"We live in a world where we are no longer surprised to find a female prime minister, a female judge, a female rabbi or a female pilot. But there are still remarkably few women in top jobs, considering the large increase in the number of well-educated women."

"This is likely to remain the case."

"This, of course, is heresy to those idealists who maintain that, since the sexes are identical, identical education will lead inevitably to an equality of achievement. With the best will in the world, the sexes, when given the choice, don't choose to study the same subjects, do better or worse at particular subjects according to their sex, and, even when men and women achieve equal academic success, do not always maintain an equal momentum in success at work."

She explains how women are overwhelmingly not interested in leadership. Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir are flukes -- about as rare as women leaders in the Bible. She says, "If politics is really about 'serving the community' or 'helping people' (as the male candidates proclaim) then it might seem women are better equipped to do the job. But back in the kibbutz, in spite of complete formal equality in political rights, women have become less active in the kibbutz parliament, and while well represented on committees dealing with social, educational and cultural matters, they are 'seriously underrepresented in committees dealing with economy, work, general policy-making, and security'. The higher the level of authority, the wider the gap between men and women; six men in every hundred reached the highest levels of power, but only six women in every thousand."

Rev. Moon says America needs a woman president. Why not half of the Presidents be women? Is that what he wants? To be perfectly balanced then the Vice-President should be of the opposite sex. All of this is nonsense. Women simply are not wired to be leaders over men in any area of life. It is not only ridiculous that we push women into leadership in Washington D.C., but it is irresponsible. It will continue to be a dangerous world for many years to come. America has fought wars in which the freedom of the world hinged on our victory. The idea of a woman leading America in the Revolutionary War or Civil War is absurd. Washington spent seven years fighting the greatest military force in the world. Women at Valley Forge is unthinkable. A woman leading hundreds of thousands of men to their death in the Civil War, as Lincoln did, is unimaginable to any clear thinking person. Think of FDR and his generals in WW2, Truman dropping the atomic bomb on children, McArthur wanting to fight the Chinese in the Korean War. Government is force and women have no place there. Father's motivation is for women to do public service, but being a US Senator is not the way for a woman to help others. Government welfare is a bureaucratic nightmare. Women are best at the intimate level of local charity.


"... the bias of the adult male brain expresses itself in high motivation, competition, single-mindedness, risk-taking, aggression, preoccupation with dominance, hierarchy, and the politics of power, the constant measurement and comparison of success itself, the paramountcy of winning -- everything which we found in the male as an adolescent. To the woman -- to the average woman, that is -- this all matters rather less."

Fortune 500 companies are always attacked by feminists for discriminating against women. She writes that one company "was attacked for not promoting enough women as managers. This stung the company, as it prided itself on its vigorous affirmative action policy, in which it went out of its way to favour women for corporate advancement." They hired a respected company to study why and guess what the results were? They found "that the gender difference in promotion rate was due entirely to differences in motivation. Women clerks, they found, were less willing to relocate than men, or work longer hours, and were less inclined to see their job as the first rung on the corporate career ladder."

She quotes Michael Levin who wrote in his book Feminism and Freedom: "There is no cosmic cashier dispensing wages for a virilised brain. Nobody gets paid without performing. But because men try harder more often, they will, if not forcibly prevented, succeed more often than women in attaining highly-paid positions." She says women should not feel guilty to be homemakers or if they do not climb the corporate ladder as fast as men. She is wrong in saying that "intelligent businesses are learning the value of gentler management. ... Feminine virtues seem to be good for business." She is wrong. Feminism is so deeply entrenched that even this author cannot see the illogic of saying that men are innately more competitive and then they should deny their essence and be less macho and more feminine. This thinking goes down the road of everyone now believing women make good cops to balance the macho male cop who when facing a criminal now has the help of a little woman with a big gun working her magic of communication skills. Men are generally compassionate enough in the market place and in the home if they are left alone. What woman can say she has shed more tears than the Messiah? Father was critical of President Jimmy Carter for being weak and made Reagan President because God needs strong leaders. Carter was too feminine. America does not need "gentler management" from its President. Reagan has a gentle, compassionate side, but he also had the guts to stand up to Communism. Sun Myung Moon can be gentle, but he is the strongest, most macho man who has ever lived.

Men are risk takers. One of the most dramatic risks in history was MacArthur's landing at Inchon during the Korean War. Do we want a woman to be a general?


