women, he says, should not use "legalist machinery" -- to "surrender to regimentation and legalism. Woman would be more herself if she refused to touch coercion altogether. That she may be the priestess of society it is necessary that her hands should be as bloodless as a priest's."

Chesterton predicted that women in government will make people focus too much on government, and he was right. Government is the focus of our society: "The immediate effect of the female suffrage movement will be to make politics much too important; to exaggerate them out of all proportion to the rest of life." He says men made government seem so great that women are now interested in it: "We males permitted ourselves exaggerated fusses and formalities about the art of government...The Suffragettes are victims of male exaggeration, but not of male cunning. We did tell women that the vote was of frightful importance; but we never supposed that any woman would believe it."

Mona Charen vs. Ellen Goodman

 Mona Charen is Abel; Ellen Goodman is Cain. Mrs. Charen wrote about her frustation that women, even many Republican women, were bowled over by Clinton and saw him as more attractive instead of putting their thinking cap on and seeing that conservatives are right and liberals are wrong. She wrote: 'We never should have given the women the vote,' grumbled a well-known conservative at a recent Washington D.C. gathering. The pundit was joking-- but the persistent gender gap in polling has led many conservatives to despair about what they perceive as soft-headedness on the part of American women." She goes on to say she is the person "who lamented giving women the vote. I've been frustrated by their credulousness regarding the president and willingness to believe that something with a nice name -- like the Violence Against Women Act -- is necessarily a nice law." She says women need to be educated. This is exactly what the anti-suffragists knew would happen if women got the vote. They would weaken America. Mona Charen says she's joking about women not understanding government. I'm not. With rare exceptions, like Mona Charen, women don't understand government force. The real violence against women act was the 19th amendment that gave women the vote and ushered in a century that has brought more violence to women than any before.

The liberal feminist columnist, Ellen Goodman, wrote an article praising those women who fought for the vote. She said they were "a small band assembled in Seneca Falls, N.Y., in 1848" who wrote their goal down on paper saying "that it was the duty of women to secure to themselves their sacred right to the elective franchise." They worked tirelessly for seventy years and won. Goodman writes that they never stopped even though they were ridiculed. The Washington Post said in its 1906 obituary of Susan B. Anthony that she was "a leader of that circle of masculine womanhood that clamored for 'woman's rights'..." Doesn't that say it best? Masculine women nagging. Isn't Father saying the same thing?

Goodman goes on saying, "If women voted, it was said, they would lose their femininity, the home would fall apart, children would be neglected. 'Woman,' wrote one newspaper, 'should not unsex herself by dabbling in the filthy pool of politics.'" Goodman sees progress; I don't. I see women cops and children on drugs. After the 1996 election, Ellen Goodman wrote of how women were the deciding factor in getting Clinton reelected. She says,"Much was made of the 'feminizing' of this campaign .... the Republicans based their campaign on anti-government, anti-taxes .... Democrats made a much more concerted and successful attempt to speak the female language."

The exit polls showed that this was the"first time in American history that men alone would have elected a different candidate than women alone. Men chose Dole 44 percent to 43 percent, while women chose Clinton 54 percent to 37 percent."

This is precisely the doom that the anti-suffragists of the 19th century predicted for our forefathers if they let women get the vote." I see that their prediction came true and there is"doom" ; Ellen sees an improvement. The Messiah spends a billion dollars to help the conservatives and American are more powerful and vote liberal.

One current book against the Antis said,"...beginning with the start of World War I in Europe and continuing through America's years of participation some opponents of suffrage engaged in smear campaigns. The most common charge during the war years was that [the suffragists] were somehow pro-socialist (after 1917, pro-Bolshevik)." It wasn't a smear campaign; it was campaign for God. Suffragists efforts whether they intended it or not brought socialism and helped the Bolsheviks. The author continues:"Mrs. James Wadsworth, the leader of antisuffragist forces in the last years of their fight to halt women's enfranchisement, painted the suffrage movement as a dangerous and un-American outbreak intimately connected with 'socialism,' and other aspects of radicalism. Antisuffrage publications, including Woman's Protest and Woman Patriot made the same point and identified suffragists as 'pacifists and socialists.' Other critics underlined the theme: 'If the Kaiser can get the pacifists, socialists, and suffragists to weaken America ... the cause of America ... will be lost.'" America did become weak. The suffragists castrated the men of America. As women became more powerful, the men became weaker. Mrs. Wadsworth was right in saying that socialism/feminism is"dangerous" and"un-American." She loved America and knew that our freedoms and the safety of women and children come from strong men fighting and dying for those freedoms. Women getting the vote would emasculate men and therefore endanger women and children and America. Are women and children safer today than in Mrs. Wadsworth time before the vote? Do you think if only men were in Congress during the second World War that we would have watched Hitler bomb London and invade Poland and do nothing? Do you think that we would have lost North Korea? Do you think that we would have lost Vietnam? Do you think it would still be unsafe to walk the streets at night?

Below are two pictures of ladies on the Abel side. The first is Alice Wadsworth. The second is Mrs. Dodge.

The leading suffragist countering Mrs. Dodge and Mrs. Wadsworth was Alice Paul. She never married, like Susan B. Anthony and today's Gloria Steinem. She said women need "a place of equal responsibility and equal power with men of the nation." She was a militant who went dragging and kicking as police would take her to jail for her demonstrations.

