Backlash

Susan Faludi got upset about this trend of rejecting feminism and wrote a best-seller book, Backlash. She tries to explain how people like George Gilder and Allan Bloom were wrong. She writes: "In Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind, his lament about the 'decay of the family' is, like the New Right's, really a lament over lost traditional male authority in the home and in public life, an authority that he believes is violently under attack. He writes wistfully of the days when it was still believed that 'the family is a sort of miniature body politic in which the husband's will is the will of the whole.'"

Unlike her, the more I read of the "Right" the more I liked them. She is a terrible role model for women because they see her as successful and leading an interesting life, but the sad reality is that she has never married and is barren. There are plenty on the Right who have lousy marriages and some have never married either, such as Bloom, but overall I see more happiness in the marriages of the Christian Right than in Faludi's secular world. Perhaps Bloom would have married if he was religious instead of being so academic. The key to understanding happiness is to understand religion. Traditional values work. The teachings by the Andelins set me free. When I lived by the ideals of androgyny of feminists I was less happy than when I lived by Biblical values.

STIFFED

Faludi is one of the most visible feminist writers who has been on the cover of both Time and Newsweek.  Many reviewers fall over themselves praising her, but the truth is that her books are evil and empty of any truth.  Her second book, Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man, was also a best-seller.  She is aware that men are in a crisis, but misses the boat when she tells the satanic lie that feminism is not the cause.

Kathleen Parker wrote in an article titled, "Sorry, guys, Faludi is no friend of yours": "Every remark about her findings -- whether resulting from an interview with a male porn star or a confused war veteran -- was uttered with barely concealed contempt. Her smile, beguiling perhaps to men desperate for female understanding, is a coached effect designed to disguise the sneer hovering just beneath the surface."

It is feminists like Faludi who have betrayed men.  It is feminist leaders who relentlessly push their unisex agenda on men that have worn men out and now we have emasculated, wimpy men who can only find masculinity in watching football games.  She can't see this because the truth hurts.  Women have tremendous power over men and have crushed their spirits.

Cheryl Wetzstein is a writer for The Washington Times.  She wrote several articles about men/women relationships.  In an article in The World and I titled "Fatherhood Deficit" she gives some of the reasons conservatives give for the crisis in fatherhood in America, but ignores the root cause -- patriarchy bashing.  When she talks about the Promise Keepers she leaves out that a key element to their teaching is that men must become the head of the house and take leadership. She gives some space to the liberals by quoting Arlene Skolnick who say that there is a trend is toward diverse family structures.

In her review of Faludi's Stiffed she quotes Christina Hoff Sommers saying that, "The whole notion that American men are in crisis is 'silly ... overall, there is not a shred of evidence for widespread malaise. ... and massive evidence that Americans as a group are faring very well."  Sommers is "silly" for saying such nonsense.  One half of all marriages fail and there is an epidemic of fatherless homes.  Wetzstein says that Faludi says men have to find their way to "meaningful manhood."

"The goal, Miss Faludi suggests, is to shatter the old paradigm of men vs. women and 'create a new paradigm for human progress that will open doors for both sexes.'"  What is Faludi's "new paradigm"?  What is "meaningful manhood?"  It certainly isn't patriarchy. 

Patriarchy Works

Helen Andelin says, "Experience with thousands of women has proved that these teachings bring the results claimed .... Results have been unbelievable. Women who have thought they were happy before have found a new kind of romantic love come to their marriages. Women who felt neglected and unloved have seen their marriages blossom into love and tenderness, and women who have all but despaired over their situations have found the same happy results. Time and experience have proved these teachings to be true, that whenever these principles are applied, women can be loved; honored and adored, marriages flourish, and homes are made happier."

"The first step to a happy marriage is to understand that all life is governed by law -- nature, music, art, and all of the sciences. These laws are immutable. To live in harmony with them produces health, beauty, and the abundant life. To violate them brings ugliness and destruction. Just as unwavering are the laws of human relationships. These laws are in operation even though you may not understand them. You may be happy in marriage because you obey them, or you may be unhappy because you violate them without an awareness of the laws in operation."

"Through ignorance of the laws of marriage relationships, much unnecessary unhappiness exists. We find one woman happy, honored, and loved; and another -- no less attractive, no less admirable, no less lovable -- neglected, unhappy, and disappointed. Why? This book explains why, for it teaches the laws she must obey if she is to be loved, honored, and adored. Fascinating Womanhood will teach you how to be happy in marriage."

Art Buchwald wrote once,"It's not easy being a man today ... there has to be something between macho and wimp." Helen Andelin's husband's book Man of Steel and Velvet explains how men can walk the line between the extremes. True Father, of course, lives it perfectly.

