Home by Choice

Brenda Hunter has a great book that goes into so many points on how devastating it is when women leave the home to work. She is a renowned psychologist who has appeared on radio, national television and before congressional staff. In Home by Choice she gives excellent scientific data and insights into the damage of day care for children, the terrible damage to women and the devastating effect on men. She writes that she appeared on "The Jenny Jones Show" with Faye Crosby, who chairs the psychology department at Smith College. Her book, Juggling, is a best seller that gives Crosby 's ideas of the advantages of women working on children, women and men. Hunter says, "whether she knows it or not, she makes a strong case against juggling by citing in her book all the losses men (and their wives) incur when women try to combine family life with paid employment... " She says, "Crosby says that men in traditional marriages can count on their wives' help as they climb the corporate ladder. Wives direct family life, care for the kids, and feed and help clothe their husbands. This leaves men free to pursue careers It is not surprising, says Crosby, that men in dual career families feel deprived when wives work outside the homes."

Men grieve

"Also, men lose their role as sole provider when wives work full-time. Men grieve, says Crosby, when this role is lost because being a good breadwinner is central to their self-concept. Men may see the entry of women into the marketplace as an indication that they have somehow failed in the provider role. Some men, as a consequence, grow to dislike their jobs. When a woman assumes or shares the provider role, Crosby says even the most liberated husband will feel a keen sense of loss."

Hunter goes on to say that when women bring home paychecks, "men lose authority." Crosby has "little sympathy" for men on this. But the result is that men increasingly get less strong and decisive. Finally, she says, "intimacy" is lost from the home. A woman, she says, is the "architect of intimacy," and when she works she is too stressed, tired and busy to really respond to her family as they need her. She says that "when emotional intimacy disappears in a marriage, it isn't long before sexual intimacy evaporates as well." She writes, "grown men, as well as little children, need someone at home to function as a 'secure base.' The wife and mother, it seems, is the architect of intimacy for her husband as well as her children. "

"The point of this brief examination of male vulnerability is to assert that sons and husbands need the women in their lives to nurture them, appreciate them, and express interest in their lives. As little boys or as high-powered executives, males suffer from neglect." TV evangelist James Robison says, AWomen have great strength, but they are strengths to help the man. A woman 's primary purpose in life and marriage is to help her husband succeed, to help him be all God wants him to be. "

Everything I write about in this book and everything the authors I like write about is challenged in other books. There is always a Cain/Abel split on issues. If you don 't like what I write you have many books to support whatever lifestyle you want. In the above we saw how Brenda Hunter differs from Faye Crosby. Crosby is a feminist liberal from Smith College. Other women from prestigious colleges write the same kind of nonsense as Crosby. For example, Rosalind Barnett and Caryl Rivers wrote She Work/He Works: How Two-Income Families are Happier, Healthier, and Better-Off. Both have long careers and written other books. Barnett is a scholar at Radcliffe College and Rivers is a professor at Boston University. Both say they have raised two children who are happy. Radcliffe mentions in her book that she is divorced. They deny everything I write in this book. To me it is like reading a criticism of the Principle saying how wrong it is that we believe Jesus is not coming back on the clouds. I find the opposition 's arguments ridiculous. They title their first chapter, "Ozzie and Harriet Are Dead. " They say, "The new American family is alive and well. Both partners are employed full time, and according to the latest research, the family they create is one in which all members are thriving: often happier, healthier, and more well-rounded than the family of the 1950s ....That 's the message of this new, myth-shattering study of such couples, funded by a 1 million-dollar grant form the National Institutes of Mental Health. Our study shows that the full-time-employed, dual-earner couple is a success .... The men and women are doing well, emotionally and physically, and the children are thriving. They go into how it is so much better than the 1950s and the Victorian era. One of the historians they love to quote is a fellow liberal feminist, Stephanie Coontz who wrote The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap. Insight Magazine did a Cain/Abel type article pitting her with David Popenoe, a even more distinguished writer than she is. Coontz is divorced and has one son.

The authors say that only 3% of families fit the traditional model and we will never go back. So those (like me) who write of the "fantasy " of the past are making people unnecessarily guilty and bringing on unhealthy thoughts of inadequacy and low-self esteem. This "new nostalgia " is basically coming from the Christian right that they despise because it is a terrible backlash to feminism. They paint a picture of the 1950s as one where fathers were distant and today they are close. The Victorian man was drugged out on opium, women in corsets, and men with VD from their mistresses. They say the nineteenth-century writer Henry James was wrong to say in his famous novel, The Bostonians: "The whole generation is womanized. The masculine tone is passing out of the world. It 's a feminine, nervous, hysterical, chattering, canting age.... "

"It was against this backdrop that Teddy Roosevelt 's hypermasculinity charged onto the world stage. It wasn 't secure manhood that the Rough Rider represented, but the anxiety of the time about what men were, or ought to be. "

"The Boy Scouts were founded in 1911 in large degree because of a worry about the 'feminization ' of young boys who spent their days in the female world of school. "

They quote studies showing that children do not get "maternal deprivation " when their kids are in day care. They are hurt that Hillary Clinton is "trashed " so much when she is such a wonderful role model. They say it is impossible for men to be the sole providers and even if they could it would be wrong because it would stop women from growing in the marketplace and stunt the spirit of men who need to change diapers and do dishes equal to the woman. They write, "We have to get rid of the idea that a man is what he earns, that a man who is not the sole breadwinner is somehow a failure as a man. That fiction dooms today 's and tomorrow 's men -- who will be part of the collaborative couple -- to high stress and poor emotional health. We have to allow men to get more of their self-esteem from their roles as fathers -- and also as members of the community. To tie men 's self-esteem totally to their jobs in a time of such great economic flux is dangerous. " They are scared of the traditional family and I am scared of them. They are dangerous to me. We are at war and there is no compromise. True Parents have a traditional and collaborative marriage. But it is not the kind of collaborative feminists dream of. I probably repeat myself too much, but once again I 'll say that the past was not perfect, but there are some major things we need to restore and in the restoration of the world the UC is pioneering, many of the values of the past are part of what we need in the Completed Testament Age.

