Some more words of wisdom from Ron.
This is taken from Science of Survival, one of his books that is a foundation upon which so much of scientology is based. It is not “esoteric” or merely “part of the research track” like “Creative Processing” in Creation of Human Ability or “Black and White” processing in Scientology 8-80 — techniques that were supplanted by later “breakthroughs.” This is the book that lays out the Tone Scale and first introduces theta and the “theta-MEST” theory. Nothing out of date or “no longer used” in this book.
This is the view all good scientologists are expected to uphold. This passage is in the current edition of the book. It is cringe-inducing…
The whole future of the race depends upon its attitude toward children; and a race which specializes in women for “menial purposes,” or which believes that the contest of the sexes in the spheres of business and politics is a worthier endeavor than the creation of tomorrow’s generation, is a race which is dying. We have, in the woman who is an ambitious rival of the man in his own activities, a woman who is neglecting the most important mission she may have. A society which looks down upon this mission, and in which women are taught anything but the management of a family, the care of men, and the creation of the future generation, is a society which is on its way out. The historian can peg the point where a society begins its sharpest decline at the instant when women begin to take part, on an equal footing with men, in political and business affairs; since this means that the men are decadent and the women are no longer women. This is not a sermon on the role or position of women: it is a statement of bald and basic fact. When children become unimportant to a society, that society has forfeited its future.
Even beyond the fathering and bearing and rearing of children, a human being does not seem to be complete without a relationship with a member of the opposite sex. This relationship is the vessel where in is nurtured the life force of both individuals, whereby they create the future of the race in body and thought. If man is to rise to greater heights, then woman must rise with him, or even before him. But she must rise as woman and not as today she is being misled into rising — as a man. It is the hideous joke of frustrated, unvirile men to make women over into the travesty of men which men themselves have become.
Men are difficult and troublesome creatures — but valuable. The creative care and handling of men is an artful and a beautiful task. Those who would cheat women of their rightful place by making them into men should at last realize that by this action they are destroying not only the women but the men and the children as well. This is too great a price to pay for being “modern” or for someone’s petty anger or spite against the female sex.
Yes, this IS what scientologists believe.
What about this quote by Hubbard in his letter to Forest Ackerman?
“Wanted to tell you that Sara is beating out her wits on fiction and is having to do this DARK SWORD -cause and cure of nervous tension – properly – THE SCIENCE OF MIND, really EXCALIBUR – in fits, so far, however she has recovered easily from each fit. It will be considerably delayed because of this. Good as my word, however, I shall ship it along just as soon as decent. Then you can rape women without their knowing it, communicate suicide messages to your enemies as they sleep, sell the Arroyo Seco parkway to the mayor for cash, evolve the best way of protecting or destroying communism, and other handy house hold hints. If you go crazy, remember you were warned.”
Sci Ex says
My (now ex) Scientologist wife is a very strong, progressive, liberated, free-spirited woman. That was one of the main things that attracted me to her. That’s what I wanted in the mother of my children. Especially now knowing that I would be the father of two daughters.
I finally started trying to figure out what Scientology is all about WAY too late. It was a tolerable oddity of her and her family for quite a few years. But it gradually started to consume her and our young family.
Anyway, when I discovered these passages on Tony’s blog a few years ago, I bought the book and I brought it to her to ask her about it.
If I had ever tried to dictate her place in our family in these terms, or if any other male in the world had even insinuated to her that this describes what should be a “woman’s place”, she would have ripped parts off.
But when she saw it for herself in Scientology’s own doctrine, she just stared. She had almost no reaction. I think she even tried to convince me that it wasn’t intended to mean what I interpreted it to be… that it was “out gradient” for me, so I just couldn’t understand it.
Knowing how strong of a woman she is, and seeing this degree of cognitive dissonance, was truly shocking. The CoS mindfuck became crystal clear to me in that moment.
If I tried to tell my lovely wife of 45 years some of that garbage I would not be in for a very good day.
Husband the leader of the family? Yes, BUT, what kind of “leader” am I?
I am a “servant leader.” I put my wife first. Always. When my son was born, (like 2 weeks after) she was having a really bad day. (PPD I think they call it.) I helped coach a high school soccer team. I got home to go to practice and sensed her condition. She needed quiet, and she needed it now. Sooooooo, I packed the diaper bag and got some water for my son and he and I headed out of the door. She asked where I was going I said to practice and he is going with me so you can have some peace and quiet. Her sanity was more important to me than anything else that was going on. Period.
