THE WAR AGAINST PARENTS
Mack, for some strange reason, ends up liking the socialist/feminist Sylvia Hewlett and is not able to see through her Liberal agenda of big government. Sylvia Ann Hewlett and Cornel West push the tired old feminist/socialist line in their book The War Against Parents: What We Can Do For American's Beleaguered Moms and Dads. West is a black Liberal professor at Harvard and Hewlett is a white feminist influential author that bring a warm glow to the hearts of their fellow cultural elite who dominate the colleges and media. They epitomize the enemy of the traditional family and free enterprise. But these two Cains are not totally wrong. I appreciate that they have stretched a little and are able to criticize the immorality of Hollywood Liberals and to see that Ozzie and Harriet aren't all bad as feminist propaganda says. They even have a few kind words about the Promise Keepers and Farrakhan. They don't have much to say that is positive -- but I have never seen any Liberals say anything nice about conservatives. Hopefully this crack in the door will open more and feminists will eventually see that conservatives are not consumed with hate and greed and are on the right track.
Their book is the usual bashing of capitalism and the traditional family values: "Many conservatives refuse to recognize the ways in which market values destroy family values. In elemental ways, they do not get it. They fail to understand that we need to rein in free enterprise if we are going to create the conditions that support parents and nurture children." This is all projection. It is they who "do not get it." Even though the Berlin Wall has come down the wall in the minds of Hewlett and West is standing firm. They push for the minimum wage, labor unions and "placing limits on out-of-control corporate greed." "Placing limits" is another euphemism for force. If Hewlett and West ever got in total control, they would be the first to be shot by the Lenin's and Stalin's who would muscle their way in and take "placing limits" to its absolute logical end.
Their agenda is "to redistribute income and wealth in order to relieve the pressures on young families. ... Redistribution requires government action and interference with market mechanisms, and today's conservatives are virulently opposed to them." The truth is that Liberals are "virulently" opposed to freedom. They dredge up the usual arguments that Europe is socialist and we should follow suit. They think America is as rich as it is because of the socialist policies it has forced on Americans such as the so-called Eisenhower's GI Bill and Highway Act. "Newt Gingrich and Ralph Reed, however, seem singularly out of touch with the degree to which Ozzie and Harriet were bolstered by public policy and depended on the public purse." Wrong. Conservatives like Eisenhower are often for big government. Only the Libertarians are consistently logical. Conservatives are Abel, but they are often spaced out Abels who do not lead correctly. Still, they are far better than the Left.
Hewlett and West are to be commended for blasting immoral Hollywood stars like Madonna who they say, "certainly didn't think she needed a husband, in order to have a child. In the spring of 1996, newly pregnant, she announced to the world that she would not marry Carlos Leon, the father of her child-to-be. ... High-profile show-biz moms such as Madonna, Rosie O'Donnell, and Diane Keaton have made single motherhood a chic thing to do -- the ultimate liberated act of a strong woman."
"... the overwhelming message from progressive, liberal folks in Hollywood is Who needs a husband to have a child? The problem here is that there are real conflicts between adult rights to freedom of choice and a child's well-being. Madonna may not want to deal with a male partner, but most children do much better in life when they can count on the loving attention of both a mother and a father."
Carol Gilligan "has made a distinction between the voices of men and women. In her highly acclaimed 1982 book, In a Different Voice, she describes how men gravitate toward the instrumental and the impersonal and emphasize abstract principles, while women lean toward intimacy and caring and give priority to human relationships. Gilligan points out that the female 'care' voice is not inferior to the male 'instrumental' voice, as it is often treated in psychological theory; it is simply different." They interpret this to mean that women balance out "the urgent greed that is the spirit of capitalism." Gilligan, it seems, comes to the same feminist conclusion that women's voice needs to balance men's voices in the workplace. They quote her as saying, "Gilligan tells us that the main change wrought by feminism was that it 'enabled women to consider it moral to care not only for others but also for themselves.' She quotes Elizabeth Cady Stanton telling a reporter in 1848 'to put it down in capital letters; 'SELF-DEVELOPMENT IS A HIGHER DUTY THAN SELF-SACRIFICE.' Women have to deal with the "tension of the 'I' of the self, the 'us' and the 'ours' of the family, and the 'we' of citizens of the wider civic world. Nora struggled with this challenge in Ibsen's A Doll House, and women have been struggling ever since." Mrs. Moon puts down Nora for leaving her home. Hewlett and West are blind to the fact that the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. They are blind to the idea that women should live in a community of other at-home women and help each other. And if all is well with their family then they can volunteer for church witnessing and charity work.
