TRUE FAMILY VALUES

I agree with the Dr. Joong Hyun Pak and Dr. Andrew Wilson who in their excellent book, True Family Values write: "The marriage relationship requires different roles." ... "The husband is like heaven; the wife is like the earth." ... "It is the nature of a man to be forthright and initiate love. It is the nature of a woman to be modest and wait for love. A man is endowed with a mind and body fit to hard labor and to an aggressive public life. A woman has the abilities fit for nurturing children."

"The complementary roles of husband and wife in a relationship make for a strong and beautiful attraction. In their love, they honor each other's distinctive roles and contribute their different abilities to the welfare of the whole."

"Contemporary feminists have advocated absolute equality between men and women, but based on rights, not on love." "Feminism has done a disservice to family life. It is paradoxical but true that spurning the natural differences between men and women, feminism has impoverished and weakened the family. Families centered on true love start by honoring the natural diversity of roles out of which love grows, and end by achieving true equality."

"There is an economic division of labor between public and private. There is the function of breadwinner, traditionally taken by the father, who goes out into the world to earn a salary. Then there is the responsibility to manage the home and raise the children, usually borne by the mother."

They teach that families are to sacrifice for others and give two examples: "A filial daughter who endures hardships for the love of her elderly parents-in-law and the soldier who offers his life in defense of his nation have each taken on the yoke of duty. Each is refined through the crucible of his or her service to separate from Satan and becomes a person of virtue." In this example, a woman gives service in the home and the man goes off to fight in war. Feminists see no difference in men and women and fight to have women in combat. They have already put women in combat in America by having them be police officers. Women cops who drive around in squad cars are now beaten and killed by stronger men. This would have been unthinkable to America's Founding Fathers.

I like what they say, but this is all they say about men/women differences in over 200 pages in their book. They never mention that the man is the head of the house.

In a lecture series on family values, the church says, "From the viewpoint of the cosmos, the husband represents heaven, the Creator God, because he contains the seed. The wife represents the earth because she receives and nurtures the seed in her body. Therefore, husband and wife represent the entire cosmos, heaven and earth."

"In fulfilling these responsibilities, one person takes the leading role as the subject partner. The partner supports as the object partner. Usually, the man is the subject partner by virtue of his role in society, and his wife is the supporting object partner. There is a natural order that the man should have a more public role and be the breadwinner. Men are endowed with minds and bodies more fit to hard labor and to the time-space demands of public life (irregular schedule and location)."

I take exception with the wishy washy statement that men are "usually" the subject. It makes as much sense as saying that abstinence before marriage is "usually" right. There are no exceptions to that. Any exceptions to God's laws are extremely rare, such as Jesus' mother, Mary, committing pre-marital sex. Rev. Moon's daughter told millions of people on 60 Minutes that he had an illegitimate child. I am open to rare exceptions, but I don't see how America needs a woman as President, especially when we have evil men ruling nations that have weapons of mass destruction. Father talks about how women have tiny voices next to the strong and commanding voice of a man. How can we have a woman's voice in the Oval Office when monstrous men are plotting the downfall of America? Can you image Nancy Reagan negotiating with Gorbachev instead of her husband? It is ludicrous to think women can lead men and things will be better.

The church's lecture goes on to say, "But sometimes, the woman has the leading role and her husband is the object partner (e.g. Margaret Thatcher, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir)." Indira Gandhi was assassinated. Women are supposed to be protected, not put in situations that are dangerous. The result of feminism is the death of women and the death of femininity and the death of the family.

"Women's true liberation does not weaken the family bond. Love is true liberation, and true love strengthens the family. Women can move their husbands to their way of thinking with love and service. Betty Friedan is but one modern feminist who repented of her earlier advocacy of women's 'liberation' which impoverished family life."

Sadly, they are falling into the trap of Betty Friedan. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The ultimate goal of Friedan and her evil friends is to get a woman to be president. This would be the ultimate castration of men in America.

A member of the Unification Church sent a letter to the Unification News in November 1994 giving the feminist line of thought. She says that Rev. Ahn, a senior lecturer of the Divine Principle, teaches this: "Who can forget his classic explanation of masculinity and femininity? He maintains that masculinity and femininity exist only in the family, and subject and object exist in all other relationships. He cites the example of Margaret Thatcher, former prime minister of Britain. By day, she is subject to her nation, ruling Britain -- at night, she is the feminine object of her husband, bringing him tea on a platter."

Where is the logic in this?

"If Margaret Thatcher had children in daycare, would they be the loveless, forlorn victims of societal decay? I don't think so! They would feel loved, bursting with pride, filled with confidence, sure that the world was theirs for the taking."

This is not the truth. Children are suffering because of day care. This sister says she is a working mother and like "the vast number of families which require two incomes to make ends meet, things are not ... clear cut." She doesn't buy the argument that day care is harmful. She writes, "The breakdown of the family refers to the destruction of the relationship of love between family members - not their physical arrangement. A career mother, who passionately loves her husband and children, who drops her kids off for the day with an affectionate caregiver in a stimulating play environment, is contributing to the 'disintegration of the family and nation'? Please!"

"* Fulltime, at-home mothers with several children often provide less direct attention, structured educational play and fun peer interaction than a quality daycare program

"* Dr. T. Berry Brazelton, renowned pediatrician who urges mothers to stay home when they can, recommends that toddlers of at-home mothers enter daycare at least part-time for growth and developmental reasons

"* Often children relish their daycare, look forward to meeting their little playmates, and protest when it's time to leave

"Working, engaged, career-, mission- or accomplishment-oriented women are not the driving force in the destruction of family values."

I completely disagree. I do not like Dr. Brazelton and side with other doctors and social critics who show how damaging day care is. She says she is "offended by the recommendations and sensibilities" of anyone who disagrees with her. Well, she has her opinion; I have mine. What is God's opinion? I side with those who write against feminism's goal of day care. I sympathize with those women who have to leave their children to others, (especially single mothers) but I do not feel any sympathy for those women who think day care is better for their children, whether they have to use it or not. I am offended by the "sensibilities" of feminists.

It makes no sense to strongly criticize feminists in one sentence and in the next agree with their ultimate goal of getting women to dominate men as U.S. senators. We can't be anti-communist in one sentence and then sound like a communist in the next. There are some issues in life that are black and white. Fallen man lives a life of gray, but our goal is to build a world of absolute values. Blurring the roles of men and women is Satan's ultimate tactic, and UC members have lost power by not winning the battle for the family. The reason Rev. Moon's family is dysfunctional and the UC has become stagnant instead of a growing movement is because it has been digested with the core value of communism -- get the women and children out of the home and have women compete with men. When you take that logic to its inevitable conclusion, you have divorce and women cops. If we want to have absolute families then we need to embrace the absolute value of the Biblical family instead of Betty Friedan's family. The UC has to give up the idea that there is even one good thing in the Marx and Engels who are the ultimate feminists. When the UC embraces Biblical values and 99% of what Rev. Moon says about men and women, it will sweep the earth.

---