Feminization of men

In a chapter titled "The Withering Away of the Family" in the Book The Recovery of Family Life, Elton and Pauline Trueblood write, "When we consider the human price of this increasingly accepted social patten of double earning, we usually stress the harmful effects upon children or the hardening of the mothers, but the effect upon the adult men may be quite as important in the long run. Once men took great pride in being able to provide for their families and resented any implication that a second pay check was needed, but now many men welcome whatever help the wife can give. What we are witnessing is a feminization of men, a psychological development independent of physical characteristics. In modern life a man often goes from dependence on one woman to dependence upon another. Thus the man is cheated of his basis of self-respect and the woman is cheated in that she never has the sense of security which a strong man gives. In this situation it is hard to know how much is cause and how much is effect; the wife has to earn because the man does not provide sufficiently, but his very failure to provide may come partly because of a social pattern which undermines his self-respect."

"We are sure of two things. First, those of us who do not face this economic and social problem must be very tender toward those who do, and, second, we must understand clearly the human harm which comes as the family withers away at important levels in our society. Only as we understand the loss will we have the incentive adequate to make us use our imagination to reverse the process of decay." He says women are trying "to perform the miracle of carrying on two full-time occupations at once."

I wish I could give all the arguments against "mixing" men and women in the marketplace. I don't have time to quote great passages from the Andelin's as they explain how dangerous it is for women to be working with high powered men and comparing them with their husbands. So much immorality happens when we put women with men. Children's personalities are hurt and sometimes they are abused in day care centers. (As well as abuse to seniors in old folk's homes). Socialists/feminists promise a utopia of equality but deliver an equality of suffering. Hollywood gives America its most vivid images. The movie 9 to 5 is a comedy about three women who kidnap their boss and run a company better than him. Jane Fonda, Dolly Parton and Lily Tomlin star. Images such as this castrate men and confuse women. The personal lives of these movie stars are a disaster because they believe in feminism. None of them have been successful at marriage. Except now for Jane Fonda who is playing the traditional wife to a billionaire third husband so she won't lose him. She cannot run his company better than him. There was a ridiculous TV show years ago where a woman was a single mother who, on the sly, risks her life being a spy, and all the time being a great mother at home. America is being brainwashed and doesn't even know it.

Kirche, Kuche, und Kinder

Feminists like to say how horrible "Kirche, Kuche, und Kinder" was. They are wrong. Church, Kitchen and Children are the "rigid" and wonderful roles for women.

Korean culture honors patriarchy

Korea has a better understanding of the roles of men and women. Russell Warren Howe's book The Koreans says "Husbands of the middle or upper class feel the most diminished if their wives take jobs. Korean men probably work harder than any people on earth. They come home late and expect to find the women waiting."

In Introducing Korea, the author Peter Kyung writes, "The primary function of Korean women is to serve their men. They do so by bringing up their children properly and by preparing excellent meals for their families, especially their husbands. It is often said that the happiness of a family depends on the quality of food served in the household. Like the French, the Koreans take food very seriously. Well fed husbands are known to be more considerate and affectionate toward wives than ill-fed ones."

Hillary vs. Tipper

It was an insult to millions of women when Hillary Clinton said, "I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was fulfill my profession." Perhaps if she had stayed home, her husband would have been less interested in other women. Feminists never see homemaking as a "profession." Tipper Gore, the Vice President's wife, gave up her career to help her husband. Hillary has one child; Tipper has four. Having high powered careers rule out children. Hillary could have adopted, but she focused on her career, and it has been a nightmare for her family. Mrs. Gore said in an interview, "If I had pursued a career we would have had two separate lives, and I don't even know that we would have stayed married,' she says slowly, shaking her head... She finds herself at odds with the feminist ideal, that marriage and children can and should be a strictly 50-50 undertaking. 'I used to subscribe to the feminist doctrine, but now I find it more difficult... I've dismissed a lot of it as unworkable,' she continues, referring to the myth that today's superwoman can go from a high-powered career to a PTA meeting without missing a step. 'It was making me unnecessarily miserable."

Many women have lost their husbands because they didn 't do as Tipper did and quit working and take care of their husbands. Terry Bradshaw, the great profootball quarterback, says he's proud of being what feminists call a male chauvinist. His first wife was a fanatic for her career in ice skating. His second wife stayed home and had a baby. He says his second wife is better. He says of his former wife, Jo Jo Starbuck, "My ex-wife seemed to be competing with me. All she wanted to do was just spend my money and hit the airwaves and skate in every town in the world and buy skating outfits. Hell, I never saw her. This gal, when I'm around, she makes me feel like a king."

I 'm not saying that women should never leave the home. They should not earn money but do volunteer work, preferably church work. Men should volunteer and help their community too. But we must first get our families in order. And if that means that the woman is too preoccupied with raising her children and can 't add volunteer work or if the man is scrambling to provide for his family and can 't do volunteer work then that should be respected. In this world just to keep up to the high standard of living an orderly life is difficult and to produce a good marriage and good children who are not a drain on society is a great accomplishment. God wants us to stretch and reach out to other people though. Being inspirational all day long is beyond what most of us can do. But if we see our life and this battle with Satan as a marathon run with high feelings and low feelings then we can better fight the good fight on a daily basis. How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. It is especially hard to live an inspirational life in a society that is upside down. The temptations are so great. Especially the temptation to just be lazy. Because we can 't see those 40,000 children who die every and nobody talks about it, it is easy to forget the pain of God who has to watch all this. But we must keep pumping ourselves to stretch and be nonconformist and fanatics for the mission to witness. Americans are obsessed with TV. Drive down a street at night and you 'll see the blue glow coming out the picture window. Unfortunately the image is Roseanne whining away. There are never shows about religious families. Or shows that teach us to forgive. It is easy to judge people instead of seeing how evil spirit world pushes people around. Years ago the TV shows were more wholesome but still they were secular and trivial.

