Titus 2:3-5

Titus 2:3-5 gives the best summary of the role of a woman in the Bible:"tell the older women to be reverent in behavior, not to be slanderous or slaves to drink; they are to teach what is good, so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be self-controlled, chaste, good managers of the household, kind, being submissive to their husbands, so that the word of God may not be discredited." The word that feminists have a coronary over is"submissive." Mary Pride has an excellent book that is based on this quote called The Way Home and a sequel called All the Way Home. The only discussion about sex roles in this perverted society is about women's pain and resentment and how they have got to be put in charge because men are competitive fighters and women are cooperative lovers. There is just laughter or disgust if men ever mention being hurt. Most men don't say anything because of the ridicule and heartless attacks they will receive from both men and women if they open up.

Let's continue with Father's antifeminist speech:"The well-developed breasts of women exist for the sake of their children. Their hips also exist for their children. The beauty of a woman's face is for the sake of her husband. If you follow this line all the way down through the center point of your body you discover a living spring." Now he uses the image of water that symbolizes life. He says,"That means you do not possess anything at all. Every part of yourself belongs either to your husband or your children. No one can argue this fact. Certainly members of the women's liberation movement would oppose these words."


 Father knows that the so-called women libbers are obsessed with the word"equality" and that they haven't got a clue to what it means. He says,"How can you claim equality as women when not even in the Olympic Games is there any woman who has competed with men and won? Men are bigger and stronger than women. Even if a woman became a champion wrestler, do you think she would have the chance to win over a male champion wrestler? [No.]"

"How can you claim equality?" He answers that we"claim equality" in love making. The"concave and convex shapes become totally united centered on true love." Vive la difference! Father doesn't mince any words. He is a voice crying in the wilderness that upsets this world so much that they jail him in America because he is such a threat to society. He is seen as an abuser. What he says is infuriating.

 Fathers, not mothers, have "central position"

 Father goes on to say:"The children should revolve 180 degrees around their mother in unity." So much for househusbands!"The father's central position cannot be replaced; however, the position of mother can be replaced. The mother revolves around the father." Circular motion is not both revolving around each other. The center stays put and the object focuses on the subject. Wives are supposed to focus on their husbands. Father never says people change positions.


 Let's continue with Father's revolutionary (not reactionary) view of how men are higher up the hierarchy than women in leadership:"Do you American women understand? All of you have to climb up your husband's ladder in order to reach God. The father is responsible to the mother and the children. ... The mother and children all have to climb up the father's ladder to reach a higher dimension. ... The only thing that we have to care about is the seed of life following this vertical line. The seed is important, but the mother floats around through 360 degrees. Therefore, the wife has to absolutely follow the husband."

 Me? Obey Him?

 A good book I recommend for sisters to read that speaks as strongly as Father does about women following is Elizabeth's Hanford's Me? Obey Him? When you order the paperback from your Christian bookstore, be sure to order her audio cassette of the same title. It is a speech she gave at a women's meeting summarizing her book. In her tape she laughs as she begins by saying that a woman came up to her once and said that she was so angry when she started reading it that she tried to flush it down the toilet! But it wouldn't go down, so she then tried to burn it, but since the book was wet it wouldn't burn. Later, though, she read it and studied it because she was desperate. Her family was falling apart and after she did as Mrs. Hanford taught, their family was happy. One thing that I really like about the tape is the voice and tone of Mrs. Hanford. It is a spiritual experience to hear a feminine and Godly voice teaching the true meaning of subject and object roles for men and women.

Women are like "baskets"

 Finally, Father says in his parable-like speech,"American women may feel that my explanation of life gives them no value whatsoever. Women are like an empty receiving basket. Your value will be determined by the contents you hold within your basket. I suggest that you utilize your beautiful face, well-developed bosom and hips and produce as many precious children as possible. That is your value." A woman's value does not come from competing with men in the marketplace. It is in having many children and caring for them in the home. Everyone is supposed to witness, but our first priority is to have lots of children who are not taken care of by strangers so the wife can have a career. I call upon those who can't physically have children and want them to start adopting instead of waiting around for blessed babies. It costs a lot of money to adopt so these couples should focus first on getting themselves to look good to adoption agencies. And the rest of the members should adopt to bring their families up to at least 10 children if not 20.

