Roles in Dancing

Mrs. Graglia writes, "In The New People: Desexualization in American Life, Charles Winick skillfully analyzes the process of male feminization and female masculinization that, by the end of the 1960s, had produced a society in which a significant number of boys and girls and men and women were fast becoming androgynous. Winick documents the unprecedented neutering of our society through a detailed examination of music and dancing, fiction, painting, the theater, men's and women's clothing, the phenomenal increase in the use of beauty products by men, our manner of speaking, the names given children, recreational activities, and the manner of consummating sexual relations."

"Winick observes one example of this process in the change from ballroom dancing to the rock and roll dancing in the discotheques of the 1960s. Ballroom dancing reinforces masculinity: the dance is predicated on physical contact between the partners with the male assuming a dominant position as 'leader' in a sequence of step .... Little imagination is required to understand -- and those raised in an era of ballroom dancing knew -- that this dance was symbolic of the sex act in which the man also is the leader."

"By contrast, partners in the discotheque do not touch 'but each shimmies around the axis of his own body.' Dancing which had once been a symbol of 'man-woman interaction' -- with the 'definite leader and follower, as in the traditional courtship type of dance' -- was replaced by the rock and roll dannce. This new style with its 'autistic, self-absorbed actors' is symbolic of the identical, hard-edged, and independent participants who seemed to be communing only with themselves on the dance floor. Again, it requires little imagination to perceive the sexual symbolism of a dance that replaced complementary interaction with solitary, individualized display."

Androgynous Men Lost Vietnam War

Graglia is correct in seeing that feminism sapped the strength in men to stop the spread of communism for 70 years: "Our disastrous experience in Vietnam evidenced feminization triumphant." Men had "embraced a feminine pacifism.... Pervasive feminine pacifism and narcissism at that time undermined the virtues of patriotism, loyalty, courage, and decisiveness and led to our sending men to fight a war under conditions that made victory impossible."

M*A*S*H

A hugely popular TV show starring the feminist Alan Alda dramatized the feminization of America. " ... by and large, our youth accepted its viewpoints as correct. M*A*S*H effectively promoted pacifism, disparaged authority, glamorized the sexually predatory male, and depicted casual sexual intercourse as common and acceptable. ... Those who have raised families since the 1970s know the great influence wielded by popular music, movies, and television." Parents were digested by the feminist elite and those that didn't like it said nothing "lest their children think them unsophisticated and old-fashioned. In a reversal of the normal hierarchy, many parents now crave their children's approval, an attitude fostered by feminist ideology. By exhorting women to seek individual self-fulfillment in careers rather than in family roles, feminists have encouraged adult women to minimize their own daily responsibility for their children and view themselves, not as in charge of their children, but on the same level -- all striving for achievement as the peers, even competitors, of each other."

The most basic role of men is to protect women. The UC did not do this on the MFT and in campaigns like Yankee Stadium and Washington Monument. I dropped off many sisters alone in dangerous areas for hours on end. The UC has been a brutal place that desensitized men's chivalry to women just like the feminist culture was doing. In the 70s sisters should have stayed in centers and only left to go in pairs or groups to witness or do charity work while the brothers supported them with legitimate and successful jobs and businesses. UC brothers are feminized and cannot take care of their families financially and spiritually fight feminism. Wives have bar runs, pay bills from work at jobs and never see their husbands teach the Principle and raise men to be anti-feminist leaders in society.

Roosevelt vs. Gilman

Before 1900 Teddy Roosevelt was not a feminist. His writings then reflect the beautiful traditional view of motherhood that he and most everyone else gave up after 1900. A very prominent feminist in 1900 was the neurotic Charlotte Gilman. Graglia says these incisive words comparing the two: "When Charlotte Perkins Gilman derided the housewife as an economic parasite in 1898, most women probably remained blissfully unaware of the insult. Feminist derision, moreover, was refuted by President Theodore Roosevelt himself, declaring that a wife and mother 'is not a parasite on society': 'She is society. She is the one indispensable component part of society.' Extolling the duties of a husband as the breadwinner and a wife as housewife and mother, Roosevelt observed that the man's work is not 'as hard or a responsible as the work of a woman who is bringing up a family of small children': 'This does not mean inequality of function, but it does mean that normally there must be dissimilarity of function. On the whole, I think the duty of the women the more important, the more difficult, and the more honorable of the two; on the whole, I respect the woman who does her duty even more than I respect the man who does his.'"