Too many people of all sorts do not know what being a servant leader is about. It works.
Bear in mind that Science of Survival was written in the early to mid 1950s as was the Scientology wedding ceremony. This was a time when such views about women were held by society in general. The sad part is that this is one area where many Evangelical Christians would agree with L. Ron Hubbard.
When Hubbard’s shoddy “Mission Earth” books came out, I presumed that Countess Krak would be the more modern role model woman, and the Jettero Heller and Countess Krak relationship would be the new updated Hubbard approved guidelines.
I hate to get into those later Hubbard relationship implied and approved guidelines, but I think Countess Krak was more modern.
I don’t recommend any Hubbard advice to anyone.
In National Socialist ideology (if I recall correctly) women are supposed to be wives and mothers. When the Third Reich invaded the Soviet Union women who were in the Soviet Army were encountered. Those women were promptly murdered. But what do I know? I’m just a history nerd.
I spent 18 years in a marriage with a man that was ALL about this passage.
I worked outside the home for a few years, then took over the household completely. He controlled the checkbook, gave me an allowance (he really liked to give me allowance in front of people, made him feel special).
He had me cash in all my retirement accounts because He would provide with his pension.
I found our retirement home, moved as he finished his job to retire at 55.
After he came to where we bought a 30 thousand dollar house (gotta have Bridge money) he informed me that he cut me out of all his retirements so he could get more per month.
At that point I really realized what a horrible mistake he was, 15 years in. Took me another 3 years to get back in the job market, and thank GOD I walked out with the clothes on my back. Can’t Sue a Scientologist, and he made it sound like I would owe HIM! Talk about brain washed. But, I got away, and do well now.
This one Mike, I lived in the worst way, for too long.
Appreciate your telling of this.
I’ve been reading people’s history telling for years, since I quit in spring 2003.
It’s worthy to explain why Scientology connections are not “pro-survival” even despite lying Hubbard’s claims that all things he offers are supposedly “long term pro-survival.”
Thankyou Ruth, and thankyou people like Mike who have sites so history info is made available, even if it’s us fellow ex’s who quit years ago, this history is much appreciated to confirm how wrong the Hubbard “pro-survival” false wisdom is.
Christi Gordon says
So ugh. Reminds me of my mom reading to us from Mary Sue’s “Marriage Hats” booklet, which made me want to hurl… especially ‘Hat for a Wife” # 12 & 15… also some of the Scn marriage ceremony verbiage “the groom is reminded that “girls” need “clothes and food and tender happiness and frills, a pan, a comb, perhaps a cat” and is asked to provide them all. The bride, in turn, is told that “young men are free and may forget” their promises.”
I recall making the decision then and there that I would NEVER get married because of this shite (and watching all the scn adults around me get married and divorced, over and over and over – I mean so much for “handling” the second dynamic.)
Hat for A Wife
“The main duties of a wife are:
1. To care for the home and family.
2. To cook for the family.
3. To live within the financial means of the husband.
4. To budget the household expenses and use such monies economically and wisely.
5. To do the shopping for the family.
6. To raise and look after the children.
7. To keep the home clean, neat and tidy.
8. To do the washing and ironing.
9. To support your husband in life by providing him with a clean, calm, happy home in which he can have the rest and peace necessary to fortify him in the battles of winning a living.
10. To honor and respect your husband and to provide him with love, trust and companionship.
11. To keep an active interest in your husband’s work and to offer him encouragement and moral support.
12. To submit to the decision of your husband if agreement cannot be reached : he is the leader of the family.
13. To support your husband in his disciplinary actions in the home. If you feel he has been too harsh with a child, see him privately about the matter.
14. To care for birth control and to be responsible. There can be nothing more upsetting to married life than an unwanted pregnancy or too many children. So don’t make mistakes; such surprises can be most disruptive.
15. To keep yourself clean, attractive and womanly. A wife should always look the best she can for her husband – this doesn’t mean that you have to appear glamorous when you’re in the middle of scrubbing a dirty floor, bu’.t it does mean that a wife should care enough about her appearance not to come before her husband in the morning with cream on her face and rollers in her hair. It’s wise to do those beauty actions when your husband is not around, so you can be beautiful when he is present .
16. To set an example to any female children of what a wo man is like and to prepare her daughters for eventual marriage so that they can do the things expected of them in a home.