Brenda Hunter explains that women are "architects of intimacy." Carol Gilligan and Sylvia Ann Hewlett should see the obvious truth that women's voices are needed in the home, not in the workplace. God made men and women's voices to be different and likewise their roles to be different. Gilligan and Hewlett are working women and end up twisting simple truths to fit their feminist lifestyle.
Much of their book is blasting capitalism. They can never get around to saying the word "socialism" but everything they write is taken out of Marx and Engel's hatred of capitalism. Here is an example: "Conservatives undermine family life because they fail to see the ways in which market values destroy family values. Committed as they are to free and unfettered markets, they forget that values are the 'black hole of capitalism,' to use Lester Thurow's memorable phrase [in his book Future of Capitalism]. Indeed, market capitalism leans on some of the least attractive human traits -- avarice, aggression, self-centeredness." They go on and on like this. I address the fact that socialists like West are wrong when they say things like "markets have no moral compass" in my book Freedom Works. West is a liar and deceiver. He is an advocate for evil empires. Socialism has shown to produce far more "immoral" leaders and societies than capitalist ones.
They denounce such sick TV personalities as Jerry Springer in a chapter called "A Poisonous Popular Culture." When will they begin to see that their liberal ideology produces such trash? They are critical of the parent bashing "hugely popular movies such as Home Alone and Honey, I Shrunk the Kids, and in best-selling books such as Toxic Parents and Spoiling Children, not to mention the daily offerings of Geraldo and Montel Williams, parents are portrayed as dysfunctional and incompetent. ... the award-winning movie Shine is a powerful recent example -- parents are seen as veritable child abuse machines, the fountainhead of all that can go wrong in adult life."
FATHER KNOWS BEST
They can't see that the root cause of our ills is feminism that hurts families and the economy. They show they are blind to the value of patriarchy in the traditional family where the man is the breadwinner when we read that "the 1950s TV shows, movies, magazines, and popular songs" were "unfortunately ... cast in a patriarchal mold." The authors like the wholesomeness of the fifties but they think patriarchy was the bathwater that polluted everything. They completely miss that the reason for the stability and goodness of the traditional family is from the cornerstone of patriarchy. They say, "in 1954 CBS premiered a program called Father Knows Best -- a title that boggles the modern imagination." "Modern?" Much of what is "modern" is not of God.
"Happy housewives were prominently featured in movies of this period. A favorite story line in a Doris Day or Debbie Reynolds movie went something like this: a glamorous, sexy woman gives her man a thoroughly hard time, threatening his masculinity, but in the last reel she discovers true love and undergoes a transformation into a devoted housewife. For the millions who saw April in Paris (1952), Calamity Jane (1956), The Pajama Game (1957), and Teacher's Pet (1959), the message was simple: a woman might be as free and clever as a man, but her real destiny and happiness lay in being a wife and mother. Debbie Reynolds summed it all up in The Tender Trap (1955): 'A woman isn't a woman until she has been married and had children.' It is interesting to note that Doris Day and Debbie Reynolds did not practice what they preached. They were both career women and both had tragic multiple marriages and did not experience true love in their life. Any connection?
I'm glad that Hewlett and West don't totally dismiss the traditional families of the 50s like every other feminist I have ever read. They write, "The ideas and attitudes underlying these shows and movies are oppressively sexist to modern eyes. Support for parents was contained within a patriarchal context, creating a set of values that became increasingly unacceptable to progressive sensibilities. In the counterculture rebellions of the 1960s we jettisoned this context, but in so doing we often threw the baby out with the bathwater. We forgot that Ozzie and Harriet wasn't just about sexism and patriarchy; it was also about the importance of parents. This show gave tremendous honor and respect to the roles of mom and dad. Here on primetime television were loving, hardworking parents raising their children with wisdom and humor -- solving problems, teaching values, and providing an all important protective shield." "Thus when Betty, the teenage daughter in Father Knows Best, listened respectfully to advice handed down by her father, or when Beaver, the mischievous son in Leave it to Beaver, leaped up and cleared the table after dinner, it became that much easier for real-life parents to ask for respectful cooperation from their own children." The baby that was thrown out in the 60s was patriarchy. They took "obey" out of the marriage vows.
