BOOKS ON JUGGLING

There are many books that claim to show women how they juggle family and career without guilt, but they are a lie. Anecdotes can be given on both sides on how their ideology is superior, but the data is overwhelming on the side of my arguments. Those families that live by the values I write are better off than families that live by arguments of the Morris' and Cathy Young. I'll even go so far as to compare my anecdotes to those of the Morris'. I find more happiness in UC families that align themselves with traditional family values than those who live the Wetzstein pattern. The most personal anecdote I have is my own family. I have lived both ways and the difference has been as great as heaven and hell. My wife and I will never go back to living the feminist propaganda we bought in the UNews. Cheryl Wetzstein should use her writing skills to push for the traditional family and she should write an apology for polluting the UNews with her bashing of stay-at-home moms who are not as cool as her who has a glamorous job that apparently impresses True Father. True Father should retract his statements about sisters being some kind of Margaret Thatcher.

KIDDING OURSELVES

Rhona Mahony wrote a typical kind of feminist book that defies human nature called Kidding Ourselves: Breadwinning, Babies and Bargaining Power. She has all the liberal credentials: graduated from Brown University and Harvard Law School -- worked for migrant farmworkers and written for Ms. magazine. In other words she is highly educated and smart like many feminists, and as blind as a bat to common sense and truth. In her idiotic book she pushes for men to do housework. This quixotic crusade will fail because she is not just fighting culture, but science. Anne Moir has written several good books that prove men are not biologically wired to do housework -- Why Men Don't Iron: The Real Science of Gender Studies.

Mahony writes about the feminist obsession with equality that means sameness, "This book argues that for us to understand women's struggle to achieve economic equality with men, we need a much, much better understanding of the sexual division of labor in the home. ... the sexual division of labor in the home is what now stands between women and real equality.

"But what about the women who said, 'My husband will help? Surely, they weren't kidding themselves. These are the 1990's, after all. Fathers are spending more time with their small children than ever before, right? Surely, women can tell before they have children whether their boyfriend or husband is the type of guy who will keep his promise to share responsibility for childraising?

"Unfortunately, no. Women kid themselves about that, too."

STEREOTYPES

Women, she writes, must negotiate with men to make sure they do their fair share at home. Another favorite word of feminists is "stereotypes." She "proposes that we also throw away the stereotypes about what makes a woman a good mother. A woman who earns most of her family's income while her partner does most of the child raising is a caring, loving, good mother, too.

"We need to throw away those old stereotypes because they stand in women's way. They make it impossible for men to really do half the work of raising children. For that to happen, women and men will have to see each other differently. Millions of women will have to give up the search for a man who will take care of them. Millions of men will have to give up the search for a woman who will reflect their glory. Mothers and fathers will also have to ask their sons to do much more work at home and their daughters to set high earnings goals.

"When the sexual division of labor in the home has melted away, the link between people's sex and their work will be severed. Women will be as likely as men are to be surgeons and pilots, on average. They will be as likely as men are to work for pay full-time their entire lives, on average. Men will be as likely as women to shift into part-time work when their first baby is born, or to quit paying work entirely. When there are roughly as many househusbands as housewives and roughly as many female breadwinners as male breadwinners, then men will really be doing half the child care. That scenario is the prerequisite of women's equality. It is the only scenario in which women will finally and really achieve economic equality with men.

"The key to understanding the sexual division of labor in the home is negotiation. Any given division of labor--who does what chores -- is the result of negotiation between the people who live together."

DREAM

This is the feminist "dream." Sadly it is a nightmare. She says, "The good news is that the dream of real, practical equality that women have dreamt for thousands of years isn't a dream any more. Now they can make it real." Like all socialist schemes it will only be "real" if you use force to make people live against their basic natures. If Mahony only stops with using persuasion then her nonsense will fade away. If she uses government to "require" people to live her dream life then we are in trouble. Notice that she is a lawyer. Feminist lawyers are dangerous to freedom.

A prominent writer at the New York Times Susan Chira wrote: "All too often, contemporary discussions about work and family sound like a stuck needle, endlessly replaying heartfelt but circular arguments about mother love, father indifference and flextime. In Kidding Ourselves: Breadwinning, Babies, and Bargaining Power, Rhona Mahony sounds a welcome discordant note. Her radical proposition: Not until as many men as women want to stay home with the kids will women achieve real economic equality." Chira wrote a book that rationalizes her lifestyle of a working mom that we'll look at later.