17. To set an example to any male children of what a woman is like so that in the future they can make a sane and happy marriage.
18. To help with the education of her children. As a Scientologist you have in your hands a fundamental principle in learning, which at present still exceeds the study technology of ordinary schools. You know the phenomenon of misunderstood words. You know if your child is confused by some concept or idea at school that it is not the “idea” that is the source of the confusion but an earlier, misunderstood word, and knowing this you can help.
19. To keep in agreement with your husband and to work out any disagreements by communication.
An understanding of the ARC Triangle* is essential to the understanding of a human relationship. If you know this you know that communication is the key to keeping agreement (reality) and affinity in a marriage. You know that these are so intertwined that if a disagreement oc curs, the tendency will be not to communicate, and to like one another less. The answer is to communicate – no matter how difficult. This way agreement can be reached, affinity restored and understanding reestablished .
Knowing the importance of communication , it is part of a wife’s role to see that communication remains open between all members of the family and she generally maintains the communication lines with more distant relatives and friends as well.
20. Not to commit overts against the husband and family. To know and understand that overts and withholds can be the cause of blows* in life and separation in marriage.
21. To keep withholds communicated. Not to let them pile up, but to get them off nicely and in the right place and at the right time.
22. To be the hostess in the home.
23. To grow with your husband.
Howie Spinner says
I read some posts here that said words to the effect, “Tubby may have said that BUT they let many women have powerful positions.
I think the one thing people may be missing is that no matter what Tubby may have said, all of that is secondary to the prime directive in the cult which is ….
MONEY! MONEY! MONEY!
So if they could find a way to get more money by giving women powerful positions, that is what would happen. Never mind what Tubby said. Just remember:
IT’S MONEY THAT MATTERS!!!
Chauvinist pig…*spits*…and that’s being polite. I mean we ALL know how well ‘Ron’ treated his wives and children. By the end he claimed only a handful of his own children. LRH obviously had a serious problem with virility and impotence. All you have to do is read his ‘Affirmations’ to know he was terrified of women and sexuality and was having serious problems ‘pleasing’ his young second wife Sara who I believe is the impetus behind what became ‘Scientology’.
She was very young and had been a girlfriend of Jack Parsons and a whole hearted member of OTO. She was way ahead of her time. She also most probably wrote several of his SF stories and part of Dianetics. I just re-read her wiki and can’t but help to feel terribly sorry for this woman who was just 17 or 18 when Hubbard (who was 13 years older than her) walked into her already very troubled life. I truly wish she would have written a book. The ‘church’ later forced her daughter Alexis to sign papers stating she would never write or speak about Hubbard. Sara did tape a long narrative about her life with Hubs and it is in the possession of Dr. Stephen Kent. So says the wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sara_Northrup_Hollister.
Of course we all know what he did to wife no. 3, Mary Sue, who had been 100% loyal to the cause. Did that matter? No. I believe Mary Sue also had significant input into the writing of some of his books as well as the ‘development’ of ‘auditing’. But in the the end did it matter? No. She was out. Hubbard lived in rapturous glory in his own head. A life of confidence tricks and lies. He couldn’t live with the fact of just being a normal guy. He had to be GREAT. Now he’s only ‘great’ in the eyes of the bitter enders who still believe the dreck promulgated by the ‘church’. I feel sorry for them…really. The internet is destroying the facade. It would have been destroyed long ago if not for the hard core ‘the empower has no clothes’ believers who are still hanging on. The gray haired mass we see in the pics of all the Orgs. Their grandchildren roped into the SO. The whales? Think of the tax write offs these ppl get by conspicuously donating just the right amount to $ci every year. I’d love to see their tax returns. I bet they pay less tax than I do. If any.
How I would love to hear someone in an Org explain the above section (which was quintessential 50’s male chauvinist belief) to the young people of today. I hope some young YouTuber goes in as a recruit and gets this question answered. And records it.
There actually is a growing young male empowerment movement that believe certain gender roles should be assumed. Andrew Tate is a major figure. Pearl of Just Pearly Things is a rising YouTube star from exposing similar ideals. There are many others.
Whatever ones specific gender beliefs are, many young (typically straight) men of today are seemingly facing an existential crisis, more likely to be single, depressed and have suicidal ideation, while constantly being harangued by the media if they demonstrate a smidge of masculinity or don’t want to date a transsexual.
Men and women are, on the whole, biologically and psychologically different. That the younger generation is examining how they can find harmony and happiness in today’s woke “non-binary/gender fluid” society is surely a positive thing.
