Latest Posts
Showing posts with label fatherless homes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fatherless homes. Show all posts

Fatherless Homes: End Result ? British Riots..

Conversing with an esteemed member of the MRM does have distinct advantages, Especially when discussing topics and issues of interest and that always leads to issues that are so obvious as you wonder how the hell you missed it.

The bleeding obvious point that Amfortas raised was the fact that the riots in Britain could be placed quite correctly at the feet of Harriet Harman, professional male hater and feminist, whose Labor government decided that aiding and abetting single mothers with copious payments was just the thing as it is part of the feminist wet-dream to exclude Fathers and give sole ownership of children to the mother without holding her to account for the irresponsibility of her offspring..

We have recently seen a video of a mother of 11 kids, yep, eleven kids, all to a selection of fathers, she took offense when she was asked how she felt about her hoodlum offspring behaving in that fashion (may of been either male or female), she responded with the claim that it was the government's fault. She soundly shirked her responsibility as a parent and put the blame for her children's criminal behaviour and activity on an institution that pays it money and encourages that type of stupidity,  maybe in return one might expect some accountability, but not in the PC Britain of today..

The Men's Movement has been saying exactly that,  it will be the inevitable outcome if you take dads out of the family equation. Stupidity is not just feminist Harriet Harman's speciality but it's the general ingrained practice practised extensively by feminists. We still hear it today and consistently that same ridiculous family destroying statement that women can raise kids on their own because they swallowed the feminist mantra of "don't need no man". Well, you might think that is a "you go girl" high five moment but tell that to your teenage daughters or sons as they drag them off to jail for drug running,  Stealing, gang association, destroying public property as they just did in Britain. Tell them the reason Dad is not around is because you were being ignorant and stupid, you assumed that you could do it all by yourself just to appease your fellow feminist's ego, but where are they now ?

Fatherlessness, violence and the British malaise
by Bill Muehlenberg
August 14, 2011
The London riots have simply reconfirmed and graphically illustrated what the social sciences have been telling us for a half century now: when we allow society to disregard the institution of marriage and in fact assault the institution of family, we are asking for – and will get – trouble.
The social science evidence on this is as overwhelming as it is clear: by every indicator, children will be worse off when not raised in a biological two-parent family. They will be more likely to do less well at school, to become involved in drugs, to commit suicide, to have a range of mental and psychological problems, and to get involved in gangs and criminal activity.
This has been documented so thoroughly now that only an ideologue who is pushing agendas can deny the evidence. Let me here just offer the smallest sampling of research data on this. These are just a few bits of the available evidence.
In an important book on the subject, Francis Ianni found that most gang members in America come from female-headed households. And a study of British communities in the American Journal of Sociology by Sampson and Groves found a direct statistical link between single parenthood and virtually every major type of crime, including mugging, violence against strangers, car theft and burglary. 

Feminists specifically planned this course of action and we (MRM) kept warning and shouting that if you destroy marriage, you will destroy the structure of society..
"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." -- Robin Morgan
If you are wondering who Morgan is just Google that member of the feminasty movement..
"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." -- Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor.
So feminists are to blame but they will never put their hand up to acknowledge that fact as they will do everything they can to place the blame somewhere else because they know if people find that to be the case, things will change. The main stream media, or most of it, refuse to even credit the riots as a byproduct of Fatherless homes as they too follow the same feminist doctrine..

feminist Harman
Thank goodness some journalists are still awake..

Quadrant Online
Melanie Philips
Goodbye to Enlightenment.
One of them, Harriet Harman, was on TV last night preposterously blaming cuts in educational allowances, of all things, for the fact that teenagers and pre-pubescent children have been torching and looting shops and robbing and murdering people in the streets. It was Harman, of course, who was one of the principal forces behind the promotion of lone parenthood and the marginalisation of fathers as the only progressive position. Yet here she is, faced with the Hobbesian scenes of violent anarchy which are the result of those policies, still parroting the same old claptrap and still totally incapable of acknowledging the terrible damage to individuals, social destruction and de-civilisation she has helped wreak.

THE PROBLEM OF A FATHERLESS SOCIETY..

Lesbian Wong with dysfunctional Gillard in background
Penny Wong, feminist and lesbian, is a member of the Australian Government and a Minister which should demonstrate precisely how warped and bent this government really is. The entire government is loaded to the hilt with dysfunctional feminists with the likes of Julia Gillard, Penny Wong, Kate Ellis, Jenny Macklin, Nicola Roxon, Tanya Pilbersek. All of those are self confessing feminists and gloat about belonging to that hate movement. About half of the ministers are feminists. It is a good indicator as to why Australia is going down hill fast..

Wong ofcourse is the "man" in the relationship and in case your are wondering how smooth any lesbian relationship functions, have a look here..

