Subject/object is not give and take
It is popular in the UC to say that subject and object interchange. In the official church Divine Principle book the authors give the impression that subject and object interchange positions. One reason they may have in doing so is because they want to respect everyone. In one sense we are all equal partners. We all can learn from each other. Parents can even learn from young children. We all should be humble to God speaking through others, no matter what their age, sex or status is. Nevertheless, this does not mean that position change just because someone is talking to another person, even if what they are saying is a higher truth than the listener has. Some church members are confusing subject and object positions with give and take action. They are two different things. Subject and object positions are static; give and take is fluid. When a parent is criticizing and spanking a child for misbehaving they are having intense give and take, but at no time do they ever interchange positions or"act" like each other. Even if the parent discovers he is wrong and acted too soon before understanding what had really happened and then apologizes when the child explains the situation, they never change positions. The child does not get to spank the parent. That is not a role they play. If a grandfather is talking to his adult son and the two of them are differing on something and the son is correct, again they never interchange positions. They are having give and take and the grandfather may or may not see the light. No matter what the outcome is, the grandfather is always the grandfather and therefore his elder and respected for his position.
Another example is a lowly private talking to a general. Even if the general listens to the private, changes his mind and does as he said because it is a good idea does not mean that any time the private interchanged positions. Ideas can interchange, but positions do not. And those positions must be dealt with correctly. Sometimes we must rebel against the person in subject position. And sometimes people exchange positions. George Bush took over the position of President of the United States after being subservient to President Reagan. When Bush became president, then Reagan went to the object position as all Americans are to their leader. The question is what does God want people in position of authority to do and how are they helped, followed or rebelled against. In the future ideal world everyone will have the same ideology and agree to the same rules and responsibilities that anyone has in leadership and to those who have to follow. Because of the Fall mankind has many views, and often never even had the correct view so they fought. The battle of the sexes has been the worst of all. The battles in the home such as those that took place in Adam's family have led to world wars. When we all agree and follow God's idea for the roles of the positions of husband and wife and parents and children, then there will be world peace. Violence came into the world because of the dysfunctional relationship between Adam and Eve. God is teaching us through Father and Mother how a true marriage works. Father and Mother have give and take, but Father is always the leader and Mother is the perfect follower. And they do it in an absolutely god-centered way. Mother has never led, protected or provided for Father. She has been completely centered on following her husband, no matter how hard it was. Father's first wife did not.
Some UC members have been digested by this feminist culture and misunderstand what equal partners really mean. Father and Mother are have equal value and are equal partners, but they have different roles and responsibilities. What one does is not more important than what the other does. The savior or messiah is two people, not one. But they are not the same. They are different and each completes the other.
An example of the confusion in the church over this central fundamental aspect of the Principle is in the church book the Causa Manual. It incorrectly explains subject and object as interchanging positions. The positions are static, not fluid. They are as different as black and white. It is incorrect to think people change roles simply because they are talking to each other as the following quote says:"It is important to stress that position does not affect value. That is, subject does not have greater value than object nor vice-versa. In addition, these positions are generally interchangeable. For example, when person A is speaking and person B is listening, then person A is subject and person B is object. Later, while person B is speaking, person A becomes object. There is a constant changing of roles according to whether one is giving or receiving." They are right in the first sentence that every person has equal value. But there is a nuance to even the equal value theory. God loves all people, but He helped David kill Goliath and George Washington to kill the British. The Divine Principle has more"value" than Communist thought. Cain and Abel have equal value, but one is better than the other. This point is not as crucial as the point that roles don't change so easily as we read above. In many cases, they are to never interchange. Gay marriages interchange the opposite sex. Have you ever seen gay bears and lions? To explain the concept of role by using the example of two people speaking is the ultimate in being unprincipled. Suppose person A is a police officer and person B is thief. In the ultimate sense, both have equal value, but when do they ever change positions? Halfway through a pursuit, they switch and the bad guys chases the cop? If I talked to the richest citizen of the world, Bill Gates, and its my time to talk, do I then become the president of Microsoft and control his bank account? In the world of nature, a book says,"Biological systems are also systems of subject-object interaction. A cell contains a nucleus (subject) and surrounding cytoplasm (object)." When does the nucleus interchange and become cytoplasm? When do protons revolve around electrons? When do children ground parents? Give and take can take place harmoniously only when roles do not interchange. Father comes to bring order to this world. Never does he say men are objects to women, our minds are objects to our bodies or Unificationists are objects to Christians, Communists or the Mafia. Father will always be the worldwide Messiah and I, for one, am glad I don't have to take that position, even if for one minute.
UC sister Joy Garratt wrote in Victoria Clevenger's Heartwing publication and later published in the U.News praise for Stephen Covey's The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. Victoria praises it also saying it is "immensely valuable." Joy said she usually "just skims self-improvement books" but this one she won't even lend out. She says he gives "a lot of tools...and I highly recommend it for anyone seeking a practical, down-to-earth aid to growth." I haven't the time now to get into what Covey says in his book. I, too, was blown away by this book as millions of people are. Even President Clinton invited Covey to the White House to talk to him. Covey teaches the value of writing clear, specific goals, time management, etc. as all motivational speaker's do, but he lifts himself above the crowd by talking about writing a constitution for families, businesses, etc. which gives incredible power as America's constitution has done for giving unity and strength to America. He says that the Victorians were people interested in "character" and the 20th century is only interested in what he calls "personality."
The 19th century would call it virtues, and we call it values. They were for absolute values, and we are for relative values. Of course, Father does everything Covey says better than any person in history. Father's science conferences are about "Absolute Values." Father has written goals. The most basic one is 1-1-1.
Covey is a leader in the Mormon Church. His core value is the Victorian virtue of patriarchy. Covey doesn't tell anyone this in the 7 Habits, but I studied his other books. He is happily married and has 9 children. I always find happy families when I find someone believing in patriarchy. In Covey's book The Divine Center he says patriarchy will be in the Kingdom of Heaven, "the eternal organization will be the patriarchal family." In his book, Spiritual Roots of Human Relations, he says the father is "the head of the home.... He is the patriarch of the home." He says that this belief is being attacked by Satan, "the home and the family are being ravished and buffeted on every side by almost every institution of society and by all the machinations of Satan." He teaches that men and women have separate roles but each have equal importance. The word "equal" is feminist's favorite word, but they incorrectly define it as communists misdefine all good words. Covey explains wifely submission this way, "The wife is to obey her husband in righteousness, which I believe includes her righteousness, for she is not to be his judge. If she attempts to be his judge and to obey whatever suits her fancy, withdrawing her support or obedience when she disagrees, or if she competes with him for leadership and direction, the patriarchal concept will be distorted. If she 'punishes him" in one way or another when he's 'off base' in her eyes, her husband could likely feel that he has atoned and no longer has to change or repent. The wife is called to love and to sustain the husband, and I believe nothing will do more to encourage and chasten him in his own stewardship than consistent acceptance, unconditional love, and steadfast sustaining. If he is absolutely unworthy, or consistently makes unrighteous demands, then she might counsel with the steward over him, the bishop, but she is not to be his judge and punisher."
Covey refers to the usual passages in the Bible that teach patriarchy such as Ephesians 5:22-24 and I Peter 3:1-6. Men need to have authority in the home. He says, "Children are to obey and honor their parents. Children first need examples or models to follow. They need understanding and respect; they need clear limits, well-established rules, and consistently applied discipline. They need explicit teaching and testifying; they need order, system, and regularity; they need work and responsibility and opportunities to give an accounting; they need time for fun, free expression, and good humor."
"I have come to believe from my own experience, as well as my observations of others, that children tend not to obey their parents when the father does not in truth or in deed obey the Lord, or when the wife does not in truth or in deed obey her husband, or when the parents do not have this vision of the patriarchal family concept." There is so much rebellion in America because women are not humbling themselves to their husbands.
Father says in "Our Basic Attitude" (March 13, 1983): "What kind of husband do you women want? Do you want the kind of man who just listens to you and follows everything you say? Not necessarily. The husband should be stern sometimes, standing strong like a pillar. You may not always like him that way, but in the long run you will trust him better." UC brothers must stand up for their position as leader.
But they must earn that right too. He should treat his wife with respect. Covey quotes the President of the Mormon Church saying that men should never "express a cross word to his wife or to his children." Men must build "an ideal home by your character, controlling your passion, your temper, guarding your speech." He tells his church to "make our homes such as will radiate to our neighbors harmony, love, community duties, loyalty. Let our neighbors see it and hear it." No one must see "an expression of anger or jealousy or hatred. Control it! Do not express it! You do what you can to produce peace and harmony, no matter what you may suffer."
He continues quoting him from another speech he gave: "Say nothing that will hurt your wife, that will cause her tears, even though she might cause you provocation. Realize that those children are your eternal possessions, treasures of eternity. Do not dare to set an improper example towards them. Your are men of the priesthood and you are leaders. Never let them hear a cross word. You should control yourself. He is a weak man who flies into a passion, whether he is working a machine or plowing or writing or whatever he may be doing in the home. A man of the priesthood should not fly into a passion. Learn to be dignified." Covey says, "Husbands and wives must learn to talk through their differences and difficulties rather than either taking them out on each other or withdrawing into a silent, sullen world of quiet anger and self-pity." This is the flavor of this man's value statement. Godly patriarchy is what God wants people to write down when they write a mission statement or constitution.
Sisters must say to the their husbands and mean it, "I'll follow you anywhere." America went downhill fast when women refused to say the word "obey" in marriage vows. Father endlessly tells sisters to follow: "You women have to say to your husbands, 'If the only way you can occupy God is by choking me, then go ahead and do it quickly.' You women must obey, unite and work with your husbands to achieve the goal. Since you men are now in the objective position to God, you must make unity with your wife no matter what it takes. All the woman has to do is hang on like a clamp, as tightly as she can, to her husbands all the way to God."