PARASITE

She says, "But when accusations of parasitism were resurrected in the 1960s and hurled against homemakers, there was no refuge from the salvoes. Unless one altogether avoided contemporary books, magazines, newspapers, television, theater, and movies, escape from feminism's assault was impossible."

DISPARAGE HOMEMAKER

Graglia does an excellent job in her book of comparing the so called glamorous world of the workplace with the so called limited world of the home. She is the total opposite of Friedan. Both are about the same age and lived in the same culture, but Friedan saw things through a Marxist lens as David Horowitiz writes in his biography of her. Graglia puts down the feminist put down of the housewife that is politically correct today. In my book Cultural War Since 1848 I quote a prominent sister in the UC who has career at the Washington Times, Cheryl Wetzstein, who calls stay-at-home moms "Queen of the couch." No one in the UC says a peep when she puts down the traditional family, but when I wrote against this feminist view in church literature, I was blasted with full-page articles and headlines saying how controversial and out of it I was. Feminists came swooping down like vultures on a piece of meat and not one voice was raised in my defense.

Vicious Diatribe or the Truth that Hurts

I challenge those members who read this and think I am some right-wing nut case acting like some bitter Cain to step back and take a look at the pathetic results the UC has accomplished. There is no growth. I am not writing a vicious diatribe and think that I am holier-than-thou. I am not exaggerating how bad the UC is. Perhaps an analogy would help. I compare the UC versus the Mormon church to the East Germans versus the West. The blessings in stadiums and buildings like the Washington Times are like the stadiums in East Germany where their athletes dominated the Olympics. Their society, meanwhile, was a spiritual and physical wasteland. Those fundamentalist Unificationists who are so happy in the UC and see its history in America as inspiring are like those blind bureaucrats in East Germany who pitied the people in the West as being materialistic and ignorant of the great crusade the East Germans are on. No one joins East Germany and those there are generally burned out and some try to escape. This never phases the East German leaders.

Unificationists should look through the eyes of West Germans, not East Germans when they look at successful Christian movements like the Southern Baptists or Promise Keepers that attract millions of people because of their strong stand on patriarchy.

GENERALIZATIONS -- REAL LIFE

Critics of anyone who presents an argument for an absolute value of any kind will say that it is wrong to make generalizations. They have the argument that there are many roads to victory and many lifestyles. They will argue that it is stupid to be simple minded and not see that things are complex. We should not use a broadbrush when we deal with people. But the truth is that there are some absolutes that apply to every person. Cathy Young wrote in an article in Reason magazine against the idea that men and women are so different: "The 'social gene' brouhaha is all too typical of how we talk about sex differences: Biology is either everything or nothing; men and women are identical or polar opposites. Many feminists absolutely refuse to allow that some of the gender-based inequalities they deplore may be due in part to innate sex differences. Many conservatives just as dogmatically invoke sex differences, often distorted or magnified beyond recognition, to condemn any departures from traditional roles. Neither side has much patience for the complexities of real life or for the variety of real people." She criticizes Danielle Crittenden who argued in a New York Times op-ed piece "that men's 'genetic wiring' makes them immune to 'the mental strain of walking out the door' that working mothers suffer. Irate readers dismissed this as absurd and asserted that any such feelings arise from 'cultural conditioning.'"

Young has no children, but there seem to be mothers who walk out the door and feel no guilt. These are women who are victims of "cultural conditioning." I like Reason magazine for its economic libertarianism, but Libertarians are not always right about other areas of life. They are too wrapped up in individualism like Ayn Rand. They are often not religious and miss crucial aspects of life. In the end we must look to the truths in the Bible to see the core values of family.

---