Women Leaders in the UC -- few and far between
One of the arguments I get is that Father appoints women leaders. My opponents in the UC always mention Miss Kim, the first missionary to America, and Onni Durst. There have been other sisters who have been given position such as Nora Spurgin and Doris Orme. As I write Nora is with her husband who is in charge of the UC's high school. Doris Orme and her daughter have left the church and have denounced Father in a major women's magazine. Miss Kim came to America in 1959 and never married and had children all the years she lived here. Onni was single and has never given birth to children. As I write she holds no major leadership position in the UC. There have been statistically so few women in leadership in America that it is safe to say that the UC is a patriarchal church. Father has mentioned that there have been only a few women leaders in the Bible, but that is an abnormal situation. When most of the UC got married in the 1980s most sisters lived with their husbands and did not leave their home to work elsewhere. If the brothers had understood what a man is and properly supported their families then their wives would not have spent their time earning money and gone witnessing in their hometown instead. Basically, UC families are not much different from any other families. Their is more witnessing going on in the Mormon and Jehovah Witness churches.
Vertical and Horizontal
Father confuses the issue of men being in a vertical relation to their wives when he says in a speech titled "The Desire of All Things" (June 17, 1977 ), "The love of parents and children follows a vertical line, while the love of a husband and wife is horizontal. We can know that this is true by seeing that even though there are many divorces here in America, the separated parents still want to hold onto their children; even though they have separated horizontally, they want to hold onto the vertical line of love. Why is that? Children are the parents' link to God's parental love. Even in the fallen world, parents see that the only hope for their love to remain is their children. Thus a husband and wife may dissolve their relationship, but they continue to hold onto their relationship with their children." These kind of quotes contradict his other quotes where he says men are the subjects. When women become true objects and men true subjects in the Ideal World then there will be no divorce. It is true that there is more of a sense of vertical from God to parents to children and there is a sense of horizontal between husband and wife as the four position shows, but when the UC and the West restores godly patriarchy then there will much less divorce. The cause of most marriages is women rejecting their position as object as taught by feminism. One book says in its title that 91% of divorces are initiated by women. Father says that women are the main cause of divorce. To end divorce we need to bring back the old fashioned virtue of patriarchy. Those families that practice godly patriarchy rarely divorce as opposed to the so-called modern marriages that embrace the view that men and women are interchangeable and there are no "rigid" roles.
Like the Democrats who argue with the Republicans, you will hear that what I write is "harsh," "reactionary," and "rigid." They are all for "freedom" and interchanging roles. The idea that there are innate differences between men and women is abhorrent to feminists in the UC. They will see that anyone who says there are is being a satanic ideologue who has a personal "agenda" to crush the freedom of sisters to lead men in and out of the home. God, to UC feminists, is vast and exciting and has a variety of ways men and women can relate instead of the boring housewife who never leaves her home. They just can't understand the depth of the meaning of true family values. The Andelins and others such as Mary Pride write books going into all the arguments and misunderstandings people have, but very few Unificationists will even bother to read the books because they cling to their false few notions of how a traditional family is structured. They have a few simplistic ideas that feminists have given them and can't believe that this issue should even be studied. It is next to impossible to get a UC brother to order and read Aubrey Andelin's Man of Steel and Velvet because he is locked into feminist belief. UC brothers are castrated and don't know it. Challenge a Unificationist that he or she needs to study the Andelins and you will be called every name in the book and denounced as Satan. Their lack of understanding of what masculinity and femininity is profound. It is as difficult to teach traditional family values to Unificationists as it is for them to teach the Principle to fundamental Christians. Sadly, the fundamental Christians have a greater understanding of what a man and woman are than Unificationists.
Father sometimes confuses the issue, but any truly thinking person would see he is a traditionalist. Father states, "Women absolutely must follow men. M for men is like two peaks and W for women is like two valleys. The peaks must not go down to the valleys and vice versa. But no matter how you Americans think about this, you must follow this truth." Unificationists ignore the many quotes like this and pick the quotes that they think back up feminist thought just like Ellen Degeneress will say that Jesus would not judge her for being a lesbian. Unificationists don't like to debate this issue. If you bring up quotes they say they have better ones. If you quote others they say those authors don't know the Principle so they are useless. If you use logic they dismiss it as not being heart. It is tragic beyond words to see how stubborn they are in holding on to the feminist core belief of "switching" men and women. There are so many arguments they bring up and none of them make any sense. If you say women should not work outside the home then that means, somehow, that women who have a talent for singing like Whitney Houston, will never be heard. You can take each argument, such as this one, and refute it, but it really doesn't matter to hardcore feminists in the UC. The hope for our movement will come from others, not the first generation of Unificationists. They went into Canaan and now worship the gods of feminism. Their role models and teachers are evil feminists like Betty Friedan. Reading Unificationists arguments against me is just like reading The Feminine Mystique. The first generation of Unificationists and Father have been hoodwinked by Betty Friedan. Betty has won and they don't know it. UC members do not like any arguments for the traditional family. But eventually they will because they are fighting the laws of the universe for men and women.
I found an interesting article on the web (http://www.smartmarriages.com/factsheet.html) that used the approach of science to prove that biblical family values are superior to feminism. This is a part of it.
John Paul II Consortium on Marriage and the Family, 1999
Gender Roles and Parents at Home
- Contrary to the expectations of feminists and family scholars, couples where men are more likely to share household tasks with their wives are also significantly more likely to get divorced (Bumpass and Sweet 1995).