Taming of the Shrew
Brother's have to do as Petruchio does in Shakespeare's play, The Taming of the Shrew. Kate is unfeminine, and Petruchio perseveres until he dominates her. He wins the battle of the sexes. He becomes her leader, and she meekly follows. Then they have love. At the end of the play Petruchio tells Kate to explain to a group of women how wonderful it is to be an object and follower to their husbands. He calls these women "headstrong." He says, "Katherine, I charge thee, tell these headstrong women/ What duty they do owe their lords and husbands":
Thy husband is thy lord, thy life, thy keeper
Thy head, thy sovereign; one that cares for thee,
And for thy maintenance; commits his body
To painful labour both by sea and land,
To watch the night in storms, the day in cold,
Whilst thou liest warm at home, secure and safe;
And craves no other tribute at thy hands
But love, fair looks, and true obedience --
Too little payment for so great a debt.
Such duty as the subject owes the prince,
Even such a woman oweth to her husband.
And when she is froward, peevish, sullen, sour
And not obedient to his honest will,
What is she but a foul contending rebel
And graceless traitor to her loving lord?
I am ashamed that women are so simple
To offer war where they should kneel for peace,
Or seek for rule, supremacy, and sway,
When they are bound to serve, love, and obey.
A little book that I recommend for UC sisters to study alone and together in WFWP meetings is Elizabeth Hanford's Me? Obey Him?. Father has said, "the primary function of Unification Church members is ultimately to educate people." The most important thing we can teach is for women to submit to their husbands. This is the basic aspect of restoring the fallen natures. Mrs. Hanford is on the right road. She not only lives her philosophy but has taught it to many others and saved many marriages.
She writes that God, "Even in the Garden of Eden ... had set up a chain of command. It required the husband to be in authority over the woman. First Timothy 2:11-13 says, 'Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to ... usurp authority over the man.'"
"There is an order of authority in the universe, and it is set up like this:
She says Christ is under God and so "It is no shame, no dishonor, for a woman to be under authority, if Jesus submitted to the authority of the Father."
"Position in the chain of authority has nothing to do with the individual's worth to God. It is not determined by one's importance. A woman is subject to her husband, but she can still go directly to God, to ask anything she needs or desires, and get it as quickly as if she were a man." She quotes Galatians 3:38 to prove we all have equal value. I go into this quote more carefully later. It is a favorite of feminist theologians to twist to make marriages come out their version of "equal."
She goes on, "God is not a respecter of persons. Whoever 'feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him" Acts 10:34, 35). God hears the prayers of a woman just as quickly as He hears the prayers of a godly man."
"Nor does a man need to be 'puffed up' because he stands above the woman in the chain of command ... Each has a blessed, unique responsibility, a purpose in life that the other cannot possibly fulfill and cannot happily exist without."
"God made the man to be the achiever, the doer, to provide for the home and protect it, to be high priest and intercessor for the home. His body carries the seed of life, and he is responsible for the children that will be born, to guide them, nurture them, direct them."
"God made the woman to be keeper of the home, to make a haven within its walls, a retreat from the stress of battle, the nourisher of the children. A woman's body is fashioned primarily for being a wife and mother. (Why, oh why a feminist think that's degrading?) Her body is shaped for the bearing of children, and never a month goes by but what she is reminded of the basic, creative function of motherhood. All the sense of her being answers to the wail of a baby, to the uplifted arms of a child. (Have you ever wondered what caused the spoiled daughter of Pharaoh to adopt the infant of the despised children of Israel? 'She saw the child: and, behold, the babe wept. And she had compassion on him' [Exodus 2:6]. The need of the weeping baby Moses overcame all the conditioning and training she had received!)." I defy anyone to find one quote of Father that sounds different than this.
A woman is different from a man. (I know that sounds like a stupid statement. But if you have read some of the writers of the current women's lib movement, you'll realize they don't believe it. They think a woman is different only because she has been conditioned to inferiority from babyhood, and exploited by it!) A woman is different in her body, in her interests, in her thinking, in her abilities: not inferior -- different."
"Women have entered the market place. They have achieved fame in medicine, in business, in the arts. A woman can choose nearly any occupation she likes. But I deny that she will find fulfillment that will surpass that which a godly Christian woman finds who, secure in the knowledge of her womanhood and its rightness, builds a home for her husband and children! Her confidence in her ability to be a helpmeet, sufficient for her husband's needs, comes as she finds her place in the order of authority."
Mrs. Hanford mentions many women in the Bible and shows that God is very strict about women following their husbands even when it seems outrageous to do so such as the case of Sarah to Abraham who gave her to the Pharaoh. Mrs. Hanford gives some good insights to help women understand what is going on between men and women. And women need help desperately because women in our culture and in our church haven't got a clue to what is happening in the core relationships of life. She teaches women, for example, that they must understand how men look at work which is totally different than how women do (of course many men are so brainwashed by feminism that their innate drive to protect and provide are buried so deep they don't care anymore and encourage their wives to work).
She writes that women "have the privilege of a husband's lifelong concern for your welfare. Can you imagine the awesome task a man takes upon himself when he assumes the lifetime responsibility of a wife and family? Food, clothing, shelter, the care and training of the children -- all these he commits himself to for the rest of his life! No matter how he feels, he must go into the world each day to earn the money to feed the family and pay the bills. A wife can -- let's face it, she really can -- if she doesn't feel well, stagger around long enough to get the kids off to school and the baby fed, and then go back to bed until supper time, when she can open a couple of cans, if she has to."
"But her husband? No matter if the company he works for lays off workers, including him; no matter if his job is replaced by a machine; no matter if he has a case of the 'blahs' or a toothache, or the flu -- it is his responsibility to put food on the table and a roof over the head of his family that day."
"An old rhyme says, 'Man works from sun to sun, but a woman's work is never done.' And it's true, believe me it's true. (How do I know? Because we have seven children, that's how I know!) but it is also true that, if I decide to take a couple of hours off to window shop, or go to the library, or sew a dress, the work is still there when I come back to it. That isn't true with a man's work. If he doesn't work, he doesn't get paid."
"A wife ought to understand how much a man gives her, when he gives her his name and his pledge to care for her until they are parted by death."
Women must understand that we live in a culture that bashes men. Men have gone into a shell and women must not correct that by filling in the void and taking charge. Often people interpret the cause of problems in the home as being men, but often we have to go further back to see that the real seeds of division started from bossy women. Even if they meant well it still causes men to give up and wimp out. Men should stand up to this but it's hard when every image and stimuli is anti traditional family.
Mrs. Hanford correctly advises women to see their part in the problem: "Men hate 'scenes.' They despise confusion and disorder. They will go to almost any length to have peace in their homes. They will let a woman have her way rather than argue and quarrel." Father says repeatedly that women start quarrels and cause divorce. She continues, "But the price a man has to pay is the price of his manhood. Before you complain that your husband won't take the leadership of your home, search your heart carefully. Do you really trust his judgment? Are you willing to commit yourself to his decisions? If not, don't complain that he will not lead. For the sake of peace, he may not fight for his authority. Your habit of bossing may be more deeply entrained than you possibly realize."
"Don't mistake a man's gentleness for weakness. Don't mistake a quietly spoken word for vacillation. A gentle man can still lead his home completely, if not as flamboyantly as an aggressive man. And a loving wife who leans on her husband will call forth his strength and manliness."
"How can you give the leadership back to him? Admit your failure. Ask his forgiveness. Then simply give him the chance to make the decisions. Send the children to him for permissions. Let him decide when you do what. (You realize this won't work, don't you, if he makes a decision and you say, 'What in the world did you do that for?!) If you stop bossing the family, he will be the boss automatically." Then she gives a testimony of someone she counseled or had read her book and how a woman had changed and found happiness. Like Helen Andelin's book it is filled with examples of people who followed these teachings and found greater love. Feminists can't do this to the degree that antifeminists can. Traditional Biblical family values work. Feminism doesn't. Some feminists say their marriage works. I find it interesting that the most famous male feminist Hollywood star is Alan Alda. His wife is a stay-at-home mom to their daughters. It doesn't matter that some feminists have good marriages. We can't judge communism as good because East Germany had great Olympic athletes. We have to look at the overall picture and be careful about our anecdotal stories. Nevertheless, antifeminists or pro traditional family teachers have more personal stories of success than antifeminists.
One insight she gives is that women can't focus on their feelings, but have to focus on God's commandments that often go against our feelings. Father teaches this same emphasis on vertical instead of focusing horizontally. This is extremely hard for American women to do and that is why they turn to feminism and the government for answers instead of the Bible which is looked at as medieval and therefore irrelevant when in fact Father is teaching Biblical truths that are simply God's truths. She says, "There is another aspect in the matter of submission and feelings; it is tinged with mystery. Have you noticed how many Scriptures there are that command a wife to obey her husband? There is only one Scripture, to my knowledge, that tells a wife to love him, and that is Titus 2:4. Why? Because, I think, in a marvelous, supernatural way, submission brings love. If you obey him, you will love him, love him more than you ever dreamed possible."
"It's a Bible principle, found in Proverbs 16:3: 'Commit thy works unto the Lord, and thy thoughts shall be established.' You do right -- you obey him, regardless of how you feel. Then your feelings turn out right -- your thoughts are established. If you obey, you will love."
"I am aware of the feelings of revulsion a woman may have toward her husband. They may be caused by poor teaching from childhood. They may be caused by a shattering incident in adolescence. The husband himself may not have been tender enough. But many a woman, who thought she could never love the man she was bound to, has discovered that when she obeyed him, she learned to love him." Father's first wife was not Biblical. It is often interpreted from the Bible that a marriage can be dissolved for only two reasons: One, if a spouse commits adultery, and two: if a man does not provide for his family. Father did not provide. His wife should have been even more forgiving than the Bible says. She did not obey Father, but became noisy and rebellious. She did not help him and tried to boss him around. Is she somehow different than most women and their marriage was different than most marriages? Father clearly says women are out of order.
