ABSOLUTES

I hope the UC can have the humility to listen to what I say and the guts to dramatically change their lives from the boring, ridiculous tactics they have been using for decades that bring no new members. Someday I pray they will see that absolute sex includes absolute sexual roles. Of all people who should understand the word "absolute" it should be a Unificationist. Every person will someday believe in the Divine Principle. There will be one religion and every person will speak Korean. And there will be families that live only by traditional family values.

PROPAGANDA

That the Mormons are growing by leaps and bounds means nothing to hard core UC bureaucrats. They see their blessings in stadiums as all the proof they need that they are where God is. What I write is not the ravings of a resentful former member. I believe Father is the Messiah. But I also have not checked my brain in at the door. Reading the UNews is like reading the propaganda out of North Korea. All is portrayed as well, while the masses are starving. I can't leave True Parents because they are the Messiah, but I have to leave the UC because it is an instrument for Satan. Sisters like Marilyn Morris and Cheryl Wetzstein write Satanic trash in the UNews and nobody says a word. I am not allowed to print that they are wrong. The men in charge of the UC are weak because they are feminist. They care nothing about traditional masculinity and femininity. They are arm in arm with Friedan to "balance" the workplace -- especially leadership positions.

50%

The UC is total steel and because it is not balanced it is a pure feminist organization that is out to have 50% of the U.S. Senate and 50% of cab drivers be women. It is about as far from God as an organization can get and therefore God cannot have it grow and must bless other churches that bravely speak up against the unisexism that the UC loves so dearly. Nothing touches a Unificationist's heart more than when a woman leaves her home. Those women who have completely given up on their children, like True Mother, are the most honored. The UC has the sickest view on the planet for how to fight the cultural war. UC sisters are men. Period. Don't believe me? Go to a Sunday service one week and then see if there are any new members the next. Do the same for the Mormons. Compare and tell me who God is working through. In one stretch in the 1980s our family drove 50 miles every Sunday for 7 years to a state center and not one person heard the Divine Principle and joined. If you tell a Unificationist this obvious truth they go ballistic or yawn in boredom. There is no difference between UC men and women. They are some kind of androgynous mush like you find in the Methodist Church. They are like the Clinton's who they say they don't like, but who live the feminist blurred sexual roles that the Clinton's campaign for. Scratch a follower of Sun Myung Moon and you find a liberal, not a Biblical conservative.

Graglia is wonderful to read. Members like Cheryl Wetzstein are disgusting to read. Graglia puts down the so-called exciting and fulfilling life Cheryl teaches UC sisters to live saying: "In All Things Considered, G.K. Chesterton captured my perceptions of this freedom when he contrasted the true savage -- a slave who is always talking about what he must do -- with the true civilized man -- a free man who is always talking about what he may do. 'The average woman,' said Chesterton in 1908, 'is at the head of something with which she can do as she likes; the average man has to obey orders and do nothing else.' I felt that I had indeed exchanged the life of a savage for that of a true civilized woman. Compared to the life in the marketplace -- quintessentially, a life bounded by 'must do' when others demand -- a housewife's life, I always thought, has a few musts (breakfast, dinner, and sex as her husband desires); for the rest, she can choose to do what she wishes, when she wishes."

"It was clear to me then and remains so today that neither I, nor my husband, nor our children would have fared nearly as well as we have if I had followed Friedan's script and turned my children over to a nanny so that I could slave away in a law practice. Legal work sometimes provides an intellectual challenge akin to good crossword puzzle, with the advantage that doing the puzzles well can bring handsome financial rewards. But at worse -- and worst probably occurs with some frequency in most professions -- it resembles alphabetizing the Manhattan phone book."

"That not all women flourish in the marketplace is evidenced by a female attorney's description of her life, which appears in an article about a group commuting in a van to Washington D.C. It is an eighty mile round trip; in winter, they leave home in the dark and return in the dark; they see each other more than they see their spouses. What sounds to me like a trip from hell, however, is the highlight of the day for this woman. Her companions are 'an alternate family'; her 'hectic job leaves scant time for socializing at work'; she is 'so weary' at night that she often will just 'collapse in front of the TV set.' Watching the morning traffic grind to a halt, she observed: 'This is the most exciting part of my day.' 'After this we go sit in our little offices and wait patiently to get back in the van.' Ah, what joyful liberation from domesticity! In all my years as a mother at home, not one day was so uninteresting that I would have looked forward to that van ride."