NO VERTICAL IN FEMINISM
They are blind in seeing that patriarchy is why there is respect. In the equalitarian, blurred families of feminists there is no sense of vertical. These Liberals want their cake and eat it too. They will eventually have to see the disconnect in their logic. They denounce today's depraved TV shows saying, "Forty years later, the messages communicated by the entertainment industry are radically different." Hewlett and West have been a major factor in creating a society that is radically different in their influential books and in their feminist lifestyle. They should not write their book together. Men and women who are not married should not work together. Hewlett should be home serving her family instead of being a role model for women to leave the home.
They are disgusted with Susan Forward who they say "describes a world in which almost everyone's parents are toxic" but they are disgusting in writing their hatred of the traditional family and the free market.
FATHERS UNDER SIEGE
They have chapter headings like "Fathers Under Siege" and "The Disabling of Dads": "Until recently, fathers were always considered essential. In the words of the social analyst David Blankenhorn, 'The fatherless family of the United States in the late twentieth century represents a radical departure from virtually all of human history and experience.'" By putting down patriarchy, Hewlett and West are disabling dads.
They say, "the Promise Keepers movement has attracted virulent criticism." Yes, from feminists. The authors say they do not agree with much of what the Promise Keepers teach, "... we align ourselves firmly with progressive folk who have fought recent attempts to diminish or destroy homosexual rights." Liberals like the word "progressive" because it makes them sound scientific and logical and, therefore those who see homosexuality as wrong are backward, stupid and prejudiced.
They say that "the liberal press" such as "the Washington Post described Promise Keepers as part of 'the pantheon of conservative Christian, morally absolutist cultural and political groups converging in this country.'" Liberals hate the word absolutist. There are no absolutes in life, except, of course, their beliefs.
Promise Keepers are called by the Left -- "right-wing extremism." They write, "'Leadership is servanthood. For the guy to be the leader means he outserves his wife.' But feminist groups find fault with this explanation. According to Rosemary Dempsey, a vice president of the National Organization for Women, 'The message ... that men must take back control of the family, be the head, the boss ... is not-very-well-cloaked misogynistic message."
"The most frequently cited evidence that the movement is pushing a patriarchal agenda is contained in a book by Dr. Tony Evans entitled Seven Promises of a Promise Keeper. In a section called 'Reclaiming Your Manhood,' Evans writes, 'I'm not suggesting that you ask your wife for your role back, I'm urging you to take it back. If you simply ask for it, your wife is likely to say, 'Look, for the last ten years, I've had to raise these kids, look after the house, and pay the bills ... You think I'm just going to turn everything back over to you?' Your wife's concerns may be justified. Unfortunately, however, there can be no compromise here. If you're going to lead, you must lead. Be sensitive. Listen. Treat the lady gently and lovingly. But lead!'"
They are disgusted by this saying, "It is difficult to read this passage without picking up a strong undertow of male arrogance." The arrogance is women who deny patriarchy. Arrogance is women wanting to be bones instead of flesh. Father constantly chastises American sisters for wanting to be the center instead of the husband. Hewlett and West say that the "Promise Keepers clearly does call on men to lead their families, but according to many men within the movement (and their wives), the leadership model it offers is not that of a domineering master."
They try to find some good in Louis Farrakhan saying that the Nation of Islam prohibits "the Nation's members from using drugs, alcohol, and tobacco as well as from eating pork." He led what was called The Million Man March in 1995. They try to sympathize that the popularity of the Promise Keepers and Farrakhan who appeal to men who feel "the huge loss of power experienced by so many men today," but they can't help but criticize them in the end saying that they hope "the leaders of Promise Keepers" would "affirm homosexual and women's rights, and if the leaders of the Nation of Islam were to repudiate patriarchy, it would be a giant step forward. Then it might be possible for progressive folk to pay attention to what is really going on in these movements and to respond constructively. For if we continue to look at Promise Keepers and the Nation of Islam and see only patriarchy reestablished or gay-bashing celebrated, we lose out on a rare opportunity to take the agony of crippled men and turn it into something good: a commitment to husbandhood and fatherhood."