Women are not the dreamers and planners that men are. They are made to live in the now. Women are not interested in hearing a man talk about what he is going to do and what it is going to be like. She doesn't care about his dreams that much. She is more interested in the now, the present. After he goes on and on about the future she will get impatient and say, "What are you going to do right now?" She is happy if he is happy now. Women want to see immediate action. They are geared to deal with children who also have no sense of the future. This does not mean that women are not totally bored about the future and men are not practical and in the now. It just means that overwhelmingly it is men who are the dreamers and goal setters as Admirals or CEOs. That is why there is very few women leaders in the UM. They are moved by the idealism and vision of Sun Myung Moon and work hard on his campaigns. But they are not interested in the long term planning that is required to build the kingdom. This does not mean they are less than men. They are different. And they should not be mixed. Each has their role to fulfill and no one has more value than anyone else. Someday women will influence their husbands to make statues of housewives. How about a big statue next to George Washington of Martha serving her husband? Women's magazines always list women in the workplace as role models who lead exciting lives and make the world a better place to live in. Instead of Katherine Hepburn as an example of a woman who has been "fulfilled" we should look to homemakers as those who are not only happier, but have contributed more than the immoral Hepburn.


Men see into the future, just as the Founding Fathers of America did. The Messiah himself sees thousands of years into the future. This is impossible for women to do. That is why a man must be the Messiah. That is why men must lead. They have the vision. Women like Thatcher and Meir are like mutants -- strange anomalies -- like some freak in a circus.

"Even in a trade or profession where women are in the majority, the higher career levels are usually overwhelmingly occupied by men. So, 96 per cent of nurses are women, yet almost all the people in charge of the hospitals are men; in the US, 83 per cent of elementary school teachers are women, yet 81 percent of school principals are men. A recent British survey of women in the medical profession showed that although women in the medical profession showed that although women represented about half of all medical students, only 2 per cent of medicine's higher jobs were held by women." It was national news recently that one of the rare women at the top of American business, the CEO of Pepsi, quit her job to become a soccer mom.

Moir writes, "Something has clearly gone wrong to cause this shudder in the progress of female emancipation. Why, in spite of equal educational opportunity, and even in those cases when men and women score equal academic results, is there so little equality of achievement?"

"One obvious answer is that many women have to do two jobs -- one at home, looking after the children, and one in the world of paid work. That's clearly an important consideration. But there's another element as well: work, success, and ambition simply mean different things to the different sexes."

"A key study investigates the success rate of people working in colleges and universities. Male academics scored higher than women in the conventional measurement of academic success -- getting more papers published, for instance. Intriguingly, the men did better than their unmarried, and childless, female academic colleagues. The explanation that women are handicapped by their role as mothers and wives is not, then, a convincing one."

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 First Sex says women are smarter than men and will not be so sacrificial to be CEOs but in many areas of life women are innately superior to men in 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. 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.

Men are into power and things. They go out and bring home the wheat. The women find fulfillment in baking the bread. If men bake bread, they will bake thousands of them at a bread factory. Women are not interested in factories. They are interested in the cozy home they decorate and in being in other women's cozy homes.

Because of biology "Men are interested in the worlds of things and of power. Women may predominate numerically in a trade or a profession because it reflects their priorities, but when men enter it they will demand and achieve a disproportionate amount of authority -- because hierarchies and dominance are in the male scheme of things."

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." One newspaper said, "Broadly speaking, there are many examples of this in her book. 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 nonesense. 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 her efforts to get women closer to combat. 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. 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. "Souther 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.'"

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 puts down the past traditional familes, as all true believer feminists do, as being tyrannies. "The traditional patriarchal family was not what nostalgic Americans like to think it was. First, it was never particulary stable or durable." Wrong. It beats anything the feminists have experiemented 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. Does Helen Fisher have a marriage with "genuine intimacy?" She never mentions if she is married or has children. 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.

She 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.

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/femininst 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.


Her colleague at Rutgers is the distinquished professor, Lionel Tiger. At the same time Prof. Fisher brought out her feminist attack on men, Prof. Tiger published his book on how men are suffering from her crusade to get women to dominate men. His book, The Decline of Males is pessimistic. Mr. Tiger is a pussycat. He doesn't know what to do against the onslaught of feminists like Fisher in his university and in every university. He begins by giving some examples of male bashing to show that men have a low image in today's feminist world. "The Body Shop is a self-conscious international retailer of cosmetics. It prides itself on environment commitment, wholesomeness of commercial purpose, and thoughtfulness about securing products from benign suppliers. So it was startling to see a window ad in one of its Manhattan stores featuring a photo of a woman holding a small mammal with the text: 'Why test on poor defenseless little animals when they could use my husband?' Imagine if the ad had said 'wife' instead."