If you had to bet $10,000 between families that lived Mrs. Andelin's beliefs where women did not work and families who lived by feminist's beliefs where women worked, which would you choose as being the happier and having more children? Let's start off by comparing the authors of pro-patriarchy books with those of anti-patriarchy books. If you bet your ten thousand dollars on Helen Andelin and her group instead of Betty Friedan and her group you would easily win.

 19th century marriages vs. 20th century marriages

Suppose you had to bet your $10,000 between those U.S. presidents and first ladies who consciously believed in the traditional Judeo-Christian view of the roles of men and women(which is similar to Confucian, Buddhist, Islamic and every other religious belief for the last 5,000 years) to those who consciously believe in feminism. You will only find presidents who believe in feminism in the 20th century. Let's start by comparing the Victorian Teddy Roosevelt to his 20th century cousin, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. FDR encouraged married women to work as Rosie the riveters. There were political cartoons that his wife, Eleanor, who feminists adore, wore the pants in their house. They had a loveless marriage. He committed adultery and died in his mistress's arms while Eleanor was doing her thing in another state.

Teddy Roosevelt, on the other hand, had a happy marriage. He deeply loved his wife, Alice. There was romance. Just before he married her he sent a letter saying, "Dearest love ... Oh my darling, I do hope and pray I can make you happy. I shall try very hard to be as unselfish and sunny tempered as you are, and I shall save you from every care I can. My own true love, you have made my happiness almost too great; and I feel I can do so little for you in return. I worship you so that it seems almost desecration to touch you; and yet when I am with you I can hardly let you a moment out of my arms. My purest queen, no man was worthy of your love; but I shall try very hard to deserve it, at least in part." A biographer wrote, "Always the proper Victorian, Theodore drew a discreet curtain over the wedding night. 'Our intense happiness is too sacred to be written about,' he noted tersely in his diary." The biographer writes this about their first few days of being married:" In the evenings, they curled up before the fire and he read aloud from The Pickwick Papers, Quentin Durward, and the poems of Keats. ... Eleven days later, they were enthusiastically welcomed to the Roosevelt home by his mother and sisters and took up residence in the apartment set aside for them on the third floor. Theodore immediately assumed the role of head of the family and presided over the dinner table. Were the couple, she finishing her teens and he just out of them, happy with this arrangement? Very -- according to Theodore's diary. "I can never express how I love her," he wrote.

I studied many books and diaries of Victorian marriages and this pattern of the husband and wife being deeply in love and reading together at night was common. One example was Sarah Hale who was deeply in love with her husband. It is incredibly romantic with touching tenderness. He died young, and she spent her life writing marriage manuals which say the same things that Fascinating Womanhood says. She is the person who wrote "Mary had a little lamb" and was the lady who convinced Abraham Lincoln to proclaim Thanksgiving a holiday. She writes of how she and her husband had read to each other every night. Feminists have poisoned us against Victorians. Father writes like a Victorian. He lives like one. Happy marriage with lots of kids in a big house. Teddy Roosevelt standing over a huge fish he has caught is like pictures of Father standing next to a huge tuna he has caught. True Mother and Alice Roosevelt praise their husbands and are their biggest supporters.

Bruce Catton is a distinguished historian of the Civil War. He writes about the love between Ulysses Grant and his wife, Julia: "they shared one of the great, romantic, beautiful loves of American history." Her autobiography "spins a story of romantic love, of happiness, of contentment, and there is no reason to doubt that she worked hard to make this possible both for herself and 'my dear Ulys.'" The prevailing belief in the 19th century was that women were queens. The Victorians didn't always live up to their ideals, but they at least tried. How many American and UC wives can say they are treated like these 19th century wives in their old fashioned patriarchal homes?

 Mt. Rushmore

 The four men on Mt. Rushmore are Victorians who loved their wives. If we compare Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Roosevelt who believed in limited government and patriarchy (capitalists/socialists) (although Teddy Roosevelt was weakening on these Victorian values) to four presidents of the 20th century, FDR, Johnson, Kennedy and Clinton, (socialists/feminists) we find the first four had happy marriages; the other four committed adultery. The 19th century had fewer divorces and more children than the feminist 20th century. I find it interesting that in the 19th century the wedding ring was on the right hand, and the 20th century places it on the left.

Thomas Jefferson wrote about marital relationships. To him, it was the most important thing. And it is. Father focuses on it. The 20th century places more importance on politics than family and community. Here is a little snippet of Jefferson writing of marriage in a letter: "Harmony in the married state is the very first object to be aimed at. Nothing can preserve affections uninterrupted but a firm resolution never to differ in will, and a determination in each to consider the love of the other as of more value than any object whatever on which a wish had been fixed. How light, in fact, is the sacrifice of any other wish, when weighed against the affections of one with whom we are to pass our whole life." He goes on to explain how men and women can find harmony. I don't have time to quote him fully. There are so many points to learn from others on how to achieve success in marital relationships. The best books on this are the Andelins.

