"Again, the elaborate efforts to re-engineer the traditional male/female division of labour have not been successful. In the Kibbutz, work roles began by being completely interchangeable. Women drove tractors, men worked in the laundry. But slowly the women drifted back to the traditionally female pursuits, and their jobs in the fields or the engineering sheds were taken over by male refugees from the kitchen." She quotes Lionel Tiger again who wrote, "We found increasing with each generation a traditional distinction between women going into the management of morale, health, education and so on, and the business that in our own culture is traditionally associated with male person." She writes, "Today, the sexual polarization inside the kibbutz is even more acute than in the outside, unengineered, society of Israel. Intriguingly, this could not be accounted for in classic political terms -- that women were being pushed into the lower-paid jobs -- because income in the kibbutz is irrelevant."

"We really should not be so surprised that men and women gravitate to sex-specific jobs. We have always, as a species, divided labour." But the 20th century has experimented with the idiotic ideology of feminism that denies reality.

She criticizes feminists who deny biology. She quotes Kate Millet's Sexual Politics: "many of the generally understood distinctions between the sexes in the more significant area of role and temperament, not to mention status, have in fact essentially cultural rather than biological bases." To this Moir says "There is no longer any excuse, save mental indolence, to believe that." She denounces Betty Friedan as having "chaotic thinking" when Friedan writes, "Even if they are sorely handicapped by lack of testosterone, it is inescapably necessary for women at this stage in human evolution to move to equality in society." Moir says, "Betty Friedan fails to see that a lack of testosterone means that many women may not want to move anywhere in particular, and so do not perceive themselves as handicapped."

She says it is "absurdity" when "well-intentioned politicians and educationalists are still determined to engineer the demise of the sexual stereotype. In the progressive schoolroom, children read of princesses slaying dragons and rescuing princes, and picture books depict female fire-fighters and truck drivers." She is wrong to think that "The thinking corporation should ask itself why it is wasting, and how it should capitalize upon, the unique skills of 50 per cent of its workforce. It is failing to exploit a woman's underlying superiority in her knowledge and understanding of how the word of people works." This is muddled thinking. Women are not superior to men in the marketplace and men are not superior to women in homemaking. We don't need women in the military or factories. We don't need men changing diapers and cooking dinner.


I am glad she at least has the sense to see homemaking as valuable: "In the unwaged economy of the home, the value of domestic effort has to be appreciated by men, but more importantly by women themselves. Here, one is not talking in the fatuous terms of putting a cash value on bed-making, shopping, or breast-feeding, but in relation to a self-value which can only be expressed in the ultimate currency of happiness and satisfaction. Levin writes that 'one can read a whole corpus of feminist writing without learning that most women find motherhood their greatest satisfaction'. Most women not only enjoy parenthood more than most men, but are also rather better at it. They are certainly better suited to it than men. Feeding, clothing, and educating the successor generation is as noble a task as earning the money to pay for its food, clothing, and education. It is also, ultimately, as rewarding, but most men have to wait until they are grandparents to appreciate the fact."

Then she and her co-author write these dumb words: "Some will find what we have written a justification for conservatism and the sexual status quo, and they will be wrong. We do not consecrate the natural, just because it is biologically true." Why on earth would they say this? We are supposed to fight chemistry? This makes as much sense as saying that biology tells us not to eat junk food, but we can do it anyway. Then they go on to say this nonsense: "men, for instance, have a natural disposition to homicide and promiscuity, which is not a recipe for the happy survival of society." This is sloppy thinking and feminist male bashing. The truth is that men are not naturally killers and adulterers. More women kill their babies than men do. Do we then say that women "have a natural disposition to homicide" of babies? Aggressive competitiveness -- ambition -- is natural to men, not murder. In fact, many men become violent because of the disrespect they receive from women. I am not condoning men killing women for any reason, but the issue of domestic violence and men fighting wars is not as simple as the authors state. Let us thank God that millions of good men committed homicide against evil men in the many wars for freedom.

It is easy for feminists to argue against the Biblical family structure because they say it is just a theory. But the scientific facts are that men and women are so different that they should complement themselves in the Biblical family instead of competing with each other in Friedan's feminist family. The idea of women being Presidents and Senators is "the sterile pursuit of artificial equality." Let's stop the feminist lies. Let's stop being in denial and enjoy our natural selves. Vive la Difference is to be expressed in the traditional roles, not in celebrating differences between men and women in the police force.