He reviews the film The First Wives Club saying, "The automatic and virtually universal assumption is that the source of evil is male. As Molly Haskell has so astutely described, films provide serious scripts not only for actors but for the millions of women and men whose lives are expanded or undermined or challenged by the hazily potent cinematic art form."

Feminists say that men hate women. Men are called misogynist. But the truth is that our culture hates men.


"This book is about an emerging pattern. Men and women may not discern it clearly, but the pattern underlies their experiences in industrial society. It is a pattern of growth in the growth in the confidence and power of women, and of erosion in the confidence and power of men.

"this book is about ideas. The body of social knowledge and conjecture conforms more and more to the female shape. An imprecise but effective group called 'feminists' has redefined how words may be used or forbidden to be used in discussing sex. ... They own a certain echelon of discourse the way medieval churchmen governed Latin or Microsoft's MS-DOS became the modern universal language of computation and, in effect, of nearly all formal communication." Hardly anyone believes in the traditional family. He lists the dramatic changes since the 50s such as massive divorce. He says, "Doing public work to earn money is more prestigious for women than private activity founded on affection, such as staying home to take care of children, which bears a real if tacit stigma of personal inferiority. It is a relatively rare contemporary woman who relies comfortably on the traditional pattern. Those who choose it may feel apologetic and that they must justify themselves.

With so many women having children without marrying and divorcing in such high numbers, "men fade out of the picture. ... These changes have also disenfranchised men from traditional social roles but have not offered many new opportunities. Even the most traditional male specialty -- warfare -- has been aggressively opened to women, with complicated results for everyone. Perhaps their apparent explosion of interest in sports and pornography means that men are trying to find new outlets to express their inherent maleness, which they may feel otherwise obligated to repress."

"In the inexplicit and undeclared war between the sexes, women are on the way to winning, but the conditions of victory may not be agreeable." He says feminists have made laws that push for androgyny: "Underlying much legal change is a largely ideological insistence tht boy and girls are roughly the same, and therefore in perfectly equitable communities they will have similar goals, opportunities, and lives."

"It is a sharp rebuke to American complacench that the only large organization other than the military which has provide an effective and disciplined community for African-American men is the movement led by Louis Farrakhan -- an organization accused of extraordinary doctrinal bigotry and the misogynistic restriction of women from many of its activities." There is strength in believing in patriarchy.

"Communities that violate human sexual nature will experience the same kind of problems that communists had. To try to solve them, communists had to impose their ideology, often viciously, on largely unwilling populations. Remember all that fatuous hypocrisy about communist parties being the people's vanguard (even if the health and morale of those in charge required access to subsidized stores providing tasty foreign food)? And remember the example of the kibbutz, which failed in its utopian schemes about love and families."

He ends his book by calling for Americans to be practical: "sending military mothers of six-week-old infants to Saudi Arabia in 1991" was "recklessly impractical." He discounts the "sentimental 'Daddy should be as involved as Mommy' to the bureaucratically idiotic 'it is best for children to be in day care or children's houses because it is better for their psychological development.'" He calls for us to be "pro-biology" and "pro-family."


Prof. Tiger is well meaning when he proposes that the welform reform in Congress in wrong in pushing single moms into the workplace because it means that some other strange woman will take care of her kids. He writes, "Another broad decision the community has to make concerns supplying adequate support to unmarried women who have small children. This is widely available now, as we have seen; however, there exists the attitude that this is not a good thing. Efforts persist to make a mother of young children leave them -- for example, to take care of another mother's young children for money. Working for money is seen as redemptive. Mothering for money is acceptable only if done with an inheritance or a husband's cash. This is heartless, senseless, economically picayune as a formal policy and, in my opinion, morally questionable. It is also stupid biology. No zookeeper would have Monkey Mother A take care of Monkey Mother B's baby and vice versa. What can concernocrats be thinking when they devise their legislative schemes?"

Well, they don't think. Clear thinking is a the forte of the Left. My wife knew a woman who lived near us who went on welfare. She was in her 20s and had four small children. The government made her get a job while the government paid another woman to care for her children at her home while our neighbor worked for minimum wage at KMart. The government paid the woman more than what KMart paid our neighbor. This is kind of insanity that bureaucracies inflict on milions of people.


