Some feminists will take this scientific truth and twist it to push for women to enter the workplace and bring their unique female gifts to the boardroom, submarine, city council, and construction site. Men, they teach, should develop their feminine side and learn from and grow from the presence of women in the workplace. Helen Fisher in her book, The First Sex: The Natural Talents of Women and How They Are Changing the World, says women are smarter than men in many areas of life and innately superior to men in most of the marketplace. She is optimistic. She is a professor at Rutgers. Her colleague, Lionel Tiger, also at Rutgers is pessimistic about women dominating men in his book The Decline of Males. He is more right and Fisher hasn't learned a thing from him. Moir is not afraid to quote and acknowledge the findings of Tiger; Fisher never mentions it because it destroys her whole thesis.

Sadly, he is not very clear about what is going on and has no solution. I do. We must reject those books that try to take the research and the common sense that women are different and then try to encourage women to use those special skills in the workplace. The truth is that women are not made biologically and spiritually to compete with men. They have better things to do than ride in squad cars and bark orders at men twice as strong as them in muscle and will power at Annapolis.

One reviewer of Fisher's book wrote this:

Woman, says Fisher, is particularly well-designed to predominate in the 21st century's globalized, knowledge-based economy, thanks to the distinctive qualities of the female mind.

Fisher posits that women are particularly adept at ''web thinking''-- the ability to see the big picture. She backs up her claim with lots of studies showing that women, more so than men, tend to gather disparate facts, consider all the options, and place issues in a broad context. They are better at long-range planning, can intuit more from verbal cues and body language, and will consider more points of view. Men, she says, compartmentalize their attention, focusing on just one thing at a time while tuning out extraneous stimuli. Fisher labels this straightforward approach ''step thinking,'' which works just fine when all that matters is cranking out widgets. But, says Fisher, ''with the growing complexity of the global marketplace, companies will need executives that can assimilate a range of data, embrace ambiguity, and set business objectives within a broader social context''-- in other words, women executives.

Fisher backs up these assertions by citing studies into the structure of men's and women's brains. One region of the prefrontal cortex -- the part of the brain that controls the ability to multitask -- is larger in women, and the two halves of a woman's brain are more strongly connected--which may explain why women are better at integrated thinking.

The biology is well-documented; the evolutionary theories behind it less so. Fisher theorizes that while cavemen were out hunting mastodons -- a task calling for singular concentration -- women had the more complex job of rearing children, requiring them to be ever wary of danger while stoking the home fires, preparing food, and keeping the tribe together. This seems a little too pat -- and fails to account for all the disorganized women and unmotivated men in the world.

Fisher also goes through contortions to explain why men dominate now but won't in the future. Because men are so singularly focused, they can devote all their excess testosterone to climbing the corporate ladder, while women want a well-rounded life. But as the baby boomers enter menopause, she says, aging women will get a testosterone boost, giving them the best of both worlds -- valued web thinking plus pushy behavior. And, they won't have to expend energy birthing those babies.


There used to be a popular song sung by women about men that said, "Anything you can do, I can do better." This is Fisher's theme song. One newspaper review of Fisher's book said, "There is virtually no form of employment that women cannot do today, better, and with more empathy for all involved. There are innumerable examples of modern sensitivities that women possess. Women are everywhere characterized by an awareness of body language, an awareness of words, their uses and meanings, emotional empathy, a contextual view of all things and an impulse to nurture and network. All these skills will triumph in this brave, new world. "

Fisher is an example of feminists invading the academia and coming up with nonsense. Her book is as ridiculous as the book titled The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir that pioneered modern day feminism. Women are not the first or second sex. We are all equal in value, but have different roles. She is wrong to think that women have better people skills than men in the workplace. She at least has the brains to understand that men will dominate the military. But even there she praises Pat Schroeder for all the damage she has done to the military. Fisher is excited about the future. She sees the new global, technological workplace as perfect for women who will outshine men and become "The First Sex." I'm not going to quote passages of her extolling the innate, biological and evolutionary superiority to men. It's all junk science and typical feminist fairyland thinking. But I will quote some passages against the traditional family. In her chapter titled "Peer Marriage" she says, "The traditional male-headed patriarchal family -- the bastion of the agrarian lifeway for several thousand years -- is metamorphosing into new family forms as women rise in economic power." If this means more divorce, so what. Divorce means "fresh opportunities for happiness."

She puts down any backlash to this. "Southern Baptists, America's largest Protestant denomination, have added an amendment to their core statement of beliefs. It declares that all of its almost sixteen million church members should adhere to a literal interpretation of the scriptures requiring a wife to 'submit herself graciously' to her husband's leadership; in exchange, a husband must 'provide for, protect and lead the family.'" This is a case where taking the Bible literally is a good idea.