Roseanne disparages "domestic goddess "

The 1950's Ozzie and Harriet, Father Knows Best, Leave It To Beaver, and The Donna Reed Show never had the wife with 12 children being helped by grandparents and spending time outside the home doing church work. The only series that had a large family and grandparents was the popular series The Waltons which was based on a real family. Even then the Father refused to attend church while the wife went. All Christian manuals of marriage teach that the wife should not go to church if the man doesn't and win him over with her serving spirit. I can't go into that argument now. You'll have to read their books to understand how a woman is to live with different types of men. Even though these shows were not perfect they were better than today's garbage on TV like Roseanne. In her autobiography she tells how she became a feminist after having spent time at her local feminist organization and realizing she was just "barefoot and pregnant ". She became a comedienne basing her humor on making fun of Helen Andelin's phrase "Domestic Goddess." Women today have no concept that they are to be supporters of their husbands -- to help him grow and succeed by using feminine means. Father says, "The wife should make her husband successful; that is to say that she should be his great supporter." Sisters think they have to be "strong." Their greatest strength and talents are developed in the home and church. Adding work, even part-time, can only weaken her. Chesterton said, "I do not deny, that women have been wronged and even tortured; but I doubt if they were ever tortured so much as they are tortured now by the absurd modern attempt to make them domestic empresses and competitive clerks at the same time."

Fatherless America

Because feminists teach the lie that women can interchange with men, men are using their natural aggressiveness in unhealthy ways. David Blankenhorn, in Fatherless America, says that this is America's number one problem. Blankenhorn says it is the cause of most of our problems, "from crime to adolescent pregnancy to child sexual abuse to domestic violence against women." He says that nobody understands this: "The most urgent domestic challenge facing the United States at the close of the twentieth century is the re-education of fatherhood as a vital role for men." I don't have the space to go into the reasons men are so out of it, but one of the major ones is that men are hurting because they are not the sole providers. His book is excellent in showing how our social problems are caused by the insanity of throwing out traditional values. He writes, "In sum, over the past two hundred years, fatherhood has lost, in full or in part, each of its four traditional roles: irreplaceable caregiver, moral educator, head of the family, and family breadwinner. As the historian Peter N. Stearns put it: 'An eighteenth-century father would not recognize the ... parental leadership granted to mothers or indeed the number of bad fathers.' Blankenhorn details how men have become unneeded. Feminism has destroyed the role of breadwinner and has therefore destroyed men. Gloria Steinem said it for all those who don't believe in the division of labor for men and women: "We are human beings first with minor differences from men that apply largely to the act of reproduction. The only functional difference between men and women is the woman's ability to give birth; therefore a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." This is the belief our culture holds for men and women. Interchangeable parts. More and more men are saying, "What's the use?" and checking out.

Blankenhorn is a powerful voice against the feminist's dream of taking the breadwinner role from men: "Does paternal breadwinning burden men? In some ways, of course, yes. A man who embraces the New Father philosophy of employment does indeed unburden himself. He frees himself up to make choices, perhaps to express more emotions, certainly to discover himself apart from externally defined 'roles.' Certainly there is much to commend in this aspiration. Freedom is good. Especially in America, freedom is hard to argue against. But in this case, let me try. "

"For in liberating fathers from the breadwinner role, the New Father model also seeks to liberate fathers from widely held norms of masculinity. At the same time, our elite cultural script notwithstanding, most men in our society simply do not wish to be liberated from their masculinity. This viewpoint is a key to understanding their unprogressive, lopsided commitment to the provider role. "

"Paternal attachment to breadwinning (and I would add, women as homemakers) is neither arbitrary nor anachronistic. Historically and currently, the breadwinner role matches quite well with core aspects of masculine identity. Especially compared to other parental activities, breadwinning, is objective, rule-oriented, and easily measurable. It is an instrumental, goal-driven activity in which success derives, at least in part, from aggression. Most important, the provider role permits men to serve their families through competition with other men. In this sense, the ideal of paternal breadwinning encultures male aggression by directing it toward a prosocial purpose. "

"For these reasons, the breadwinner role has always been, and remains, a basic cultural device for integrating masculinity into familism (does this word sound familiar?) -- the clearest, simplest means for men to act out their obligations to their children. Faced with these stubborn facts, our society can respond in one of two ways. We can, through the New Father model, continue to assault male breadwinning in a root-and-branch attempt to reinvent men and deconstruct traditional masculinity. Or we can endeavor, however imperfectly, to incorporate men as they are into family life, in part by giving them distinctive, gendered roles that reflect, rather than reject, inherited masculine norms -- such as, for example, the breadwinner. "

"The New Father model does not merely unburden men of breadwinning as a special obligation. Ultimately, it unburdens them of fatherhood itself. For, as the example of breadwinning demonstrates, the essence of the New Father model is a repudiation of gendered social roles. But fatherhood, by definition, is a gendered social role. To ungender fatherhood -- to deny males any gender-based role in family life -- is to deny fatherhood as a social activity. What remains may be New. But there is no more Father."

Stu Weber says at Promise Keeper rallies that most young criminals come from fatherless homes: "The root of all the wrongs? Failure in the highest office in the land: the dad. It's the greatest title you'll ever have, and the most powerful office."

Enormous burden of be the sole provider

Helen Andelin writes, "When you work, you rob your husband of his right to meet ordinary challenges, and to grow by these challenges. And, as you become capable, efficient, and independent, he feels less needed, and therefore less masculine. This weakens him. As you lift, he sets the bucket down. "

Helen Andelin teaches women how different men and women look at the world of business in a section titled "His Pressing Responsibility to Provide." She writes, "A woman needs to understand with an all-comprehending sympathy what a man faces in earning the living." She says Dr. Marie Robinson gives an excellent description in her book, The Power of Sexual Surrender: "For the majority of men, when they come of age and marry, take on an enormous burden which they may not lay down with any conscience this side of the grave. Quietly, and without histrionics, they put aside, in the name of love, most of their vaunted freedom and contract to take upon their shoulders full social and economic responsibility for their wives and children."

"As a woman, consider for a moment how you would feel if your child should be deprived of the good things of life; proper housing, clothing, education. Consider how you would feel if he should go hungry. Perhaps such ideas have occurred to you and have given you a bad turn momentarily. But they are passing thoughts: a woman does not give them much credence; they are not her direct responsibility; certainly she does not worry about them for long."

