Sarah Hale

Sarah Hale was one of those ladies who wrote and influenced Americans that women were spiritually superior. She was wrong on this but she was right about the dangers of the feminist suffragists. She goes into the argument that suffragists are illogical in that they can't back up their vote by being a soldier and fighting for their vote. The New Woman, she says is inconsistent when she says,"She who bears soldiers need not bear arms." She says the so-called New Woman,"has not the aversion to being represented by men on the field of battle that she has to being represented by them in the legislative hall and at the ballot-box."

She goes into the argument that women are more powerful in the home than in politics. If she leaves it the home will collapse and things will get worse. She explains how ridiculous it is for women to fight for prohibition laws saying,"When we read of women assembling together, parading streets, and entering saloons to create, as they say, 'a public sentiment for temperance,' it is but natural to ask, What are the children of such mothers doing in the meantime? And it will not be strange if many of them become drunkards for the coming generation of reformers to struggle with. The New Woman refuses to believe that duty, like charity, begins at home, and cannot see that the most effectual way to keep clean is not to allow dirt to accumulate."

She goes into the argument that women will purify the world if they are politicians. She says it is woman's duty to raise boys to be good men, not compete with men. She says,"It was the New Woman's earliest, and is her latest, foible that woman is superior to man. Perhaps she is. But the question is not one of superiority or inferiority. There is at bottom of all this talk about women nature's inexorable law. Man is man and woman is woman. That was the order of creation and it must so remain. It is idle to compare the sexes in similar things. It is a question of difference, and the 'happiness and perfection of both depend on each asking and receiving from the other what the other only can give."


"For woman is not undevelopt man,

But diverse: could we make her as the man,

Sweet Love were slain: his dearest bond is this,

Not like to like, but like in difference."


"Sentimental and slavish as this may sound to many ears, it is as true as any of the unchanging laws governing the universe, and is the Creator's design for the reproduction and maintenance of the race." What a great lady this is. The women of the UC should follow in her footsteps and fight feminism. This book is about"unchanging laws" -- of "the Creator's design."

One man, Henry Wood, gave a speech to anti-suffragists meeting in 1918 during WWI saying,"this was no time to unman the Government by this foolhardy jeopardizing of the rights of both sexes .... one wonders at the spectacle of strong, masculine personalities urging at such an hour the demasculinization of Government ... that this from now on is a man's job -- the job of the fighting, the dominating, not the denatured, the womanlike man." He said,"the woman suffrage movement was hopelessly given over to pacifism in its extreme socialistic form." In closing he said that"for any sentimental or political reason it is a damnable thing that we should weaken ourselves by bringing into the war the woman, who has never been permitted in the war tents of any strong, virile dominating nation."

One of the main arguments against women getting the power of the vote was that it would destroy the home. Traditionally the man represented the family. The family had one voice. With the vote, the family would have two different voices. One Brooklyn antisuffrage group in 1894 wrote,"the household, not the individual is the unit of the State, and the vast majority of women are represented by household suffrage." They correctly saw that there would be an escalation of the war between the sexes that one book said"would rip the family in half. Pointing to the higher divorce rate, for example, Alice J. George warned that 'Woman Suffrage Is The Last Straw In Many A Family.' And without the family, American society would crumble .... Fundamentally, then, the antis were defending the spheres assigned to each gender."

Francis Parkman was a leading historian in his day who is best known for his book The Oregon Trail. In"The Woman Question," (North American Review, October, 1879) he wrote,"High Civilization, ancient or modern, has hitherto rested on the family. The family, and not the individual, has been the political unit, and the head of the family, in esse or in posse, actual or prospective, has been the political representative of the rest. To give the suffrage to women would be to reject the principle that has thus far formed the basis of civilized government."

In American Journey Richard Reeves writes,"Howard Phillips, a former federal official, was the national director of a lobbying group called the Conservative Caucus. In a speech to a 'Pro-Family' conference of California Citizens for a Biblical Majority in June of 1980, he said: 'The family is increasingly being eliminated as the basic unit of self-government in America and being replaced by state control over the individual .... In the eighteen-hundreds, legislation was enacted which freed the wife of economic dependence on the husband. [Women] were given property rights .... We saw how women were liberated from the leadership of their husbands politically ... we had one family, one vote. And we have seen the trend toward one person, one vote. And the ultimate extension of this philosophy has been the sexual liberation of the woman from the husband as our government and as our established elites in America have condoned adultery, promiscuity and other forms of immoral behavior which undermine the family....'"