I like how they talk about differences: "we can hope that men and women will be more honest about how they actually feel, and happier to be themselves. They may be relieved that they no longer have to strive towards the inevitable disappointment of something which in their hearts they know to be vain and illusory. Liberated by honesty rather than imprisoned by self-deception, they will have the confidence to strike their own balance between love and ambition, tenderness and striving." We must be careful that when we "strike" "our own balance" we do it in a god-centered way. God wants true balance. Not the Satanic balance of 50% of all mayors in America be women. America is out of balance because so many women have left the home. The UM should be teaching women to return home and be good followers to their husbands.


Islam goes too far in making women wear veils. The true role model for orderly men and women are Christian writers on marriages like Aubrey and Helen Andelin or Tim and Beverly LaHaye.


John Stossel

John Stossel had an excellent TV special on how science shows the deep differences between masculinity and femininity. He challenges many politically correct views but ends wimpy because he does not know the absolute roles as taught by many Christians. The following is from a review of his program from ABC News:



Are boys and girls, men and women really alike, aside from physical characteristics, or do we have innately different predispositions, aspirations and abilities? Should women be fire fighters? Do little boys really reject dolls while little girls tend to choose makeup kits over trucks? And if so, why?

In a provocative one-hour ABCNEWS special, John Stossel raises questions about the nature/nurture debate, seeks to discover if many parents’ gut instincts -- and the findings of many researchers and psychologists -- about differences between little girls and boys have been right all along, and questions whether some expensive gender-equity lawsuits and government programs make sense.

Stossel looks first at how the women’s movement fought to achieve equal pay for equal work, affirmative action, and equal opportunity. But he notes that despite enormous achievements in these areas, 25 years later full gender equality still hadn’t arrived. Why? One explanation is that little boys and girls were still being influenced by sexist messages -- on television, at toy stores, in the home. “That’s what I was taught, and I believed it,” says Stossel, “until I had kids.”

Stossel talks with parents who tried to give their children a gender-neutral upbringing and shows experiments conducted by psychologists and scientists that illustrate different brain functions, hormone differences and other male-female disparities. He interviews some who say affirmative action rules that push women into “strength” jobs like fire fighting and combat are a mistake. And he takes criticism from feminists such as Gloria Steinem, Bella Abzug and Gloria Allred, who question whether the issue of gender differences should even be raised.

Ultimately, Stossel argues that we must not allow the “social engineers” to force us to behave as if we’re all the same. Since there are real differences between the sexes, he says, “Why not celebrate them rather than deny that they exist?



The trend is for women to give up the madness of the feminist experiment and return home. The BBC reported in 2000 in an article titled "Mothers Shun Careers For Baby" that "a third of working mothers are leaving full-time jobs for part-time positions or giving up altogether. The study deals a blow to government initiatives to encourage mothers back into the workforce." I can't help and mention here that government is one of the worst obstacles to people ordering their lives. They go on to say, "The research has also established strong links between children whose mothers are not around during infancy and poorer exam results later in life. ... One mother, Cathy Schofield, gave up a successful publishing career to spend more time with her son." She said, "... my working day made me so guilt-ridden that I just couldn't bear to carry on."

T. Berry Brazelton

Dr. Brazelton is considered by many to be America's leading pediatrician.  In his book Working and Caring he presents a liberal feminist view.  He begins by writing, "Not long ago, a mother I'd never seen before entered my office with her five-month-old son.  As she came in, she said, 'Doctor, should I wean my baby?'"

"I thought to myself.  What an odd way to greet a new doctor.  'Why do you ask?' 'I have to go back to work,' she said, as if it were a threat.  When I asked her when, she said, 'In the next few months.'  Relieved, I said brightly, 'Certainly not, then!  Just get him used to a bottle in the middle of the day.  Plan to breast feed him before and after work.  You'll find it's so great to come home at the end of the day and be able to put him right to breast.  You feel cemented to each other all over again."