"But such thoughts, conscious or unconscious, are her husband's daily fare. He knows, and he takes the [worrying] thought to work with him each morning (and every morning) and to bed with him at night, that upon the success or failure of his efforts rests the happiness, health, indeed the very lives of his wife and children. In the ultimate he senses he alone must take full responsibility for them."

"I do not think it is possible to exaggerate how seriously men take this responsibility; how much they worry about it. Women, unless they are very close to their men, rarely know how heavily the burden weighs sometimes, for men talk about it very little. They do not want their loved ones to worry."

"Men have been shouldering the entire responsibility for their family group since earliest times. I often think, however, when I see the stresses and strains of today's marketplace, that civilized man has much harder going, psychologically speaking, than his primitive forefathers."

"In the first place, the competition creates a terrible strain on the individual male. This competition is not only for preferment and advancement, it is often for his very job itself. Every man knows that if he falters, lets up his ceaseless drive, he can and will be easily replaced."

"No level of employment is really free of this endless pressure. The executive must meet and exceed his last year's quota or the quota of his competitors. Those under him must see that he does it, and he scrutinizes their performance most severely, and therefore constantly."

"Professional men -- doctors, lawyers, professors -- are under no less pressure for the most part. If the lawyer is self-employed he must constantly seek new clients; if he works for an organization he must exert himself endlessly to avoid being superseded by ambitious peers or by pushing young particles just out of law school and fired with the raw energy of youth. A score of unhappy contingencies can ruin or seriously threaten a doctor's practice, not the least of which is a possible breakdown in his ability to practice. A teacher must work long hours on publishable projects outside his arduous teaching assignments if he is to advance or even hold his ground."

"There is no field of endeavor that a man may enter where he can count on complete economic safety; competition, the need for unremitting year-in, year-out performance is his life's lot. Over all this he knows, too, stands a separate specter upon which he can exert only the remotest control. It is the joblessness which may be caused by the cyclical depression and recessions that characterize our economy."

Helen then says, "Do women who work feel the same pressure men do? Women who work do not feel the same kind of pressure men do. This is because they have a different orientation to the world of work. Whereas a man feels he cannot turn aside from his work with a clear conscience, a woman doesn't feel this same sense of duty. She can resign her job at any time for any reason, without a feeling of guilt. Economic problems may result but she won't have a lower opinion of herself or feel disgraced in the eyes of the public."

"On the other hand, if an able-bodied man were to stop working it would injure his feeling of worth and his image to the public. He and everyone else would consider him a failure if he were to neglect this important duty. A woman feels pressure, but of a different kind -- a time pressure which comes from living a double role. A man feels a binding moral pressure."

Men look at work completely differently than women. Gilder says in Sexual Suicide that the feminist goal of having equal pay for equal work is "extremely difficult to apply." Employers value motivation and career ambition more than anything. And men are more innately motivated because it is their god-given responsibility. He writes, "To most men, success at work is virtually a matter of life and death, for it determines his sexual possibilities and affirms his identity as a male in a socially affirmative way. A business thus can control a man by paying him well and can almost irrevocably purchase his loyalty by paying him above the amount he can earn elsewhere. The business literally has him by the balls. For a female employee the sexual constitution of money is much less important. Her sexual prospects are little affected by how much she makes. Thus even if the woman is a very dependable employee, a payment to her does not usually purchase as great a commitment as does a payment to man." This is why women can take welfare and not suffer as much as men who take welfare. They are biologically and made by God to be more objective and to be provided for. The reason government has grown so big is because the twentieth century is feminized. If our culture was masculine centered instead of feminine centered, if it was centered on the subject instead of the object, then there would be very little government and much more religion.

Fascinating Womanhood 's many testimonies shows it works

Mrs. Andelin has many testimonies from women who wrote to her saying how their life has dramatically changed since reading and living the principles taught in Fascinating Womanhood. The following is one of the letters Helen quotes in her book. As you 're reading it, I hope it motivates you to read her book. I hope it motivates you to do something to get exciting and well-written books on the Principle on the best-seller list like Helen's has been. It's time for millions of Americans to read the truth and the UC can begin receiving letters telling how a book changed their life. A woman writes: "After nine years of marriage I felt I had a good marriage, exactly what was expected for a young successful couple. My husband and I had good jobs, two children, a house, a car, and the necessary ingredients for happiness. But we were not happy."

"The one main event I can pinpoint as a reason for our problems was when I received a promotion into upper management. I felt I owed my company more of my time; therefore, my job became my number one priority and my husband and family were pushed down the priority ladder. As the arguments between my husband and me increased, so did the tension level in our home. As we tried to talk things out my husband kept saying I had changed. I agreed that I had changed, but only into the ideal career woman and working mother."

"After coming home from a ten-day vacation with my husband things were no better between us. The mailman arrived with a flyer advertising Fascinating Womanhood. My mother had highly recommended it so I bought the book and read it. Up to now I thought I liked my job. After reading Fascinating Womanhood and mulling it over, I realized I really did not like my job. My boss pressured me in areas that were compromising my values and family life. After a lot of thought I asked my husband if I could quit my job to stay home and take care of him and the children. He said yes!"

"From that day forward my marriage has been wonderful, marvelous, unbelievable! The tension has left our home, since I'm not trying to be a liberated woman and make my husband do my domestic jobs. I'm not trying to put out fifty percent and wait for my husband's fifty percent to make my marriage successful. As the tension left, my husband and I talked without arguing. I found that my job threatened him as a provider, because I could have supported the children on my salary and he felt I did not need him anymore.

"Thanks to F.W. my life is going in the right direction. My husband is happy, the children are happy, and I am more content than ever before. I take pride in being a Domestic Goddess and look forward to following the teachings of F.W. to become my husband's ideal woman."