  It's time for the UC to grow up

 Father then goes on to explain how sons are different than daughters. He explains how they play differently. The boys are out chasing animals while the girls are content to play with toys in the home. This is absolute antifeminism. Father is saying exactly what feminists go out of their minds in disgust. He sounds, to them, like a male chauvinist pig. Some kind of horrible Ayatollah restricting their"freedom" by"imposing" his"stereotypes" that men and women are different and therefore have different roles. This is the kind of thinking that suffragists literally screamed against for 70 years. Finally, men got so tired of the racket they gave them the vote to shut them up.

 70 Year Battle of the Sexes for the Power of the Ballot

 Satan worked to destroy this world and make it hard for the messiah by creating confusion. He made men weak and women disorderly. One of his greatest victories was upsetting the order of who has power by giving women the vote in 1920. There was a 70 year battle by suffragists from 1848 to 1920 in America. This act castrated all men. Many people, especially women, fought this valiantly but lost.

In 1848, Satan struck with a vengeance. He had Marx and Engels publish The Communist Manifesto in Europe and Elizabeth Cady Stanton publish her Declaration of Sentiments in Seneca Falls, New York. Both attack the traditional family in the name of"equality." It sounded ridiculous to people when they first heard this, but the dedication of socialists/feminists was greater than the majority who did not take them seriously. There is the story of the frog that got boiled to death as the water was heated in the pot he was in and he didn't even know what was happening to him until it was too late.

Satan is tricky. He has worked by creating an ideology that deceives people by giving them what appears to be a noble ideal -- the ideal of equality. A world that is fair and selfless. The means to that end was government. Marx and Stanton turned to government force to end what they saw as the tyranny of men leading families. Christians usually use the word"headship" instead of patriarchy. Satan's ideology of socialism/feminism has been bought by the majority of the West. What seemed preposterous 140 years ago is now the guiding principles of practically everyone.

Now we must begin the marathon race of restoring men to be the head of their families. Stanton in 1848 wrote her goal of women getting the power of the vote and therefore the power to rule over men. She relentlessly pounded away in speech after speech and book after book that women were slaves under patriarchs. In one speech she said her revolution was the greatest"the world had ever seen, because it goes deep down to the very foundations of society."

"...A question of great magnitude presses on our consideration, whether man and woman are equal, joint heirs to all the richness and joy of earth and Heaven, or whether they were eternally ordained, one to be sovereign, the other slave....Here is a question with half the human family, and that the stronger half, on one side, who are in possession of the citadel, hold the key to the treasury and make the laws and public sentiment to suit their own purposes. Can this be made to change base without prolonged discussion, upheavings, heartburnings, violence and war? Will man yield what he considers to be his legitimate authority over woman with less struggle than have Popes and Kings their supposed rights over their subjects? No, no."

Socialists/feminists campaign against monarchy. They fight for horizontal, not vertical. Naturally this leads them to government instead of the church.

Stanton writes,"This is woman's transition period from slavery to freedom and all these social upheavings, before which the wisest and bravest stand appalled, are but necessary incidents in her progress to equality." They were stronger fighters than their opposition, especially women who were uncomfortable to fight against them because they were gentle and feminine.

Feminists are unfeminine. They are pushy and noisy. Stanton continues,"Conservatism cries out we are going to destroy the family. Timid reformers answer, the political equality of woman will not change it. They are both wrong. It will entirely revolutionize it. When woman is man's equal the marriage relation cannot stand on the basis it is today." When women got the vote it did change the marriage relation and now men are not the leaders. She goes on,"But this change will not destroy it .... We shall have the family, that great conservator of national strength and morals, after the present idea of man's headship is repudiated and woman set free."

When men are not the head of the family and democracy has been achieved then marriage will be lifted to it true height she says:"To establish a republican form of government and the right of individual judgment in the family [she loves individualism] must of necessity involve discussion, dissension, division, but the purer, higher, holier marriage will be evolved." The UC needs to fight this evil teaching. WFWP must denounce democracy in the family and women voting. Stanton fought for divorce to made easier and women to be independent financially to keep men from having any power over women. She taught Satan's lie that men should not be the sole provider. She wrote it is a"false theory" that has been in"the minds of the human family for ages that woman is born to be supported by man and to accept such circumstances as he chooses to accord to her. She, not like him, is not allowed to control her own circumstances. The pride of every man is that he is free to carve out his own destiny. A woman has no such pride."

When you get on this slippery slope of Satanic logic you always end with a denial of life and love. She criticizes her fellow Victorians for having large families calling it"a mere animal function that we share in common with the beasts of the field" that becomes"noble, healthy and happy" only if people stop just"adding numbers alone with but little regard for quality."