One of the most distributed magazines of the Antis was The Woman Patriot. Even after 1920 it continued for years to fight as it said in its masthead,"against Feminism and Socialism." In one issue it said,"The suffragists are bringing us to the culmination of a decadence which has been steadily indicated by race suicide [low birth rate], divorce, breakup of the home, and federalism, all of which conditions are found chiefly in primitive society." They were right. America's birthrate plummeted and divorce skyrocketed. One woman liberal writer of today said this about the efforts of the Antis,"How do you explain this hostility? The tempting answer is privilege and paranoia -- a defense of male power and a hysterical fear of change. But this quick answer does not help us understand exactly what the antis were afraid of nor, still more puzzling, why so many women opposed their own enfranchisement. If we listen to what the antis said, we can hear beneath the furious, sensationalistic, often silly rhetoric a profound fear of social disorder." Now women have"hysterical fear" of patriarchy. Everything has been completely turned around. Today we have women like Gloria Steinem who says,"We don't just want to destroy capitalism, we want to tear down the whole f.....g patriarchy."

Men lost their patriarchy when they gave the vote to women in 1920. The nation should not have rejoiced over that. The Kansas City Star proclaimed,"The victory is not a victory for women alone, it is a victory for democracy and the principle of equality upon which the nation was founded." The Democratic candidate for President, James Cox said,"The civilization of the world is saved."


1920 was turning point


The 1920s were the turning point in history. The messiah was on earth and Satan worked feverishly to make people weak and disorderly. He did everything he could to make it hard for the messiah. He gave the world his values -- anti-patriarchy and anti-capitalism. He made women lose their femininity by taking away their role of mother. He made women have fewer children. He made their clothes skimpy. He enticed them to rebel and go into the workplace and to vote. One book said it this way:"There were many kinds of American deaths during the First World War -- not only 115,000 doughboys, not only the Wilsonian illusions of worldwide capitalist democracy, but also the Victorian concepts of manliness and womanliness. The men who returned home found themselves in a bewilderingly new culture. Amid the raucous beat of the Jazz Age, the flapper danced and drank and smoked, talked bluntly of sex and often did something about it, demanded the right to a home and a career. In short, she was saying that she was as good (or as bad) as any man."

"The flapper brought with her a sudden shift of cultural generations. Older feminists regarded her as a traitor to their ideals of equality. And men responded with discomfort or dismay. They still understood their role in old-fashioned manly terms -- as patriarch of the breakfast table, as breadwinner in the marketplace, as roughrider on the range."

"These notions were becoming daydreams, however. An increasingly liberated younger generation of middle-class women was over-turning the Victorian code of 'purity.' An increasingly urbanized, bureaucratized society was rendering patriarchy into a masculine mystique. In the history of American sex roles, the 1920s marked the beginning of modernity."

There began an increase in divorce and a drastic decline in the birthrate. One book said,"The American family was in crisis. Social scientists were persuasively documenting the situation, and then, in 1903, the president of the United States himself gave a name to it. With his talent for the pungent phrase, Theodore Roosevelt announced that Americans were committing 'race suicide' ... If people read the divorce and birth rates as evidence that the home was tending toward collapse, how did they explain the peril?" There was a"theme" to who to blame,"they blamed the women. According to the New York Times, for example, nine-tenths of New York mothers had undermined their household systems by buying ready-made food at delicatessens. Others blamed the wives decisions to take jobs outside the home. Ida Tarbell, herself a famous journalist, rebuked those of her sex who perverted their feminine qualities by doing the business of men. Professor Ward Hutchinson told the American Academy of Medicine that the employed woman 'commits a biologic crime against herself and the community .... Any nation that works its women is damned and belongs at heart to the Huron-Iroquois confederacy.'"