The massive numbers of women who have entered the workplace has hurt our economy, contrary to liberal thinking. Mrs. Andelin predicted the economy would get worse years ago. Every few years she updates and adds to her book. In her latest revised edition of Fascinating Womanhood she says, "The working wife has also upset the economy of our country so that now she feels locked into working. In 1975 I made a prediction on national TV. It was a time when women were crying for the choice to work outside the home. I addressed such women with this statement: 'If you don't stop crying for the choice to work, you will so upset the economy of this country that the time will come when you will not have a choice -- you will have to work.' That time has come. Employers have now lowered pay to fit a two-income family. In many cases a mother feels she must work. She seems to have no choice. She feels locked in." She titles her next section: "Solutions." I hope I've whetted a desire to read and reread her book.

Man 's work is number one

Wives should understand and teach their children to understand that a man fulfills his role by focusing on his work and public service. Women and children are to help him by creating a base camp for him to be refreshed as he pursues climbing mountains. Father's first wife did not understand this. Father constantly teaches women to let their husbands go. President Reagan's first wife should have stayed with him. Instead of being bored by his obsession with politics, she should have helped him. Men must be workaholics. They can't focus on their families. They have to focus on the world. The wife's job is to teach that to her children and other women as Titus 2:3-5 says. Women must find daily companionship in a trinity with other women. John Gray is wrong to think men should not give advice and become more feminine. Women need to humble themselves to men and do what they say. Gray is wrong to think men can become more feminine and fulfill their wife's needs. Only other women living together can do that. Helen Andelin teaches this in her book. I can't quote her whole book but here is a sample of the wisdom women need to learn from her: "Although a man may love his wife devotedly, it is not always possible or even right for him to make her Number One, and this is because of the nature of his life. A man's Number One responsibility is to provide the living for his family. Often his work and life away from home are so demanding that it must take priority over all else if he is to succeed. This often means that he must neglect his family .... In reality, he is putting his wife and family both Number One, but women often fail to interpret it this way."

"In addition to making the living, men have always shouldered the responsibility to make the world a better place. They have largely been the builders of society -- have solved world problems and developed new ideas for the benefit of all. This challenging role of public servant is not easy and also demands the man's attention away from his family."

"If you will examine the lives of these noble public servants, you will usually find a wife who was willing to put the man and his work Number One and be content to take a second place. President and Mrs. Dwight D. Eisenhower are a good example of this. Mrs. Eisenhower recalls that during the first two weeks of their 53-year-long marriage, her husband drew her aside one evening and said, 'Mamie, I have to tell you something...My country comes first and you second.' Mamie accepted this, and this is the way they lived. So, when you make a man Number One, you also make his work and outside responsibility Number One. But when the wife takes a second place to the man and his world, she loses nothing. The tender love he returns for her cooperation is more than a compensating reward."

"When a woman fails to fill the man's need to be Number One, when she puts her children, homemaking, career or other interests first, he can suffer a tremendous lack. This is often the very reason a man is driven to another woman. In fact, it is a very well known fact that men are seldom driven to a mistress because of sex passions. It is usually her ability to fill an emotional need, to make him feel appreciated and important in her life."

Edith Schaeffer

And there are few real mothers, too. Edith Schaeffer is one who built a world wide ministry from her home. In her books she teaches women to treasure the career in the home to build families as an "oasis" as she did with her home. In one place in her book What is a Family? she tries to explain her point by saying everyone is concerned with the environment. There are laws in nature, and when man disrupts them all hell can break loose. She gives examples of how devastating things became when people did simple things like introduce an animal or a plant to an area and change its whole ecostructure. She goes on to detail how devastating it is when women leave the home or how the environment blossoms when women do the right things in the home. She ends that section by saying, "A living, growing, changing real family is as thoroughly an ecological demonstration of what human beings thrive in as any 'experimental farm.' It is as noble a career as can be entered in the ecological field! Profession? 'Housewife.' No! 'Ecologist' -- in the most important area of conservation -- the family."

Man of Steel and Velvet

Aubrey Andelin writes in Man of Steel and Velvet: "Women are misled if they feel they will best achieve their duty to mankind by becoming a figure of renown in politics, science, and industry. Although they're capable enough, they can render no service of greater consequence than to establish an ideal home. Theirs is the prime opportunity to prevent and correct the great social evils in the place most of them start. There would be an absolute minimum of social problems if our homes were in order. Too much emphasis can't be given in reminding our girls and women of their vital role in the well-being of society. The shaping of the lives of children is of such magnitude and consequence as to be incomprehensible. These values are realized not only here but extend into eternity. "

"If men can 't solve problems of government and industry, if we must lean on women for these responsibilities, then we have failed as men. Half the population is male. There are plenty of men to produce the material necessities, but not enough women to be good mothers. "

The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world

Helen Andelin writes in her marriage manual for women, Fascinating Womanhood: "To be a successful mother is greater than to be a successful opera singer, writer, or artist. One is eternal greatness and the other a short-term honor. One day my young son said to me, 'Mother, boys are more important than girls, aren't they, for they can become presidents and generals and famous people.' I replied, 'But it is mothers who make presidents and generals and famous people. The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world.'"

"Every woman can make a worthy contribution to society through her children, but not every man can through his work. Some jobs are unimportant or even destructive. If women feel they must serve their country, the best way is in the home, making a success of family life. Calvin Coolidge, former U.S. president said, 'Look well to the hearthstone. Therein lies all hope for America. ' "

"The work in the home is a different kind of glory than career women enjoy. A great mother lives in obscurity, and the perfect wife is even less known. Her reward is a quiet, unacclaimed honor. Her glory is the esteem of her husband, the happiness of her children, and her overall success in the home."

I want to make it clear that I understand some women have to work. What I've written is in no way meant to be judgmental to them. My heart goes out to them. But even to them, I say focus, not on your career, but get a Godly man or men to take care of you. There are millions of single mothers and married women who have husbands who for a variety of reasons can 't work or won 't be the sole provider. They must focus their energy on finding a community to live in that has men who will provide for her. In chapter seven I explain how these communities should be organized. Women should not focus on careers or government welfare, but on building a God-centered community that has men who will provide, protect and lead all the women in the community. Kids need to have close contact with good role models of true men who live by the values taught in this book. Everyone needs a community, especially women who are vulnerable. It 's not a perfect world and there will be cases of some men and women committing adultery and abusing others, but it would be a minor problem if men and women did as I write and not associate alone with each other. The situation now in America is so bad that it is hard to express in words how tragic it is. Everyone needs to fundamentally change their view and stretch to not only get along with a mate but with others under one roof.

