Promoting fatherless families

"A potent and successful campaign was fought in the 1960s to erase all these distinctions and treat all women bringing up children in the absence of a father as if they were the same. I believe the purpose of that campaign was to remove the social and moral barrier against those adults who chose to raise children outside marriage." Peter Hitchens


Its hilarious to watch conservative groups and the church get their panties in a twist over the prospect of gay marriage (something that only a tiny proportion of the population will engage in, and has few direct consequences on marriage itself) yet they have done nothing about the FAR larger threat to marriage and civilised society posed by the destruction of the nuclear family and the notion that fathers are important. 

The Church: supporting socialism over fathers

Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey has criticised Church of England bishops for opposing the government's £26,000-a-year cap on benefits.

In a nutshell, the UK is now about a zillion-squillion pounds in debt thanks to years of governments squandering every penny of taxpayers money, then borrowing even more (oh tomorrow's taxpayers can pay that back!) in order to fund an increasingly bloated welfare state. In order to try and save a bit of money, the current government was looking to put a limit on how much benefit money a household can receive. The limit was to be £26,000 per anum (or around $41,000 US), more than many WORKING families take home.

The cap was defeated, in part due to a group of bishops, arguing that it would make thousands of children less well off.

So where were those bishops as the role of the father and as marriage was systematically destroyed? The suffering and impoverishment of children (material, emotional and spiritual) that flowed from that has been immeasurable. Yet there was not one peep of protest out of them.

Are our religious leaders just a bunch of socialist feminists who don't give a damn about the suffering of children when it doesn't suit their political cause?

UK: fathers to get legal right to see children post-divorce

Ministers intend to rewrite the law in an attempt to ensure that fathers get improved access to their offspring after a marriage breaks down.

Effects of fatherlessness

Message I left for the journalist Peter Hitchens in response to this blog post (scroll down a bit):

Dear Mr Hitchens

I applaud you for having the wit and courage to write about the bad effects of fatherlessness. I know you write about it regularly, however I think its even more important and more central to your overall concerns than it might seem. I contend that the father-led nuclear family is the keystone that held up our civilization. Remove it, and the whole edifice starts to crumble. Drug addiction, crime, higher taxes, feckless and antisocial behavior, and so on.

The mother’s role is given to her by nature, but the father’s role is given to him by civilization. Or, rather, when society gives men a sure, guaranteed role as fathers then we get civilization.

Feminists made it their stated goal from the beginning to destroy the nuclear family, saying that it represented the ‘patriarchal oppression of women’. Of course, it succeeded in destroying the nuclear family, undoubtedly aided and abetted by politicians and big corporations (who could derive power and profits from destroying it).

Give men a role as heads of families and you give them a motivation to work hard and be responsible. Take it away and you will see an decrease in the motivation of young men, not to mention: increase in taxes, increase in problems amongst children and the young (not just lack of male role models, but depression, drug abuse, crime and anti-social behavior), children will be more vulnerable (statistically, a step-father is more likely to abuse a child than a biological father) which itself leads to heightened, even hysterical, over-sensitivity to any adult-child interactions. Societies without the father-led nuclear family become ghettos, with miserable working women (often with children by different fathers), aimless men – usually sitting around drinking or doing drugs all day, and uncontrollable children.

I wish those who want a civilized and conservative society would wake up to the key role fatherhood plays. Solve this one problem and so many other problems would be dramatically lessened.

Are father's redundant or not? You can't have it both ways Mr Cameron

A single mother has just won the right for the taxpayer to fund her to have a child with no father. See here, and here

Lets just set aside for a moment the fact that this woman is already receiving money from the taxpayer, and the fact that taxpayers are already forced to spend untold BILLIONS on supporting single-mothers (who are usually single through their own choices) at a time when pensioners are living in poverty and people are dying due to the NHS rationing certain drugs....

and instead listen to what our Prime Minister has to say about fathers:

"We need to make Britain a genuinely hostile place for fathers who go AWOL. It’s high time runaway dads were stigmatised, and the full force of shame was heaped upon them. They should be looked at like drink drivers, people who are beyond the pale."

Have I missed something here? Am I going insane?