It is incorrect to think that in the Completed Testament Age men will not be patriarchs. Some truths will continue. Feminists keep experimenting but they just make matters worse. Mary Daly, the feminist theologian, writes what I guess all feminists feel: "As the women's movement begins to have its effect upon the fabric of society, transforming it from patriarchy into something that never existed before -- into a diarchal situation that is radically new -- it can become the greatest single challenge to the major religions of the world, Western and Eastern. Beliefs and values that have held sway for thousands of years will be questioned as never before." The only result of someone who believes such nonsense is tragedy. Daly, for example, lives a lesbian lifestyle. Nothing will replace the traditional family. Terms used in the church like Parentism, Familyism, Headwing, and Godism mean an ideal world of traditional families. We are not pioneering new relationships between men and women, but building a world where every person will have a traditional family. Feminism has castrated so many men and kept them from having the confidence to stand up for God's values.

 Man is center

 Father has said countless times that men are subjects and women are objects, and they never change positions. He says, "You should feel the family standard keenly. Man is the subject and he should stand in the center. The subject should stand in the position of subject, not that of object. The center should be protected and it shouldn't be at an odd angle. He is in the position of God." It is clear that these positions are not interchangeable. Father often says man is the plus and woman is the minus and these opposite attract and create circular love. They don't change positions. They simply have give and take. Father says, "When a man wants to give to woman and woman wants to give to man in a perfect plus and minus relationship, their love will circulate smoothly." The Principle says the proton is in the center, and the electron revolves around it. If you mix up the plus and negative poles of a battery when trying to jump start a car, it will destroy the battery and may even explode and kill you. You don't fight mother nature. The same is true for the family. The feminists have experimented with other forms of marriages, but they all explode. In the Completed Testament Age men will be perfect patriarchs, perfect leaders. There has never been a society in all of human history that has not been patriarchal. The anthropologist Steven Goldberg wrote a book on this called The Inevitability of Patriarchy which he later revised to Why Men Rule. He says it is as innate a concept as the family and the incest taboo. The sexual revolution of the 20th century has experimented with different kinds of relationships, and human-kind has never experienced such suffering as those in this century.

Lionel Tiger studied the Israeli communities. George Gilder wrote of his work saying, "women in Israeli kibbutzim have increasingly insisted on the maintenance of traditional roles. Despite a fervent initial commitment by the founders to socialist unisex theories, an intensive study covering some forty years, three generations, and 100,000 men and women showed that each successive generation moved more decisively toward traditional roles. Today the kibbutzim show the most distinct sex roles in Israeli society."

 Definition of "act"

Father criticizes American women for leaving their position of object. He teaches that true love comes when people are in order: "Women in the Unification Church should clearly know that the man is subject and woman is object." He doesn't say that they ever switch. He says if they will become one if the man is plus and the woman is minus: "Love does not come unless there is a subject-object relationship. Is man plus or minus? (Plus.) What about woman? Is woman plus or minus? (Plus.) You answered both sides are plus; that's why you just want to receive love instead of giving." He keeps pounding away explaining that opposites attract. He teaches, "When man wants to give to woman and woman wants to give to man in a perfect plus and minus relationship, their love will circulate smoothly."

He goes on saying: "You women, tell me, are you in the minus or the plus position? Do you say, 'No, I do not accept the minus role! I want women to be in the plus position!' Even if you proclaimed, 'I am a plus!' for a million years, the universe would not accept that." It is crystal clear to me that he is saying men and women are not interchangeable. He says,"You might chant to yourself over and over, I am going to become a man,' but nevertheless you will look at yourself and see that you are still a woman. That is absolute. Man is a man; woman is a woman. You cannot change it -- forever; here on earth and in the hereafter. Is that too tedious for you?" Father says,"Did you say, 'I believe in religion because I want to bring about a revolution in the very order of the universe! We women will become men and the men will become women'? No matter how much you might proclaim such a revolution, the universe will just laugh at you and say, 'No way. Impossible.' The 'laws of the dialectic' cannot be applied in those circumstances."

"You men, no matter how much you might try to become somebody other than yourselves, you cannot do it. Do you say,"We are all created equal, so men and women should be exactly the same'? Can you act one day like a woman in your relationships and another day like a man? Yes or no?"Father says "No." Father is explaining that to be equal does not mean to be the same. Equality means value, not positions. He says,"When God created human beings equal, that means they are equal in the highest possible goal -- the achievement of love. In that realm, men and women are absolutely equal: they are the children of God, period."