Until then, millions of women need to earn money and I think the best option is for women to build a home-based business if they can. Mary Pride says that a married woman might be able to incorporate a home-based business into a teaching exercise for children to learn about business.

Mrs. Pride is disgusted that Christians don't help women in need and then send them out to work: "feminism has infected even staunch conservatives. One of the most orthodox and caring Christian women I know, upon hearing that a friend of mine had been divorced by her husband, suggested that I baby-sit the friend's baby so she could get a job. No suggestion here of charity, of helping a mother stay home. Why should the church help her? It's the widow's or divorcee's job to pay her own way! Thus withers and dies Christian charity .... Feminism's ultimate goal is to have all wives work at all jobs."

Wife helping a husband

One of my most vivid memories is a show I saw when I was a boy in the 1950s. Loretta Young played a role of a wealthy woman. I don't remember every detail, but I remember the essence of this short little film. I wish it were on video to see. It's amazing to rent videos and watch some of the black and white Ozzie and Harriet shows that I saw as a boy. Loretta Young is traveling in a fancy convertible with her husband. She is wearing an expensive fashionable dress. Her hair is immaculate. She has make-up and looks fabulous. For some reason the man stops at a plain farm house because he needs some kind of help with the car. He goes off with the farmer to get a part or something.

Miss Young sits down next to the farmer's wife who is on the ground surrounded by mounds of tomatoes or something. She is in overalls, exhausted and in a bad mood. They start talking and Miss Young discovers that all is not well in their marriage, and they are struggling financially. The young woman is doing some extra work with these vegetables to sell and earn some money. Loretta Young mentors the young wife explaining that it is more productive to be feminine and inspire the husband, as she has done, than work like a man.

When the farmer comes back with the well-dressed husband, he enters the kitchen where he finds his wife in a dress and looking fresh and happy. He is shocked. Then he's nervous. What about the work outside? She says it is all right. She just knows the work will get done. And then she shows him the new curtains she put on the kitchen window. Miss Young is sitting regally at the kitchen table smiling from ear to ear watching this scene. Our young farmer gets nervous again and asks where she got the money for the new curtains. She is bright and happy and says she sewed them out of some extra material she had. Her husband is beginning to change. He looks around the kitchen and says how nice it is. He doesn't know what's happening to him, but Loretta Young and her husband know. After their successful guests leave, the young man, almost with tears in his eyes, holds his wife and starts to tell her he has just realized he doesn't want her to earn any more extra money but spend time continuing fixing up the house because he feels confident now to do what he has dreamed of doing but never felt motivated till now. He is going to invite some men friends over to his nice warm house to discuss his plans. It is a beautiful scene. We are in the position of God seeing how a man has come alive again and a love in a marriage rekindled in a simple little home because someone told them the truth.

Helen Andelin did this for me when I happened to pick up my wife's copy curious about what she was reading. I became alive again. I called this great lady to say thanks. Mrs. Andelin was as wonderful on the phone when I called her as she is in her book.

Nancy Hanna reviewed Fascinating Womanhood in a Blessing Quarterly magazine. She praises the book saying it "is the self-help book for a happy marriage and happy homemaking 'par excellence.'" I couldn't agree more. It is the best. She goes on to say, "It is the first book I've ever come across which is about what it is to be a woman and to be feminine. Chapter after chapter clearly explain what womanhood is all about. I, for one, found it very helpful to have things spelled out. In America today there is a lot of confusion about what a woman should be, as well as the rejection of traditional feminine roles. When I read this book ten years ago it came like a revelation; I still reread it once a year or so to refresh myself in its uncommon ideas." This is great. Don't you want to read it after hearing this from an elder sister? The Andelins have been "like a revelation" to me too.

She says that "in the stampede to enter man's world, I think many modern women have lost sight of the greatness and joy that lie in the vocations unique to woman: of wife, mother and homemaker." She says role models for women are "usually career women who are only secondarily wives and mothers."

Nancy then talks about Golda Meir, "who became head of the modern state of Israel, said that nothing in her career ever compared to her experience of having children." Then she goes on about how wonderful being a mother is. I could write several pages now on Golda Meir and go into her life. You can read her autobiography and biographies as well as me. She was a workaholic career woman. She got a divorce, had a few children and felt extreme guilt over not being there for them. It is painful to read her. Maybe Golda was necessary as a political leader, but she is definitely not a good role model. 99.99% of women are not to live as she did. Let 's look at women like her as strange freaks of nature.

She writes that UC sisters often develop "masculine qualities" before marriage and become "competent, efficient, fearless and independent .... the strongest women" anywhere. She warns sisters to not be digested by our culture that rejects old fashioned roles for men and women: "A great deal of unhappiness in American life today comes from the rejection of masculine and feminine roles, and even Unificationists are susceptible to these cultural influences. That's where the value of a book like this comes in."

She accepts the Andelin 's teaching of patriarchy saying, "I'm grateful that my husband always insisted on being the leader and didn't let me dominate him."

Peter Marshall was one of America's most famous ministers and former chaplain of the U.S. Senate. There is even a movie on his life. The following is an excerpt from a sermon called:

"The Keepers of the Springs"

Once upon a time, a certain town grew up at the foot
of a mountain range. It was sheltered in the lee of the
protecting heights, so that the wind that shuddered at the
doors and flung handfuls of sleet against the window panes
was a wind whose fury was spent.

High up in the hills, a strange and quiet forest dweller took it upon himself to be the Keeper of the Springs.  

He patrolled the hills and wherever he found a spring, he cleaned its brown pool of silt and fallen leaves, of mud and

and took away from the spring all foreign matter, so that
the water which bubbled up through the sand ran down clean
and cold and pure.

It leaped sparkling over rocks and dropped joyously in crystal
cascades until, swollen by other streams, it became a river of
life to the busy town.  

