A sister likes a feminist book 

In a church book, a sister, Patricia Zulkosky, wrote an article complaining about how the UC was a patriarchy and she was unhappy. She wrote, "In the meantime, women continue to experience the pains of patriarchy alone and without understanding. The most readable and enlightening expose of the pains women experience under patriarchal religion is Sonia Johnson's book, From Housewife to Heretic. She uses her experience and story to illustrate many experiences which I have also had in the Unification Church."

She is very angry that she has been abused by male leaders in the UC. Sonia Johnson is angry too. Her Mormon husband betrayed her. She criticized the Mormon church, and they excommunicated her. She writes that "women are locked in a life-and-death struggle with patriarchy ... When we love ourselves and men enough and are proud and angry enough to come forth and refuse to be oppressed one moment longer, only then will we be credible. Doormats -- or old shoes -- inspire no respect in anyone, including and most especially and most seriously themselves. When we do not value ourselves, no one else does either. So we must make it difficult -- make it wretched and miserable -- for men in power to fight us. We must stop allowing them to walk across our faces with their cleated boots while we apologize for being in their way. Only then will they -- and we -- respect us. It is time to desegregate the Old Boy's Club."

Father not for veils, but not for feminism either

I feel sorry for these women who have been abused by male leaders in their churches. I'm sorry for all their "pains" and the "pains" of all women who have suffered under evil men leaders. Father sympathizes: "Women have been mistreated and miserable throughout history, cast out of their true position. They have been exploited by evil individuals, evil families, societies, nations and by Satan himself" and women will only be totally liberated when the "true man" comes. He doesn't say, though, that women should not follow men or lead men now or in the ideal. He wants women to lift up men, not usurp their position. He says, "Always in the past women have been taking positions above men, even trying to control them. This trend in the history of women will continue until 1988. The women's liberation movement has certainly been successful in this country, with American women seizing the role of empress." He says men were too restrictive with women throughout history. They made women wear veils. But, he says, women are right to want to be liberated from that extreme position, but they have gone to far. He says, "But instead of just taking off their veils, women have even taken off their clothes! Throughout the world women are accepted even when they are practically naked."

Feminists work relentlessly for their cause. Anti-feminists keep losing. But someday the tide will turn. An example of where feminists fight for the kind of unfeminine behavior Father talks about is the battle they finally won over letting female sportswriters have the right to enter the locker room with men. This is a graphic illustration of the Last Days to see some woman interviewing a male athlete while he has a towel on and other men walking naked to the shower. This is what happens when we mix men and women in the marketplace. John Adams spoke a universal truth when he said, "From all that I had read of history and government, of human life and manners, I had drawn the conclusion, that the manners of women were the most infallible barometer, to ascertain the degree of morality and virtue in a nation.... The Jews, the Greeks, the Romans, the Swiss, the Dutch, all lost their public spirit, their republican principles and habits, and their republican forms of government, when they lost the modesty and domestic virtues of their women." When the UC and America restore "domestic virtues of their women" they will become great.

The Victorians were moving in the right direction to give women their proper rights, but women went off the deep end and wanted to lead men. Women got the vote in 1918 in England and now Father says its been 70 years (1918 plus 70 makes 1988) of this nonsense and women must become feminine: "for 70 years women will be trying to assume their rightful, original role .... I understand the reason behind such initiative in America, but it is also time for restored women to resume the objective aspect of their original role. All you sisters, would you like to be recognized for being feminine and charming, or would you like to be known for being very courageous and tom-boyish? All you brothers who laughed, would you like to have tom-boys as your wives, or women who are feminine and charming? When I was matching couples for the Blessing, I asked the Western men what nationality they would like their wives to be. Ninety-nine percent of them asked for Oriental women. I am sure it was very embarrassing for the Western sisters to hear this." Father goes on to explain how women are to sit at home being good objects while the man goes out taking the "initiative". Father says American women have "commanding" voices and it's time for men to stand up to them.