She and her comrades won the war of ideas and now True Parents have to fight against a culture that values small families. Voices like Mary Pride who teaches that big families are of God are tiny voices in the wilderness today.

Stanton predicts that when women get the vote and end patriarchy men and women will have"health and happiness" and"a joy and peace that passeth all understanding shall yet be ours and Paradise regained on earth [Communists, socialists, and feminists have a great idealistic dream]. When marriage results from a true union of intellect and spirit and when Mothers and Fathers give to their holy offices even that preparation of soul and body that the artist gives to the conception of his poem, statue or landscape, then will marriage, maternity and paternity acquire a new sacredness and dignity and a nobler type of manhood and womanhood will glorify the race!!"


Let's look at men and women who wrote words to counter the nightmare Stanton wrote of. Antisuffragists wrote many books and articles. One of my favorite is Feminism: Its Fallacies and Follies by Mr. and Mrs. John Martin. They give some good arguments against feminists and suffragists. They wrote the book in 1916 before women had the vote. He wrote the first half of the book; she wrote the second half. In her part she says that feminists have been like a child on a crying spell for 60 years and men should not give in to them:"Woman suffrage propaganda flourishes because it is the only remedy now being publicly offered as a cure for women's discontent. Because it does not comprehend the nature of her disease and refuses to admit what really ails her. Therefore it is a quick remedy, and will make her rather worse than better if she adopt it. It only tends to increase the force of that pressure which is driving her away from the home and which, when her trouble is correctly diagnosed, is itself the underlying cause of the distress."

"Nevertheless we who are opposed to votes for women, for reasons which seem to us wholly adequate, have most of us taken with regret the position of standing in the way of the gratification of their wishes -- no matter how childish they seem to us -- as expressed by so many women. There is no disguising the fact that it is our opposition alone, not that of our good-natured American men folk, which has prevented and will prevent suffrage from being given to women. Most mothers have found it expedient, however, when a child cries long and earnestly for something which, after all, cannot do it a great deal of harm, to grant its request. It seems the only way, for the moment to stop its crying, and the only way for it to learn how mistaken its desires were and how worthless their object. Therefore the writer would feel inclined to yield to the importunities of suffragists, who certainly have wailed piteously and kept up an unconscionable racket, for some sixty years or more -- a long crying spell for a child of any age -- were it not for the fact that to grant their plea means to work an even greater injustice upon other -- and in her judgement -- wiser, women who do not desire to vote."

She says women do not make things better when they enter the business world:"Suffragists assure us that their very presence in man's savage and barbarous world would soften and civilize it. Yet women have entered business by the thousands; have they altered business by their influence? They have entered journalism in shoals; have they effected any change in newspaper methods? Is the press any the less vulgar, less sensational, less prying, less scrupulous, for her presence in the editorial office? The press is susceptible to pressure, but it must come from the box office, from the advertiser, from the reader. Woman in the home, as reader, as buyer, as wife of an advertiser can affect journalism; as employee of the press she has no influence."

 Volunteer instead of voting

 She says women should put their energy into volunteer work -- not politics: "Women who are burning to be useful may be reminded that there are, in New York City alone, over eight thousand civic and philanthropic organizations, all shouting for helpers; and they never ask whether one has a vote or not. Yet one meets women who seem to be positively yearning to take part in 'municipal housekeeping' -- whether they have made much of a success of their home housekeeping or not. The latter is so sordid! And, of course, there is nothing sordid in hiring street cleaners and garbage collectors or in superintending city dumps! Any work is inspiring if only it is not done at home! They would like to give the 'feminine touch' to city management."

Mrs. John MartinMrs. John Martin had an article in the New York Times on April 12, 1914. She gives some excellent arguments against feminism. The title of her article is:


Made Superfluous and Unnecessary, He Will Sneak In and Out of the Back Door When Sent For Like a Guilty Plumber, Says Mrs. John Martin

She writes: "Between feminism and the family there is an inherent and irreconcilable antagonism. They are pulling in opposite directions, and sooner or later society will find itself called upon to choose between them.

"The family is a closely organized coherent interdependent group. The basic principle upon which it rests is the mutual dependence of its members. It is founded upon the needs of its members for one another. Were it not for these mutual needs the family would not have been formed.

"All organization rests upon the need of its parts for one another. The organs of the body find their continued existence as an organism because they need and serve one another. When this mutual dependence ceases dissolution begins.

"When the cave-woman sat nursing her infant n the cave, that cave-man went forth to strangle wild beasts with his hands at a risk of his life to provide food for them all, and the stirrings of gratitude in her savage breast, prompting her to make the cave warm and comfortable against his return, to cook the food according to his liking mark the beginning of the home.