All of this is very academic if we don't give stories. Father's story is the most tragic of all. Thank God that True Mother did not act like most women do and see their husbands as insensitive. She follows Father. Mother is the ultimate example of a woman who obeys and helps her husband. She is the ultimate in femininity. She is strong, but in a feminine way. Nothing is more important to her and she focuses on nothing more than her husband, not even her children. Elizabeth Hanford writes: "The past four years our church has had a women's retreat up in the lovely foothills of the Smokies. Our women look forward to those retreats, with the opportunity to get away from the cares of home or a night, talk together about mutual spiritual needs, and search the Scriptures for God's answers. There's always one session, usually very late at night, around the fireplace, often spontaneous, when we talk together about the need for a woman to obey her husband and the delight her obedience will bring."
"Each year a woman I'll call Jeanette has been there. Her husband was saved a few years ago through the ministry of the church, and they have been faithful members ever since. Jeanette would sit with us around the fireplace, listen to the discussion and (she told me later) say to herself, 'It won't work. I just couldn't do that. Me obey Walter? and him still drinking? That just won't work. I'm not going to bemean myself to anybody, especially Walter."
"For three years Jeanette said that. But the spiritual condition of the home deteriorated; Walter had increasing problems with alcohol; the teen-age daughters got more and more rebellious. The still, quiet voice of God spoke to Jeanette's heart, saying, 'Yield. Submit. Let Me take control."
"Finally, in desperation, Jeanette dropped to her knees. 'Dear Lord, You know I don't have it within myself to obey Walter. It's humanly impossible for me to let anybody boss me around. You will just have to take charge. I don't see how it can possibly work, but right now, I promise You, Lord, that I'll obey Walter, no matter what he says. I trust You to make it turn out right.'"
"She said nothing of this to anyone. But at the retreat this spring, she came to the session of husband-wife relationships. Afterward she whispered, 'I just had to come to this session, Libby. I didn't need it this time, thank God, but I wanted to hear it again, just to see if it would sound as ridiculous as it sounded every other year, before I tried it. Sure enough, it sounded wonderful and true. It really works. I love him so much more than I ever loved him before. He loves me, and we have such sweet times together, even if we are old married folks! I just couldn't see how obeying him would fix all the other problems, but it did. How I wish we could have started our lives out together that way!'"
She writes, "God commands a wife to obey her husband. He obviously meant what He said. He made no exceptions for extenuating circumstances. He promises guidance and wisdom to the woman who seeks to obey. He offers unmeasured grace for whatever trials a woman faces while He completes the needed work of conviction in her husband's heart."
"He rewards obedience with a usefulness and happiness far beyond her deepest expectation." She is a wise teacher. Mrs. Hanford says it will not only make a marriage more full of love but the children will grow up better and not be rebellious: "You don't need to fear that your obedience will lessen your children's respect for you. When you set the standard by your obedience, you can require the same obedience from them. The command, 'Honor thy father and thy mother' (Exod. 20:12) shows God requires the child to obey Father and Mother equally. He obeys his mother exactly as he obeys his father -- that's the chain of command. When a mother obeys her husband, she enhances her own authority with the child rather than diminishing it."
"If you love your children, if you covet their future happiness and usefulness, make sure they have a mother who submits to her husband."
In the UNews (April 5, 1987) Father says how important grandparents are and how this century doesn't care for them or want to live with them. It was commonplace in the 19th century to care for the elderly at home. He says that the three parts of the face"the eyes, the nose, the mouth" show"three stages of development."
"This is a precise rule. You see it everywhere. Before I existed, my parents and my grandparents existed. There are three generations. Then, who is more important -- myself or my grandparents? It is my grandparents. Why? Because they are the root or origin out of which I developed. The pupil is the center of the eye upon which the other parts are centered. Everything did not come all at once. So, which is more important? The root and center is most precious."
Now, we cannot read into Father that he says that a person's innate value increases with age. In one sense we have value the moment we're born. Period. What he's talking about is vertical positions being respected. And those positions don't interchange. People keep them. The pupil of the eye is not more valuable than any other part of the eye, but it is the center and must be acknowledged as such.
He goes on saying,"Do we need grandfathers and grandmothers? In the United States, many grandparents are sent to old people's homes. We think they have freedom and are happy there. But how can anyone be happy with all the precious things gone from his life? If you put the pupil of an eye away somewhere, then the iris and the skin are alone and useless. It is like cutting off the root of a tree. How can we live a healthy, purposeful life without our root-- our grandfathers and grandmothers -- from whom we came? The result is havoc and confusion."
Father is always teaching about family and how there must be order. I want my sons to marry women who will change my diapers when I go into my second childhood. I don't want them married to career women who pay for me to be abused by psychos at a nursing home that happens too frequently. Traditional values are women doing this job, not impersonal agencies.
Father continues saying,"Take a poll of American women and ask who would like to go live with her husband's parents and grandparents. Does anyone welcome that situation? Probably not. The women say, 'No, my husband and I just want to live together and not be concerned with anyone else.' Is that right or wrong? It is so wrong that any society with that attitude deserves to decline." And America has declined.
Father explains things always from a vertical view. He says,"Why do I tell you this? Look at it this way. There are three stages before you realize your existence. Your grandparents are like the eyes; your parents are like the nose; you are like the mouth. Would the mouth say, 'I just want to be left alone. I want to be free of the nose and eyes and function separately'? No, the whole face is more important than the mouth, nose or eyes alone. All three are included in the face, not just the mouth. Lacking one, the face can never be complete."
"People often talk about their home but they should immediately think about their grandfather and grandmother being there. Without them, a good home is unimaginable. Just as when we say 'my hand,' that automatically includes three joints, so 'my home' should include three generations. 'My arm' includes the hand, the forearm, and the upper arm. When you say 'my body,' it is also divided into three: the head, the torso, and the limbs." He goes on to give other examples of three and ends by saying that a home consists of grandparents, parents and children. In these examples there is a sense of vertical as in the four position foundation having three levels of origin, division and union. The origin would be grandparents who are at the top, the parents are the second stage of division and the children are at the bottom of the hierarchy as union or result. The relationships are more vertical than horizontal.
Father says,"Marriage is not a light matter, but should be taken very seriously. Marriage is more serious than your own life, than heaven and earth, than your entire hope and ideal. When you find happiness in this serious area, you will find ultimate happiness." The Divine Principle teaches that God is a God of order, law and principle. What are the spiritual laws and principles, the rules and responsibilities, for men and women to live by so they can have happy marriages?
We must live a principled life to be happy. The Divine Principle teaches that we are to build ideal marriages and from them will come ideal families and an ideal world. It also says we have to restore this fallen world by going in the opposite direction from Adam and Eve who started marriage in an upside-down, out of order way. Father said on Parents Day 1985 that this world is completely out of order. Men, he said, are supposed to be subject and lead women, but instead of men being"bones" and women"flesh", it is usually the other way around. In another speech, Father said that if we solve the subject/object relationship between husband and wife, we will solve all problems at the national and world level. He says,"Why do you marry? You want to receive love. Man is the center or subject and the woman is object. Women must center upon or follow their husbands. As the subject and object relationship is solved, it will extend all the way to the nation and to the world."
The ideology that men lead women is called Patriarchy. The ideology that challenges male authority is Androgyny or Unisexism or, euphemistically, Equality. The wider ideology that attacks Patriarchy and other God-centered values is Feminism (and as we will see in later articles, Communism). We will call those who do not believe in Patriarchy Feminists, and those who believe in Patriarchy Anti-feminists. The vast majority of Americans are Feminist; a small minority are Anti-feminist.
We learn in the Divine Principle (Level 4) that"all" the"disorders in the fallen world" originate from the third fallen nature of reversing dominion:
"The third major aspect of the Fallen Nature is the nature to reverse the order of dominion. The angel was ultimately supposed to be under man's dominion, yet he dominated Eve, reversing the proper order. Eve was supposed to be under Adam's dominion, yet she dominated him. These reversals of dominion resulted in the Fall. All of the various disorders in the fallen world have their origin in this aspect of the original Fallen Nature."
To restore, then, all the disorders of the fallen world, we must return to God's original order where Adam and Eve dominate Lucifer and Adam dominate Lucifer and Adam dominates Eve, i.e., God-centered patriarchy.
After the fall, women have been deceived and abused by Lucifer-type men throughout history. Since there have been countless crimes against women by men who had power over them, there is great resentment in women against men. Because of this history and also very personal resentment against men, many women find it difficult if not next to impossible to submit to their husbands. This is a tragedy in God's eyes. Until we can reverse the fallen nature in the family between men and women, we cannot free this world. At the three-day ceremony, the husband goes from the archangelic position to the position of Adam. This must be more than a symbolic ceremony if we want more than symbolic world restoration.
Rev. Zin Moon Kim wrote in the UNews (June 1995):"There must be a certain purpose, on which the subject must be centered. . . . Purpose is in the first position; subject, in the second position; object, in the third position; and result, in the fourth position. This is the order of positions." I see this as meaning that positions don't change and act like other positions. To make a diagram of this four position foundation would look like this:
(2) Subject ..........(3)Object
Can we mix these up? For example, how about this diagram?