On the one hand the laws of the land think its perfectly reasonable for women to CHOOSE to have children without fathers, and for the taxpayer to be forced to pay for this, then the law and the establishment will also REFUSE to work to ensure fathers who are kicked out of the home are able to see their children, yet at the same time, Cameron is almost inciting violence against absent fathers.

Utterly fucking astonishing.

Well, it would be if you weren't already aware of the lack of values displayed by the psychopaths who seem to populate governments.

So, when it suits women, fathers are totally unnecessary, and the costs for having a child are supposed to be the responsibility of the taxpayer. But if its at all possible to blame a man, then through his absence and/or lack of paying for his own child he becomes the worst sort of scum. How is that not self-contradictory?

Equally astonishing is the claim of the mother that: "‘I believe that it is my right as a woman to be a mother. The fact that I am single is irrelevant.."

When was this right established and by whom? And by what authority did they ascertain that the taxpayers - including starving pensioners and dying cancer victims - should fund this 'right'?

And who established that this right was more important than the rights of:

children to know their fathers?

old people, who have paid taxes all their lives, to get a decent pension?

fathers to be treated as important?

hard-earning taxpayers not to have their own money taken away for non-essential, 'lifestyle' services for women?

And to rub salt in the wound, we also learn that this woman says she " wanted a child for so long and I tried to get pregnant the normal way for ten years – even when I was with men I didn’t really want to be with."

Sounds to me like she was willing to TRICK a man into supplying her with his sperm, then most likely kick him out of her life, and the life of the future child.

And this is EXACTLY what hundreds of thousands of women in this country do, and as a taxpayer I am forced to pay for it, and also for the costs of social breakdown that ensue from this culture of fatherless children.

I urge all Brits to NEVER vote for Cameron, and to support whole-heartedly fathers for justice:

The founding father of Fathers 4 Justice, 44-year-old father-of-three, Matt O’Connor, will begin a hunger strike for equal parenting rights on behalf of fathers and grandparents on Sunday 10th July 2011 on the 10th anniversary of Fathers 4 Justice, outside the Witney home of Prime Minister David Cameron.

Judge: mothers should have children taken away if they don't let the father see them

Mothers who refuse to let separated fathers see their children should have them taken away, a senior family court judge said yesterday

Duped dads

Duped Dads is a website which brings you news and commentary about paternity fraud, an issue which is increasingly faced by today's emasculated western man. We aim to raise national and international awareness, and inform of the issues facing men and children whose lives have been ruined as a result of this heinous crime. We also discuss the reasons behind this crime, such as the child support racket, often which has no penalty for the woman.

Are men finally being heard?

Under the proposals Britain's family laws will be reformed to prevent children whose parents do split up from losing contact with their fathers and grandparents.

The proposals also recommend making pre-nuptual agreements legally binding (which they currently aren't in the UK). Given that the conservatives are highly likely to win the next election, I'd say that this represents a ray of hope for men's rights. Also, thanks to a successful campaign by The Times newspaper for opening up the family courts secrecy, things finally seem to be moving in the right direction. (family court secrecy is a major problem behind the appaling way that divorced fathers are often treated). 

The return of 'Fathers for Justice'!

Campaigners dressed as superheroes have scaled the roof of deputy Labour leader Harriet Harman's home while she and her husband were inside.

Women get furious over plan to make them name their childs' father

Single mothers will be forced to name baby's father on birth certificate

Germaine Greer: A dad's role will never equal a mum's

Greer's argument seems to boil down to saying: because women experience greater emotional intensity over having a child - having it grow inside them for 9 months - they therefore far more important than fathers, who are essentially expendable. Of course, this is the matriarchal system that Greer has devoted her life towards promoting. Its the system that results in society becoming a poverty and violence stricken ghetto. Yes, women do experience greater physical intensity in having a baby grow inside them, but this does not necessarily make them a far better parent. For example, women in the UK now abort 1-in-4 of their offspring. You don't find the likes of Greer complaining about that.

"This move paints a picture of mothers wilfully cutting out fathers, perhaps on a whim, and scapegoats them for absent fathers. It ignores the fact that some of these mothers may be protecting themselves and their children from fathers who won't contribute to a child's well-being - because of drug use, abuse or other factors. You can't legislate happy families."