The UC should see that being an object is a privilege, not something that is a degrading habit from the fallen world and headwing will elevate women to something equal to or above men. Father says, "God gave women the privilege of always looking up to their husbands. They should not look down on men. That is the Principle. God actually made women shorter than men for the sake of women. If women were taller than men, then throughout history their lives would have been even more miserable because they would have to do all the reaching for high things." He says God gave a lot of thought to this. There is no interchanging, no equality of height or greater height. Father uses the word "always". Men are born leaders and protectors. They are always over women, not to hurt them, but to take care of them. The mother is taller than children. She is their leader and must not abuse her power.

In Jin Nim says, "Being a woman, I find listening to the Principle about the subject and object relationship very amusing because I know that a lot of sisters have trouble being the object, right? You sisters must know that being an object is not something inferior. In fact, it is really a blessing and an incredible responsibility." I heard she's getting a Ph.D. So what? Her husband got one first so she isn't over him. There are exceptions. I even know one couple Father matched and blessed where the brother is shorter than his wife. We are not to run our lives by exceptions to rules, but by the rules.

Feminists live in fantasy world with no reality. Men are never going to do housework contrary to the pathetic dream of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who said "This is my dream of the way the world should be .... When fathers take equal care of their children, women will truly be liberated. Is that an impossible dream? I don't think so." Mr. Mom is a myth. Studies show that families where men do housework are more quarrelsome than traditional families (a Penn State study).

Elizabeth Hanford has an excellent book, Me? Obey Him?, that teaches women about submission. She says, "We've had the impression that women as a class were more spiritually minded than men, with sensibilities more refined, and purer thoughts. It hurts my feminine pride to have to admit that the Scriptures say the opposite is true! Women are more often led into spiritual error than men. Perhaps it is caused by her intuitive, emotional thinking. Intuitive thinking is God's gift, and not to be despised, but it needs the balance of man's reason."

Women are hurt more easily than men, but they must guide their emotions better. Women can't think they can compete with men in the marketplace and then want them to be a Victorian gentleman and treat them like a lady as Teddy Roosevelt would do. The first woman to go up in space was Sally Ride. She has decided to never have children. She has pioneered other women to go up in these incredibly dangerous space craft. The result was the death of a school teacher who the nation watched get blown to bits. Feminism makes some women barren and kills others. It is an ideology of needless death. Teddy Roosevelt would be shocked at this behavior. Father would see this as just one more example of aggressive American women. It's time for women to start seeing men's pain and men's hearts too. Women's history has been tragic, and I'm sorry for that, but I'm also sorry for men who have suffered under everything from immature, stupid men to outright mean S.O.Bs. too. We must watch out for resentment that can make us not think clearly. Throwing out patriarchy because some men are evil is like throwing out arranged marriages because some didn't work out. People who focus on being victims have a tendency to throw out the baby with the bath water, which is exactly what these women have done.

"The Wounded Heart of God: the Asian Concept of Han and the Christian Doctrine of Sin by Dr. Andrew Sung Park says human history has been brutal to women, such as men raping countless women and girls and feminism's favorite image -- Chinese foot-binding . There are several crucial points missing in all this. Not only have women suffered under mean Abels and mean bosses and mean national leaders. Men have too. Haven't countless men suffered "alone and without understanding?" What about those men who were tortured in the Hanoi Hilton? What about my "pains" having to be led by totally incompetent women state leaders? Arianna Stassinopolous wrote on this selfish blindspot of women to focus only on their pain in her book, The Female Woman. She was in her twenties and single when she wrote how women are so focused on their pain that they can't see that men suffer also: "The Women Libbers are ... so obsessed with the 'wrongs' of women that they never really come to terms with the question of what life is like for men." She has great insights on how perverted feminists are. She is now a leader in the Republican Party.

Because of evil men like Hitler, millions of boys gave their lives to protect their mothers and all other women and girls and the thanks they get is Sonia Johnson who lumps all men as evil. Because of an evil patriarch in North Korea, 50,000 American boys lie in graves. Thousands more live with mangled bodies. And one man suffered in a death camp in Hungnam. He is a man. And he had "pains." Is there any woman who can stand up and say she's suffered more than him?

