Home

FALSE TEACHING OF UTS PROFESSOR

In Contemplating Unification Thought by Dr. Jennifer P. Tanabe we read more of this nonsense that women are to compete with men, become their boss and have men be submissive to them in the workplace and then shift gears smoothly when they go home after a long day and be submissive to her man. She says,

Jennifer TanabeHere we have one of the major controversial issues in Unification Thought. The terms "subject" and "object" are loaded terms in Western philosophy, where subject refers to a self or being with consciousness, and object to the being or idea which is recognized or faced by the subject. This means basically that the subject is a human being and the object is not. In Unification Thought, however, human beings are often in the "object" position, which most people find objectionable, since they do not want to be treated as objects, i.e. things! Clearly, we have to understand that in Unification Thought the subject-object relationship can be applied to a human being and a thing, to two human beings, or to two things. Thus, both subject and object in Unification Thought can be either human or thing, so there is no need to take offense!"

it is still a power relationship. The relation is one of "dominion" of subject over object, and the object must remain object or become an unnatural subject repulsed by the natural subject.

Two subjects, or two objects, naturally repel each other and this action strengthens the give-and-receive relationships between subject and object. In the ideal natural world this phenomenon maintains order and harmony.

Of course, in the realm of human relationships things get a lot more complicated and controversial. So next month's article on the Theory of Original Human Nature will deal with the subject/object relationship, and an even hotter topic, Yang and Yin in human beings.

Unification Thought is a general theory, and therefore the details of the life of faith chosen for restoration and perfection of the individual are not included.

The harmony of Yang and Yin refers to the harmony between husband and wife. This is because the husband represents the Yang aspects of the Original Image and the wife the Yin aspects. Now, this is a very controversial point, made all the more controversial by the various characterizations that have appeared in Unification Thought texts of Yang and Yin in the human intellect, emotion, and will. When questioned, Dr. Lee takes great pains to explain that women are not all Yin and men all Yang, and hence the Yin attributes of forgetfulness, vagueness, sorrow, and passiveness do not characterize the ideal woman! Rather, men and women both have Yang and Yin aspects of intellect, emotion, and will, but they are expressed differently. Whether this explanation satisfies all critics or not, we can understand that Unification Thought treats human beings as the highest level, and therefore most complex, of God's creations. Unification Thought also provides a clear philosophical basis for sex differences in human beings, but these differences do not provide any basis for discrimination or difference in value. That there are ontological differences between men and women, not just differences produced by socialization, has now become accepted by most psychological researchers. However, the range of overlap between the sexes is so great that the characteristics of any individual cannot be predicted based on sex alone. This is entirely compatible with the Unification Thought position that men and women both contain Yang and Yin characteristics. Thus, we should understand Unification Thought as saying that men and women are created to be different, reflecting different aspects of the Original Image, but that these differences are manifest in an infinite variety of ways. This means that there is potential for incredible beauty and harmony when men and women unite in marriage.

This section, on a being with Position, brings us back to the idea of subject and object, and naturally, the problems associated with these terms. However, I was happy to hear at the recent Society for Research in Child Development conference that at least one researcher has realized that human beings can be both agents and objects of other people's actions. So philosophers, don't worry, there is at least one psychologist who accepts that people can be in the object position to other people, and in this case, even to infants!

Unification Thought is a relational philosophy in which proper position is very important. The human being is not only an individual but also a connected body, i.e. in relationship to other beings. And connected bodies have two positions, subject and object. This means that for two people in relationship, one is in the subject position and the other in the object position. And, according to Unification Thought, human beings start in the object position, as objects to their parents. After growing, they become parents themselves and stand in the subject position to their children.

Additionally, all human beings stand in the object position to God. God created human beings as the object of His love. To fulfill this position, human beings should have "object consciousness" to God, or the heart of attendance and loyalty. Since human beings are created to be object to God and to other human beings such as their parents, they have object consciousness as part of their character. In the fallen world this has been exploited by evil leaders who took subject position over other people who responded with object consciousness. A true subject must, however, have the appropriate attitude, or "subject consciousness" over people in the object position.

According to Unification Thought, subject consciousness means that the subject should have concern, love and authority toward the object. Thus a true subject does not neglect or exploit, is not authoritarian but maintains authority while loving. In fact, being a true subject means relating to others as God relates to us.

So what is the problem with this? Well, if we really under stand the theory I think there is no problem with the connected body position. Even those who have a hard time thinking of themselves in the object position may be able to acknowledge that they are not in the subject position all the time to all people. Elected presidents have only limited terms of office, and religious leaders acknowledge that they are in the object position to God. So, if people are honest, I think they can agree that the connected body is a good description of the position of human beings.