This is out of order. Positions don't change. Give-and-take cannot take place in disorder. Another diagram that would help clarify the four position foundation would look like this:
No interchanging in dancing
The ultimate perversion is homosexuality in which proper roles are completely spit on. These are the Last Days because the President of the United States sees this as normal behavior for some people. The UC sees this much but misses the boat by thinking other subjects and objects can mix it up. Look at the following quote of Father and tell me where subject and object interchange?"Even in dancing you can learn a lesson. When two people dance, who leads -- the smaller woman or the larger man." Did you see the word"lead?" Men lead. He says,"Automatically, the one who is the larger will be the leader. Always the anchor is the one at the center, the bigger, strong and taller person, the masculine one." Did you notice the word"always?" Men"always" lead."That is the way he takes initiative. Therefore, between man and woman, man is definitely the subject. This is universal discipline. It's not something people can decide; it's not something I decided. It is the way the universe designed men and women."
"That is why men are meant to be the ones to take initiative; women want to be lifted up when dancing. Then you feel happy. If a man is twirled around, he feels uncomfortable. That is how harmony and beauty come." At least men should feel uncomfortable. Everything is such a mess in society that the original mind is so buried in so many men and women that they are uncomfortable if there aren't any women in the local fire department. The Republican senator John Warner, is uncomfortable that women are not combat fighters. The crusade today is to get women repairing cars at the automotive department at Kmart and to get men into marriage counseling so they can repent for being competitive and having the medieval view that they are the head of the family. Men are now comfortable praising households instead of being repulsed. In the speech quoted above (AThe Road Toward the Ideal" Sept. 7, 1986), he says right after the quote on dancing,"What about you women, do you have love? You are not sure? Is your love for the purpose of yourself or for loving a man? What do you think? You American women, answer me clearly -- is your love for yourself and other women, or for a man? For men -- forever? Absolutely."
I'll answer for them. No. Even if they think they do, they don't. And Father knows it. He goes on saying,"You talk of love. Is love for the purpose of giving, or just to receive?" He says they are focused on receiving. What do women talk about together? They talk about men. What do they say? They bash them. Name me one woman you know that talks like the woman in Titus 2:3-5 who counsels women to obey their husbands. The Bible says to"reverence" them. Robert Schuller in his book on families says he once was told by a woman in his congregation that her husband comes home and calls his dog by name, smiles and pets him before he even gets through the door. What does she get? Nothing. He doesn't smile, call her by name and hug her. She said she wished she got at least what the dog got. My response is Father's. What is she doing? Is he all to blame? Women think so. The reality is that the dog sees him as his master and the man knows it. Do women give more respect to dogs or men? What do they say in this never ending battle of the sexes? The dog is nicer than the man. The dog isn't scary like the man who cruelly says the food has too many spices and he needs his shirt ironed now. If the man is confident he is too aggressive. If he's thoughtful and not sure and not quick with a response he's boring and slow. If he works hard and long to make money he's insensitive for not being home enough. If he doesn't earn enough to send her to her family reunion, he's lazy. If he leads spiritually, she feels he thinks she's less than him. If he lets her lead, she feels burdened and overloaded. Reverence for husbands? They're all a bunch of idiots, little boys messing up the house. To serve a man would be like being a degrading doormat. He would divorce her and run off with a nineteen year old he met at work. Isn't this the reality? Isn't this what's being said to marriage counselors and women having espresso together? Men are pigs. Men are jerks. A lot of this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Father says in the above speech that men are head of the family. It is principled:"each social unit such as the husband and wife and the family and so forth, must be properly centered. The family must be centered upon the head of the family. The tribe must be centered upon its chief. The society and nation have a head of state. From the very bottom, you circle upward all the way to the top. Within every social unit there is a head or a central figure." Did you see how he combined circular motion with hierarchy? In all three blessings, every relationship of subject/object is a leader/follower relationship. In the first blessing of mind/body unity father says we are supposed to"subjugate your body completely to the will of your mind, so that the body will follow the mind absolutely." Did you notice the word"absolutely"? Never do they act or interchange with the other. The Fall was caused by a woman who stepped out of her space, her boundaries and interchanged with Adam and acted like Adam by dominating him instead of him dominating her. Women must give up leadership.
Satan's tactic has been brilliant and he's won. He has reached his goal of emasculating men. They are all weak now. He has everybody feminized so he can play cat and mouse with us. Men are the bad guys. They wear the black hats. Women are the good guys and wear the white hats. There is no gray. Men and women are not both good and bad. By depressing men Satan has effectively kept them from becoming strong fighters. He has kept them from forming trinities. He has kicked out the grandfather who is being abused by sadists at the nursing home. He has turned men into teddy bears instead of God's wish they become rocks. Now men are trying to get in touch with their femininity. They have become soft. Men are innately aggressive and out to win. That's why men have a hard time having friends. The see vertically and find it hard to be horizontal. Especially now that we are at war with Satan. Men don't hug, they shake hands. The history of shaking hands goes back to war and enemies coming together to talk by having their hands open and showing no weapon. Women are innately objective and adaptable. They are not out to win or think about going from point A to point B. They live in the here and now. The future is about as important as it is to the children who hang around them. How else could women play all day with them? It would drive a normal man crazy. Satan perverts this polarity by making people think that they must become the other sex. This distracts people and prevents them from understanding the Messiah who isn't into all this nonesense.
He comes to restore the extended family and have three generations of men live together B great grandfathers, grandfathers, and fathers or grandfathers, fathers and adult sons. It's hard enough to get a husband and wife to get unity. It is astronomically hard to get men to unite as trinities because the wives do not want to stay home and take care of grandma. They want to be"public." They want to get a job and run for office. Men are so beaten down most don't give a damn about much of anything. They have so low self esteem they drink themselves into oblivion. They have no purpose. Women go nuts to see this and think they have to fill the void instead of raising their Adam. Unwittingly they make the situation worse and leave the home to get a job or build a business because they feel they will starve to death if they don't. It all gets down to not understanding subject and object. We talk in the Church about Cain/Abel and Subject/Object. Did you notice that Cain and Abel are people and Subject and Object are technical jargon? To balance out Cain/Abel we should think of Subject and Object as Adam/Eve. Adam and Eve were the first subject and object. Adam was the first leader. A diagram to explain this would be:
Angels have a position lower than Eve. The Fall was those positions interchanging. It was the perversion of an angel"acting" like a man. Restoration is the reversal of this mess. Satan has his ideology of feminism that destroys patriarchy and Sun Myung Moon has his ideology of Godism that restores patriarchy. The Third Adam kicks Satan back to his position and takes leadership.
It may appear that women are more spiritual because they can sit together and talk peacefully about men and relationships as well as recipes and babies while men talk about competitive sports, catching a fish, shooting a deer, or the beauty of the Dodge Viper. Women may seem more family oriented, closer to God and therefore should be in charge because they have read many articles in the Ladies Home Journal, especially the series called,"Can this marriage be saved?" Men shouldn't lead their homes or the nation because they read Field and Stream. It's a given today, by both men and women, that men are pigs. They can't even talk right. When they talk they scare women. Even conservative religious marriage counselors like Gary Smalley believe it too. He has a late night infomercial for his videos on how to have happy marriages. My dad saw it, ordered them and sent them to me. Satan is so smart in how he gets his message across. Popular movie stars sit with Gary as he bashes men. John Tesh and his wife Connie Selleca are on some shows. On others he has the famous football player turned sports announcer, Frank Gifford and his wife, a famous TV personality, Kathy Lee. There is a part in the video that I'll use to sum up how insidious Satan is to crush men. Gary is shown speaking to a group of couples. He has a man come up to the stage and he blindfolds him. Now he says he's going to use this dramatic example to show the difference between men and women. He has the man put out a hand and he puts a very little rock in it, saying this is the depth of men's feelings. Then he picks up a very large rock and the viewer is getting nervous because the man is blindfolded and is in for quite a surprise. Gary says the depth of feeling women have is like this rock. Then he puts on the outstretched hand of the man who is alarmed and almost drops it but finally gets it up again and equal with the other rock in the other hand. This is an insult to men.
Cut a man and he bleeds like a woman. The idea that men care less, feel less, love less and think less than women is as satanic as you can get. One writer, David Thomas, wrote an interesting book called Not Guilty: the case in defense of men in which he looks at different areas of life from the workplace to the family and looks at statistical research and personal interviews to show that men and women are both good and bad and that it is wrong for everyone to see men as inherently bad and women as good. I can't go into detail about all his angles. He did his research though. And his insights are fascinating and thought provoking. And of course heresy to liberal/ feminists that dominate the culture. Like all things there are many arguments pro and con. Feminists would look at the data he found and the conclusions he makes differently. For me to say men are just as sensitive as women and that it's time for men to stand up and start leading their families is cultural heresy, but in time it will happen. Satan cannot rule forever. Satan cannot forever crush patriarchy, i.e., vertical relationship between men and women. By disparaging the vertical, Satan has made extremely hard for anyone to see Sun Myung Moon as their patriarch. He is laughed at. He is a pig. He has no feelings. Jesus had no feelings. Jesus was dangerous. Ignoring him wasn't good enough. He kept saying he was their leader. This made people mad. I'm going to keep saying men are to lead their families and people are going to get madder at me. They're plenty mad now if you read the letters against me.
Is there any man more hated and feared than the Messiah? Is any man more cruel and harsh? Is there any man more against the family? His words hurt like swords and fire. He is hated for saying America is too horizontal unlike the Asians who are more spiritual. We are proud and see ourselves as number one -- the super power of the world. We strike back and argue,"Oh, yeah! Mr. self-appointed messiah who hasn't gone to a seminary. It was unspiritual America that saved your ass, buddy, from Hungnam prison. It was our boys who bleed and died by the thousands to save your stupid country that is dominated for forty years by the spiritual Japanese and then invaded by the spiritual Chinese and North Koreans. And of course there is no crime in Korea. And of course it is a totally pure place with no prostitution or pornography. Who do you think you are to come here and work our young people to the bone. All they get is a sleeping bag while you live in a mansion and fish all day long." The arguments go back and forth, but in the end Father is right and we are less spiritual. Our language is not as spiritual and we put our old folks in nursing homes. Father has been in America for decades and other countries cream us in money and members. We have to take the criticism that comes our way from him.