Different kinds of patriarchs

There are good leaders and bad leaders. There are shades of good and bad men who lead their families. Feminists must see the whole picture and not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Male bashing is not enough. The messiah is male. Jesus was male. Jesus came to perfect patriarchy. Father comes to raise men to a Completed Testament level patriarchy. Lucifer dominated Adam. Adam never grew up. Leaders are spiritually teenage boys. Father is a man leading young men into manhood. But women are also teenage girls spiritually and not more spiritually advanced than men. Even if they were they should still not usurp leadership from men and help men be leaders by being good followers. Father wants women to follow their husbands even though they are not perfect. They are to help them. The best books on how to do this are the Andelins. I also recommend other Christian books such as Elizabeth Hanford's Me? Obey Him? Also listen to her audio cassette of the same title. Order them at your local Christian bookstore. There is nothing more important than for men to become true patriarchs and women to learn how to raise them. They don't do this by being impatient, and they certainly don't help when they try to usurp power. It is an art to leading and following. I've talked to Helen Andelin. She's a great lady. She is the perfect spokeswoman for Godly family values and has been on the Donahue Show, Today Show and others trying her best to help women find love and romance if its lost and increase joy in marriage for others. She has created a beautiful family of eight children and tons of grandchildren.

I can't even begin to stress how much men should read Dr. Andelin's book. Brothers should form their own promise keepers type organization and meet together to share, pray and help each other in being good leaders and providers for our families.

Power of sexual polarity

Gilder in Men and Marriage explains that feminism has taken power from men and society has suffered tremendously for it, contrary to feminists who think society has improved with non-traditional lifestyles: "The imperious power and meaning of male sexuality remains a paramount fact of life and the chief challenge to civilized society ... Failing to come to terms with masculinity, a society risks tearing its very ligaments, the marriage and family ties that bind men to the social order. For it is only their masculinity, their sexual nature, that draws men into marriages and family responsibilities. When our social institutions deny or disrespect the basic terms of male nature, masculinity makes men enemies of family and society."

He says "contemporary sexual liberals" cannot see "the inevitable antifamily consequences of their beliefs. They continue to maintain that the differences between men and women, such as men's greater drive to produce in the workplace, are somehow artificial and dispensable. They insist that men and women can generally share and reverse roles without jeopardizing marriage. They still encourage a young woman to sacrifice her twenties in intense rivalry with men, leaving her to clutch desperately for marriage as her youthfulness and fertility pass. Although they declare themselves supporters of the family, they are scarcely willing to define it. They often maintain that the traditional family is dead because at any one time some 10 percent of all households may contain a working man, a housewife, and children (though some 80 percent take this form for some period of time). In seeking a broader definition of the family, they seek to overthrow the normative pattern of a male with the with the chief provider role and a woman who focuses on child care."

"Sexual liberals often declare that their true end is sexual freedom for both men and women. But nothing is finally free, least of all sex, which is bound to our deepest sources of energy, identity, emotion, and aesthetic sense. Sex can be cheapened, as we know, but then, inevitably, it becomes extremely costly to the society as a whole."

In the most elemental sense, the sex drive is the survival instinct: the primal tie to the future. When people lose the power of sexual polarity, they also lose their procreative energy and faith in themselves and their prospects .... They ... distribute contraceptives 'nonjudgmentally' to teenagers without telling their parents (i.e., 'squealing'). They delay marriage and family. They exert moral pressure and impose financial penalties on families with more than one or two children. They promote a program of zero population growth that leaves the nation unable to support it increasing array of programs for the elderly, who themselves are increasingly cast beyond the care of family. They foster a politics strangely hostile to our genetic perpetuation as a nation and an economics based on the foolish notion that population growth hurts economic progress."

He says, "sexual liberalism chiefly liberates men from their families .... I understand the terrible losses inflicted by sexual liberalism on the men and women I know who try to live by its remorseless egalitarian code, who attempt to twist their lives and bodies into the unisex mold, who tangle in loveless sterility on the Procrustean beds of emancipation."

---