Once again, women are painted as the innocent victims. In this case, having to hide from nasty, abusive, drug-taking men. No mention, of course, of their responsibility not to open their legs to such men in the first place.

Drop in sperm donors

UK: Fewer than 300 men are willing to be sperm donors for childless couples, according to new figures.

A strange article, as it focuses on how donors are needed for childless couples, but doesn't mention, at all, the fact that single women and lesbians also use sperm donors. I'm not sure whether this is because this is through a separate system, or whether its the clinics themselves trying to keep that out of men's minds as they campaign for more donors. The new rules, which no longer guarantee donors anonymity, are blamed for the drop in men willing to donate. But I wonder if its just as much due to the unwillingness of men to help lesbians and single mothers conceive babies with no daddy?

Are children less happy if they don't know their father?

Theres something which I feel has been overlooked in the debates about single motherhood by choice (this, you will remember, is the abhorrent practice of aging selfish women to buy sperm over the internet (or similar) to create a child who will never have a dad in their life, or, indeed, even meet their dad). Whenever theres a debate on this subject, women who've had children in this fashion will say something like "Oh but my little johnny is a happy child, therefore not having a dad hasn't done him any harm." Many opponents to Single mothers by choice (henceforth: SMBC) find this point hard to counter, and usually simply say that "Well, maybe YOUR child is happy, but I bet a lot of them aren't".

However, I believe its useless trying to make a case against SMBC simply on the basis of the child's self-reported levels of happiness.

Recent research into happiness shows that particular events that happen to us - be they good, like winning the lottery, or bad, like being in an accident that renders us disabled - over periods of time longer than 3 months do NOT alter our happiness levels! People are basically, in general as happy or sad as they either make up their mind's to be, or as their physiological and brain composition renders them. Yes, there are exceptions (such as people who have a bad experience which triggers depression), but my understanding of the research is that this is not the norm. In fact, one psychologist summarised this as: if it happened more than 3 months ago, it has no bearing on your happiness. The second key point from the happiness research is that if something bad happens to us which we have no control over, then we do not let it make us continuously unhappy. One example given was of a man who was falsely imprisoned for almost all his adult life, then when he was released as an older man, he basically said that he had no regrets and he'd had a good life. This seems counterintuitive, but think about a similar instance in your own life where you've had no choice. For example, do you allow yourself to be depressed for months because you didn't win the lottery? Do you shake your fist at the sky in rage each day and curse the Gods that you weren't born with a higher IQ, better looks or greater entrepreneurial instincts? Of course not. We all, more or less, accept what we're born with. However, what DOES make people unhappy is when something bad happens which they feel they could have prevented. For example, when you make a choice which turns out to have been a mistake.

Put these two factors together and what do they predict about the children off SMBC? Of COURSE they are not going to report that they are 'unhappy' in general! Their position was something that they've known since birth, they've never known any different, and it was something they had no control over. There may, of course, be other effects than unhappiness. They may have an emotional longing for a father, which is quite a seperate thing from their general level of happiness. They may indeed be less likely to form emotional bonds, more likely to take up crime, less likely to do well in school, and more likely to suffer divorce, but none of these are, per se, their general happiness level!

Also, we don't always look at 'happiness' as a measure of desirability of a course of action, or of wellbeing. Children might be more happy, for example, not going to school, or by never eating any vegetables. But we recognize these things are good for them. Equally, we treat some things as immoral acts, even if no one person's happiness level was seriously affected by them. For example, shoplifting from a big store.

Furthermore, its perfectly possible that children brought up by SMBC are brainwashed by the mother into thinking that fathers are useless. So, when asked, they might be likely to say "I don't think I've missed having a father." simply because their mother's low opinion of men has rubbed off on them.

So, just because some children of SMBC are no less happy than other children, does not mean that it is right. You could go around and ambutate one leg off newborn babies, and those babies would grow up into children who would cope fine with their disability, and would not let it affect their general level of happiness. But does it make it right? Or, imagine if there was some evil scheme to lowwer the IQs of all babies born to mothers with ginger hair, or black skin, by exposing them to radiation when they were pregnant. The resulting babies are then born with IQs 10% lowwer than average. Would we accept as a valid excuse that those children's happiness levels will not be affected? Of course not, because its still affected their lives, and its evil. Just in the same way as SMBC is evil. It doesn't ruin their lives, children are amazingly resiliant. But its still evil.