We must see the Messiah and men in general as tough, but not harsh. Men must get their balls back and stand up to women. I'm not saying to hit women, but stand up. The Messiah is like a drill instructor. We live in a time of war and we need to be trained. If we are not toughened we will be crushed by the opposition. God wants to win the championship. He needs champions. He wants women to be strong, but strong within the boundaries of what is feminine.
Feminism teaches that men are vicious. Men can't win in this terrible battle of the sexes. Women can't win. Satan has got everyone focused on women who are always complaining and getting sympathy while men are judged as monsters. Both lose. Tocqueville's prophecy has come true. Men are weak and women are disorderly. To solve the problem, people just do more of the same stupid thing that got them into this mess. If rape increases in army barracks then the solution is to get more women in there and to get more little redheads from Kansas to be drill instructors to boys from the streets of Harlem. It's a vicious circle downward.
The American UC must understand subject/object. Either women are cops or they aren't. The UC also can't say that women should not be cops but they should be U.S. senators. You can't mix it up. There is no special Completed Testament Age middle ground, high ground or outer space new way of looking at things on this issue. Either women lead men or they don't. Either women earn money or they don't. No experiments will work. All else is perversion. It's the narrow way or the wide way. And the wide way has lots of different lifestyles. Everything from homosexual marriages to Margaret Thatcher's marriage. So far the feminists have drowned out those like Helen Andelin and Mary Pride. But a backlash is coming. Some women are seeing how they have been betrayed and are going home. Books like Fatherless America are beginning to come out. People are beginning to look at the Victorians differently and see they were on the right track in many areas of life.
In David Thomas' book Not Guilty the inside cover says"America has a new enemy, and that enemy is man. Forced into the corner by male-bashing movies and print, the male gender has become the scapegoat for all that is wrong with society. From Columbus to Clarence Thomas, men have been singled out and categorized as imperialist misogynist or potential rapists. Feminist orthodoxy has stripped men of their individual natures and denied them a voice in the gender debate. For years we have heard only one side of the argument in the battle of the sexes: It's the male oppressor versus the female oppressed, masculine authority suppressing the fragile distaff."
"How can men reclaim a voice in this atmosphere of exclusion and hate? . . . . taking on the feminists' blitzkrieg in the midst of their love affair with the media, David Thomas seeks to establish an equal voice for the overlooked male." The book forces"the reader to reexamine the implications of the male stereotype and the false empowerment it gives women who choose to typify men in this way: With studies showing that almost 50 percent of child abuse incidents are committed by women, why are men perceived almost exclusively as the perpetrators? Why does the public focus much more on spouse abuse by husbands when studies of couples prove that wives resort more often to physical violence?"
He begins his book:"Men stand accused. As everyone knows, men earn more money than women. Men run all the world's governments and fill the vast majority of seats on the boards of its major corporations. Men are generals, bishops, judges, newspaper editors, and movie studio heads. To make matters worse, men -- if we are to believe the campaigns waged by women -- oppress women to the point of open warfare. They beat them, rape them, and attempt to control their powers of reproduction. They stereotype them sexually and enslave them to ideals of beauty that lead thousands of women to undergo surgery or starve themselves half to death. And every time women look as though they are making any progress, men knock them back down again."
"That's what we've been told. So here's a simple question: If men are so much better off than women, how come so many more kill themselves?" He goes on to give data showing men kill themselves at a far higher percentage than women and every year it gets worse for men. He asks two questions about this,"1. Aren't all these suicides telling us something about the real state of men's lives? And: 2. If women comprised four fifths of all suicide victims, don't you think we'd have heard about it by now?" We don't hear about it because"Western society is obsesses with women to the point of mass neurosis." He says in researching the book he looked at the number of articles about women versus men and the number of organizations for men versus women. It is overwhelmingly favorable for women.
He asks,"Are we to believe, then, that men are simply born bad? Or is there something that happens to men that makes them more likely to act in destructive ways than might otherwise be the case? Are women, fundamentally, any better than men?" He goes on to show that the"all-powerful patriarchs" are hurting deeply and that women are just as mean, vicious and prone to crime as men.
He said his most difficult chapters were the ones on child abuse and spousal abuse. He shows that women are more deadly than men and that no one feels sympathy for a man who is abused by a woman who usually resorts to weapons to hurt him and no one looks at women abusing children. The abuser will even get sympathy. There is one catchy point I can't help to mention in his part on crime. Statistically women embezzle and commit fraud the same amount as men. In one example he used a woman who stole over three million dollars from other women who listened to her male bashing advertizing pitch for investing with her by saying,"You can't trust a man with your money." She is now serving 17 years in jail.
The world now says that men have"inherent moral and sexual deficiencies." He quotes the feminist Adrienne Rich who said it best:"Men -- insofar as they are embodiments of the patriarchal idea -- have become dangerous to children." He goes on to show that women are as cruel or maybe even more evil depending on how you want to look at the statistics. There are a lot of ways to play with numbers. He tries in different ways to show how men are seen as armor plated and always the cause of problems. Father has said many times that it is women who start arguments. Just as we make our enemy to be less human by calling them gooks, krauts, japs, etc. men are seen as totally uncaring and if a man ever says he's in pain he gets sneers and contempt, especially if he has been hurt by a woman. His writes that he is not trying to denigrate women but simply to say that its time to see things correctly. I am tempted to get into his book and give you some of his angles to show how rotten of a deal many men have. So many have had everything taken away from them. I am encouraged though that there a signs of this beginning to change. They are tiny but there. One is that there was a movie on television that dealt with battered husbands played by well known actors. One movie that I enjoyed that showed a man as not being a jerk and his wife as one and she gets her dues is"It Could Happen to You." Nicholas Gage plays the real life story of the New York cop who won the lottery and shared it with a waitress. His wife was a shrew and the movie is not only great entertainment but shows that women can hurt men and can go to court and get juries to side with them. I won't give the ending. Rent it and see for yourself. It's a fun movie.
Not Guilty shows how men are abused
"He shows in his book that men become desperate because they are routinely ignored and not honored as men and fathers. This atmosphere of inequality does not help women in the long run. It merely makes men desperate. And desperate men do crazy things."
"In August 1991, the FBI arrested an Englishman called Bernie Downes in Philadelphia. He had fled there with his young daughter after kidnapping her from his former partner's London house. Downes, a small, lightly built social worker with no record of violent behavior, had been so frustrated by court decisions depriving him of meaningful contact with his child that he had taken the law into his own hands."
"After a massive manhunt, during which the British police claimed that he was both dangerous and mentally unstable (a claim for which there was no genuine evidence), Downes was jailed for four years. His actions, which involved forcing his way into the house where his daughter was living, and tying her mother to her bed with electric cable, were undoubtedly criminal, but they were a perfect demonstration of what happens when men are driven to the breaking point. The stories that follow involve British men, but they might just as well have happened in America: In both countries, legislative procedures and public attitudes are similar, as are their consequences."
"He goes on saying,"The time has come for men to get used to the idea of thinking of themselves as a group with shared interests and coherent aims. I deeply regret the splintering of society, but as long as people are putting themselves into little boxes, each with its own, exclusive label, men are only being foolish and unfair to themselves not to play the game too. The men's movement, such as it is, originally developed as a splinter from the plank of feminism, and many of its early members accepted without question the Marxist-feminist notion of the oppressive patriarchy. Their aim, therefore, was to atone for the sins of the past by trying to do better in the future. And, by and large, the way in which they would do better was by becoming more female."
"Since then, the Robert Bly school of hairy New Machismo has talked about putting men in touch with the repressed masculine selves that lie within. Read a few of the books of Bly's ilk and you'll discover that there's a regular cast of thousands nestled away inside your soul. There's's the child within, the warrior, the priest, the wizard, the hairy man ... they should get together and form a basketball team."
"There's a lot of good stuff mixed up with all that mumbo-jumbo. And I know many men who have been helped by the teachings of Bly and men like him. But I don't believe that there's a warrior in me, or a wizard, or anyone else. Inside me, all you'll find is ... me. I may be mixed up and we all may be mixed up. But men are no more mixed up than women, any more than the reverse is true. We're all human. We all live with the knowledge of our own fallibility and our own mortality. In the wee small hours of the morning we all feel alone and afraid. There really are no exceptions."
"Some people say that the reason women are still in pain is not because they have had too much feminism, but because they haven't had enough. To me, that sounds a bit like saying the trouble with Russia was that it wasn't communist enough. Truth is, communism doesn't work, feminism doesn't work, and no ism you can think of works, because the world and the people in it are much too complicated to be reduced to a set of simple formulae."
"It is, however, true to say that we've only gone halfway down the road to sexual equality. And now it's men who need to be liberated."
"As matters stand, we have removed all the legal prejudices against women, without touching the ones against men. Or, to put it another way, we have said that women are the same as men when it suits them to be so, but different when it does not. At work, men and women are -- in law, at any rate -- equal. At home they are not. When a woman is an executive, she is exactly the same as a man. When she is a mother, she is not. When a woman wants an abortion reproduction is entirely her affair. When she wants child support, it suddenly becomes the man's responsibility."
"I do not blame women for this state of affairs, even if I think that some feminist campaigners have added to the human pain that it has caused. Men's rights are men's responsibility. Men passed the laws that got them into this sorry state of affairs. Men should damn well change them."
"The first thing that they can do to help themselves is to stop apologizing. There seems to be no middle way at the moment between the bastard and the wimp. For every man who attacks and degrades women, there's another one who's down on his knees saying he's sorry. A plague on both their houses."