Many men are so demoralized by the feminist culture we live in that they are taking out their frustration in unhealthy ways. Many have given up trying to be the sole provider because they have been brainwashed that it is impossible. Prof. Tiger give three tragic things men do in our sick eminized society -- pornography, sports and drugs. "What happens ... when their relations with women are set within a new context of unclear rules and sharp sanctions? ... I suggest that among others, there have been three large-scale behavioral responses by men to their new situation: sports, drugs, and pornography. In these milieus men try to replace what they experienced before or what they think their ancestor males experienced before them. All three have burgeoned into huge businesses. They have grown and prospered at the same time as the experiences they mimic have been curtailed."

Millions of men are looking at pornography. "They watch displays of female nudity and provocative action. They buy magazines and videos and surf the Internet for sexual imagery. They drink costly beer in public places where they watch dancers expose their breasts and sometimes their genitalia." He says that the "wealthiest man in England used to be the Duke of Westminster" but now it is Paul Raymond who owned porn shops. "According to a 1997 report from The Economist, the Internet's 'chief early colonization is by the erotic. The Playboy Entertainment site receives five million 'hits' a day ... In the United States half of the revenue for pay-per-view films in hotel rooms is for 'adult entertainment.' The emphasis is overwhemingly on films catering to male fantasies."

Sports fanatics

"ordinary men focus their often intense and unremitting attention on athletes, who are their surrogate performers in a complicated world of contest, personalities, and skill. ... Newspapers have always devoted large amounts of space to sports results, often as much as business and economic news. Fans journey to sports auctions and spend a week's salary for an item of banal sports memorabilia. Each arena and stadium sells products related to the home team and game -- close cousins to the facilities near famous churches and shrines that stock items of religiosity." Famous atheletes "are among the best-known people on the planet, indeed in history."

He says what drives "the industry of sports" is "something subltler, more interior, more psychologically complex" than money. "It addresses a need, an interior experience related to overt changes in the lives of fans. The core of it is that games and play and teams and heroes are real while real life itself is muffled and buffered." Tiger is an anthropoligist and likes to get into evolution and see people as being descended from ape men. That is not why guys like sports so much. It is really very simple. They like to watch a group of men compete against another group of men. They honor and respect those men who are champions. The rest of their miserable life is battling it out with women at work and home. Many women resent men for being so obsessed with games but it is the last place where men strive togehter for a goal. If America had not mixed men and women in the 20th century and honored men's role of provider and being a member of men's clubs, then men would get their kicks from being good patriarchs in their families who provide and protect women.

Men have gotten progessivley weaker in the 20th century until we ended up Bill Clinton defiling the Oval Office and polls saying they did not like the efforts of the Republicans to impeach him. Men can only talk about sports or hunting because that is the only thing that is manly today. They can't talk about the work of the world because they will be fired from their job is they say something politically incorrect. Masculinity has been boiled to death like the proverbial frog boiled to death slowly in a pot.

Men find some kind of satisfaction in pornography because they see women totally submissive. Their wives are just roomates who will leave at the drop of a hat if she doesn't like what he does. God made men to have ambition and agressivley go after goals, because it takes guts and drive to build a business. God made women to be soft and homey to make the home a refuge. Today, countless men find home in a bar watching ESPN. Sadly, it gets worse everyday because men are weaker every day. Lionel Tiger hasn't got a clue to exactly why males are declining and he has no solution. I do. Sun Myung Moon does. Ignore Father's push for women in Congress and State legislatures. Focus on his many politially incorrect statements and look at how macho he is. If we take the logic that a woman should be the Commander-in-Chief, then women must be Admirals and privates who fight combat too. Does any one, even the most hard core Moonie feminist, believe Father is for women in combat?

Tiger says feminists are so out of it they try to fight human nature and push for women to be in combat. The military should be only male, but sadly women now are coming home in body bags and sadder still, everyone nods their head in agreement that this is proper. Thank God there are a few voices for sanity. He writes that many women who served in the Army in "Haiti, Bosnia, the Persian Gulf, ... were interviewed by Laura Miller of the University of California at Los Angeles. They offered firm opinions on females in front-line combat. They explicitly sought restrictions on roles in which they thought women would be at serious mortal risk. They thought their male colleagues would be imperiled, too. Their principal complaint was not with their conditions of employment but with the usually feminist ideologues and politicians who helicoptered in with recipes for other people's lives and then reported back with satisfaction to fellow theorists in Greenwich Village, Georgetown, and congressional offices on Capitol Hill. For an explicit if fatuous and self-satisfied statement of this political positioin, see Linda Bird Francke's Ground Zero and a severe criticism by UCLA anthropologist Anna Simons." Simons wrote a book The Company They Keep: Life Inside the U.S. Army Special Forces. Her husband is a member of the Special Forces. Sadly, Francke's book and viewpoint prevail in America.