"What distinguishes this human family from the mating pairs among the animals is their respective helplessness and need of one another. Without the man the woman will starve; without them both the child will perish; without the child and its prolonged period of helpless dependence upon them the bond which unites them will weaken. ...

"It is the prolonged infancy of the human offspring which has been most potent in producing the organization of the family, and next to the dependence of the infant upon the parents, the dependence of woman upon man has been the chief agency in his development.


"Moreover, on her part, gratitude, that most human of qualities, has worked in her the utmost womanly ingenuity of effort to please, reward and repay him. ...

"The birthrate, as it is well known, has been notably falling, dating from the year 1876 or thereabout" as "the maternal instinct declines." ...

"It is apparent that the unity of the family arises out of its common needs and mutual services. But when woman has no need for man as breadwinner and he has no need for her as home-maker, and the child has no further need for either of them as nurse, teacher, guide, friend, but finds most of its needs supplied elsewhere by paid experts generally outside of the home - then, with the disappearance of reciprocal needs and services, the cohesive force of the family dissolves, and when the last bond, affection, weakens from disuse the family easily disintegrates.

"The family is a unity or it is nothing. Remove the needs which hold it together and the family disappears, ...


"In our day certain powerful changes are at work in society, the effect of which is to remove little by little the needs which hold the family together and therefore point to a possible final dissolution of the family unit. ...


"... there sprang up innumerable social quacks ready to demonstrate that the decay of the family was merely the breaking of the shell which held woman imprisoned and its consummation the setting of her " free." In ever-increasing volume to this day they swell the chorus of thanksgiving. Women and girls by the millions, who have been sent out from the home to enter into an unnatural struggle for bread against the men who should be their natural protectors, robbed little by little of their reason for existence, are being taught to regard their condition as one of " liberation," "freedom," "progress." ...


"... the nature of the antagonism between feminism and the family becomes apparent. The keynote of the family is dependence; its vary existence depends upon the mutual dependence of its members; the greater their degree of dependence the closer is its integrity. The keynote of feminism. on the contrary, is independence. The ideal family has no place in it for feminism, and feminism finds the family continually an obstacle in its way.

"The unity of the family takes three forms - economic unity, political unity, and sex unity. Where the father is the sole breadwinner it has economic unity; where he represents the family at the polls it has political unity, and it has sex unity when he is its responsible parental head. The attack upon the family is made upon all three of its sides... unity; woman suffrage, denying that the family's political interests are one, and demanding that each member of the family shall vote separately and individually, extreme or advanced feminism attacks the family's sex unity; demanding for woman "freedom from sex domination" and the right to choose the father (or it may be the fathers) of her children.

Putting Father Out of Business

"The integrating factor of the family is the husband-father. Feminism is a process of putting father out of business; of deposing him from his position of distinction and responsibility in some woman's little world as the family's breadwinner, political representative and only authorized male parent. Feminism undertakes to render him superfluous and unnecessary. It is showing woman how she can quite well get along without him and sill have everything that she wants - independence, prosperity, the vote, self-support, self-direction even independent motherhood if she desires it and can afford it.


"Relieved of all responsibility and distinction, homeless, childless, wifeless, objectless, with nothing to do but stake out his own grub and lay in a supple of cigars and pocket money, man will wander through life like a lost soul; his final position as time goes on, becoming that of the drone in the beehive. ...

Lord of Creation

"In the completed feminist state the male, preserved for one purpose only, will be permitted to drag out a subordinate and somewhat surreptitious existence, sneaking in and out of the back door, when sent for like a guilty plumber. He, once lord of creation, now reduced, as some one has said, to the domestic status of the tomcat.

"The goal of woman suffrage is merely woman's political independence, but it derives from woman's entrance into industry and her assumption of economic independence and both of these pass by a natural sequence (as rapidly as their followers summon due courage) into a demand for sex independence. The same line of argument (woman is man's equal, she is a person, an individual, an independent unit, &c.,) can be applied with equal force to one stage after the other until the one-third-of-the-way suffragist bud has opened out into the full-blown feminist flower.

"The continued existence of our race depends upon keeping the desire for maternity alive in woman. But the final outcome of feminism is inevitably the deadening of this desire by reason of its antagonism to the family - the sole means of keeping it alive. Woman to-day, for the first time in history, holds in her hands the key to the situation. At her pleasure she may lock or unlock the gates of the future. Therefore nothing is more urgent than that she shall be released from the tightening, hardening effects of feminism and kept in the fruitful atmosphere of the family."