Millwheels were whirled by its rush.
Gardens were refreshed by its waters.
Fountains threw it like diamonds into the air.
Swans sailed on its limpid surface
and children laughed as they played on its banks in the

But the City Council was a group of hardheaded, hard-boiled
business men. They scanned the civic budget and found in it
the salary of a Keeper of the Springs.  

Said the Keeper of the Purse: "Why should we pay this romance
ranger? We never see him; he is not necessary to our
town's work life. If we build a reservoir just above the town,
we can dispense with his services and save his salary."

Therefore, the City Council voted to dispense with the un-
necessary cost of a Keeper of the Springs, and to build a
cement reservoir.

So the Keeper of the Springs no longer visited the brown pools
but watched from the heights while they built the reservoir.

When it was finished, it soon filled up with water, to be sure,
but the water did not seem to be the same.
It did not seem to be as clean, and a green scum soon befouled
its stagnant surface.

There were constant troubles with the delicate machinery
of the mills, for it was often clogged with slime, and the
swans found another home above the town.

At last, an epidemic raged, and the clammy, yellow fingers of
sickness reached into every home in every street and lane.

The City Council met again. Sorrowfully, it faced the city's plight, and frankly it acknowledged the
mistake of the dis-

missal of the Keeper of the Springs.

They sought him out in his hermit hut high in the hills, and
begged him to return to his former joyous labor.
Gladly he agreed, and began once more to make his rounds.

It was not long until pure water came lilting down under
tunnels of ferns and mosses and to sparkle in the cleansed

Millwheels turned again as of old.
Stenches disappeared.
Sickness waned and convalescent children playing in the sun laughed again
because the swans had come back.

Do not think me fanciful
too imaginative
or too extravagant in my language
when I say that I think women, and particularly of our
mothers, as Keepers of the Springs. The phrase, while poetic,
is true and descriptive.
We feel its warmth...
its softening influence ...
and however forgetful we have been ...
however much we have taken for granted life's precious
gifts we are conscious of wistful memories that surge out of
the past --
the sweet
poignant fragrances of love.

Nothing that has been said
nothing that could be said
or that ever will be said,
would be eloquent enough, expressive enough, or adequate to
make articulate that peculiar emotion we feel to our mothers.

So I shall make my tribute a plea for Keepers of the Springs,
who will be faithful to their tasks.

There never has been a time when there was a greater need
for Keepers of the Springs,
or when there were more polluted springs to be cleansed.
If the home fails, the country is doomed. The breakdown of home life and influence will mark the breakdown of the

If the Keepers of the Springs desert their posts or are un-
faithful to their responsibilities the future outlook of this country is black indeed.

This generation needs Keepers of the Springs who will be cou-
rageous enough to cleanse the springs that have been polluted.

It's not an easy task -- nor is it a popular one, but it must be
done for the sake of the children, and the young women of
today must do it.


Every UC home should have Helen Andelin's All About Raising Children. Nancy Hanna highly recommends the book. It has excellent general principles and many good details. I want it understood that whenever I recommend a book I do mean that I necessarily agree with every line the author writes. The Andelins are not perfect. Only True Parents are.

One of the best statements about the role of women is Helen Andelin's statement in her book All About Raising Children. The only thing I would add is that women should also teach this to other women as Titus 2-3-5 says and that families should live as trinities. Helen writes the following that should be the cornerstone of the mission statement for Women's Federation for World Peace instead of the vague cliches it has made in the past that anybody can read anything into: "In the ideal family the woman's role is that of wife, mother and homemaker. Although the feminine role is different from the masculine, it is equally important. Together the husband and wife form what can become a perfectly functioning unit to manage a family successfully."

"1. The Wife: The role of the wife is one of counselor and supporting companion for her husband. She tactfully expresses her views and brings an important perspective to matters he is considering. She frequently must defer to his better judgment. She helps him carry out his plans and objectives, participating when needed. When he is discouraged she offers him understanding, encouragement and continual hope. She tries to bolster his self-esteem, to keep him going in a positive direction. This is a difficult role, but when she does it well she is a key to her husband's success and the well-being of the family."

"2. The Mother: Her role as a mother is challenging. She is responsible for her children's day-in, day-out care. Along with her husband she patiently and persistently trains them to become obedient and responsible adults. If she is to succeed, it will require years of time and dedication. It is vital for the mother to remain at home and devote herself to the training and development of her children."

"3. The Homemaker: The mother must also manage many facets of a household and make a comfortable home for her family. To successfully live this role, she will need to make her career a career in the home. If she manages her time well, she may be able to do other things such as develop her talents or give benevolent service, but these should be secondary roles. If she is to make a success of family life, she will need to make her duties as wife, mother and homemaker, priority roles."

 John Rosemond

 John Rosemond is a nationally syndicated columnist and writer of many books on raising children. In one column he wrote against several books that preach "equality". A person wrote in saying the books, Parent Effectiveness Training by Thomas Gordon and Your Child's Self Esteem by David McKay and Dorothy Briggs were good, and he was wrong to think it was "encouraging parents to become wimps.' Rosemond says, "No, Gordon and Briggs didn't say, 'Hey, parents! You should be wimps!' That's my editorial take on the nouveau advice, which became the 'party line' of parenting psychology in the 70s and 80s and hangs on to this day."

"The letter writer says he can't believe I really, in my heart of hearts, disagree with most of the advice Gordon and Briggs dispensed in their best-sellers. He's right. I don't disagree with most of what Gordon and Briggs and their followers say; I disagree with all of it!" Rosemond goes on to explain how these authors treat their children as "equals" and as "friends." He says, "in P.E.T. Gordon writes that the use of power and authority by parents is 'immoral.' He criticizes parents who 'believe in restricting, setting limits, demanding certain behavior, giving commands, and expecting obedience.' No, I'm not making this up, nor am I taking it out of context." Rosemond explains how parents are to be stern. He says, "Gordon and Briggs think my old-fashioned attitudes are psychologically damaging to children. In his latest book, 'Teaching Children Self-Esteem", Gordon even says that when parents stop using power and authority with their children, there will be less violence in the world! Apparently he doesn't know that since American parents began using his advice, the teen-age violent crime rate has tripled (almost irrespective of socio-economic background) as has the rate of teen depression."