SMBC deliberately deprives a child of a father, and all the benefits that can accrue from having a father. Because they don't know any better, and because they never had a chance to change it, such children don't let it get them down, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have other side-effects on them. They may do less well in school, have poorer relationships later in life, have a lack of someone to turn to if their mother isn't around, more likely to be a victim of child abuse, or be more likely to engage in crime etc etc. Many bad effects, and probably many more which are very hard to measure or prove. But simply saying that they are not 'unhappy' misses the point.

Fatherhood is being undermined

Who needs dads? The single mum's guide to having a baby without a man

More about the book 'Knock yourself up', about how single women and lesbians can buy sperm over the Internet to have children without any present father.

I will have more to say on this soon. Stay tuned!

Calls for routine paternity tests at birth

A fathers' rights group believes paternity testing should be carried out at birth, to avoid any questions later.

Includes a few interesting points:

A quarter of men who have these tests done find that they aren't the father of the child;
The number of paternity tests taken in Australia has doubled in a year;
As more health treatments in future will be based on an individual's genetics, pressure for routine testing will only grow.

Man-bashing, trashy journalist, Carol Sarler: "Fathers aren't neccessary"

Ask any single mother what she most misses about having a man and her answer will be a man-sized salary; it is the absence of that, rather than of the man himself, that makes children go off the rails.

A disgusting, drivel-filled piece of trash journalism which belongs in some obscure Marxist or feminist pamphlet, but made its way into the Times.

Knock yourself up? New book advocates single motherhood

Theres no shame in going solo says mum

Sometimes, through accident, bad or undesirable things happen, but we all accept that as part of life. But we also accept that to DELIBERATELY choose to make these things happen is a totally different thing. It is wrong.

Yet many people will deliberately close their eyes, stick their fingers in their eyes and hum loudly to avoid this logic when it comes to the phenomena of 'single mothers by choice'. These are the women who deliberately choose to have children through sperm donation, without any father present in the child's life.

These women are refusing to take responsibility for their failure in finding a good man to bond with before fathering a child. This is all the more disgusting when you consider how easy it is for young women to attract male company.

These women are more concerned with their own 'image' than with any child's right to know a father. They are concerned with being allowed to do what the hell they like without any shame. This is the thrust of modern feminism: women should be able to do anything they like without shame, no matter if its degrading or hurts people.

We now live in a culture in which if a young 5-year old boy playfully pinches a girl's bottom hes investigated for sexual abuse but if a woman decides to deliberately deprive boy of a father, she is 'celebrated'. Sick, but this is the way it is.

A SUPERB men's issues writer

I highly recommend two pieces by Roger Devlin:

Sexual Utopia in Power

And

Rotating Polyandry and its Enforcers

Weird modern morality

A schoolboy was sentenced by magistrates today for causing criminal damage valued at ONE PENNY.

Basically this boy tore a plastic bag which belonged to a girl, and because she got upset about it he gets taken to court.

Essentially the law bends over backwards to cater to women's feelings. But it doesn't give a monkey's when it comes to the feelings of boys and men.

For example, a woman can abort a baby against the man's wishes, and theres nothing he can do about it.

Or, a woman can basically sever a father's relationship with his little son, break their hearts and the law just shrugs its shoulders and allows it.

Remember: upset a girl by causing 1p worth of damage to her disposable plastic bag and get sentenced in court; take a son away from his father, breaking his heart, and get away with it.

THAT'S the society you live in men.

THAT is how much the law values you as a father.