What about women in Sea Org having to be addressed as Mister. Where did that idiocy come from. When I was dealing with women SO members I refused to address any as Mister. I just didn’t call them anything. They were half my age, had way less training and education and mostly just seemed to have an overblown view of their own self importance. I didn’t call the male SO members MIster or SIr either. I think for some, Scientology gave people who were otherwise small (not referring to height), abusive people status due to being in SO or being highly trained in Scientology or being staff. In the outside world they would not have had that. I am guessing it is hardest for those people to leave as the power and status are too important and without that they would just be mean, unliked and not respected.
Howie Spinner says
What about women in Sea Org having to be addressed as Mister. Where did that idiocy come from?
That was the result of Jennifer Tier who was a single woman and was put in charge of all the women in the cult. She didn’t last long. But she did implement her own prime directive that dictated she was to be called:
Miss Tier or Mister for short. She also directed that all women were to be referred to in exactly the same way. That is where that originated.
Another, but in essence, one the more horrific examples of many of Scientology’s contradictions.
What about, “you are not a body, but a spiritual being of infinite capability” or the attainment of “self determinism” (as opposed to other determinism) is the primary goal of processing. Even the doozy of, ‘find out what’s wrong with the PC from the PC’. He violates all his own codes of auditing, ethics and conduct with his sexism.
Hubbard writing that just goes to show how big a chauvinist pig he really was… he’s cat puke! (no offence intended on cats or pigs for that matter, Hubbard was in a class of horribleness all of his own).
A man who treats women as a whole as being lesser in intelligence, talent, or competence in comparison to men; a man who puts more value on a woman’s looks or abilities as a homemaker than as an equal member of society.”
And such is the crap that bounces around inside the head of Scientologist.
I grew up in a home where my mom stayed home and watched us and disciplined us fed us and honored my father when he got home. That’s a family. hate to say it but when the mom left the home this country went down hill fast. Just look at all the kids killing each other, everyday. No more discipline just total anarchy. In this case lcon Hubbard is right on. The American family has been destroyed. I know because I’m an example of a mom that stayed home. I’m not perfect but I have respect for us as human beings as well as respect for our earth. I may be old fashioned but this is because my mom was at home watching us grow up and keeping us in line…
jim rowles says
Thanks for what you wrote.
Dalton Laras says
Well, I tend to agree. I was raised in a family with a “stay-at-home-mom” and my wife and I also made the conscious descision that she would stay home for the kids, untill at least they were all in their teen years.
I can only say that I believe the kids appreciated it and fared well because of it.
Of course, the quote from LRH, seen in light of the whole “system” of Scientology, is cringeworthy.
However, leaving the plain 50’s vocabulary for what it is and placed in proper context in an honest and loving family setting, I do not find there is much wrong with it. Of course I know other might disagree. But I agree to disagree 😉
We were poor. My Mom worked all the time.
First comment I’ve read on Mike’s blog that has made me embarrassed for who wrote it.
So what? Disgust is not an argument. Try logic.
When the mother left the home? And when was that? The modern statistics especially in the US show most children being raised in single parent homes…with the mother. It seems like getting a young man to accept responsibility now a days is damn near impossible. I feel terrible for the young women of today. Very few have the help of a husband/fiancé/boyfriend with their children or their bills in the raising of those children. So the mother gets to work and raise her child. She doesn’t have the ‘option’ to just stay home and bake cookies, clean and wipe snotty noses while she anxiously waits for hubby to come home.
Here are some statistics from the first page that popped up on google.
In the United States today, nearly 24 million children live in a single-parent family. This total, which has been rising for half a century, covers about one in every three kids across America. A number of long-term demographic trends have fueled this increase, including: marrying later, declining marriage rates, increasing divorce rates and an uptick in babies born to single mothers.
Within single-parent families, most children — 15 million — live in mother-only households. Nearly 6 million kids live with cohabitating parents and some 3 to 4 million kids live in father-only households, according to 2019 estimates.*
I’ve worked, in the past, in a job where I had a chance to see the stats first hand. Many women, very few with the help of the father, struggling to make ends meet and raise their children. Are there men raising children alone? Absolutely. But the statistics are much lower. Before you go blaming the woman for her situation in being single with children, many women have tried to ‘make it work’ with the father of her children only to be rebuffed. I could go on and on but I won’t.