"British people, of both sexes, who go to live and work in America often comment upon the incredible anger of American women. There are a number of causes for this. In the first place, women in the States are still denied a number of straightforward, practical rights that are commonplace in Europe. The sex war has always been much more intense in the States, too: The struggle between the bullying man and the ball-busting woman has been as violent as every other American conflict. Then there's the traditional American belief in human perfectibility and, more than that, the sense that people have a right to be happy. Women are not happy, so they look for a reason why, and the obvious one is men. It does not seem to occur to anyone that happiness is not the lot of the average human being, whatever their gender."
Not Guilty goes on to say,"The way I learned it, we were all trying to create a world in which the liberation of both sexes would act to everyone's benefit. A new world order would arise in which men and women would be equal partners as workmates, friends, and lovers. The sun would shine, children would be happy, and glorious formations of flying pigs would wave benevolently at the fairies frolicking at the bottom of the garden."
"We all know now that it didn't work. The pigs are as earthbound as ever. The conflict between men and women has become a sexual civil war. But it was still a nice idea. We could at least try to get a little of the way toward it. And the contribution that men make toward that ideal is to stop being bullies on the one hand, guilt-ridden apologists on the other."
"Meanwhile, those campaigners who accuse us of being bad by definition, those propagandists who maintain that all men are violent and all violence is male, and even those well-meaning young women who assume -- as who would not after the sexual politics of the past twenty-five years? -- that right is on their side must come to terms with the fact that life is not that simple. Neither sex has the monopoly on virtue or vice versa. Men do not wear the black hats, nor women the white. We are all of us fallible souls decked out in shades of gray. As a man I stand accused of violence, aggression, oppression, and destructiveness. Members of the jury, I plead: not guilty."
Thomas writes so well and says so much that I'm going to quote the following extended passage:"When I started work on this book, one of the issues by which I was most deeply troubled was the sheer amount of evil that men appeared to do. Wherever one looked, from the pictures on the TV screen to the words on a vast array of newspapers, books, and magazines, one was confronted by the violence and abuse wreaked by men upon defenseless women and children. Men harassed, and raped. They punched and abused. They buttfucked little children, for God's sake. (I apologize for the crudity of the language, but it's only when you strip accusations of their jargon and technicalities that their horrors become apparent.) There seemed no end to men's depravity."
"I had never done any of these things, nor even wished to. Nor had I ever witnessed any of them. It sounds like the height of naivete to say this, but in more than a dozen years as a jounalist, including several spent as a senior executive on a number of different publications, I am not aware that any of my female colleagues has ever been sexually harassed by me or anyone else. Naturally, I have heard plenty of gossip about goings-on in the business as a whole, but have I ever witnessed an act of harassment? I don't think so. Nor do I for one moment believe that any of my close friends has ever beaten up his wife or sexuallly abused his little children. Nor does my wife recall that any of the women she knows has ever made the slightest reference to any such acts. We simply cannot afford to believe such things. Because if we did, we would lose whatever faith we have in the power of love or friendship, or indeed, any of the values that make life remotely tolerable."
"And yet, if the reports I read were to be credited -- and many of them came from apparently unimpeachable, nay, official sources -- the Western world was steadily being overrun by a plague of abusive behavior. One in three children had experienced some form of sexual abuse. One in five women had been the victim of an attempted rape, or was it 44 percent, or even, as some researchers claimed, one in two? One in seven university students actually had been raped. According to a respected academic authority, between 21 and 35 percent of all women had suffered some form of domestic violence. And, in every case, the perpetrators of the terrible acts were men."
"Try as one might to deny the claim that all men were rapists, or abusers, or wife-beaters, it was impossible not to feel overwhelmed by a sense of guilt. Trying to be a good man was like trying to be a good German -- you could always feel the Nazis (or, in this case, the perverts) in the background. Just as those Germans who were not involved in the Holocaust had to explain, both to the world, and perhaps more important, to themselves, how they could possibly have allowed it to happen, and then had to find some means of atoning for it, so I struggle to resolve my feelings of complicity in the crimes that man was apparently wreaking upon the rest of humanity."
"Much of the work done by the men's movement has proceeded from a position of culpability. It is accepted that there is something wrong with men. The only questions remaining are, what, exacly, is the root of the problem, and what should be done to eradicate it? I must confess to having accepted this basic premise when I started work on this book. My early interviews -- conversations with psycologists, scientists, therapists, counselors, and even the odd advice columnist -- were all directed to discovering why men behaved so badly. Was it something that was unavoidable, a malevolence buried deep within the genes? Or was it a matter of conditioning, an anomaly that might, who knows, be 'cured' by changing the way in which we educated and conditioned little boys?"
"Some of these questions have been examined elsewhere in this book. They remain, I hope, central to any consideration of men today. But there's something else. The more I looked at the subject of male dysfunction, the more it seemed that the view society was taking had become seriously distorted. This distortion took two main forms: In the first place, the accusations made against men had been inflated far beyond anything that was justified by the actual -- as opposed to the claimed -- evidence. And second, the ways in which women hurt their fellow human beings had been virtually ignored. Men, in other words, were being forced to take the the rap for problems that were common to both sexes."
"Just consider what happens if one takes all the claims about male malevolence at face value. Take all the estimated figures for female victimization that I have mentioned above and add up the percentages. They come to more than 100 percent. Now, it could be that some women suffer disproportionately, but the same campaigners who come up with these figures also insist that the problems they descibed are spread evenly throughout society. So, by thier criteria, every single woman in the Western world has either been abused as a child, or raped, or attacked by a male partner."
"Who's been doing it? Well, it could be that a few men commit many crimes each. That would be the common sense view. But we're not dealing with common sense; we're dealing with political correctness, which insists that perpetrators are as evenly spread as their victims. So, if we believe their propaganda, we have to conclude that ever single man in the Western world has committed at least one of these acts."
"Can this be possible? Do you believe that every single man you know, without exception, has actually committed some form of sexual or physical assault on a woman or child? Look around the dinner table at your friends -- are they all sex criminals? Think of your father, brother, husband, boyfriend, son, and workmates. Think of the firemen, ambulance drivers, air-sea rescue pilots, doctors, and teachers you've come across or seen on the TV news. Think of the newscaster, come to that, and the weatherman, and the guy behind the camera. If you believe the propaganda, you've got to believe that every single one them deserves to be locked up."
"Let's get specific and name names. How about General H. Norman Schwarzcopf? His leadership of the allied forces in the war against Iraq made him a hero all over the globe. He has devoted his life to the service of his country. He is a devoted husband and father (he has said that his greatest regret about the Gulf was that it took him away from home just as his teenage son was changing from a boy into a young man). And he even has hidden liberal tendencies: On the BBC radio program 'Desert Island discs', he picked Bob Dylan's 'The Times They Are A 'Changing' as one of the eight records he would take with him if marooned on a desert island."
"So, think about this paragon of manly virtue, and figure out his perversion of choice. Does he beat his wife? Does he harass junior staff? Does he abuse his kids? Has he raped anyone? If we believe the figures, he must have been doing something. What with him being a man, and all."
"Now, the last paragraph may have made many readers feel nauseaous and disgusted. That's precisely the point. Because every man has, implicitly, been put in the position of into which I have just put General Schwarzkopf. And the choice before us is either to believe the statistics that supposedly condemn these men, along with every other man in the land, or to consider that the people who compiled them are either (a) misguided, (b) malevolent, or (c) plain nuts."
"I think I know where my vote is going."
"Before we go any further, let me get one thing straight. I have no desire whatsoever to try and put the boot on the other foot. I do not believe in some grotesque misogynist fantasy that men are the helpless victims of a vast gang of scheming, manipulative, violent bitches from hell. I just want to say that men do rather less harm than is currently believed and women do rather more. Not all of this harm takes the same form. Not all of it is looked at in the same way by our legal system: By and large, the harm that men do is illegal; by and large, the harm that women do is not. Some of it, perhaps, ought to be. But, in the end, we are all mortal, fallible human beings. And we all work out about equal."
"That is not, however the way that everyone sees it."
NEW LEFT, OLD NEWS
"The process by which academia, government, and the media came to be persuaded that men -- particularly white, middle-class, heterosexual men -- were, by definition, an oppressive, possibly violent group unlike any other fascinating one, and it deserves more study than I can give it here. In years to come, historians may wonder why Americans, who were so resistant to conventional Marxism, were so willing to be taken in by the theories of the New Left."
"After all, the United States has never wavered from its belief in the profit motive and private enterprise. It has never been possible to persuade the majority of Americans that capitalism is evil, principally because -- until recently, at least -- it was so clearly delivering improved living standards across the whole range of society in a way that no state-run economy has ever achieved."
"Proponents of radical change in America have had to deal with the fact that its citizens have, on the whole, been richer, healthier, and less politically or religiously oppressed than any people in the known history of the world. In an article in the July 1976 edition of Harper's Magazine, entitled 'The Intelligent Co-Ed's Guide to America', 'Tom Wolfe described the attempts of American intellectuals to make themselves feel as oppressed (and thus as morally superior) as their European counterparts. They would talk about such heinous crimes as 'cultural genocide,' 'liberal fascism,' or 'relative poverty' as a means of skating over the fact that real genocide, fascim, and poverty were less prevalent in the United States than anywhere else on earth. He called this process the 'Adjectival Catch-Up.'"
"Wolfe describes a debate at Yale, back in 1965. Speaker after speaker rose to denounce the neofascist police state of America. One of the panelists was the German author Gunther Grass, author of The Tin Drum. After a while he remarked, 'For the past hour I have my eyes fixed on the doors here. You talk about fascism and police repression. In Germany when I was a student, they come through the doors long ago. Here they must be very slow.'"
