|
|
|
TYPICAL UNIFICATIONIST MUSH
An
example of how Unificationists have been digested by feminism is
Frederick Swart's book, The Spiritual Code. In 200 pages he
has only a few pages on explaining the laws that govern husband and
wife and sadly he teaches feminism. He writes the usual vague stuff
about selfishness that can be interpreted many ways. Then he
dismisses Ephesians 5:22-25 as being "hierarchal" and wrong when Paul
when he "advised a structure based on love with the husband in the
ultimate leadership position." Dr. Swarts typically misunderstands
subject and object as interchanging and teaches the feminist lie that
there is no final decision maker. It is a glorious new world of
equality. An exciting world where husbands and wives have "a
harmonious partnership." He writes, "In true love one gets a
revolving of subject and object flowing together." He does not get
around to saying just when the man gives final decisions or when the
woman does. The world of Unificationist thought about men and women
is completely vague. It is a world of fluidity, of unconditional
love, of heart, of joy, of compassion, of feelings, of bliss, etc.
There is no detailed explanation of how to achieve all this happiness
like the Andelin's do.
Swarts then gives a juvenile example to help explain how a husband and wife can interchange in leadership: "One couple that I observed exhibiting remarkable unity had a most unusual way of settling fundamental issues in which they were strongly and diametrically opposed. When they reached the point that both were unyielding, and both possible directions were principled, they would pray -- and then flip a coin. They determined that the coin flip would represent the choice of the Universal Intelligence. The loser was never to complain, but was to 'zip' his or her mouth, and to support fully the result. The winner was never to gloat. In this way, they able to resolve the most intractable disagreements."
Do you think this is the way True Parents live? Father is a strong leader and makes all final decisions like the Andelin's teach. Can you imagine the President of the Unites States flipping a coin with the Vice President? Flipping a coin to make decisions as a way of life is ludicrous but then just about everything people do anymore is ridiculous. This is an example of how intellectually bankrupt feminism is, and it is an example of how the culturally elite in the UC -- the intellectuals in the UC -- are useless as marriage counselors and leaders in this world.
I pray that the brothers in the UC will go to Amazon.com or to their local bookstore and order Man of Steel and Velvet. I doubt if any sister will listen to me. They will only listen to their husbands. It is up to the brothers to take leadership. Many women have turned their families around by applying the principles and practical advice given by Mrs. Andelin in her book, but the only way for real change is for men to study Mr. Andelin's book and begin leading their family and our church to success. Our culture mixes up men and women and like sheep, the UC, does the same. I was on an Internet UC chat room and brothers and sisters were criticizing each other. If they were really in tune with true masculinity and femininity they would have two chat rooms. One for brothers and one for sisters. It is not heavenly for a brother to criticize a sister personally. Her husband should be the only man who does that. I did it for a little while because I wanted to get some feedback on my writings. Even so, it was uncomfortable for me to personally criticize a sister and it should have been uncomfortable for them to criticize me. The 19th century was more in line with truth when they separated men and women. In my books I am critical of some sisters because they have polluted UC literature with feminism. They have gone public and I am duty bound to challenge them because their husbands will not. In private, members of the UC should not feel so free in having brothers and sisters talk to each other. And they should never be alone with each other. There is very little sense of order in the UC and this is why there is no power to witness, teach and convert.
We have only two choices to make. Either we choose Helen Andelin or Betty Friedan. Either men lead, protect, and provide for women or they do not. Unificationists seem to me to be more in favor of Friedan even though they say they are critical of feminism, are conservatives, and sometimes say they like Mrs. Andelin's book. UC members side with the feminists who say women can lead, protect and provide for their husbands. To them there is nothing sacred about men leading. They love to praise Jeanne Kirkpatrick and Margaret Thatcher. To them, women can protect men by being police officers. They will explain how women are needed to talk criminals into giving up their guns instead of resorting to violence that men would do and male cops should not frisk a woman. To them, women can provide for their families. Especially those women who are more masculine than their husbands. Many sisters work because brothers are seen as not capable of earning enough money and besides, the world would fall apart if there were no women nurses, doctors, lawyers and journalists. Of course, no sisters are ever car mechanics. That would not be feminine,I guess. UC members do not believe in the Andelin's teachings that when women work they lose their femininity and men lose masculinity. The truth is that the world would be far better off if women did not lead, protect and provide instead of their husbands.
A really sad argument from UC brothers is that they cannot earn enough money because they have no resume after being on the MFT for years and marrying in their thirties. The idea that they could earn great money and adopt children so as to have a large family never occurs to them. Father asks for so much money and therefore the wives must work. Aubrey Andelin begins his book saying that American men are wimps. UC brothers are so intimidated by women and so weak that it is embarrassing. They whine and dredge up the ridiculous arguments of feminists to justify their low standard lives. Boat people from Vietnam were robbed and raped. They arrived in America with only rags on their backs. They did not whine. They worked round the clock for a year or two and bought a nice house in the suburbs and drive new cars. Wimpy brothers in the UC sound like black ghetto men who somehow can't make money without affirmative action programs as compared to equally black men who come from the Caribbean and become successful in a few years. They say they receive no prejudice like UC brothers say they do when they try to find work.
The UC should be a movement of superior men and women. Sadly, it is filled with wimpy men and out of order women. How can the president of the Mormon church or the president of the Southern Baptists be impressed with the UC when many of their members live by biblical family values and live superior lives to Unificationists who applaud Catherine Ono as being their leader? Because Catherine in praised, the brothers are emasculated and only when they get some balls will the UC be able to convert those religions that have higher truths about men and women. Mormons and Southern Baptists will never join as long as sisters like Catherine Ono dominate men in the UC. Women do not lead men in their churches and God is able to bless them with growth. When the Catherine Ono's of the UC become feminine and thereby raise and inspire their husbands to earn enough money to adopt many children, then the UC will explode in growth because the brothers will finally get around to teaching the DP with power. They are so demoralized by feminism they don't even think about the Principle anymore, let alone teach anyone who God, Satan, Jesus, and Sun Myung Moon are. They are too busy babysitting while their wives go out on the hunt.
The traditional family usually outshines the feminist family in every category. The parents are usually happier. There is usually less divorce, less juvenile delinquency, and more children. To diehard feminists like Cheryl Wetzstein who write mush in the UNews about swirling subjects and objects, the traditional family is a "rigid" and "harsh" place where women are slaves who get fat eating chocolate all day long and bored out of their minds. Helen Andelin blasts many of the feminist's arguments out of the water, but hardcore feminists in and out of the UC will not listen. I don't expect to convert many Unificationists because our culture is too powerful, but I know in time they will do as writers like the Andelin's teach because they are with Father. This is why they often praise the Andelin's even though they basically teach and live by feminist family values. Even Gloria Steinem, the Katarina of our century, was tamed enough to get married. The truth always wins out and I know that if I never convert the many Wetzstein's and Morris' in the UC, their children may embrace true family values. If not them, then their grandchildren will reject their feminism and someday the UC will finally become a conservative movement like the Mormons and then the UC will explode in growth. For now, I pity Unificationist's muddled thinking and no growth movement. They are good people and will someday see the light.
The primary argument of feminism is that patriarchy is not physically innate and spiritually divine. Men and women, they say, are not that different physically and absolutely have no innate roles ordained by nature, such as men are to lead in a patriarchy and women are to follow.