You were obviously very lucky to have had parents that loved each other and a father that had an income that could sustain a family. Many do not. Both of my parents worked. If they had not we would have had no place to live nor food in the pantry. My parents are still together and my father worked until he was almost 80. My mother until she was 75.
Before you blame the downfall of the country on women leaving the home you might need to catch up on some statistics.
There are plenty of women in the home raising their children….alone.
Children of single parent families are reportedly both psychologically and statistically more likely to suffer mental health issues, have violent tendencies and turn to crime.
Be it the mother or the father (or both), blame whoever prioritised their own happiness above their child’s.
I wish we could identify the problem of why we are killing each other, at will. I’m not blaming anyone, I don’t see us turning the destruction of our country, nobody’s talking about it, just see it on the news or read about it. I just was trying to initiate a response to see if anyone else was feeling the same way and was concerned.
Notions of the “good old days” are often not very grounded in reality. Do you know for instance how many children used to end up in orphanages – where they were often mistreated and abused – even when they had two living parents? And the term “latchkey kid” goes back to at least the 1940s – but for more disadvantaged families whose mothers worked to make ends meet as domestic servants like maids, teachers and secretaries, and so on, the reality of it goes back much further.
My parents grew up with the old fashioned ideal of being from “good” families well enough off to hire maids and governesses, and send children off to the best boarding schools and summer camps, and thus were not really raised by their own parents even though their mothers didn’t hold formal jobs, but instead socialized and volunteered (one’s father, was a roaring ’20s playboy who did the male version of that and never really worked, either). They didn’t learn how to raise children and also remained absorbed in their own activities – my mother didn’t work, having given up aspirations and talents that left her bitter and drinking heavily, and probably would have been better off and a better example if she had a real job – and my wife and I may have done more family activities with our children on one long weekend that my parents did with me in the entire time I lived at home.
So there’s an anecdotal story that completely contradicts yours. That’s the problem with anecdotalism – which happens to be practically the stock in trade of Hubbard and Scientology, from Hubbard’s claims of cases and cures, to “wins” and “OT stories.”
Plus don’t forget, Hubbard, very much the “do as I do, not as I say” type, kept Mary Sue very busy working for him, and then of course going to prison for him. But it was probably his sloppy theories about things, that resulted in the most damage to his own kids.
LRH would have HATED me 😂 women clearly terrified him.
Ellanorah Wilson says
Yep – yet they put women in positions of power & authority in the Sea Org. They forbid women to have children. They order them to divorce if the spouse is “out of line”. They, in the past, ordered abortions. They separate women from spouses & other family members. COB banished his own wife!! Yes – this organization treats women as pawns to be used & discarded when they age out or become ill/disabled. This organization is who we want leading “civilization” into the future?!? I think not – but then again I am just a silly woman… what do I know?
Joe Pendleton says
I think you’re over reaching here Mike. Scientologists don’t believe that. I joined staff in 1970 and women were execs in my org at that time and LRH himself had women appointed as execs and very important ones (like Jane Kember). Those passages expressed a certain view of some in 1952, but by the 1960s, many in the society had moved on, and LRH seemed to be one if them.
In 1952 my mother would have spat in someone’s eye if she was told that. She was a professional nursing sister and took many a male doctor to task if she thought their actions were dubious or not in the best interests of the patient. She also raised 3 children.
All I’m saying is that to be a Scientologist in good standing you must accept Hubbard or command intention I suppose too, as source. Otherwise in the Church as it operates, to openly disagree with Hubbard’s writing or taped voice is treated with, “where’s you misunderstood word?” Or off to ethics with you to write up your crimes if you voice Hubbard (or Miscavige) is wrong. Per my experience, “what is true for you is true,” is not acceptable within the Church if it contradicts Hubbard. Yes, many may not agree with parts of it, but at that point, are they really a Scientologist? To CofS management that’s sedition, and must be stamped out immediately and ruthlessly.
The Scientology Organisation is a dictatorship of both mind and body, and at the very least members keep their mouths tightly shut with any disagreements they may have, ha, freedom by Scientology, what a sick joke.
Wow, this passage made me so mad when I read it in my teens. But then I kind of justified it, I thought maybe it’s true, even though I don’t like it. there are things I don’t like that are “true”. Of course now I realize that I believed it because ron said it not because it was really true.
I’m going to quote a woman. (I may be pushing Objectivism as well.)
“Judge, and prepare to be judged.”
In my opinion Hubbard was wrong.