"Progressive folk" is a cutsy way to say socialist/feminist. It is they who need to make "a giant step forward" into an appreciation of patriarchy and "gay-bashing." I believe that the Promise Keepers and Rev. Farrakhan would have no problem with Rev. Moon's many statements for patriarchy and against homosexuality. This is why Farrakhan came and stood with Rev. Moon at his mass wedding at RFK stadium. Those members of the UM who reject patriarchy should understand the deepest reasons why conservatives are attracted to Father. Unlike some Unificationists they understand that Father is for the traditional family -- not the so-called "progressive" family of Hewlett and West. There are so many books by feminists that I haven't the space to pick apart all of them. I hope that in the selection that I have chosen to critique, I am able to convert those in the UC and those out who are not for absolute sexual roles that Hewlett and West are just dupes of communism -- the most vile ideology ever to invade this earth. God is a patriarch. Unificationists should not dwell on a feminist interpretation of the Principle. We call God Father because we look to God for leadership. The female aspect of God is as important as the male. True Mother is as important as Father. But we must emphasize the masculine leadership role. Without leadership we have chaos. Men lead. They always have, and in spite of all the efforts of feminists in the 20th century and especially in the last 40 years, men will always lead. The key to healing this world is to embrace god-centered patriarchy and reject the satanic patriarchy of evil men like Hitler and the Ayatollah of Iran. The number one key to peace in the home and peace in the world is for men to understand what the Promise Keepers and Louis Farrakhan are saying -- men must take servant leadership in the home and outside the home. I pray that someday Hewlett and West and their legion of Liberal friends will stop their satanic crusade against God's precious laws of life.
MESSIAH BETRAYED BY WOMEN
True love was introduced to this world by Jesus and then Sun Myung Moon. Both men were tragically betrayed by women who rejected his leadership. God bless Mrs. Moon for standing by her man as the country song goes. May all women follow in her footsteps and be obedient and loyal followers to their husbands. This is the essence of world salvation. God is working through such organizations as the Promise Keepers and Minister Farrakhan. They are not perfect, but they are more on the Abel side than their powerful opposition. The bottom line is that God's laws are logical and if we follow them we find peace and happiness. The Traditional Family works. Freedom works. Someday the truth of this will be as obvious as that the earth is round. Someday every person will accept the core belief that Sun Myung Moon brings -- men are bones and women are flesh. The fall was Eve usurping her position and taking the bone position. Hewlett is an arrogant Eve and West is a spaced out Adam.
My goal is to make Rev. Moon's teachings a household name and household discussion. I have read and studied countless books. No prominent thinker and writer has ever studied or quoted Rev. Moon in all the years he has been in America in the 20th century. The 21st century will be different. His speeches will be the most studied in the new millennium. And unlike the Bible, there will be no conflicting interpretations. We have endless hours of video and anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear will see the obvious -- he speaks for the traditional family and free enterprise. Patriarchy and private property are sacred. He is the most macho, masculine, take charge, aggressive, dynamic, confident decision maker who has ever lived. Mother is the most humble, faithful, obedient follower of a husband in human history. We have no idea how hard it has been for Mrs. Moon to follow this dynamo. Many of those grueling years she was pregnant with her 14 children. Every time she opens her mouth (which is not very often) she talks about Father and what he wants. Each of us is to be like them. Men must have guts and strength. Women need to serve their husbands at home. Father protects Mother and provides for her. She has nothing to do with money except spend the allowance he gives her. His words are absolutely clear that men are aggressive and women are not.
It saddens me to have to disagree with a few statements he has made that supports the feminist agenda against the traditional family in which the husband is appreciated for being the breadwinner and the wife is a happy homemaker. When Father asks women to act like bones in the U.S. Senate and wants our Commander-in-Chief to have the nature of flesh instead of bone, I am forced to publicly disagree in the hopes that at least if he does not recant this statement, then the leadership will in the future. Balance is not having half the U.S. Senate female anymore than it balance for carpenters to be one-half women and men do one-half of the household laundry. Even though there are a few scattered statements of Rev. and Mrs. Moon we may challenge, I pray that you, Dear Reader, will see that he is still the Messiah and only he and Mother get statues built to them in the future. They are not to be worshiped, but honored as our True Parents who have brought order to this disorderly world. They show that women stand to the left of men and are never to dominate them. What a great step forward it will be when feminists like Sylvia Ann Hewlett go home and stand, sit and walk on their husband's left as their loving object. What a wonderful day it will be when feminists like Cornel West come out of their possession by evil spirit world -- come out of their equalitarian fog -- come out of their blindness and illogic and renounce their hatred of capitalism. Unity will not come through compromise, but through Cain going through Abel. Hewlett and West need to understand they are Esau and need to bow to and accept the conservative Jacobs who are more on the side of God. God loves them both, but God loves his formula of restoration also and is anxiously waiting and always working to make his champions teach and act in ways that make it as easy as possible for those on the dark side to accept the light of his truths taught by his imperfect ambassadors.