"At this, she sat down in my easy chair, clutching her baby closer, and began to cry.  I  was horrified.  I thought I must have said the wrong thing to this woman I hardly knew.  Brushing the tears away, she explained her feelings.  'I hoped you'd say that.  I haven't been able to hear it from anyone else.  I'm a lawyer in town.  Suddenly, I don't want to go back to work at all.  I was counsel for a women's rights organization and had bought completely into their beliefs.  I waited as long as I dared to have this baby, though we both wanted him. I love my work and resented the idea of having to leave it for a month.  After he was born, I suddenly fell completely in love.  I couldn't eat or sleep or think of anything but my baby.  I don't care about work any longer.  I realize I'm a woman without a culture.  I can't believe in the woman's movement in the same way I did in the past.  And I have no good models to follow who must go back to work."

"This woman's plea for help, her need for understanding, and her need to understand her own passionate feelings about becoming a nurturer, as well as her ambivalence about returning to the workplace, is a common cry today.  I hear it all the time in my practice.  Women feel that they must do one or the other, that they can't do both well.  They can't be good mothers and successful working women at the same time.  A common myth now is that one must be a superwoman to accomplish both tasks -- a 'supermom' at home and a 'super success' at work.  This 'splitting apart' is very painful for most women, and they are setting impossible goals in each area, as if to make up for the conflict they feel.  This mother's cry for a 'new culture' led me to write this book.  For here was a woman who was indeed a success both at mothering and at her job.  Yet she felt as if she were a failure in both."

Everything is wrong about this scene.  Brazelton is a satanic advocate for children and families.  How many millions of people have been led down the road to hell with his good intentions?  He tells this confused woman that her baby should take a bottle during the day and breast feed at night. God's way is true love and babies should never take a bottle.  This woman has a 5 month old and she should nurse at least for one year.  Two or three years would be better.  My wife nursed all eight of our children for 3 years each.

Then the woman says she is a lawyer.  Don't we have enough lawyers in this country?  She says she is a lawyer for a women's organization.  Is it a liberal organization that loves big brother government?  I assume so. She says she waited a long time to have her baby.  This is result of feminism -- the death of love in the family.  Satan has got her interested in the marketplace over having children and raising them.  But Satan cannot kill the conscience and she, like so many feminists, are conflicted.  After the baby is born she falls in love and doesn't want to go back to work.  She can only think about her child and now resents the women's movement when before she had a baby she resented babies for throwing a wrench in her joy at working outside the home.

Brazelton spends his whole book pushing for women to be "fulfilled" in both baby and job.  He deceives everyone into thinking he is a wise and loving doctor who you can trust.  He is just another charismatic Lucifer destroying families.  His deep insight as to how a family can have their cake and eat it too is for men to become equal nurturers with women.  Like all good liberals he constantly pushes for government to force employers to make men leave work and spend time with their baby so their wife can keep her career.  It never occurs to him that taking care of a baby is a career.  Feminist leaders have deluded women that a homemaker is not an interesting person because she is not a checker at KMart or a hot shot lawyer competing with focused men in her office.


Sadly he preaches the communist line that day care is great for children.  He counsels women to not feel guilty and not think their conscience is trying to tell them to stay home.  To those women who have the "nagging question, Is it really all right for me to work and mother at the same time?  We need to tell these mothers that, at a certain age, babies get what they need from other caregivers and that they, the mothers, will be able to stand the separation without feeling too grieved at the loss."  Too grieved?  Why have any grief?


Like all good feminists he bashes the past that is not as enlightened and sophisticated as us moderns. "In the forties and fifties, the talents and personal aspirations of able women were ignored."  He also gives the tired argument that we have to accept the reality that women work: "Can a woman decide to take on and competently carry out two roles at once?  I certainly think so, and it seems time for us to face this fact as a national trend."  This is the same argument for handing out condoms in schools.


He has the dumb notion that men are going to give up focusing on their careers and spend lots of time changing diapers and making dinner.  "This generation is a time of transition for men as well as women.  The traditional breadwinning roles for men are being threatened as women prove themselves to be competent in the workplace.  They manage, make decisions, and perform as well as men."  No, they don't.  And men don't "perform as well" as women with babies.