Tiger rightly calls the feminist invasion of the military an "Icarus-like avoidance of reality."

Tiger says the ridiculous gender police in the military should see they can't fight mother nature. He compares their futile efforts to those socialist/feminist leaders who tried to build the early kibbutz on communist equalitarian ideals. It failed miserably. He writes, "A possible comparison is with the Israeli kibbutz. There the original ideologues, largely male, said parents should not live with their children. First chance they had, women overturned this anti-mammalian fantasy. The military is trying to do with men and women what Israeli kibbutz settlers tried and failed to do with parents and children. ... moral righteousness and scientific error overcomes norms of common sense." If anyone in the military speaks out against the feminizing and emasculating of the military, they are "ridiculed or dismissed."


He writes how the dominant feminist thinkers who rule the Universities and media do not look at what he found in the Kibbutz. They don't want to see the truth. They live in a dreamland of feminism that has no reality. He says he found in his research many years ago that the Kibbutz was an attempt of "economic and political parity" that "produced differences between men and women greater than in the rest of Israeli society. Anthropologist Melford Spiro of the University of California at San Diego has indicated that his updated study in the kibbutz (Gender and Culture: Kibbutz Women Revisited) as well as mine (Women in the Kibbutz) have the 'dubious distinction of having virtually never been cited or referenced in the veritable library ... dealing with the comparative study of women and gender.' The fact that men and women who have the freedom to do so may decide to act differently from each other appears to cause ideological commentators on this matter to avert their eyes almost completely. If they were medical practioners, they would be charged with malpractice for burying evidence centrally relevant to their assertions." Tiger and Spiro do not about Satan who is a master at making people avert their eyes to the truth.

Robert Bork wrote in Slouching Toward Gomorrah, "The early kibbutz movement in Israel had the same ideology as today's radical feminists: sexual equality meant sexual identity, and sexual differentiation was inequality. For a brief period, the ideologues attempted to raise children apart from their families and to raise boys and girls in ways that would destroy sex roles. The program was as extreme as the most radical feminist could want. But it collapsed within a very few years. Boys and girls returned to different sex roles. The American sociologist Melford Spiro, who studied the kibbutz, wrote that he had wanted to 'observe the influence of culture on human nature or, more accurately, to discover how a new culture produces a new human nature.' He 'found (against my own intentions) that I was observing the influence of human nature on culture.'"


He says "While countless women take drugs, illegal drug users are overwhelmingly male. The fantasies of omnipotence and invulnerability, and the reality of escape, that men purchase when they buy drugs have generated industries which have enriched and corrupted whole countries and caused radical convulsions in the flows of cash and wealth in the world." Many men are not confident anymore. The number one problem in the world is the fatherless family -- literally fatherless for millions of children and in millions of more homes the man is incapable of being a good father. God wants greatness, not mediocrity. Tragically, American men are sinking into deeper despair and confusion. Women are initiating divorce by the millions. And it gets worse everyday. The only way for mankind to become an ideal world is for men and women to know and live by God's rules. Very few know what those rules are.


Tiger tries to make sense of the decline of males and says, "Another explanation rests on claims of lapsed morality. Traditional values based on Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism have been eroded by the crass mass media and assisted by secularist ideologues and courts of law. Ethically lazy families and schools don't bother to or can't counter the godless rules of the day. The result is a widespread morass of worsening sinfulness. Classical verities of sexual conduct and social propriety have dramatically lost their grip. It will take a major religious or messianic renovation to recapture what was best and is lost, and a good deal of contemporary religious energy is expended to this end."

The "messianic renovation" should come from the UM but sadly they are not as clear as the Southern Baptists and Mormons who take the passages of the Bible literally when it comes to men and women rolls. The UM should not take the approach of the Divine Principle's emphasis on seeing so much of the Bible as symbolic and therefore being rational and then seeing that the passages about men leading and protecting and providing as not common sense and logical. The UM should be standing with the Baptists and Mormons on traditional family values. They do so partially but no in an absolute way like their competition does. And this is why there is growth in those churches and not the UC. Sun Myung Moon is on the side of the conservatives, not the liberals, in the cultural war that is raging. The UC is not strong and clear enough. They have been duped in some ways from the Left.