"The point, of course, was that there was no comparison whatever between the fascist fantasies of a few American academics and the terrible realities of a real police state. Yet fifteen years after Wolfe's piece, with Marxism in ruins all over the world, it is the catch-up crowd that's winning Marxism in the academic debate all over America. In place of Marx's idea that the bourgeoisie, as a class, oppresses the proletariat, as a class, they have proposed the notion that men, as a sex, oppress women, as a sex."
"As the British author Neil Lyndon has argued in his controversial book No More Sex War: The Failures of Feminism, the parallel between Marxism and feminism is a telling one. In 1843 Marx wrote, 'For 'one' class to represent the whole of society, another class must concentrate in itself all the evils of society .... For one class to be the liberating class 'par excellence', it is essential that another class should be openly the oppressing class.'"
"One hundred and twenty-seven years later, in her book Sexual Politics, the feminist writer Kate Millett claimed that men oppressed by means of 'interior colonization,' which was more powerful than any form of class distinction. Lyndon remarks, 'The dominon of females by males is, she said, our culture's most pervasive ideology, providing it with its most essential ideas and conceptions of political power ....The long wander of the Marxist Left through the institutions and societies of the modern West, in search of the class which would be the head and heart of society, the class which would be the dissolution of all classes had culminated in the definition of 'the birthright priority whereby males rule females'... Karl, meet Kate. Kate, this is Karl: you two were made for each other.' Lyndon surely does not mean to suggest that all feminists are Marxist, and even if he does, I do not. The point is that feminism arose in part (and only in part) from the ideology of the New Left and borrowed the idea of scapegoating a particular group of people as the source of all oppression. The term that was used to define this group was 'the patriarchy,' which was the ideological embodiment of male, paternal, oppressive power."
"From this it followed that men were, by definition, the bad guys. The British feminist Rosalind Miles has written about 'the penis rampant' stalking through history, spreading destruction wherever it goes. She sees all violence as male and all men as violent. In The Women's Room, Marilyn French famously stated that 'all men are rapists and that's all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws and theirs codes.' In the words of the American Adrienne Rich, writing in her 1979 book On lies, Secrets, and Silence: 'I am a feminist because I feel endangered, psychically and physically, by this society, and because I believe that the women's movement is saying that we have come to an edge of history when men -- insofar as they are embodiments of the patriarchal idea -- have become dangerous to children and other living things, themselves included.'"
"Andrea Dworkin, the controversial activist and author, has gone even further. In her 1987 nook 'Intercourse' she claims that 'normal, ordinary men commit acts of forced sex against women, including women they know, in the same way that most women are beaten by the men they live with -- that is ordinary sexual relations.' For Dworkin, men are, by difinition, both physically and sexually abusive. In her world there is little possibility of a relationship between a man and a woman that is both loving and mutually sexually satisfying. She states as a fact that 'women do not really enjoy intercourse,' and that 'intercourse remains a means, or the means, of physiologically making a woman inferior: communicating to her cell by cell, her own inferior status.'"
"In a later work, the novel Mercy, Dworkin's central character Andrea muses, 'I've always wanted to see a man beaten to a shit bloody pulp with a high-heeled shoe stuffed up his mouth, sort of the pig with an apple ....'Now, imagine that you take out the word 'man' and replace it with nigger, or Jew, or faggot. Obscene, isn't it? Or just add the two letter 'wo' and consider what the reaction of the literary world would be to a male author who fantasized about smashing a women to a pulp."
"Mercy, it must be said, is fiction, and any author is entitled to claim that the words he of she writes in such a context represent the views of his or her character, rather than his or her personal opinions. Yet when Brett Easton Ellis wrote American Psycho, a similarly unpleasant study of male violence, critics were in little doubt that he should be held responsible. One publisher rejected the manuscript. Many bookstores refused to stock it, or kept it out of public view. Why then should we feel so much more comfortable with such clear evidence of one woman's hostility toward men?"
"Ms. Dworkin is much more militant than the vast majority of supporters of the women's movement. Yet many of the ideas she proposes -- the notion, for example, that pornography consists solely of the exploitation and objectification of women for the benefit of oppressive males -- have been accepted, in somewhat diluted form, by a vast swath of progressive and liberal opinion."
"A culture of victimization has grown up in which women are perceived to be the helpless targets of an extrordinary range of male malevolence. In The London Review of Books, dated July 23, 1992, Margaret Anne Doodly, Andrew Mellon Professor of English Literature at Vanderbilt University, reviewed Backlash, by Susan Faludi, and The War Against Women, by Marilyn French. During the course of the review, which ran over several thousand words, she set out the full list of crimes committed by society (i.e, men) against women."
"She told her readers that short skirts were an evil male conspiracy designed to infantilize women (of which misconception more anon); that 'advertising portrays women as helpless, vulnerable, feckless, silly, so that they will have the humility necessary to take upon themselves the chains of marriage'; that Third World men waste UN handouts on transistor radios; that 'the background to all women's lives is fear'; that 'individual 'nice' men must... collude in woman-bashing in order to preserve the status of manhood'; that people who are opposed to the British monarchy are really woman-haters who want to remove a female head of state; that 'the family is where social control of women must take place'; and that men believe 'the proper attitude to women is one of contemptuous control, of never-ceasing vigilance, of, in short, permanent hostility.'"
"What comes across in this extraordinary diatribe against male misogyny is an equally powerful anger toward and hatred of men on the part of Professor Doody herself. This would not be of any great concern -- The London Review of Books, for all its prestige, is not a publication likely to inflame the general public -- were it not for the fact that these extreme ideas are influential far beyond the boundaries of university campuses and literary magazines."
THE LEGISLATIVE EFFECT
"The idea that men monopolize violence has become a basic assumption of modern public life. In 1991 Senator Joseph Biden proposed a Violence Against Women Act, the first federal legislation specifically designed to combat the problem of domestic violence. The act would make male abusers subject to federal criminal penalties, which could also be imposed against any man crossing a state boundary in search of a fleeing partner. States would be given incentives to arrest wife-beaters, and federal financing for women's shelters would be tripled."
"With the possible exception of incentivizing arrests -- a principle that throws up a mass of potential difficulties and abuses of power, irrespective of the crime involved -- I do not believe that any of these proposals is inherently objectionable. Anything that can be done to free people from the shadow of domestic violence deserves support. Yet the underlying presumption of the act, which is that only men commit acts of violence in the home, and only women are the victims, is repugnant and discriminatory. Domestic violence is inexcusable, irrespective of the gender of its perpetrator or victim. A beaten husband deserves just as much sympathy as a battered wife."
"A straightforward domestic violence Act, which set forward penalites for abusers and granted funds for counseling and protection services in a non-gender-specific manner, would be a genuinely valuable piece of legislation. It would also, as I shall endeavor to demonstrate in a later chapter, bear a much closer relationship to the truth about violence in the home, which is that it is practiced by both sexes. Yet the chances of such evenhanded legislaiton being adopted are virtually nil, so completely have legislators bought the notion that violence is a uniquely male phenomenon."
"Any campaigners who attempt to dispel this notion can expect to come up against three immediate difficulties. In the first place, they will be accused of misogyny. Here I speak, regretfully, from experience. Articles accusing me of waging a campaign against women and women's rights appeared in several British newspapers in the eighteen months prior to this books publication. As often as not, the writers concerned had never met me or even spoken to me. Invariably, they had not seen a single word of my manuscript. It was simply presumed that any man who spoke in favor of men must, by definition, be speaking against women. The notion that one's ultimate aim might be to help both sexes by acknowledging that our shared humanity was never for one moment considered."
"Second, there is the matter of vested interest. Jaundiced campaigners for the rights of battered men, such as the Minnesotan Georege Gilliland, contend that there are now thousands of jobs and millions of dollars tied up in women's shelters, domestic abuse couselors (ditto child abuse, sexual harassment, rape counselors, etc.), academic programs, court officials, lawyers, law enforcement officers, and so forth, all of whom are dependent upon the notion of the victimized woman. Any suggestion that the truth of the situation might differ from the accepted version is perceived as a threat to funding, jobs, and power. It is therefore resisted with the utmost energy."
"A more charitable view would be that there are very few people getting rich out of violence and sexual abuse. Many women's shelters have to turn away mothers and children who are in dire need of help. If they are resistant to the idea of sharing their funding with battered men, it is only because there is not enough of it to begin with. Whatever the rationale, however, the end result is the same: a resistance to the idea of male victimization."
"The final barrier, which may be the biggest one all, is public incredulity. Most of us have opinions formed from a confused mass of inherited prejudice, jumbled information, and conetemporary beliefs. The idea of women's oppression makes sense to us on two levels. In the first place it fits with everything we have been told by the women's movement. And in the second, it strikes an older, more conservative chord, which is our instinctive feeling that men are stronger, more aggressive, and somehow more impervious to pain (both physical and psychological) than women. Most people, no matter how progressive they claim to be, are pretty old fashioned when it comes to gender. Surely, we suppose, a woman can't really harm a man. And, in any case, any man who allows himself to be harmed by a woman can't really be a man at all."
"These beliefs are irrational, as a moment's reflection demonstrates, when we stop to think about our own experience and that of the men and women we know, we can all think of plenty of examples in which men have been on the receiving end -- the divorced father who has lost his family and his home, for example -- just as we all know women who have had a raw deal. Yet our preconceptions are awfully hard to shift."
"In June 1992, Life magazine -- which is hardly a banner-waving publication for the feminist Left -- ran a cover story entitled 'If Women Ran America,' which illustrated the degree both to which men are painted as villainous and to which women are idealized. The article's author, Lisa Grunwald, painted a depressing picture of life in country run by men, noting that 'In 1990 an estimated 683,000 women were raped; at least two million were abused each year by husbands and boyfriends.'"