He says men should stop being upset at women competing with them. Men, he says, are to "grow" and put raising babies as his "top priority."  He acknowledges that society has is not at his high level of understanding yet so men should be pioneers.  He tells a story of a man he knew who tried to do as he teaches and found when he returned that he "felt shut out of the club by the atmosphere in the office thereafter."  Brazelton hasn't got a clue to the kind of "atmosphere" a home and workplace should have.  It take incredible focus and time for a man to provide for a family.  He has to serve his customers or his company.  It takes incredible focus for a woman to have children, nurse, cook, clean, nurture, and create a loving atmosphere in the home.  Feminists just can't see that men and women are different physically, mentally and emotionally.  They each have God-given roles to perform.  Chaos happens when they try to do the duties of the other.  The feminist utopia will never happen.  They are fighting human nature.  This makes for fighting in the home.   Babies don't believe at construction sites as Daddy builds a highway and Mommy doesn't belong shouting at young men while she wears army fatigues. The ugliness of feminism is like the ugly fashions of the 70s and body piercings and women wearing jeans in the 90s.


He says, "Carol Gilligan points out in In Another Voice that women still feel, at a very deep level, uncomfortable in competitive roles.  The women's movement has not dispelled this feeling."

We should interpret Gilligan's research to mean that men and women should not even try to compete, but feminists will twist anything unnatural to their crusade.  He just cannot see that men and women are different.  And when feminists do concede there are differences then they try their best to for square pegs in round holes.  No matter what argument you give a feminist they have an answer.  It is as frustrating as trying to argue the logic and common sense of the Divine Principle with a fundamental Christian who just can't understand the concept that the Bible is often symbolic.

Brazelton writes glowingly of the magical joy of women working: "Women now have many opportunities for self-fulfillment in exciting new careers." He sound just like Friedan who duped American women into thinking they are mindless, boring slaves if they stay home.  If they don't work their husbands will have nothing to talk about.  Isn't it strange that as women work more they divorce more?  Don't worry, feminists have a quick answer to that one as well.  They have answers to everything, just like a fundamental Christian has a hundred Bible verses that in his mind answers all questions.  Sadly, he is all wrong and sadly, Brazelton and all feminists think they are smart and rational and logical, but nothing they say is real.  If a truth is real it works.  Communists tried to argue against capitalism for 70 years in the Soviet Union, but the result was a desolate nation.  Feminists have ruled America for many years and the result is desolate families.  They think the families of the 20th century are better than the past.  We know what the families are like of our Presidents.  Compare the families of the men on Mt. Rushmore with the families of feminist Presidents like Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, and Bill Clinton.  America thinks they are great presidents, but they are not.  They were terrible family men.  Now we have the ridiculous Hillary Clinton who walks in the nauseating footsteps of the ridiculous Eleanor Roosevelt.  


The argument that women have to work is one of feminist's favorite.  They think they are so logical and rational when they keep saying it.  But it is the same argument for giving a 14 year old condoms.  Let's get real.  They're going to have sex anyway, so let's give them some protection.  If we didn't we would be cruel.  This kind of negative thinking is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If people really want something they can have it.  Smokers will brave snowstorms to get to a 7-11 to get a pack of smokes.  People find money for donuts and beer.  Feminists have a low opinion of people.  Men and charitable organizations can't take care of women and children, so women have to work and we need socialist government to make sure women are protected.


There are more and more books by feminists switching from saying that men and women are the same to now saying that because research amazingly shows that men and women are different.  Of course, this is good news.  It is great news.  It is exciting and breathtaking news.  Why?  Because women are now better than men.  A popular writer on how women should use their special gifts in the workplace is Barbara Tannen.

I pray and work for the day that the political Left will not rule America and the sane voices of the Right will be the norm.  It is excruciating to read the junk science of Brazelton and Helen Fisher.  It is painful for God to see his children sabotaging their lives.  God's way is for children to get massive love all day long, not the low level love of Brazelton's day care center. Children need to be the focus of their mother in the home and loving relatives and friends in the community.  Men need to focus on their job instead of being distracted by confused women like Monica Lewinsky coming into their office and coming on to them.  Multiply Monica by millions and what do you have?  Women being "fulfilled" in the workplace?  Children making friends in day care?  Husbands able to focus on serving the customer or killing the enemy with his bare hands in combat?  Monica doesn't need to study Tannen. She needs to study the Bible and conservative writers like the Andelins and LaHayes.  Unfortunately she has been raised in a culture dominated by Brazelton.







Previous Home Next