"Gordon and Briggs were enormously influential, but so were Marx and Engels." He says parents have tried the "democratic approach and fallen flat on their proverbial faces." He recommends James Dobson's The New Dare to Discipline. Rosemond says his "old-fashioned ideas " will not appeal to "the majority of mental health professionals" and "That is why I titled the introduction to my latest book, 'A Family of Value,' 'I, Heretic.' In short, I am guilty as charged, and I will never repent." There are many books on parenting. The UC has none. Until then, Rosemond is good. I don't agree with everything he says, but he is conservative and therefore light years ahead of the liberals. After years of reading, I've come to see Helen Andelin's book, All About Raising Children, as the best. It towers over everybody. It should be in every home. Nancy Hanna told me she endorses this book also.

In one of his books, Rosemond says, "I can still remember listening to one of my college professors -- he was teaching a course in marriage and family relations -- lectures on the differences between 'democratic'; and 'autocratic' families."

"In the democratic family, he said, everyone was regarded as an equal. Therefore, obedience (from the children) was not mandatory, and disagreements were resolved with discussion, negotiation, and compromise. Cooperation and harmony were the hallmarks of a democratic family. 'How marvelous!' I thought, reflecting upon the way my parents had limited my freedom, kept me in a state of virtual servitude, and said things like, 'Because I say so.'"

"In contrast, the autocratic family was a hierarchy, with parents at the top. Children were punished if they disobeyed and were not allowed to make decisions for themselves. Compromise between parent and child was possible only on the parent's terms. Obedience, rather than joyous cooperation, was the bill of fare for children of autocratic parents."

"How nasty!' I said to myself" And he tried it. He says there was no harmony but "anarchy." Then he and his wife demanded obedience and all was well. His children "didn't have the right to make any decisions for themselves. However, we allowed them the privilege of making many decisions, reserving, as our right, the option of taking this privilege away whenever it was abused or the potential consequences were not to our liking .... In short, we created a nasty old autocratic family, and my wife and I were dictators -- 'Benevolent Dictators,' to be exact."

"Benevolent Dictators are gentle authorities who understand that their power is the cornerstone of their children's sense of safety and security .... Benevolent dictators do not need to instill fear in order to communicate their influence. They are authorities, but they are not authoritarian. They do not demand unquestioning obedience. They encourage questions, but make the final decisions. They restrict their children's freedom, but they are not tyrants. They restrict in order to protect and guide. They make rules which are fair and enforce them firmly. Life with a Benevolent Dictator is predictable and secure for children. That set of certainties guarantees more freedom than would be possible under any other circumstances."

"We usually associate dictatorships with oppression and torture and people disappearing in the night. But dictatorship is simply a system of government where one person is in control and is responsible for making decisions for a group of people who count on him or her to make good ones. And that's what parents do, isn't it? Like it or not, parents are dictators, preferably dictators of benevolent nature." I would submit you could put wives in that category of children in the previous passages. Men must be benevolent dictators to their wives. Women are not children, but they are in position of follower to their husband who has the final decision over what she does.

 Power in the home

Let's talk about power in the home. The Bible explains that men cannot lead until they successfully lead their families and create happy homes. Men learn leadership there first. The path of Headwing is a fine line. You can't cross the line and not get hurt. The Bible has great wisdom the UC should learn from. Father would agree, I think, with the insights some Christian conservatives give in their advice on how to handle authority in the home and that this is also how UC brothers should handle authority in the church and state. Dr. Kevin Leman says in Making Children Mind Without Losing Yours, "What I see and hear is that, in too many homes today, otherwise sophisticated and educated parents are still not sure they know the difference between discipline and punishment, between permissiveness and loving nurture. I believe that difference is clearly spelled out in a brief passage from the New Testament where the Apostle Paul writes:

'Children, obey your parents; this is the right thing to do because God has placed them in authority over you. Honor your father and mother. This is the first of God's Ten Commandments that ends with a promise. And this is the promise: that if you honor your father and mother, yours will be a long life, full of blessing. And now a word to you parents. Don't keep on scolding and nagging your children, making them angry and resentful. Rather, bring them up with the loving discipline the Lord himself approves, with suggestions and godly advice.'"(Ephesians 6:1-4).

"The above scripture passage is the basis for this book. The word that we are going to pay particular attention to are obey, authority, and loving discipline.... My goal is to give parents specific ways to use their authority correctly as they bring up obedient children with loving discipline."

Men have not been handling power and authority correctly in the home and they have not understood power in society in the 20th century.

 Family not democratic

 Dr. Lee Salk in his book Familyhood gives an example of a family he knew that tried to get away from the vertical model of a family: "A colleague of mine in the area of group dynamics believed absolutely that his family-- which included his wife and two children-- should be run as a democracy, with each member having an equal say in family decisions. They carefully discussed everything, from where to go to dinner, to appropriate bedtimes for the children. They even voted. Invariably, the two children assumed one position, the parents another, which usually led to a great deal of further discussion and many painfully contorted compromises. The system, cumbersome as it was, worked after a fashion, until a third child came along. When this youngest family member first learned to say yes or no, his siblings immediately lobbied for his vote. The three children outvoted the two adults, and havoc reigned. The democracy collapsed."

"A family needs an authority figure (or two). It must be run in an autocratic way, but it must also be an autocracy with a soul and a heart and with respect for its constituents. As parents, we have all heard ourselves say on occasion, 'You'll do it because I'm your mother and I say you have to do it!' The occasional dictatorial outburst is only human and does no harm. But as a parental modus operandi, it not only doesn't work over the long haul, it doesn't instill and encourage the values children need."

"Someone has to be in charge and that someone should never be the child, although ideally she will feel her opinions have weight and count. Children feel important and respected when they participate in grown-up decisions."


Parents Pledge

 I pledge to help the everyone understand the value of Biblical, traditional families.  Families should try to live as extended families with the grandfather as patriarch.





 A man is to earn enough money to keep his family comfortable with the basics of life. A woman is to provide by being a good homemaker, caretaker for the elderly, teacher in homeschool, and teach women to be obedient to their husbands as a Titus 2 ministry.

 Signed _______________________________________________

Home next