"The use of the word 'estimated' is crucial here: According to official U.S. government statistic, there were 94,500 reported rapes, or attempted rapes, in 1989 (again, the last year for which I had published figures at the time of writing). That figure is less than one-seventh the quantity cited by Grunwald. Similarly, the total number of all violent crimes against the person -- including murders, assaults, and every manner of bodily harm -- was 1,646,000, of which the majority were committed against men, rather than women. The most dangerous thing you can be is not female, but black. A black man runs more than twice the risk of becoming the victim of violence than does a white woman."
"Needless to say, it is not only possible, but probable that the number of actual offenses far exceeds the number of those reported. And assaults against women are unacceptable and inexcuseable, irrespective of their frequency. Even so, you have to wonder where Life found the extra 588,500 rape victims and at least 1.5 million battered wives. And you also have to ask yourself how we came to the point where numbers like that can be cited -- 'and people assume that the must be right.'"
"If men are bad, women are -- so the public believes -- far better. An opinion poll of '1,222 Americans, a representative sample of the population,' commisssioned by Life revealed that if women ran America childcare would be more available; maternity leave would be guaranteed; government would be more attentive to the needy (but not, respondents agreed, the work-shy); abortion would be legal; there would be greater equality for working women, and greater sexual tolerance; finally, gun control would be stricter and the law would be tougher on crime."
It takes two to tango
In Manhood Redux Carlton Freedman wrote,"'I have never yet seen a family in which a woman was simply a victim of a beating and had no input in that behavior,' said Dr. Rodney J. Shapiro, a University of Rochester psychologist, in what had to be one of the more intrepid pronouncements of our age, given the fearsome climate that obtains in academia vis-a-vis feminist causes. 'It is fashionable nowadays to see women who are victims of wife-beatings as total victims. I think that is naive, that it is directed by political interests or current trends rather than clinical truth.' (Emphasis added.)"
"Nothing written here is to be construed as in any way justifying violence in response to non-violent provocation. But it is imperative we understand that it is an extremely rare man who just walks into his house and gratuitously starts batting his wife around -- which is the version we invariably hear from the battered women, especially when she has disposed of the alleged beater."
"Dick Doyle, in his hard-hitting book The Rape of the Male, confessed to hitting his ex-wife on two different occasions. The first time occurred as he was driving home from a dance with her when: 'for no reason I can conceive, she began slugging me with all her might. As big and strong as she was, and at 50 m.p.h., this was an extremely dangerous situation, and I desperately backhanded her -- hard -- in an unsuccessful effort to keep her off me. By the time I got the car stopped, she had two black eyes (she bruises so easily a dirty look could do it). She had her sister take pictures of the black eyes and showed them to everyone who would look. A dairy farm would need only one cow if it could get as much milk from it as she got sympathy from those pictures."
Three greatest turning points in history
The ideology of feminism is the ideology of the Fall. It is Satan's philosophy of life. It is Eve leaving her position and dominating Adam. It teaches that women interchange with men and become subjects and men become objects. Socialism is the view that government is subject and family is object. Godism, the ideology of the Messiah, is the exact opposite of this.
The three greatest turning points in human history have been the births of the three Adams. Satan worked through Eve to bring down Adam in the Garden of Eden. Satan possessed Mary 2000 years ago to destroy Jesus' family. And Satan seduced Christian women to get the vote in 1920, the year the Third Adam was born. By the time the Messiah was ready to begin his public ministry in the middle of the 20th century, he had to face a world that was socialist/feminist. His first wife became a rebellious Eve and betrayed him, and socialist governments imprisoned him.
Every historian in the world says that 1920 was one of the greatest turning points in history. Everything changed after World War I. And the suffering and murder since then has been the worst in all of human history.
Covey explains, as many are beginning to see, that it was, in many ways better before 1920. He studied the success literature of America's past 200 years and discovered that before WWI, America had a deeper sense of right and wrong and it had what he correctly calls a"character" ethic. After WWI America"shifted" to a"superficial""personality" ethic. He says Benjamin Franklin's Autobiography is"representative" of what he calls the first 150 years of America before it went downhill in the last 50 years. The distance between the marriages and lifestyle of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is like the difference between day and night. The Founding Fathers were not feminist/socialists like people are today. They were far wiser than people living in the 20th century. At a dinner honoring American Nobel Prize winners, President Kennedy said:"This is the most extraordinary collection of talent ... that has ever been gathered together at the White House -- with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."
Covey says people used to be more into true values. He lists a few of these values. One he doesn't mention is the one most associated with Ben Franklin, the virtue of thrift. I write about thrift in my chapter called"Prosperity." Was it better in the"good old days?" Scientifically or externally it is better in a dentist's office of today than in one a hundred years ago. Driving in an air conditioned car down the interstate is easier than what the pioneers had to experience on wagon trains. However, internally and socially, Covey says it was better in the past and we need to restore the old fashioned values this century has thrown out that were the building blocks our ancestors used to build America. He never says in his book what his deepest values are. He chooses things that no one can argue with. They are good, but his"7 Habits" do not get to the core of life. Truly effective people will live by the values I teach in this book. Covey is a devout Mormon and shares some of the values I teach in this book, such as the value of patriarchy. I know this because I read his books that he wrote for his church. If Covey had written his core values in 7 Habits it would never have become a best-seller. I assume Covey is trying to reach as wide an audience as he can with some of his truth rather than not reach anyone outside his church. I don't know. I do know that I have no interest in spoon-feeding truth.
Covey says there is a great divide between America's first 150 years and succeeding 50 years. These figures are wrong. 1776 to 1920 is 144 years which rounds off to 140 years. 1920 to 1990 is 70 years. These are principled numbers. There is also a 70 year period before 1920.
The year 1848 was a year of revolutions and Satan inspired his champions to write his deadly ideas. They taught feminism -- Satan's ideology of antifamily. He focuses on destroying the family. God focuses on building it -- especially extended families living in loving communities. Satan focuses on individualism and small families, like the nuclear families of today. There is strength in numbers. Satan hates wagon trains; he likes lonely wagons. God was working to prepare a safe world for the Messiah to come to by inspiring the traditional family as taught in the Bible. Satan disparages and attacks the Bible as being outdated, not relevant, not hip, not cool, not modern and advanced. UC sisters write against the Biblical family pattern as all feminists do. Satan worked through Karl Marx and Friedreich Engels who published The Communist Manifesto in 1848. Unknown to them, Satan worked through Elizabeth Cady Stanton who published the diabolical Seneca Falls Declaration in New York the same year with the radical idea that women should get the vote and join men in decisions of war and peace in government. Government looked exciting to these women. They were bored in their homes, and Satan turned their idealism and restlessness to the man's realm. These were the mustard seeds of Satan that grew in 70 years until it was the biggest tree in the world and now everyone lives under its shade. In just 70 years their ideas went from being seen as laughable and dangerous to being mainstream thought. Satan beat God in the war of ideologies. Today everyone is a feminist. Today everyone believes women should vote.
Suffragists vs. Antisuffragists (Antis)
For seventy years the suffragists and antisuffragists (or Antis as they were called then) fought an intense cultural war until the suffragists were victorious in getting men to pass the nineteenth amendment in 1920 that gave women the right to vote.
Focus on the family vs. focus on the individual
The antisuffragists tried their best to teach the rebellious suffragists that getting the vote would turn America from being centered on the family to being centered on the individual and those individuals would center on big government. They constantly taught that men are the head of the house who speak for the family with one voice. Recently a feminist wrote of this argument of the Antis saying,"Women who thus invaded the masculine sphere would forfeit their right to chivalry, that mode of male behavior which ennobled society. Such activity would also encourage that specious independence of woman slyly advocated by supporters of free love and socialism. ... To comprehend the horror [the author is sarcastic but the results have been horrible] with which the Antis contemplated these possibilities, it is necessary to understand their belief that the unit of society was not the individual but the family. A man voted not for himself alone but for all the members of his family, as their political representative. Social stability depended upon the existence of many tightly knit families, each of which was, in the antisuffragist view, a state in miniature." Father often speaks of the rampant"free love" in America.
Father, like the Antis, teaches that families are little countries. He says, "The nation is basically a collection of families in which all the generations are included. Each extended family symbolizes one small country....the man (is) the 'president' of his family, which is a micro-country."
Feminist suffragists were Cain; Antisuffragists were Abel. God's champions are the women who fought the suffragists. Satan's champions are the suffragists who fought to leave the home. Today we have women who do not want to care for grandparents in their home. They put them in nursing homes. To Father this is the most vivid example of how American women have become godless. Father often criticizes American sisters for not seeing things vertically. They can't see that grandparents are vertically higher than them. And they can't see that men are vertically higher and need to be treated with tact. American women have created a nightmare matriarchy in the home and no matter how much Father denounces it, nothing seems to change. I'm writing this book to help him get his absolute antifeminist message across.
Vertical vs. horizontal
This century is horizontal. Father's imagery in his speeches is difficult for Americans to understand. Americans rarely see things vertically. They don't see grandparents vertically. They don't see men vertically. Feminism rules and says men are just jerks. As one popular bestseller is titled, Men Are Just Desserts. Unfortunately for many men this has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. To fill the void women are leaving the home in an exodus. They feel they don't need men to take care of them. They want to be independent, not dependent on men. They want to compete and dominate men in the workplace. When there seems to be a problem in society, the solution is more feminism. Problem: rape in the military. Solution: Ellen Goodman will fire off a national newspaper column and millions will be indoctrinated that we need to get more women leading men in the military, and we need many more women to join the military. It makes as much sense as saying an alcoholic should work in a liquor store. Then when he falls off the wagon he should work more hours. Ellen is walking hand in hand with Satan down his road that is a vicious cycle downward. And UC sisters are holding his other hand.