Then she takes a dig at this saying, "As the Arabs say, 'The dogs may bark but the caravan moves on.' More attempts to curtail the power of women in the home will undoubtedly be made. But women will prevail." She sees the future as being feminist, but she and her feminist friends are the dogs who are barking at a caravan of conservative values that will pass them by. The trend is for women to give up feminism and come back to their homes instead of battling it out with men in the job market.

She disparages the traditional families of the past, as all true believer feminists do, as being suffocating tyrannies or women: "The traditional patriarchal family was not what nostalgic Americans like to think it was. First, it was never particularly stable or durable." Wrong. It beats anything the feminists have experimented with. "the traditional patriarchal family ... denied many women the opportunity to express their natural talents and stifled their creativity. It left millions with little else but kitchen, church, and children. All too often it was often loveless." The new feminist "egalitarian peer marriages" have "genuine intimacy." Yeah right. Compare the Andelins and LaHayes to Friedan and Steinem. I have a wife and eight children. We tried to live the equalitarian marriage Fisher writes so glowingly about and it was a nightmare. When we discovered books on traditional marriage and tried out their teachings we then found "genuine intimacy." I wish Ms. Fisher had focused on kitchen, church and children and not inflicted her sick book on impressionable minds.


A common argument is that the fifties belief in the traditional family as seen in TV shows like The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet, Father Knows Best, Leave It To Beaver, and the Donna Reed Show were phony. Feminists love to repeat over and over that the families of the 50s were loveless, tyrannical and dysfunctional. This is the big lie of Satan's spokespeople, the feminists. Satan rules this world and hates any attempt at striving toward wholesomeness. Satan puts down the stay-at-home mom. That is why there is such strong feelings in our sick culture against Harriet Nelson and June Cleaver. Feminists see more growth, reality and happiness in this transition away from the traditional family to the mixed up, broken up families of today. Conservatives see a decline, and if not stopped, the fall of America.

Ozzie and Harriet Nelson were real life parents to their boys who grew up in their long running and extremely popular show. I remember growing up with their show. It was better for me to be influenced by them than the so called realism of Roseanne that my children had to endure. The Nelson's show was called "The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet." It was an adventure. It was more adventurous and exciting for my generation to watch intact, traditional families of the 50s than the massively divorced and dysfunctional families of today.


One reviewer of her book said Fisher teaches that "we are returning to a balance between the sexes." No we aren't. We are getting further away from God's balance and moving towards Satan's idea of balance. Fisher said in an interview, "we're moving towards these peer marriages, what they call symmetrical marriages or companionate marriages. And these are marriages between equals. I mean, for so much of our history, it was men's responsibility, entire responsibility for the financial health of the family and women were entirely responsible for the home. Now we finally have time in which men and women can put their heads together, work as a team, work the way they did, actually, for millions of years on the grasslands of Africa." She is wrong. We are moving towards more divorce and less team work in families.

Even though many if not most homes are like Ozzie and Harriet's, that does not automatically mean that mankind has progressed. America has declined in the 20th century, not advanced. We need to restore the order past families had. Cal Thomas wrote: "When Harriet Nelson died earlier this month, some stories noted how unrealistic The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet was. But that show was not about realism. It was about idealism. If we lose the ideal, what good are we striving for? Showing a functioning and loving family on TV encouraged the rest of us to consider right from wrong, good from bad. That is what is missing in our culture" [October 19, 1994].


Fisher ends by raising the flag for feminism and ready to lead us into the promised land of equality: "Women are on the march. They are shedding their status as the second sex, the role in which they were cast thousands of years ago as the agricultural era took hold." Agriculture has nothing to do with anything. It doesn't matter what kind of society people live in, agricultural or industrial, that influences patriarchy. Patriarchy will always win out because men are born to lead.

She gave an interview on radio I heard in which she said that women are going to be like the women a million years ago on the grasslands of Africa. She interprets this to mean that while the men were out hunting with their usual narrow single-mindedness, the women were doing many things at once. Fast forward to our new global economy that she says will need people who do not hunt animals, but have to have the skills to be compassionate, glib talkers, good listeners and organizers. Women talk more than men and are far more caring, she says, so they will dominate most areas of life. The problem with this scenario is that women a million years ago spent their whole time with their babies. In a whole hour of talking on a radio program and in her whole book there is no mention about loving children. It's all about how women are going to have exciting careers and men are going to share in cooking and cleaning.

She loves that women are pouring into the job market. Perhaps she unconsciously wants to rationalize her life as a professor instead of a homemaker. Even if women did have more people skills and were more emotionally sensitive, then all the more reason to stay home and care for the young and elderly. She goes overboard in equating the behavior of monkeys to humans. We are not descended from animals. We are made directly by God -- not mutants from some apes. Some animals mate for life, many do not. It doesn't matter. God made humans to mate for life. It is not innate in men to commit adultery, but it is innate for men to lead, provide and protect their families.