Wadsworth said the anti-suffragists were warriors in a battle against the "two great enemies of our civilization -- Feminism and Socialism." Women's Federation should praise these women instead of Eleanor Roosevelt. Both Dodge and Wadsworth were active in volunteer organizations. Wadsworth took over Dodge's position and held it until the vote came in 1920. As its new leader, one of the first things she did was revamp the anti-suffrage monthly Woman's Protest into a weekly, named Woman Patriot. On its masthead she broadcast their creed: "For Home and National Defense Against Woman Suffrage, Feminism and Socialism."

Suffragists accused the Antis of being idle, elitist, bridge-playing socialites who never left home. The Antis continually pointed out that they did not make a fetish of the home. They urged women to be volunteers. Mrs. Josephine Dodge was the first president of a national organization against the vote started in 1912. At one of their meetings she said, "We believe that women according to their leisure, opportunities, and experience should take part increasingly in civic and municipal affairs as they always have done in charitable, philanthropic and educational activities and we believe that this can best be done without the ballot by women, as a non-partisan body of disinterested workers." Another Anti said forcefully, "Do not mistake me. No woman should spend all her time at home. Public needs and social duties must be attended to."

After 1920 Antisuffragists continued to fight against feminism. They correctly denounced the labor movement, pacifists, socialists, and feminism. One liberal book said,"The Daughters of the American Revolution, which had metamorphosed into a superpatriotic and right-wing organization, also provided an outlet for former Antis interested in red-baiting feminists. One pamphlet distributed by the DAR decried the 'six objectives of Communism, Bolshevism, Socialism, Liberalism and Ultra Pacifism' as the abolition of government, patriotism, property rights, inheritance, religion, and family relations." Red-baiting? No. Just telling the truth. .

Satan won the 70 year battle to give women power over men. Father was born in 1920 with mankind sliding down the slippery slope of socialism/feminism for another 70 years. By the time he called for champions to help him everyone was brainwashed with Satan's lie. It is incredibly difficult for Father to deal with such spiritual cripples in today's society.


Stanton wrote down her goals


Elizabeth Cady Stanton ended her Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions at the Seneca Falls Convention with this paragraph:"In entering upon the great work before us, we anticipate no small amount of misconception, misrepresentation, and ridicule; but we shall use every instrumentality within our power to effect our object. We shall employ agents, circulate tracts, petition the State and National legislature, and endeavor to enlist the pulpit and the press in our behalf. We hope this Convention will be followed by a series of Conventions embracing every part of the country."

She worked tirelessly for the rest of her life to end patriarchy. The story of the suffragists is like the story of all communists, socialists, and liberals who turned the world from the path it was on in the 19th century to create the nightmare of the 20th. They loved government more than God. And they won a total victory. It took 70 years to get the vote and 70 more years to get a career congresswoman, Pat Schroeder, to get women to be fighter pilots, get shot down and be raped in the Gulf War with complete approval by a Republican President, his Secretary of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff and the American people. Will it take another 70 years to get women back in the home and into charity? If it does then I won't see it. But someday my descendents will.

Stanton wrote on a speech she gave in 1866 a note to her daughters saying:"I give this manuscript to my precious daughters, in the hope that they will finish the work I have begun." I give this book to my eight precious sons and daughters, in the hope they will finish the work I have begun to restore the traditional family that socialist/feminists have destroyed. Jesus said we have to carry a cross. Our cross is to teach the truth that used to be common sense and now is looked at as crazy. Stanton was a fighter. First Lady Hillary Clinton is a fighter. I pray the UC sisters will be greater fighters and still be feminine and finish the job anti-suffragists, such as Mrs. Wadsworth and Mrs. Dodge worked so hard for.

Stanton said these fighting words once:"We do not expect our path will be strewn with the flowers of popular applause, but over the thorns of bigotry and prejudice will be our way, and on our banners wll beat the dark storm-clouds of opposition from those who have entreched themselves behind the stormy bulwarks of custom and authority, and who have fortified their positions by every means, holy and unholy. But we will steadfastly abide the result. Unmoved we will bear it aloft. Undaunted we will unfurl it to the gale, for we know that the storm cannot rend it a shred, that the electric flash will but more clearly show to us the glorious words inscribed upon it, 'Equality of Rights.'"

This is one tough lady. She wrote her goals, made the committment and became a workaholic till she dropped of old age. So am I. In the end, my written goals in this book will happen because God is behind it and he isn't behind socialist/feminists such as Stanton.

She and her army of socialist/feminists crushed men and women with their false equality and false rights. Their ideology rules. Let's be more persevering than the enemy. Let's restore true equality and true responsibilities.

Mary Pride explains, "Each elder should be disciplining the men under his care into future elders. Each elder's wife and other qualified mature women should be doing the same with the women. Each set of parents should be training their own children. Everyone has the goal of becoming a leader 'qualified to teach others' (2 Timothy 2:2, Hebrew 5:12)."

"The church is set up to meet these goals. People are to be evangelized, then disciplined, which means trained until they are able to be trainers themselves. This is what the church is for. It is not an infirmary for permanent spiritual cripples, or a playground for permanent spiritual babies. We are not merely consumers (beyond our initial spiritual babyhood) but producers! We have a mission, each and every one of us!"

Mary Pride says it is tragic that many Christian missionaries "unwittingly set about destroying the tribal patriarchal patterns" in countries they went to "and substituting their own increasingly egalitarian and feminist model." American UC members should be respecting and teaching patriarchy in other nations too. It was wrong of General McArthur to give women the vote in Japan after World War II.

Mary Pride says a church should be, "a spiritual army." Instead it has "become a counseling center instead of a military base. We need to get organized -- not as some sort of cultist top-down pyramid, but as a grass-roots network of individual families empowered to do our job and held together by our churches."