Mirande Devine has a go at lesbian Wong, first for claiming it's going to be a "mother" which she is not ofcourse, her lesbian partner is pregnant via artificial insemination, just like they do to cows to impregnate them, but they had a really good crow about this "good" news where they were concerned and Miranda ain't that impressed and neither, as you can guess, am I..

THE PROBLEM OF A FATHERLESS SOCIETY

Miranda Devine
Sunday, August 14, 2011 at 09:09am

The fact that Penny Wong’s female partner is to have a baby is a cause for private celebration for them. But why are so many people exhorting the rest of us to celebrate as if this were some major milestone in human civilisation?
You’d think no politician had ever had a child before.
We are supposed to ignore Tony and Margie Abbott’s three daughters because every time he is seen with them it is some sort of unfair snub to Julia Gillard and reflection on her marital status.
The traditional heterosexual norm of a nuclear family and children is something to be kept in a closet like an embarrassment.
Tolerance has gone back to front. It is no longer good enough to accept without criticism female politicians in de facto or lesbian relationships. Now we have to downplay traditional marriage for fear of causing offence. No one can be a wife or husband any more. Everyone is a “partner”.
The unorthodox situation of a lesbian artificially inseminated with the sperm of a male “acquaintance” we are supposed to laud as if it were the Second Coming, the wonderful precursor of what the New York Times once lauded as the “post-marital” future.
Well, no.
Wong, to her credit, has not politicised her private life. The baby is due in December, coincidentally the same time as Labor’s national conference at which same sex-marriage will be on the agenda. The 42-year-old finance minister has always been circumspect about the issue and says she is not trying to use her status to publicly push the case for same-sex marriage.
“You don’t have a child to make a political point, do you?” she says.
But others are having a field day, cynically using the four-month pregnancy as a weapon in the relentless push for same-sex marriage.
“Should the senator take the plunge? If only” read the none-too subtle headline of the Sydney Morning Herald’s letters page.
“A child on the way! Do the right thing, Penny. Marry the woman,” wrote Julie Lulham of Ashfield.
“It is a pity that they cannot enjoy the same public recognition and status that most other committed couples enjoy through marriage Fortunately, times have changed, and will continue to do so,” wrote Robert McKenna of Liberty Grove.
The issue is presented as an inevitability linked, illogically, to tolerance for gay people. Opponents are homophobic, intolerant, backward, evil bigots, not people of good will who are entitled, whether on religious grounds or otherwise, to believe that marriage, as the institution best served to protect children, should remain between a man and a woman.
There’s even mounting pressure on the makers of Sesame Street to have Bert and Ernie get married and become gay exemplars.
Maybe same-sex marriage is as inevitable as its energetic proponents say, but it would be a pyrrhic victory if it were achieved through intimidation of opponents.
As a Catholic, I believe the push for same-sex marriage is not about enhancing the lives of gay couples. In countries where it has been legalised, there has been no rush to the altar.
The issue is largely symbolic. It is simply a political tool to undermine the last bastion of bourgeois morality - the traditional nuclear family.
You only had to see the burning streets of London last week to see the manifestation of a fatherless society.
The collapse of family life in Britain has been laid bare, reported to have the highest proportion of single mothers in Europe and nearly half of all children suffering family breakdown by the age of 16.
Fatherless families in underprivileged boroughs of London are the norm.
People were quick to call for sanctions on the parents of feral youth looting shops and torching buildings.
Clapham shop-owner Elizabeth Pilgrim wailed to the BBC: “They’re feral rats. What are those parents doing? Those children should be at home. They shouldn’t be out here causing mayhem.”
But the fact is the fathers of those children are probably long gone. There are no “parents” to take charge and exert control over their wayward children.
The welfare state has taken over the father’s role of protector, provider, and enforcer, substituting sit-down money for love and care. And what a mess it has made: fatherless boys full of incoherent rage, fatherless girls having another generation of fatherless babies to a string of feckless men.
It is politically incorrect to say so, but the ideal situation for a child is to be brought up in an intact family with a father and a mother.
As a rule, what prevents social chaos and the underclass is an intact family. What keeps children safe is an intact family, with a father in the home.
Sure, there are aberrations, and you can always find evils within traditional families, domestic violence and child abuse.
But even this imperfect institution is better than the Hobbesian social chaos the children of the underclasses have been born into for the last 50 years.
Marriage is not just a private relationship: it is a social good. Collectively, the erosion of the institution of marriage, and the relegating of fathers to the sidelines, is destructive to society.
And, obviously, that does not mean that all fatherless households are bad for children.
Wong and her partner, Sophie Allouache, will no doubt be fine mothers, with the financial and personal competence to provide their child a stable, loving upbringing, despite not having a father in the home - though Wong says he will be “known” to the child.
Individually, these things work themselves out. Allowances are made, extra effort applied. Love conquers all.
But for Wong’s decision to be praised - as if it is the loftiest of ideals - is wrong