The Lipstick Proviso

Karen Lehrman tries her best to have her cake and eat it too in her book The Lipstick Proviso: Women, Sex & Power in the Real World. Like Mahony she is deeply confused about what it means to be a man and a woman. Feminists scramble to come up with all kinds of ways that people are supposed to organize themselves and all their silly schemes have basic flaws. Lehrman's ideal world has no more chance of becoming "real" than Mahony's. When Lehrman criticizes feminists, she is great read. For example, she is very witty and entertaining when she writes things like the following: "By the time I was gaining my feminist bearings in high school during the late seventies, the phrase 'liberated woman' had already become a disparaging epithet. Stripped of its original promise of strength, independence, and adventure, the phrase had been media-sentenced to represent the worst stereotype of the women's movement: a saggy-breasted, hairy-legged, man-hating militant who spends her days denouncing capitalism and Western culture and her nights doing God knows what with other women.

"Nevertheless, as a young woman eager to escape the confines of a traditional household, I continued to put much stock in the original meaning of the phrase. Feminism, I believed, was going to turn all women into liberated women, into women who would unfailingly exhibit serene confidence, steely resolve, and steadfast courage. Unburdened by the behavioral and sartorial restrictions of traditional femininity, we would all want to trek alone through the wilds of Indonesia, head IBM, run for president. Our ambitions would be boundless, our achievements awesome. Men, marriage, children -- each would have to wait. The world needed to be conquered first.

"Well, as it turns out, I do have one female friend who has hiked unaccompanied through the forests of Indonesia (and returned unscathed), and many women in their early thirties have already risen to the top of their fields. Yet it doesn't seem as though the first generation of women to come of age with feminism -- born in the freedom-drenched sixties, reared in the androgynous seventies, educated in the power-tie eighties -- has metamorphosed en masse into briefcase-toting, world-wandering Mistresses of the Universe.

"Many women would prefer not to work outside the home at all. Others want a job that allows them the flexibility to be at home with their kids for at least part of the day. Some scale back their career ambitions as soon as thoughts turn to children. And while many women walk around flaunting a confident 'I am woman; hear me roar' attitude, at least as many are far less sure of themselves. Even women who have been quite successful professionally often seem lost emotionally. They have trouble asking their bosses for a raise, their landlords for heat, their boyfriends for support. They can't live without a man, lose their identities once they are in a relationship, overeat or undereat to relieve their anxiety and loneliness. They hardly seem happy, let alone strong and independent.

"In recent years many women have also returned to practices that were once thought to subsidize male oppression. They're wearing provocative clothes and heels again, painting their faces and nails, treating their skin and hair to the latest styles and fads. They dream of romance and big weddings, wish to be courted with flowers and chocolates, and expect doors to be -- literally -- opened for them. Many women, it seems, like to celebrate their femaleness, their femininity, and want to be treated like, well, ladies.

"What's going on here? Has feminism failed women. Have women failed feminism? Or has society failed them both." The answer is that feminism is a failed ideology. Lehrman tries to combine feminism with chivalry in her book and falls on her face. It is, like all feminist book, intellectually incoherent."

MONOLITHIC

She says that "Feminist theory has never been monolithic." Wrong. It has always been for women leaving the home to compete and dominate men. She deludes herself into thinking that "All feminism means is that the female half of the human race should enjoy the same rights, and have the same opportunities to fulfill those rights as the male half. How women exercise their rights and what they decided to do with their opportunities -- these are matters of personal choice. Feminism asks only that women make those choices responsibly, as clear-headed, rational adults." The truth is that feminism is the ideology that denies the absolute Biblical family. Feminism is a monolithic, single-focused evil force against patriarchy. I agree that it was wrong for men to use the force of law to prevent women from doing some things in the past, just as I am against the laws that discriminated against blacks, Jews, and many other people in human history. But I am for some laws, such as the one that precariously still exists, that women are not allowed to be in combat in the United States Army infantry.