Later this book says,"'A race is worthless and contemptible,' said Theodore Roosevelt, 'if its men cease to be willing and able to work hard and, at need, to fight hard, and if its women cease to breed freely.' He was echoing the truisms of three Victorians generations before him. Social progress began at home, the warm greenhouse lovingly tended by a woman. When the last Victorian generation, born in the 1850s and 1860s, discovered rising divorce rates and declining birthrates, it saw the ethical order being undermined. And it blamed women, at least certain women."

In 1895 William Croswell Doane wrote in The American Review,"The slavery of American women exists only in the warped imaginations and heated rhetoric of a few people, who have screamed themselves hoarse upon platforms or written themselves into a rage in newspapers. There is no freer human being on earth to-day, thank God, than the American woman. She has freedom of person, of property, and of profession, absolute and entire. She has all liberty that is not license."

A man wrote at the turn of the century:"President Roosevelt, in his address before the Mothers' Meeting in Washington in 1905, said: 'The primary duty of the husband is to be the home-maker, the breadwinner for his wife and children (and, may I add, to be her protector from violence); the primary duty of the woman is to be the helpmeet, the housewife and mother.' In these words Mr. Roosevelt has gone to the heart of the woman question. The call to woman to leave her duty to take up man's duties is an impossible call. The call on man to impose on woman his duty, in addition to hers, is an unjust call. Fathers, husbands, brothers, speaking for the silent woman, I claim for them the right to be exempt in the future from the burden from which they have been exempt in the past. Mothers, wives, sisters, I urge you not to allow yourselves to be enticed into assuming functions for which you have no inclination, by appeals to your spirit of self-sacrifice. Woman's instinct is the star that guides her to her divinely appointed life, and it guides to the manger where an infant is laid."

In Feminism: Its Fallacies and Follies John Martin writes,"The woman's movement is a movement towards progressive national degeneration and ultimate national suicide. Already the evidence is conclusive that the effects of Feminism upon the inalienable function and immemorial duty of woman -- the bearing of children -- are so appalling as to threaten the perpetuation of the best part of the nation. The one duty to society which women alone can discharge is the bearing of children."

"The 'devouring ego in the 'new woman,' warned Anna Rogers in the Atlantic Monthly, has created 'the latter-day cult of individualism; the worship of the brazen calf of Self.' Instead of acknowledging that 'marriage is her work in the world,' she has tried to enter the masculine realm with ambitions for education, careers, and other public activity. 'Apparently her whole energy is to-day bent upon dethroning herself.' A woman who would leave the pedestal 'has the germ of divorce in her veins at the outset.' Mrs. Rogers gave ferocious articulation to the thoughts that hovered in the cultural atmosphere of 1907. According to one report, 'no magazine article for a long time has been so widely exploited and discussed.' The 'new woman' was the enemy of marriage, the home, and therefore civilization. Indeed, outside her feminine sphere, how much of a woman was she? 'That is the Woman Question in a sentence,' said Lyman Abbot. 'Does she wish to be a woman or a modified man?"

"Advocates of the traditional female role in the early twentieth century" did their best to"drown out the siren call of the new woman." Of course the siren was Satan. All historians say that the 1920s were a major turning point. Because we know the Principle we can understand God's view and the forces behind history. When the UC teaches the parallels of history it should explain how Satan worked to destroy the family and society with anti-patriarchy and anti-capitalism. Patriarchy and capitalism go together like a horse and carriage. Anti-patriarchs are always socialists who hate capitalism. Socialists want to destroy the men leading in society as well as the home.

Over a million American men have died in wars. Millions more men have fought and died for freedom around the world. Women have suffered as their men went to fight. At the horror of Valley Forge when thousands of men were dying in agony that winter they would receive letters from their wives asking them to come home and help them. One of the most powerful words I have ever read was in a book called George Washington and the American Revolution. In the chapter describing the agonizing death thousands of men were facing while others were suffering from frostbite and disease at Valley Forge we read,"As one officer was to report, he was handed letters every day by veterans who stood with tears in their eyes as he read the pathetic pleas of their wives: 'am without bread, and cannot get any, the committee will not supply me, my children will starve, or if they do not, they must freeze, we have no wood, neither can we get any. Pray come home." Women have suffered as well as men in human history. But women must not be in control because they are too pacifist. Father teaches women to be strong and able to make it without their man if he has to go off and fight. If this happens then women must band together as trinities instead of trying to do it alone.