However, there is still one relationship that is tricky -- husband and wife. It is indeed written in Unification Thought texts that the husband is subject and the wife object. In this age of women should we still accept this statement? Well, speaking as a woman, I can say that Unification Thought absolutely supports my right and responsibility to be in the subject position. For example, as a professor I am in the subject position to the students in my class; if I am the chairperson of a committee, I am in the subject position to other faculty or administrators on the committee; if I give a sermon, I am in the subject position to the congregation; if I write an article or present a paper at a conference, I am in the if I write Lighthousean article or present a paper at a conference, I am in the subject position to the audience. As an individual, with an Individual Image created by God which includes particular talents and abilities, I can take the subject position in any situation in which I am qualified and/or appointed. In all relationships in my life, apart from within my family, my position is not affected by the fact that I am female. Now, that sounds a lot better than my experience in the real world so, women, Unification Thought has a lot in it for you!

So, how about within the family? Well, it is true that Unification Thought says I should be object to my husband. Is this a problem? In my case, not at all. I am very happy that my husband should have subject consciousness toward me. And if he really has concern, love and authority, then he will guide our family well, taking into account all aspects of my situation in making decisions. Since I have the freedom and even responsibility to be subject to people in other areas of my life, it is quite a relief not to have to be subject at home all the time. I have enough trouble being subject to our daughter without having to be subject to my husband as well!

Well, I'm sure I can't convince all the skeptics, but at least I hope it is clear that Unification Thought is not sexist. Unification Thought maintains that women can hold any leadership position in the world, and just like men, they are in the connected body position which means object to some, subject to others. However, within the family, the relationship between husband and wife is determined to be subject and object respectively. There can be no harmony between two subjects, or between two objects. In order to have relationship there must be different positions. In my case, we have very beautiful harmony because my husband and I have very different talents and so we never compete, yet we have the same goal and vision of the ideal so we can work together to achieve it. Where we fall short of that ideal is not because Unification Thought does not work, it is because we are not applying it properly. I began this article by noting that the theory of the Original Human Nature carries a more personal challenge than the previously discussed theories. But I hope that it will not be rejected because it involves personal challenge. The theory of original human nature is not one that has been found wanting by critics who applied it. It has almost never been applied. So, let's try it out what have we got to lose other than the pain and suffering of life in the fallen world.

Jennifer is wrong in this quixotic crusade of this church to mix patriarchy and feminism. You can't have it both ways.  Either men lead or they don't. Jennifer should not have got a Ph.D. and had 12 children instead. It is illogical for women to be Margaret Thatcher subjects by day women and June Cleaver at night.

Leave It To Beaver -- The Cleavers Leave It To Beaver -- The Cleavers

There is so much lunacy in Tanabe's arguments I don't even know where to begin. Some readers may feel I repeat my arguments too many times in my books, but since I quote so many feminists I have to point out each time that they are wrong. Feminists repeat themselves also. Tanabe, like all UC intellectuals, are determined to find all things new when they tackle a topic. UT does have some exciting new ideas mankind has never heard before, but when it comes to men and women they don't just as they have nothing more to add to the idea of abstinence. Because we know the revelations of Father about the Fall and God's ideal, we have insights to give on the magnitude of abstinence, but we don't have new ideas on common sense thought. Human beings have not been entirely stupid and without truth for the last 6,000 of recorded history. The universal principles of patriarchy and abstinence are two (of many) principles that the 20th century Americans have abandoned. The result has been disastrous. UT should be teaching that we must restore patriarchy. It does so half-heartedly saying that there is Patriarchy only in the home.

Intellectuals and teachers in the UC like Tanabe have had a profound negative influence on our young movement. They veered it off to the Left and sadly, think they are walking the line precisely between or transcending the Left and Right. They see themselves as a Captain Kirk of the Spaceship Enterprise going where no man (person) has ever gone before. Tanabe thinks she is introducing something new when all she is doing is trying to add the core Marxist belief of women leaving the home in a way that sounds fresh and logical. She completely fails and ends up sounding ridiculous. There is nothing "tricky "about a husband and wife relationship anymore than there it is anything "tricky" about abstinence. It is very cut and dried and simple. Only men should lead in the home and everywhere else. Tanabe says so many idiotic statements that it is embarrassing that other intellectuals have to wade through her illogic and therefore no see the true beauty and simplicity of Father's philosophy. Satan loves confusion.

Women being both subject and object is Satan's tactic to destroy the home. Tanabe is just another communist dupe. I'll let you tear apart her article based on the principles I write such as the notion that babies can be subject, the silly notion that Yang and Yin are not that far apart, and that feminists can feel at home with UT because it is not "sexist." Studies show that the more formal education and the higher the degrees women get, they have fewer the children and fewer successful marriages. The more formal education women get the stupider they get. Tanabe is terrible role model. Sisters should not get a Ph.D. In Jin Nim didn't have to get one. Father is wrong and leaders are wrong in pushing some women to excel in the workplace. The last thing we need is for women to be bones.


Previous Home Next
Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1