Fisher says she thinks Christianity will eventually give up patriarchy for "peer, symmetrical, companionate" marriages. She is bucking biology and theology and psychology. Men are never going to take care of babies and women will eventually come to their senses and go back home. She admits that men will always lead because they have more testerone. No. The reason men will always lead is because God has made them to lead. Fisher puts down men for leading saying they strive for authority at the expense of being balanced. Women are superior with people, but men are so aggressive that women never make it to the top because they are smarter. Practically everything that comes out of her mouth is ridiculous. The result is women becoming cops because America has bought this nonsense that women can communicate better than men and so should be everywhere in the marketplace, even facing criminals. If women want true balance they should go home.

She says women will never be 50% leaders in government or business because they stupidly risk their health and family to climb to the top. The truth is that most CEOs are happily married and take time to exercise. She is excited that women will "sway" elections for who will be president because they outlive men and will become the dominate voting block. Liberalism and socialism is a feminist ideology because it loves big government, not men. So women will mostly vote for men who will promise them that Uncle Sam will take care of them.


She thinks that patriarchy will fade away. She is illogical because how can you say in one breath that men will always lead governments and business and that everything else will be equalitarian? If we follow her own logic then men will lead their homes as well as the U.S. Navy and General Motors. Men will always be the admirals, generals, presidents and head of their homes. They always have and they always will. This is where science and religion meet. This is where science confirms the Bible. Men are subject and women are object. Women take care of babies; men don't. Men build a house and fix the plumbing for the baby to live in. Common sense is simply beyond feminists to grasp. Unfortunately, they have duped the elite to believe in their nonsense.


In the radio interview I heard she said that there are many kinds of feminists. One branch she calls "difference feminists" who are accepting that men and women are different and those feminists will understand what she is saying. The truth is that there is really only one feminism. It may seem that there are some differences, but there isn't. It's like saying there are many denominations of Christianity. Yes, but essentially each one says Jesus is the messiah. The bottom line belief of all feminists is that women working outside the home is wonderful. Women leading men is great. Men ironing their shirts while their wife competes with men is evolution moving us to a glorious world of equality and balance where everyone's unique talents are used. Those who have studied the Kibbutz show that women do not share Fisher's vision.


A caller asked on the radio interview if she was saying anything different than Ashley Montagu, a humanist, who in the 1950s wrote a ridiculous but very influential book called The Natural Superiority of Women. The creator of the Wonder Woman comics got his inspiration after reading Montagu's book. She said Montagu taught that women were better than men in every area of life, but she sees men can do some things that women can't. But the truth is that she throws a tiny little bone at men, by saying they are just stupid hairy beasts who love competition more than cooperation and so they will lead in business and Congress. They will be the warriors who as soldiers, sailors and aviators will kill the enemy. The real power, she predicts, will be held by women who in all the important areas of life, are superior.

Fisher is on a crusade. She continues, "Their stature -- and leadership -- will increase. They are winning influential positions in business, education, the professions, government, and civil society. ... They have also begun to express their sexuality and redefine romance and family life. Like a glacier, contemporary women are slowly carving a new economic and social landscape, building a new world." Her new world is the old world of the socialist/feminist nightmare states of communism. She is a well meaning socialist/feminist that will be betrayed by the Lenins of this world when she gets in power. She is naive to how men and women are made by God to live in traditional families that live in free societies. The road she is on is the same pathetic road that all well-meaning socialist/feminists have gone down. The road to hell is paved with the good intentions of Helen Fishers.

She is making it harder for people to accept the Messiah. She puts down men for being single-minded, but God sends a single-minded man to save her and the rest of mankind. At his banquet speech given for his 80th birthday, Father said, "Ever since I understood the Will of God and His heart, I have lived my life with a single minded goal to accomplish God's Will, transcending time and space and forgetting everything else."

Fisher and her many feminists crusaders are going to have the difficult task of changing their denigrating of men's leadership and honor the work Jesus, St. Paul, saints and Father have done to lead this world away from Satan. Fisher is like a spaced out Eve listening with rapt attention to Lucifers' lies. Father is not a spaced out Adam and our feminist society will have to overcome their male bashing and accept God's vision of a Korean patriarch.

Father is a strong leader and Mother is a true follower to her man. Even many Unificationists who think they know Rev. Moon so well will have to learn what the Divine Principle really teaches. I pray they will not be arrogant and will humble themselves to the truth of the traditional family as an absolute value -- not just one of many values -- one of many paths -- but a law that every man and woman must follow.

Previous  Home  Next