He says that women voted in the 1996 election very differently from men. They went for big government: "they voted for candidates who promised to protect what they needed in a perilous environment. Particularly in white groups, they voted in sharp contrast to their husbands, fathers, brothers, coworkers, and sons, who in turn deserted the the traditional political leader working-class males, the Democratic candidate. This was new."

Those in the UM who think women should be involved in politics should understand that women are more on the side of the opposition that does not like the Washington Times.


I find it interesting that there is a word for hating women called misogynist, but no word for women hating men. misandrist would be the logical word to counter misogynist, but many dictionaries don't carry the word. Our culture hates men. Tiger says, "there remains in public discourse a formalized disdain among women for men. Women who hazard support for male values, such as Camille Paglia, are widely disdained by feminist writers."

A famous feminist since the 1970s is Germaine Greer. The New Republic reviewed the book in an article titled "The Female Misogynist."

The author says Greer's new book, The Whole Woman

a sour and undiscriminating litany of charges agai nst men--all men, men as nature created them--wrapped around the willfully obtuse argument that little or nothing has improved for American and European women over the last thirty years. The Whole Woman presents men as irredeemable and equality as a hoax.

men are "freaks of nature ... full of queer obsessions about fetishistic activities and fantasy goals." They are single-minded, and "single-mindedness produces hideously anti-social behaviors, from paedophile rings to waging war."

In Greer's view, however, men are "doomed to competition and injustice, not merely towards females, but towards children, animals, and other men."

The Whole Woman a bestseller in England? Why does the Knopf catalogue praise the book as a "shattering critique" and a "call to arms?"

The Whole Woman is empty-headed vehemence of a discouragingly fam iliar kind.


In 1970, The Female Eunuch made Germaine Greer famous, and it made feminism famous, too. "Every self-respecting woman on the Left owned a copy or still owns a copy somewhere around the house, dog-eared and coffee-stained with use," Lisa Jardine recently r ecalled in the London Observer. "[F]or women born in the immediate postwar years, there was `before Greer' and `after Greer'; the book, and Germaine's attention-grabbing brand of stand-up comic, in-your-face assertiveness taught us all how to behave badly and take control of our lives." The Female Eunuch was the sort of book that wives read in defiance of their husbands, copping a thrill of insurrection. It was the sort of book, according to Christine Wallace's informants in Untamed Shrew, her new biograp hy of Greer, that broke up dinner parties, sending fondue sets crashing to the floor.

Greer herself was a 31-year-old Cambridge Ph.D. in 1970, transplanted from Sydney and living the Boho life in London. Within a year of publishing The Female Eunuch, she had debated Norman Mailer in a truculent disputation at Town Hall in New York, turned up on the cover of Life magazine as the "saucy feminist that even men like," and inspired innumerable women to stop wearing underpants. She was, in short, the "libbers'" first real celebrity, a crossover-hit, with one Mary Quant-ified leg firmly in the co unterculture and one firmly in the bestseller lists.

In the men-are-dogs theory of life, anatomy is destiny. Men always have been, and always will be, loutish, messy, insensitive, and helplessly programmed to spread their seed far and wide. Women always have been, and always will be, the moral betters of me n, and also their dupes.

You see it in those posters hanging in dorm rooms that say "10 Reasons Why a Dog is Better than a Man."

Men-Are-Dogs-ism finds other support in the culture as well. It draws on the sort of "difference feminism" in which women are seen as morally superior creatures--more empathetic, kinder, better listeners, and so on. This tradition of feminine self-congrat ulation extends from the subset of suffragists who argued for the sweetly civilizing consequences of the women's vote to Carol Gilligan and Deborah Tannen in our day.

Another clue is Greer's tendency to elevate minor complaints about men to the status of gender oppression. Not only are men bellicose and competitive and slovenly. They also "pay less heed to traffic lights" and "brake harder and later." Oh, and they fish too much. Greer has a real bee in her bonnet about fishing, which I must say would seem to be rather a benign pursuit, unless you are a trout. Yet she sees it as yet another male plot to escape us. She insists, darkly, that "women of any age are not welc ome on the riverbank." The danger is everywhere.

Previous Home Next