RIGHTS

Everyone should have the "right" to buy alcohol, take it home, and drink until they puke, but that does not mean it is what they are supposed to do. Lehrman has no idea that God has made women to wear lipstick and wear earrings. Because of feminism's push for androgyny now men wear earrings. They have the "right" to do this. Men should have the "right" to do that in Saudi Arabia, but the evil patriarchs will punish any man that does. That is well-meaning, but evil patriarchy, even though they are right that men should do certain things that God would approve of. But God loves freedom more than force.

CHIVALRY

I sympathize with her attempt to combine chivalry with feminism. She has not figured out that feminism is communism. It is a deadly, evil cancer. You can't be a little bit pregnant and you can't be a little bit feminist as Mary Pride writes in her excellent book The Way Home. Look at the naive nonsense that Lehrman writes, "in their often complete dismissal of even the possibility of biological differences between women and men, many feminist theorists still seem glued to the notion that feminism necessitates androgyny. But women don't have to be sexless to be equal. Indeed, even courtship and chivalry can coexist quite peacefully with feminism." Yeah right.

GENTLEMAN

"perhaps it's time to retrieve the term 'gentleman' and have it now include respect for women. In fact, it's on the general loss of 'civility' in society that conservatives actually have a point. Women could use something in between the personal (individual responsibility) and the political (government responsibility) to help teach men to behave like humans. Liberation never meant that pregnant women should have to stand on crowded buses, that men should stop offering to carry groceries for an overburdened mother, that the check should always be split -- even if the woman earns less. Chivalry, in other words, needs to be revived and updated. Gallant behavior and feminism are not incompatible. The problem wasn't that women were put on a pedestal, but they were chained to it."

This is ridiculous. Women were not in chains before feminism. Chivalry means to protect. How can men feel chivalrous and open doors when women are going to walk through and get in line first at the employment office to take a job away from the man. Chivalry and feminism are total opposites. Feminism is competition, not complementary cooperation." She says, "Both courtship and chivalry train men to act like gentlemen, an unfortunately dated concept that seems to go a long way toward capturing what many women today desire in a man." Old fashioned values are indeed "unfortunately dated." She keeps saying how good those values are to "train men." But women today need to be trained as much as men. It would be better if men took the lead, but if women start acting like ladies, then it will have a big effect on men to act like women need protection. But this won't happen until women, like Lehrman, give up the fantasy that they can compete with men in the marketplace and then want men to pay for dinner.

51/49

I really liked it when she went after the feminist dream of total equality sameness. In this she is like Cathy Young who also does not think it is fair for women to get "protectionist legislation." She rightly points out the intellectual bankruptcy of feminists who lower standards "for jobs like firefighting ... 'Institutions have to adjust,' explains Bella Abzug. But 'adjusting' institutions for the sake of women is not only potentially dangerous -- a female firefighter not capable of lifting a body out of a burning building ...." John Stossel had an excellent TV special about this topic. He asked Abzug if equality meant equal numbers in every field of life and she fired back, "Fifty-fifty -- absolutely."

"The most pervasive special privilege is rarely seen as such: quotas, both those that are implicit and those that are explicit. Feminists who support quotas or preferential hiring tend to believe that justice -- feminism -- requires that positions at every level of power be split 50/50 (or 51/49, to match the female proportion of the population at large). The only reason this has not happened, they argue, is because of gross discrimination and residual sexist stereotypes." Father is wrong in saying government leaders must be 50/50. Even if he wants this to happen voluntarily, it is wrong. Men should not voluntarily let women lead them and women should not voluntarily lead men. It was a tragic day when men let women have the vote. The future constitution for the world government in the Ideal World will give maximum freedom, but there are some things that women should not be allowed to do. They should not let women be leaders. I go more into this in my book Cultural War Since 1848.

SLIPPERY SLOPE

The slippery slope of women getting the vote and dominating men by force as government officials leads to the political activism of the National Organization for Women. Their goal for its 21st Century Party has this in its platform says the party is pledged to "enacting laws, rules and programs to require and accomplish gender and racial balance in elected and appointed offices and in corporate decision-making bodies." Lehrman says, "In the academic world, sociologist Judith Lorber's Paradoxes of Gender, argues that not only should half of every workplace be made up of women but half the paintings in art museums, half the book published, and so on."

---