Harriet Harman is an anti-male, anti-family feminist

As the Deputy Prime Minister contest hots up within the Labour Party, the National Society for Children and Family Contact (NSCFC http://www.nscfc.com/) have declared that the worst possible winner for fathers and families would be Harriet Harman. Their press releases are listed here

The Madeleine McCann Mystery

Gerry and Kate McCann have led one of the biggest missing person appeals in history in order to find their daughter. Steven Swinford, who has covered the story from the start, explains the ideas, connections and raw emotional energy that have driven it

Sky news coverage of the whole case



Rather stupidly, this couple (both doctors) left their three young children alone in an unlocked holiday apartment on the ground floor at night while they dined at a restaurant at the other end of the complex. The eldest child, a 4-year-old, went missing, and in the month since there has been not one shred of evidence (or at least made public) of what happened to her, save for a witness sighting of a man carrying a young girl matching her appearance around the time outside the building. The witness was a friend of the parents who was making her way to dinner with them.

Probably because the parents are articulate and intelligent, they have managed to build up a huge media interest in their case, yet at the same time, due to Portuguese policing practice and laws hardly a trickle of information has made it out to the public. This has fueled huge speculation: its been suggested that the parents were swingers (they WERE on holiday with a group of friends - the exact number seems to change in different reports; although of course this itself is no evidence that they are swingers); its also been pointed out that the parents never seem to show any emotion (but maybe they are just good at holding their emotions in check in public, given that they are both doctors?), and some people find it slightly strange that within days of their child going missing they had set up a private company (a company NOT a charity) to take public donations, a company which has now received the better part of a million pounds (nearly $2 million USD) on TOP of a reward of £2.5 million donated by a number of rich and famous people. This is the other aspect of this case which causes surprise in some: the amount of help they have received from the rich and powerful, not only has this huge reward been put up, but they've been given use of private jets to travel to several European countries to publicise their case, they've met the Pope, and they've been given a top Government person to act as their personal advisor. Of course, as soon as this couple had captured the public's attention and hearts with their case, its natural that all these people would jump in and claim their share of the publicity pie. Yet it also has fueled conspiracy theories in some quarters: is the whole case somehow being manipulated for the media? Are there political or otherwise powerful connections and undercurrents that we aren't seeing? Is their some weird Catholic cult behind the abduction? Perhaps as some kind of strange stunt? Maybe the parents themselves have been 'in' on it, maybe they sold her and are laundering the money through their company as an anonymous donation?

A more worrying possibility is that a paedophile child abduction group was behind this, and that they have links within the police force itself. This happened several years ago in Portugal, in a case where children were being taken from an orphanage to be sexually abused and the police, and even high level politicians had knowledge of it (and involvement, its been alleged) yet didn't do anything.

I think what I have found particularly disquieting is lack of information that the public have been allowed to have on the case. More specifically, its kind of jolting to know that an event of this magnitude and seriousness can happen without leaving any trail of evidence - particularly CCTV footage, which we are so used to having in the UK (given our high density of security cameras everywhere - which I actually think is a good thing). The British police have some of the best sniffer dogs in the world (they can follow a trail up to 30 days later), yet when they offered to bring them in they were reportedly turned down. Equally, mobile phone experts were brought in to triangulate the locations of all mobile phones in the area, but the results of this have not yet been released. But on top of this lack of information, there was a confusing amount of contradictory information released about the events of that night, such that its very difficult to piece together an exact timeline of that evening and full cast of 'players' involved. For example, first we were told that the apartment was broken into, then it seems it wasn't, we were told that the parents were checking on the children every 30 mins, then it turns out it was more like every 50 mins, and then the restaurant staff said that the parents weren't checking on the children at all that evening. Then it looks like their friends may have been helping with the checking. But who are these friends? We haven't been given ANY information on them: how many there were, who they are, what their movements were.

There is much more to be said on this, but basically I'm left with a feeling that there must be more to this extraordinary case than meets the eye. Almost as though in my subconscious mind all the various elements have been compared and added together and they don't compute. The exact WHY of this is not known to my conscious mind. There is no one single piece of evidence that is damning, but taken together they result in a sense of unease and of there being something artificial or missing from the media version of this story that we've received, and many many people agree with me. It also raises many questions: why don't we usually pay more attention to child abduction cases? How far do we go in using technology to monitor the public and to try to ensure the safety of children? In cases where there is a lack of evidence, should the police perform searches on local internet activity (i.e. who in the area is accessing hardcore domination-type sex sites? Does this qualify them for questioning?), but most of all: what happened to this poor little girl and where the hell is she?