Graglia despises Friedan. The UC should also despise Friedan, but instead embraces it. I have read disgusting praise for her book in the UC. Graglia writes that Friedan, like Wetzstein, "contrasts the housewife with a woman who has 'a real function,' who has a 'commitment that will utilize her abilities and will be of some importance to society and herself'; the housewife's lot is one of 'emptiness, idleness, boredom, alcoholism, drug addiction, disintegration to fat, disease, and despair after forty, when her sexual function has been filled.'

"Women 'leading the traditional feminine life of housework and mother,' says Friedan, neither 'used their education' nor had 'interests beyond home, children, family, or their own beauty.' They are products of a culture that 'does not expect human maturity from its women'; the result is 'waste of human self,' as the housewife stays home 'to live by sex alone, trading in her individuality for security.' Always contrasting what do at home with "truly creative goals in the outside world,' Friedan describes housewives as failing to 'grow up,' as 'mindless and thing-hungry' and 'not people.' They are trapped 'in trivial domestic routine' and 'meaningless busywork' within the community that 'does not challenge their intelligence.' Refusing to 'take the time from my family,' this woman devotes herself to the 'trivia of housewifery,' and by declining 'to pursue a professional career, evades a serious commitment through which she might finally realize herself.'"

"Indicting the housewife as 'afraid to face the test of real work in the world,' and wasting her 'creative energy, rather than using it for some larger purpose in society,' Friedan describes housework as 'peculiarly suited to the capacities of feeble-minded girls'; it 'can hardly use the abilities of a woman of average or normal intelligence.' Because a 'woman's work -- housework -- cannot give her status,' she must 'acquire her status vicariously through her husband's work,' and so 'becomes a parasite.' Echoing Charlotte Perkins Gilman and Simone de Beauvoir, Friedan levels the charge of parasitism against the woman in the home, castigating her for 'that passive, weak, grasping dependence known as 'femininity.'

"The life housewives lead, Friedan contends, 'arrests their development at an infantile level, short of personal identity, with an inevitably weak core of self.' They will 'suffer increasingly severe pathology, both physiological and emotional,' and their children also suffer because the 'greater the infantilization of the mother, and less likely the child will be able to achieve human selfhood in the real world'; the mothers 'with infantile selves will have even more infantile children.' Society, she concludes, must recognize 'the emptiness of the housewife role' and cease 'encouraging girls to evade their own growth by vicarious living, by non-commitment,' while women must abandon 'their weakness, their passive childlike dependence and immaturity.'"

Fox-Genovese

Graglia goes on to denounce Friedan for her "outrageous" view that the housewife lives in a concentration camp equal to the camps of Hitler. Graglia's book is good at helping the average person sort through the baby and bathwater. I especially like her pointing out that some who appear to be anti-feminist are not. One example she gives is Elizabeth Fox-Genovese who appears to be anti-feminist but isn't because she puts down the stay-at-home mom. Another writer along these lines is Cathy Young who wrote the book Cease Fire. These are probably writers that some UC sisters may like because it makes them feel they are anti-feminist but somehow have a bridge to the feminists and can unite everyone on a third way or middle way between the Right and the Left.

She writes, "Concluding that the societal changes reflected in contemporary feminism 'will not be reversed,' Fox-Genovese admonishes young women to reject dependence on men for support and protection: they must dismiss celebration of 'women's maternal roles and instincts' as 'nostalgia for a world that has gone beyond resurrection.' Nor is this to be regretted, she maintains, since women who found 'their sense of self-worth and self-respect in their roles as wives and mothers' were only making the best of their situation in the absence of any alternatives. Whatever her disagreements with the radicals, she is in their camp on this most crucial issue... The title of her book notwithstanding, feminism is indeed the story of Fox-Genovese's life, the only story she advocates for women."

---