The context of Father's speech clearly says subjects (especially men) are not to act, resemble, do, look, dress, work (or whatever word you want to use) like women. I quote numerous Christian authors who say the same thing. This doesn't mean that men and women have absolutely nothing in common. There are elements of masculine in women and elements of feminine in men. Women have some testosterone. The Principle teaches that human beings can imitate the sounds of animals. We resemble monkeys in some ways. But that does not mean that humans "act" like monkeys and monkeys act like humans. God is principled. He made opposites attract. Vive la difference. Father says there are boundaries. There is order.

A common argument of feminism is that women need to get into the marketplace and compete with men because men need to be balanced by women there. Father teaches that true balance is when subject and object keep their positions. We become off balance when we are disorderly. Like Father says, a plus will always be a plus. A man will always be a man. Anything else, he says, is perversion. It is sloppy thinking to say men are not in touch with their feminine part that is gentle and seeks cooperation, and that women need to get in touch with their masculine part and be more aggressive and competitive. Women have a little sense of what is aggressive and competitive because if they didn't they couldn't understand and appreciate and marvel at men. Men have a sense of the maternal, of appreciating the home and feeding children. But they can't nurse. It is amazing to men to see how women can spend so many hours with babies. Men are made to have some feelings for this and therefore love the woman for being so gentle day and night with infants and grateful for her because he can't do that and it must be done.

Father says men and women have roles. I wish I had space to give many quotes of father on how men and women are different. You have, I'm sure, read many yourself. This is a representative one where Father illuminates spiritual qualities from physical characteristics. He teaches how these words apply to women. Women are not to have power in the marketplace but to exercise feminine power in the home and when it comes to competition, Father says men can't even begin to compete with women when it comes to loving children. Father makes it very clear in so many speeches that he is competitive. He is always saying the UC must have a "superior" standard to the outside world. For him to say he loses to Mother is not a light statement. But then nothing he says is light. I read and reread Father everyday. And over the years it still amazes me to see new things, new depths, incredible nuances that I didn't see before or later speeches give. He always talks about the same things, but you might as well say Spielberg makes the same old thing -- movies. The following is a typical paassage of Father on men/women relationships: "Women are to assume two roles. First, in giving birth to children women need a strong foundation, and second, they will be living most of their lives in a sitting position, so God provided built-in cushions. Men have narrow hips without cushions because men are supposed to take the initiative and always be in action. A woman is to be objective, receiving grace from her husband and always sitting home comfortably waiting for him. That is the way it should be. At the same time a man should be masculine, and that is why he has broad shoulders and strong arms. Going out into the world is the man's role."

Women have a maternal instinct to deeply love children more than men. He says, "Father cannot compete with Mother in loving a child. Because the mother pours out power more than anyone else and suffers more than anyone else in bearing a child, she more than anyone else loves the child. In this respect, woman occupies the eminent and precious position in the realm of emotion. No matter how much the father loves his baby, he doesn't know love as much as the mother does. Therefore, women will go to the Kingdom of Heaven of heart. Understanding this, it is not too bad to be born a woman. God is fair." This kind of explanation is reminiscent of Victorian love for large families and the special regard they had for women caring for children

The fundamental differences between men and women balance out and complement each other. Feminists are so fanatic about making the sexes into some kind of unisex thing that they get all excited about building a new world where there is total equality or sameness. Phil Donahue wrote a book called The Human Animal in which he predicts that in the coming brave new world of feminists that men will nurse babies. He quotes from a well-known liberal scientist, John Money, that scientists in the future will be able to operate on men and make their breasts able to produce milk. This is the kind of grotesque thinking that the slippery slope of feminism takes people. Father is into absolute values.

A key word for socialists/feminists, as I've written often in this book, is "equality." Father says we are equal in value, but equality doesn't mean we are equal in sameness. Father sees relationships as being fundamentally vertical, not horizontal. In his speech quoted above, Father goes on to say that even though we are all "equal," there is still a vertical relationship between people. He says,"Let's say that your grandparents live in your home. Should your grandfather be seated in the lowest, most humble place, or in the highest place? What about God, then? As you know, God is the oldest Granddad for everybody, without question. Then shouldn't God have the highest seat of all? Is that an easy place or a difficult one? Can you say to God, 'Please come down. I want to be up there and You come down to my place"?

He constantly blasts Western women for acting like men. He says, "The sickness of American women" is due to a reversal of roles. Notice that he will use the word "power": "The master of the American family is woman. Men are overpowered by women in the family. The man dresses the woman instead of the woman dressing the man. (Note that he doesn't say that men "sometimes" dress the woman). It is total inversion. When the husband comes home from work, the wife who has spent idle time at home commands the man to do things. If the wife greets her husband with a joyful, welcoming heart and invites him to eat right away, happiness dwells with the family."

---