One of the most famous women campaigning for women to get into government was Jane Addams, the founder of Chicago's Hull House, a community center for the poor. She crusaded for woman suffrage so women could influence legislation to solve domestic problems. She was also a pacifist and received the Nobel Peace Prize. In"The Modern City and the Municipal Franchise of Women" she wrote in 1910 that it was"going badly" in the cities and people there had"not yet learned to arrange its affairs satisfactorily. Unsanitary housing, poisonous sewage, contaminated water, infant mortality, the spread of contagion, adulterated food, impure milk, smoke-laden air, ill-ventilated factories, dangerous occupations, juvenile crime, unwholesome crowding, prostitution and drunkenness, are the enemies which the modern cities must face and overcome, would they survive." Government, she says, must solve these problems:"personal welfare is now being considered a legitimate object of government." People, she said, must"submit to a minute regulation of their affairs" because there is so much"selfishness" that must be"curbed" so they can develop"higher social feelings." Women need to get into government because"men of the city have been carelessly indifferent to much of the civic housekeeping, as they have always been indifferent to the details of the household." She says men are more concerned with"enemies" outside America and want to spend tax money on stupid things like"increasing the national navy" instead of dealing with the"details" of"health and welfare of young children" and men do not have"a responsibility for the cleanliness and comfort of other people." Women have always swept their homes and should now form a"Bureau of Street Cleaning." Women have always kept their homes"from the days of the cave dwellers...clean and wholesome" and should now create a"Bureau of Tenement House Inspection."

America went downhill fast when women got the vote because men listened to women and created our welfare state. Men became weak and women became disorderly. America became weak militarily because it was feminized. Many thousands of women knew how dangerous socialist/feminist/pacifists like Jane Addams were. They wrote books and articles against the relentless nagging and yelling of the suffragists. Finally men became exhausted fighting them and gave them the vote. New York State Representative Fiorello La Guardia in frustration told them:"I'm with you. I'm for it. I'll vote for it. Now don't bother me." Men gave in and bought the argument that they were unfit to be the final decision makers.

One of the most powerful arguments against the vote was that it would give women power that they should not have. That is the power to decide how government force is used. They shouldn't decide because they can not back it up by personally using force. Women are not to fight. Since the women got the vote they have gone down a slippery slope where they are now fighting wars. The Martins explain how women shouldn't have anything to do with force because they cannot back up their vote. By getting their foot in the door, they have thrown it open and lost all protection from men. They write,"At a time when half the world is at war (they are talking about WWI) and the truth is made plain that the governments of all nations rest upon force, and that no law is worth a scrap of paper more than the force of the gun behind it, woman suffragists propose that women shall encumber government with special laws, which they themselves could not enforce, and which men must, therefore, be prepared to die for if necessary. The male voter is committed to the task of backing up his vote with his fist and his gun in case it can be enforced in no other way. A woman's vote has no guaranty behind it and therefore she can never be a citizen in the same sense that a man is a citizen."

"As boys playing 'soldier,' with sticks for guns, the woman voter carries a gun that won't go off. She casts her ballot when and where men suffer her to do so. She can neither secure the ballot nor hold it without consent. She may rail at this as much as she likes; but such is the case, and nobody is to blame for it except Nature, which made her the weaker.It is true that not every man could enforce his vote; the cripple could not. But, after all, disabled men are a handful; while disabled women (physically) are the whole sex. Moreover, the man's disability may be temporary and he may one day recover his strength. But womanhood is an infirmity from which women rarely, if ever, wholly recover."

"Many women think that they want the vote because they do not quite know what voting is about. They don't realize that its object is to make laws. And laws, as every woman knows, are a nuisance. Who wants to be always making laws, always trying to rule and repress and regulate other people's affairs? What pleasure can there be in perpetually worrying your fellow-beings with more laws; have they not troubles enough already!"


is a feminine woman. Betty Friedan is not feminine. Compare the two. Betty says we shouldn't have fought communism in Vietnam:"Women are closer to life, I think. If women were 50 percent of the United States Senate, we would not have continued the Vietnam War year after year .... Those kinds of changes will take time -- we're still electing women officials who are really imitation men -- but you will get a change in political behavior. Men will change, too, because they will have to share more and more of women's work, including the rearing of children. In the last analysis, women are going to be the ones answering the question: What is it worth to die?" And women don't want to die as readily as men will fight and die for freedom.