- Couples where men earn the lions share of the family income i.e., more than 50% of couple income are significantly less likely to get divorced (Bumpass and Sweet 1995).
- Children who have mothers who stay at home are more likely to be religious pray, attend church, and the like than children whose mothers work outside the home. "The results demonstrate that the fewer the weekly hours worked by the mother and the more weekly hours worked by the father, the higher the religiosity among adult offspring" (Myers 1996: 864).
Moreover, the "religiosity of the offspring is higher if the father is the main decision-maker in the family" (Myers 1996: 864).
- Teenagers who come home to an empty home i.e., latchkey children are more likely to experience emotional distress and drug/alcohol abuse (Resnick et al. 1997).
- Couples with traditional gender role practices are significantly more likely to have children. In fact, each percentage decrease in wifes income contribution increases the odds of childbirth by 3% (Myers 1997).
Larry L. Bumpass and James A. Sweet. 1995. "Cohabitation, Marriage and Union Stability: Preliminary Findings from NSFH2." NSFH Working Paper No. 65. Center for Demography and Ecology: University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Scott M. Myers. 1996. "An Interactive Model of Religiosity Inheritance: The Importance of Family Context." American Sociological Review 61: 858-866.
Michael D. Resnick et al. 1997. "Protecting Adolescents from Harm: Findings From the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health." Journal of the American Medical Association 278: 823-832.
If only the UC would not mix this simple formula with feminism. It is wrong to think that men are all unemotional and women are all emotion. This kind of thinking gets Unificationists to think women should be in the workplace so they can add heart, nurturing, love, gentleness, kindness, etc. into the so-called harsh world of men. Men and women both have heart and logic. They just express it differently. Men may be more inclined to be more unemotional than women, but that is a plus in their role as leader. But it is wrong to think that women have more heart than men or that men are more intelligent than women. They are equal in heart and mind, but they are very different and should use their heart and mind in their God-given roles. For example, Fred Rogers is famous for his children's show, but there are no children on his show. Women are made to be homey and deal with children and the elderly and cook and iron clothes. Men are not. Those brothers in the UC who are Mr. Moms and those who try to fulfill the feminist dream of ironing half the clothes and being democratic in their marriage are not tuned into their true masculinity. Sisters who earn money and those who lead men in and out of the church are not tuned into their true femininity. Watching a video of Hutterite women who live by the so-called strict roles of the Bible is far more heartwarming than seeing videos of Josette Shiner giving a speech about how Rev. and Mrs. Moon are "partners." The gays and other feminists have ruined the word "partner." They haven't got a clue to what a partner in marriage is and for all the talk in the UC about the horrors of homosexuality, there is lot of confusion in the UC about what a true man and woman is.
The bottom line is that traditional families generally work better than feminist families. Let's look at a few examples of some of the most famous people in America. Barbara Bush did not work, and she has a large and powerful family. Hillary Clinton works and she has only one child and despite her talk of adoption she has never gotten around to it. This family is also with a doubt very troubled. Tipper Gore gave up her career when she married, and she has four children and a stable family. Elizabeth Dole has always worked and she has no children. Dick Cheney's wife left home to work and they have a lesbian daughter. The examples go on and on and on. Now, of course, this comparison does not work 100% of the time in every case. However, there is a trend or pattern that cannot be denied. Families that practice traditional biblical roles for men and women are generally happier, more loving, stable, and lasting. They are also likely to have more children. Children from these kinds of families are also usually better off then children from other types of families.
One of the most famous men in America was Michael Landon. He portrayed the ideal husband and father in his popular TV series Little House on the Prairie. In real life he was a womanizer. Still the Kodak company hired him to represent family values as their spokesman. It is hard to find good family men in Hollywood and in the end Landon was not the wholesome representative they wanted. He dumped his second wife and took a trophy wife -- a young blond named Cindy. All together he had nine children. His second wife was a housewife and he betrayed her. This is the image feminists love to give of how women who stay at home are boring to husbands who have exciting careers outside the home. The argument goes that if women work they are more interesting to men. Helen Andelin blasts this argument. I do not have time to go into every argument and I can quote just so much of the Andelins.
One of the most influential feminists in the 20th century is Patricia Schroeder who I write of in my other book. She seems to have a happy marriage and family and never cooked dinner for her family. In this transition to the ideal world there are times when I understand that women must work and there are some feminist families that are happy and intact while some anti-feminists go through divorce and unhappiness. But there is an overwhelming trend that traditional families have less divorce, more children, and happier homes than the feminists. Also, we can't just look at externals. Just because Michael Landon's wife was a stay-at-home mom does not mean she was doing what Helen Andelin teaches. If she had, I believe she very well might have been able to keep her husband from straying. And we have to understand that Cindy was a hairdresser who was alone with Landon. If only men were in the workplace then there would far less divorce and betrayal. Landon should have been like Zig Ziglar and Jerry Falwell who work very hard to keep from being alone with a woman who is not related to them. Cindy should have been taught by her father to not be alone with a married man. Cindy probably was not taught by anyone what men and women are supposed to do. Just because there are a few happy Mr. Moms in the UC and some traditional looking families in the UC have problems means nothing anymore than some marriages of liberals are better than some of conservatives. There is a definite pattern or trend when people live by true values.